Playstation 3 Tops Out Metacritic's Annual Game Platform Power Rankings

yeah we know 360 had a bad year....lets move on already :D 2010 looks great :)killa4lyfe

[QUOTE="killa4lyfe"]yeah we know 360 had a bad year....lets move on already :D 2010 looks great :)PSN_Diamond

GTA IV got a 10. That's when I and every other self respecting gamer stopped reading reviews.

GTA IV got a 10. That's when I and every other self respecting gamer stopped reading reviews.

rp108

[QUOTE="PSN_Diamond"][QUOTE="killa4lyfe"]yeah we know 360 had a bad year....lets move on already :D 2010 looks great :)Rob-Belmont

So PC had a higher median score (72.5), the same percentage of good games (43%), and released 78 more games (which equates to 22 more "good" games)... and came in second?

Sure, why not?

[QUOTE="Rob-Belmont"][QUOTE="PSN_Diamond"] looks better for PS3.PSN_Diamond

So PC had a higher median score (72.5), the same percentage of good games (43%), and released 78 more games (which equates to 22 more "good" games)... and came in second?

Sure, why not?

So I guess this confirms that PS3 "Won" 2009?

Developers can't afford to put shovelware on the PS3BattleTurtles

And I wouldn't want it any other way :)

Developers can't afford to put shovelware on the PS3BattleTurtles

Ah... so it IS official, psp is better than the DS? lols to all those psp haters out there, eat that.

And kinda sad on ninty's part, both of their platforms are last place... no love?

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

So PC had a higher median score (72.5), the same percentage of good games (43%), and released 78 more games (which equates to 22 more "good" games)... and came in second?

Sure, why not?

PSN_Diamond

The PS3's 3 more "great" games? I'll ignore the PC standards vs. PS3 standards and state of PC journalism issues simply because it's too much of a slippery slope argument for a site like Metacritic, and simply say I'd rather have the extra 22 ""good" games.

[QUOTE="rp108"]

GTA IV got a 10. That's when I and every other self respecting gamer stopped reading reviews.

Rob-Belmont

[QUOTE="PSN_Diamond"][QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

So PC had a higher median score (72.5), the same percentage of good games (43%), and released 78 more games (which equates to 22 more "good" games)... and came in second?

Sure, why not?

PBSnipes

The PS3's 3 more "great" games? I'll ignore the PC standards vs. PS3 standards and state of PC journalism issues simply because it's too much of a slippery slope argument for a site like Metacritic, and simply say I'd rather have the extra 22 ""good" games.

think you have enough money and time to play em all? well, money is probably not the issue since you can easily pirate.

[QUOTE="BattleTurtles"]Developers can't afford to put shovelware on the PS3alskdjfhg1

Ah... so it IS official, psp is better than the DS? lols to all those psp haters out there, eat that.

And kinda sad on ninty's part, both of their platforms are last place... no love?

wootasifwoot

[QUOTE="alskdjfhg1"][QUOTE="BattleTurtles"] but developers can afford to put shovelware on the wii?BattleTurtles

Ah... so it IS official, psp is better than the DS? lols to all those psp haters out there, eat that.

And kinda sad on ninty's part, both of their platforms are last place... no love?

wootasifwoot

Please show me where you got that info about ps1 and 2 having more shovelware than wii? ps1 and 2 both had A LOT more quality titles than the wii, thanks to excellent 1st, 2nd AND 3rd party support.

As for the psp comment, the less crap the better but I do ackowledge the ds for being a very good handheld :)

think you have enough money and time to play em all? well, money is probably not the issue since you can easily pirate.

wootasifwoot

Oh, the piracy argument. Classy. Because everyone who owns a PC must be a pirate. YYAAARRRRR!!!!!!! :roll:

Besides, why pirate when the games are at least $10 cheaper? I could probably buy the top 20 PC games for more-or-less the same price as the top 10 PS3 games.

[QUOTE="BattleTurtles"][QUOTE="alskdjfhg1"] Wii is much cheaper to develop for and has the bigger userbase. The PS1 and PS2 has a lot of shovelware, the latter having more than the Wii. [QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

Ah... so it IS official, psp is better than the DS? lols to all those psp haters out there, eat that.

