Fei-Hung said: i dont agree or disagree, like the op i just have my own opinion. 1. video gaming is HOME entertainment! OK. 2. BR being part of the ps3 was a Sony corp. choice being feasible looking at the larger picture for both gaming and movies. it worked out cheaper and better than the hd add on for the 360. The PS3 has both BR and HDD, theres no and/or here. 3. who needs netfix if you can stream online on the ps3 browser for free? Less content perhaps? Lower quality? If you must have BR then less than SD streams aren't likely to appeal am I right? 4. as a business sony's gameplan makes perfect sense. want to know what it is? staying afloat not marketshare. therefore it is irrelevant wether the ps3 is in 3rd place or 2nd, they fighting a different battle. Fighting for survival is a business plan? 5. yes, i agree with starcraft, substance > showboating, just as quality is better than quantity, just as having variation and options is better than having none or less. metacritic may have more 360 AAA games, but the ps3 offers more variety of them. How so? 6. although it is just opinion but the following may give a better understanding: r2= more fun and content than halo kz2= more fun than any mp on 360 ms:pr= most fun off road racer and or arcade racer lbp= best platformer vc= best jrpg forbidden siren= best survival horror flower= most innovative and original game gt5p= most realistic driving sim and original as well as progressive with the gt.tv addition for car enthusiasts such as myself Realistic isn't the word you're going for here. Unless you're talking about how the cars look. mgs4=best stealth game uncharted= best action adventure game peripherals= cheaper, since they arent brand restricted ( hdd, headsets) You're not satisfied with "really good?" Why do you have to describe them as the "best" quality over quantity agreed! substance over showboating agreed! imo, a console which provides quality variety over quantity is worth every penny as well as 1st place this gen. however, this is just my view on the topic, the ps3 far from sucks and deserves better than 3rd place. p.s. i fully agree, fanboys should quit overhyping every sony exclusive. their victory cries are like premature ejaculation, they just come to quick.

 

 

its fairly obvious ps3 would lose more exclusives since 360 didnt have anywhere near as many exclusives last gen to lose this gen!

lets look at the ones they managed to keep for a change:

wkc
yakuza series
vc
demon soul
virtua cop

and shit loads more that may be considered 1st or 2nd party

@ squill

netfix= free is free at the end and i still have br option, dvd option, psn video store option and stuff such as ovguide and bbc iplayer. that is more than netfix can offer.

staying afloat doesn't mean the same as fight for survival, the definitions are totally different and you know this, so yes, staying afloat can have a strategy. in the world of business, there is something called a contingency plan.... it translates to "in case shit happens...".

since this topic was based on "imo's", i offered some of mine, which is why some games are the best. in fact all reviews are based on opinions, this is no different.

gt5p lacks damage, that doesnt stop it being the best car sim just as the lack of damage in flight sim never stopped it being the best flight sim.

@ squilly

yes, sd isnt as good as br, but when you get to watch it for free with no hassle at a good quality, hell i ain't going to complain! who would? the point is, if i only had a 360, i would have no alternative next to dvd or netfix.

i can watch br's, dvds, stream psn, bbc iplayer, itv iplayer and dozens of other sites without having to get up, change channel etc. its just more convenient. edit: as for best- what stealth game is better than mgs4 this gen? the only contender for action adventure this gen is tomb rider underworld, which gets beaten in; graphics, sound, acting, platforming, story, action and gameplay. the only thing tr:u does better is puzzles. so yes, since there is no game to take them on, that would make them the best.

Fei-Hung said: @ squill netfix= free is free at the end and i still have br option, dvd option, psn video store option and stuff such as ovguide and bbc iplayer. that is more than netfix can offer. staying afloat doesn't mean the same as fight for survival, the definitions are totally different and you know this, so yes, staying afloat can have a strategy. in the world of business, there is something called a contingency plan.... it translates to "in case shit happens...". since this topic was based on "imo's", i offered some of mine, which is why some games are the best. in fact all reviews are based on opinions, this is no different. gt5p lacks damage, that doesnt stop it being the best car sim just as the lack of damage in flight sim never stopped it being the best flight sim.

