The Year That Was: Revisited

[Bond]

I believe BaB made a tragic mistake in his analysis of "the year that was." In this thread I have tried to rectify the situation.

In regard to the 360, he said: "not the year for the 360" and "it offered very little in the way of exclusives."

This claim will be disputed.

In regard to the PS3, he said: "banner year, the best in the console's life. And may have been the console of the year just due to the turnaround and the quality of its software."

This claim will be reaffirmed.

In regard to the Wii, he said: " stellar year, if you looked at it." The quality of software on display was "quite remarkable."

This claim will be disputed.


------------------------------------------------------------------


Titles that the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 share are [i]italicized. Titles that the PS3, 360, and Wii have as exclusives are bolded. Metacritic scores are in parentheses following the title. Titles under each console are ranked from highest score to lowest. 82 was the lowest possible accepted score. Recurring titles such as sports games were not included. For simplicity sake, I have only compiled retail releases.

Playstation 3

1. Uncharted 2 (96)
2. Modern Warfare 2 (94)
3. Street Fighter IV (94)
4. God of War Collection (92)
5. Assassin's Creed II (92)
6. Killzone 2 (91)
7. Batman: Arkham Asylum (91)
8. Demon's Souls (89)
9. BlazBlue (89)
10. Dargon Age: Origins (87)
11. Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack in Time (86)
12. Resident Evil 5 (86)
13. Red Faction: Guerrilla (85)
14. inFAMOUS (85)
15. Marvel vs. Capcom 2 (85)
16. Borderlands (83)

These 16 titles average an 89 review score.

6 of these tiles are exclusive to the PS3, and average an 89.8 review score.

10 of these tiles are shared exclusives, and average an 88.6 review score.

None of these titles were released for the Nintendo Wii.

Xbox 360

1. Modern Warfare 2 (94)
2. Street Fighter IV (93)
3. Batman: Arkham Asylum (92)
4. Forza Motorsport 3 (92)
5. Assassin's Creed II (91)
6. Left 4 Dead 2 (89)
7. BlazBlue (88)
8. Dragon Age: Origins (86)
9. Red Faction: Guerrilla (85)
10. Resident Evil 5 (85)
11. Borderlands (84)
12. Halo 3: ODST (83)
13. Halo Wars (82)
14. Marvel vs. Capcom 2 (82)

These 14 titles average an 87.6 review score.

4 of these tiles are exclusive to the 360, and average an 86.5 review score.

10 of these tiles are shared exclusives, and average an 88 review score.

None of these titles were released for the Nintendo Wii.

Nintendo Wii

1. Metroid Prime Trilogy (91)
2. Little King's Story (87)
3. New Super Mario Bros (87)
4. Boom Blox Bash Party (86)
5. Punch-Out!! (86)
6. Dead Space: Extraction (82)

These 6 titles average an 86.5 review score.

6 of these tiles are exclusive to the Wii, and average an 86.5 review score.

None of these titles were released for the Playstation 3 or Xbox 360.


------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, to rank the consoles. We will first use quantity of quality titles:

1. Playstation 3 (16)
2. Xbox 360 (14)
3. Nintendo Wii (6)

Average score over all titles:

1. Playstation 3 (89)
2. Xbox 360 (87.6)
3. Nintendo Wii (86.5)

Average score over console exclusives:

1. Playstation 3 (89.8)
2. Xbox 360 (86.5)
2. Nintendo Wii (86.5)

Average score over shared exclusives:

1. Playstation 3 (88.6)
2. Xbox 360 (88)
3. Nintendo Wii (86.5)

------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:

Using the combined and generally accepted metrics of quantity and quality of titles released this calendar year, the clear ranking of the consoles from best to worst is as follows:

1. Playstation 3
2. Xbox 360
3. Nintendo Wii


- Bond out.

[Fox 6]

That seems about right.

[Angrist]

Yeah Wii is still the best console I own. ;)

But seriously, nice list Bond.

[Bond]

Marvel vs Capcom 2 was mistakingly included under titles for the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. I will fix this when I have time, my apologies.

[Typhoid]

I love you, Bond.

[BreakABone]

After speaking with Moogle, I have decided to entertain this thread.

Let's start with the basis for this thread, disagreement over my choice of words. As noted in the original thread.


Starting with the 360... Staying the course... playing it safe... treading water... whatever you want to use, this was not the year for the 360. I mean it still saw some quality release, but compared to prior years they seemed further apart. Also looking at the release schedule, it offered very little in the way of exclusies with the real noticeables being ODST, Halo Wars and Left 4 Dead 2 if you don't have a PC. There may have been others but the only ones that stuck out to be. Also in terms of sale, it has remained pretty flat.
I still think the original statement holds true, and even more true when I get to my later point, but the 360 didn't try to hard this year, if you agree or not, who cares.

As for my later point, I noted the 360 had some quality releases, but compared to other years it was pretty weak.

Just looking back at 2007, during the holiday season alone there was Mass Effect, Bioshock, The Orange Box, Assassin Creed, Halo 3, Modern Warfare 1, and the original Rock Band. This was all compacted into a very small time frame.

