It's pretty easy to get a higher percentage when you have less games to begin with. Give 'em a few years of 3rd party garbage and they'll have leveled out right alongside everyone else.

Either that or Sony's buying more than just ad space on IGN these days...

Marty are you dumb? These are ranking PUBLISHERS not consoles. So where exactly would 3rd party games come into the mix? Oh they wouldn't.

@Marty

Why don't you actually read the article so you don't continue your flow of stupidity on this website?

You are bitter, but your tears taste sweet sir!

What he meant is that Sony simply doesn't make as many games as, say, Nintendo does.

Sure didnt sound like it.

Do you understand the difference between developers and publishers, loungemonkey?

@Fatass

If that was what he meant then he wouldn't have said "Give 'em a few years of 3rd party garbage and they'll have leveled out right alongside everyone else."

He saw a tiny bit of positive news for SCEA and jumped in with some asinine comment trying to undermine it like he does in EVERY Sony thread.

Wow, way to interpret my actions. I did no such thing, I just noted the lack of games SCEA has actually published, and went on to say that once they have more games out,k the numbers will average better.

Why don't you check your master skills of deduction at the door next time, and avoid making any more embarrassingly wrong comments?

@Marty

What does "3rd party garbage" have to do with the average review scores for SCEA published games?

You're pathetic.

@cc123

Do you think the publisher develops every single game that they publish? No, of course they don't, so perhaps you should direct more of the foolish name-calling towards yourself.
2 hearts

Whether they have less or not Marty, they have scored well regardless, just because you make more does not mean you are autom automatically given the right to make crappy games.

cc123...

It's games that they have PUBLISHED! Not just ones they developed and published. It's not rocket science.

When we refer to 3rd party products we are always talking about games NOT published by SONY, MS, or Nintendo.

Correct me if I'm wrong but games developed by outside developers and published by the big three are second party games.

Don't try to change the meaning of 3rd party into something its not to excuse Marty's retarded comments.

And of course it was necessary to say all that like a douche, right cc123?

I think what he means is if SCEA puts out ONE game all year and it gets a 10, then they'll get a 100%. If nintendo puts out a few 10s and a five, it lowers their score. All about the amount of games here. I could be totally wrong. It'd be nice to see a list of all the games, just for a basis.

To Marty?

Yes.

I think the basic conclusion here is:

Spend time and make better games, don't overflow us with 65% rated games and lower ¬_¬

What Marty means is he misread the thread and did a half-assed snark. Then he got caught and all hell broke loose. And if people followed the link, they'd find this chart which shows number of releases across the various consoles and handhelds.

http://www.next-gen.biz/images/stories/mattsgraphs/by-the-numbers-005_html_13805c38.gif

Looks like Nintendo only released a couple more games than SCEA this year. So there goes those high scores balanced out by fewer releases.

Lets not forget that games Published by Sony are not limited to the PS3. There actually happens to be two other systems that they are still making games for. If you finish reading the article(or if you read the article and not just the head line), you will find that they actually say that some publishers have many more games than others. The graph at the end of the article shows that publisher giant EA, published 100+ titles in 2007, while Nintendo and Sony had about 30. Lets read the article before making comments.

Looks like Fidlious just ended the argument with a single post. Well done.

@FidliousWong

hmm... something interesting I saw in your chart. SCEA produced more games than Microsoft, but still managed to get the best average review scores. Just wanted to point that out...

Shon S, I don't really see how that's any interesting point. After all, MS was publishing on two fronts (360 and PC) whereas Sony was dropping on three fronts (PS2, PS3, and PSP).

I find it a little unsettling that Sony published so little, especially considering how the sports titles go cross platform. PS3 is ramping up, PS2 is slowing down, but somehow PSP remains steady, but barely a focus. Seems PSP is being treated more as a platform to continue PS2 support rather than it's own thing outside of a couple examples. Which is sad. I genuinely love the system but sometimes it seems what it could be and what's made of it are two drastically different things.

Meanwhile, MS got two strikes against their score as they went multiplat with Shadowrun which was panned hard by 360 owners, and bashed harder on the PC side of things (where the love of all things Halo doesn't convert well either). MS published many top notch games this year but they also dropped some review bombs as well. I'm sure if Part Animals wasn't half-assed, MS's score could be higher. Likewise, Blue Dragon was critically panned and Tenchu Z was just abused. I can't remember, was Vampire Rain this year as well? And MS published Project Silpheed, did they not? And Gears certainly wasn't as universally loved by PC critics as it was console critics. Essentially you have a lot of good steps and some average steps and a fair amount of bad steps.

And even Nintendo dropped a few stinkers this year. But at the end of the day, everyone got good games this year and people who own multiple consoles got it even better.

Yup - Vampire Rain was a 2007 game.

hey marty where are you?

Don't do it!
You're going to hit supernova!

*golf clap*

Now, I'm not saying either company is better than the other, but something I have noticed is that while every game Sony has contributed to (they don't contribute to many games, and when they do, they normally take backseat to the main developer) turns out good, Nintendo games run the gamut from assblastastic to just plain ass. However, Nintendo, at least in my opinion, has more of those assblastastic games than Sony does.

Assblastastic = good for those of you who are wondering wtf I'm talking about.

How many PS3 exclusives titles with an average score of 90 and above?

None.

Wii: Mario Galaxy, SSBB, Metroid...

Go and play your inferior games.

Hold on, so you've somehow magically discounted the 2 highest rated games of all time; Ocarina of Time and Mario Galaxy?

How odd.

Hey kids, just remember that this is talking about 2007 ONLY so play nice.

And tie your shoes Timmy for the millionth time!

Fernando, shaddup. That's blatant fanboyism if I've ever seen it.

Why can't gamers just, you know, get along? Fuckin' console allegiances are killing gaming more than a 'casual approach' (Wii) or a 'lack of games' (ps3) ever could.

Forgot to add Twilight Princess...

Four exclusives Wii titles with an average score of 90 and above vs zero PS3 titles above 90.

Sorry Fatass...

I thought we were friends =(

I agree with you more often than I disagree with ya, Fernando, but there's a limit to fanboyism, and you pass it quite frequently.

Wow, like, that isn't a fanboy comment at all. Jackass.

aha!

my ploy has revealed the identity of the Fanboys. Well, those besides fernando whom we all knew as a fanboy before. I'm talking about...

oh right, everybody else seems pretty normal

anyway...

Would Fernando be classified as a Nintendo fanboy or a Sony troll? Because lately I've been confused by this and I don't think you can be both.

Nintendo Fanboy!

I don't bash Sony like last year. =)

Comeon ladies, no need to pull at each others skirts, we can discuss this like gentlemen :)

Fernando:

"How many PS3 exclusives titles with an average score of 90 and above?

None.

Wii: Mario Galaxy, SSBB, Metroid...

Go and play your inferior games."

Good old Fernando, what a douche...

actually, this list goes back to 2005, thats what the article says at the end.

@Gun Barrier
No it doesn't. For those who can read, it says the full story goes back to 2005 not this chart. If you read the first paragraph again it said that this chart is only for 2007. The rest of the story goes back to 2005. Because Knowledge is power.

ohhhhhh snap!

i also have a few questions: is this next gen matt guy trustworthy? what are the sources of the reviews?

ah, too lazy to click through to the parent site...

You? Maybe?