And you are using the METACRITIC SAID SO EXCUSE. Who are you going to trust, people who are playing the games because they enjoy them, or people who are playing because they love gaming.

I've made my choice, you have to make yours

PS3 out selling the wii in japan was impossible a year ago, and looki what is happening there now.

Doubtful. Reviews are just opinions of pretty enclosed group of people.

Quality is a matter of product. If a game isn't extremely bugged, case isn't made of cheap plastic and data medium is perfectly readable, then it's a quality product. I hope games, that are obviously products, at the same time still are works of art (and to greater extent they are as long as creativity involved in production). You can formalize what's good or bad quality, describe and objectively evaluate it. But you can't say what's a 'quality' game\character\level design, art, script or, ultimately, what's a 'quality' fun, since you can't measure such things objectively. Though you can subjectively evaluate them bringing in your gaming experience, i.e. your taste as a measure. Therefore people aren't looking for abstract 'guality' games, they're looking for particular gaming experience they might enjoy ("I've never played such game before, but it looks fun!"), or enjoyed in the past and want some more ("I've played such game before and it was fun!").

I suggest dropping the usage of word 'quality' with regard to games. It's misleading.

Whatever makes you sleep well at night.

But does that change the fact that reviews from people who are paid to review games, have shown PS3 to have the best software for the past 2 years? No.

Does it change the fact that some people cry and complain like a bitch when there game doesnt become AAA (See numerous games rated at 89) or when there game gets reviews changed/removed/added and it drops? (See Ocarina of time getting lower score on GameRankings).

Anyway, to stay on topic... What do YOU think of the OP?

I am using common sense.

In 2008, Nintendo released some excellent games early in the year, games that are still selling today, the 360 and PS3 had just as many good games. Then at the End of the YEAR, Nintendo put all their hopes on Animal Crossing and Wii music. In 2009, They promised a better lineup and they did, but the PS3 just had better games period. I remember when the Conduit and Mad world were going to prove a point.

2010, looks even however, I have numerous times predicted the Wii will win if Zelda comes out because while The PS3 has a strong beginning, I don't see what they have to match 360 and Wii's big games later that year.

I can give it to the ps3 this year but last year was definitely another 360 year...

Just what do 360 or wii have thats so great later in the year.

Halo Reach, Super Mario Galaxy 2

I think PS3 has a 0.0000001% chance of catching up with the Wii. C'mon, we don't even know yet if PS3 will continue to outsell the 360. Yes, we have a couple of months of outstanding PS3 sales. But how will things look in a year? 6 months? When holidays are over?

We don't know how big the vitality sensor will be, I bet that most of us didn't think for a second that the balance board would be a massive hit, plus we have mario galaxy 2, metroid other m, red steel 2, and of course Nintendo might just announce something at March.