A research study looks at Metacrtic scores and compares them for all consoles to see which one has the best games. PS3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. Wii. Nintendo DS vs. PSP. And PS2 vs. Xbox vs. Gamecube.
The only prblem with using Metacritic is its not reliable. How many Sony sites gave a 6 game a 10? Now how many of those same sites judged their Wii reviews fairly? Very few... Metacritic is great if you dont have any games to play and need an excuse to justify your purchase but it proves nothing. Most of us know the GTA4 reviews and MGS reviews were bought. How many others were paid for? If reviews were fair and accurate across the board Metacritic would be a good source, but that will never happen.
you really dont believe that scores are bought, It is puer rumor or myth. Yes some reviewers are biased towards certain games, and are going to give good score, but companies arent into throwing money around, especially in todays economy, plus its bad business ethics.
LoL at MGS4 reviews being bought. The game is amazing, a true classic, it deserves all the praise and high scores it got.
Whenever these comparisons come out, everyone focuses on the PS3 and the 360....why don't the majority of people focus on the wii? The wii is dominating in terms of sales but is clearly behind in quality titles. I guess that is why you don't see many wii fanboys...or at least brave ones
That is why I sold my Wii, not enough quality. I dont have as much time as I used to play games, so I went with the better value and quality over fad. Dont get me wrong, I love Nintendo games and there are some games that I wish I could play, but noy enough to warrant the time and money to invest into.
I do think metacritic is very flawed, but not really because of "conspiracy" or anything. Numerical review systems are just flawed in general, as there is no consistency at all. And Metacritic even takes non-numerical scores, like 1up which they specifically say is NOT meant to correspond to any numerical scale, and quantifies them anyway. That said, the comparisons are still pretty interesting. I was especially surprised at the last gen comparisons, which showed all 3 consoles had nearly identical critical receptions when you looked at the percentages of their libraries.
Just look at how many awards PS3 won in 2008. New quality games continues in present day 09. Stop looking for FUD, and buy a PS3. :)
PS3 > 360 > Wii PSP > DS sounds just about right if you asked me.. XD :)
yea i sold mine as well. I even made a profit off of it lol. I mean it is not being used because they aren't any games i really want for the wii. I bought it so that my friends and family can play, but all they wanna do is play either Halo 3 or killzone 2.
At least you got the second part of your name correct
i lol'd +1 bubble
It's funny how even the games rating scores have swapped for Sony and MS between the previous generation and the current.
Yes leave it to Sony fanboys to argue truth with personal opinion.. Don't cry guys.. We'll give you this one. It's not like you have anything even remotely good to be happy over any way. Last place console with the poorest software sales of any console in history.. Oh but hey you guys got some good reviews thanks to Pro Sony sites like Gamepro and gameinformer... Doesnt matter that those reviews are not valid. Its all you got so hold on to them tightly.. Sony fans prove every day their console is a complete joke by having to make up the stuff that's good about it.. Please show more acts of desperation kids. Its amusing to be proven right by people who are trying to prove you wrong but just dont have the ability.
IF MGS4 deserved all that, how come the game is forgotten about in 2 months? GTA4 was rated a 10 and it showed. MGS4 just got 10's because all the Pro Sony sites felt sorry for the PS3 and their owners and threw them a bone.. If it was really a 10, it wouldnt have been so easily forgotten, but then again that seems to happen to every PS3 game.. I remember when you fangirls said WKS was going to set the world on fire.. Then it flopped in Japan and the game has been forgotten... I wish you kids the best of luck, I really do. After being sheeped into buying a Movie player and having to wait a few years before your first "AAA must own" and in a few weeks its forgotten about.. Now if I look at another game that came out around the same time, it's still selling very well. MKWii walks all over MGS4. For a perfect game it sure sold like crap, and then MKwii which most of you Sony fans would consider crap outsold MGS4 by an extremely large margine. Even with Sony sites taking shots at it.. If the gaming media wasnt bias against Nintendo and in love with Sony, MKWii and MGS would have both been swapped in ratings. Sales have all but proven MGS4 to just be a fanboys last hope at quality. While really quality is bought up to the tune of 14million in sales.. I'm sure Sony enjoys cutting peoples jobs in order to pay bills. They love those high ratings and would never trade them for some actual sales or anything.. Which is why they are still dead last with no signs of catching up.. Chew on that for a while kids then come crying for me. Or just do the typical Sony 12 year old thing and ignore any person or facts that do not fit into your delusion.
