AAA+'s this year: PS3: 9, PC: 8, 360: 7, Wii: 3, DS: 3, PSP: 2, PS2: 1

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]

The PC has 9. Count again.

Those games are:

• Grand Theft Auto IV
• World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King
• Crysis Warhead
• Mass Effect
• Galactic Civilizations II: Twilight of the Arnor
• Dead Space
• Fallout 3
• Sins of a Solar Empire
• World of Goo

The PC wins the AAA exclusives battle with 4 AAA+ exclusives (the bolded) against the PS3's 3:

• Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
• Resistance 2
• LittleBigPlanet

Correct me if wrong.DeathScape666

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]I'm pretty sure Mass Effect is exclusively AAA on the PC. Can I play an AAA version anywhere else? :Pblue_hazy_basic

There is a REASON we go by AAAE.

BioShock was on the PC as a AAA last year, but got counted towards the PS3's list this year.

That is also ignoring World of Goo as a AAA game. It may not be a full price game but that does not make it any less fantastic.

But I guess consolites will go for any win they can get....

[QUOTE="WAIW"]Have you guys really not been here the past 6 months? DL games don't count. You should have argued against that point all those months ago when it was first generally agreed upon. Since World of Goo is a DL game on Wii, it should count as a DL game on PC.subrosian

If braid was released with a $60 price tag, very few people would have loved it as much.

My point being, I don't care whether it's DLC or retail (it's irrelevant, I simply used the term DLC to mean inexpensive), but rather the price tag that matters. A $10 game, for example, is held to lower standards to a $60 game.

If braid was released with a $60 price tag, very few people would have loved it as much.

My point being, I don't care whether it's DLC or retail (it's irrelevant, I simply used the term DLC to mean inexpensive), but rather the price tag that matters. A $10 game, for example, is held to lower standards to a $60 game.

WAIW

But it wasn't. It was graded based upon its price. Similar to how a $60 game expects $60 worth of content. Hence why Uncharted didn't get AAA. It was short, but the short time it lasted was certainly AAA quality. Just not enough there to justify $60. Hence the AA. So, therefore, a AAA downloadable game that cost $10-15 that provides that much entertainment is just as valid a game as any other game. We don't go around calling Crysis Warhead "not a game" because it only cost $30. We don't call Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts "not a game" because it was only $40. Those game justified their price tags. THAT is why they got the scores they did. THAT is how reviews work.

[QUOTE="WAIW"]

If braid was released with a $60 price tag, very few people would have loved it as much.

My point being, I don't care whether it's DLC or retail (it's irrelevant, I simply used the term DLC to mean inexpensive), but rather the price tag that matters. A $10 game, for example, is held to lower standards to a $60 game.

horrowhip

But it wasn't. It was graded based upon its score. Similar to how a $60 game expects $60 worth of content. Hence why Uncharted didn't get AAA. It was short, but the short time it lasted was certainly AAA quality. Just not enough there to justify $60. Hence the AA. So, therefore, a AAA downloadable game that cost $10-15 that provides that much entertainment is just as valid a game as any other game. We don't go around calling Crysis Warhead "not a game" because it only cost $30. We don't call Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts "not a game" because it was only $40. Those game justified their price tags. THAT is why they got the scores they did. THAT is how reviews work.

Just a note - according to metacritic PS3 has 7 (including BioShock, which is really 6 in my eyes), Xbox 360 has 6, and PC has 5. Oh and Wii has 4.h575309

Just a note - Metacritic is a joke and worth even less than IGN scores in an argument. And don't make me go over the reasons why Metacritic is terrible.

