Ok both your posts is exactly the reason thats wrong with gamers today. You using 90+ metas as a base line of qulaity yet i bet you both brought Drive Club (71) Killzone (73) Knack (54) The Order (63) all 1st party PS4 exclusives.

Ill play your game and say " is Sony Platystation the only gaming platform that has never achieved a game that scored a 97+ meta?" What a shame. PS has been around for 20+ years and even MS has achieved this.

PS4 is better in all respects that matter to most gamers. That seems to be Xb one's main con.

Not to mention all the fuss about Xbone having 0 games that fit the criteria, and yet here the PS4 is with all its success and it has exactly one of those titles, a moneyhat 3rd party title in Bloodborne.

So apparently no one cares about how many 90+ exclusives a console has on Metacritic. If they did, the Wii U would be way more popular than it is.

Lmao.. 

Uncharted 2 with a 96 Metascore w/ 105 reviews in 2009 is more impressive then Halo:CE's Metascore of 97 w/ 68 reviews in 2001. 

97 > 96.

Sony has never released a game with a meta over 97. MS has, which goes back to my orginial debate on my post. twist and turn it all you want the fact still stands.

If your going to use Meta as a core argument then best have the facts with you. I can count and 97 is higher then 96.

I'll mark that one down as merely an oppinion then :)

lol

Niether has MS, they have never releases a game "over" a 97.

The fact that It remains that the Xbox hasnt had a High scoring game from Metacritics perspective since 2011 really does say something about the Quality of the games coming out, or it doenst, it really doesn't matter to me but hey if you want to go by that it's cool, just know that GTA4 scores higher on Meta then Halo:CE
Good job though on using certain criteria from a certain perspective to fit your argument :P

Not twisting anything but putting things in the proper perspective. Uncharted 2 scored one percentile less with higher caliber games + higher standards as well as more review scores, not to mention its a pretty weak argument considering Halo:CE is one game. Are all Xbox first party games 97+ caliber? That's like claiming Carmelo Anthony's career high of 63 gives him a better career then LeBron James because his career high is 61. Sorry this comparison (analogy) is broader then a single game.  Sony history of first party exclusives compared to MS history of first party exclusives: the PS brand has more original IP's, more 95+ scores, more 90+ scores, more sales, output & standards. MS third party exclusive games like Gears, TF, Dead Rising, L4D are the only reason an exclusive Metascore debate is even arguable tbh. Where are the other facts lol? Unless Halo: CE is the only MS exclusive you have ever played...

[EDIT: move along]

You are twisting my post. I said Sony Playstation has never released a game in the 97 metacritics which MS has. What does a game scoring 96 got to do with this? 96 is still 96 and Sony have alot more magazines that score there games higher aswell then both Nintendo and Xbox.  

Quote -  Are all Xbox first party games 97+ caliber..

Are all PS4 first party games 92+ caliber?

My point is Bloodborne is one game on PS4 that broke the 90s meta and now fanboys claim that PS games are better because of one game. Just because BB scored high doesnt mean all PS games are defautly better. Just like how Halo CE scoring a 97 doesnt make all Xbox games better. This year almost all 1st part Xbox games scored in the mid 85s while Sony had 1 in the 90 bracket, they also have acouple in the 70s and 1 in the 60s like LBP3 (79) The Order (63) etc.

As you have tryed to changed my post to try to fit your liking, my post still stands true, as Sony Playstation has never released a game in the 97 meta in there history of gaming while MicroSoft has.

You dont seem to like this and it seems to be eating at you. I am not interesting in debating hard facts with you trying to justify. 97 is higher then 96. My point stands.