The Year That Was: Revisited

[Typhoid]

I love you, Bond.

[BreakABone]

After speaking with Moogle, I have decided to entertain this thread.

Let's start with the basis for this thread, disagreement over my choice of words. As noted in the original thread.

Starting with the 360... Staying the course... playing it safe... treading water... whatever you want to use, this was not the year for the 360. I mean it still saw some quality release, but compared to prior years they seemed further apart. Also looking at the release schedule, it offered very little in the way of exclusies with the real noticeables being ODST, Halo Wars and Left 4 Dead 2 if you don't have a PC. There may have been others but the only ones that stuck out to be. Also in terms of sale, it has remained pretty flat.

I still think the original statement holds true, and even more true when I get to my later point, but the 360 didn't try to hard this year, if you agree or not, who cares.

As for my later point, I noted the 360 had some quality releases, but compared to other years it was pretty weak.

Just looking back at 2007, during the holiday season alone there was Mass Effect, Bioshock, The Orange Box, Assassin Creed, Halo 3, Modern Warfare 1, and the original Rock Band. This was all compacted into a very small time frame.

Compared to this year which had Batman, ODST, Borderlands, MW 2 and L4D 2. If you don't think that looks weaker on paper, well then you are a tougher person than I.


[/quote]Now the most controversial console as always, the Wii has also had a stellar year, if you looked at it. While there were few new additions, with the ability to use SD cards for expanded storage and the debut of Nintendo Week, and the 50 dollar price drop. The quality of software on display was quite remarkable with the banner title being New Super Mario Bros Wii, sure it is one hell of a title, but it is also one hell of a game. Mixing old-school Mario platforming with zany hijinks in multi player, makes for one of the best packages of the year. Speaking of terrific packages, there was the Metroid Prime Trilogy release, which bundled 3 awesome games into one nifty and affordable package, probably the second best deal in gaming behind the Orange Box. Of course 3rd parties were on display as well with such titles as Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, MadWorld, Little King's Story, Klonoa, Okami and A Boy and his Blob. Oh and let's not forget Punch-Out, we can never forget Punch-Out[/quote]

My statement rings true here as well. And was aided by the fact that you and Fox had to research half the games I was talking about to offer a rebuttal. There are a ton of fun and quality games if you pay attention to the console. And compared to the latter half of 2008, was a much better year in terms of release schedule and quality games.

Now this thread alone.

I have several beefs with reviews, but the biggest is how do you qualify quality. I mean you gave us review scores, but are they all standard, do they have the same number of reviews, hell are they even reviewed by the same person?

All of those factors effect the final outcome, I'm sure my review of Final Fantasy would be different than most people's on this forum, the same as my review of Street Fighter IV would differ from Moogle.

So while reviews in of themselves, are objective measures of quality, the reviews themselves may not be.

My other problem with reviews.. or the use of reviews... is that it really can not summarize how everyone would feel about a movie, off the top of my head I believe Avatar is holding in the mid-80s on RT, but I wasn't a huge fan of the movie, while GI Joe which is probably sitting at 30 something was a much more enjoyable movie to me.

The same could be said for games. They aren't meant to be read about, and as much as some of you enjoy stories, they aren't meant to be watched. They are meant to be played and enjoyed.

Case in point, I don't think I read a single review on Uncharted 2 before or after I bought the game, but

And to just prove my point with the list you used and the power of Xbox, of the games you listed for this year,
1. Modern Warfare 2 (94)
3. Batman: Arkham Asylum (92)
12. Halo 3: ODST (83)

You've owned/played 3 of them. Now who knows, you may think that 3 games spread out over 12 months makes it a quality year, its your opinion, but it seems rather weak to me.

Now to the heart of the matter, some folks get a little pissed because I said the Wii had a better year than the 360, I still believe that to be true. And while Bond will hate this defense, how the hell would most of you even know? I mean most don't play anything outside of shooters, and play even less attention to anything else.

I'm almost certain no one disputed the PS3 list because they really couldn't find something to laugh at...

Which reminds me just because a game is 2D doesn't mean its less impressive than a 3D game. Hell, I still think they look better for the most part. And if not sprites, cel-shading.

[Fox 6]

Me and Bond? The whole thing was moogles idea. :P


Also since when are we comparing to other years? Shouldn't the base of the review be centered around this years performance compared to the other consoles?

Also I dont get why you take this personally, to the point you go mute for a whole day.

If reviews are personal, then why are you saying things about Wii, PS3, or 360 LIKE THEY ARE FACTS in your original thread!?

