Uh...no. Thats just it, Its most of the time a different game. I rarely hear two fans have the same game that they feel defines the playstation while one usually does for the XBOX or Nintendo system. I see gamers in their most vulnerable state on a regular basis, while they are buying games. Customers frequently ask me or an associate, "can you find me a game like...?" for whatever system they own. The FIRST thing that pops out of majority 360's owners mouth's are Halo and Gears. Wii owners its Mario, Zelda, Wii Sports. This trend does not follow with the Playstation systems. More often then not customers come in looking for some niche titles that I have never heard before.

The only reason I even took the job that I have now is to do marketing research, such as this particular topic.

And I am not refusing to believe anything. I just don't agree with it, which is different with being a stubborn ass.

I dont beleive sales dictate what defines a console. I don't even understand how you can say that. If nobody buys a game, then how can it define a console? It takes sales to define a console because people have to play the game. Seriously, why are you arguing me on this point? The more a game sells, the more it becomes defined on that particular console. If Halo sold 100,000 copies do you think it would still be the defining game of the Xbox brand? Plenty of games sell well but that doesnt mean that they are a gamer's favorite series. A gamer's favorite series does not dictate a game being a defining game for a console. My favorite game of this gen is Burnout Paradise. I can purchase it on two different platforms. How exactly is that defining anything? That just means many people played it. If many people play a game, and it sells remarkably well, it's pretty logical to assume that some of them are going to love it. If enough love it, it's easy to assume it'll become a defining title. What gives you the impression that Valkyria Chronicles is defining? It's hardly sold a thing, and the large majority of PS3 owners have probably not even heard of it. So how can it be defining if the majority of a console's ownership doesn't know it exists?

check my other post to Parasitic to see how I conclude what games defines a system. Your argument was that you work at Gamestop, thus you see what consumers are interested in. You see a portion of a buying audience, but you see a more educated crowd in general, so I don't buy your bull that you just get customers asking for Gears/Halo/Mario/Zelda/Wii brands. You work in the store most notorious for getting informed gamers and your reply to Parasitic makes it sound like you work at Walmart.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

unbiased doesn't mean I don't have a preference or that I cannot decide between two opposing views.

I like Playstation, big surprise. But I like Playstation because for me it gives me more bang for my buck. I have an all access media player which rarely gives me proprietary mumbo jumbo, a gaming system that offers me some of the most robust and quality titles around, and at a reasonable price(exspensiveness gauged by what Im getting for my dollar). It also gives me free online. I love the fact Sony seems to work against the grain just to get out what I want in a game. It is not irrational or imcomprehensible.

I dont hate the 360, I do hate Microsoft, a company that has spent it's entire lifespan sucking up smaller more talented companies and ruining their quality with mediocre content. I hate the fact that the 360 has such an outrageous failure rate, forces proprietary accessories on you(a step back from the XBOX) with the illussion that you save more money on the system. I hate the fact that you have to pay for live, even though MS is one of the wealthiest companies in the world. At least this explains the bias.

I may not own a Xbox or 360, but I have thought about purchasing them. I initially was going to get a Xbox after years of only owning a PS2. Yet that was annexed after MS stopped supporting it just aftere the 360's release. I also thought about owning a 360, then I saw the failure rate. In my mind, I gave them both a chance.

I can make a decision and still be fair about it...Your issue is that you reach a conclusion and then form an argument around it. This post is particular shows that. Your last seventeen "Wah wah Square Enix is screwing the PS3" rantings showed that. You continuously change your talking points when others corner you, but never your ending argument. I've yet to see you budge one iota on a single argument you've started/joined in on. You're a very stubborn poster, you are not easy to reason with even when evidence is thrown at you, and even many PS3 owners that are typically very pro-Sony will choose to not support you. Usually any evidence you provide is highly anecdotal in nature, like in this topic regarding your Gamestop findings and your personal views on titles being defining instead of what the populace thinks.

You've still yet to give me any solid evidence that...

1. Sales and "defining titles" have no correlation.

2. Any title other than Gran Turismo is defining for the PS3.

I have my theories on why though. I believe because you live in America you lack the vision to see past that and look at Sony's lineup in a worldwide sense. Halo and Gears are very popular here, and Gran Turismo is heavily favored in Europe and Japan. It skews your vision not seeing the global market.

Metroid and Kill.Switch want to have a word with you.