And kinda sad on ninty's part, both of their platforms are last place... no love?

wootasifwoot

Please show me where you got that info about ps1 and 2 having more shovelware than wii? ps1 and 2 both had A LOT more quality titles than the wii, thanks to excellent 1st, 2nd AND 3rd party support.

As for the psp comment, the less crap the better but I do ackowledge the ds for being a very good handheld :)

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps2/scores/

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

think you have enough money and time to play em all? well, money is probably not the issue since you can easily pirate.

PBSnipes

Oh, the piracy argument. Classy. Because everyone who owns a PC must be a pirate. YYAAARRRRR!!!!!!! :roll:

Besides, why pirate when the games are at least $10 cheaper? I could probably buy the top 20 PC games for more-or-less the same price as the top 10 PS3 games.

Doubt it but let's say what you say is true, you'd still have to waste around 3x the cash on a rig to play the "top 20 PC games" on. Not to mention a frequent updates for the rig to play all your other coming top pc games. In the end, you lose either way.

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

[QUOTE="BattleTurtles"] Again, the DS has more shovelware which brings the score down. Doesn't mean the PSP has better games, just less crap.BattleTurtles

Please show me where you got that info about ps1 and 2 having more shovelware than wii? ps1 and 2 both had A LOT more quality titles than the wii, thanks to excellent 1st, 2nd AND 3rd party support.

As for the psp comment, the less crap the better but I do ackowledge the ds for being a very good handheld :)

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps2/scores/

I still see more shovelware on wii... not to mention the fact that I see more quality titles than crap titles in the link you provided.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

[QUOTE="PSN_Diamond"] your missing something.wootasifwoot

The PS3's 3 more "great" games? I'll ignore the PC standards vs. PS3 standards and state of PC journalism issues simply because it's too much of a slippery slope argument for a site like Metacritic, and simply say I'd rather have the extra 22 ""good" games.

think you have enough money and time to play em all? well, money is probably not the issue since you can easily pirate.

the same can be said about the ps3... you have time and money to play all of its 'good' to 'great' games?

that has nothing to do with this 'award'...

it makes me question metacritic... how is 3 'great games' better than having 22 'good' games.... thats silly

Doubt it but let's say what you say is true, you'd still have to waste around 3x the cash on a rig to the "top 20 PC games" on. Not to mention a frequent updates for the rig to play all your other coming top pc games. In the end, you lose either way.

wootasifwoot

You're right, I was wrong. I could only buy the top 16 PC games (or 18 of the top 20) for the same price as the top 10 PS3 games.

I can build a from-the-ground-up rig for less than $500 that'll last me for years, and over that time I can more than make up for the less than $200 premium over the PS3 with savings on game prices.

It sure does suck losing. ;)

[QUOTE="BattleTurtles"]

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

Please show me where you got that info about ps1 and 2 having more shovelware than wii? ps1 and 2 both had A LOT more quality titles than the wii, thanks to excellent 1st, 2nd AND 3rd party support.

As for the psp comment, the less crap the better but I do ackowledge the ds for being a very good handheld :)

wootasifwoot

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps2/scores/

I still see more shovelware on wii... not to mention the fact that I see more quality titles than crap titles in the link you provided.

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

The PS3's 3 more "great" games? I'll ignore the PC standards vs. PS3 standards and state of PC journalism issues simply because it's too much of a slippery slope argument for a site like Metacritic, and simply say I'd rather have the extra 22 ""good" games.

ogvampire

think you have enough money and time to play em all? well, money is probably not the issue since you can easily pirate.

the same can be said about the ps3... you have time and money to play all of its 'good' to 'great' games?

that has nothing to do with this 'award'...

it makes me question metacritic... how is 3 'great games' better than having 22 'good' games.... thats silly

Well, you just answered your own question... I don't have enough time and money which is why I'd go for the 3 GREAT games instead of 22 GOOD ones... or any other great game that I haven't already bought.

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

[QUOTE="BattleTurtles"]

http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps2/scores/

BattleTurtles

I still see more shovelware on wii... not to mention the fact that I see more quality titles than crap titles in the link you provided.

I... believe I did, I still see more quality games.

