So it's been about six months since the PS3 and Wii launched

[QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. Hoffgod

Quality games aren't always AAA.

Once again, we get to subjectivity, which this whole thread seems to ignore. 

I haven't played Sonic, but I have played some games that I consider quality titles as well.  And they didn't make AAA.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="Chris-Hansen"]its not only the scores but the news coverage, stories, articles, comparisons, etc.Chris-Hansen

again, it's people not seeing what they wanted to see. when resistance was reviewed, there was massive backlash calling gamespot biased and a lot of ps3 die hards left or threatened to leave. you know what?...it wasn't AAA at gamerankings either. these are the kinds of people calling gamespot microspot. if they'd open their eyes they'd see how ridiculous their claims actually are.

you don't need to point those out to me. i know. let's take a look at what we have here, though. hmm. a website sometimes does something that favors a microsoft system and sometimes does something that doesn't favor them. !!!!!!!!! they must clearly be biased! let's call gamespot microspot!

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. -The-G-Man-

Quality games aren't always AAA.

i don't recall saying they were. :?

[QUOTE="Chris-Hansen"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="Chris-Hansen"]its not only the scores but the news coverage, stories, articles, comparisons, etc.CaseyWegner

again, it's people not seeing what they wanted to see. when resistance was reviewed, there was massive backlash calling gamespot biased and a lot of ps3 die hards left or threatened to leave. you know what?...it wasn't AAA at gamerankings either. these are the kinds of people calling gamespot microspot. if they'd open their eyes they'd see how ridiculous their claims actually are.

you don't need to point those out to me. i know. let's take a look at what we have here, though. hmm. a website sometimes does something that favors a microsoft system and sometimes does something that doesn't favor them. !!!!!!!!! they must clearly be biased! let's call gamespot microspot!

[QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. CaseyWegner

Quality games aren't always AAA.

i don't recall saying they were. :?

You didn't.  But there are plenty of high quality games out right now that don't seem to be counted simply because they aren't AAA.

[QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. Hoffgod

Quality games aren't always AAA.

Once again, we get to subjectivity, which this whole thread seems to ignore. 

subjectivity is ignored on purpose so that the chosen standard can be used.

[QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. CaseyWegner

Quality games aren't always AAA.

i don't recall saying they were. :?

Ah.  Then the idea that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out was a hypothetical one.  No wonder it sounds ridiculous. 

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="Chris-Hansen"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="Chris-Hansen"]its not only the scores but the news coverage, stories, articles, comparisons, etc.Chris-Hansen

again, it's people not seeing what they wanted to see. when resistance was reviewed, there was massive backlash calling gamespot biased and a lot of ps3 die hards left or threatened to leave. you know what?...it wasn't AAA at gamerankings either. these are the kinds of people calling gamespot microspot. if they'd open their eyes they'd see how ridiculous their claims actually are.

you don't need to point those out to me. i know. let's take a look at what we have here, though. hmm. a website sometimes does something that favors a microsoft system and sometimes does something that doesn't favor them. !!!!!!!!! they must clearly be biased! let's call gamespot microspot!

no. i read it.

your post was deleted because your quote chain had more than five quotes in it. there's a rule about that in the stickied rule thread.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. Iyethar

Quality games aren't always AAA.

i don't recall saying they were. :?

Ah.  Then the idea that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out was a hypothetical one.  No wonder it sounds ridiculous. 

no. :|

please read what i said and not what you'd like me to have said so that you can make your point.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. CaseyWegner

why does it matter that i don't have a current gen system?

You feel like perfect games should start coming out immediately?  That's just not how it works (for any system).  Dreamcast was a bit of an anomaly.  And it certainly didn't help it in the end, did it? 

[QUOTE="Iyethar"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. CaseyWegner

Quality games aren't always AAA.

i don't recall saying they were. :?

Ah. Then the idea that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out was a hypothetical one. No wonder it sounds ridiculous.

no. :|

please read what i said and not what you'd like me to have said so that you can make your point.

I'm just going by what you literally said. 

I'm just going by what you literally said. 

Iyethar

what i've literally said has always included AA games.

[QUOTE="Iyethar"]

I'm just going by what you literally said.

CaseyWegner

what i've literally said has always included AA games.

Hmm.

it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. CaseyWegner

Either you're conflating game scores and quality, or you're not talking about scores in that statement.

Which is it? 

[QUOTE="Iyethar"]

I'm just going by what you literally said.

CaseyWegner

what i've literally said has always included AA games.

[QUOTE="Chris-Hansen"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]you don't need to point those out to me. i know. let's take a look at what we have here, though. hmm. a website sometimes does something that favors a microsoft system and sometimes does something that doesn't favor them. !!!!!!!!! they must clearly be biased! let's call gamespot microspot!

