Figboy

"129.

hell Afrika intrigues me too. as does fl0w. but i certainly didn't pay $600 for my PS3 for these kind of experiences. i paid for games i couldn't play on my 360 - or if i took Sony's word for it, "not possible on 360".

looking at the release list by summer it's going to be to a grand total of maybe 3 games i remotely care for. not good.

having a 360 as well, i'd be stupid to buy a worse performing, rumbleless, weaker online PS3 version of a multiplatform game."

Digi, since when are your specific tastes indicative of every gamer's taste?

sure, you may not find the games i've listed above terribly interesting, but that doesn't mean gaming as a whole doesn't.

that's the beauty of variety (something the Playstation brand excels at), there is something for everyone.

sure, it's "not good" to you if there are only 3 games worth your while, but out of the list of 20 games i posted, 15 personally appeal to me, hence, a PS3 purchase was completely justified. and those titles are just First Party.

i didn't even list MGS4, or both FFXIII games, or LA Noire, or Heavy Rain, and any other 3rd party titles (like VF5, which i already have and thoroughly enjoy).

as a point of interest, Mercenaries 2 was developed for the PS3 first, then a 360 and PC version were created based off of the core design template they had for the PS3. check out the ign article where they interview Pandemic about it. they say that the PS3 was the lead SKU.

as to the comment about not wanting to buy a "a worse performing, rumbleless, weaker online PS3 version of a multiplatform game."

how do you know the game will be worse performing? according to Bethesda, for example, the PS3 version of Oblivion is running better than the 360 version, and better than most PC versions. this tells me that, at the least, the console is capable of performing code rather well, when the developer takes the time to learn the machine (such as Bethesda's case).

as for rumble, seriously, are you going to go there? rumble is not a be all, end all of gaming. sure, it sucks that it's gone for those that like it, but i don't find it terribly necessary, and it's rather bothersome when it is turned on. but again, that's just me. i feel for the people that love rumble and can't have it, but it's not hurting me none.

weaker online? i think 40 players simultaneous online with no lag whatsoever trumps 8 players with a slideshow framerate anyday. weaker online, we've barely seen what the PS3 can do online, considering that only one game truly utilizes it well (that'd be Resistance: Fall of Man). and again, online appeals little to me (i hate playing with people online unless they're my friends, as most people on the internet are obnoxious assholes and suck the fun out of an online game. this is, of course, only based off of my personal experiences playing online).

you're going by an awful lot of assumptions (excluding the rumble) you're assuming that the PS3 version of a game will perform weaker, based off of what? a few shitty videos on Youtube from hackjob game publishers like Activision? hardly conclusive there.

you're also assuming that online is weaker, also based off of what? a bunch of blogs on the internet?

i'd suggest getting some hands on time with the PS3, or better yet, give the damn thing some time, as it's only been out on the market for 3 months.

i'd much rather have a solidly built piece of hardware that doesn't need to be returned every few months with countless upgrades and add-ons and very limited backwards comp anyday(the PS3 still trumps the 360 in bc over on this side of the pond).

and this is based off of actual experience with both the 360 and PS3 (we have two PS3s in the house; my roommate's and mine, and one 360; my roommates).

"its good you at least realize Sony's motives Figboy. Sony may have pushed the technology envelope in other areas, but name one GAMING innovation they have introduced (not copied)."

um, what does innovation have to do with my enjoyment of Ico? Shadow of the Colossus? God of War? Rogue Galaxy? Ratchet and Clank? Jak and Daxter? Sly Cooper?

are you saying that in order for something to be worthwhile or notable, it has to be innovative? that sounds like Nintendo talking.

i bet your gaming library is really small if that's the case.

i enjoy fun games, innovative or not. is RE4 innovative? no, it simply took the formula and controls from previous Resident Evils and put in in 3D, with an over the shoulder camera and context sensitive actions. hardly innovative, but RE4 is kickass nonetheless.

i fail to see what Sony's lack of "innovation," has done to my enjoyment of the many games they've put out. last i checked, God of War 2 was getting spectacular reviews, and that series doesn't have an innovative bone in it's body, but it's still terribly fun.