[Bond]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

As for my later point, I noted the 360 had some quality releases, but compared to other years it was pretty weak.

Just looking back at 2007, during the holiday season alone there was Mass Effect, Bioshock, The Orange Box, Assassin Creed, Halo 3, Modern Warfare 1, and the original Rock Band. This was all compacted into a very small time frame.

Compared to this year which had Batman, ODST, Borderlands, MW 2 and L4D 2. If you don't think that looks weaker on paper, well then you are a tougher person than I.

The premise of your thread was the following:

"Its that time of the year in which we look back with googly eyes about the year that has just passed us by.

And 2009 was quite a year for gaming."

It was an evaluation of how each console fared for the year 2009. No where was it indicated that this would be a comparison of how consoles fared during 2009 as compared to 2007. And why even choose the year 2007? Because it was a strong year for the 360? That's true - and clearly 2009 was not as strong a year, but that kind of comparison could be made arbitrarily for nearly any year, and isn't exactly germane to the subject at hand.

Also, of the seven games you mentioned in 2007, six have had or will have sequels coming out quite shortly.

My statement rings true here as well. And was aided by the fact that you and Fox had to research half the games I was talking about to offer a rebuttal. There are a ton of fun and quality games if you pay attention to the console. And compared to the latter half of 2008, was a much better year in terms of release schedule and quality games.

Now you are comparing Wii's 2009 to Wii's latter half of 2008, but you compared the 360's 2009 to the 360's 2007? That's not consistent.

I don't see how my need to research the Wii's best games of 2009 de-validates my conclusions at all. I also had to research the PS3's best games of 2009, for that matter.

I have several beefs with reviews, but the biggest is how do you qualify quality. I mean you gave us review scores, but are they all standard, do they have the same number of reviews, hell are they even reviewed by the same person?

Metacritic, as you know, aggregates tens (and sometimes hundreds) of reviews over nearly all (every?) titles that are released each year. The aggregation of the reviews averages the scores to account for outliers. I also aggregated the already aggregated Metacritic score. I can't think of a more objective way to compare the software released for the year 2009.

All of those factors effect the final outcome, I'm sure my review of Final Fantasy would be different than most people's on this forum, the same as my review of Street Fighter IV would differ from Moogle.

So while reviews in of themselves, are objective measures of quality, the reviews themselves may not be.

That's true, and is why using Metacritic is as objective as one can get - it's an average of reputable video game review websites and magazines.

My other problem with reviews.. or the use of reviews... is that it really can not summarize how everyone would feel about a movie, off the top of my head I believe Avatar is holding in the mid-80s on RT, but I wasn't a huge fan of the movie, while GI Joe which is probably sitting at 30 something was a much more enjoyable movie to me.

The same could be said for games. They aren't meant to be read about, and as much as some of you enjoy stories, they aren't meant to be watched. They are meant to be played and enjoyed.

This is your personal opinion, which is fine, but is not a similiar or superior objective measure of comparing how each console fared for 2009.

And to just prove my point with the list you used and the power of Xbox, of the games you listed for this year,
1. Modern Warfare 2 (94)
3. Batman: Arkham Asylum (92)
12. Halo 3: ODST (83)

You've owned/played 3 of them. Now who knows, you may think that 3 games spread out over 12 months makes it a quality year, its your opinion, but it seems rather weak to me.

I have no idea how what games I played this year has any relevancy to the discussion at all? Perhaps it affects your personal opinion, but it does not have any bearing on the objective measures I posted.

Now to the heart of the matter, some folks get a little pissed because I said the Wii had a better year than the 360, I still believe that to be true. And while Bond will hate this defense, how the hell would most of you even know? I mean most don't play anything outside of shooters, and play even less attention to anything else.

Again, relevance? P.S. I do play genres other than shooters.

I'm almost certain no one disputed the PS3 list because they really couldn't find something to laugh at...

Or because your assessment was accurate, and was reaffirmed by my statistical analysis?

Which reminds me just because a game is 2D doesn't mean its less impressive than a 3D game. Hell, I still think they look better for the most part. And if not sprites, cel-shading.

Again, relevance?

[TheSlyMoogle]

1. Why are we still playing the wii? It sucks. Oh wait... Little kids, parents, families and all that other shit love it. It's sold more than any other console in history. Period. Done. Nintendo = On top.

2. Serious gamers said fuck this shit, and moved on to the xbox or ps3, done.

3. PS3 and 360 had the best years for serious gaming since 07. There needs to be no comp between the two when the wii is full of shit.

Argument over. I win.