Console launch lineup scores compared

Wii is awesome but the launch blows my nuggets

PS3 laucnh was worse.

ps3 is lamer than a fanboy at launch.

This is kind of silly. A ton of games have like 5 reviews, and several have already gone up or down (Zelda now ties Soul Calibur). This list means nothing until you have a reasonable sample (20?) of reviews for each. Hopefully they'll update this when it's actually relevant, because right now the Wii and PS3 are at either a huge advantage or disadvantage.

Plus the fact that the wii has a lot more games(mostly bad) drags it down compared with the wii e.g

10,1,1,1,1 AVG = 2.8

3,3,3 AVG = 3

Now which set would you rather have?

oops meant the ps3 and the figures were just been picked out of my head

I'm curious why alot of people get so hyped up about this stuff... then again I myself as some one who likes sony over microsoft in nintendo have to admit sony has really blew it. In my oppinion sony should have just waited till sometime in December to launch their units so that they could have made more and gone over and checked for problems and bugs.

Why is Happy Feet even on that list, it has only been reviewed by a single source (Nintendo Power)? Nearly all of the other titles have more than 5 reviews. Doesn't GameRankings.com even require a game have like 15 reviews before its put on their official list?

I agree with Catprog. The Wii has some great launch titles. Zelda, Rayman, Excite Truck is pretty decent, Red Steel is mixed some like it some don't, Trauma Center. Those are all mostly great launch titles. It's just the fact that they had a lot of retarded games like The Ant Bully and Ice Age 2 to go along with it.

From what I saw the ps3 had mostly mediocre games. Resistance looked decent and Genji was sorta interesting. But for the most part the games weren't anything special.

All in all, I'd say the Wii had a great launch, it's just that it was burdened with the likes of Barnyard, Open Season, and Ice Age whereas the ps3 had a few ok but mostly average-not great games.

well i guess n64 ftw then... lol.

but yeah, we'll see how things hold up over time once games like ssbb, mario galaxy, mgs4, dmc4, and so fourth take the stage.

As a PS3 owner I must say the launch thus far sucks. Resistance is good but nothing great. THe only other game I have is the Marvel one that is on every other system known to man.

Soul Calibur no longer. Twilight Princess is back up to a 96.4%. Methinks this story was written a bit too early. Not all the reviews for the PS3 and Wii games have been put in yet. In this case something about Zelda taking 70 hours to complete.

I'm not one to call conspiracy, but look at the ads that plaster 1UP's site...nothing but PS3.

Now look at the scores 1UP gave to all Wii games compared to other gaming sites....notice a trend?

I wonder what the average would be without Zelda.

ha i knew this wud happen...

nintendo fans F teh W!

suprised to see the 360 so high on the list seeing as how COD2 and PGR3 were the only decent launch games(and i *think* the highest rated )while everything else was port after port.

oh and props joystizzle

#14:

I wonder what the average would be without games like Avatar and Happy Feet :|

Is it me or is Halo also on the top with Soul Calibur?

Yeah, this is actually a really crappy indicator of how good the launch is. Some better indicators would probably be to count how many games for the launch average above a 75% or so, are exclusive, and average all of those maybe. The Wii gets dragged down by obvious cash-ins like Happy Feet, when no actual gamer will buy that crap. Most people buy maybe 2-3 launch games, so the real question for a launch is whether there is enough of a decent selection to cover those 2-3 games. I think the Wii definitely qualifies, with a top notch title like Zelda, plus several pretty good "B" games available. The PS3 seems to have just 1 decent game and a crapload of mediocrity.

Wasnt Star Fox 64 a release game for the N64? I really thought that there was more than 2 release games.

Wii=Win

There's a much better way to do this and it would have made this entire "study" a lot more realistic.

Leshrac began to touch on a workable solution. Simply take the best three (or four, five, whatever) games from launch day and average their rankings.

See who wins there.

I Personally think the Wii's Launch went Great. Granted not all of the Wii Launch Games are the best, But the Console Launch itself Went over well, There where plenty of consoles to get at Launch, Compared to both the PS3/360 Launch's where even when you pre-ordered you still didn't Necessarily get one.

Dont get me Wrong, I love my 360, I didn't get it at launch but Getting my Wii at Launch went surprising easy, I preordered it, waited in a line for 10-15mins at the midnight launch, took it home and am still playing it.

I am playing Zelda, Excite Truck, and Truma Center to death. My Parents are hooked on Wii Sports. I cant wait fot Super Smash Bros Brawl and Mario are released but until then The Launch games will get me over.

Well according to metacritic, which is the fairest way cos it averages everyone's reviews, the PS3 has 6 games scoring in the 80s or higher and the Wii has only 3. I can't be bothered to work out averages but it seems like it'd be close cos the Wii does have Zelda pulling everything up.

Sony should have done what Nintendo did with Zelda and repackage their best PS2 releases as PS3 games to make the console look better, because the PS2 is still the console to own right now for great games, with 360 in second.

"suprised to see the 360 so high on the list seeing as how COD2 and PGR3 were the only decent launch games(and i *think* the highest rated )while everything else was port after port."