"the PS2 was great because it was powerful, affordable, and intended as a game machine first and foremost. even you can agree not all of that can be said about the PS3."

the PS2 is a great machine, but what you seem to be forgetting at the time was that people heralded it as being expensive as well. people all over claimed that DVD was an unnecessary addition to the gaming also. we all know that wasn't the case, as DVD allowed gaming to grow.

i don't know what the future holds for Blu Ray, but i won't dismiss that the added capacity will be beneficial for HD gaming. hell, Blue Dragon is already on 3 discs, Dreamfall on my PC takes up 8 gigs, and it's hardly a visual masterpiece, or pushing any gameplay envelopes.

i imagine the sandbox genre will benefit most from the added space, and you don't really hear many developers complaining about the extra room.

"122.
Figboy, half of those games you mentioned aren't retail games, they're downloadable games. not what people paid $600 for.

AFRIKA? is that even a game? fun to see you stretch so hard tho."

Digi, i don't know what you're talking about, considering that i listed 20 games, and only 4 are downloadable (Super Rub A Dub, GTHD, flOw, and Calling All Cars). not so good at math, are we? it's hardly half.

Afrika has already been explain, albiet vaguely, as being a game where you go around taking photographs of wildlife in Africa (a la Pokemon Snap).

the point of my list was to illustrate that Sony does, indeed, still make games, they are simply consolidating all of the resources at their disposal (movies, tv, games, music, etc), and delivering them via a PS3. you said, in your previous post, and i quote: "we all feel it, the half assed online, half assed motion, loss of rumble, no scaling, of course blu-ray and the cell itself all for that crazy price. how much of that was really about games? look at the launch line-up and what's coming before next fall and you'll quickly realize Sony's lost their way."

you implied that Sony cares little about games, and i pointed out facts to the contrary. that's all.

"126. Figboy
seriously? did you just write all that? my guess is you are the type of person that thinks all stories that you disagree with are biased. (which you will probably disagree with)"

you should have stopped here. because you seriously have no idea what you're talking about. no, i don't think all stories that i disagree with are biased. but i do think that joystiq has a high ratio of not reporting the complete story, and adding personal spin to it. this is a rather simple story, with more to it than just "Sony removed backwards compatability from the PS3! OMFG! PS3 is teh suck!" in my previous post, i presented the entire story in a simple barely one paragraph summary, with no anti-anything spin.


"lease quit calling the PS3 a deal. it isn't, it is still overpriced like all consoles (I'm looking at you 360)"

why should i not say the PS3 is a deal? it's a deal to me. i happen to enjoy Blu Ray movies (and HD DVD to be fair). i'd like to have a HD movie player at some point soon (say, in a month, when i buy my HDTV), so can't i, as a high def movie and games consumer say that it is a deal when it is. you say that i want to get on peoples cases when i disagree with them, but you can't me, or anyone, what a deal is or not. like i layed out, a PC, HD player, and games console are an expensive package when purchased separately. i can get them all in a $500/$600 PS3 (and i did, as i bought my PS3 a week ago)


"ou cannot deny that promises can be as crazy as any company wants to make them, but if a promise is made it must be fulfilled. I didn't make Sony say 100% BC, I don't care if I can play PONG on my brand new system, but some people do and to those, this promise was not fulfilled."

of course corporate promises are crazy, but those that buy into those promises as the gospel truth are the crazy ones. i bought a PS1 because it had the games i wanted to play on it. i bought a PS2 because it had the games i wanted to play on it. i bought a PS3 because it has games i want to play on it, and it's 2007 lineup is looking promising (i listed most of the ones that interest me in previous posts). i could give a rats ass about "lucid dreams," or "jacking into the Matrix" or "accessing the 4th Dimension." i'm not 12, and i don't need company PR or reassurance to justify my purchase. especially when it comes to games. the 360 has some great stuff on the horizon also. i'll be purchasing one of them soon too (probably by the summer, i'm not sure yet). when you get to be my age, you realize that these companies don't give a rats ass about you, so it really just comes down to what you, as an individual, find appealing and worth your money.


