Network now...NEWS
Games At-a-Glance: Xbox 360 Quality
Edge and Electronic Entertainment Design and Research have teamed up for a series of weekly quick-to-the-point graphs that highlight certain market interest areas or trends.
In this first week, we ask: If your videogame-illiterate Aunt Sheila walked into a store and bought you an Xbox 360 game, what are the chances that it would be a quality title?
As seen in the graph above, from 2005 through 2008, 13 percent, or 48 of the games on the Xbox 360 have received an aggregated review score of 85 or higher; 38 percent of games have received a 65 or lower.
Next week: How does the PS3's software quality stack up?
Note: Special Edition SKUs have been removed so that multi-SKU platform titles are not counted twice (I.E. Guitar Hero: World Tour has 3 SKUs on the Xbox 360).
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Nice bit of flamebait Edge!
I love that people are already arging MS corner and Sony corner even though they haven't got figures to compare the two yet!!! :)
Lol...
I must have too much time on my hands (work is super slow this week, at least up until 1300 Arizona time) because I looked up metacritic's scores for all the consoles, did the math myself and the results are...not especially varied. I don't want to steal EDGE's thunder so I won't, but the difference between the consoles is negligible (at least between two of them anyway...). ^^
Pretty much what I expected tbh. Yeah, I have weeks like that too, not for a while now though.
I hear ya. This week has been especially slow (my Doctor I work for doesn't get in until the afternoon). Next week I'll barely be on here lol.
So - "The doctor is NOT ready to see you now".
Sorry, bad joke but I couldn't help it. But in my defense it has been a really long day!
I'm offski, have a good day!
No, he's not. ^^
Later!
I've always classed a 7 as an 8 with Edge. Most people know Edge only really like innovation or creative design. I don't really care about 85% or higher analysts or 'Quantity' or amount of games released. Reviews also don't matter as much as they use to. People have such a diverse change when it comes to 'Quality', everyone is different. Just like Movies and Music, games are subjective too.
I would agree that games are subjective to a degree.. But I think unlinke movies and music, where the general construction of them is now standardised, in games there is still room for a game to just be badly constructed, despite all artistic intent..
So I think game reviews are still valid.
Yeah.
Edge 9/10 scores are usually a good benchmark.
But really, its about what you play. What you enjoy. If you get something out of a 4/10 game then why not.
To me this is the best generation yet (including handhelds). Genuine innovation mixed with real evolution. That's a rare thing.
Speaking as 360 and Wii owner I am quite frankly very happy with this generation.
Forza 2, Crackdown, Smash Bros Melee, Mario Sunshine, Paper Mario, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Boom Blox, SFIV, Xbox live arcade, Fifa becoming a decent game, Excitetruck, Pure, Ace Combat 6, Race Grid.
I have never had so many full price games to play, and that I want to buy. And after several generation of gaming that is something.
I question the criteria used to select which games would be included in this aggreggate. There have been far more than 184 games released on 360 during the time indicated so which games were left out and for what reason (I've played over 130 retail games myself and know of over 500 released during the specified time period)?
The answer is in the chart. Look at it carefully and you'll find that all games rated between 65 and 85, 49% of all releases, were the left out titles you refer to.
Sorry, apparently my coffee did not kick in when I was looking at that. You are, of course, correct about where those "missing games" went!
I wonder why they didn't just include that middle range to complete the profile? There are many good games that have scores in that range and it could be instructive to see how many titles fall into that range for each system. Only including the very best and very worst in the chart seems a bit too contrived, with the possible goal of being incendiary (i.e. increasing page hits).
Yawn..
... is the effect many of these "over 85% 360 phenomenal games" have bring to me.
This generation is overated I fear, many times there are good box but old-usual or even empty contents.
Good graphics can still make people blind?
I thought that was ownanism?
"Good graphics can still make people blind?" -- LOVE THIS ONE.
Wondering if Nintendo shouldn't steal this one and make it their slogan...
"from 2005 through 2008...48 of the games on the Xbox 360 have received an aggregated review score of 85 or higher; [136] have received a 65 or lower."
So from 2005 through 2008 (4 years), only 184 games have been reviewed?
Hmmm I wonder if it'll be Aunt Sheila again buying me a PS3. Rofl.
Only 13% score 85% or higher? That sucks.
It probably better to look at actualy number of games. I sure as heck can't afford 48 games in three years. Plus, not every game under 85 automatically sucks. I say anything above a 70 is definitely worth playing. But I really want to see someone do something like this for some old school systems like NES and Genesis to see what that percentage would look like. All except the 3DO, 32X, Lynx, Jaguar (and others)...we all know what happened there.
It may suck, but I'd guess it's no worse if not better than the PS3, and I can guarantee it's better than the Wii. All one needs to do is take a peek at Wii's metacritic performance to know that. But does it really matter? No.
I wasn't talking about the PS3 or the Wii or if they are better or worse. I'm talking about the 360 and the fact that only 13% are scored over 85% and 38% scored below 65%- that sucks. It means an awful lot of crap is on the 360.
Man what is it with you? Why do you have to reduce everything to a pathetic "my ePenis is bigger than your ePenis" argument?
What is it with you guys always jumping on my posts? I guess I have to spell out everything like I'm a kindergarten teacher...