Compared to this year which had Batman, ODST, Borderlands, MW 2 and L4D 2. If you don't think that looks weaker on paper, well then you are a tougher person than I.


[/quote]Now the most controversial console as always, the Wii has also had a stellar year, if you looked at it. While there were few new additions, with the ability to use SD cards for expanded storage and the debut of Nintendo Week, and the 50 dollar price drop. The quality of software on display was quite remarkable with the banner title being New Super Mario Bros Wii, sure it is one hell of a title, but it is also one hell of a game. Mixing old-school Mario platforming with zany hijinks in multi player, makes for one of the best packages of the year. Speaking of terrific packages, there was the Metroid Prime Trilogy release, which bundled 3 awesome games into one nifty and affordable package, probably the second best deal in gaming behind the Orange Box. Of course 3rd parties were on display as well with such titles as Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, MadWorld, Little King's Story, Klonoa, Okami and A Boy and his Blob. Oh and let's not forget Punch-Out, we can never forget Punch-Out[/quote]

My statement rings true here as well. And was aided by the fact that you and Fox had to research half the games I was talking about to offer a rebuttal. There are a ton of fun and quality games if you pay attention to the console. And compared to the latter half of 2008, was a much better year in terms of release schedule and quality games.

Now this thread alone.

I have several beefs with reviews, but the biggest is how do you qualify quality. I mean you gave us review scores, but are they all standard, do they have the same number of reviews, hell are they even reviewed by the same person?

All of those factors effect the final outcome, I'm sure my review of Final Fantasy would be different than most people's on this forum, the same as my review of Street Fighter IV would differ from Moogle.

So while reviews in of themselves, are objective measures of quality, the reviews themselves may not be.

My other problem with reviews.. or the use of reviews... is that it really can not summarize how everyone would feel about a movie, off the top of my head I believe Avatar is holding in the mid-80s on RT, but I wasn't a huge fan of the movie, while GI Joe which is probably sitting at 30 something was a much more enjoyable movie to me.

The same could be said for games. They aren't meant to be read about, and as much as some of you enjoy stories, they aren't meant to be watched. They are meant to be played and enjoyed.

Case in point, I don't think I read a single review on Uncharted 2 before or after I bought the game, but

And to just prove my point with the list you used and the power of Xbox, of the games you listed for this year,
1. Modern Warfare 2 (94)
3. Batman: Arkham Asylum (92)
12. Halo 3: ODST (83)

You've owned/played 3 of them. Now who knows, you may think that 3 games spread out over 12 months makes it a quality year, its your opinion, but it seems rather weak to me.

Now to the heart of the matter, some folks get a little pissed because I said the Wii had a better year than the 360, I still believe that to be true. And while Bond will hate this defense, how the hell would most of you even know? I mean most don't play anything outside of shooters, and play even less attention to anything else.

I'm almost certain no one disputed the PS3 list because they really couldn't find something to laugh at...

Which reminds me just because a game is 2D doesn't mean its less impressive than a 3D game. Hell, I still think they look better for the most part. And if not sprites, cel-shading.

[Fox 6]

Me and Bond? The whole thing was moogles idea. :P


Also since when are we comparing to other years? Shouldn't the base of the review be centered around this years performance compared to the other consoles?

Also I dont get why you take this personally, to the point you go mute for a whole day.

If reviews are personal, then why are you saying things about Wii, PS3, or 360 LIKE THEY ARE FACTS in your original thread!?

[Bond]

As for my later point, I noted the 360 had some quality releases, but compared to other years it was pretty weak.

Just looking back at 2007, during the holiday season alone there was Mass Effect, Bioshock, The Orange Box, Assassin Creed, Halo 3, Modern Warfare 1, and the original Rock Band. This was all compacted into a very small time frame.

Compared to this year which had Batman, ODST, Borderlands, MW 2 and L4D 2. If you don't think that looks weaker on paper, well then you are a tougher person than I.
The premise of your thread was the following:

"Its that time of the year in which we look back with googly eyes about the year that has just passed us by.

And 2009 was quite a year for gaming."

It was an evaluation of how each console fared for the year 2009. No where was it indicated that this would be a comparison of how consoles fared during 2009 as compared to 2007. And why even choose the year 2007? Because it was a strong year for the 360? That's true - and clearly 2009 was not as strong a year, but that kind of comparison could be made arbitrarily for nearly any year, and isn't exactly germane to the subject at hand.

Also, of the seven games you mentioned in 2007, six have had or will have sequels coming out quite shortly.

My statement rings true here as well. And was aided by the fact that you and Fox had to research half the games I was talking about to offer a rebuttal. There are a ton of fun and quality games if you pay attention to the console. And compared to the latter half of 2008, was a much better year in terms of release schedule and quality games.
Now you are comparing Wii's 2009 to Wii's latter half of 2008, but you compared the 360's 2009 to the 360's 2007? That's not consistent.

I don't see how my need to research the Wii's best games of 2009 de-validates my conclusions at all. I also had to research the PS3's best games of 2009, for that matter.