"I a just glad us gamers finally have our Chevy v. Ford. I just got a bumpersticker of calvin peeing on a ps3 and put it on my sweet 97 mazda.

Posted at 4:02PM on Feb 23rd 2007 by Michael"

good for you.

while i think Super Rub a Dub is silly beyond understanding, i won't dismiss it as a video game that Sony has created. sure, it's no Heavenly Sword or Killzone, but it kind of shows that they are taking downloadable gaming content seriously. GTHD, flOw, and Super Rub a Dub are, at least, not a bunch of rehashed arcade or 20 year old games that we've already played and payed for ages ago (not that i have anything against those titles, to be honest, but i'm not exactly chomping at the bit to relive my 90's high shool days).

the PS3 has only been out 3 months, and people just can't seem to leave it alone. i say we all shut the hell up and reconvene in December 2007, when the console has had a year under it's belt, and some more titles released.

"yeah Sony was a great publisher, i bought my PS3 for whatever Team Ico did next, or the Turismo guys, or the Socom guys etc etc. sadly, this round, it's all taken backstage to Sony's new hardware agenda.

we all feel it, the half assed online, half assed motion, loss of rumble, no scaling, of course blu-ray and the cell itself all for that crazy price. how much of that was really about games? look at the launch line-up and what's coming before next fall and you'll quickly realize Sony's lost their way.

long live the PS2. up until this announcement, it was the best part of the PS3.



.

Posted at 11:23AM on Feb 23rd 2007 by Digi Smalls"

You're absolutely right, Digi

Warhawk
Heavenly Sword
Ratchet and Clank PS3
flOw
Calling All Cars
Super Rub a Dub
GTHD
Gran Turismo 5
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
Resistance: Fall of Man
White Knight Story
Afrika
Killzone
Team Ico's Project
Lair
Sucker Punch's PS3 project
God Of War 3
Siren 3
Hot Shots Golf
Motorstorm

holy crap, you're right! Sony cares absolutely *NOTHING* about games!

get over yourself, dude. they care about games, and they care about making profit.

they've already said, before the North American and Japan launch of the PS3, that at some point in the future, they'd be removing the EE and GS, and moving on to software emulation. well, that time is now, apparently, and while it's still not 100% perfect, if you were a business, what would you do? keep in a feature that was costing money to implement and wasn't 100% necessary to your long term goals (the only PS1 game i still played on my PS2 was Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. i played nothing but PS2 titles), or remove that costly feature to recoup some losses and stay in business?

you'd cut those unnecessary features and save the money, and stay in business.

but oh, no, Sony can't look out for it's best interests! that's evil and sinister.

if they didn't and they closed their doors, and Microsoft and Nintendo were left to run the gaming industry, it wouldn't be a good thing at all. since Sony became (and maintained) their number one status for 10 years, it forced Nintendo and Microsoft to up their game. the precious Wii that everyone loves and adores was a direct result of Nintendo getting their asses whooped for 10 years straight.

if the Gamecube had sold 100 million units, do you honestly think that the Wii wouldn't have been called the Revolution and had a standard, Gamecube-like controller? give me a break.

