Its not about exclusives,  its about what is available to play on one console versus another console.   

You are catering to your own personal gaming habits, which you yourself admit isn't the majority. People on forums be damned, you are supposed to be making a unbiased, impartial list of what one console can do and the other can't.

I repeat because you keep bringing in personal habits that aren't universal into this. I don't push this because I don't game on a PC, but I simply wish to show what both consoles can do on their own terms. That simple. 

Consider the audience is all I'm saying.

I'm good either way. 

Here's a rather simple scenario, using my own experience:

I own this laptop: http://www.frys.com/product/7167982?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

Pretty run of the mill, in terms of how much an average laptops cost. And considering it is average, we can extrapolate that many people's laptops are comparable, so there's a large base of people to base this analysis on. Yet, I can play Skyrim on this laptop, without overclocking, just to give you guys an idea of the benchmark.

Now, with such a computer, I can play Alan Wake, Minecraft, Witcher 2, Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Skyrim with Dawnguard (since the PS3 didn't get it for several months after its initial release), etc et al.

Now, I, the average consumer, have an average laptop, and can play all these games, and more. Now, I walk into the store and consider getting a console. Xbox 360 or PS3. What would I be telling myself? Which platform would give me the largest amount of total gaming experience? If I get a 360.....well, I already have Alan Wake, Witcher 2, etc. That doesn't expand on anything. If I get a PS3, I get to experience Alan Wake, Witcher 2, etc. AND ALSO get Last of Us, Gran Turismo, etc.

Anyone talking about "experiences you can get on one but not the other" is disregarding the mind of the consumer. You are only talking about "strict one on one comparisons" to see "who can hold their own". But that doesn't matter, to the consumer. One system can have a plethora of games, yet if the consumers decide to get the other system and buy one or two games en masse, it doesn't matter how much system 1 can "hold its own in a strict 1v1 comparison", because, I, the consumer, am not thinking in a strict 1v1 comparison. I may not have system A, but I can still get the experience of system A without owning system A, because I am an average US citizen, with an average computer, and this average computer can run those games

If I (and by default, many millions of people, since it's a cheaper laptop) have this average PC, yet I can run all those "consoles exclusives" as well as many multiplats (that computer can run Sleeping Dogs, Assassin's Creed 3, Portal 2, SFxTekken, and more), why would I choose a 360, as a gamer and a consumer, over a PS3? I can play God of War, Last of Us, Uncharted series, R&C, etc. AND play Minecraft, Witcher, L4D, Alan Wake etc. With your 360, you only get to play Minecraft, L4D, Witcher, Alan Wake, etc.

If you're a gamer, which scenario, from the above, is the most logical?

We have already been through this,  and considering this "average gamer" only exists 25% of the time it is not the majority nor the average.   

So it is still logical to list every game that a console can play that the other cannot.  

Only 25% of the time? The moral of that whole post was that even with a  regularly priced laptop, meant for more than just word processing and browsing the internet, is capable of running a lot of games. Considering the specs of that laptop, you don't think the average person has that or a comparable laptop or PC? You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Given that, re-read what I said. If you're going to buy a 360 or PS3 (looking in terms of which experiences you, as a consumer, can have), and you're leaning towards the 360 because of games like Left 4 Dead or The Witcher, you realize "hey, the family computer back home can run those games, why would I buy a console for that?" and you realize the PS3 is a better choice, because you get those "exclusives not on PS3" and all the PS3 has to offer, instead of just getting those "exclusives not on PS3".....but with two mediums to play those games through. In this scenario, getting a 360 is redundant. And hate to break it to you, anybody that does the slightest bit of research will come to this conclusion.

Especially since you guys have been arguing in terms of the "core" audience. In that regard, it's crystal clear which console to buy is the wisest. It doesn't matter if you get to play Alan Wake not give your money to evil, evil Sony. I could play Alan Wake without owning a console at all. And so can millions of people. So that is clearly the silliest reason to say 360 > PS3

Yes about 25% of the time.  I have already read your post,  but I think its time you read a few posts back where someone posts information about cross platform gaming. And we came to the conclusion that about 1 in every 4 gamers has both a console and a PC capable of gaming on.   

So yeah your scenario works for 1 out of every 4 gamers,  but when creating the list you have to account for everyone, especially the majority and since the majority do not fit your scenario every game has to be listed that the other doesnt play.   

Here is the information that was posted, and this was posted by someone making the same argument you are.   

I just think a list should be unbiased and impartial in nature.I see where your coming from, hopefully you see where I am.

Who says gamers are logical?Every faction behaves illogically.Doesn't explain the sales of Minecraft for 360 or Left4 Dead 1/2. Millions just consciously make the choice to not game on their PCs.....crazy I know. No preference is universal and lists should be unbiased and impartial. Putting PC into it is biased....and not impartial at all.

Is it fear that we filter these lists? So what if X1 may or may not have more offerings not on PS4 for 2013.....you will just claim that you can play some of the X1 games on PC right? So what do you care if someone chooses to make a strict 1 vs 1 comparison and limit the criteria to just their games?

And cmon.....weve been living in a XBox vs PS rivalry for over a decade. Can we not act like it ISN'T 1 vs 1? Because it has been then and it is exactly that now. So really, it comes to a earlier theory I have.......Xbox offers a better library then PS 1 vs 1. A PS3 gamer NEEDS a PC to be competitive with lonely old Xbox.....

By the way the above sentence is technically true...360 has more 70-90+ metacritic games.

Thing is, not everyone has a STRONG pc. A lot of people have older end PC that can only run games at lower specs or can't run them at all. For example, my PC can run Guild Wars 2 but a lot of the newer games outside of that can't run well and are better OPTMIZED for such said console (360/PS3) that I actually picked The Witcher 2 for my 360 (I do however, own Witcher 1 on the PC thanks to the Steam sale that I someday hope to run).

Some people also just prefer to game on consoles, otherwise gaming PCs would surpass everything.

Either way the person that ultimately wins is the person who has the most money. The hardcore gamers with swag have a Wii, PS3, 360 and a good gaming RIG. They also look forward to purchasing a PS4, or even XBox One even *gasp* a Wii U. They might even delve into handheld gaming as well, that way they never miss out on any exclusives.