So Chaotic, you're a fanboy who hates Sony, what else is new on the internet especially on this site. 0.o Love the comment about how MGS4 is forgotten by who again exactly? You seem to make up bull and write it like fact. So keep hating Sony, and keep bringing up that the PS3 is in last place (even though this console generation is nowhere near its end), while the games that release on it will be "first place" in terms of hits. So you should chew on that as well since you actually haven't stated any facts but a rant against Sony and just stated you're as immature and delusional as many around here kid.
@1.1 If you think Metacritic is not reliable, just do what is done in the olympics to eliminate bias in judged events - drop the highest and lowest scores and average the rest. In the case of Metacritic, you would probably have to drop the 5 highest and 5 lowest because there are so many reviews posted, whereas in the olympics there are usually 8 judges. I'd be willing to wager that most scores would still come out with a variance of no more than 1 point.
Wow dude you sound butt hurt that you 360 fanboys can no longer say the 360 has higer rated games cuz Metacritic says so....aww I fee ur pain. Then you go on to rant about MGS4 being forgotten in 2 months yet 6 months after it's release it won numerous game of the year awards so much for it's being forgotten.... And F.Y.I ... MKwii has also sold better than every exclusive game on the 360 so whats ur point again ???
Quality over quantity do they say?
@1.1: Ever heard of David Manning? http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... I think the DS has the best game in my opinion(just my opinion). The Wii needs some serious 3rd Party games(not crap) but the 360 and PS3 are doing great for games. PSP has quite a few good games but only a select few appeal to me.
arrangement of my response to various comments do matter. (superfluous, most people would have just missed it.) @jrsenkbe good point you have there. at least you gave sensible answer compared to many others. @blackpanther25 "but all they wanna do is play either Halo 3 or killzone 2" i have to scrutinize your statement because of neutrality. it gives a false sense to people who are not involved in the gaming community, either for quite some time OR since the beginning. @BRG9000 thats right. i have to agree with you first to minimize the amount of text i need to type. @Danja pretty good conclusion i would say. i shall give you a score of 1/1. well done. @soxfan2005 a variance of 1 doesnt apply in metacritic's way of scoring. =] your analogy of olympic doesnt fit in here. too bad. @crazy-eyez-killah that is when there is no quality in quantity, only then do you use such statement. @JuJuRMJ being misinformed is one thing but not being able to comprehend a certain thing is another. i do have something i want to touch upon. and this is how i feel about the arrangement or method used to average out the scores from various review sites. In a class setting of 40 students, 3 top scorers scored 97, 91 and 84 respectively for a test. Yet the one with the highest IQ of 160<(sd15) scored a mere 61, which is the median score in the class. Is the smartest student stupid? No. is it because he couldnt answer the questions? No. so whats my point? i shall leave it up to you guys to decide. LOL! don't just disagree and disappear. say something OR you simply cant refute?
In at least one example, a review likely was bought (Eidos' Kane & Lynch at Gamespot). I'm willing to bet this goes on more often then people may think. I don't think it's the norm at all, but I'm sure it happens. I'm sure some review sites are also shells set up by the very companies that make these games too. Marketing is a business, and it's about pitching a product to the consumer in a way to get the consumer to buy it. Reviews are really part of marketing.
"LoL at MGS4 reviews being bought." They weren't bought, but it is an absolute fact that some were told to not include things such as install times, cutscene lengths, etc. in their reviews by Konami themselves.
GTA4 and MGS4 reviews weren't bought you goose, they are genuinely awesome games that the masses of people who enjoy good games will ENJOY!
I couldn't have named you more aptly myself.
which would you rather have. 50% of 100 games being good or 60% of 75 games being good?
You can use statistics to prove both sides of any argument. It just comes down to which statistic is actually more important. what's better? More good games, a lot more ok games, and even more games in general, or a higher percentage of good and ok games. You can choose whatever you like.
Another arguement is brewing. Hey atleast us PS3 fanboys were right: we have superior games, always have, always will. We even get the better remakes: take Ninja Gaiden 2 for example. If you're willing to pay $300 for a system, pay the extra $100 and get the best game console and multimedia system EVER!
...sort of... PS3 has the largest percentage of its library rated Great/Good, but 360 has the largest quantity of Great/Good games. The percentage is nice to brag about and pat a console on the back for, but which statistic is really more practical and important to gamers?
The ONLY data that matter is the chart that show the TOTAL NUMBER of high quality rated games, and it shows that the 360 is the undisputible victor in the race for top-rated quality games. Spinning the datum by viewing the aggregate review chart rather than the aggregate total is not only flawed, it is a blatant falsehood. The percentage tallies of the aggregate by reviews is meaningless. Worse, when shown to a new gamer as proof of PS3 superiority it is coldly deceptive and a flat out lie. If any new gamer asks which console has the highest number of highest rated, top-quality games there is only one answer: the Xbox 360. It is fact pure and simple. There is no spin, no deception , no skewering of the charts to create false impressions. The 360 has the HIGHEST TOTAL of TOP QUALITY TITLES period. End of discussion.
its leveling the playing field, due to the length of time that each console has been at market, and the only way to do that is by averages.
