Slashdot Mirror

PC version reviews:

GameRankings.com:
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/935227.asp?q=precipice

Metacritic:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/pennyarcadeadventuresepisode1?q=precipice

Use a better site than Yahoo Movies.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/epic_movie/
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/epicmovie

According to Rotten Tomatoes, 2% of Critics liked Epic Movie. It got a 17 out of a 100 on MetaCritic ("Extreme dislike or disgust")

Use a better site than Yahoo Movies.

Agreed. A better example of a popular Wii game with excellent gameplay but graphics that wouldn't challenge a SNES is Geometry Wars (yes, I know it's also available on XBOX360 and PC, but it really shines on the Wii). It also scores a respectable 80 on Metacritic.

I don't know about that. The Stardock games always get pretty good reviews, and they certainly don't have the most up-to-date graphics. It probably depends a lot on the genre and the platform. It certainly is true, however, that you won't find games from a company like Stardock unless you're going out of your way to look for them because they aren't very heavily marketed.

Which is probably why I've never seen a gaming mag review Bejeweled even though I bet it's one of the most played games in the world today.

ahem...

sure, that's technically not exactly Bejeweled, but the core gameplay is the same.

Right now, games just recognize 2 or 3 movements (slash, stab, etc), and play a fixed animation, which is bullshit.

The _real_ improvement would be the ability to use it as a light saber.

This is exactly what I DON'T want to happen. Record companies start to realize that if they can get their songs into the games they might stand to make a buck. They'll start slipping Red Octane bribes to place their songs in the lineup. Then the games will become just as watered down as CD's are now. We'll end up paying (assuming we still support the game) sixty bucks for a game with four songs we actually enjoy and the rest will be crap.

Already happened, it's called Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s

To give Mass Effect its due, its pacing and story was better than plenty of "name" flicks out there (you listening to me, Sunshine? I had such high hopes...). But to suggest that it's better than, say, There Will Be Blood... I mean, c'mon now.

To give Mass Effect its due, its pacing and story was better than plenty of "name" flicks out there (you listening to me, Sunshine? I had such high hopes...). But to suggest that it's better than, say, There Will Be Blood... I mean, c'mon now.

Parent should be modded troll. First of all, Halo 3 was praised by pretty much every reviewer, not just Gerstmann. Gerstmanns score, 9.5, is just 0.1 above the average on Metacritic. Every reviewer out there is an Xbox fanboy? Right. And besides, Gerstmann could hardly be considered a Halo fanboy. Citing Gerstmann's personal blog:

Parent post is full of misinformation. All evidence points to the conclusion that Gerstmann was fired because he was too harsh on high profile games such as Kane & Lynch, not because he was a Xbox 360 fanboy. If you have any evidence to the contrary, you should put it forward.

It doesn't take much (money) to get a game rated above 80% these days. It's not like in the old days, where if you had a terrible game, they'd actually give you a rating of 7%. The range for most games is around 60%-100%. So being above 80% doesn't really say much. The real question is, how many games are above 95%?

95% or above gives you 2 for Wii, 2 for Xbox360 and none for the PS3.

If you reduce it to 90% (which I think it still a perfectly acceptable score) then you get 4 for Wii, 11 for XBox360 and 4 for PS3.

(Source)

There is a Futurama PS2 game : http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/futurama?q=futurama I believe there's a Xbox version of that too.

While we've had controversy in the past with fake movie reviews, there's never really been a question about bribed movie reviews.

Why is this? I think it's because movie reviews are advertised by the reviewer, not the paper. You don't open up the Chicago Sun-Times to read the Sun-Times movie reviews, you open up the Chicago Sun-Times to read Roger Ebert's movie reviews. For games, however, with the exception of people like Yahtzee and his "Zero Punctuation" reviews, write-ups are advertised by the site as a whole. Read the Gamespot review! Read the IGN review! Compare the Metacritic pages for a film and a game and you'll see what I'm talking about.

So how can we fix this? We need higher-profile game reviewers and for that to occur we need more games to be viewed as art -- or at least as a viable form of expression/story-telling. Just as Hollywood legitimized the movie industry by telling compelling stories and setting up a system of internal rewards for good products (Oscars), we need something legitimate for video-games.

