Kyros said: So because its had some successes it can have no failures? no no of course there were failures. But it sounded like this gen was somehow worse then the last one. And this is simply not true. I have already found more games this gen that are worth playing than in the complete PS2 game library.

 

Then I'd just call you easily entertained to say that there are more *good* games this gen (on any system) than *good* games in the PS2 library. 

T

Darc Requiem said: DMeisterJ said: The day people complain about a free application that you are not forced to use is the day that I stop believing that mankind is moving forward in motion, but backwards. What are we going to complain about now that free stuff doesn't get a pass? Complain about getting gifts? Complain about finding money? sheesh. Yeah but it's money Sony could used on game production. They could have used the funds they wasted on Home to make some of the games PS3 owners have been waiting on.

 

Sony will probably make more money from Home than it costs. Understand people there will be at least 15% of PS3 users who love Home and thats a high number of users worlwide help making Sony a lot of money. Some people like Home, others who are obsessed with the console war won't. Sony don't have to cater just for gaming freaks, it's their approach to casual games etc that has made them successful in the games industry. For everone who loves games like Killzone 2 there will be one who loves home, so get over it.

twesterm said: dougsdad0629 said: The important thing to remember that was said by the editor that liked it was, "Home isn't for everyone." You are never gonna please everyone. I'm personally not interested in Home, but I'm at least open-minded enough to see how other people might like ths FREE (remember in doesn't cost you anthing unless you choose) service. I've never seen so much bitching about something that didn't cost you a dime and is in no way mandatory. I guess having 1 in 4 people like it isn't bad...oh wait... Anyways, I think they were just really pressured to release it this year and this is what we get because of that pressure.  Something that is boring, lifeless, waste of time, buggy and something that people just aren't going to return to. I know people keep screaming that it's free and it's still beta, but PA put it best saying that "it's no virtue giving away something for free that no-one in their right mind would buy."  To make the lack of life and that barren feeling even more insulting, we're expected to pay to make it seem not so barren.  Again, no-one in their right mind would buy generally translates to no-one in their right mind should spend money on that no-one in their right mind would buy thing. As for the beta excuse, that's just a shield and a weak one at that.  As I said, Home was forced to be released long before it was ready so they just say it's a beta and will always be in a beta kind of like Google. That's just bullshit. I don't know about Google, but generally to be in beta a game has to meet these cryteria or something close to it: No placeholder art and all art present All gameplay features present No showstopper bugs The only changes that are allowed are minor bug fixes So how many of these does Home fit? It has placeholder pixalated videos and it's pretty clear everything isn't there (and I know it's a platform that should continually have updates but it should also start with enough options to give you a complete feeling.  It doesn't have that). I seriously hope that isn't all the gameplay they have.  Six flash arcade machines and a handful of dances isn't fun. I had two showstopper or A bugs: 1) I got stuck on another player and had to warp zones, and 2) I couldn't enter a zone.  Yes, I continued but they kept me from progressing further in the game unless I did some sort of hacky fix.  I can only hope they do more changes.  More changes means they aren't in beta. So stop using the it's free and and it's in beta defense.  Home is released and it's free because no-one in their right mind would buy it. It perhaps had the potential to be cool, but since it was released way too early it lost anything it had going for it.  Right now it's just another dot on a long list of failures from this gen.

 

1 in 4 eh. So if Sony sold 20 mill PS3's thats means what, 5 mill will like it. Thats pretty good, especially if they purchase a pounds worth every month at least, that would be a revenue of at least 5 mill pounds a month. Damn thats bad news.

I was a PC gamer and bought a PS2 shortly before the PS3 came out. It was very cheap and God of War looked amazing. Then I tried some of the more famous PS2 games.

God of War: Amazing.
Resident Evil 4: Boring. Who designed the movement?
Devil May Cry3: God-awful game. Perhaps I was simply bad at it but the stupid storyline didn't make me go on.
Killzone: You shouldn't play console shooters when coming from a PC esp. with braindead enemies.
Final Fantasy 10: I HATE JRPG. Already before but even more after I tried them.
GTA San Andreas: Seriously you cannot display a complex city in SD graphics. Too much detail for too few pixels.

My PS2 is now officially my God of War 1+2 gaming machine.

On the PS3 (even some more on 360 with halo3 and Mass Effects) on the other hand we have really amazing games like:

Uncharted,
Assassin's Creed,
Call of Duty4,
Oblivion,
Fallout 3,
GTA4 (now with HD graphics ... MUCH BETTER),
Bioshock,
Prince of Persia (too easy but beautiful),
Half-Life2 incl. Portal,
...


all of them really, REALLY good games. This gen has won hands down for both 360 and PS3.