The 360 had lots of launch games in the 80s. PDZ, Condemned, NBA 2K6, Need for Speed Most Wanted and King Kong (if you can get past its easiness) were all solid games with scores in the low 80s. Kameo got a 79. Heck, Condemned and PDZ (for the multiplayer; can't stress that enough) remain two of my favorite games for the system. The PS3 and the Wii have fewer games scoring in the 80s.

And the 360 doesn't have a horrible clunker bringing it down at the bottom. The lowest-rated game for the 360 is rated considerably higher than the lowest-rated games for the PS3 or Wii. So not having an anchor of suckitude weighing your average down helps, too.

I love Soul Calibur and I've been a fan of the series since the Soul Edge days, but Super Mario64 blows 64 any other recent launch title of any console out of the water, it basically redefined gaming back in it's day.

The wii has more quality titles than the PS3 but with fewer titles the PS3 has a big advantage in the average. Lets only look at the must play games here. The wii has Zelda, Trauma Center, Rayman, and Excite Truck. Possible runners up including Madden and Red Steel. The PS3 has Resistance, Ridge Racer, and Call of Duty 3. With possible runners up including Genji, and well...not much else.

so by swaying this data in the wii's direction..the avgerages become more fair..??

..im lost with all this "use the wii's best games to make an avg."

how does that balance things out?

...i think i just accidentally voted for buchannan

Both launches sucked, but keep in mind PS3 haters, the PS2 suffered awful reviews and sets backs at its launch, 110 millions consoles later, you have a clear winner.

*fuck Nintendo

I completely agree with artimus. Do this again in about a month.

PS2 launched a year ahead of the GCN and Xbox

And wasn't $599

Oh goody...what we really needed were some completely meaningless stats console fanboys can throw at each other in even more meaningless arguments.

Well with Zelda, Rayman, Trauma Center, DBZ, Red Steel, and Wii Sports in my library now and all being really fun (the learning curve killed the Red Steel reviews) my personal opinion is 1UP is clueless. PS3 has Resistance and what? No idea.

Not to say the PS3 sucks (it does right now). Give the Sony machine another year and it'll be kicking ass. Right now though, the Wii has had the strongest launch lineup of the 3 consoles.

Seems like the average scores are changing quite rapidly. Maybe hold off on these comparisons for awhile?

It'll be nice when Nintendo's real Blue Ocean stuff starts hitting shelves.

Aside from utterly jumping the gun, I think it is a mistake to blindly take an average of ALL the launch titles. Leave out the crap. Compare the best half-dozen or a dozen games for each system, because that is a much more realistic cross-section of what people with brains will buy. Anyone who gets Barbie's Horse Adventure III can face the consequences.

Launch line up is mediocre for both...

except that Wii has the Rayman, and that is sooooo awesome.

This is why Sony and Microsoft implement a check on games ever since last gen. Nintendo lets everything pass through. Notable example: The DS. Fricking awful cash-ins.


Serve them right I say.

The PS3 launch titles aren't INTRIGUING...

The only unique game in the PS3 lineup is Resistance and from what I hear, it's not as good as Gears...

On the other hand, the Wii has titles I want to go to the store to purchase.

That's a much better metric than arbitrary reviews...

Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire (34.8%) is one of the top selling PS3 games in Japan! It sold twice as many as Resistance: Fall of Man (89.2%). (Source: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3155248)

I imagine that there are a lot of Japanese who are disappointed by their ¥59,980 console because of the game they bought. I wonder if they'll be a backlash?

"This is why Sony and Microsoft implement a check on games ever since last gen. Nintendo lets everything pass through. Notable example: The DS. Fricking awful cash-ins."

Bull.

If the companies aren't putting their blatant cash-in games, like Happy Feet, on a system, it has nothing to do with "stringent company policies". Whether or not the game sucks (and most likely, it will), it sells, and Sony and Microsoft would get a cut of that. Of course they'd want said games on there.

If they don't appear on a system, it's because a company felt that the amount they'd have to spend on development doesn't equate to appropriate returns - i.e. they wouldn't sell enough to justify the expense of developing for that system. That mostly equates to "there aren't enough copies of that console out there to justify including it in development plans."

Besides, I've got huge stacks of PS2 games that definitely go against the argument that Sony has anything resembling stringent quality demands.

"..im lost with all this "use the wii's best games to make an avg."

how does that balance things out?"

The average number of titles sold with a Nintendo Wii was 3. So you could use the top 3 titles as a logical average, except that obviously people will be buying different games.

Among gamers however, there are very few of us that want to (or can afford) to buy every single launch title. Should Happy Feet hurt the Wii's average launch as much as Zelda helps it? Which do you think sold better?

As many of you are aware (who have taken a statistics course), the presence of horrible games could be atributed to outliers. They often skew averages, which is why they are often removed from a mean score.

Personally, I enjoy the variety of Wii launch titles. I would much rather have a group of very good games with several horrible games at launch to choose from than a slew of just average titles, because I won't buy the bad ones. The fact that Happy Feet's 4.5 is considered an equivalent horrible score to Zelda's 9.6 average is a perfect example of how the scores are skewed in this case.

And sure, if you have to, toss out Zelda. You still have Wii Sports (free!), Trauma Center, Rayman, ExciteTruck, and Madden 07 (the HIGHEST rated football game so far this year). Still a solid launch lineup by any account, even if there are several horrible games.