Is that ever going to happen? Who knows.

Of course the whole thing might just be pointless because with demos and such people can get a much better sense of the game than anyone can get with a movie trailer.

While we've had controversy in the past with fake movie reviews, there's never really been a question about bribed movie reviews.

Why is this? I think it's because movie reviews are advertised by the reviewer, not the paper. You don't open up the Chicago Sun-Times to read the Sun-Times movie reviews, you open up the Chicago Sun-Times to read Roger Ebert's movie reviews. For games, however, with the exception of people like Yahtzee and his "Zero Punctuation" reviews, write-ups are advertised by the site as a whole. Read the Gamespot review! Read the IGN review! Compare the Metacritic pages for a film and a game and you'll see what I'm talking about.

So how can we fix this? We need higher-profile game reviewers and for that to occur we need more games to be viewed as art -- or at least as a viable form of expression/story-telling. Just as Hollywood legitimized the movie industry by telling compelling stories and setting up a system of internal rewards for good products (Oscars), we need something legitimate for video-games.

Is that ever going to happen? Who knows.

Of course the whole thing might just be pointless because with demos and such people can get a much better sense of the game than anyone can get with a movie trailer.

For everything cool that the game does, from the heightened tension of breaking into a prison to a shootout in a Tokyo nightclub to some amazing chase sequences, it shoots itself in the foot with a terrible cover system, artificial incompetence, and a multiplayer mode that sums up everything that's half-baked about the experience.

Sure, the gritty atmosphere and balls out gunplay offers up some thrills, and yes the multiplayer options hold some potential but the hard-boiled noir tone and interesting amalgam of varied ideas never truly comes together to form the cohesive action thriller that the game aspires to be.

It would be very possible. I got a wii about 2 months ago and I've bought a single wii game since then. I want to buy more, I eagerly scan the videogame store shelf every week, but the games tend to be underwhelming at best.

Count yourself lucky you have a Wii, I can't buy one in the UK for love nor money. The shops in London all get small batches which sell out on the day they come in.

For games, check out the Wii section of Metacritic. If you stick with only the green rated games, you're looking at Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Resident Evil 4, Metroid and Zack & Wiki as 5 to start off with.

Your business accounting appear to be a little rusty. I think it's analogy time!

You are a dairy farmer. You have five cows. One of those cows has been eating more and more grass lately, but isn't producing much milk. What's more, the last milk it produced was extremely sour and didn't even pay for its grass. Do you keep this cow? No, because it will continue to eat grass that would be better given to other cows. You cut your losses, slaughter it, and make use of its meat to get some benefit out of the lame cow.

Now let's look at Bioware from a dairy perspective. You're still a farmer. You hear that someone might be willing to sell you a cow that has been history of producing excellent milk. What's more, cow experts are proclaiming that this cow's next batch of milk will achieve record sales, and there are many hints that the cow has a long and productive life ahead of it. How much is a cow like this worth? Is it worth the expected profits of its milk for one year? Two years? Five years?

In the end, a cash cow like Bioware is worth almost anything the current owner asks. Assuming that the cow doesn't get sick and die prematurely, it will eventually pay for itself -- and more. If you believe that the cow will be healthy for longer than five years, you should gladly fork over the equivalent of five years of that cow's projected milk revenue, because in the long run it will be profitable.

Hmm. Now I'm thirsty.

Your business accounting appear to be a little rusty. I think it's analogy time!

You are a dairy farmer. You have five cows. One of those cows has been eating more and more grass lately, but isn't producing much milk. What's more, the last milk it produced was extremely sour and didn't even pay for its grass. Do you keep this cow? No, because it will continue to eat grass that would be better given to other cows. You cut your losses, slaughter it, and make use of its meat to get some benefit out of the lame cow.

Now let's look at Bioware from a dairy perspective. You're still a farmer. You hear that someone might be willing to sell you a cow that has been history of producing excellent milk. What's more, cow experts are proclaiming that this cow's next batch of milk will achieve record sales, and there are many hints that the cow has a long and productive life ahead of it. How much is a cow like this worth? Is it worth the expected profits of its milk for one year? Two years? Five years?