CaseyWegner

no. i read it.

your post was deleted because your quote chain had more than five quotes in it. there's a rule about that in the stickied rule thread.

What I hate about that rebuttal is that the 360 will ALWAYS be a year older, so that whole statement is pretty much moot.Verge_6

True, but we not asking to wait a year because Xbox is a year old. We asking to wait a year because like past systems that's the time great games come out. i.e. Gear of War, MGS2, Zelda:OOT, Final Fantasy, GTA, Resident Evil...

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="Iyethar"]

I'm just going by what you literally said.

Iyethar

what i've literally said has always included AA games.

Hmm.

it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. CaseyWegner

Either you're conflating game scores and quality, or you're not talking about scores in that statement.

Which is it?

AA is not high quality?
pins_basic

!(AA) is not !(highquality). 

when are we going to stop hearing that we should give them time since they just launched? it's been six months. that sounds like plenty of time to me. :?CaseyWegner

Do to the fact that developers got their final Dev Kits, you usually give them at least 1yr to produce some solid games. That's plenty of time since they should have been already working on the games 6-12 months prior to the system being launched. There usually isn't much for the 1st 6 months. 7-18 months is when the goods usually get delivered. The 360 didn't have a lot of titles either, but I thought what they did have was a better lineup for the 1st 6 months. The amount of Wii titles are lacking as well, but what's there isn't bad. By fall we should definitely see some solid titles.

[QUOTE="pins_basic"]

AA is not high quality?
Iyethar

!(AA) is not !(highquality).

[QUOTE="Iyethar"][QUOTE="pins_basic"]

AA is not high quality?
pins_basic

!(AA) is not !(highquality).

Yes.  It is completely possible for GameSpot to review a game that I and many others will subjectively value as being of high quality below 8.0. 

[QUOTE="ironcreed"]

This thread is nothing but a damage control, open invite to bring in the PS3 bashers because over the past couple of days people have been talking about how impressed they were with Sony's gamers day, and have expressed how excited that they were for the upcoming releases that the PS3 has coming out over the course of the next few months....which LOOK FANTASTIC. The TC, being a MOD obviously knows that these games are getting ready to come out as well....and that is actually what I find to be the most humorous thing about this entire topic.:P

I also find it rather hilarious that everytime someone brings up how subpar the 360's first 6 months were as a comparison, everyone is quick to jump on the defensive by spouting off how, "well that was then, and the PS3 should be compared to the 360 now", lol. I really like this one as well, "no, you cannot use Resistance as a worthy title...it does not count".:lol: As if the 360's LACK LUSTER first six months and YEAR HEADSTART are not relevant to the fact that the PS3 has only been out for 6 months, lol. Sounds real fair, and logical there guys.:lol:

No matter though. After the games like Sigma, Lair, Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Killzone 2, ect start dropping over the course of the next few months, there are not going to be anymore "there are no games" excuses to use in order to try and make yourself feel superior and justified in your hate of the PS3 for whatever ridiculous reasons, lol. But, I guess you can just go ahead and keep trying to ignore the fact of the existence of these impending releases if it really makes you feel better, lol. 

CaseyWegner

actually, this was a spur of the moment thread and had nothing to do with the sony conference considering i mentioned the wii as well. nice that you ignored that. :)

what i find more hilarious than what you find hilarious is that it's the cows saying that you can't compare the 360's first 6 months with the ps3...not the lemmings. the 360 had a good first six months. :)

The 360 had a good first 6 months? Not everyone would agree....especially with the faulty hardware issues that STILL are not resolved.:) Great games on a shoddy, part time system. I love the 360, but that is WAY more of a reason to gripe at a company than the PS3's price and lack of games for the first 6 months, lol. At least it is an excellent AND RELIABLE piece of equipment, and features aside, the RELIABILITY of the system alone will more than justify the price to me as a long term investment, and the games will of course be there.;)   

Anyway, I have a 360, as well as a PS3, both of which I love. But I just do not think that the PS3 has been given a fair shake....period, and that is why I defend it. Not saying that you were bashing, but the bashing in general has taken on a life of it's own, and is WAY on overkill. I mean come on, lol. Even though some VERY impressive games are right around the corner, we are still hearing slanted remarks like, "why are they not out now?" Well, why was Gears of War not a launch title? See, it goes both ways, man, but everyone ignores what Microsoft did or did not do that was negative, and EVERY little promising bit of news that comes out for the PS3 is automatically shot down in flames for no other reasons than hateful FANBOYISM.

I tell you what, if the PS3 was a year old already, and only had the games out for it that are out now, I would be complaining too, as a majorly disgruntled owner, lol. But the fact of the matter is, it is only 6 months old, and some SUPERB looking games are right around the corner, and everyone knows this full well. So why can they not just give credit where credit is due even if these games or a PS3 does not particularly appeal to them? Is that really so hard? 