Lol... Wii had 362 releases this year?!? That's a lota shovelling.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

think you have enough money and time to play em all? well, money is probably not the issue since you can easily pirate.

wootasifwoot

the same can be said about the ps3... you have time and money to play all of its 'good' to 'great' games?

that has nothing to do with this 'award'...

it makes me question metacritic... how is 3 'great games' better than having 22 'good' games.... thats silly

Well, you just answered your own question... I don't have enough time and money which is why I'd go for the 3 GREAT games instead of 22 GOOD ones... or any other great game that I haven't already bought.

except that real world practicality has NOTHING to do with 'best of...' lists :roll:

That a saucer full of " got Milk " :P

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

the same can be said about the ps3... you have time and money to play all of its 'good' to 'great' games?

that has nothing to do with this 'award'...

it makes me question metacritic... how is 3 'great games' better than having 22 'good' games.... thats silly

ogvampire

Well, you just answered your own question... I don't have enough time and money which is why I'd go for the 3 GREAT games instead of 22 GOOD ones... or any other great game that I haven't already bought.

except that real world practicality has NOTHING to do with 'best of...' lists :roll:

Oh? then why do critiques exist? How do you inform an uninformed buyer? Through reviews, so yes, "best of..." lists to exist beyond the boundaries of the internet and system wars. Hell, look at what spike is doing with their VGAs (broadcasting in... over 200 countries or something?)

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

Well, you just answered your own question... I don't have enough time and money which is why I'd go for the 3 GREAT games instead of 22 GOOD ones... or any other great game that I haven't already bought.

wootasifwoot

except that real world practicality has NOTHING to do with 'best of...' lists :roll:

Oh? then why do critiques exist? How do you inform an uninformed buyer? Through reviews, so yes, "best of..." lists to exist beyond the boundaries of the internet and system wars. Hell, look at what spike is doing with their VGAs (broadcasting in... over 200 countries or something?)

what the heck are you talking about? thats not what i meant by 'real world practicality'.... think about it

you said that 3 'best' games is better than 22 'good' games cause you wont have the time or money to play those 22 'good' games

when they make a list like this, money and time is not a consideration... so HOW is having 3 'great' games better than having 22 'good' games?

also, a 'great' game may not be that much better than a 'good' game. to MC, a game can score a 89 and be considered 'good', while a game can score a 90 and be considered 'great'... the difference is negligable but 1 is considered of higher quality.... thats silly

[QUOTE="PSN_Diamond"][QUOTE="killa4lyfe"]yeah we know 360 had a bad year....lets move on already :D 2010 looks great :)Rob-Belmont

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

except that real world practicality has NOTHING to do with 'best of...' lists :roll:

ogvampire

Oh? then why do critiques exist? How do you inform an uninformed buyer? Through reviews, so yes, "best of..." lists to exist beyond the boundaries of the internet and system wars. Hell, look at what spike is doing with their VGAs (broadcasting in... over 200 countries or something?)

what the heck are you talking about? thats not what i meant by 'real world practicality'.... think about it

you said that 3 'best' games is better than 22 'good' games cause you wont have the time or money to play those 22 'good' games

when they make a list like this, money and time is not a consideration... so HOW is having 3 'great' games better than having 22 'good' games?

also, a 'great' game may not be that much better than a 'good' game. to MC, a game can score a 89 and be considered 'good', while a game can score a 90 and be considered 'great'... the difference is negligable but 1 is considered of higher quality.... thats silly

How is it not a consideration? you wanna get the best bang for your buck and wanna spend time with a quality product, which one are you gonna choose to spend time and money on? Review sites exist for that exact reason, to guide the uninformed user.

As far as the rankings at metacritic are concerned, that 1% difference can make a whole lot of difference, it can easily determine a purchase. Incase viewers are not willing to read all the reviews, they just look at individual scores and the tag next to the number indicating it's rank in letters. So... yea, it may seem silly but it makes a huge difference.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

Oh? then why do critiques exist? How do you inform an uninformed buyer? Through reviews, so yes, "best of..." lists to exist beyond the boundaries of the internet and system wars. Hell, look at what spike is doing with their VGAs (broadcasting in... over 200 countries or something?)

