Yeah, I wasn't trying to poke holes in your list.  I am considering checking out Witcher 2, never played it and feels like I should.  It was a genuine question.  

The debate of PS4 and XBONE is so one-sided that guys here are discussing PS3 and 360

(PS3 is better though)

Yeah.

Xbox One and PS4 is probably the most one-sided debate of PS vs Xbox. Maybe you could make the argument of PS5 dominating the Series X/S even more in terms of preferred platform, but we'll have to see.

Xbox may have sold far less than PS2 and had far less software, but it had less shovelware, better specs, better online, and titles like Halo 1 and 2, KOTOR 1 and 2, Morrowind, etc. I'm not even necessarily saying it's better than PS2 but it is a very solid debate. 

Unsurprisingly, I prefer PS4 over Xbox One.

Xbox One has a mid-gen upgrade that is better than PS4 Pro, has backwards compatibility, and better multimedia features. 

PS4 is better in almost every other conceivable way. It may have more shovelware, but there are simply more titles overall worth playing. PS4 had more timed exclusives, PlayStation exclusives, true exclusives, etc. than Xbox One ever did. Unsurprisingly, RPGs (namely JRPGs) are clearly better represented on PS4 than Xbox One. Xbox didn't get Persona RPGs until late 2022, hasn't gotten FFVII Remake, and there's not even an Xbox One version of FFXIV, one of the most populars MMOs and RPGS ever. It did get a Series version, but not until March 2024. 

Xbox was more concerned about multimedia and Kinect (at first) than making a great video game console. They also ended up caring more about subscriptions than must-play Microsoft games whether they were exclusive to Xbox One or also on Windows. 

PlayStation focused on hardware that played quality games. They effectively won the generation before it began. 

I disagree.

Even as the 360 had most of the good games that gen, it was pretty clear to me the PS3 had by far the ones I wanted to play the most.

I literally choose the PS3 despite not having money to buy original games when I would need that on the PS3 but could get dozens of pirated games for the 360 for nearly free like it was common back in the PS1 and PS2 days.

I actually played quite a bit of the 360 before I even had seem a PS3, some friends and people I knew tried to push me to get one for the most varied reasons, heck I got to know reviews aggregate sites like Game Rankins because a friend was trying to get me to enjoy Halo 3 when it was the game I wanted to play the least by far when going there in his family house.

The 360 controller triggers were very good tho.

Yet it only took seeing God of War 3 once to make me completely sure what I would be getting.

When it comes to picking a single system to play all the games that attracted me, Playstation always has been by far the best choice, even on PS3 era. To the point that not having a Xbox makes actual no difference whatsoever.

I literally would not trade a single one of games like God of War 3, Disgaea 3 or 4, Demon's Souls, The Last of Us, Metal Gear Solid 4, Persona 5 or Gran Turismo 6 for the combination of all games on the 360 that were not on the PS3.

Lost Odyssey is the literal only game I wanted to try that I could not on the PS3.

I can only speak for myself for it is what I like, but there is not even a slight of doubt to me that between picking any Playstation or any Xbox it has always been completely one sided, it's so vastly in favor of Playstation that it's as if Xbox is literally irrelevant while Playstation exists. It really just doesn't matter.

Which doesn't mean Xbox is bad and people can't like it, as I said most of the good games are there too, and sometimes better versions of those games, like in the 360 days, it is good by itself so it can and will be enjoyed for that, it just don't pale well when Playstation is there.

Final Fantasy wasn't exclusive, the Xbox 360 got Final Fantasy 13.

Xbox 360 had Fable 2, Forza, Halo, Gears of War, Blue Dragon, Kameo, Infinite Undiscovery and a few others like Naruto: Rise of a Ninja and The Broken Bond which I personally enjoyed.

Both consoles had their exclusives, it just depends what franchises interested you more as to which console platform made more sense.

If you heavily played multi-plats, then the Xbox 360 was the superior console as games like Call of Duty not only ran at a higher frame rate, but had higher resolutions and better graphics.

Was more notable in the cutscenes which were 1024x576i on Xbox 360 verses the Playstation 3's 1920x1080P.
Gameplay wise the Xbox 360 had MSAA so it held up alright.

On Xbox One and Xbox Series, Final Fantasy 13 is at it's best on those consoles with improved video (They replaced it), framerates, filtering and resolution.

The Playstation 3 was not just more powerful on paper, it was also more powerful in the real world than the Xbox 360.

The issue is... The Xbox 360 was an easier PC-like development environment... And games are developed on PC, so it's not hard to surmise that Playstation 3 optimized games would be a difficult thing to do with Cell and split memory pools, Sony had everything working against them.

Even when  games that started  being developed for ps3 as lead platform most 360 ports were on par. 360 was the much better in real world performance which is running games I don't see how this is debatable.