In the end, a cash cow like Bioware is worth almost anything the current owner asks. Assuming that the cow doesn't get sick and die prematurely, it will eventually pay for itself -- and more. If you believe that the cow will be healthy for longer than five years, you should gladly fork over the equivalent of five years of that cow's projected milk revenue, because in the long run it will be profitable.

Hmm. Now I'm thirsty.

Nothing beats getting your hands on a demo and actually playing the game. I won't even buy most games unless there's a playable demo (try before you buy). I only visit a couple game related websites, such as GameRankings, Metacritic and Yahtzee's reviews at The Escapist. Any other game info I need I will check out the Wikipedia entry (for release dates, etc).

I used to get game magazines 5-10 years ago mainly for the demo discs and articles about upcoming games, but with the internet, game magazines are pretty much dead. Review sites like IGN and Gamespot are also useless to me when I can just visit GameRankings and see all the scores compiled in one place.

Although he has a point, we humans love to compare and if you don't give us any metric by which to do that, then we don't feel like anything has been achieved.

"SuperGame is really good" is meaningless to me. What I want to know is, is it any better than GreatGame? If the reviewer gives a score for both then I can understand which he/she feels is better and by what margin. Since I've played GreatGame (and assuming I trust the reviewer), then I can set some sort of expectation of what SuperGame will be like.

Personally, I use Metacritic which aggregates a number of reviews. Again, it's not perfect, but when it gets a 75 or above score, I can be reasonably certain that I'm not getting a dud game. It might not be my type of game, but if it is, then it shouldn't be disappointing.

To be honest, I think you're nuts. I can't imagine buying a PS3 when there are so many top-notch 360-only or 360-and-PC-only titles available right now. The only top-shelf title the PS3 currently has access to is Oblivion, everything else is essentially good but not great. Furthermore, with only 17% of the next-gen market currently, the PS3 has a lot of ground to make up. The quirky and interesting games that represent a risky investment for publishers are going to show up on the system(s) with the largest market share. I wouldn't want to buy into a platform that is unlikely to see this generation's Guitar Hero, or Katamari, or Shadow of the Colossus. I'm not talking about the sequels to those games, I'm talking about the wholly new games that no one's heard about yet, but everyone will be playing a year or two from now. In the previous generation, all of those titles appeared on the PS2 because its market share was so dominant, but that's not going to be anywhere near the case for the PS3 at this rate.

To be honest, I think you're nuts. I can't imagine buying a PS3 when there are so many top-notch 360-only or 360-and-PC-only titles available right now. The only top-shelf title the PS3 currently has access to is Oblivion, everything else is essentially good but not great. Furthermore, with only 17% of the next-gen market currently, the PS3 has a lot of ground to make up. The quirky and interesting games that represent a risky investment for publishers are going to show up on the system(s) with the largest market share. I wouldn't want to buy into a platform that is unlikely to see this generation's Guitar Hero, or Katamari, or Shadow of the Colossus. I'm not talking about the sequels to those games, I'm talking about the wholly new games that no one's heard about yet, but everyone will be playing a year or two from now. In the previous generation, all of those titles appeared on the PS2 because its market share was so dominant, but that's not going to be anywhere near the case for the PS3 at this rate.

> 8 games? Yikes, either you play *everything* or you've got some real crud in there. Care to elaborate?

The four games I was referring to were Ninja Gaiden Sigma (88), Skate (85), Stuntman: Ignition (75), and Warhawk (84). The downloadable game was Super Stardust HD (84). None of those games are even remotely close to "crud".

The four games I referred to having an interest in purchasing before the end of the year are Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools Of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Rock Band, and the collector's edition of Stranglehold. I might also consider Army Of Two, Assassin's Creed, and Call Of Duty 4, depending on the reviews.

> To give an idea, the top 8 games on PS3 get metacritic scores of 85 or more [...] Only one of those is over 90. To compare, the 360 has *27* games at 85 or more [...] 9 of which rate 90 or more.