I have several beefs with reviews, but the biggest is how do you qualify quality. I mean you gave us review scores, but are they all standard, do they have the same number of reviews, hell are they even reviewed by the same person?
Metacritic, as you know, aggregates tens (and sometimes hundreds) of reviews over nearly all (every?) titles that are released each year. The aggregation of the reviews averages the scores to account for outliers. I also aggregated the already aggregated Metacritic score. I can't think of a more objective way to compare the software released for the year 2009.

All of those factors effect the final outcome, I'm sure my review of Final Fantasy would be different than most people's on this forum, the same as my review of Street Fighter IV would differ from Moogle.

So while reviews in of themselves, are objective measures of quality, the reviews themselves may not be.
That's true, and is why using Metacritic is as objective as one can get - it's an average of reputable video game review websites and magazines.

My other problem with reviews.. or the use of reviews... is that it really can not summarize how everyone would feel about a movie, off the top of my head I believe Avatar is holding in the mid-80s on RT, but I wasn't a huge fan of the movie, while GI Joe which is probably sitting at 30 something was a much more enjoyable movie to me.

The same could be said for games. They aren't meant to be read about, and as much as some of you enjoy stories, they aren't meant to be watched. They are meant to be played and enjoyed.
This is your personal opinion, which is fine, but is not a similiar or superior objective measure of comparing how each console fared for 2009.

And to just prove my point with the list you used and the power of Xbox, of the games you listed for this year,
1. Modern Warfare 2 (94)
3. Batman: Arkham Asylum (92)
12. Halo 3: ODST (83)

You've owned/played 3 of them. Now who knows, you may think that 3 games spread out over 12 months makes it a quality year, its your opinion, but it seems rather weak to me.
I have no idea how what games I played this year has any relevancy to the discussion at all? Perhaps it affects your personal opinion, but it does not have any bearing on the objective measures I posted.

Now to the heart of the matter, some folks get a little pissed because I said the Wii had a better year than the 360, I still believe that to be true. And while Bond will hate this defense, how the hell would most of you even know? I mean most don't play anything outside of shooters, and play even less attention to anything else.
Again, relevance? P.S. I do play genres other than shooters.

I'm almost certain no one disputed the PS3 list because they really couldn't find something to laugh at...
Or because your assessment was accurate, and was reaffirmed by my statistical analysis?

Which reminds me just because a game is 2D doesn't mean its less impressive than a 3D game. Hell, I still think they look better for the most part. And if not sprites, cel-shading.
Again, relevance?

[TheSlyMoogle]

1. Why are we still playing the wii? It sucks. Oh wait... Little kids, parents, families and all that other shit love it. It's sold more than any other console in history. Period. Done. Nintendo = On top.

2. Serious gamers said fuck this shit, and moved on to the xbox or ps3, done.

3. PS3 and 360 had the best years for serious gaming since 07. There needs to be no comp between the two when the wii is full of shit.

Argument over. I win.

[Angrist]

I'm a gamer and I love the Wii. I have a very decent PC which allows me to play many of the games that are available on the PS360. I don't play these fancy high-res shooters etc. I've done so, but I don't enjoy them enough.

The Wii has some unique games. True games, none of that casual crap. Super Mario x2, Zelda, Metroid, Batallion Wars 2, Fire Emblem and World of Goo are some of the games I own. You suggest that only little kids and families love the Wii, I state that there are enough real games to be had. If you actually meant that the PS360 have more hardcore games, I'll agree, but that doesn't mean the Wii only offers boring family games.

[Thespis721]

Guys! Guys! Look... let's take a deep breath. Here, I'll help out. Look to the left and enjoy the picture of Ben Zobrist's wife. Okay. Is the tight conservative grey dress that still shows off her form doing you all right? Relaxed?

Great. Now I think you all are overlooking that this has been the banner year for the Dreamcast.
Seaman rocked!

[Professor S]

I think the reason why the Wii compared to the other consoles always causes so much controversy, well, is because it's not really to be compared to the other consoles. Nintendo decided to stop playing the "console war" game...

While MS and Sony decided to keep pushing the traditional limits of size, scope and detail, Nintendo decided to push the limits of interactivity, and even took several steps "backward" in traditional console themes to do so. The 360 and PS3 are a feast for the eyes and mind, the Wii tends to be a joy for the body and soul.

Does the Wii have the list of epic titles and dazzling graphics that gamers have come to expect? No, but then again they don't care and neither do their fans. Their games (the far too few good ones) are a great time and demand to be played as a family/group. The Wii has successfully replaced the board game for family game night and is even used to help with occupational therapy. To date, the Wii is the only console that has proven accessible to EVERY generation from the youngest to geriatrics.

That said, it is not my cup of tea. It is far too sugary and obvious for my tastes. I prefer nuance and delicate flavors, robust in every aspect. I like whole leaf loose Earl Grey (PS3 and 360) and tend to avoid Diet Nestea (Wii). That said, when was the last time you saw the Earl of G outsell Nestea? It doesn't happen because one is market to a smaller market while another is marketed to all markets, and is therefore made more accessible, for good or ill. But that's just my opinion and I'm sure there are many that differ.

