Bold 1: Only if you subjectively count just the games released in the past 6 months and forget about the games released before then.

Bold 2: Relates back to bold 1.

Thank you Squilliam

@Mad Max

And as I stated, this is looking to change in 2009!! With the lack of 360 exclusive announcements for 2009, the PS3 will be able to say that it has a better library.

Its all in my post, but you choose to ignore it even when I say good things about the PS3. The hate blinds you to see only what you wish to see!

@Chichiri

Does Sony pay you to say that also? What makes the views of your post and different then the views of that blog!

Intentional or not, the irony here is so thick that talking about it is smothering me to death.

This was an interesting article, but it's not a phenomenon limited to Sony fanboys. This happens every time a game gets even a middling score when it's expected to be more or less perfect - does anyone remember the debacle surrounding Gamespot's (fair and well-reasoned) review of Twilight Princess? Same thing.

The thing here is that people like to pretend that there's an objective standard by which a quality of a game can be measured while adhering to a standard deviation of error, and anything that goes outside of this standard deviation is invalidated. Which is, of course, a big pile of steaming horse manure. Video game critics aren't supposed to be bound by the opinions of their peers, and the expectation that they should all rate things in roughly the same way is one of the worst things about gaming journalism.

The other, of course, is what leads people to want this, in that game reviews talk about whether a game is worth buying instead of whether or not it is any good, but that is a discussion for another time.

You know how to worship him, say hahahahaha, at the end of your, post. hahaha.