Scooby, a simple question. If you were a PS fan (let's, for the sake of it, invent the category of Personal Shooter), which platform would you go for. 360 or PS3?
Three possible answers:
1. Doesn't matter
2. PS3
3. 360
1. Doesn't matter
If it doesn't matter, then Sony has regained the ground it lost to the Xbox in the previous generation, where very clearly the Xbox was the place to be for shooters (even if Socom wasn't all that bad).
2. PS3
If PS3 would be your answer, then Sony has not only regained the lost ground, but it has won an important category from Microsoft
3. 360
If 360 is your answer, then Microsoft still owns the FPS category.
Clear so far? Good.
Now, please tell me where I said that Xbox is a one trick pony and its complete demographic only cares for FPS games. That's right, I didn't. I simply said that with the Xbox still presumably being the platform of choice for Console FPS Gamers, Gears of War appeared on the right platform.
(To your credit, I know there has been the whole fboi argument where one side accuses the other side of being a one-trick pony, but you're the one bringing that into this discussion, not me. Assuming that you don't want that discussion in this thread either, let's agree to not pursue that topic any further, okay?)
Oh and by the way, I don't quite agree with Eurogamer - the text, I fully support, but because I weigh sound and graphics higher, I'd have given the game a nine out of ten. If you can get the best graphics and sound on a platform without botching up the gameplay, then you deserve some credit. Then again, I also understand that Eurogamer is keen to leave some room for higher rankings - they may, for instance, expect they prefer stuff like BioShock or Lost Planet, without having to give those a 10/10 later on. And here their limited ranking system is holding them back from nuance. So yes, when reading Eurogamer reviews, it's best to pay more attention to the text than to the number.