wootasifwoot

what the heck are you talking about? thats not what i meant by 'real world practicality'.... think about it

you said that 3 'best' games is better than 22 'good' games cause you wont have the time or money to play those 22 'good' games

when they make a list like this, money and time is not a consideration... so HOW is having 3 'great' games better than having 22 'good' games?

also, a 'great' game may not be that much better than a 'good' game. to MC, a game can score a 89 and be considered 'good', while a game can score a 90 and be considered 'great'... the difference is negligable but 1 is considered of higher quality.... thats silly

How is it not a consideration? you wanna get the best bang for your buck and wanna spend time with a quality product, which one are you gonna choose to spend time and money on? Review sites exist for that exact reason, to guide the uninformed user.

reviews... yes. 'best of lists'... no

i dont know how else to explain it... youre just not getting it

As far as the rankings at metacritic are concerned, that 1% difference can make a whole lot of difference, it can easily determine a purchase. Incase viewers are not willing to read all the reviews, they just look at individual scores and the tag next to the number indicating it's rank in letters. So... yea, it may seem silly but it makes a huge difference.

no it cant. you are just saying that to help your argument. a 1% difference means nothing in terms of opinions....

but hey, i will use your logic against you... since any percentage difference can mean something according to you, notice how the PC has the highest average. PC... best bang for you buck, confirmed

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

what the heck are you talking about? thats not what i meant by 'real world practicality'.... think about it

you said that 3 'best' games is better than 22 'good' games cause you wont have the time or money to play those 22 'good' games

when they make a list like this, money and time is not a consideration... so HOW is having 3 'great' games better than having 22 'good' games?

also, a 'great' game may not be that much better than a 'good' game. to MC, a game can score a 89 and be considered 'good', while a game can score a 90 and be considered 'great'... the difference is negligable but 1 is considered of higher quality.... thats silly

ogvampire

How is it not a consideration? you wanna get the best bang for your buck and wanna spend time with a quality product, which one are you gonna choose to spend time and money on? Review sites exist for that exact reason, to guide the uninformed user.

if thats true, then why didnt they just count the top 20 games... not the entire library? do they expect people to play 228 games in a year? :| do you actually listen to this 'logic' of yours?

As far as the rankings at metacritic are concerned, that 1% difference can make a whole lot of difference, it can easily determine a purchase. Incase viewers are not willing to read all the reviews, they just look at individual scores and the tag next to the number indicating it's rank in letters. So... yea, it may seem silly but it makes a huge difference.

no it cant. you are just saying that to help your argument. a 1% difference means nothing in terms of opinions....

but hey, i will use your logic against you... since any percentage difference can mean something according to you, notice how the PC has the highest average. PC... best bang for you buck, confirmed

Ok, what I said was in response to PBSnipes post, so I don't know what you are on about now. You are completely changing your agrument cause as I recall, you said how would this be relevant in the real world. Question is, how would it not? they wanna buy a system which has the best variety of games (according to metacritic), so their ofvious choice would be ps3.

As for the best bang for your buck, look again, ps3 is leading in the amount of high quality games (which is why it is actually ranked higher) so... Ps3... confirmed.

As far as counting in the 20 good games and the crap games and stuff is concerned, well, that's just to egnite the fanboy wars. For people who visit the site for legitimate decisions would look into that and make their decision based off of the results.

[QUOTE="PSN_Diamond"]Sony's Playstation 3 has beaten out all competition to take Metacritics first annual "Game Platform Power Rankings". The chart uses Metacritic's powerful critic aggregating tool to find the platform with the strongest games lineup over the past 12 months. With five of the top ten over all games, Playstation 3 games managed a median Metascore of 72.0%, with just 7% of games on the platform scoring "badly." For comparison, the XBOX 360 (in third-place behind the PC) managed a median Metascore of 70.0, with 11% of those games scoring badly. It's worth noting that over the period of the last 12 months, the XBOX 360 had 51 more games released than the PS3, however only 7 of them scored "Great", while 10 of the Playstation 3's games achieved the accolade. http://www.pushsquare.com/9358/playstation-3-tops-out-metacritics-annual-game-platform-power-rankings/dommeus

yes sir, ps3 is ranked 1, then pc, then 360, then psp, then ds and lastly wii.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

How is it not a consideration? you wanna get the best bang for your buck and wanna spend time with a quality product, which one are you gonna choose to spend time and money on? Review sites exist for that exact reason, to guide the uninformed user.

if thats true, then why didnt they just count the top 20 games... not the entire library? do they expect people to play 228 games in a year? :| do you actually listen to this 'logic' of yours?