Also, the Wii is a system of great achievements and disappointments. Tiger Woods and Resident Evil 4 are great examples of each. Resident Evil looks and honestly plays like vomit on the Wii, while Tiger Woods 10 is great fun and you tend to ignore the sub par look because the feel is just so wonderful. It is the perfect title for the Wii. In the end it's all about execution when a console depends so much on integrating it's unique controls. It is inevitable there will be great heights of achievement and terrible lows of failure.

For the reasons listed above, I have excluded the Wii from comparison.

[Dylflon]

When people get upset over console arguments, it makes me feel like we're all 14 again.

[BlueFire]

When people get upset over console arguments, it makes me feel like we're all 14 again.

It's so refreshing.

[Dyne]

That said, it is not my cup of tea. It is far too sugary and obvious for my tastes. I prefer nuance and delicate flavors, robust in every aspect. I like whole leaf loose Earl Grey (PS3 and 360) and tend to avoid Diet Nestea (Wii). That said, when was the last time you saw the Earl of G outsell Nestea? It doesn't happen because one is market to a smaller market while another is marketed to all markets, and is therefore made more accessible, for good or ill. But that's just my opinion and I'm sure there are many that differ.



We should probably avoid metaphors, hahaha. Where do Madworld and House of the Dead: Overkill (both of which very adult Wii games, both of which were released in 2009) fit in to this diet iced tea? Are they the razors sitting below the ice?

Neither of them sold very well but I enjoyed them more than the likes of the Assassin's Creed II and Left 4 Dead 2 this year, both admittedly (wank wank) epic 360 and PS3-type games.

HOTD: Overkill and Madworld are interesting cases for the Wii. Over-the-top western and over-the-top eastern style games, respectively. Neither sold well but were rated mid-80s. However, their common relationship is that they were both published by Sega and got next to no marketing.

[Professor S]

We should probably avoid metaphors, hahaha. Where do Madworld and House of the Dead: Overkill (both of which very adult Wii games, both of which were released in 2009) fit in to this diet iced tea? Are they the razors sitting below the ice?

Neither of them sold very well but I enjoyed them more than the likes of the Assassin's Creed II and Left 4 Dead 2 this year, both admittedly (wank wank) epic 360 and PS3-type games.

HOTD: Overkill and Madworld are interesting cases for the Wii. Over-the-top western and over-the-top eastern style games, respectively. Neither sold well but were rated mid-80s. However, their common relationship is that they were both published by Sega and got next to no marketing.

My comments weren't about whether or not Wii has "adult" games, but more the fact that Wii elected to push the control aspect of their console over graphics and other hardware (that allow greater achievements in "epic" games), and also that execution of those unique controls in a game GREATLY impact the enjoyment of a game. I like the Wii a lot for certain games, especially Wiisports and Tiger 10, but I also recognize the nature of the console and it's controls are it's greatest asset and greatest limitation. Overall, I spend far less time with my 360 than with the Wii for the reasons I've illustrated. What the Wii does, it does very well. In general, I simply don't like what it does.

As for the sales of Madworld and HOTD, well, I think that goes to show that the Wii is a family console more than anything else. Wii owners on the whole likely don't look for games like that for the console. Personally, I think Madworld would have sold very well of the 360 and PS3.

[Angrist]

I'd like to throw in Fire Emblem here.

Fire Emblem has a great concept. It's fun and addicting. It's very smart and very hard. It's the ultimate hardcore game in my opinion.

So what's happening with it? It does not sell well in the West. Why?
- Lack of popularity/marketing? The games weren't even released outside Japan until a few years ago.
- Lack of pretty grapics? Everything does look a bit dull.
- Bad presentation? It uses some cool CGI movies, but it lacks proper voice action etc.
OR:
- Wrong platform?

So I am wondering about this: would this game do better on the PS360?
On those platforms, it probably would have gotten/needed better graphics/presentation. But other than that, would the demographic have been better?

[Fox 6]

I'd like to throw in Fire Emblem here.

Fire Emblem has a great concept. It's fun and addicting. It's very smart and very hard. It's the ultimate hardcore game in my opinion.

So what's happening with it? It does not sell well in the West. Why?
- Lack of popularity/marketing? The games weren't even released outside Japan until a few years ago.
- Lack of pretty grapics? Everything does look a bit dull.
- Bad presentation? It uses some cool CGI movies, but it lacks proper voice action etc.
OR:
- Wrong platform?

So I am wondering about this: would this game do better on the PS360?
On those platforms, it probably would have gotten/needed better graphics/presentation. But other than that, would the demographic have been better?

IMO Fire Emblem is a better handheld game than on a console. Also, Is there any reason it has to go 3D? I think the best Fire Emblem was the first on on the GBA. I had a lot of fun with that game.

[BreakABone]

Bare with me turned out a bit longer than expected.

I shall try and explain my points to the best of my abilities, and hopefully for the last time; but I keep saying that.

Now the original point came from the thread I first posted, now people wondered why I used exclusives as a barometer of the console’s year. And I think its because exclusives shape the image of the console.

Now this will never happen, but let’s take all 3 consoles as they are currently offered now. Assume that each gets all the games the other gets, there exists no Marios, no Halos, no MGS. They are on each and every console. This is how the consoles break down, and correct me if wrong.

The PS3. The best bang for your buck. Built in blu-ray player. Free wifi/online. Ability to surf Facebook, and stream Netflix. Same price as the high end 360.

