Top
300°

Which console does best and worst in each genre?

Games radar writes: "we compiled game review scores (collected from Metacritic) by genre to show you which console does each kind of game best, in the most unbiased way we can."

Read Full Story >>
gamesradar.com
The story is too old to be commented.
NewSchoolGamer3561d ago

on the date from whih each system was launched or at a rate or what?

Seraphim3561d ago

Top 5 games, what are they? Does my PS3 even have 5 RPGs? I know my 360 does.... Whose scores are we using to make these graphs? Meta Critics? All of them? Or just the top 15 if applicable? There's so many variables that could be thrown into something simple like these comparison charts.... Some more crap, useless, pointless graphs showing absolutely nothing new...

TheColbertinator3561d ago

The worst console is the Wii obviously

JustinSaneV23561d ago

//Begin Quote:
If you'd like to know the boring nuances of the data here, read on. Or you could just go and look at our collection of Sexy Fan Art. The choice is yours...

Like any study, there are several potential problems with the data and we accept that. These are:

1) Metacritic collects review scores from everywhere. If a lads' mag reckon DOA Xtreme 2 is a 10/10 because the girls are hot, that has as much weight as EDGE's opinion in the Metacritic universe. So the scores have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Having said that, it is a great way to show concensus opinion, and we reckon the scores are mostly accurate.

2) While we applaud Metacritic's invaluable service, its genre-labelling is highly suspect. While we have left most games where they are, we could not stand idly by and let Geometry Wars go in as a first-person shooter. That's simply not true. So while we have made sure the highest profile games are where they should be, and tried to tidy up as best we could, the very idea of 'genre' is subjective and so, ultimately, fallible. In the data's defense, this relabelling task has been carried out by one person for this study, so even if the choices made may not be universally appeasing, they are at least consistent.

3) Some games have not been included. Metacritic won't include a score for games that haven't been reviewed by enough sources. So brand new releases are not present and neither are extremely low-profile titles.

4) The consoles have had different lengths of time on the shelves. Not only does that mean 360 has more games available than PS3, but also that the old games are just that - old. If something scored 85 on its release, it stays at 85 unless new reviews are added. If that exact same game were released today on PS3, it may look outdated already, so that has to be taken into consideration.
//End Quote

Spydiggity3561d ago (Edited 3561d ago )

the length of time a system has been out doesn't matter. it's an average. more time means more games...yes. but it also means more bad games.

i like this article only because you can't dispute the data...that is to say, if you understand it...and from what comments i'm reading, that's very few of you. since i'm reading things like "360 has been out a year longer than ps3 so the data is false." number of titles and system life don't have anything to do with average.

so to sum up, metacritic shows the average review score a game gets. then the people who did this article took the average of every game's average and that's how these scores were tallied.

EDIT: Haha a disagree already. no doubt an illogical ps3 fanboy with absolutely no intelligence whatsoever. all i did was explain how the article derived its conclusions.
Like one of the guys already said on these comments. These results are only bad data because it showed the ps3 isn't superior in any genre. if it showed the opposite, we'd never hear the end of it on this website.

There are two types of people on this website: Gamers, who contribute facts and intelligent conversation to these forums (the minority), and fanatical ps3 supporters who do nothing but flame (the majority). and the gamers can own both systems and say, "Hey, i like em both, but it's clear who's winning." and ps3 fanboys will come back with "that's not true, i only own a ps3 but i'm an expert on all gaming consoles."

that's the conversation i read on this site every day. it's sad. nobody sat here and said, that's cuz 360 is the greatest system of all time. we just said what the numbers show. 360 has slightly better games...and since this is an unbiased breakdown of all the reviews of all the sites that contribute to metacritic, i'd say it's the most accurate source of data we have received. this isn't some idiot analyst's opinion. these are the numbers, the facts.

i wish ps3 owners would just suck it up and get a 360 so they can actually see how good it is. plus, you'd have the best of both worlds. i own both and i enjoy switching between the two systems and playing different exclusives. it doesn't have to be a war.

BUT....since you guys turned it into one, at least here's a real break down of the numbers that shows who is currently winning.

Ben10543561d ago

Even between Xbox and Playstation.

JasonXE3561d ago

what charts were you looking at? Does the ps3 have any rpgs?

Willio3561d ago

funny how you brought up Rpgs when this genre didnt make the 360.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3561d ago
MaximusPrime3561d ago

xbox 360 been a year and a half longer than PS3. graph is irrelevant

ReBurn3561d ago

The PS3 has been out for more than 18 months, so there's been plenty of time to build up a decent library. The graph is not irrelevant.

jlytle12343561d ago

games get better as the years progress. xbox is on its 3rd generation of games, sony is on its second generation. compare the games from xbox first year to sonys first year and so on to be fair.

Overr8ed3561d ago (Edited 3561d ago )

I Agree with you. Most people have to understand that Multiplatform games for the PS3 and the 360 werent the same. In the 1st generation games for the PS3 most developers had issues with the PS3 since they had to get used to it. This statement has to be accounted for. Not only that but the 360 has been in the market longer so the 360 has more exclusives titles because it didnt have any one going against them.

