Well, the reason I ask you to as I honeslty think that you are so singular in thought that it escapes you as a possibility to consider anything outside the construct you have either been told, or by your own constructed line of thinking. The nature of this discussion would be between a 360 and a PS3, console platforms. In that context, can you articulate the difference, and if so, explain how Gears would not be an exclusive if one was only looking at a console. I defined the PC right out on these particular games as they are exclusive MS lincensed games not available to the PS3. Its that simple. You wish to carve those exclusive relationships out, which is a bit silly, given the relationship that MS enjoys in the first place. But again, you answered nothing. Once more....if we are looking at JUST the PS3 and Xbox 360, if we are a new gamer and we aren't going to look to playing games on the PC...we only want a console, then how is that not exclusive? Please not system wars again....lol
lol..I predicted you would say that..."Its System War Rules". Never saw that coming. Again, other than that gem, can you articulate the actual differences, and we don't need to go into sales numbers or anything like that, but simply articulate the decision for a gamer, if they were going to buy a console, not a PC to play games on, but a console, how Gears is not exclusive to the 360 over the PS3? Just take a stab at that... will it go beyond "system war rules because some mod told me so". Show us some depth
Lundy....did you even read what you posted? Pull it together mate. Gears isn't multiplatform on console, never was. The original was made available later on...wait for it.... Microsoft windows. Now, who makes that again? Anyone? Comparing the console, its not a PS3 title. Your only defense to the relationship between MS Windows, their PC holdings and interests, and that of the 360 is "rules of System Wars". Sure, if I had nothing else, perhaps I would throw that out there as.... well, no I wouldn't, that's just a foolish argument. I would have no problem arguing why your reliance on the "mods said so" definition is skewed as well, but my guess is you will respond with "this is system wars" which has such depth that its difficult for me to fully appriciate such grand arguments. Again, this thread is a PS3 vs Xbox 360 exclusive comparison, which is why we don't see a bunch of PC exclusives as a third comparison, nor do we see Wii for that matter. Because that wasn't the original viewpoint...it was simply 360 vs PS3, and MS products that appear on their windows platform and are only available to the 360 are in fact exclusive when looking at the PS3 console. Its Microsoft Windows, its the same Company. This is why Epic's recent remarks about its exclusive nature aren't questioned. You don't question any of that, all you argue is that MS allowances of game licenses into their primary market as well as the 360 negates their "first party exclusive relationship", even though they clearly see that, as does anyone else that has some sort of real world vision of business, as a win-win. Again, if you are looking to buy a console....not a PC, a console (do we need to now define that as well, or did the mods do that for you also?)...then the comparision is what it is. If you are just focused on games, and from the look of your efforts here I would say that is clearly the case, its Killzone vs Gears, Halo vs Uncharted, etc. All quality games, all exclusive to one console over the other.
Its PS3 vs Xbox 360...that is the discussion in this thread. You want to make arguments in other threads that enter into the discusion, fine, although based on the sound argumentation that I have seen so far from you, especially the "they said so" gem, I would have no problem addressing why that's incorrect as well. Regardless, in the relationship between the PS3 and the 360, you simply can't play Gears, nor can you play Mass Effect. Ironic and perhaps most comical about all of this is Sony fan, in some last grasp effort to show how titles are not exclusive to Microsoft's Xbox 360, use Microsoft Windows as their defense. Again, you want to complain about the 360 while spending dollars to play MS licensed products on the PC....by all means, microsoft would love nothing more. They get the 360 users and capture some Sony fans who play the same MS licensed game... and in return you get to complain on a message board how "Sony beats Microsoft's 360 on exclusive titles". So yes, as a hypothetical, if Alan Wake 2 for example, or this new Crytek game are exclusive licensed products under a MS agreement, but are also made available thru MS windows, you would carve that out as not exclusive to the 360. Its exclusive to MS, and exclusive to the only one game console. You use that as a means to carve out numbers. You knock yourself out with that. Ms will take the money, you can have a pow-wow with some board people about what "exclusive" really means. Classic
And no, it's not system wars so you can exapand the argument, it's exclusvies, PS3 v 360. Don't reinvent the original title of this thread because you want to carve out a host of games that MS has simply because you want a better count. No one discussed PC games here in this thread until you decided to argue Gears wasn't a 360 exclusive.