The Wii. A unique interface (for the time being), free internet/wifi, Miis (only because used in certain games), and cheapest of the 3. It doesn’t look as good.

The 360. Offers Avatars (which can be used in some games) and… sure XBL is the best of the online services but its an additional 50 bucks a year. It has Netflix,Facebook, Twitter, Last.fm. It has the same price as the PS3. No built in wifi.

Again, disagree with me if I missed something or you don’t think a feature exists, but on paper, the 360 would be the last console to buy if everything was equal because it doesn’t really offer much different from the PS3 and the Wii at least offers you an alternate experience if want to go down that route.

The other thing that exclusives does is sell system. Not that multiplatform games can’t, but they don’t really have the same effect.

Let’s try some numbers based on NPD.

In March of 08 before the release of GTA IV, the 360 and PS3 did
• PlayStation 3 - 257K
• Xbox 360 - 262K

The following month, GTA IV which is the sequel to the highest selling franchise of the prior generation did,

• PlayStation 3 187.1K
• Xbox 360 188.0K

Both consoles actually went down in sales after the release of one of the biggest games of the year. And its not that GTA IV didn’t sell well.

Now to use exclusives and the bump they give consoles, let’s examine MGS 4 and Halo 3 (I am open to use other games)

In August 2007, the month before Halo 3 was released, the 360 did,
Xbox 360 - 276,700

In September of 07 when Halo was released, the 360 did,
Xbox 360 - 527,800

The sales of the console almost doubled due to the release of Halo.

Now let’s examine MGS 4 on the PS3.

In May of 08 before it was released,
PS3 - 208.7K

(And just to add to the earlier point, this is still a month after GTA IV’s release and sales haven’t really gone up to the level they were at in March, and just because have the page open, 360 sales for the month, Xbox 360 186.6K)

Now for the month it was released, which is June 08

PS3 - 405,500

Sales once again almost doubled with the release of an exclusive.

Now I’m sure folks will point to MW 2 record breaking sales and for this I will do a different comparison, not because it paints a worse picture (I already know it does) but because of the nature of the release. November/December always does better NPD numbers just due to the holiday, and I don’t believe there is ANY console that goes down between the month of Oct/Nov. So for the release of MW 2, I shall examine it across the spectrum of Nov 07-09 (05 doesn’t count since it was 360’s launch month and 06 was Wii/PS3 launch month so naturally numbers are lower due to availability)

October 07

• Xbox 360 - 366,000
• PlayStation 3- 121,000

November 07
• Xbox 360 - 770K
• PlayStation 3 - 466K

So we are looking at an increase
Twice as much for the Xbox, and almost 4x the increase for the PS3.

October 08
• PS3 - 190,000
• Xbox 360 - 371,000

November 08
• Xbox 360 - 836,000
• Playstation 3 - 378,000

The 360 once again doubles its October number, and the Ps3 only does about the same.
You will also notice that the 360 is up year over year where the PS3 is down.

Now for this year
October 09
• Xbox 360 - 249,700
• PS3 - 320,600

Now it should be noted, that this is the first October in which the PS3 has bested the 360, and 360 is down from the prior two year’s number.

November 09
• Xbox 360 - 819,500
• PS3 - 710,400

Now for the first time the 360 tripled its October’s sale, and the Ps3 doubled its own, but as you can also see, the 360 is down slightly from the prior year while the PS3 is up big time.

Its hard to get the picture from the 360, but it doesn’t seem like MW 2 helped to move any more or any less consoles than the 360 would have naturally done without it.

A case could be made for the PS3, but neither the industry nor the console exists in a bubble, and really the momentum started with the price cut in Sept.

Anyhow, that is the longest possible answer as to why I choose to exhibit console exclusives in my yearly recap.

It was an evaluation of how each console fared for the year 2009. No where was it indicated that this would be a comparison of how consoles fared during 2009 as compared to 2007. And why even choose the year 2007? Because it was a strong year for the 360? That's true - and clearly 2009 was not as strong a year, but that kind of comparison could be made arbitrarily for nearly any year, and isn't exactly germane to the subject at hand.


I could have picked 08 for the same reason, I just know more 07 games off hand. Either way, if it was matched up against prior years it just doesn’t look as good.

Based on some primary numbers, in 07 there were 12 360 games that scored over an 82 which wasn’t a music nor sports game.

Of those 12, 8 of those games were exclusive for a period of time.
(The Darkness was released about a month and a half later for the PS3, Bioshock was released a year + later on the PS3, GRAW 2 was released about 5 months later, Mass Effect is on the PC)

Which based on your numbers is one less game, and twice as many exclusives.

The average score for the year was 89.41, which is slightly higher than 09.

For exclusives, the average is 88.5, which is up two whole points.

As for 08, there was a total of 16 games with a metacritic score of over 82.

Of those 16, only 4 were exclusive.

So based on your original numbers, it had 3 more games, but the same number of exclusives (Limited)
Left 4 Dead is on PC

The overall rating is 87, which is slightly down.
The rating for the exclusive games is 88.25, which is up and about on par with 07.

