Edge asks 'How good are Xbox games, really?'

Most games on every console are crap, and I'm thankful for it. I can only afford so many games a year. 360 shouldn't be singled out here, and I never understood why the wii always is. Most games are crap, most art is crap, most music is crap, most films are crap... it just makes the good stuff all the much better.

Are you suprised with games like Yaris?

http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/yaris

:D Devs who make these sorts of games should be hung upside down for an hour.

can we see a ratio from crap to good for the iphone? like 99% crap with the exception of like peggle...

I always do this shit. Downvote that comment, it's a double post.

So there are only 184 xbox 360 games out there. . . I've played 120 of them (not including the XBLA games)? Not doubting there are only 184 games for the 360 I just for some reason believe there are more, really believe there are are more.

I would argue all games above 65% are good for someone. I played and loved the force unleashed, but it was only 70%.

13% + 100% - (38% + 13%) , or just 100% - 38% = 62%. So, over half of all games are at least good (if not very good) to someone.

dude, im a ps fanboy and even to me this shit is meaningless.

Does this count for d/l games as well as retail? I'd think that would skew the figures a bit.

Man, this thread devolved into an Xbox 360 v. PS3 debate quickly. Keep this in perspective: most readers here do exactly what I do: exclusively buy and play only the highly rated games. For the Xbox 360, Metacritic lists 224 games, live arcade games, and expansion packs that hit a score of 75 and up. That adds up to a lot of high quality playtime.

10% of all statistics are made up while they are being typed and 89% of mothers would agree.

this isn't relevant... since the 360 has a higher install base than the PS3 which is why 360 game sales are doing much better.

1. I used to go by ratings before buying games. I'm done with that after Killzone 2. It was rated in the 90s when I bought it, and I have already traded it in. I know the ratings are not personalized for me, but 90% approval? What on this earth has 90% approval (except sechs and donuts).

2. There's so much lobbying and back-alley handshaking that goes on for some of these scores, along with pretty obvious biases (is Playstation Magazine going to rip PS3 games?), aggregate scores probably have a +/- 10 margin of error.

3. I wouldn't even put Wii in the same category as PS3/360/PC...not knocking it, but the graphics are subpar and it's played by residents of nursing homes and kindergarteners.

4. Of course there's going to be more junk than good stuff, regardless of system. For every good game that comes out, there's 5 games based on movies and another 5 that's pretty much s**t wrapped in cellophane.

5. Did this study include expansion packs to existing games?

So it's a problem that only 13% of Xbox 360 games are in the upper 15%? That seems like it should show that reviews are doing things right. If 90% of the games reviewed score 85% or more, then all we can see there is that the system is skewed to give higher ratings. A crap "study".

When will this crap ever end? It most likely never will, but as a REAL gamer, I can care less what console makes more/sell more/ or make better games. I own all three consoles, and they all have something that the other console is missing. People really need to get off the fanboy train and grow up.

I don't get fanboys. If they really thought that their system was better, then they would just leave it and enjoy all of their console's goodness, and just let the others suffer with their 'inferior' consoles...

Thing is though, even if I didn't care about which system was better, I would probably still go to the 360 because of these factors:

-Gears -- What PS3 game has chainsaws in it?
-Ninja Gaiden II -- I love it.
-Fable II
-DLC for games.
-It is a cheaper system, even though most people have to pay for a wireless thing. (I don't)
-Because it is cheaper, most of my friends are on Xbox, or have both. I don't know anyone who has JUST a PS3.
-It looks nicer, IMO.

The PS3 has nothing to offer me apart from Heavy Rain. I already shelled out for a BluRay player when it was released. I have zero interest in Little Big Planet and MGS4 is not good enough to be a system seller to me. Also, most Multiplatform games supposedly play better on 360, and it had achievements first.

I know I'll probably get ranked down to the lowest floor of Hell for this, but that is my honest opinion.

I would be interested to see the numbers on earlier gen systems, like Nintendo & Super Nintendo. Or Playstation 1 and Dreamcast. I know they didn't have metacritic back then, but the winning system always has many more games than its competitor. Even though many of them are considered crappy by most gamers, it gives the system variety. I strongly believe PS1 beat out Nintendo 64 and the others because it had sooo many games. PS2 as well. Somewhere along the line Sony execs failed to realize why they succeeded with the PS1, which was technologically inferior (32 bit) to some of its competition, namely the Dreamcast and Nintendo 64.

In other news, some ice cream flavours are nicer than others.

strawberry is best

The majority of games are not 10's? Holy crap, stop the press!

I like the Playstation cream the best, since its the only ice cream I have at home atm. The 360 flavour I had at home just went bad due to some E 74. The ice cream man is going to get a burning bag of poo thrown at his face after this!#%/!

cause i don't want to read all 133 comments.

Does that mean the Wii has a 1% on a score of over 85 rating?

Does no one see the trend here? It's not difficult. In the 80's, the NES had a hideous library. Only Nintendo, Capcom and Konami made great games on the thing, the rest were passable at best. That means 5/10 here, people. Playstation had a crap collection of games until FF7 hit in 97. Metal Gear and Grand Turismo weren't launch titles, friends. Didn't matter though because it was still the number one system to have. PS2 was another one. That system was a door stop until (you guessed it) Metal Gear Solid 2 and Grand Theft Auto III. Again, the system was in the lead then and there are still crap games being developed on it. Don't even get me started on the damn Wii. Nintendo is back to their "Quality Control? What's that?" approach to game licensing. Do you know why? If you remember the GameCube? They had a higher percentage of quality games but because they had so few games, it was almost always looked over by devs for the PS2 and eventually the XBOX. The 360 is the second most popular system and first when it comes to hard core gamers, they will get developed on first when it comes to this gen of game development (with a few exceptions) because that's how things are done and have been done for the past 14 years if not longer.

Having 85 as a benchmark for "good" is retarded. 85 is a great game and anything over 90 is cream of the crop must have.
75 is more of a proper level for a "good" game.

Can't wait to see how the Wii scores. Probably going to be:

2% (10 titles) - 85 or higher
98% (300 titles) - Crap shovleware that doesn't even deserve a score

Reading all these comments killed me a little on the inside... at first I was like o_O
then T_T and after that X_X