This is just semantics.  PS2 is the best console ever.  How do you judge a console if not by software?  Specs?

 And this is Sony's fault?  That's just damn good advertising.  First of all, anyone who thinks that knows nothing about games.  Sony actually convinced people that PS2 was the strongest of the 3, and you know what, for having the weakest system Sony REALLY squeezed every bit of awesomeness they could out of the system.  I mean, I think a lot of people were surprised that God of War 2 looked as good as it did.  An also, EVERY company bullshits people and overhypes stuff. It's the nature of the game.  This is just sour grapes from Moore.  He said he would have done the same thing in the article!  And also, Sega was pretty good with the sarcasm and advertising at the time, if I remember correctly.

I think it has to be subjective.  Console A has 1000 great games while Console B has 20 great games.  Consumer 1 is interested in 2 games on Console A and 18 games on Console B.  Console B is obviously the greater console for him.  The fact that Console A has 1000 great games is irrelevant because 1.  Unless you are Bill Gates you can't afford to buy 1000 games on 1 console 2. Unless you are Bill Gates son and decided to never get a job or education and just live of your dad's wealth you would never have enough time to play those games 3.  Consumer 1 is interested in more games on Console B than on Console A

 ==> Dreamcast anti-aliasing say "hi !!!"

Its marketing, its what successful companies do. Take McDonald's for example, ever seen an ad for one of its new burgers and rock up to the joint, order the burger and not be disappointed on some level?

Perhaps, but the person who likes the console with fewer good games should be able to look at a situation without bias, no?  I mean, can someone say the Atari Lynx or Wonderswan were better than the DS? The virtual Boy better than the PS2?  I know those are extreme, but I'm just trying to show something.  When you compare Dreamcast or SNES to PS2 then I think things get more subjective, I'll admit.  But there has to be SOME kind of console hierarchy.

Its not marketing...its lying. Sony are masters of releasing meaningles tech stats and crazy statements to get the hype machine going or to kill other systems hype...and they never deliver.

They promissed a bigger better online network in 2003 when they supposedly partnered up with time warner as soon as xbox live was coming out. that never happened and no online network happened till 2006.

PS2 was marketed as a machine that will achieve Star wars episode 1 like graphics...it struggled to keep up with the gamecube and wasn't even close to Xbox1 visually.

Killzone 2 fiasco

PS3 produces same results as 360, despite bluray and cell which were sold to consumers by sony as "must have devices for next gen gaming". PS3 was supposed to have 2 HDMI ports for dual display. What happened with that?

I could keep going for days...

Anywho, what sony does isn't marketing and it really hurt their public image with the ps3 overhype and underdelivery.

Moore can suck my balls

Sony are masters of releasing meaningles tech stats and crazy statements to get the hype machine going or to kill other systems hype...and they never deliver.

TRUE

Hype works, and you know it. Sony knows it, too. It doesn't really matter if they lied, the end justifies the means.

Unless, you want to have a class action lawsuit on their lies, lol.
Can you sue them for false advertising?