http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrank...asp?rankings=y
I consider the above (after much trial and error) to be the most reliable source for game ratings anywhere. I heavily prefer it to ****critic.
Why do gamers involve so much of their own identity in their systems? For me, the era in which that was appropriate died when the Nintendo and Sega were antiquated.
I don't care about specs. People talk ad nauseum about specs, but the truth is, I have noticed much more difference in quality of graphics and sound from game to game than I have from system to system (given those systems were in the same generation). In fact, the only time I can remember one system truly outshining the others in its generation pertaining to graphics and sound was when the Dreamcast came out, and it flopped.
I'm of the opinion that a system should be judged by its games. But, I'm not impressed when a system has a million games that are good but not great. With today's games, there isn't enough time to play good games. Sure, you might screw around for an hour or two, and if you're an addict of a particular genre, like I am of RPG's, you're probably going to play mediocre games in order to get your fix. But otherwise, in judging a system, you're really talking about the top crop: the premium games you play over and over.
For the most part, games cross platforms. It's stupid to talk about sports games. The same games are on every platform. So we're really talking about the premier games that are exclusive to one system or the other.
How do we objectively assign this value? Well, let's use Gamerankings. In my experience, the great games, the ones you play over and over, are above ~90%. There are exceptions. Don't go Nazi on me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Exclusive Games above ~90% at Gamerankings
Xbox
Halo
Halo 2
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Ninja Gaiden
Ninja Gaiden: Black
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory
Project Gotham Racing 2
Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind (GOTY Edition)
Panzer Dragoon Orta
Jade Empire
Playstation 2
Resident Evil 4
****l Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
****l Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
****l Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec
Pro Evolution Soccer 2
Pro Evolution Soccer 4
Pro Evolution Soccer 5
World Soccer Winning Eleven 7
Devil May Cry
Virtua Fighter 4
Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution
Guitar Hero
God of War
Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal
Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando
Shadow of the Colossus
Final Fantasy X
ICO
Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy
Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King
|
As we can see, there's a reason PS guys harp on the games issue; however, keep in mind that about 1/4 of these games here came after Xbox released the 360 and focused its efforts on games for that system. So the sheer bulk is a little misleading.
But really, this is what it comes down to. Which system has the killer game for you. I hear so much bullshit about which is "better" from guys who clearly haven't played both.
In my opinion, the Xbox was a better system for RPG's. This comes from the perspective of someone who really only has time to beat about 3-4 games. If I had to choose one, I'd take Xbox. For shooters, I'd take Xbox. Sorry, it has Halo. All the Resident Evil and ****l Gear Solid in the world doesn't equal Halo 2 on Xbox Live (I've played this more than everything else combined). Playstation online sucked.
If you like adventure games, fighting games, strategy games, or eclectic games, then PS was the system for you. I'll give the PS sports too because they have the edge in soccer games, all their cross-platform games tend to be cleaner, and the extra controller button really does make a difference- end of story. And if you're still a kid without a job, PS gets the nod for sheer volume of excellent gaming.
Racings games are a wash. It's Gran Turismo or Project Gotham. Both awesome.
Why do guys make it simpler or more complicated than this? It's just a matter of preference.