for example

360

alan wake

gears of war 3

etc

PS3

uncharted 2

God of war 3

etc

p.s by accident  i for got to add "NO"

do stae that when u post

What? One answer? Yes or Yes?

So yes... the real value of any plataform is made by exclusives... the other games are just a "plus" and could be played anywhere.

For exemple... MW2 exists for PS3, 360 and PC... so it's not a differecial... but Halo and Uncharted are.

yes and no? its like a balancing act. you can say all day why one game sell and another doesn't or wht drives who to a console. the reall question is wht game will gravitate wht gamer to wht console. theres no clear cut answer here. maybe you should go more indepth with this? the conversation is missing something?

exclusives differ the consoles from each other, if they're isn't really any exclusives , then by all means just play on PC.

You mean graphically?

Graphics don't matter. It's the content of the book and not the font, that makes me read it.

As for exclusives, it seems that certain developers can get almost as much out of the consoles with their multiplats as exclusive developers can, so it's a myth. I'm thinking talented companies like Crytek and Epic games. Talent is more important to making a good game graphically, than exclusivity. A few multiplats I can think of look far better on the PC than anything on the PS3.

WOW!!! Fisrt vgcharts poll with 100% agree ever!!!

Amazing.

Can anyone disagree with the question please?

just look at Uncharted 2(graphics)

and Halo:Reach(massive battles)

At most, exclusivity has a marginal effect on overall graphic. I consider many other aspects to exceed this when looking at system pushing games. For one, budget has an effect on weather or not a game is/is not a visual masterpiece. Second, development time plays a role. If you have years to labor over every pixel, you can probably make a better looking game! And last but not least, developer talent is key.

Lets take Uncharted 2 as an example. The game was made in 2 years with a sub 20 million budget. Just for reference, MW2 had a budget of 50 million and GTA4's was over $100 mil!

Naughty Dogs, in standard development time and only quasi big budget $ made what is considered, to this day, the graphics king for consoles. They've held this title for almost a year now... I'd say talent had more to do with this than 'teh corez' and 'ps3z executivze!'

This is simply one example on one particular system. But basically, it can be applied to all devs on all machines. All exclusivity does is free up some resources in some areas and IMO is kind of an over-rated concept for making quality...

Wow, what a boring post I made! You didn't honestly read all of it, did you? LOL, GTFO! Stop reading right now and do something funner like inserting an M-80 into a fuzzy animals mouth or something. Seriously... go... are you still readin' this?

This is stupid because if you only own one system than exclusives are just a great bonus to the great multiplatform titles already on consoles (excluding the wii). The value of exclusives is way, way more important to the PS3 and 360 owner because they could buy non-exclusives for either console.Thus, the 360 , PS3 owners opinion is better because they can judge and play the exclusives for both platforms. Therefore the opinion of one console owners is to fucken biased to count as a ligitamite opinion because they can never claim to have experienced all the great exclusives each console has.

So yes only exclusives are the true judge.

Yes, but I'm not going to vote because you "forgot" to add 'no'.

Also, exclusive games don't realize the potential but they can do it. There are probably tons of bad exclusives out there. I suppose you already know this, though, so this comment ought to be rather unnecessary.