well far as i know there was a post about a yr. ago asking why not include PC games that come on one console but not the other in the exclusives list, so that may have been his motivation. but i still thing the list is well balanced with no intent of being one sided as others (not you) are suggesting.

agree. some people just need to grow up and be mature

not sure how long you've been here but it's allot better then it was.

I need to go to Canada. In the US 80-89 is only a B. anything higher is the A range

Wow, overcompensating? When you make a list which includes Cross Edge, and 2 other games with F ratings, and claim they are all A, you are desperate.

Tales of Vesperia is 360 exclusive last I checked. No english version for PS3.

As for the rest of those games, they are average, not good. 44-75 is not A, it's F-B, and this is not a list of C or so games rated games. This is why I didn't include stuff like Project Sylpheed for 360, it's not A.

Stop waisting time, 360 pwns PS3 in terms of JRPG exclusives. I did forget Dark Souls (not my type of game), and I'm surprised a Disgaea broke 80/100 when Blue Dragon did not, but that still limits the list to 5 good/great PS3 exclusive JRPG's (Folklore is decent too). Compare this to 360's (Vesperia, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Magna Carta 2, Infinite Undiscovery, and The Last Remnant), well it's actually not too far off (5 compared to 6).

I'll admit, you have raised a fair point, and I can see why I might have an overinflated 360 view (like you do PS3) because my opinions typically match GT's, which gives 360 JRPG's high reviews. However I still say 360 is still better :P

Metascritics isn't fair to RPG's, so if you look at Gametrailers, IGN (like osama did) and VGC themselves you will see that of these 11 (+1 to make it 6-6) good/great Console RPG exclusives, they rate more like this: (IGN/GT/VGC)

Valkyria Chronicles - 91.6 90/91/94
Demon's Souls 90 - 94/89/87
Tales of Vesperia 86 - 82/88/88
Lost Odyssey 85 - 82/88/-
Disgaea 4 82.3 - 85/75/87
Folklore 79.6 - 90/72/77
Blue Dragon 77 - 79/75/-
Infinite Undiscovery 74.5 - 71/78/-
Magna Carta 2 69.5 - 68/71
Ar Tonelico 67.5 - 60/-/75
Disgaea 3 67 - 67/-/-
The Last Remnant -66  53/80/65

Which is PS3/PS3/360/360/PS3/PS3/360/360/360

So it's a matter of preference, but to be fair, pre 2009, 360 dominated, and PS3 has only been catching up since (and will catch up with Graces and Xillia).

That's exactly how I feel. 360 has more shooters (Halo, Left 4 Dead) and racing (PGR, Forza) exclusives, while PS3 has more action adventure games (God of War, LittleBigPlanet), and for JRPG's 360 has more, but PS3 has a couple non traditional 9/10's (where most of 360's JRPG's are more or less traditional).

It's all a matter of preference, and I think one reason threads like this are a lot shorter now days is because people have finally learned to accept this. Less crazy 360 fanboys, less loyal Sony supporters who still feel Sony is ontop.

That is why I specifically mentioned Cross Edge.

However ethomaz did point out that the difference isn't as one sided as I thought, it depends where the cut off is, and what sources you use for scores. Using metacritic, if the cut off is 77% or lower, 360 tops it, however because some of PS3's JRPG's are modern (where Lost Odyssey got hurt in reviews for being too traditional) they got strong reviews. So cut offs above 80% PS3 wins.

However is this a win? JRPG's have never been popular among the masses, and when you look at my list, Amazing games like Lost Odyssey and Tales of Vesperia track much higher then on meta critic, while Final Fantasy and generic brands track lower. I don't think a 77-80% metascore is bad for a JRPG. Suikoden 2 is only an 82%, Wild Arms 3-5 got score between 69-78%, and Skies of Arcadia (one of the best JRPG's from last gen) got a 75%.

agreed. looks like this won't turn into a debate lol.

''- not including games rated 70-79% on metacritic is purely to cut off the 360s massive lead in that category over PS3. I dont understand how people could cut games that are the equivalent of a B to B+ in the school grading system.''

Life is too short to play every single video game rated above 90%, I'll never understand why people tolerate mediocrity when there are so many masterpieces. I know that the metascore of a game is not always indicative of quality but once you stoop below 80% you typically start to waste your precious time.

Yea, but you know a B+ game can be perfect to some and shit to others, doesn't mean it isn't bad.

How many GT5 loyalists does this website have? Isn't that a B game? Isn't it worth considering when buying a PS3 (being a flagship title)?

Also being 90+ on metacritic doesn't mean a game is 90+. Lots of games get inflated scores because of brand names (Final Fantasy, Halo, God of War, etc, etc). They are all great games and for many, they are 90+ games, but to many others Lost Odyssey, Killzone, and Bayonetta are better, despite having lower scores.

You agree a B+ game on metacritic isn't necessarily a reflection of quality, so why is the cut off 80%? Why don't 79% games make the cut, I noticed 360 has quite a few between 75-80%. Lower the cut off by 5%, and suddenly 360 is in the lead.