The last time I checked which was a while ago I couldn't tolerate the PS3 browser, it may have changed but thats the impression in my mind.

Floating = survival in any business but I was only questioning your definition. Personally Sony is doing fairly reasonable from a quarter by quarter basis at present.

Labelling something as "the best" is a recipe for controversy. IMO Halo is > Resistance is pretty much incontrovertable. If I said, IMO Halo is the best I would get a far different response. Zelda is considered an Action adventure for example and theres Mario as well for platformers. Lastly realism isn't the best description of GT5 as it is an Arcade simulation not a full blown simulation and there is a significant difference.

Im not sure what other "stealth action" games are actually out there so I can't counter your MGS4 point.

 

 

People sure do get mad when someone posts the truth.

Don't they?

Saying that changes nothing, and does nobody any good.

+1 for expressing your personal opinion, +1 to long article, -2 for my time....

Seriously damn threads like these are also getting out of hand to.

It's kinda ugly to classify this as a "personal bitching thread." I don't know what/where to classify these kind of threads...

To begin.

Not so. This creates the false expectation that up to this point the Playstation 3 has "sucked", not only to its detractors but to the people who support it.

Few reasonable detractors have ever claimed that the system sucked. Perhaps that its value differential versus its price differential did not justify its purchase instead of a 360, sure (I have said that myself), but not that the PS3 sucked.

No supporters of the system would acknowledge that they would celebrate the PS3 "not sucking", because this implies that there was a space of time in which one would say that the PS3 did suck. This is not going to be true for the vast majority of people, much less the people for whom the PS3 is the platform of choice. I'm going to take a moment to ponder over this. Just for a second.

Firstly, you are going to need to define "wrote off", as you say later on in your post that expectations for the PS3 were initially high and they undoubtedly remained high for some time.

Secondly, you're going to have to qualify in what way the console previously sucked. You speak of a comeback in terms of quality, but in what way has the qualitative shift of its library been any different from its competitors? If this is not the metric to which you refer, then what the Hell are you talking about? This isn't what ignorance means. Ignorance means to lack knowledge of something, not to have a qualitative opinion that runs contrary to your own, and not a rationalization of a given set of facts. Ignorance implies that one is simply unaware of a given set of facts!

Using ignorance in that way is insulting, but it's also incorrect, which makes it unintentionally hilarious. This is a point on which to be excited! If there is any point on which to be excited, it is this one, because if the gap is closing between the PS3 and one of the best by-the-unit software movers in the history of the industry, it implies that the PS3 is still an economically viable platform, which means it will get more games! do not try to belittle this, because for people who want more games, it is awesome. To the best of my knowledge, people get super pumped over the qualities of games, not the the sales numbers, but even if people get pumped about those numbers you are stripping this sentiment of context and meaning. Try "We get super-pumped about the biggest selling console exclusive being on-track to outsell at least one of its predecessors on a fraction of the userbase". You would be at least in the neighborhood of the truth, then. So? Have you failed to notice that console supporters for every console say this? Hell, I do it all the time, though not based on metacritic. Super Mario Galaxy is the best platformer I've ever played. Ninja Gaiden II has the best combat mechanics of any hack and slash ever. Metal Gear Solid 4 as a stealth action game is the best title in its genre. What is wrong with these statements?

Nothing. Nothing is wrong with them. Wait, who on Earth is "we"?

Qualifiers need to be added for all games sales, because no set of numbers occurs in a vacuum. Wait, this is about reporters? Or is that just an aside which has nothing to do with the rest of anything? what muck are you referring to, here? What? No. No. No. The JRPG support isn't as good as that of the 360 or the wii, but are you forgetting what Sega consoles used to look like on this front? Or the original Xbox? Or the Gamecube?