So based on those numbers, I still stand by my original point, that exclusives weren’t that hot on the 360 this year. Now I attribute it more to the Ps3 emerging as a viable platform as well over the last two years, and not so much the 360 on its own.

Now you are comparing Wii's 2009 to Wii's latter half of 2008, but you compared the 360's 2009 to the 360's 2007? That's not consistent.

I don't see how my need to research the Wii's best games of 2009 de-validates my conclusions at all. I also had to research the PS3's best games of 2009, for that matter.

Again, I simply picked the period of time in which it is easier for me to recall from memory. I could have compared it to all of 07 and all of 08, but the fact is, and sure people on these boards have pointed it out, the Wii hasn’t always had the best software line-up. This year they had a string of strong exclusives, but eh.

And it doesn’t really invalidate your research as much as it proves my point, that people have to look for the gems on the Wii. Not because they are all niche titles, but for the simple fact that just don’t get as much coverage as some PS3/360 games.

Metacritic, as you know, aggregates tens (and sometimes hundreds) of reviews over nearly all titles that are released each year. The aggregation of the reviews averages the scores to account for outliers. I also aggregated the already aggregated Metacritic score. I can't think of a more objective way to compare the software released for the year 2009.

Metacritic on its own isn’t bad, it’s the reviews it compiles that I take issue with.

1) Not all video game sites use the same scale, sure they convert into their own numbers, to make it easier to average, but it may not exactly be the same scale that the site uses.
2) Its not always the same people who review games. Take IGN for example, in which they have dedicated teams for the most part for all consoles. Some people have different expectations for a game, and some people are easier to please.

This is your personal opinion, which is fine, but is not a similiar or superior objective measure of comparing how each console fared for 2009.

To be fair, I think the most objective measure would be sales for the year because at the end of the day, its how the console is accepted that is important, but really don’t want to get into that.

I have no idea how what games I played this year has any relevancy to the discussion at all? Perhaps it affects your personal opinion, but it does not have any bearing on the objective measures I posted.

The easiest answer for that is, as objective as you want to be, when it comes down to it, its what you buy, what you enjoy and what others buy and enjoy that really determines the year for anything. Movies, music, games, books, TV shows. Because at the end of it all, in 3 years you won’t recall that 2009 had 5 games that scored over 90 on the 360. You will remember it was the year you played ODST and MW 2.

Again, relevance? P.S. I do play genres other than shooters.
Revelance is simple, people pay attention to what they enjoy and what they can enjoy. What that means is I’m sure few of you pay attention to stuff that comes out on the PS3 and the Wii so most of anyone’s viewpoint is colored by their perception on the console as a whole.

Much like I feel the 360 is a shooter box, which is where my second comment comes from.


1. Why are we still playing the wii? It sucks. Oh wait... Little kids, parents, families and all that other shit love it. It's sold more than any other console in history. Period. Done. Nintendo = On top.
Why are we? I don’t believe you are. And this is the gross generalization that I don’t get. I could be mistaken but I’m not a little kid (no matter my attitude at times), I’m not a parent (I swear… I hope) and I hardly ever play it with my family, but I still seem to enjoy it.

And technically the DS and the PS2 still have sold better.

2. Serious gamers said fuck this shit, and moved on to the xbox or ps3, done.
Define “Serious gamers”, I mean it is again a gross generalization of the Wii and gaming audience. There are gamers out there that have Wii as their only console, does that make 'em less serious? Maybe, they have love for more than just shooters and games based on the Unreal engine.

3. PS3 and 360 had the best years for serious gaming since 07. There needs to be no comp between the two when the wii is full of shit.

Just gonna say that I’ve loved the double standard that has formed on the forums. I mean I can question the 360’s lineup for the year and get a whole thread, but he can say the Wii is full of crap, and no one even bothers acknowledging it.

I think the reason why the Wii compared to the other consoles always causes so much controversy, well, is because it's not really to be compared to the other consoles. Nintendo decided to stop playing the "console war" game...

I don’t think they stopped playing the war, they changed the rules and it worked for them.

I mean at the start of 2010 we aren’t looking at a Wii HD coming out (yet), but we know that by the end of the year 360 and PS3 will feature motion controls.

While MS and Sony decided to keep pushing the traditional limits of size, scope and detail, Nintendo decided to push the limits of interactivity, and even took several steps "backward" in traditional console themes to do so. The 360 and PS3 are a feast for the eyes and mind, the Wii tends to be a joy for the body and soul.
I get the eyes… and I get the body.

I don’t get the mind and the soul.

Does the Wii have the list of epic titles and dazzling graphics that gamers have come to expect? No, but then again they don't care and neither do their fans.
What are epic titles per se, because even on the PS3/360 I see it meaning different things.

And once again a generalization on the Wii audience. I believe the fans want their big budget games. Why do you think stuff like Resident Evil 4, Red Steel, Zelda and all of those did so well?

Their games (the far too few good ones) are a great time and demand to be played as a family/group. The Wii has successfully replaced the board game for family game night and is even used to help with occupational therapy. To date, the Wii is the only console that has proven accessible to EVERY generation from the youngest to geriatrics.

Again there are a ton of quality single player affairs as my console is used more for single player “adventure” games than it is for like family get togethers.

