i got to give it to you, you clearly prove everyone wrong, for a system that had no games in 2007, the PS3 SURELY has build up a nice library of great games. Thanks Onyx!

I can't count the games twice. It's redundant and innacurate. It will screw the results up when both lists get tallied because each game would get counted twice, which would mean PS3 would have 5 extra exclusives that are merely the same 5 games counted twice. Also who would purchase both? You would purchase in one format or the other. I don't care which list they end up in, but they should end up in one list for each game, not two.

Do you want me to just switch them all to PSN? You seem to favor that based on your Warhawk comment.

I'd love you to point me to a game on the 360 retail list (released before the PS3) that is hard to find.  The discounted/platinum bins are jam-packed with early successful releases at retailers in Australia at least.

Lets come back to the original point shall we; people quoting false-truths frequently enough leading to assumed 'facts' which turn out to be misconceptions.

There should be no more quoting on this site that 'the 360 has no true exclusives'.  MYTH: BUSTED.

Hey you're right! Man I'm on a roll today knocking off these myths!

Ugh, even with a list without the console exclusives, sony fanboys still bitch!


They... must... win... At all...........costs!

Considering that the PS2 still had exclusives as late as 2007 (God of War 2, its own versions Singstar & Buzz, etc.), I think that taking release rate, and quality-over-time is really much more important than "count".

The X360 was hotter than the PS2 in 2007 because it was just that -- hot. Upcoming. The awesomeness was getting released, all fresh and new, and it was good stuff, to boot. If you want to map a console's performance, in terms of exclusivity, you have to consider time and growth/recession, plain and simple.  If you do not consider time and future potential, the PS2 was downright slaughtering the X360 right up through... well now, for many gamers.  No contest, even.  The PS3 would even count as the clear winner, with its PS1 BC, in this regard, for many.  The PS1 had some phenominal game ratings... in the 90s.  You cannot purchase a PS1 any longer, so BC is your only option for these fine games... many of which are easily obtainable.

If you ignore time, who cares about any console, but the PS2? It has a truckload of games rated well on metacritic... guess what those games would be rated now, if they came out on the 360 or PS3? Even the 2005 exclusives for the 360 are pathetic compared to just last year. Their metacritic rating is near meaningless -- heck many of the low scored ones were even criticized for looking too much like PS2 titles.

A simple snapshot tells no meaningful story, in this regard.

whatever happend to a good game being a good game? What, I'm sure half life 2 is near shit, and therefore the orange box. Hell, the first god of war, metal gear solid 4, and all of those mario games must suck also? If this is the case zelda must be the worst game series in history. What about Starcraft? Boy, what a pile.

Seriously though, a good game is a good game. The x360 had a really great launch, I think kameo, PGR 3, DOA4 and others speak for themselves. Heck, DOA4 is still used in gaming tourneys!

Do you have some way to measure whatever it is you're talking about?

The same argument could be made for early PS3 games, but I counted them too. If you want everything to be wrapped in a nice little bow of statistics, then that can't happen, unless someone actually knows how to do it and what to look for. This was merely to bust a myth and regardless of whether anyone thinks those games are good or deserving, the myth has been busted. I really don't care what else anyone takes from this thread. That was my only point.

Sure.  Its some serious effort though.

Take the exclusives and map them out, from their release, for 1 year past that release date.  Kinda long for a shelf-life, but this isn't some bean counting exercise, so a relaxed approach is fine, IMO.  Show the count as a graph.  We can see some cool trends in that (I dunno what they will look like).  Do the same thing for average score of those titles, and sales numbers... extend it out for 1 year past the release date, and make a graph.

That would be very interesting information, and frankly (I know you love your 360, Onyx =) ), the 360 will probably look hot in them, and I think the criticisms would be much lessened.

Or don't.  I almost feel like doing that myself, given the list you've put all the hard work into.  I'm really interested in followup info over time, personally.  I'm only whining because I want more from your cool compilation.  It doesn't really say anything of real interest yet... just my opinion... but its a great start.