[QUOTE="pins_basic"][QUOTE="Iyethar"][QUOTE="pins_basic"]

AA is not high quality?
Iyethar

!(AA) is not !(highquality).

Yes. It is completely possible for GameSpot to review a game that I and many others will subjectively value as being of high quality below 8.0.

*sigh* 

its plenty of time easily considering games would have been getting made while the constant delays were happeing and even before the console was even due to launch..

these games that have been announced should be out by now...

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="Iyethar"]

I'm just going by what you literally said.

Jandurin

what i've literally said has always included AA games.

i think it's reasonable enough to say that a high quality game should end up scoring somewhere in that range. 

[QUOTE="Iyethar"]

Yes. It is completely possible for GameSpot to review a game that I and many others will subjectively value as being of high quality below 8.0.

CaseyWegner

*sigh*

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]

So... are you actually saying that only AA or AAA or AAAA are "quality games"?
CaseyWegner

i think it's reasonable enough to say that a high quality game should end up scoring somewhere in that range.

you couldve cut it down and resonded to it though. i can see this debate has becaome less than productive and in fact can be equated to running around a pit in circles half drunk, so im just not gonna participate anymore...Chris-Hansen

i'm not doing your work for you. :) 

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="Iyethar"]

Yes. It is completely possible for GameSpot to review a game that I and many others will subjectively value as being of high quality below 8.0.

Jandurin

*sigh*

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]

So... are you actually saying that only AA or AAA or AAAA are "quality games"?
CaseyWegner

i think it's reasonable enough to say that a high quality game should end up scoring somewhere in that range.

the score is subjective but using it or not is not subjective.

it's a comprimise.

it's a compromise.

CaseyWegner

But, your initial post was about quality, which has nothing to do with scores, imo.  Or, is not necessarily reflected in scores. They are related, but not absolutely.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]Plenty of time to do what?CaseyWegner

a common complaint is the lack of "good" games. how long should we have to wait?

*sigh*

CaseyWegner

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say, if that's the case.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]So... are you actually saying that only AA or AAA or AAAA are "quality games"?CaseyWegner

i think it's reasonable enough to say that a high quality game should end up scoring somewhere in that range.

Is this a definition of the term 'high quality game' as 'game which scores > 7.9 on GameSpot'?

it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. CaseyWegner

If yes, are you saying, "it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for games which will score > 7.9 on GameSpot to come out"?

Because that doesn't make much sense to me.  You started this topic with a question:

when are we going to stop hearing that we should give them time since they just launched? it's been six months. that sounds like plenty of time to me. :?CaseyWegner

And all I can say is that you'll hear less people making these excuses for them when they feel that the libraries are more complete and they can talk about games they like.  Even in System Wars this will be more a factor of people's subjective personal experiences than of GameSpot review scores.

Check this out. Its very interesting. The Wii has outsold the behemoth known as the PS2 in its first 6 months. :o Carmilla31

AW! I was going to post that. :cry: 

[QUOTE="Silvereign"][QUOTE="masterdeviance"]

Within 6 months, a console ought to at least have one killer app. I can count two for the Wii: Wii sports and LOZ:TP.

I can't count a single one for PS3 though...(and no, Resistance doesn't count, sorry)

jg4xchamp

Killer app has to have AAA status. We go by gamespot scores. The PS3 has 1 AAA and so does wii. Different is Wii's has an AAA overrated exclusive and the PS3 has a AAA year old mulitplat.

You could say the samething about Resistance.  

At the same time last year, the 360 had 3 AAA games and the Ps3 and the Wii only have one a piece. I really don't see where the 'time' excuse comes into play because even a year ago the 360 still had a better library than either systems do now.

But then again, none of the other 2 consoles really need great games like the 360 does. The Wii is such a nice system and so popular that it will never need games to come in first sales wise and the Ps3 is going to come in dead last no matter what games come out for it.

[QUOTE="Hoffgod"][QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]it sounds ridiculous that we should have to wait a year for high quality games to come out. CaseyWegner

Quality games aren't always AAA.

Once again, we get to subjectivity, which this whole thread seems to ignore. 

subjectivity is ignored on purpose so that the chosen standard can be used.

I don't know about you, but I find the whole idea of trying to establish a "standard for quality" rediculous. After all, what's quality to you isn't necessarily quality to me. And trying to work a compromise of personal opinions is laughable.

The only reason at all for trying to establish a "standard for quality" is to facilitate a fanboy pissing contest to see who can claim the most "ownage". Don't get me wrong, SW needs some rules, like rules as to defining a "flop". But defining that a game must be at least AA to be a quality game? Unbelievable.

SW has some intelligent conversation left in it, and attempts to further replace thoughtful discussion with arbitrary rules undermines that. And trying to establish a "standard for quality"? That's an arbitrary rule. It's not needed.