Yes, but reviews are the aggregate, a science as to the general concensus by people with educated opinions on the subject. It's like how you have the same thing for sports, wine, movies and so on and so forth. If great only means great in your subjective opinion and theres nothing wrong with that, we all have it. I can find something great subjectively about all of the consoles, some more than others but the aggregate does not lie about a concensus. 

P.S.

If you only care about your opinion, then why are you arguing with me about the great standards for the generation lead by aggregate scores? Should a developer not be graded on his performance by professionals? Sales can be a combination of quality and marketing, but most of the time (especially in America) its mostly marketing. This is why I didn't continue with Pugsly because everything is always subject to change as variables change the outcome to everything and trying to get sense out of him is like talking to a brick wall. 

But even a concensus is just the average opinion. My point is just that there is no absolute objective measure of quality for games. 

I guess I was merely agreeing with your "that's your opinion" remark but adding that opinion is ultimately all we have when it comes to games quality, whether it be ours, the average critic's, ot the average consumer's.

Then grades in school are useless and science will never progress without aggregates or concensus and if it is not the highest opinion (the aggregate of such a human concensus) then it still serves as a guideline...much like grades and grade point averages towards public perception. Its a bar of satisfaction, which amongst professionals can better be gauged based on a system pr a rubric if you will. The votes of normal people are more skewed that those who do it as a job. Im not saying its perfect, but it is a window of opportunity. Many people on this website could be reviewers if they wanted to because we've played videogames so long, read editorials since we were children and have figured out the difference between subjective and objective. If subjective is the only thing you choose then theres no problem with that. For instance, I've noticed my subjective bias is not really for a brand, but to whoever offers the most games and every other console is secondary. Any company that showers me with them gets my love

For instance (for me by generation):

NES->SNES-> PSX -> PS2- > 360 (first half of the gen)/ PS3 (second half).

Why? Because all of these consoles had the largest offerings which gave me the flexibility to enjoy the vast sea of games. They all offered the highest level of first, second and third party games. Those are my primary consoles though, in almost every generation I had their competitors as well.

This is my bias. It never strays from it and its subject to change any given day based on variables, which I stated before. The variables are what changes my direction.

If someone gives me an objective point, i'll return an objective point. I never really respective objective nature until college. In highschool I thought it was trivial and in someways it can be if its broken, but then we should be thinking of newer ways to evolve said concepts. Newer generation, expanded audience therefore newer expectations.

But one can never be truly objective because we all thinking comes from our brain, which has its own filters, some of which are so deeply subconscious we can't even recognize in order to try to mitigate them. Our every sense and thought is inherently subjective bcause everyone's reality is different, informed by differents pasts, different chemical makeups, different environmental factors. We can try to be objective, but that's a quest for an impossible perfection.

^^
Currently studying Kant?

Alby_da_Wolf said: ^^ Currently studying Kant?

I had to google who that was... XD

Of course, there's the law of diminishing returns.

But still, it's not totally meaningless. More power is always better especially if the console still manages to be cheaper (which is the case with the PS4).

Some better graphic effects, some better textures, it always helps. And if the advantage translates into a frame per second advantage, then it's hand down the version worth picking...

Yeah arguing about which has the better games is a little silly. I know people at work playing animal crossing (in their 20's) just don't get it myself, but i wouldn't deny they are loving the game and finding something in it that they personally like.

I do like Sony, because they do cater for a wide range of genres. Yes it would be great if some of their games sold a lot more, but in the case of games that I love to play...all i care about is that they sell enough to justify a next version. Isn't that what it is all about. We shouldn't go down the route of well this exclusive sold 10 million and that game you like sold 1 million, must mean its crap... etc.

As for graphics, well I wont turn better graphics down, but as been seen with the wii, games sell consoles not bright shiny new graphics.... but it is unusual that a console is going to be $100 cheaper and apparently be more powerful/graphically better. It will be interesting to see how that works out... really don't know if it will have any impact at all but its still an interesting turn up for the books.

I agree, Dance Dance Revolution 5 memory.........who cares all multiplats will be functionally identical.

Ofc they r meaningless from the moment x crap is inferior it must be meaningless right?

M$ staff logic.