My taste isn’t like most though, as my 360 serves primarily as the “social” console.

That said, it is not my cup of tea. It is far too sugary and obvious for my tastes. I prefer nuance and delicate flavors, robust in every aspect. I like whole leaf loose Earl Grey (PS3 and 360) and tend to avoid Diet Nestea (Wii). That said, when was the last time you saw the Earl of G outsell Nestea? It doesn't happen because one is market to a smaller market while another is marketed to all markets, and is therefore made more accessible, for good or ill. But that's just my opinion and I'm sure there are many that differ.

Here’s where your metaphor falls apart for me anyhow.

The 360 and Ps3 want to be the Diet Nestea. Why do you think over the course of the last year, they have added stuff such as Avatars, Netflix, Facebook connectivity, Twitter functionality. Its not because they want to be the high class item, but because they are trying to reach the masses.

They just don’t do as well at reaching the masses.

Also, the Wii is a system of great achievements and disappointments. Tiger Woods and Resident Evil 4 are great examples of each. Resident Evil looks and honestly plays like vomit on the Wii, while Tiger Woods 10 is great fun and you tend to ignore the sub par look because the feel is just so wonderful. It is the perfect title for the Wii. In the end it's all about execution when a console depends so much on integrating it's unique controls. It is inevitable there will be great heights of achievement and terrible lows of failure.

Just going to go by the numbers, based on MetaCritic
Resident Evil 4 is the 3rd rated version of the game with
Gamecube version at 95
PS2 at 95
And Wii at 91

On the other end it does better than Resident Evil 5, which is at 86 on Ps3 and 85 on 360.

So no it isn’t a bad game. Even better than the HD versions. Based on the numbers.

But I’ve always said that the controls have great potential, its just the usage that sometimes goes wrong.

When people get upset over console arguments, it makes me feel like we're all 14 again.

Does that make you the cool kid hanging by the wall?


My comments weren't about whether or not Wii has "adult" games, but more the fact that Wii elected to push the control aspect of their console over graphics and other hardware (that allow greater achievements in "epic" games), and also that execution of those unique controls in a game GREATLY impact the enjoyment of a game./quote]
Yeah, but to be fair, any controls affect the enjoyment of a game.

I mean something like Scribblenaunts, which is a fine example of a great concept, got ruined by terrible controls; which I don’t think is the fault of the DS.

But I also think it depends on what people want from the controls because, objectively speaking, aiming on the Wii is much better than on a control pad because you have speed and precision, but a lot of people prefer to play FPSes on the HD twins because they are more comfortable with it.

Same way people with PCs crap on console gamers for playing with dual analog.

[quote]I like the Wii a lot for certain games, especially Wiisports and Tiger 10, but I also recognize the nature of the console and it's controls are it's greatest asset and greatest limitation. Overall, I spend far less time with my 360 than with the Wii for the reasons I've illustrated. What the Wii does, it does very well. In general, I simply don't like what it does.
Think you meant to reverse Wii and 360?

As for the sales of Madworld and HOTD, well, I think that goes to show that the Wii is a family console more than anything else. Wii owners on the whole likely don't look for games like that for the console. Personally, I think Madworld would have sold very well of the 360 and PS3.

I think in the case of House of the Dead was more due to saturation than it was due to the quality of the game. I mean rail shooters aren’t a huge genre to start with, but the Wii before the release of House of the Dead have seen House of the Dead 2 and 3, Ghost Squad, Umbrella Chronicles and I’m sure some others. I mean to go from like a million seller in House of the Dead 2/3 to just breaking 100k speaks more to the market.

On the same hand, Sega has said that Overkill has met their expectations.

Now for Madworld, I wish it had done better, but I honestly don’t believe it would have done any better on the PS360. If anything, it would have done worse.

I mean these forums aren’t always the best place to gauge interest in a game, but Bayonetta is from the same developers, and its out in about 3 weeks, and I don’t think anyone has ever mentioned it. I don’t even know if any of you played the demo?

But I guess we shall find out since No More Heroes is being ported to the PS360, though not sure if getting an American release yet.

[Professor S]

I get the eyes… and I get the body.

I don’t get the mind and the soul.

That's because it was subjective opinion. If you don't agree, that's ok. :)

What are epic titles per se, because even on the PS3/360 I see it meaning different things.

I mean the generally accepted terms if "epic" when it comes to video gaming, illustrated in such titles as Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Bioshock etc. The Wii simply doesn't have the power to duplicate the achievements these titles reached, nor recreate the beauty of say GOW2. Having owned a 360 for a long time prior to playing the Wii, I can say most Wii games are downright ugly when they try and tread the same waters as the 360 or PS3, but that's not what the Wii is about, and their business plan has proved more successful, epic titles or no epic titles (however I choose to arbitrarily define them).

And once again a generalization on the Wii audience.

Generalizations are necessary. They are called "markets" and I'm sure Nintendo loves to use them as well, and they have helped define these generalizations. Name whatever exceptions you like, they don't disprove the generally accepted rule. Also note, I never referred to the Wii as a "kids" console. It is not. It is a family console, and great for Nintendo for breaking down those walls.