Even the most talented developers in the world had to make red dead and gta4 lower resolution on ps3, then they made gtav lead for ps3 and it was on par just shows how 360 was that much better in real world performance,.I can do everything you can do with out problems but you can't. 

I think you will find Rockstar and it's game engine to heavily favor Xbox in that era.

It's undeniable at this point of how capable Cell actually was, it was just notoriously hard to build games for.

The Playstation 3's weak point was the DRAM setup and it's GPU, many effects on the Xbox 360 which was done on the GPU, was done on the Cell.
Case in point... The Xbox 360 got essentially free MSAA.
The Cell on the other hand ended up with a post-process effect where the CPU would "detect" edges in a scene and blur them together... So not only was the Xbox 360's AA superior in terms of visual quality, it also had a smaller impact to the hardwares resources and developers could focus on improving games in other areas.

Another example was the hardware Tessellator on the Xbox 360, games could use Tessellation (I.E. Halo 3's water effects) in hardware using N-Patches... But on the Playstation 3, it was done on the Cell, ironically this was a graphics effect that wouldn't become standard until the 8th gen consoles, but the games that did use it, provided some interesting results. (I.E. Frostbite powered games, Halo etc'.)

It wasn't until Naughty Dog started to leverage the SPE's in their entirety that we started to see the Playstation 3 flex it's hardware muscles.

Honestly watching videos of gears of war 3, Halo 4, and forza horizon in 4k vs ps3 best exlusives in 4k and honestly prefer how they look over uncharted 3, gow3 and gt5. Still it's impossible to tell if these games are technically more demanding then 360 since the gap is so small. Still we had a whole generation and the majority of 360 games ran better and that objectively makes  it more powerful to me in real world performance.  Also Naughty is the most skilled graphics developer by far that gen who knows what they could have did on 360.

What's your take on wiiu vs 360. Since 360 has more shaders, faster ram and much better cpu, they gpu are very close with wiiu being more modren and of course wiiu with 512mb more ram for games.

Again. The Playstation 3 undoubtedly had more real world performance. - It's not even up for debate at this point.

Just multiplats ran better on an easier to develop machine, which is fairly expected and normal and has occurred all through console history.
Naughty Dog showcased that the Playstation 3 could offer a substantial step up in terms of visuals.

...And we had games like Beyond: Two Souls (Motion/Face capture!), God of War, Metal Gear turning up some great results.

The GPU comparison is hard, the Xbox 360's GPU is a hybrid design of R500/R400 and it has 3x SIMD groups consisting of 16 cores with a 5-wide VLIW setup.
It's the GPU that future Terascale GPU's are based upon that gave us the much hated and poor performing Radeon 2000 series, that wasn't rectified until the Radeon 3000 series and refined with the Radeon 4000 series that the WiiU GPU is derived from.

Microsoft got good bang-for-buck with this GPU for 2005 all things considered, it was a gamble that paid off.

The WiiU however used a full-blown Terascale GPU which has 2X SIMD groups consisting of 16-cores also on a 5-wide VLIW setup.
But AMD had made some significant progress Between the Xbox 360's GPU and the WiiU's GPU in the name of efficiency.
And efficiency is important, you can do more work with less.

The WiiU's GPU has more Pixel and Texture throughput than the Xbox 360 and real-world compute (Not everything is about the number of fixed hardware units) likely falls in the WiiU's favour due to efficiency gains.

The detriment to the WiiU's GPU is actually the memory side of the equation, it needs to rely on it's eSRAM which it has 32MB verses the Xbox 360's eDRAM of 10MB, but the Xbox 360 has over twice the bandwidth from DRAM.
If a WiiU developer builds it's render targets properly to leverage the eSRAM (Difficult) the WiiU's GPU should be a fairly decent step up over what the Xbox 360 could do.
It also has double the system memory for bigger textures.

The Xbox 360's CPU, despite being an in-order design, is superior to the WiiU's out-of-order triple-core design, which was also another detriment to the WiiU in garnering decent multiplatform support from other 7th gen consoles.

In the end, the WiiU did get Breath of the Wild which is an impressive title in it's own right, the WiiU's maximum potential was never going to be tapped having no marketshare, it was never going to be financially viable.

According to DF, Gears of War 3 and halo 4 were up there with the most visually demanding games for ps3.  Honestly to me forza horizon was the most beautiful game that gen very subjective.

As for real world performance I still disagree  you can't have a whole generation of games running better on 360 and even when they are lead on ps3 they are On par, real world goes to 360 but thanks for your thoughts.

What I get from the wiiu thoughts is gpu slight more efficient and cpu is weaker so on par or slightly weaker then 360 over all.