Yar! They roasted the hell out of it. There was tons of hype behind this. What happened?

FishyJoe said: It's Sony itself that made Home a big deal by highlighting it at E3. When you make a big deal out of something, then you have to be able to deliver, not just make promises.

 

Promises are made to be broken.

I don't know how many people have told me that, LOL.

Kyros said: So because its had some successes it can have no failures? no no of course there were failures. But it sounded like this gen was somehow worse then the last one. And this is simply not true. I have already found more games this gen that are worth playing than in the complete PS2 game library.

 

That goes completely against popular wisdom, which isn't to say that it is wrong, however I believe it is.

It seems obvious to me that last generation you played a more speculative roll than you have this one, which I can assume would make one believe that "this generation is so good, the last gen couldn't possibly be much better, so my opinion could be considered valid."

Believe me, my friend, if you were in the thick of things from a console perspective last gen, then you would certainly know that your opinion sounds a big rediculious. There is a vast library of games on the PS3, Xbox, GBA, and even Gamecube that can compare easily to the PS3 or even Xbox 360 of today if their current forms. Not only that, there was a large amount of niche titles for those of us who enjoy them, to play at nearly all times. Titles you would certainly have no interest in, but that's the crux isn't it. You are just looking at the big name titles in your argument. You have no knowledge or interest in the plethora of excellent niche games like Makai Kingdoms, PoR, or Shadow Hearts Covenant that dotted the landscape last gen.

Your writings sound like the quotations of one who only recently discovered the PS3 and is trying to comb through to cream of the crop software in an attempt to catch up, and finding them lacking.

You're completely wrong. Like in fantasty football, the key to victory is depth. The PS2 doesn't just have the marquee titles that we have come to know an love, but it also has 5 to 10 backup titles of high quality for all those who enjoyed that genre. The Playstation 3, however, has zero backup titles for most genres.

You're opinion can't be "right" or "wrong" but I'm informing you that I have seen exactly how your opinion has been formed in this case, and it lacks insight. It was formed under incorrect assumptions, and hasty observations. You can't learn about the PS2's library from gamerankings, or a year of playing. The Playstation 2 started with Onimusha, The Summoner, and Devil May Cry, unless you forget. It's nearly timeless, and certainly one of the greatest gaming libraries ever assembled. The PS3's library simply, is not.

That's exactly what I did. And what is the failure there again? I have played through the supposedly "best" and some of the most successful PS2 games. And mostly they simply were not very good. Now it is possible that I missed some hidden gems but seriously if even the most acclaimed titles are not really fun, I don't care.

To be earnest I have the impression that PC gamer prejudices were simply true: Before this gen console gaming simply was inferior compared to PC gaming. Now PC developers are on consoles and things are looking up.

I think the key difference are Japanese developers. 2 of the three games you bring on are japanese RPGs. If you are into this genre its no wonder that you liked the last generation better. This genre is slowly dying.  Perhaps the last gen was the generation of Japanese developers. You seem to like their games, I have not found one that I enjoyed.

But I will agree that taste is very subjective, anytime you argue about something that involves taste you have no right or wrong.

Kyros said: and is trying to comb through to cream of the crop software in an attempt to catch up, and finding them lacking. That's exactly what I did. And what is the failure there again?

 

I'll explain it very simply, because apparently you didn't understand my last post.

 

Imagine this is a football team. You have the 4 best players in the world, however, you also have no backup players for them.

Now, imagine you play that football team over a season, against many other average teams, with fair players, and lots of equally fair backups.

When one of your players inevitably gets hurt, you have nothing there to back him up.

So your "leet" football team will lose every game from that point out.

It's called "depth."

(However, in this case, you would be playing a group of standard players(PS3) with no depth against an epic linup of classic players(PS2), with plenty of other classic players to fill those positions, but that is something that could actually be racked up to "opinion")

 

The Sony Playstation 3(and current gen in general) has no depth in its library. If you want to play a jrpg you better enjoy Disgaea 3 or Valkyria. If you don't enjoy those games, then you're shit out of luck.

Now, on the Playstation 2, I could play Final Fantasy X, or Final Fantasy XII. If I didn't want to play those, I could play Persona 3, SMT, Symphonia, Shadow Hearts, Kinddom Hearts, Disgaea 1 or 2, Phantom Brave, or a billion, trillion other great games from that similar genre.

The same holds true on the PS2 for every single genre, and the same holds true on the PS3 for every single genre.

If you take a quick glance at top players, you might think that the PS3 has a comparable library.

It doesn't.

Period.