Sony pushes technology forward. they always have. it's how they've managed to stay in business for 60 years.

without a company to constantly push the envelope, the industry wouldn't grow. Nintendo used to be that company (the SNES was mighty powerful when it first launched), now it's Sony.

now going back to my original point, back when the PS1 came out, First and Second Party development was Sony's major weakness, as there was practically nothing there.

when PS2 came out, they rectified that, and we got God of War, Siren, Mark of Kri, Rise of the Kasai, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and so on.

they seriously upped their First and Second Party development by acquiring and opening up studios.

in this PS3 generation, they're increasing it even more, and we are seeing more First and Second Party titles than we've seen in the past.

so to say Sony doesn't care about gaming or games is false. they care about whatever market will make them a profit, whether it be film, music, television, and videogames. and, well, whaddayaknow? the PS3 has it's hand in all of those markets. interesting, that.

for the consumer that wants more than a gaming device, and wants to save money on indulging, a PS3 is a steal:

PC - ranges from $500-$1000 (more for gaming PCs)
HD player (whether Blu Ray or HD DVD) $500-$1000
Games console - $250-$400 (Wii and X Box 360)

total: $1250 - $2400

PS3 (with Blu Ray player, PC functions like internet access and Linux support, and games console)

$500/$600

this hatred for all things PS3 is coming primarily from the under 18 and still in school market. they're pissed because their favorite console (they probably owned PS1s and PS2s when they first came out), is out of their price range.

well, no one is forcing a single one of us to buy a PS3, or a Wii, or a 360 for that matter. we *CHOOSE* to do this. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo aren't making us do anything we don't want to do. but they do want us to buy their product, and they will do or say what it takes to get us to do so.

prior to the internet age, companies kept all of this shit quiet from their consumers, and it we were slaves to PR speak (that, and the fact that we were like 9 and 10 and didn't care about shipment numbers and stock prices).

those days of corporate subterfuge are practically gone now, but leave it to the biased media (ie, joystiq and Patrick Klepek over at 1up), to paint a story that's really rather simple, in a negative light.

here's the story: "To save costs, Sony is removing the PS1 and PS2 chips from the PS3, and moving to software emulation. As a result, 90% or more backwards compatibility is uncertain, though this can be remedied with future firmware updates."

there, pure and simple. with no bias or personal feelings included.

this place is ridiculous sometimes.

actually, according to the IGN interview with Pandemic, the game was built on the PS3 as the primary SKU, then subsequent versions (the PC and 360) versions, were built based off of that design work (and obviously not the design code).

"ok this thread has officially gone bananas..."

as usually the case whenever the PS3 "loses" an exclusive.


"Figboy, yeah i bought the PS3 for Team Ico as well, and while VF5 is a good game, it is coming to 360 and (fingers crossed) could bring some more online goodness.."

true that it is coming to the 360, but it's available for me right *now*, and i actually just finished playing it a minute ago. the same arguments that 360 users have been saying to the numerous 360 games that are coming to the PS3 months late applies here.

as a PS3 owner only (my roommate has the 360), i'm getting the games as they come out for the system i've decided to support. i'm getting a 360 later this year (much later, probably), and then i'll worry about what games come out for what first, but for now, i'm just glad the PS3 is getting any games at all.

"the whole original point of this thread is that what once was considered PS3 exclusive is quickly becoming multi-platform. while Lair and Motorstorm may never go to 360, what if Square Enix and Konami looked at all the success Capcom is having and decided to go to 360 as well? then your list shrinks considerably."

thing is, there are plenty of first and second party PS3 titles that make it worth my while. unlike a lot of people, i don't just buy a gaming console for one game specifically. even if MGS and FF were to go multiplatform, i've still got Lair, Warhawk, Motorstorm, Killzone PS3, Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank, White Knight Story, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, the obligatory God of War 3 we know is coming, sequels to Resistance: Fall of Man, whatever Sucker Punch, Team Ico, and Level 5 have cooked up (outside of White Knight, they're working on another PS3 title, and probably a follow-up to Rogue Galaxy, which is a suprisingly good game).

that's plenty of love for this year alone, all first and second party, not to mention the titles that haven't even been announced yet. 3rd party titles that are "exclusive" and multi-platform titles round everything out.

