[QUOTE="Birdy09"]
But is it fair really? as regaurds to consoles, the generations would be better off suited to the lifespan of each console... not the first one on the market. for instance, the PS2 is still in production, still gets attention, and some decent games, the Gamecube and xbox are as dead as the dodo... just because Microsoft shoved a new console with moderatly better hardware it means the Playsation generation ends aswell?
So... basically the only real winner is the first out the door, because we discredit sales here in favour of librarys... but the PC will FOREVER have the prime advantage, and whatever console releases first? Instead of accuratly asses the progress/growth/success over the individual lifespans to get a real assessment?
Im not saying the games for the 360 in the first year shouldnt be included (although CMON Perfect Dark Zero is a joke of a game).
The system should be based on a yearly taking and summed up.
the absolute of a library from a set date is incredible flawed.
Stevo_the_gamer
Sure. That's not how generations are defined to when they begin. The current generation doesn't begin with the PS2 ending its lifespan, that's just plain silly, indeed. Hell, PS2 and Gamecube were still being brought up in discussion during late 2005 and 2006. It's not like they just "disappeared" when the Xbox 360 arrived. Of course, I don't think you were here when that happened so you wouldn't know. But still, wait ... did you just say "playstation generation"? :?
I'm well aware that it doesnt end with the PS2, I just find the idea that 3 consoles lumped together as a generation based purely on the first released is a flawed concept, "playstation generation"... "Nintendo Generation, "Xbox Generation" , the new generation of hardware from each, instead of just looking at the absolute to determin whats winning and loseing, to instead look at the overall momentum based on games/time passed and other relative statistics.
I mean, the PS2 showed clear dominence throuught the years in all departments, the Xbox360 however only shows a 25-30% library lead (not impressive because its been out 25% longer) and a lesser momentum that its counterparts within the last 2 years....
So, your telling me, if the Xbox720 comes along in a years time (I know, ridiculous) everything that comes out on the still going PS3/Wii is made redundunt? and thier further successes are thrown away? because a console came out first yet again?
Not really, the Dreamcast was out the door first against the PS2 and ended up losing. And I'm sure there are other examples of that, but I don't care enough to look it up. Here -- a la System Wars -- there is no way to determine who's the "winner". Anarchy has the realm by the grasp here, we get the opportunity to debate which system is the best of the bunch however.
Indeed, which is why I wonder why I come here so often :P
Yes, the PC has the best advantage out of every system in every generation. PC generations are hard to define, and hell, practically impossible to define. The easiest way to add them into the SystemWars Tally or metagame is to start the generation when a new console arrives. It may be odd, and incredibly unfair against the other consoles -- but it's the only fair and convenient way to include the PC.
All I see is a double standard. If the Xbox360 can include its games before the competition is even out the door, and can stop counting thier games with its successor despite them still being in game (prime example PS2, having a year still in the game without a succesor) then we mayaswell include the PC as a whole, why the hell not? IT seems to only go by system... thats conveniant for whoever is batting for whatever team.
No, the only one that could be considered "flawed" is in regards to PC. But that's the only fair way to slice it, last generation ended when the Xbox 360 released. That's only fair. Based on a yearly taking? :?
I don't think it's flawed at all for consoles. For PC, it's the only way to fairly slice it.
A yearly taking, based on success and momentum. Its not that hard to figure out, this year had more A games for PC right? didnt stop me being **** bored of the system having nothing really outstanding to play, very little rather.
If the score is subjective, and its quality over quantity, why is quanitity of a bunch of subjective scores the key role when quite clearly most people here (though wont admit it) found the PC had an incredible lack luster dissapointing year despite the spread sheet telling an apperently very different story?
Log in to comment