The original post had nothing to do with the 360 -- it was about the insinuation that no one uses the PS3 for gaming, which is ridiculous.

You're also making an apples to oranges comparison, because the 360 has been out longer and has a much larger base of titles. But if you want to compare, as of October 13th Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii show that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. At 90+ the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind.

> the general sentiment is the PS3 needs a killer app (like a halo, gears of war, or some other really good exclusive title) to make it worth getting.

The general sentiment is also that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Britney Spears's personal life is somehow newsworthy. I'll think for myself, thanks.

That said, every console gets a "killer app" eventually. I'm sure the inevitable God Of War III will fill that void if nothing else does beforehand.

> 8 games? Yikes, either you play *everything* or you've got some real crud in there. Care to elaborate?

The four games I was referring to were Ninja Gaiden Sigma (88), Skate (85), Stuntman: Ignition (75), and Warhawk (84). The downloadable game was Super Stardust HD (84). None of those games are even remotely close to "crud".

The four games I referred to having an interest in purchasing before the end of the year are Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools Of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Rock Band, and the collector's edition of Stranglehold. I might also consider Army Of Two, Assassin's Creed, and Call Of Duty 4, depending on the reviews.

> To give an idea, the top 8 games on PS3 get metacritic scores of 85 or more [...] Only one of those is over 90. To compare, the 360 has *27* games at 85 or more [...] 9 of which rate 90 or more.

The original post had nothing to do with the 360 -- it was about the insinuation that no one uses the PS3 for gaming, which is ridiculous.

You're also making an apples to oranges comparison, because the 360 has been out longer and has a much larger base of titles. But if you want to compare, as of October 13th Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii show that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. At 90+ the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind.

> the general sentiment is the PS3 needs a killer app (like a halo, gears of war, or some other really good exclusive title) to make it worth getting.

The general sentiment is also that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Britney Spears's personal life is somehow newsworthy. I'll think for myself, thanks.

That said, every console gets a "killer app" eventually. I'm sure the inevitable God Of War III will fill that void if nothing else does beforehand.

> 8 games? Yikes, either you play *everything* or you've got some real crud in there. Care to elaborate?

The four games I was referring to were Ninja Gaiden Sigma (88), Skate (85), Stuntman: Ignition (75), and Warhawk (84). The downloadable game was Super Stardust HD (84). None of those games are even remotely close to "crud".

The four games I referred to having an interest in purchasing before the end of the year are Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools Of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Rock Band, and the collector's edition of Stranglehold. I might also consider Army Of Two, Assassin's Creed, and Call Of Duty 4, depending on the reviews.

> To give an idea, the top 8 games on PS3 get metacritic scores of 85 or more [...] Only one of those is over 90. To compare, the 360 has *27* games at 85 or more [...] 9 of which rate 90 or more.

The original post had nothing to do with the 360 -- it was about the insinuation that no one uses the PS3 for gaming, which is ridiculous.

You're also making an apples to oranges comparison, because the 360 has been out longer and has a much larger base of titles. But if you want to compare, as of October 13th Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii show that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. At 90+ the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind.

> the general sentiment is the PS3 needs a killer app (like a halo, gears of war, or some other really good exclusive title) to make it worth getting.

The general sentiment is also that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Britney Spears's personal life is somehow newsworthy. I'll think for myself, thanks.

That said, every console gets a "killer app" eventually. I'm sure the inevitable God Of War III will fill that void if nothing else does beforehand.

> 8 games? Yikes, either you play *everything* or you've got some real crud in there. Care to elaborate?

The four games I was referring to were Ninja Gaiden Sigma (88), Skate (85), Stuntman: Ignition (75), and Warhawk (84). The downloadable game was Super Stardust HD (84). None of those games are even remotely close to "crud".

The four games I referred to having an interest in purchasing before the end of the year are Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools Of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Rock Band, and the collector's edition of Stranglehold. I might also consider Army Of Two, Assassin's Creed, and Call Of Duty 4, depending on the reviews.

