Load Game blog has posted a new analisys about game ratings for each next-gen console. They tell what console has the best or worst game scores so far.
One thing is clear. The Wii is really, really average. Which doesn't surprise me with that whole pile of sh!tty partygames, made to score a quick buck on sales from kids that don't know what they're buying.
good point man.
Yet still bloggers, and fanboys continue their delusions.
PS3 goods higher than both 360 and Wii PS3 bads lower than both 360 and wii Average same as 360 and lower than wii. Don't forget, the bads are the crappy ports which come from EA and Ubi.
Things like this are meaningless without weighting for number of games.
change aware to capable and you'll see why the ps3 is set to own this gen. Even with the big viral push by ms the ps3 is the console of choice for the real hardcore gamers. Tho a lot of us got suckered into buying a 360 the hardware issues were enough to make us ill and now with every ps3 exclusive the 360 looks more and more outdated...
First off you have to look at the amount of games and you can see that this is a waste of an article. Wii has about 100-150 games, 360 has 200-250, and the PS3 has about 30 games. If they reviewed the same amount of games and the same amount of exclusives then made this could be more credible.
ok you win
@1.4 30???? lol so far 170 games for the ps3.
Not hard to understand why Wii is last so far. When only Nintendo was ready with quality games at launch. Of course just like the PS2 they have some good games. Most hater 12-17 year olds though will simple claim every game is crap. IF that were really true though I wouldnt have sold my PS3 to buy more Wii games
lol XD (im just joking)
But most Wii games are crap. :( The only good ones are proven Nintendo franchises and No More Heroes. And you sold a PS3 for Wii games? Pass the drugs plz!
Damn you should change your tag to Voice of Stupidity. Hard to believe anyone would sell their PS3 for more Wii games. All the good non-Nintendo released games drop to $20 or $30 dollars after a month or two anyway because no one buys them.
WEll I have a PC so no reason to have a PS3. I just wasnt impressed with their taking alst gen games changing the lead role and releasing a rehashed game while calling it a new IP. HS,DF, and WH all proved this. SO yeah I sold my PS3 and went and got Wii fit,Boom Blox, NMH. Sadly it was the only time my PS3 offered any kind of next gen experience. Selling it to buy Wii games.. Oh and I did get Mass Effect for PC. Some people are happy with hardware that doesnt deliver whats promised or mediocre game selections. I am not one of them. I can tolerate it more on Wii though because it cost me 250, and not 600.00 .......Tosgamer, I think you will find that most actually release around that price. Wii games go from 19.99 for crap shovelware to 49.99 for good games. Which is nice because all the crap games on PS3 cost 59.99 just like the good ones. I like the Wii way of doing it better. I just dont look at any games in the cheap price range and I dont have to worry about shovel ware. Of course I dont expect Die hard Sony fans to understand. They arent real gamers anyway. they just by a name brand, not games. Oh and BTW, If Wii is a sucky console it has to be 100 times better than PS3. Wii gets more play time on average, gets more games bought so it has a higher attach ratio. When you kids talk about the Wii without realizing it beats the PS3 in almost every way, I have to laugh. You just dont understand the PS3 is in worse shape right now so when you call the Wii crap you are also insulting the PS3 since its in worse shape.
You're a moron. More like "voice of a 14 year old"
You actually need some alone time with the PS3 in your room. The Wii is a toy... Most people I know that bought the Wii had never play video games in their life or 50% are girls (that haven't played video games either). It's selling great... BUT.. It's still a toy for people to have fun with, like twister, like monopoly, like the Super Water Slide... Comparing the Wii with the PS3 is like comparing a Power Wheel with a Rolls Royce.. GTFO with that Bullsh*t haha
PS3 is the choice for people who want quality. 360 is the choice for those who want a great selection of games. Wii is the choice for those looking for something different. That is the best way I can think to word it. Reviews only matter to the core gamers anyway.
"Reviews only matter to the core gamers anyway" Do you really think so? In my experience core gamers have a very strong opinion on titles irrespective of reviews and are likely to buy or not buy no matter what a review says. Given the wealth of opinions expressed on any one title, a core gamer can always find a review that supports their expectations! I think its more casual gamers that are swayed by reviews. They will not have followed a games development, and will not hold a pre-conceived idea of what to expect. They'll likely only see one review and chances are their opinion of the game will be heavily swayed but what they read in that one review. I'm open to a counter argument though! :)
Game reviews are meaningless ammunition for the fanboy kind.
Can't dispute that comment!:) I'm pretty sure they don't sway the average fan boy! They are just used as bait! Its the effect on 'Joe Public' thats up for debate!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the quality is highest on 360. Multiplat games perfom better on 360 and the 360 has many more, better, exclusives. In addition, Xbox Live is the best of the best for online gaming.
@tplarkin7 Thats your opinion - but the story is about what the critics think, and the statistics don't match with your view of the situation at all.
The article mentions the fact that the Xbox 360 had a year lead and that it has more games. Those bars are a percentage of each console's inventory of games. If you were to compile a list which combined all consoles, the 360 would be way ahead.
Well of course dude? We ARE discussing qulaity, which is a percentage of all titles that reach a certain stadard. You appear to be confusing this with quantity - so any machine with a greater number of titles would win that argument - its pointless. By your reckoning the winner by a country mile would be the PS2. It might have a lower percentage of qulaity games, but given the thousands available, it will have more high rated games than the entire release lists of the current next gen machines.