[QUOTE="h575309"]Just a note - according to metacritic PS3 has 7 (including BioShock, which is really 6 in my eyes), Xbox 360 has 6, and PC has 5. Oh and Wii has 4.horrowhip

Just a note - Metacritic is a joke and worth even less than IGN scores in an argument. And don't make me go over the reasons why Metacritic is terrible.

please do.... im really interested on why you think 1 persons opinion is a better measuring stick than many peoples opinions

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="DeathScape666"]No, downloable games DO NOT count.DeathScape666

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
They are games are they not? As long as they are original they count.stiltzsy

[QUOTE="h575309"]Just a note - according to metacritic PS3 has 7 (including BioShock, which is really 6 in my eyes), Xbox 360 has 6, and PC has 5. Oh and Wii has 4.horrowhip

Just a note - Metacritic is a joke and worth even less than IGN scores in an argument. And don't make me go over the reasons why Metacritic is terrible.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="h575309"]Just a note - according to metacritic PS3 has 7 (including BioShock, which is really 6 in my eyes), Xbox 360 has 6, and PC has 5. Oh and Wii has 4.ogvampire

Just a note - Metacritic is a joke and worth even less than IGN scores in an argument. And don't make me go over the reasons why Metacritic is terrible.

please do.... im really interested on why you think 1 persons opinion is a better measuring stick than many peoples opinions

Every source has different reviewing standards. Certain sources are harsh, others are extremely soft. Just to give an example of the difference among platforms.

OXM and several other Xbox 360 sources that review Xbox 360 games are extremely easy on a game. Giving out 10's and 9's extremely regularly and easily. Their scores bring up the scores of all games reviewed by them.

Compare this with some PC publications that have NEVER given out a 10, and RARELY give out 9's. I can name 4-5 german PC publications that are almost always among the list of reviewers on Metacritic that rate a whole 5-10% lower than any other publication. THEY bring the score down.

It is bad enough using a single website where every reviewer has his own tastes and standards. But averaging 100 websites with thousands of different voices and opinions and try to use that to compare two platforms is absolute insanity.

Then, throw in the fact that there are tons of no name websites included in the scoring. Games like MGS4 and GTA4 have over 100 reviews while other lower profile games get maybe 20 reviews posted. How is that at all a good representation? So many different variables skew the scores.

Metacritic is broken. Period. End of story. It is good for a general overview but for System Wars purposes it is completely useless and a waste of time to post.

[QUOTE="stiltzsy"][QUOTE="DeathScape666"] They are graded on an entirely different scale. If they were retail games for 50 dollars, they would get a much lower score. On top of that, we never count the Wii's VC games. Suddenly we are counting other platforms' downloadable titles once it starts benefitting them? No, I don't think we've ever done this before.RuinedMachine

The PC has 9. Count again.

Those games are:

• Grand Theft Auto IV
• World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King
• Crysis Warhead
• Mass Effect
• Galactic Civilizations II: Twilight of the Arnor
• Dead Space
• Fallout 3
• Sins of a Solar Empire
• World of Goo

The PC wins the AAA exclusives battle with 4 AAA+ exclusives (the bolded) against the PS3's 3:

• Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
• Resistance 2
• LittleBigPlanet

Correct me if wrong.aliblabla2007

[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="horrowhip"]

Just a note - Metacritic is a joke and worth even less than IGN scores in an argument. And don't make me go over the reasons why Metacritic is terrible.

horrowhip

please do.... im really interested on why you think 1 persons opinion is a better measuring stick than many peoples opinions

Every source has different reviewing standards. Certain sources are harsh, others are extremely soft. Just to give an example of the difference among platforms.

OXM and several other Xbox 360 sources that review Xbox 360 games are extremely easy on a game. Giving out 10's and 9's extremely regularly and easily. Their scores bring up the scores of all games reviewed by them.

Compare this with some PC publications that have NEVER given out a 10, and RARELY give out 9's. I can name 4-5 german PC publications that are almost always among the list of reviewers on Metacritic that rate a whole 5-10% lower than any other publication. THEY bring the score down.

It is bad enough using a single website where every reviewer has his own tastes and standards. But averaging 100 websites with thousands of different voices and opinions and try to use that to compare two platforms is absolute insanity.

Then, throw in the fact that there are tons of no name websites included in the scoring. Games like MGS4 and GTA4 have over 100 reviews while other lower profile games get maybe 20 reviews posted. How is that at all a good representation? So many different variables skew the scores.

Metacritic is broken. Period. End of story. It is good for a general overview but for System Wars purposes it is completely useless and a waste of time to post.

[QUOTE="Dick_Derringer"][QUOTE="locopatho"]I count 9 for PC too :PDeathScape666

[QUOTE="WAIW"]

If braid was released with a $60 price tag, very few people would have loved it as much.