In summary this graph is irrelevant

jcfilth3561d ago

that's why I don't pay attention to any comparisons unless they are made year by year BUT considering that the PS3 came out one year after the 360 and seeing the future of the 360 exclusives, anyone can tell from this that the PS3 will be ahead next year.

I like what he wrote at the end:
"Xbox360 has (currently) got the broadest and best selection of games. Or at least had the best results at review."

Anything related to 360 now IS/HAS to be "currently". Proof of this is PS3 sells closing the gap between 360 from 10mill to 5mill. Pretty scary for Microsoft I think. That explains their hunger for PS3 exclusives, price cuts, Medals(to counter Trophies), Miis like bullsh!t(to counter the release of HOME) but what sells consoles is exclusives and the PS3 is the best at that. Besides all the exclusives already on its way, SONY announced MAG, with another exclusive announcement in august 2/3, Square Enix "throwing the ball back" to SONY as they said it themselves which only means another exclusive for PS3.

So, I already can see what the future brings and it is awesomeness to PS3. So far I haven't been wrong.

Gam713561d ago

Seems like Wah wah from the above two.

If the ps3 is supposed to be so superior and the 360 can't compete it would be reflected in the one place it's supposed to be, the games.

First gen xbox should be so inferior to first gen ps3 etc right from launch day but that didn't happen and if you have to use the argument "compare 1st gen xbox to first gen ps3" then you are conceding the fact that the ps3 didn't deliver. stop believing the hype like it's gospel and start playing games.

If someone did this for last gen consoles ps2, xbox etc would you be demanding they only start from when the last console came out?

No it wouldn't be an issue then.

Overr8ed3561d ago

dont you understand Devs had problems with the ps3 due to its different architecture, and that was the First Gen. Now devs are seeing the potential of the PS3, and Some devs say that PS3 development helped the 360 version become better.

Gam713561d ago

Dont you understand thats not what was said before the ps3 came out and still the hype everyone was told is still being sprouted at every turn only to be broken with "it's a different architecture" "the devs don't know how to programme for it"

Now if it has taken this long to start to get anything out of the system then that would mean the games before were sub-par so lower scores which means the very arguments used here could actually back up these results.

JasonXE3561d ago

Quote "In the 1st generation games for the PS3 most developers had issues with the PS3 since they had to get used to it."
--

and that is the 360 problem how? If anything the year head start could of also hurt the 360 in scale with more bad games as well. If the charts were opposite then everyone with sony bias would have a different tone.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3561d ago
Mr PS33561d ago (Edited 3561d ago )

Looks like the Bot colored in the chart with his crayola set

Veryangryxbot3561d ago

This comparison chart does not take into account the fact that the 360 is out a year longer and thus has more games.

This also does not take into account that MANY MANY triple A PS3 games have not yet been released.

So basically they are comparing shiatty ass games like Kane and Lynch PS3 to Gears of war. That is an unfair comparison.

Voiceofreason3561d ago

[email protected] ANgrysonybot.. So the PS3 has nothing but crap games for this chart to compare? What about MGS4? GTA4? I love it when a Sony bot says PS3 has no games to defend it but I bet you'll be talking about its killer library when the next story comes out..Oh and no unlreleased PS3 games are not used on this list. Neither are unreleased 360 or Wii games either so you dont have any kind of valid point there at all.

-Maverick-3561d ago

HAHAHAH Look at Nasim. hahhhaha

PS3 is a SUB-PAR console. It sucks. Everything on the XBox 360 is better but you are a nutcase that lives his life through 10 name accounts a thread....Nasim you aren't helping Sony catch up those 6 million they are STILL behind... don't you understand??? And you sure as h3ll aren't helping the PS3 become as good a gaming system as the Xbox 360 because XBox 360 BLOWS THE PS3 AWAYYYYYYYYYY

Not only does XBox 360 have the best games...It has MORE THAN DOUBLE the amount of games, wayyy better servies and software...look at the trphy system on the PS3. HAHAHAHA It's a FUKING JOKE. ONE GAME utilizes trophies. lol All 360 games work through XboX Live which has and continues to destroy the crappy, overhyped PS3 with few games.

But you don't play games. You jack-off to Sony because they USED to be the best(at having games) and now they are THE WORST. Every Square Enix JRPG is going to the 360 first or Exclusive!! haha

PS3 SUCKS. That's why.

Ace Killa 083561d ago

i dont believe this is accurate, theres more games for 360 than Ps3 and Wii so its not fair, unless they got this years releases or some time frame all are equal in

Voiceofreason3561d ago

It has nothing to do with the amount of games. They based it off the top 5 rated games for each console.Are you saying Sony doesnt have at least 5 games to measure it by? It's clearly stated in the article. I would suggest actually reading it and not just assuming its bad because it puts the PS3 in its proper place.

Ace Killa 083561d ago

this is an open zone u ass