> To give an idea, the top 8 games on PS3 get metacritic scores of 85 or more [...] Only one of those is over 90. To compare, the 360 has *27* games at 85 or more [...] 9 of which rate 90 or more.

The original post had nothing to do with the 360 -- it was about the insinuation that no one uses the PS3 for gaming, which is ridiculous.

You're also making an apples to oranges comparison, because the 360 has been out longer and has a much larger base of titles. But if you want to compare, as of October 13th Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii show that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. At 90+ the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind.

> the general sentiment is the PS3 needs a killer app (like a halo, gears of war, or some other really good exclusive title) to make it worth getting.

The general sentiment is also that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Britney Spears's personal life is somehow newsworthy. I'll think for myself, thanks.

That said, every console gets a "killer app" eventually. I'm sure the inevitable God Of War III will fill that void if nothing else does beforehand.

> 8 games? Yikes, either you play *everything* or you've got some real crud in there. Care to elaborate?

The four games I was referring to were Ninja Gaiden Sigma (88), Skate (85), Stuntman: Ignition (75), and Warhawk (84). The downloadable game was Super Stardust HD (84). None of those games are even remotely close to "crud".

The four games I referred to having an interest in purchasing before the end of the year are Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools Of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Rock Band, and the collector's edition of Stranglehold. I might also consider Army Of Two, Assassin's Creed, and Call Of Duty 4, depending on the reviews.

> To give an idea, the top 8 games on PS3 get metacritic scores of 85 or more [...] Only one of those is over 90. To compare, the 360 has *27* games at 85 or more [...] 9 of which rate 90 or more.

The original post had nothing to do with the 360 -- it was about the insinuation that no one uses the PS3 for gaming, which is ridiculous.

You're also making an apples to oranges comparison, because the 360 has been out longer and has a much larger base of titles. But if you want to compare, as of October 13th Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii show that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. At 90+ the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind.

> the general sentiment is the PS3 needs a killer app (like a halo, gears of war, or some other really good exclusive title) to make it worth getting.

The general sentiment is also that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Britney Spears's personal life is somehow newsworthy. I'll think for myself, thanks.

That said, every console gets a "killer app" eventually. I'm sure the inevitable God Of War III will fill that void if nothing else does beforehand.

> 8 games? Yikes, either you play *everything* or you've got some real crud in there. Care to elaborate?

The four games I was referring to were Ninja Gaiden Sigma (88), Skate (85), Stuntman: Ignition (75), and Warhawk (84). The downloadable game was Super Stardust HD (84). None of those games are even remotely close to "crud".

The four games I referred to having an interest in purchasing before the end of the year are Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools Of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Rock Band, and the collector's edition of Stranglehold. I might also consider Army Of Two, Assassin's Creed, and Call Of Duty 4, depending on the reviews.

> To give an idea, the top 8 games on PS3 get metacritic scores of 85 or more [...] Only one of those is over 90. To compare, the 360 has *27* games at 85 or more [...] 9 of which rate 90 or more.

The original post had nothing to do with the 360 -- it was about the insinuation that no one uses the PS3 for gaming, which is ridiculous.

You're also making an apples to oranges comparison, because the 360 has been out longer and has a much larger base of titles. But if you want to compare, as of October 13th Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii show that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. At 90+ the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind.

> the general sentiment is the PS3 needs a killer app (like a halo, gears of war, or some other really good exclusive title) to make it worth getting.

The general sentiment is also that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Britney Spears's personal life is somehow newsworthy. I'll think for myself, thanks.

That said, every console gets a "killer app" eventually. I'm sure the inevitable God Of War III will fill that void if nothing else does beforehand.

> 8 games? Yikes, either you play *everything* or you've got some real crud in there. Care to elaborate?

The four games I was referring to were Ninja Gaiden Sigma (88), Skate (85), Stuntman: Ignition (75), and Warhawk (84). The downloadable game was Super Stardust HD (84). None of those games are even remotely close to "crud".

The four games I referred to having an interest in purchasing before the end of the year are Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools Of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Rock Band, and the collector's edition of Stranglehold. I might also consider Army Of Two, Assassin's Creed, and Call Of Duty 4, depending on the reviews.

