Official Xbox 360 Thread

[Opaque]

Right here.

There's 180 resources that were used to compile that list, have fun trying to prove me wrong.

[Granderoho]

I know how to prove you wrong, I'll just go edit it

what now

come on now, really

I am more reliable than Wikipedia

[Beefy Hits]

* Halo 3 (8.1 million)[16]
* Gears of War (4 million)[9]
* The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (3 million, includes PC version)[17]
* BioShock (2 million shipped, includes PC version)[18]
* Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (1.648 million approximately, 1.57 million in US,[19] 78,000 in Canada)[20]
* Mass Effect (1.6 million)[16]
* Crackdown (1.5 million)[21]
* Perfect Dark Zero (1.5 million)[22]
* Call of Duty 2 (1.4 million)[23]
* Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (1.4 million)[24]
* Saints Row (1.4 million shipped)[25]
* Dead Rising (1.3 million)[24]
* Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (1.2 million in US)[26]
* Madden NFL 07 (1.1 million in US)[27]
* Madden NFL 08 (1,069,576 in US)[28]
* Assassin's Creed (1.04 million approximately, 980,000 in US,[19] 60,000 in Canada)[20]
* Dead or Alive 4 (1 million)[29]
* Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 (1 million)[30]
* Uno (1 million)[31]

There's a lot of TPS/FPS games there.

[J2d]

Fun side note, on Game Rankings top 100 games list there are 8 Xbox 360 games and only 2 PS3 games. Those 2 PS3 games are not exclusives and rated higher in their 360 counterparts. What does that mean? General consensus of the entire game ranking media is that the 360 is a better place for playing games.

Using gamerankings, really Opaque?

[Opaque]

I've said time and time again that gamerankings is really the best, least biased, way to determine a games value.

No means is perfect, but an average of every notable review source is statistically speaking an accurate way to find out the average of a games worth.

[Granderoho]

I've said time and time again that gamerankings is really the best, least biased, way to determine a games value.

No means is perfect, but an average of every notable review source is statistically speaking an accurate way to find out the average of a games worth.

gamerankings uses tons of reviewing sites that I've never heard of, and also not every game gets rated by the same number of reviewing sites. Why is Galaxy rated by 74 different places but mass effect gets reviewed by 87. Why is there a need for so many reviewing sites to be taken into account, and the different # of reviews offers for unfairness and bias.

[J2d]

It's a good site to point parents that's looking for a game and such but I don't think it's a good way to prove anything in a game discussion forum(if nothing else because cheebs would win).

Take your examples, I'm guessing one of those PS3 games are Oblivion, is the PS3 version worse than the 360 one? I heard it was the same but with better load times, so it seems like critics just doesn't rate it that high anymore but you still used it as an example on showing how the PS3 is inferior.

Or maybe they just deducted points because of the extras that are available, but that seems stupid.

[Opaque]

gamerankings uses tons of reviewing sites that I've never heard of, and also not every game gets rated by the same number of reviewing sites. Why is Galaxy rated by 74 different places but mass effect gets reviewed by 87. Why is there a need for so many reviewing sites to be taken into account, and the different # of reviews offers for unfairness and bias.

Have you ever taken a statistics class? What you just said is literally the exact opposite of how statistics works. According to people who know more about the subject than you do, a larger group of samples means less room for bias and extreme variables. One review by a crackpot giving a game 100% doesn't mean it's perfect and one 70% score doesn't mean that's it's worth either, but those two scores combined with every other source that reviews the title is a much more scientific way to determine value.

Also, you probably haven't heard of most of those sites, because you spend all your time here and on 1up (this isn't even flame). But it's not like a brand new site can submit scores, you have to have existed for so long and have whatever amount of cataloged reviews to be added into the mean average.

[Granderoho]

Have you ever taken a statistics class? What you just said is literally the exact opposite of how statistics works. According to people who know more about the subject than you do, a larger group of samples means less room for bias and extreme variables. One review by a crackpot giving a game 100% doesn't mean it's perfect and one 70% score doesn't mean that's it's worth either, but those two scores combined with every other source that reviews the title is a much more scientific way to determine value.

Also, you probably haven't heard of most of those sites, because you spend all your time here and on 1up (this isn't even flame). But it's not like a brand new site can submit scores, you have to have existed for so long and have whatever amount of cataloged reviews to be added into the mean average.

1ups reviews blow because its a preview based website, EGM realised that its not reviews of games that sell gaming magazines, its the hype before the game is out and the info about it that pushes there magazines. Also, when there are a shitload of Nintendopower esque websites that give out 10's like crazy and then there are sites like Netjak that give Mass Effect a damn 5.4 and somehow that damn site can be taken seriously by gamerankings is total crap.

[bbobb]

The laws of statistics still balance that out. If you get a big enough sample you can get an idea of how good a game really is.