Nope. Look again at the graph you showed me:
Notice how the PS3 blue bar is higher the the 360's blue bar? Notice how the PS3's red bar is ALSO higher than the 360's red bar? That means that as a percent of the total library, the PS3 has more good games and more bad games than the 360.
So getting back to what you said earlier, and to which I responded by pointing all this out, you said as a way of explanation for why the PS3 does better:"the PS3 has had more good games then the 360 the theory is still applied in % scores the less popular console gets the better results." But as you see, it also has more bad games than the 360 (% of total), so your explanation fails. ;)clicketyclick
how does it fail? backed up by the other charts i gave you it clearly shows how the PS3 has a better overall % score then the 360 so it's obvious that the influx of good games is more then enough to counter the influx of bad games By the way, I find it amusing that you are still debating whether the PS3 has the better quality library when, to rebut me, you presented this chart entitled "Quality of Games" that very visibly shows the PS3 as having best quality of all systems still in production!clicketyclick
Yes the problem it's an average, this is why averages are deceiving, if we use averages then a system with only one game that recieved an aclaim of 90% is the best system in the world because the average of it's library is 90% you see where this fails? Yes the PS3 has more then one game, but also the 360 has more games then the PS3 and more often than not has more choice per genre then the PS3 with games that scored higher and lower then that of the PS3 THIS is why averages fail.
You are ignoring facts. I decisively disproved your explanation that the most popular console will have the most crap games (as % of total) and will inevitably have the lower overall average. How did I disprove this, you want to know? I showed that the PS2, despite being way MORE popular than the 360, has FEWER bad games (as % of total) than the 360. I also showed that the PS3, despite being way LESS popular than the 360, has MORE bad games (as % of total) than the 360. In order to be logical, you must abandon your hypothesis because it has been disproved as a universal law - it doesn't work in all cases. If you tell me all sheep are white and I find you two black sheep, you must abandon your conviction that all sheep are white. I hope you understand what I'm saying.clicketyclick
Despite the PS3 having more bad games then the 360 it's average is still higher then that of the 360 so my point still stands.
as for your 360 vs PS2 comparison i believe you are interpreting them wrongly, you need to interpret the 1º, 2º and 3º place of each generation, backed up by my previous graphic the Wii has Half the quality of the PS2 (comparing first place to first place)
the 360 has a lower average then original xbox (second place to second place)
the PS3 however counters this theory so far yes, however you need to remember that this graph contains the entire library of the past generation and only the first 3 years of this generation (and only the first two years of the PS3) i believe it is more likely that the PS3's average will go down as the time progresses
Now, please scroll up to look at the "Quality of Games" chart in this post. You'll see very quickly why the Wii has a low average. The red bar (bad games) is HIGHER than the blue bar (good games). As the Kotaku article you provided me correctly suggests, the Wii's low overall average is due to "the impact of shovelware and how the Wii is short on AAA titles". Impact of shovelware is shown by the sky-high red bar that overwhelms the blue bar (indicative that the Wii has copious amounts of shovelware!) and the lack of AAA titles is shown by the dwarfed blue bar. Again, blue represents good games (80% and above) and red represents bad games (50% and below). Using the same chart, compare the Wii with the 360. Do you see how they are in entirely different situations? The Wii suffers from a high level of bad games, but this is not true for the 360. THE 360 HAS THE LOWEST NUMBER OF BAD GAMES (% of total) OF ALL GAME SYSTEMS IN PRODUCTION. Do you see how your hypothesis that "the same applies to the Wii and the 360 and the PS3" is not true? The Wii and the 360 have lower averages than the PS3, but NOT FOR THE SAME REASONS. There is NO TREND.clicketyclick
exactly last generation the PS2 was the console which received the most shovelware now it's the PS2, and in only two years the Wii was able to attain a lower overall quality of games then that of the PS2, which further along with the 360 to xbox comparison further reinforces my point that with each passing generation this will happen at a quicker pace
Very true, but you are again bonking me over the head with the message that the 360 has a greater QUANTITY of good games. True! I agree! QUANTITY is where the 360 wins! But all this time I have been trying to communicate to you the difference between quantity and quality. Quantity is always measured by, as you put it, "real numbers". Quality is always measured in averages and as a percent of total. You yourself provided a graph entitled "Quality of games", which you presented as a measure of quality, and you'll notice that your graph's units are: # of games with a specific average score as a percent of total. In this respect, as you have unwittingly helped demonstrate, the PS3 wins.
clicketyclickthis is what i am trying to say, averages are meaningless, it is proven that the 360 has more racing games, more racing games, more racing games with higher scores (no racing game on the PS3 has received a higher score then Forza 2 for the 360) the 360 also has more racing games then PS3 with both higher and lower scores (if i'm not mistaken no exclusive racing game on the PS3 has had better scores then PGR 3 as well)
but due to the racing games not found on the PS3 that actually have a better score you will see it's average drop, does that mean that the PS3 is a better console for racing games?
would you prefer a console with 2 racing games both scored in the 70% or a console with 50 racing games whose scores vary between 20% and 90% but as an average it says in the 60%?
now do you see why averages fail?
Log in to comment