Where are the PS3 Reviews?

[bluemonkey1]

Might just end up doing the whole Gamecube routine - farming the work out to contractors.

[feilong801]

[QUOTE=Shawn]

 

I think the bottom line is buy which system you want! I think the Wii is lame. Ok, I won't buy it. The PS3 is incredible and has unbelievable potential. OK, I will buy it. Who cares? Can't we all just get along?

 

 [/QUOTE]

 

Well, the reason these debates flare up to begin with is that someone will say something nice about the Wii, whether it be Dave, myself, Paul Campbell or m0zart, and then usually you or SSX will jump in and then explain how thing X concerning the Wii actually sucks. Sometimes the OP is even questioned, with remarks that usuall resemble: "I can't believe this person was crazy enough to like this."

 

I don't read every post here, but I can say for myself that when I makes a comment about how much they like the Wii, I'm not being critical about the PS3. That system could be the greatest ever for all I know. I just like my Wii, darn it (that is a funny sentence).

 

Dave has made some anti-Sony remarks, but he is a critic after all, and from what I see of Paul and m0zart's comments, they are usuall in the category of "I like X Wii game." It's only when the Sony supporters jump in do things get contentious.

 

Though I do think the arguments are fun (and go a long way to explaining who these systems were conceived for, I think).

 

As far as my official opinion on the PS3, however, I would say this: There has been nothing that has convinced me that one couldn't do better by just owning a Xbox360 instead. Similar graphics capabilities, with any edge held by the PS3 being nullified by the better and easier dev tools that Microsoft offers. A solid library of games already present, Halo 3 and GTA in the future (if you are intro the GTA thing, which I am not), and easily the best online service of any console by a mile! The potential (which may never be realized) for slightly better graphics and a "kinda, sorta" motion sensing controller with no rumble does not really came across as a big advantage.

 

For those who make enough money (or are single!) and are huge video game fans, yeah, you'll buy all the systems, cause their cool (-: But most folks can't just do that, so my "Wii60" setup is definitely all I'll need this generation.

 

-Rob

 

www.therobzone.com

 

 

[JustLikeHeaven1]

[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic]


Yeah, but what constitutes fine?  The PS2 won the last generation in a romp, outselling its nearest competitor by more than 4x.

If the PS3 can only regain the console lead by a slim margin, it could be considered a major failure for Sony, having let Microsoft and Nintendo back into the race. 

Sony will definitely continue to be a heavy hitter, but I think it's also safe to say they've been showing signs of slipping.
[/QUOTE]

I guess what I meant by fine is that I feel that Sony will still be in the most homes when its all said and done.

Its not like microsoft is out to a gigantic lead...they have a decent lead, but Sony when sony starts pumping out systems it will tighten up. 

The thing about Sony is that everyone is looking at franchises that are already out and using those to decide who will win.  With each system sony consisently put out the most software, with the most amount of unique, exclusive IPs.  I don't see that changing. 

Microsoft and Nintendo will continue to nip at Sony's heels and I think they will lose some of the share, but that is ineveitable...Sony's competiton has gotten MUCH better than it has been in the past. 

Like I said, give the PS3 some time to go through its growing pains before you announce it as DOA...I remember all the negative stuff that was said about the 360 on this site about a year ago...What a difference a year can makes huh?

[JustLikeHeaven1]

[QUOTE=feilong80]

 

As far as my official opinion on the PS3, however, I would say this: There has been nothing that has convinced me that one couldn't do better by just owning a Xbox360 instead. Similar graphics capabilities, with any edge held by the PS3 being nullified by the better and easier dev tools that Microsoft offers. A solid library of games already present, Halo 3 and GTA in the future (if you are intro the GTA thing, which I am not), and easily the best online service of any console by a mile! The potential (which may never be realized) for slightly better graphics and a "kinda, sorta" motion sensing controller with no rumble does not really came across as a big advantage.

 

[/QUOTE]

The PS3 has been out for a month and half.  The 360 had tons of problems out of the gate. 

The motion sensing controller adds more than you would think.  It is used sparing in Resistance, but it does add to the game.  It just gives developers one more option for controls and I can hardly fault a company for something like that.  Also, the lack of rumble is something I hardly miss.  Very few games used the rumble features to actually make it feel more immersive.  Most games just set the rumble to either "earthquake" or "gentle" and left it at that.

Also if the PS3 "does" have better graphics on multi-platform games people will probably buy that version of it.  When I owned a PS2 and Xbox, I would always buy the Xbox version because it usually looked better. 

I also think Sony's online features are fine at the moment.  I can get into games just as easy as Xbox live and they are already offering downloaded content that is free (plus other stuff that you can purchase).  For not costing a cent to the user I think its pretty good.

[bluemonkey1]

Actually if there is only a slight improvement in graphics on multiplatform games people will probably buy the 360 version if they have a 360 and PS3 because:

 

-Achievements.  People spend a lot of time building up their achievements and as that time grows it becomes more and more important to them.

 

-Live walks all over PS3 online.  In fact does PS3 online even have voice chat?