How can this be blamed on Sony? Because they... what? Aren't paying for exclusives? Is that what you mean to imply? It can't be because they created a hostile programming environment, JRPGs have never been that complex in the first place and Square seems to do all right. See, that bothers me: you say that we can blame Sony for this, and then you qualify this statement not at all. The worst part of this is how much it doesn't make sense. Yeah, I feel confident saying that.

How did Sony "support" third party efforts in the past? To the best of my knowledge they've never funded them, and the furthest they went in the PS1 era was promoting FFVII in the West, which was not actually a financially sound move!

Another part here is that you're placing profits as a motive in a necessarily negative context, which is disingenuous when we are talking about a business. Applying moral standards to "profit" vs. "gamer-centric" is absurd. Which is hilarious in that two thirds of the games you named weren't originally associated with the Playstation anyway. Third parties know no loyalty.

And how do you think Sony was supposed to stop them, exactly? Spend money they didn't have to secure rights? All right this is fine, yeah... Wait. What the Hell does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

These are hurting my brain! Nothing particularly wrong here: most of the woes of the PS3 can probably be blamed on blu-ray. No, that's economics, and it's apparently acceptable to literally millions and millions of people who see a value differential greater than the price differential.

I mean come on. "Fiasco"? There are no objective measures of quality in any artistic medium, this point holds no merit whatsoever. It isn't just weak.

Popularity is more important than perceived quality? Since when, exactly? ....For free. Actually, it was probably for the sake of moving PS3 software. Equating any kind of business decision with an "insult" to consumers is, again, completely ridiculous. It does not have to win in order to be great. It does not have to win in order to be celebrated. ....I'm not entirely sure what the first clause here is supposed to mean.

People didn't expect the PS3 to suck. They expected it to dominate. That's why it has failed to meet expectations in some circles. Don't go reminding people that opinions are subjective and then try to imply that there's an objective standard of limitations in terms of how they may celebrate their own perceptions of the console. You will end up tripping over your own feet from crossing them so much. You are in exactly no position to make any kind of value judgement as to how much celebration of this particular console is appropriate or not. Let me make sure I got this straight.

You came in here to say that the Playstation doesn't suck, but it isn't fantastic like everyone lieks to pretend. The reason for this is that Sony has abandoned the gamers, and you have somehow equated business decisions concerning the penetration of new hardware with a moral scale which precludes using one piece of technology as a Trojan horse for another, which is exactly what the PS2 was, too.

Then you go on to say that, hey, at least you didn't say the PS3 sucked, so at least you aren't flaming, right fellas? Right?

This topic doesn't actually have any message to it, no single cohesive thread of logic that binds it all together. This is a bunch of disassociated statements of barely tenable quality or accuracy whose only relation to each other is that they're meant to rile people up.

I agree with you ZenfoldorVGI, especially points A-D concerning the majority of Sony fans behaviour. Spot on (which is sad really).

Also, you should note for future reference, if you say anything bad about anything PS3 related and bring up some good points because you genuinely see them, you'll still get flamed as a person that posted a negative thread and only used some good points to mask you ragging on the PS3. It's happened in the two threads I've posted here (about LBP and KZ2).

Clearly if I wanted to rag on the PS3, I'd do it, wouldn't give a crap about what other people thought of me (oh noes, imz afraid angry fanboys arez going to trax me down!).

Anyway, I think Sony's biggest fault this generation was trying to control the next format (blu-ray) at the expense of the consumers, most of which blindly followed them into the dust. You can blame Nintendo for racing out to a flying start, you can blame MS for stealing previously playstation exclusives, but the fact of the matter is, Sony made a conscious decision to spend funding on controlling the next format as opposed to giving consumers what they wanted (I'm sure at the start of this generation you didn't say you wanted Blu-ray).

But the Playstation will be in very good stead come next generation (blu-ray finally becomes affordable, 2 cell's attached together and what ever graphics card AMD/Nvidia spits out next). Aside from the AAA games (which is comparable to the 360 library to a certain extent), that's probably the best thing PS3 fans can take from this generation. (I'm quite happy with just the AAA games though, don't really care about who's 1st, 2nd or 3rd, as long as sony still gets me games to play on my console).