The PS3's list is certainly the most diverse overall, but i wouldn't say the Wii and 360 lack any variety. They both have their fair share of it.

Nice thread! I'll keep an eye. Go Nintendo!

I've added a new poll "Who will have the most critically acclaimed library this gen?"

Can't say i'm sure yet, but it'll be interesting to see how things evolve.

Base don:

Desperation -> WiiU/Nintendo.

Volume  -> PS4/Sony.

Until the next E3, I'd say Nintendo currently is in the lead with titles that will be critically favored unless Yoshi, Splatoon, Kirby (particularly since this Canvas Curse successor), Bayo2, Smash, and Toad all inexplicably bomb in rating.

Desperation?

Rebuilding the core gamer and appeal of their home console will require good games, is what I meant. The WiiU obviously isn't selling on its name/power/magic... unlike other consoles... or hype from 3rd party support, so Nintendo is basically in a spot where the only way left to push it forward is with a library that no one else can match for quality, creativity, and heart.

As of the current E3, they seem to have that much on-lock.

I would say, as usual, Sony.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Sony have "won" the previous three generations after all. That said, a lot will depend on how quickly Nintendo try to move on from the WiiU, and how much MS invest in proper exclusive titles.

Gaming journalism is disgusting and promiscuous. So, I tell you this: the one with the most acclaimed library will not be the one with the best library, but the one that corrupts more of the gaming media prostitutes.

That's nonsense. Sure, there will always be some sites or people that allow ad deals and the like to influence their opinions, but that's the beauty of a score weighted from up to 100 reviewers. It's incredibly difficult to manipulate. It's not perfect, and people make the mistake of assuming all games can be linearly compared by their scores, but it does its job pretty well.

I'm not saying it never happens, but if it does it would have to be done subtly. Too subtly to make any major difference to a consoles overall library that's for sure. It's much cheaper for Sony, MS and Nintendo along with every other major publisher to simply make good games rather than facing the mother of all PR shitstorms that would be generated from being caught red handed buying scores.

Perhaps the biggest proof of all that it isn't an industry wide issue is how many major titles have recently gotten shit on.

If Sony or MS were actively engaged in it you'd think at least 1 of their launch titles would have met score expectations. Instead we had a single title that hit 80 (down from the 90s of every other entry) and even some titles hitting the 50s and 60s.

Then we have EA, perhaps the most hated western publisher there is right now. If they're involved in this mass conspiracy then they're doing a pretty bad job of it. Dead Space 3, The Sims 4, SimCity, NHL etc, all received mediocre receptions. Even TF, hyped to be one of the biggest titles of the year, only managed an 86 (83 on the 360).

Let's not forget Call of Duty, one of the biggest series on the planet. All of Activison's money and marketing power apparently couldn't stop it getting a low 70s on the PS3 and 360, and even a 60s score on the PC. The PS4 and X1 versions didn't hold up much better either.

Again, i'm not saying it never happens, maybe there are a handful of titles that do buy themselves a few points on meta, but implying that there is a conspiracy so large that it could drastically influence the overall quality of a library built over several years is frankly ridiculous.

Gaming journalism is in many respects a joke these days, but only a few idiots would risk outright selling scores. Reviews are the bread and butter of many of these sites, everything else is just gravy. If a site loses its credibility as a reviewer (outside of stupid internet memes and gifs), they're pretty much dead.