[JustLikeHeaven1]

[QUOTE=bluemonkey]

Actually if there is only a slight improvement in graphics on multiplatform games people will probably buy the 360 version if they have a 360 and PS3 because:

 

-Achievements.  People spend a lot of time building up their achievements and as that time grows it becomes more and more important to them.

 

-Live walks all over PS3 online.  In fact does PS3 online even have voice chat?

[/QUOTE]

 

I am going to have to disagee with both of those comments.  Achievements hardly add anything to a game...I actually think they are quite silly. 

 

I guarentee that there will be voice chat on Sony's online service.  You may think that xbox live is used by practically everybody, but as of right now there are only 5 million active accounts on live (this includes both xbox and 360 owners).  Online gaming is still in its infancy and its not something that people need.

 

I personally would rather have the better graphics, free online games and motion controlled games.

[Crevalle]

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven][QUOTE=bluemonkey]

Actually if there is only a slight improvement in graphics on multiplatform games people will probably buy the 360 version if they have a 360 and PS3 because:

 

-Achievements.  People spend a lot of time building up their achievements and as that time grows it becomes more and more important to them.

 

-Live walks all over PS3 online.  In fact does PS3 online even have voice chat?

[/QUOTE]

 

I am going to have to disagee with both of those comments.  Achievements hardly add anything to a game...I actually think they are quite silly. 

 

[/QUOTE]

You are, in fact, incorrect.  Achievements are a brilliant additive, and many people really get into it, myself included.   It adds an element of structured challenge, and Sony's online system was trashed by a NYT writer because they neglected to include any type of achievement system.

Now, I personally think the achievements should come with a physical prize if, for instance, all achievements are attained.  Much like the old Atari games where you'd get a patch or something small/cheap.  Just sort of cool.

[JustLikeHeaven1]

[QUOTE=Crevalle]

You are, in fact, incorrect.  Achievements are a brilliant additive, and many people really get into it, myself included.   It adds an element of structured challenge, and Sony's online system was trashed by a NYT writer because they neglected to include any type of achievement system.

Now, I personally think the achievements should come with a physical prize if, for instance, all achievements are attained.  Much like the old Atari games where you'd get a patch or something small/cheap.  Just sort of cool.
[/QUOTE]

I probably know 10 people with 360's and they all think the achievements are useless.  Now of course this doesn't everybody dislikes achievements, its just my own personal experience.  My problem is that earn nothing from them, except braggin right to people over live whom you will never see or meet.  If you like em thats fine, but I don't play games with a laundry list of stupid crap to do.

Also, when did the NYT become a viable source of videogame knowledge?  All I know is you can't beat free.  Its the single reason why I never bought xbox live.  I refuse to pay for a service that I have been getting free for several years before the xbox was even thought up of.

[RememberShaqFu?]

Not exactly, Shawn....Personally, Sony mines just as many franchises as Nintendo does and, though I believe they could build more new franchises, they have plenty of franchises of their own:

 

1). Super Smash Bros(3 in a series hardly constitutes "milking" to me)

2). Excitetruck(once again, 3 in a series doesn't mean they are milking it)

3). Metroid Prime 3(before the Prime series, Nintendo barely touched on Metroid so it's nice they are finely delving into that series).

4). Mario Galaxy(besides all the sports, party, rpg's, etc. Nintendo very rarely releases a platforming Mario game....Nintendo milks the characters but not the platformers, at least I don't think they do).

5). Disaster(once again, a potential new franchise)

6). Project Hammer(I can't praise it, but I also can't bash it...not a whole lot is known about it but, once again, it has potential to be a new franchise).

7). Wario Ware(though there have been four games released already in the series, I am still looking forward to it...how can it be called "milking" if the series still has plenty of juice and new ideas?)

8). Fire Emblem(once again, fairly new to us in the US.)

9). Batallion Wars(great potential, poor execution in the first game).

10). Pikmin(only two games in the series and, frankly, both of them were really fun).

 

 

....I know that Shawn claims that Nintendo relies on franchises, but who doesn't? Where would MS be without Halo, the initial hit that pushed them ahead of Nintendo in the last race? What about Sony, with Final Fantasy(in it's 12th installment, by the way, if you want to talk about "milking"), Devil May Cry(4 games), Metal Gear Solid(4 in the Solid series, three prior to that, two Acid titles, etc.) Grand Turismo(4 in that series, with a new one on the way), etc.? How many of you would buy a Nintendo system if they didn't have the flagship characters/franchises they do? I didn't prove your point, Shawn, because the argument could just as easily be flipped around. The 360 and PS3 still have the bulk of the third party support so all of the above mentioned titles are first party which is pretty impressive for a list that mostly consists of games that will be out in the next year to a year and a half!

[bluemonkey1]

All of the people I know who have 360s, all of the people I chat with on Live and most on the xbox.com forums take achievements seriously.  They have truly changed the way I play games and I now get a LOT more value by replaying my games than I used to.  Achievements are a big deal in the 360 community.

 

Sony may have chat in the future but until it has it games requiring tactics and teamwork will flounder online on it's service.  Titles like Gears of War, Brothers in Arms, Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon, etc. have to have voice chat otherwise they don't work.  It's so much more fun on racing game battling verbally with the people in front and behind too.