@Rudisha

Yes this is a great power, but its power that only has one true purpose. That being to shut up blind console loyalists who want to spout off about things with no factual evidence for them. I really couldn't care less which way this bat gets swung. Crack a Xbots skull, or wing a commander in the Sony Defense Force.

@Sal

Once you start including portables which divide resources anyway. You have to incorporate scores for every other concurrent platform on the market, and to keep it simple. The way reviews are handled on those platforms are at odds with how console games are reviewed. It is a different world with different rules.

@Pezus

By all means be my guest. If you have eight to twelve hours to do the leg work. This was a question that I actually wanted a answer for, because the dynamic between these two interested me. I am completely indifferent when it comes to Nintendo. It is just a non player as far as I am concerned. It would make more sense to compare it to a comparable manufacturer such as Leapfrog. I just don't feel like wasting the time, but if it matters to you then you have half your problem solved.

Not that it will change anything, but wasn't Bungie in house when they made Halo 3? Also didn't Twisted Pixel Games make "Splosion Man, Comic Jumper, Ms. Splosion Man, The Gunstringer" before they were owned by Microsoft? Just curious on the criteria.

@WiiBox3

I am only measuring the potential of the studios under the manufacturers. Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft anymore so they do not contribute to that potential. The games that Twisted Pixel has made this generation reflect the quality of the studio, and thus its potential. I am basically measuring the quality of the team itself. Think of it like any other team in say sports.

A player that leaves or is injured cannot contribute. No matter how good they may have been it doesn't change the fact that the team will have to perform without them. Meanwhile you don't judge a new team member as not having potential, because they haven't played with you. You judge them on how they played before they joined. Specifically the season up until the point that they joined.

Gotcha. Your looking at future potential, based on existing 1st party studios.

I'm not sure how it is? The quality of all games are subjective and so adding portable games to the mix is no different than adding console games to the mix.

If you truly wanted to represent the quality (or lack thereof) of Sony's current first party developer lineup, not including their portable output for the PS3/360 generation would be disingenuous, it does not paint the full picture. All the relevant games have time and resources and creative input from developers, portable or on console, and all are reviewed by professional critics.

As it stands, I do think your comparison is incomplete until you inlude the portable offerings also.  

@Sal

It isn't disingenuous. Just a matter of practicality. Once I included portables I would have been obliged to include persistent world games that Sony supports. You are right ratings are subjective, but ratings for these games simply aren't credible, and there is no metric for them that would be considered equitable. The problem being that credible reviewers of these titles don't just review them once, but multiple times during their life cycle. If you take the review that is presented upfront. That will not reflect the current state of a particular game. It could have gotten better, or it could have gotten worse.

The real problem for me in trying to be impartial is that Sony has a habit of running these games into the ground. They can make a bad launch game better later on in its life cycle, but near the end they always let these games go into cruise control to maximize profits. Which causes these games to corrode significantly. They simply need to be maintained, and have resources reinvested into them. Basically by the end these games often end up being virtually unplayable.

I can guarantee you if I started including games in my list with ratings of teens, twenties, or thirties. You would have seen posters going into a complete fucking meltdown. Arguing vehemently why I shouldn't have included games outside of the console. Basically I did Sony a favor, and I did myself a favor. By not going out into the side streets. Which I honestly don't think anybody would be interested in anyway.

@ your whole last paragraph

I'm not really interested in you doing Sony a favour. If you want to make a credible list it should take account of all relevant games, good or bad. if that means the MMOs along with the portable games, then go on right ahead.