My point was that most likely that is the industry standard, so it suxxors across the board. In other words, it's not crap, it's normal when compared to everybody else (also as other people have pointed out the obvious, since the 360 has more games out than any other console, it's only natural the percentage may be lower. But the number of games with a 90 or above shatters both PS3 and Wii So, maybe the 360's scores aren't crap afterall?). Maybe I didn't have to say anything about "better" or "worse" since Sony enthusiasts are sensitive to any criticism, but if in fact it is equal to Sony's performance or close to it, I guess that would mean the PS3 or Wii is crap, too? Oh, that's right; if that were the case it just means that EDGE somehow is manipulating the numbers to favor MS. Sony fans can never catch a break...
It may well be an industry standard but it might not, lets wait for those reports before speculating, at the moment all we can say is that there's a high percentage of crap on the 360 and that sucks.
The point is Nick that you do jump on any slight negative comment about the 360 and then twist it into a ePenis competition. It's annoying and you're just reaping what you've sown.
Did some math of my own Arron...
The argument over the SKU leader in number of software naturally having more highly/lowly rated games due to the fact that there are more games rings true. The 360 and PS2 (total software leaders in their respective generations) are near identical in the percentage of games that scored 90 or higher, 85 or higher, 84-66, and 65 or lower. The 360 has a 1% edge in two categories. So, the 360 is right at the industry standard set by the best selling console of all time, the PS2. The PS3 results are a bit surprising though. I'm looking forward to EDGE posting those stats.
And you do just the opposite Arron.
I don't have to wait, I'm well aware of the other two consoles' performance as I check metacritic regularly. Things look terrible, absolutely terrible for the Wii. The PS3 fairs much better. But I'm only talking total games with high scores, not averages. But alas, I don't need to argue with you any more today Arron.
So you're saying that you're ePenis is bigger than the Wii's ePenis and is around the same size as the PS3's ePenis? Well done, I hope you're pleased.
Also I just love "I'm well aware of the other two consoles' performance as I check metacritic regularly" that's wrong on so many level and it also demonstrates how you've spectacularly missed the point.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. So we can move on now?
"I'm well aware of the other two consoles' performance as I check metacritic regularly"
wtf? Are you being serious?
No, serious. But they have a lot more than just video games though. And plus, it's one of the very few sites (like this one) that isn't blocked at my work. There's a super strict filter that blocks almost everything this side of MSNBC lol.
Numbers don't lie.
Xbox 360 offers the biggest and best library of games, and the reviews prove this. As a result, the Xbox 360 generates more monetary revenue than the COMBINED amount of revenue generate from the Wii AND the Playstation 3.
Wii may have "sold" more hardware units worldwide because it had a lower price for such a long time, but when it comes to software there is no comparison--the Xbox 360 completely dominates the competition.
Please, people. Ignore what you want, listen to what you want. Simple as that. Just because games get low review scores doesn't mean they're not good games, or that they'll sell well. Look at Killzone 2. Edge gave it 7 and it sold a heap. RE5, thats sold an even bigger heap.
Review scores + pinch of sodium chloride = Happiness
These graphs should be taken with a grain of salt if the scores were taken from EDGE reviews. EDGE's review scores are not very popular at the moment and many of them are debatable. And that goes for all systems, fanboys.
"These graphs should be taken with a grain of salt if the scores were taken from EDGE reviews"
Since when did EDGE give '85' in their review scores? It's always been a single number.
It can't be Metacritic because EDGE said in a recent article Metacritic is not a valid tool for reviewing games.
They day Edge starts giving review scores to gain popularity is the day Edge loses 85% of its readership.
Sigh...When I said that EDGE's review are not very popular right now, I meant many people disagree with them and many people believe that many reviews are not up to the standards that EDGE has set in the past. Really, Arron, sometimes you need a little bit of face palm yourself.
Many people? Who? People who post their 'opinions' on this web site? Or is this just your personal opinion?
Huw JIZZ, even MY personal opinion has more substance than your high-pitched, hollow, outbursts.
Lol. Like the name change (nothing against you Huw). It is a little mean though...
lol
Yeah and when I said what I said it's coming from a place that is glad that EDGE write reviews that are honest and not designed to appease the rabid foaming at the mouth mass of 14-21 year olds who can't get over their pathetic fanboyism.
Do you see?
A lot of people commented that EDGE reviews tend to be elitist. EDGE seems to relish swimming against the tide and often their reviews differ when clumped with other reviews in Metacritic. I'm not saying this is a bad thing but saying that their reviews are always honest is pushing it just a little bit too far.
By "a lot of people" do you mean your friends and/or the rabid PS3 fantards that flooded the site a few weeks back?
EDGE just tell it how they see it, sometimes it means they agree with other sites and sometime it means they don't unfortunately this sometimes means that the evangelists for the various consoles get a little upset and invade the site. Get over it mate, it's been a month now that Killzone 2 got a 7.
Arron, you confuse the hell out of me sometimes...^^
Why?
Half the time (to me anyway) you come off as a super anti-MS crusader, but then other times you're the level headed objective reader who seems to not take sides. I’m not just referring to today (our little discussion) but just in general since you’ve been on this site.
That's because I am level headed and you're super sensitive to criticism of MS. I like playing games and I'm happy playing games on whatever system the game is on it's not about the hardware for me so I'm able to be fairly objective about it.
I may be sensitive to criticism (I try to comment only when I realistically believe I can disagree and my argument holds water). If the criticism fo MS or the 360 seems fair, I'll gladly accept it. But as you know, people go way over the top on these forums and if I defend something that seems ridiculous I don't think that makes me super sensitive, at least no more than the average Sony enthusiast (which I guess isn't saying much).
"I'm able to be fairly objective about it"
Exactly, but only most of the time. It seems you do pick on MS more than a level-headed objective gamer normally would. That's what confuses me. But, I could be wrong, it DOES happen once in a while. Lol, I kid.