Again there are a ton of quality single player affairs as my console is used more for single player “adventure” games than it is for like family get togethers.

I'm sure it is, but your personal use doesn't redefine Nintendo's primary audience.

My taste isn’t like most though, as my 360 serves primarily as the “social” console.

To each their own :) There is a difference between personal opinion and objective analysis of their market niche. In my personal opinion I think the Wii is a nice console for physical games if the controls are done correctly, but with little true depth or opportunity for new heights in traditional gaming. To a game designer who wants to tell a gorgeous tale of sight and scope, I think it's like giving Michelangelo a paint by numbers kit. But thats just my opinion.

The sales and my objective analysis define the console as a new evolution in gaming, that has mainstreamed video gaming and made it a part of every generation's life. It's not longer looked at as a "kids game" and that's a good thing.

The 360 and Ps3 want to be the Diet Nestea. Why do you think over the course of the last year, they have added stuff such as Avatars, Netflix, Facebook connectivity, Twitter functionality. Its not because they want to be the high class item, but because they are trying to reach the masses.

Duh.

They just don’t do as well at reaching the masses.

Agreed. I fail to see how this fact relates to my argument/opinion.

Just going to go by the numbers, based on MetaCritic
Resident Evil 4 is the 3rd rated version of the game with
Gamecube version at 95
PS2 at 95
And Wii at 91

On the other end it does better than Resident Evil 5, which is at 86 on Ps3 and 85 on 360.

So no it isn’t a bad game. Even better than the HD versions. Based on the numbers.

I may have been referring to RE5, and not 4, and once again, thats my opinion. It looked and played like vomit. Horrible, blurry images. But thats just my opinion. :)

But I’ve always said that the controls have great potential, its just the usage that sometimes goes wrong.

I never disagreed with this statement

Yeah, but to be fair, any controls affect the enjoyment of a game.

Yes, but because the Wii is more of a control system than a gaming console, IMO, control issues are infinitely more problematic.

Think you meant to reverse Wii and 360?

Yes, thanks. :)

I think in the case of House of the Dead was more due to saturation than it was due to the quality of the game. I mean rail shooters aren’t a huge genre to start with, but the Wii before the release of House of the Dead have seen House of the Dead 2 and 3, Ghost Squad, Umbrella Chronicles and I’m sure some others. I mean to go from like a million seller in House of the Dead 2/3 to just breaking 100k speaks more to the market.

Agreed, that's why I specifically mentioned that Madworld would have been a great seller on the 360, and not HOTD. I don;t think HOTD would sell well on any console.

Now for Madworld, I wish it had done better, but I honestly don’t believe it would have done any better on the PS360. If anything, it would have done worse.

Ok, I disagree completely, and that's ok. :)

[Dylflon]

off the top of my head I believe Avatar is holding in the mid-80s on RT, but I wasn't a huge fan of the movie, while GI Joe which is probably sitting at 30 something was a much more enjoyable movie to me.

Just noticed this.


Opinion fail.

[BreakABone]

That's because it was subjective opinion. If you don't agree, that's ok. :)

No, I literally meant I didn't understand it.
Just explain/expand.

Just noticed this.


Opinion fail.

I know this is def a case of expectations and results, I expected nothing from GI Joe so it had a very low level to cross.

Where as I expected something special from Avatar. And it is and it isn't.

[Dylflon]

No, I literally meant I didn't understand it.
Just explain/expand.



I know this is def a case of expectations and results, I expected nothing from GI Joe so it had a very low level to cross.

Where as I expected something special from Avatar. And it is and it isn't.


So I had this ice cream the other day and I was expecting it to taste great but it only tasted okay.

And then there was this dog turd that i was expecting would stink really bad. But guess what!? It didn't smell quite as bad as I expected.

Therefore the dog shit is better than the ice cream.



This is essentially your line of reasoning, yes?

[BreakABone]

So I had this ice cream the other day and I was expecting it to taste great but it only tasted okay.

And then there was this dog turd that i was expecting would stink really bad. But guess what!? It didn't smell quite as bad as I expected.

Therefore the dog shit is better than the ice cream.



This is essentially your line of reasoning, yes?

Pretty much.
I don't see the problem with it. Though wouldn't have used such an example.

[Fox 6]

So Earls movie opinion = s***?

[Professor S]

No, I literally meant I didn't understand it.
Just explain/expand.

Ok, my 360 has provided me with games that have literally expanded the idea of what I thougth video games could accomplish as an artform, from graphics and sound to expansive storytelling (I only leave out the PS3 because I do not own one). The Wii simply could not recreate games like Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc in all their splendor. Compared to the Wii, the 360 is simply a broader canvass that gives the author access to better tools to create the most beautiful art possible.

Meanwhile, the Wii doesn't supply that broad canvass, but what it does provide are active games that get you up and moving, most of the time with people (real live people in person!) and actually helps build and maintain interpersonal relationships. And even if for the most part I haven't found the experience "mind expanding" it has been really fun as a social gaming system.

Does that help clarify?

[Fox 6]

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/105/1058513p1.html

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/press/nielsen-fact-sheet-2010.pdf

Nielsen says Wii least used console in the amount of minutes played.