I've not been convinced by reviews for a long time (too many titles I love get mediocre scores!), so theres only so much you can read into data analysis like this. I think the high numbers of poorly rated games on the WII does say something. Theres obviously a high number of 'shovel ware' games on the system for a variety of reasons - none of which are Nintendo's fault. Some publishers saw the sales of WII as an excuse to try and 'cash in' on those gamers with some pretty lackluster titles. Still others have attempted to use the unusual control mechanism - and then failed badly, resulting in a poor game. As far as the differences between 360 and PS3 are concerned, they are close enough as to be almost the same, so you can't draw huge conclusions from it. I guess one conclusion you could draw, is that the old adage "PS3 has no good games" is not actually borne out by the statistics, both systems seem to have a similar number of quality titles.
When you consider how much more powerful the PS3 and 360 are compared to Wii, its not hard to see them getting lower scores. Thats natural and should be expected. What is unexpected, to me anyway is how a couple of Wii games have actually managed better reviews then their PS3/360 counter parts.Not many mind you but it shouldnt be happening at all.
I can't really say I agree with you. More system power does not always equal amazing games, and you can design brilliant games without having the latest tech. I'm probably not the best to argue the case, as I am a self confessed tech whore! But a game like Super Mario Galaxey demonstrates how perfectly honed gameplay tailored to the power available will always shine through any technical limitations. Conversely, you don't have to look far on 360 or PS3 to see some outstanding examples of technically polished turds. Some of the best games of the last few years have been on hand held and the DS for instance! I don't believe the power available is a reason for the WII to have so many low scoring games, and titles like Mario and Metroid and Smash Bros, and Zak and Wiki, have proved it time and time again.
I agree somewhat with 3.3, but most of the games that took off that you mentioned were nostalgia titles. So it's really hard to tell whether reflected sales were just because they were the newest installments and therefore a percieved "Safe Buy". Maybe that's not the case, but I bought GTAIV for instance thinking "Man, I loved San Andreas and Vice City, so it's safe to say I'll like this too, I'm gonna go buy it". Well, I was wrong, it's not as good as it's counterparts and I wasted my money and help boost it's statistical ego to boot. Just a thought. I agree on the main point you are making though.
While I do agree with tht statement, this graph does not prove much. In actually it helps the PS3/Wii given the cut-off points. The 360 has more games in the Library so we can expect a variety of games to lower the High Quality games the console has. If you were to look at Metacritic: At 75%+, Xbox 360 has 164 games At 75%+, PS3 has 75 games ***************************** **********8 You take the first 75 best reviewed Games, from bottom to top, you get Xbox 360 Average start at 81% Ps3 Average start at 75% Technically the Xbox 360 have more game, we know that, and more Quality game at a certain Cut-off. Now you can spin that cut-off at where ever, 90%/80%/70% and compare. Basically it's easy to make things appear what they re really not, in all how you cut/spin the numbers. Unless the libraries are eventually match, it will always be like this. As far as theWii is concerned it is a platform that have always been risky from the start, as well as many devs stayed away from it, but for the Wii games to be successful the whole intuitive function has to work. It all starts with the Wii-Mote and the creativity. Yeah the games are easy to make but will it be fun? Anyhow these charts don't mean much, since the platforms are not equal in library.
Your confusing quantity of titles with percentage of results. They are entirely different things with percentages being the accurate result, provided both have a large enough number of games to estimate percentages. I think aggregate sites like MetaCritic should throw out the highest & lowest numbers and then estimate. This is the best reference currently available to get an objective look at good & bad reviews alike. If you really want to be accurate, asessing both release quantity & quality you would have to ONLY review titles released during the first 20 months of each console. As things are the percentage model of this article is as accurate as you can get without using either adjustment.
Trust me I'm not, plus can you prove this GRAPH screams QUALITY? Does Quality have a number? All I'm stating it if we were to look at Metacritic, Whatever Quality means to you, the 360 have more game sin the Library that could be considered Quality if we look strictly at Numbers. This graph is Using Numbers as well. It uses a Wide Range that doesn't tell us nothing or how many games within the range. My PERCENTAGE actually = a SCORE of 75 I was using a Range so I put it that way. Anyhow I don't get your argument. I guess you agree with this Graph. Put the cut-off at 80 or 90 and above and we see the disparity.
"Your confusing quantity of titles with percentage of results." How can you make a statement like "Trust me I'm not, plus can you prove this GRAPH screams QUALITY?" That's my exact argument: I would no more trust YOU, than this GRAPH. I clearly stated that, and more importantly to be accurate the basis of the percentage needs to change. Your claim of adding up numbers from launch, without accounting for differing launch times on the market is equally faulty. Your varying the % upward to favor the results is as flawed as failing to account for time in market numbers. Neither is accurate, or to be relied upon.
You always get shovelware on the market leader. I don't think this is a good way to judge..... well anything really =|
lol and the 360 has like 80 more games...dumb graph.
LMFAO @ WII and LMFAO at their "good" rating system. They must have used scores of 80 and above instead of 90 and above, or else 360 would be the only console with more than 1 good game on it HAHahahaHAHHA.
Nintendo have Zelda, Mario, and Metroid. That is all. Even Mario kart is crap this time round. 3 games! That is it. And its always the same on every nintendo console. Only its worse for the Wii. The rest a cheap party games and shoddy ports dumbed down form more powerful systems... 360 rules! HA HA HA HA!
I agree with you thats why i don't own a Wii pretty much :))
Sony is winning despite the 360 having a 1 year head start.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.