That study doesn't deny anything or try to spin anything. The charts aren't misleading because it's not just charts, it actually has the numbers below them. 360 = most highly rated exclusives PS3 = best percentage of good games compared to bad. But i guess some people might not want to face the fact that the PS3 puts out quality stuff.
"Leveling the playing field" only counts if you're trying to be "fair". Guess what? Business isn't "fair". There are advantages to coming out first, and it's not "cheating" to do so - just ask Sony with its PS2 last gen. Consumers care which console has more higher-rated games. The percentage of games is not relevant in a real world discussion. As said above, it is simply fact that the 360 has the highest number of highly-reviewed games. The real world isn't about being "fair". Deal with it. @2.4 I can use the same logic to claim that the PS2 had more trash than its competition and the XBox and Gamecube put out "quality" and people don't want to accept that. And yet the PS2 dominated both. Why? Because consumers don't care what console has the highest "percentage" of great games. They want the console that has the MOST great games.
"its leveling the playing field, due to the length of time that each console has been at market, and the only way to do that is by averages" How about you "level the playing field" by taking Playstation brand's two-generation-long dominance into account? That's a lot of additional experience on the market, more brand loyalty, more established franchises, 1st party studios and a long history of working with 3rd party developers.
So the 360 has more games total, it should, its been out longer. The interesting part to me is that the PS3 has a higher % of good and great games and the lowest % of poor games. Also the PSP has a higher % of good games and the lowest % of poor games. I guess that you can take this however you want to but to me it looks like Sony has the best quality control in the industry and I don't see this changing anytime soon.
...then the PS2 is the clear winner. I guess that's why it's still selling. I think it's funny that people claim the percentage doesn't matter, that it's total games that matters because that clearly favors the PS2 and yet people are still buying the 360. Obviously it's not total games that matters, and at this stage in the game every single console has enough "good" games to keep the average gamer busy for years. It's just nice to know that you don't have to wade through as many horrible games to get to those good games.
The "percentage" arguement would only apply if most gamers walked into a game store, closed their eyes, and randomly grabbed a game for their console. If a PS3 owner did this, they would be more likely than a 360 owner to select a high quality game. But in the real world, it's the number of high quality games that matters most.
Then you'll AGREE that with the PREVIOUS generation --> the XBOX had a greater number of GREAT games vs the PS2, and ALSO a greater number of GOOD games - according to this chart -> http://www.siliconera.com/w... RIGHT?
So this time next year when the PS3 has the highest number of quality titles and the highest % of quality titles what will your analogy be then? And just for the topic of the numbers today. PS3 Great Games 43 / Awful Games 19 360 Great Games 58 / Awful Games 64 The great games are damn close considering the longer 360 life span, but seriously there is no excuse for the extra 45 awful games.
"So this time next year when the PS3 has the highest number of quality titles and the highest % of quality titles what will your analogy be then?" Is your name Nostradamus? Having the best lineup on paper is NO guarantee of critical or commercial success. By the way, sites like Metacritic exist so people can be informed before buying and avoid the awful games. To put the good/awful ratio in perspective, consider this: Babe Ruth struck out more that anyone else in Major League history.
I am pretty sure that my user name says 40cal, LOL, just saying. Anyways thanks for pointing out that the PS3 has, and I quote "the best lineup on paper." I think that its Rare (pun intended) that it doesn't come with the "guarantee of critical or commercial success". Besides Lair I can't recall another big game from Sony this gen that has not been met with critical success. Commercial success seems to be a matter of opinion, for me anything that hits 1 million units worldwide is a success.
1.5 years ago for the defunct SONYPROTECTIONGROUP.com website and got raked over the coals on N4G for it....(it had more to do with the name of the website and its owner than my report methinks) 1.5 years later and the results are STILL the same. PS3 and PSP have a higher percentage of good and better games than other consoles and the lowest percentage of crapware. Here is the link I just found to that story here on N4G: http://www.n4g.com/NewsCom-... It is a VERY interesting excercise to go back to my article to see all those on N4G that said to just wait a year as the PS3 wouldn't be able to maintain its quality lead...
Made the mistake of pointing it out on the Gamespot forums. You should have seen the frenzy that whipped the 360 fans into.