"thats cool you use your PS3 for all its other uses, because in the games dept. it is losing ground every month."

not really. the console has only been out 3 months. we all know the titles that are scheduled to release this year, many are high profile. when, exactly, did the 360 get interesting? not until March 2006, when Oblivion came out, a full 5 months after the console launched. after that, there was a large lull until Dead Rising came out, then another lull until Gears of War came out.

we haven't even gotten our hands on quality PS3 titles, excluding Resistance, which is a great game. and at least that was a day one title. come this March, a lot of quality titles are coming out, starting with Motorstorm in two weeks, then, for those that couldn't play it on the 360 or PC, Oblivion a week after that. from there, it just gets better.

"yeah the wii is another issue entirely, but i'm positive that crippled wii versions of PS360 fare would NOT make it more 'FUN'. best bet for Wii is to have all these XBL arcade devs graduate to Wii retail games and make some original games that you could ONLY play on the Wii."

i don't think there is much that can be done to help the Wii once the 360 and PS3 release their killer titles (multi-platform, or exclusive, doesn't matter). it's just hard for me to see it surviving the onslaught of games like Halo 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Mercenaries 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy XIII, Heavenly Sword, GTA IV, Killzone, etc, all releasing this year (either in Japan or the US, or both).

contrary to many people's beliefs, new technology always brings about new gameplay experiences, not just pretty graphics.

i guess those folks on the internet forgot that games like Shadow of the Colossus, GTA 3 - San Andreas, Halo, God of War, RE4, Deus Ex, Mercenaries, etc just couldn't be done on an SNES, or even a PS1.

the pretty graphics are just a bonus that comes with more powerful technology.

more power means better quality textures can be used, so why not use them? do the visuals in RE4 really matter to the gameplay? no. but does it hurt that they're there? no.

Nintendo has got their fanboy's perspectives twisted, and it's going to take games like the ones i've listed above to get them to see that visuals and gameplay don't have to be mutually exclusive.

my favorite example is to play the game F.E.A.R. on your PC at the lowest possible settings for about an hour. then, crank up the settings to maximum, play the same area for an hour, and note the difference in immersion the visuals made (i had to do just that when i got F.E.A.R. before i got my new video card. after i got the card and replayed the game, holy crap. it was like a totally new experience).

didn't mean to go off on another tangent, but those are just my thoughts on this whole matter.

personally, i'll own all 3 systems at some point, and all this exclusive this, exclusive that talk will matter little to me, but to be honest, it does already.

"Hey Figboy,

You do realize that Ninja Gaiden Sigma is just an expanded version of the 360 title, right?

Posted at 3:17PM on Feb 22nd 2007 by ByteMe"

and this matters to someone who doesn't own the original Ninja Gaiden, or maybe never owned an X Box at all, how, exactly?

the simple fact of the matter is that the PS2 sold over 110 million units, and the orignal X Box sold 25 million units.

the point of this is that there are, at least 50 million or so Playstation 2 gamers that have never played Ninja Gaiden on the X Box (i'm not one of them, as i have played it, hence being excited that it's coming to a system that i actually play; my X Box is gathering dust).

there are millions of gamers that have never given it a try, due to whatever reasons (maybe not being able to afford multiple consoles or simple fanboyism), and now Ninja Gaiden has the opportunity to expand it's userbase.

also, why shouldn't i be excited about a game that is adding even more content to an already kickass title?

new weapons, moves, being able to play as Rachael, all worthy enchancements, and on top of that, we get that shiny next gen sheen on the visuals department (hard to believe, considering that the original Ninja Gaiden and Ninja Gaiden Black were gorgeous).

it seems to me that you are maybe a bitter X Box fan that is pissed that one of it's best games is coming to the Playstation audience.

if that's the case; don't be. all gamers should be able to play great games, regardless of platform.

correction: i meant to say that i don't have buyers remorse or guilt for my PS3 purchase.

i wish there was more content on the PS Store, but that's on it's way.

i also meant to add that so far, there haven't been any games outside of Nintendo branded ones that do the Wii any justice at all. to me, it's looking like a Gamecube repeat all over again. the only games worth having on the Wii will probably, as always, be Nintendo properties. properties that i've nearly grown out of in my 27 years on this planet.