Interesting....

by MEGAlan Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:05 pm

According to Metacritic:

Nintendo's game average is 75%
Microsoft Game Studio's game average is 76%
Sony Computer Entertainment's game average is 73%

http://www.metacritic.com/company/scea
http://www.metacritic.com/company/microsoft-game-studios
http://www.metacritic.com/company/nintendo?filter-options=games&num_items=30&sort_options=date

I just found that interesting.

by CyberpunkCentral Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:10 pm

Why does Sony have more ratings then Microsoft though?

by igame Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:12 pm

the SCEA section includes PSP games

by MEGAlan Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:13 pm

CyberpunkCentral wrote:Why does Sony have more ratings then Microsoft though?

Could be because they are counting all the games ever released. Sony has been in the game market much longer than Microsoft.

igame wrote:the SCEA section includes PSP games

Yes, and the MGS and Nintendo sections include PC/DS games. I never said they didn't. I just found it interesting that in terms of quality MS, Nintendo, and Sony are about even.

by CyberpunkCentral Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:16 pm

Alan_1994 wrote:Sony has been in the game market much longer than Microsoft.

by igame Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:17 pm

my post was meant for CC's question

by MEGAlan Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:17 pm

I was just answering your question.

by CyberpunkCentral Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:24 pm

I thought at first it was just the PS3 itself.

by SlySonji™ Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:32 pm

Then I find it extremely amazing that despite them having more games out, they still have that score. Same goes for Nintendo.

by MEGAlan Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:15 am

SlySonji™ wrote:Then I find it extremely amazing that despite them having more games out, they still have that score. Same goes for Nintendo.

Err, in a positive or in a negative way?

by SlySonji™ Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:17 am

Alan_1994 wrote:
SlySonji™ wrote:Then I find it extremely amazing that despite them having more games out, they still have that score. Same goes for Nintendo.

Err, in a positive or in a negative way?

In a positive way. Think about it, the PS1 had over 1,000 games. For Sony to maintain that score is great.

by MEGAlan Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:51 am

SlySonji™ wrote:
Alan_1994 wrote:
SlySonji™ wrote:Then I find it extremely amazing that despite them having more games out, they still have that score. Same goes for Nintendo.

Err, in a positive or in a negative way?

In a positive way. Think about it, the PS1 had over 1,000 games. For Sony to maintain that score is great.

I wouldn't consider older titles to be a disadvantage.

The PS1/PS2 had many great titles. I mean the games on the platform was the main reason for the success of Playstation.

by **Zillah** Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:02 am

Can anyone say opinions?

by MEGAlan Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:20 am

Zillah wrote:Can anyone say opinions?

LOL. Ofcourse reviews are based off of professional opinions. Everything is based off of opinions. A forum is generally made so people can express their opinions and discuss it with others.

Saying something to the effect of "JUST OPINIONS, NEXT TOPIC" is just really weak.

I was just saying it's pretty interesting that the average review score for a 1st party title from either Nintendo, Sony, or MS is a mid 70. It nullifies the arguement that one platform has higher quality games than the other. Which was the point I was trying to get at in the first place, that it really does come down to one's preference rather than hard factual evidence.

by Gutzahn Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:09 am

If you only go by this gen, Sony wins. By a huge gap, there are many lists, that prove this, im not gonna search them , because im feeling lazy.
Stop living in the past guys Silly

Euh, and Alan :
Ofcourse the old games are a disadvantage , because only the 100 good games of the old consoles are the main reason for the success, the 900+ shitty games destroy the statistic.

by SlySonji™ Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:24 am

Alan_1994 wrote:
SlySonji™ wrote:
Alan_1994 wrote:
SlySonji™ wrote:Then I find it extremely amazing that despite them having more games out, they still have that score. Same goes for Nintendo.

Err, in a positive or in a negative way?

In a positive way. Think about it, the PS1 had over 1,000 games. For Sony to maintain that score is great.

I wouldn't consider older titles to be a disadvantage.

The PS1/PS2 had many great titles. I mean the games on the platform was the main reason for the success of Playstation.

Advantage? This averages every Playstation exclusive title EVER right? If so, for the Playstation brand to maintain that percentage after THOUSANDS of games really shows something.

by **TRF** Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:32 pm

SlySonji™ wrote:
Alan_1994 wrote:
SlySonji™ wrote:Then I find it extremely amazing that despite them having more games out, they still have that score. Same goes for Nintendo.

Err, in a positive or in a negative way?

In a positive way. Think about it, the PS1 had over 1,000 games. For Sony to maintain that score is great.

Even more impressive: the PS2 had over 2,000 games. So if the PSone did in fact have over 1,000 games, then we're looking at over 3,000 games in the Sony brand without even including the PSP or PS3.

by MEGAlan Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:48 pm

LOL, where are you guys getting the 1,000-2,000 game figures from.

1) SCEA's score is based off of 326 Sony-published titles. Meaning 3rd party published games, including 3rd party exclusives, were not counted. Microsoft's score is based off of 141 Microsoft-published games.

2) The more games on Sony's portfolio =/= lower score. PS1 and PS2 had MANY great games. Many of the great Sony exclusives that are counted on Metacritic this generation are either sequels, spirtual successors, or remakes of great titles from the PS1/PS2 days. You can't seriously tell me that the reason why Sony has a lower score is because of the fact that they have more games. Most Sony titles in previous generations got generally good reception. If anything, alot of Microsoft published titles on the PC are shovelware which bring down Microsoft's score.

3) Some of you guys are missing the point...The averages of all Sony, MS, and Nintendo published titles are all about the same. I'm simply pointing out that the whole "A,AA,AAA" crap that youtube trolls like MLD bring up are pretty negligible points to the console war. Instead you guys are acting like this is an attack on Sony. "LOLOL SONY GAMES SUCK CUZ THEY HAVE 3% LOWER AVERAGE. ROFL"

@Gutzahn

BTW

Why don't you do us all a big favor and look it up? Such a big assumption is hard to believe without a credible source.

Compare Microsoft published games and Sony published games side by side from 2005-2010. Microsoft won 2005 (obviously), 2006, 2007. Sony won 2009. Microsoft and Sony were about dead even in 2008. And so far Microsoft and Sony are tied in 2010.

by **TRF** Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:01 pm

Alan, we're merely saying that it's impressive that Sony can match Nintendo and Microsoft when they clearly have more games.

by MEGAlan Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:05 pm

TRF wrote:Alan, we're merely saying that it's impressive that Sony can match Nintendo and Microsoft when they clearly have more games.

Yes, I fully understand that.

I'm challenging the idea that more games LOWER the average score.

Unless it's been reported that Sony had been handicapped in the past, that's a REALLY empty statement.

by Sponsored content

Interesting....

Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....

Re: Interesting....