Haha. The wii is garbage.
erm.. are you a wii-hater or a fanboy? state your occupation clearly next time, frayer.
Woah, so the 360 is doing exactly what the PS2 dont last gen It got the most highest rated games and generally the most games
An extra year on the market can do that for you dontcha think?
take off your fanboy goggles and look closer. PS3 has a much higher percentage of games rated Great(85+). And considering the number of games on the 360 is more than twice that of the ps3 it should be doing alot more than 58 great games vs the ps3's 43 great games. Edit @ below: you can only look into those stats when the number of great games is close on each console otherwise the results will not give a true reflection. As i said above the ps3 more than holds its own in the number of great games despite being outnumbered in games by over 2:1. 360 should be looking at over 100 great games but no, its struggles to give the gamers good games. must be the crap hardware and its limitations.
"PS3 has a much higher percentage of games rated Great(85+). " And so does the Gamecube compared to the PS2 but which console really has the better games hhmmm?
stew: Are we looking at the same chart? Great (85+) Xbox 360: 58 Playstation 3: 43 Omega had it right and in the good catagory the 360 smokes the competition. The Wii really does look miserable from a metacritic persepective though, wow. Ah, yes the percentage spin but when you look at pure choice/selection the 360 kills it. But to be fair the 360 did have an extra year of games on the market so that goes both ways in that it hurts and helps. It does look a lot like the PS2 library. The 360 is where it's at for gamers.
Gamecube might have higher rated games than the PS2 but not more high rated games. Let me ask you a question. If lets say FF17 comes out for PS2 and 10 sites score it between 9-10. Then a random "Duck Hunt Reloaded" game comes out for gamecube and no more than 1 site reviews it and scores it a perfect 10. How will this affect it's metascore? FF17 will be around 9,8 and Duck Hunt Reloaded will be a perfect 10. Does that mean that the Duck Hunt game is better? And as a more important question, Do you see how flawed the metascore is?
Well nothing is perfect since its still all based on opinions, but i still think its a good indication as to which consoles have good games
But it has been out a year less, so the 360 has more. It means that the ps3 consistently has great games and is likely to have more than the 360 in a set period of time. By this time next year, the ps3 will have more great games than the 360 does now. Just look at the list which I won't bother posting. Edit: You can only compare them once they are finished. At that stage whichever has the most great games, not the highest percentage, will be the winner, but as of right now 360 is out a year longer so percentages are all we can go on. 20% of games being great for 3 years will be better than 10% of games being great for 3 years. Edit 2: For instance the hardly any great games but has been out the same amount of time as the ps3, so I say the ps3 is better. The 360 has more games in every category, not just great.
Omega, I tried to think about what you said and rationalize with your thoughts... I give up. Xbox has the most average and below average games too. PS3 = quality.
You are correct - the 360 is matching the performance of the PS2 in more ways than some people want to admit. It came out earlier than the competition, and has the highest overall number - but lowest percentage of - "great" games.
And the list of quality games is only going to get longer this year and next.
So true, the PS3 is poppin out quality games like the Octomom popped out babies.
Ignore comment (where the f is the delete button)
Its times like these that you have to freeball a comment of majestic quality. Play it smooth man, don't let everyone see that you had an accident. :D
80% of the time you can get 65% of the statistics to say anything you want them to, down to within 40% of your target agenda. Anyway, if you have a 360, PS3, Wii, PSP, DS, or a comp... Get your Game On!
You are very wise. Bubble up.
All I know is PS3/360 = domination. The Wii has a few great titles but is seriously up to our necks in shovelware.
The Wii still got the best games. But I can admit if they don't release more AAA titles, then the PS3 will take my number 1.
;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D ;-D Who cares??? How @NAL!!! ;-D
?!?!!?!?!!!!?!?!!!!!?!!!!!?!!! !?!!!!?!! ;-D!!!?!!!!?! !?!!?!?!!!!?!?!?!!!question mark ;-D!!?!?!?!?!?!exclamation point???!!?!?!?!
If meta counted all sites and didnt cherry pick, I think it would hold up better.
then anyone could start a new site to give a popular game a lower avg score on meta
Agree sir Ken.... who cares..
LOL, yeah, what good are review scores that are based upon a compilation of scores from a variety of sources? [rolls eyes] Wouldn't you rather look at a score from multiple opinions than just one? The 360 currently has the best library of games. I'm surprised the Wii didn't have more stinkers than it did.
Those graphs just show what I thought all along. The Wii has very few good titles. It is sad to see that a system that has that much going for it that is getting shafted by the game devs. The PS3 and 360 are both doing well and so is the PSP and DS.