My point being, I don't care whether it's DLC or retail (it's irrelevant, I simply used the term DLC to mean inexpensive), but rather the price tag that matters. A $10 game, for example, is held to lower standards to a $60 game.

horrowhip

But it wasn't. It was graded based upon its price. Similar to how a $60 game expects $60 worth of content. Hence why Uncharted didn't get AAA. It was short, but the short time it lasted was certainly AAA quality. Just not enough there to justify $60. Hence the AA. So, therefore, a AAA downloadable game that cost $10-15 that provides that much entertainment is just as valid a game as any other game. We don't go around calling Crysis Warhead "not a game" because it only cost $30. We don't call Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts "not a game" because it was only $40. Those game justified their price tags. THAT is why they got the scores they did. THAT is how reviews work.

I don't understand. You just admitted my point. My point wasn't DLC aren't real games, my point is that DLC games (and others of inexpensive price tags) are reviewed to lower standards; they don't need longevity. Hence, they should be put into a separate category.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="horrowhip"]

Just a note - Metacritic is a joke and worth even less than IGN scores in an argument. And don't make me go over the reasons why Metacritic is terrible.

horrowhip

please do.... im really interested on why you think 1 persons opinion is a better measuring stick than many peoples opinions

Every source has different reviewing standards. Certain sources are harsh, others are extremely soft. Just to give an example of the difference among platforms.

OXM and several other Xbox 360 sources that review Xbox 360 games are extremely easy on a game. Giving out 10's and 9's extremely regularly and easily. Their scores bring up the scores of all games reviewed by them.

Compare this with some PC publications that have NEVER given out a 10, and RARELY give out 9's.I can name 4-5 german PC publications that are almost always among the list of reviewers on Metacritic that rate a whole 5-10% lower than any other publication. THEY bring the score down.

It is bad enough using a single website where every reviewer has his own tastes and standards. But averaging 100 websites with thousands of different voices and opinions and try to use that to compare two platforms is absolute insanity.

Then, throw in the fact that there are tons of no name websites included in the scoring. Games like MGS4 and GTA4 have over 100 reviews while other lower profile games get maybe 20 reviews posted. How is that at all a good representation?So many different variables skew the scores.

Metacritic is broken. Period. End of story. It is good for a general overview but for System Wars purposes it is completely useless and a waste of time to post.

for every 'no name website' that may underrate a game there is an official magazine for that system that will overrate the same game.... in the end, it all averages out. so you pretty much contradicted your own point...

name a couple of examples where MC or GR average completey misrepresents a game

There is a REASON we go by AAAE.

BioShock was on the PC as a AAA last year, but got counted towards the PS3's list this year.

That is also ignoring World of Goo as a AAA game. It may not be a full price game but that does not make it any less fantastic.

But I guess consolites will go for any win they can get....

Yes, it was an excellent year for the PS3, 360, and PC.

...And a terrible, terrible year for the Wii.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="Dick_Derringer"] Yuplettuceman44

Yes, it was an excellent year for the PS3, 360, and PC.

...And a terrible, terrible year for the Wii.

RuprechtMonkey

indeed. it started out great the first few months... then.... well, you know

Yes, it was an excellent year for the PS3, 360, and PC.

...And a terrible, terrible year for the Wii.

indeed. it started out great the first few months... then.... well, you know

[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]

Yes, it was an excellent year for the PS3, 360, and PC.

...And a terrible, terrible year for the Wii.

DeathScape666

indeed. it started out great the first few months... then.... well, you know

its a case of 'what have you done for me lately'

first 3 months were great, last 9 months were horrible.... the majority wins, unfortunately. im not happy about it. i have a Wii and like it very much, but in my case none of the games in the past 9 months interested me

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"]No, downloable games DO NOT count.foxhound_fox

i think if they dont come with out with a normal game price then they shouldnt be counted as an actual game. not to mention that downloadable games are just downloadable and arnt able to be bought at retail.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]

indeed. it started out great the first few months... then.... well, you know

ogvampire

its a case of 'what have you done for me lately'

first 3 months were great, last 9 months were horrible.... the majority wins, unfortunately. im not happy about it. i have a Wii and like it very much, but in my case none of the games in the past 9 months interested me

Not even de Blob or Boom Blox? I'd have thought those games would be perfect for a gamer who actually liked some of the stuff the wii was pushing.