Oh, the mods and adms say so....lol. Well then. Before you just accept that, why not step back and think for just a moment. You exclude a number of games from the 360 library based on some half-assed criteria that Microsoft, with its tremendous investment with Windows and subsequently the PC market, can't count exclusive games not available on any other console because of their overall position as a Company? No wonder Microsoft and for that matter the business people of the world roll their eyes at these sites. If this is the level of thinking, Good Lord..... Other than "they said so", how in any way shape or form can a PS3 owner play Gears of Wars, an exclusive title paid to Epic by Microsoft? Oh wait, if said PS3 owner decides to buy a solid computer and partake in the MS windows game on a PC, it's no longer exclusive to MS. I suppose then that this entire discussion with people like Pachter and the executives with Epic discussing their exclusive nature, and perhaps removing it (they own the IP) in the future to bring Gears to PS is pointless because, well, Sony PS fans can play Gears on the PC. As much as these people would love to run with the "hey, these mods on gamespot said..." line of arguments, my guess is that they look at this a bit differently, as does MS. The very nature of the company is to support its PC based investments with the 360, which is why you see some games linked as exclusives to MS, but also on the PC. Its to their benefit, its their business model, and a good one at that. If you want to thump your chest on perhaps one of the worst definitions of exclusivity out there, then purchase products licensed by MS to play on a PC....well, MS has no problem with that. Sony makes the same argument when pushing blu-ray capabilities, as its not available on the 360. It's not "exclusive" as you can buy a separate blu-ray player, but that's not their console argument, as when compared straight up to the 360, its an obvious advantage. "They said so"....wow, come strong big fella.
@lundy, I would disagree, as this is an argument between PS with Sony and Xbox with MS. A game that has PC applications and is only on the 360 is an exclusive title between those two systems in my opinion. That said, you can't play Gears on PS systems, nor can you play the original Mass Effect. Those are exclusive to the 360 over PS. The XBLA titles are ignored by fans because they favor MS, which is only natural given their committment to that particular platform. Sony of course has a fine library...just comical to see the lengths some go ...not sure I have ever seen anyone argue Gears of War wasn't an exclusive title for the 360. See something everyday I suppose.
@lundy.... lol. That perhaps explains it then... I wasn't aware that the original Mass Effect or Gears of War were multi-platform titles which of course they don't, its apparent that xbla exclusives aren't counted, where the 360 has a clear advantage. Sony has a great platform, great games... so does MS. But to carve out what you don't like, or simply ignore massive exclusive titles (perhaps an honest error) to skew outcomes is poor.
Well, not for anything, but if you are going to put in all that work and copy and paste a spread sheet, at least make sure you identify the games and add them up correctly. Gears of War isn't highlighted and doesn't appear counted in your list, and that was 9.6. The original Mass Effect was 8.5 and that doesn't appear to be counted either. And those are just the big guys. How about XBLA games such as Super Meat Boy (9.5), Limbo (9.0), Geometry Wars 2 (9.0), Shadow Complex (8.5), Rez HD (8.5), Ikaruga (8.5 - not exclusive, just not on PS3), etc. You seem to be rather exclusive yourself when selecting the critieria for what is and what is not a high rated exclusive. I'm not really going to bother and look for everything, those just jumped out on first look, and given that just those few examples alone skew your conclusions is perhpas reason enough to stop looking. Are you happy with the PS3? Great. No reason to be so insecure to half-ass some spreedsheet addition to show that your system is superior. I mean, by contrast, I supoose if we framed the argument as an examination of all first person exclusive titles that scored above 9.0, using the same data you reference, it would be 6 titles for xbox360 vs only 2 for PS3. Perhaps greater when you add in XBLA titles. There are so many ways to illustrate an argument. For the record, TC's GRAW was on the PS2, but was what, a wildly poor ported game that got a 4.4 as opposed to the +9 under the 360. Largely corrected with GRAW 2. Castle Crashers is another that was docked a bit, but the difference is minor. MS isn't going anywhere if that is the point of all of this. I would assume that most here don't like the kinect, but those numbers have fueled its sales, and all of that world is going to be somewhat exclusive. You have Gears 3, X-Com, a Crytek Kingdoms game coming, Perhaps 2 Halo announcements coming (a remake of Halo CE on the 360 to jive with the 10 year aniversary, and 343 announcing a new Halo game, but that won't hit until next year at the earliest), Forza 4, maybe Perfect Dark 2 and or Alan Wake 2, First Templar (that really doesn't look good at the moment so lets not count that), some XBLA exclusive titles such as Hybrid from 5th Cell, Trenched from Double Fine, Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet (titles which of course you somehow don't consider at all on your chart), ESPN, This Live TV rumor, and of course a slew of Kinect games. I think they have a number of exclusives moving forward. Now, PS3 has some sweet exclusives coming, and I imagine that E3 is going to be very strong for Sony on that front. Resistance, Infamous, Uncharted, maybe Agent and Guardian show up which would be cool. And those are just a few of what I think Sony will roll with. Great games without question. Enjoy that as you should. Sony isn't going anywhere either.
@Mack - I think you will see a couple of game hit prior to the E3 show, Heavy Fire Afghanistan (on-rails shooter), Carnival Games, etc., but the real push will probably be @ E3 in June. Outside of more dance games such as Michael Jackson et al, I would speculate that we will see previews/development updates on Child of Eden, Project Draco, Steel Battalion, Rise of Nightmares, Star Wars kinect, Haunt, Codenamed D and Gunstringer, all of which were mentioned as 2011 releases, although my guess is that more than one of those will land in 2012. Perhaps some surprises yet to be discussed. E3 will be a big day for MS and the Kinect as they will push out the second wave of games to try and sustain their initial success. We shall see
Log in to comment