I think there is a logical explanation for this perception, but it isn't a nice one. I want to qualify the following paragraphs in a couple of ways. First off I in no way shape or form have ever really thought the PS3 needed a savior. I also do not intend any of the vague persons described here to describe anyone in this thread, or even on VGChartz as a whole. This is not intended to insult, demean, or degrade anyone. It is simply a description of human behavior and perceptions for right and wrong.
TLDR version: People on forums made up release windows as they needed them and cried that a game was delayed if it did not fall into that imaginary window.
The problem has been that the PS3 vastly under-performed compared to pre-release estimations from a wide number of respected, and silly sources. The successor of the PS2 was heralded as the instant winner regardless of what the competition brought. History, however, shows that doesn't always work out that way. Sony made a critical, and crippling (at first) mistake. This is the source of the problem.
The second factor is the human one. Humans do not like to be wrong as a whole. There was even a study recently (I will look it up on request with a link) that showed people respond to evidence that counters their opinions by believing in them even more. So the PS3 came out to a very mediocre first 6 months or so and many people were challenged with what to do about this. This led to a fanboy crusade with games meant to "save" the PS3. These games obviously did not solve the under-lying problems consumers actually had with purchasing a PS3, and thus new games had to be replaced on that pedestal. There is a trolling jpeg that illustrates the history of this.
Eventually there will be a dry season in games though, and the PS3 was still selling behind the other 2 consoles. Consequently the less rational of the gaming community (fanboys) believe either the PS3 was dead, or needed saving for some reason. With the games having a firm release date clearly not having the hype, or prestige to even have an imaginary effect of the magnitude desired the situation turned more and more about what the best case scenario could be if everything worked perfectly.
As such you look to the future and there were always a few exclusives waiting, as there always is. In order to "prove" their point the people would say Final Fantasy XII, GT5, etc would be released in 2008, 2009, or any other time that suited their purposes. These numbers would do the rounds and get street cred as legitimate and thus any announcement later than that MUST be a delay.
The truth that a lot of high profile games were announced for the PS3 long before anyone knew what the market would look like. The subsequent performance required a re-evaluation of all projects. Investing an over abundant amount of developer time to the system with the smallest market share makes little sense, and thus the priority was shifted to a more realistic manner. This was done to best exploit the potential number of consumers on the market as a whole which was dramatically different than the majority of expectations.
So in the end its not that the PS3 has more delayed games. It just had more games promised at release predicated on an assumption of sales that proved to be wrong. The projects were re-prioritized internally, and people kept expecting them any day now externally. This is not to say the games were made less important, but moved to a time table that better reflected the reality of sales. If they wanted to release a game with a 20 million base then launching in 2007, or much of 2008 was simply unrealistic.
Hopefully this offends no one. It obviously addresses a lot of situations that can be perceived as flaming the PS3, or somehow insulting it. I assure you that was not my intent, and I will gladly elaborate and/or edit any spot that remains too vague to see this clearly.