I tend to believe that the first half of the year was great for the wii. Games like okami, mario kart, boom blox, blast works, mlb power pros(or was this august?) and wiiware all came out in april-june, which is pretty good imo. It's just that it didn't have alot to contend with the heavy hitters the ps3/pc/360/ds were putting out in the fall. de blob, warioland, and goo were awesome but it just wasn't enough.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="DeathScape666"] If "the first few months" were great, then how could you possibly use the same negative adjective to describe the Wii's overall year?blahzor

its a case of 'what have you done for me lately'

first 3 months were great, last 9 months were horrible.... the majority wins, unfortunately. im not happy about it. i have a Wii and like it very much, but in my case none of the games in the past 9 months interested me

Not even de Blob or Boom Blox? I'd have thought those games would be perfect for a gamer who actually liked some of the stuff the wii was pushing.

I tend to believe that the first half of the year was great for the wii. Games like okami, mario kart, boom blox, blast works, mlb power pros(or was this august?) and wiiware all came out in april-june, which is pretty good imo. It's just that it didn't have alot to contend with the heavy hitters the ps3/pc/360/ds were putting out in the fall. de blob, warioland, and goo were awesome but it just wasn't enough.

Boom blox is the only game that interested me. i played it for a while, it was alot of fun, but it was only 1 game that i found interested the last 9 months

the other games you listed got great ratings, but i was never interested in them

im not saying that the Wii didnt have any games to play the last 9 months, just very few that i wanted to play

[QUOTE="Dick_Derringer"][QUOTE="locopatho"]I count 9 for PC too :PDeathScape666

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="Dick_Derringer"] Yuprgame1

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

There is a REASON we go by AAAE.

BioShock was on the PC as a AAA last year, but got counted towards the PS3's list this year.

That is also ignoring World of Goo as a AAA game. It may not be a full price game but that does not make it any less fantastic.

But I guess consolites will go for any win they can get....

DeathScape666

But we STILL go by AAAE for a reason.

There is a REASON we go by AAAE.

BioShock was on the PC as a AAA last year, but got counted towards the PS3's list this year.

That is also ignoring World of Goo as a AAA game. It may not be a full price game but that does not make it any less fantastic.

But I guess consolites will go for any win they can get....

But we STILL go by AAAE for a reason.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"][QUOTE="DeathScape666"] Mass Effect was on 360 last year, and we are counting it on PC this year. :| Double standards for the win?DeathScape666

But we STILL go by AAAE for a reason.

You were comparing AAAE exclusive on 2008 in march? After 3 months???

But we STILL go by AAAE for a reason.

You were comparing AAAE exclusive on 2008 in march? After 3 months???

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="DeathScape666"] Hey, I'm just happy you admitted to a mistake rather than trying to cover it up. That takes courage, man. ;) We go by AAAE, but when I brought up Wii's number of AAA exclusives of 2008 compared to 360's, PC's, and PS3's back in March 2008, people said "exclusives don't matter." I actually think I can find a link to a similar thread, but I'm too arsed to, anyway.DeathScape666

You were comparing AAAE exclusive on 2008 in march? After 3 months???

No... it's okay, I don't see the point... Did you also do a Q2,Q3 and Q4 thread?

You were comparing AAAE exclusive on 2008 in march? After 3 months???

No... it's okay, I don't see the point... Did you also do a Q2,Q3 and Q4 thread?

I believe that the 360 version of GTA 4 is better.

I believe that the 360 version of GTA 4 is better.

PS3_3DO

Wrong thead?

I believe that the 360 version of GTA 4 is better.

Wrong thead?

[QUOTE="PS3_3DO"]

I believe that the 360 version of GTA 4 is better.

Bebi_vegeta

Wrong thead?

Yeah sorry for that outburst but it's true. Higher resolution, Anti-alliasing, better frame-rate. Anyway congrats to the PS3 for having a good year. :D

World of Goo and Braid should be included. bobcheeseball

agreed. They are games are they not? All games count, doesn't matter how you buy them.