As far as the rankings at metacritic are concerned, that 1% difference can make a whole lot of difference, it can easily determine a purchase. Incase viewers are not willing to read all the reviews, they just look at individual scores and the tag next to the number indicating it's rank in letters. So... yea, it may seem silly but it makes a huge difference.

no it cant. you are just saying that to help your argument. a 1% difference means nothing in terms of opinions....

but hey, i will use your logic against you... since any percentage difference can mean something according to you, notice how the PC has the highest average. PC... best bang for you buck, confirmed

wootasifwoot

Ok, what I said was in response to PBSnipes post, so I don't know what you are on about now. You are completely changing your agrument cause as I recall, you said how would this be relevant in the real world. Question is, how would it not? they wanna buy a system which has the best variety of games (according to metacritic), so their ofvious choice would be ps3.

PC has the SAME percentage of good games, but on a 2009 library of 70 MORE games than the ps3 AND has a higher per game average....

so if you want the system with that you will most likely be pleased with, PC is the way to go.

As for the best bang for your buck, look again, ps3 is leading in the amount of high quality games (which is why it is actually ranked higher) so... Ps3... confirmed.

read above

As far as counting in the 20 good games and the crap games and stuff is concerned, well, that's just to egnite the fanboy wars. For people who visit the site for legitimate decisions would look into that and make their decision based off of the results.

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

ogvampire

Ok, what I said was in response to PBSnipes post, so I don't know what you are on about now. You are completely changing your agrument cause as I recall, you said how would this be relevant in the real world. Question is, how would it not? they wanna buy a system which has the best variety of games (according to metacritic), so their ofvious choice would be ps3.

PC has the SAME percentage of good games, but on a 2009 library of 70 MORE games than the ps3 AND has a higher per game average....

so if you want the system with that you will most likely be pleased with, PC is the way to go.

As for the best bang for your buck, look again, ps3 is leading in the amount of high quality games (which is why it is actually ranked higher) so... Ps3... confirmed.

read above

As far as counting in the 20 good games and the crap games and stuff is concerned, well, that's just to egnite the fanboy wars. For people who visit the site for legitimate decisions would look into that and make their decision based off of the results.

Yes but look again under "great" games. Judging from good and great, ps3 (according to metacritic) is the best bang for you buck. Anyways, I'm just gonna stop here, I should be studying, sorry man.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

Ok, what I said was in response to PBSnipes post, so I don't know what you are on about now. You are completely changing your agrument cause as I recall, you said how would this be relevant in the real world. Question is, how would it not? they wanna buy a system which has the best variety of games (according to metacritic), so their ofvious choice would be ps3.

PC has the SAME percentage of good games, but on a 2009 library of 70 MORE games than the ps3 AND has a higher per game average....

so if you want the system with that you will most likely be pleased with, PC is the way to go.

As for the best bang for your buck, look again, ps3 is leading in the amount of high quality games (which is why it is actually ranked higher) so... Ps3... confirmed.

read above

As far as counting in the 20 good games and the crap games and stuff is concerned, well, that's just to egnite the fanboy wars. For people who visit the site for legitimate decisions would look into that and make their decision based off of the results.

wootasifwoot

Yes but look again under "great" games. Judging from good and great, ps3 (according to metacritic) is the best bang for you buck. Anyways, I'm just gonna stop here, I should be studying, sorry man.

actually, i just checked it again.

MC counts God of War collection as a 'Great' game.... its not a new game. so its really only 2 'great' games more than the PC

how are 2 'great' games better than having 22 'good' games? having 1 'great' game is not better than having 11 'good' games.... thats ridiculous

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

[QUOTE="PSN_Diamond"] your missing something.wootasifwoot

The PS3's 3 more "great" games? I'll ignore the PC standards vs. PS3 standards and state of PC journalism issues simply because it's too much of a slippery slope argument for a site like Metacritic, and simply say I'd rather have the extra 22 ""good" games.

think you have enough money and time to play em all? well, money is probably not the issue since you can easily pirate.