> To give an idea, the top 8 games on PS3 get metacritic scores of 85 or more [...] Only one of those is over 90. To compare, the 360 has *27* games at 85 or more [...] 9 of which rate 90 or more.

The original post had nothing to do with the 360 -- it was about the insinuation that no one uses the PS3 for gaming, which is ridiculous.

You're also making an apples to oranges comparison, because the 360 has been out longer and has a much larger base of titles. But if you want to compare, as of October 13th Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii show that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. At 90+ the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind.

> the general sentiment is the PS3 needs a killer app (like a halo, gears of war, or some other really good exclusive title) to make it worth getting.

The general sentiment is also that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Britney Spears's personal life is somehow newsworthy. I'll think for myself, thanks.

That said, every console gets a "killer app" eventually. I'm sure the inevitable God Of War III will fill that void if nothing else does beforehand.

> 8 games? Yikes, either you play *everything* or you've got some real crud in there. Care to elaborate?

The four games I was referring to were Ninja Gaiden Sigma (88), Skate (85), Stuntman: Ignition (75), and Warhawk (84). The downloadable game was Super Stardust HD (84). None of those games are even remotely close to "crud".

The four games I referred to having an interest in purchasing before the end of the year are Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools Of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Rock Band, and the collector's edition of Stranglehold. I might also consider Army Of Two, Assassin's Creed, and Call Of Duty 4, depending on the reviews.

> To give an idea, the top 8 games on PS3 get metacritic scores of 85 or more [...] Only one of those is over 90. To compare, the 360 has *27* games at 85 or more [...] 9 of which rate 90 or more.

The original post had nothing to do with the 360 -- it was about the insinuation that no one uses the PS3 for gaming, which is ridiculous.

You're also making an apples to oranges comparison, because the 360 has been out longer and has a much larger base of titles. But if you want to compare, as of October 13th Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii show that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. At 90+ the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind.

> the general sentiment is the PS3 needs a killer app (like a halo, gears of war, or some other really good exclusive title) to make it worth getting.

The general sentiment is also that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Britney Spears's personal life is somehow newsworthy. I'll think for myself, thanks.

That said, every console gets a "killer app" eventually. I'm sure the inevitable God Of War III will fill that void if nothing else does beforehand.

8 games? Yikes, either you play *everything* or you've got some real crud in there. Care to elaborate? (I hope one of them isn't Lair ;) )

To give an idea, the top 8 games on PS3 get metacritic scores of 85 or more ( http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/ ). Only one of those is over 90.

To compare, the 360 has *27* games at 85 or more ( http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/ ) 9 of which rate 90 or more.

For me, of those 8 games I'd be interested in 4, 2 of which are also available on PC.

I'm glad you're enjoying your PS3 for gaming (hell, competition is what keeps things improving) but the general sentiment is the PS3 needs a killer app (like a halo, gears of war, or some other really good exclusive title) to make it worth getting.

8 games? Yikes, either you play *everything* or you've got some real crud in there. Care to elaborate? (I hope one of them isn't Lair ;) )

To give an idea, the top 8 games on PS3 get metacritic scores of 85 or more ( http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/ ). Only one of those is over 90.

To compare, the 360 has *27* games at 85 or more ( http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/ ) 9 of which rate 90 or more.

For me, of those 8 games I'd be interested in 4, 2 of which are also available on PC.

I'm glad you're enjoying your PS3 for gaming (hell, competition is what keeps things improving) but the general sentiment is the PS3 needs a killer app (like a halo, gears of war, or some other really good exclusive title) to make it worth getting.

> the Wii has definitely kept up with the others in terms of game count.

Game count, yes. Game quality, no.

Using Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii, you can see that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. The only place where the Wii is competitive is in the 90+ tier, where the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind. That may change as developers shift more resources over to Wii development, but for now it's the reality.

> the Wii has definitely kept up with the others in terms of game count.

Game count, yes. Game quality, no.

