I don't think the PS3 'sucks', but I do believe that Wii and Xbox 360 are better consoles (in my opinion of course). Disregarding the Blu-Ray capability, I believe consoles are first and foremost for gaming, and that's where Wii (and probably Xbox 360 though I can't say for sure) beats the PS3. Wii focuses on great gameplay and a fun gaming experience, where 360 has games that look stunning and are highly realistic. The PS3 kinda falls in the middle, and that's not really what I or other people may be looking for.
And yes, this has something to do with not liking Sony because of their 'middle-of-the-road' philosophy.

veiam said: I'm sorry, I actually hate Crysis because of its not so great gameplay. I also have a Wii for the same reason. If anything PC gamers are the ones that value gameplay more than they value graphics. Just ask around how many PC gamers tone down their settings so they can play a game. I know I used to tone down my UT2004 settings so I could play competitively. I don't see where you see the "resolution" but I agree with the "frames per second" part. I can't play a game under 25 FPS.

You are one of the few PC gamers then. I saw and played Crysis and honestly I would much rather play F.EA.R. as I preffer better gameplay. I remember when I recomended Resident Evil 1 to my best friend who was a PC gamer...he bought it and called me after a bit saying..."wtf is this...the backgrounds render in 640x480". Now that I think about it he used the same excuse on Halo 3...saying that it sucks as it runs in 640p. I should get him a PS3 for his birthday so he will not have that problem. :)

 

Maybe they think it sucks because, well it does.

Faxanadu said: it sucks? why, its a great piece of technology. just not in my price range yet.

This, and there aren't enough games that interest me out in america yet.

T013 said: I don't think the PS3 'sucks', but I do believe that Wii and Xbox 360 are better consoles (in my opinion of course). Disregarding the Blu-Ray capability, I believe consoles are first and foremost for gaming, and that's where Wii (and probably Xbox 360 though I can't say for sure) beats the PS3. Wii focuses on great gameplay and a fun gaming experience, where 360 has games that look stunning and are highly realistic. The PS3 kinda falls in the middle, and that's not really what I or other people may be looking for. And yes, this has something to do with not liking Sony because of their 'middle-of-the-road' philosophy.

Agreed ... I could care less about Blu Ray - it's pretty much the same as HD DVD, just a bigger movie selection. Am I impressed? Not really. I enjoy the HD DVD Web content and the like. Blu Ray in the PS3 feels forced, IMHO.

I'll add my PS3 review Wednesday.

I do think Sony should have went without Blu Ray in the PS3 - and things would most definitely shake out differently.

misteromar mk4 said: Maybe they think it sucks because, well it does.

That's really a hit and run statement. At least try to back up your opinion with valid reasons.

It does suck but doesn't swallow, seriously it could be a great machine but the problem lies with the controller once you have got used to the flexibility of the wii remote and nunchuk all other controllers are basic not because of the motion control but cos of the way they force your hands together instead of being able to relax and enjoy the games, at the monent i use the PS3 as a blu ray and divx player and i have no complaints with its capabilities with them

I don't think it sucks. I like blu-ray and the few exclusives it has outside of Lair. But as a game machine Sony has yet to prove that it is any better at doing games then 360. The differences between multi-platform games and PS3 are either irrelevant right now or the 360 ones are noticable better (Orange Box, Virtua Fighter Online, Madden, etc.). So, why would you buy a machine that is typically $100 more for the same gaming machine and has not yet entered the realm of "Noticably better then 360". There are a few nice exclusive titles, but they don't hold a candle to 360 exclusives to date. And, if you really compare 2008, 360 does have a pretty good lineup compared to PS3, the unfortunate part is that the lineup is tied to new IPs instead of proven IPs like MGS and FF.

NeoRatt said: I don't think it sucks. I like blu-ray and the few exclusives it has outside of Lair. But as a game machine Sony has yet to prove that it is any better at doing games then 360. The differences between multi-platform games and PS3 are either irrelevant right now or the 360 ones are noticable better (Orange Box, Virtua Fighter Online, Madden, etc.). So, why would you buy a machine that is typically $100 more for the same gaming machine and has not yet entered the realm of "Noticably better then 360". There are a few nice exclusive titles, but they don't hold a candle to 360 exclusives to date. And, if you really compare 2008, 360 does have a pretty good lineup compared to PS3, the unfortunate part is that the lineup is tied to new IPs instead of proven IPs like MGS and FF.

Yeah, what he said.

I've had a week to play with my PS3 and the Blu Ray. The PS3 doesn't suck by any means - but it's priced a lot higher than it should be. The biggest thing is - value. Sure, the BR aspect rocks, but does little for gaming and makes it harder for Sony to trim the price. For the price you pay, you'd expect it to be a big jump in gameplay, graphics and the like. I can definitely see the 360 is graphically superior than the Wii - and it was just $100 price difference. For the price some folks paid $499 and $599, I would think the graphics would be a noticeable jump - but sadly, it's not. And it's just like comparing the HD DVD to Blu Ray. Guess what? Visually, they are the same. Case and point - Tears of the Sun. I have the Blu and the SD DVD. Had one in the 360 HD DVD add-on and the Blu in my PS3. The difference? Oh, it's sharper than the SD DVD, of course, but guess what? The big difference was actually minor - Tom Skerritt's nametag was readable on the Blu - not on the SD DVD.

When the PS3 hits $299, many more folks are gonna bite. But right now, the PS3 is essentially trading baskets with the 360. Mind you, the 360 has been at a stagnant price point for a while. A real one - putting the Arcade at $199 across the board will end this tit-for-tat drama. 

To be honest it doesnt suck. But PR talk put it's capabilities way above what is possible on the machine. Couple together with an akward dev kit and lousy online it's
some way off being what it should and could have been. The games continue to hurt it though. Any gamer (not fanboy) can see that it has the least Jrpg's, sports, flight,
Wrpg, kids or fun games of the bunch. Also it's top flight games that are exclusive are not very impressive. The only really good games are available on rival formats with purer online services that work. As a gamer these are all problems for me. Even up coming titles seem on the fence. FF12 was a poor game. why is ff13 not gonna be the same? The only titles left intriguing for me is MGS4. After the constant batch of bad exclusives any new exclusives for PS3 I'm being extremely aware of.