Using Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii, you can see that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. The only place where the Wii is competitive is in the 90+ tier, where the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind. That may change as developers shift more resources over to Wii development, but for now it's the reality.

> the Wii has definitely kept up with the others in terms of game count.

Game count, yes. Game quality, no.

Using Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii, you can see that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. The only place where the Wii is competitive is in the 90+ tier, where the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind. That may change as developers shift more resources over to Wii development, but for now it's the reality.

Hahaha, what?

Wii has a very weak selection of games right now, and if you can't see that, you aren't as "hardcore" as you think. Just take a look at these two links for some average review scores:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/wii/scores/
http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/

As you can see, Wii has currently three games with a score of 90 or higher. Xbox 360 has nine. Wii has seven games with a score of 80 or higher. Xbox 360 has 71. The console that offers the best value right now is Xbox 360, hands down. The PS3 will come very strong with plenty of exclusives in 2008 and beyond though, so it's entirely possible that Sony can turn around and win another generation. Wii? Who knows. It seems developers are mostly interested in making minigames and other games for casuals. I doubt that Wii will ever have a better selection of games than either Xbox 360 or PS3 will have, but as we can see here, hype and appeal to casuals (like you) is sometimes enough.

Hahaha, what?

Wii has a very weak selection of games right now, and if you can't see that, you aren't as "hardcore" as you think. Just take a look at these two links for some average review scores:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/wii/scores/
http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/

As you can see, Wii has currently three games with a score of 90 or higher. Xbox 360 has nine. Wii has seven games with a score of 80 or higher. Xbox 360 has 71. The console that offers the best value right now is Xbox 360, hands down. The PS3 will come very strong with plenty of exclusives in 2008 and beyond though, so it's entirely possible that Sony can turn around and win another generation. Wii? Who knows. It seems developers are mostly interested in making minigames and other games for casuals. I doubt that Wii will ever have a better selection of games than either Xbox 360 or PS3 will have, but as we can see here, hype and appeal to casuals (like you) is sometimes enough.

Anyway, simply put, if a game isn't good, it doesn't sell well. Halo 3 is big deal for one reason, both Halo and Halo 2 were great games. Halo 2 in particular is renowned for its incredibly well made multiplayer.

In addition Halo 3 has 2 and 4 player coop, offline and online. Full gameplay recording, both single and multi, which can be played back with slowmo, free camera etc. It also has the inbuilt garrys mod style editor: "Forge". Which can even be used during a multiplayer game.

As for myself, i've been gaming since I was around 7 years old (1990) and have played pretty much every great FPS there is, including doom, doom 2, quake 1,2,3, half life 1,2, RTCW, Deus Ex, System Shock, Bioshock, The original marathons 1,2, Chronicles of Riddick, Goldeneye and probably a lot more I can't remember.

I actually much preferred Halo 2 to Half-Life 2. And indeed, so little did I care for Half Life 2's story that I didn't even complete that particular game. With Halo however, I actually care about the characters and want to know what happens. That's why I enjoyed halo and halo 2. Sure the environments repeated a bit and the story isn't totally incredibly original, but what Halo does well is the basic gameplay and "30 seconds of fun" is *surprise* incredibly fun.

But of course, all those magazines and websites who are rating Halo 3 so well are all wrong. And you mr Internet man are obviously correct.

Metacritic reviews of Lair

ouch...

Huh, I guess the critics and fans are wrong.

Resistance: Fall of Man
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/resi stancefallofman?q=Resistance

Heavenly Sword
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/heav enlysword

As for Lair, from what I heard Factor 5 tried to make it into Rogue Squadron with dragons. I like the Rogue Squadron series just as much as the next guy, but I think that Factor 5 has kinda bled that genre dry.

Huh, I guess the critics and fans are wrong.

Resistance: Fall of Man
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/resi stancefallofman?q=Resistance

Heavenly Sword
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/heav enlysword

As for Lair, from what I heard Factor 5 tried to make it into Rogue Squadron with dragons. I like the Rogue Squadron series just as much as the next guy, but I think that Factor 5 has kinda bled that genre dry.

Huh? Heavenly Sword isn't out for another two weeks, has someone reviewed it already? If so, what's so bad about it? The demo is absolutely amazing, it's hard to imagine the finished game being that bad.

Yes, A number of people reviewed it, to mixed results. The 10 minute Demo (ok it's not timed, but crazy short) does make it "Feel" like this is a setup to be "Goddess of War", but according to the reviews, the best part (button mashing combat) is only about half the game, and it's a seriously short (like 6 hour) game.

The demo did pique my interest though. I think it would warrant a rent anyway, but I don't expect this being worth the $60 to put on my shelf based on the early reviews.

Now, if there aren't lots of quality games to choose from by this time next year, there will be problems without a doubt.

Agreed, but the PS3 is actually doing pretty well - it is the Wii owners that should be worried.

Assuming a good game is one that has an average score of 80% or higher - then current figures from Metacritic are:

1. PS3 = 19 out of 61 = 31%
2. Wii = 7 out of 78 = 9%
3. Xbox 360 = 59 out of 232 = 25%

I've no doubt that the innovative controller of the Wii could revolutionise gaming and make it more appealling to the masses and that there are great games coming in the future - which is great, but doesn't really mean much if the developers are unable to make and sell games right now which use it well and produce what people consider a "great game".

Best website in my opinion for Game and Movie reviews has to be Metacritic
It takes reviews from loads of sites, offers links to the reviews, and gives you a standard score out of 100 for the game. It also has user comments, which can be useful.

### you haven't defined.

You want a definition of "hardcore", how about something very simple: Games that are liked by gamers. How do we find out which ones that are? Lets have a look at the popular review sites, not just one (biased) one, but one of those pages that build average scores out of many review sites:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/wii/scores/

A impressive number of 7 games above 80%, two of them Gamecube ports, one a port of a DS game, one a port of a PSP game, one is Madden and the remaining ones are WarioWare and PaperMario. Sorry, but by no stretch of imagination that can be called impressive. The PS3 with its terribly lacking games line-up has more then twice as much above-80% games and even the N-Gage comes out better.

You might call all those reviews biased, since they certainly don't match the casual gamer taste and you might be right (see Wii Sports), but then, thats the point. The Wii caters to a new audience and has basically completly abandoned the normal gamer population.

And about "give it time", well, thats exactly what I do, as soon as enough good games are out for it, I'll buy one, but I don't expect that to be anytime soon, if ever before the end of this generation.

Wow... simply, wow.

The game is beyond words.

But the reviews... especially the metacritic reviews... I laughed so much I started hyperventilating. Just trying to picture the rage, sadness, surprise, confusion, letdown and numbness everyone is feeling is awe inspiring. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Though it still doesn't mean it's "so bad it's good" cause it's damnable. The reviews are what's "so bad it's good".

If they release it for Wii: - People will be more accepting of slightly outdated graphics. - Blizzard developers get some experience with coding controls for the Wii. - Introduce Starcraft and Blizzard to a whole new audience.

I agree. Additionally, I think the rave reviews of the control scheme in the recently-released Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition indicate that the Wii remote/nunchuk controls are ideal for a third-person shooter like Starcraft Ghost.

The quality of video games has been increasing? Since when? It's nothing but boring sequel after boring sequel, and lame franchise-pushing game after lame franchise-pushing game.

My favorite game in the Caesar series is probably Caesar 2, could just be nostalgic memories of the joy I felt the first time my city didn't go bankrupt. Caesar IV just wasn't as fun as Caesar 3, this is 100% opinion though, not some kind of truth.

Although if you read the reviews Caesar IV wasn't greeted as anywhere close to a game of the year competitor. http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/caesa r4?q=caesar%20IV#critics

I just picked up S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl recently, and it's pretty good.

It's an RPG/FPS hybrid that takes place in the 30km exclusion zone around the site of the Chernobyl disaster. You can wander around pretty much wherever you please, though if you're careless you'll run out of ammo and then stumble into a radioactive pile of metal as you try to escape whatever mutated horrors have found you.

It's actually quite fun.

Reviews here: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/stalk ershadowofchernobyl?q=stalker