Why does everyone hate the PS3?

[hannahdonno]

So I own a PS3 and it seems like it is getting shunned by the world of gaming. Everywhere I go there is always a Microsoft fan boy telling me how much the PS3 sucks. Don't get me wrong, I've met some PS3 fan boys and the are not any better, but why is the PS3 the scum of the universe? Maybe it is just demographics, or maybe I just don't know enough people. AND, why the f-sauce didn't they release an expansion for Fallout 3 on the PS3??????? Not cool. >.<

Because it is far too expensive, huge and lumberous and why have one when you can settle for a cheaper, more versatile console?

XBOX 360 FTW.

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Just stating the facts (Y)

 

[hannahdonno]

So I own a PS3 and it seems like it is getting shunned by the world of gaming. Everywhere I go there is always a Microsoft fan boy telling me how much the PS3 sucks. Don't get me wrong, I've met some PS3 fan boys and the are not any better, but why is the PS3 the scum of the universe? Maybe it is just demographics, or maybe I just don't know enough people. AND, why the f-sauce didn't they release an expansion for Fallout 3 on the PS3??????? Not cool. >.<

Because it is far too expensive, huge and lumberous and why have one when you can settle for a cheaper, more versatile console?

XBOX 360 FTW.

Thank you Hannahdonno for basically proving his point.

People don't like the PS3 because of it's cost (both of the console and to develop for it). Plus the lack of backwards compatibility killed it for a lot of people. I mean c'mon most of us own/ed a PS2 and remember it had amazing games. Fanboys are just blind followers, they feel they have to defend their console of choice.
Also Fallout 3 will not get any expansions on the PS3 because Microsoft paid for exclusive rights on the 360.

As I have just said to another poster, I was attatched to my PS2, but the PS3 made me want to hurl every Sony based product I own out of the window. If you actually take everything into consideration, the 360 is technically better.

I do not have an opinion as to the technical specifications of either unit. I own a Xbox 360 because it was cheaper at the time. My question is what makes the 360 technically better. I am not trying to pick a fight only ask that you expound a little about the reasons for its superiority.

When I say "technically" I use the word a lot more genreally than just its technology. The PS3 has room for better graphics but you cannot deny the Xbox 360 still has pretty amazing graphics sometimes and as this is in my opinion the only worthwhile reason of getting a PS3, the difference in price makes it obselete. Sony thought they would pretty much get a free ride with the PS3 due to the success of the PS2, and although it does have its good points, its just not worth it. Apart from Little Big Planet, PS3 has no good exclusives while the Xbox 360 has Fable 2, Halo, Blue Dragon, PGR, Saints Row and its rather good selection of arcade games. Its online community will not be beaten and the acheivement system is poorly matched by the PS3 'medals'. Also, at least the Xbox 360 fits in my god damn house.

 

[Zenode]

Its not that the PS3 is bad its just those annoying things called

Halo Fanboys (also Gears Fanboys).....That make up 80% of the XBOX allegiance

The reason there are more games on the XBOX is that there is a different coding for the PS3 so more people use the XBOX coding.

The PS3 is great your basically buying a Blu-Ray player plus a games console in one thats why there is a larger price tag on it. A Blu-Ray player by itself cost $600 while the PS3 costs $800 so your REALLY only paying $200 for the console part the Blu-Ray player is what gets you...

 

[hannahdonno]

XBOX 360 FTW.

*sniff* *sniff*

I smell a fanboy.

I must have said this 10 times now on this post...

FanGIRL! And I used to be in love with my PS2, then the PS3 came along and I had to fight a strong urge to throw every Sony product I owned out of the window and burn them- it broke my heart.

 

[Artemis923]

I

Why base buying a next gen console on its ability to play last-gen games?? I've never understood it, but frankly it doesn't make any sense. Apart from a few games on the PS2, there are all next gen sequels to them (out or due to be released) on the PS3 with better graphics, gameplay etc.

...
...
I'm speechless. I just don't know what to say here man. And i don't think your second sentence makes much sense either.

Oh oh wait i know!
The PS1 and PS2 have a vast game lineup, and the PS3 still barely has anything. PS2 games cost less than PS3 games. For me, the early PS3s were PS2s that i can use to play some next gen games when some come out. And now SONY took that potential away and all that's left is an expensive blu-ray player with a handful of exclusives and a bunch of JRPGs. I don't give two shits about graphics either, and what's a sequel worth without playing the previous games? Obviously with the exception of GT and such. But why should i pick up MGS 4 if i don't even know WTF happened in the other 3 MGS games? That's what doesn't make sense.

Playing PS1 games nowadays would only be for nostalgia; the gameplay, graphics etc suck. For storyline, save the cash and hit wikipedia or a fansite. Why trudge through dated gameplay and crappy AI just to find something out which a 10 minute read would have enlightend you on?
After replaying Devil May Cry, I realised that good games then are not good games now, and should be left in the past. Playing them now is either a test of patience of laughably bad.
A handful of exclusives? Same amount as 360, maybe a bit less, but better quality. Not to mention every single multiplatform game which is the vast majority of games nowadays. People say it is lacking in games but thats nonsense; it has the majority of 360 games and vice-versa.

Okay this is where i'm leaving this conversation, as it's not going to get anywhere. You apparently don't understand that some people DO like older games. I play games from all the way back in the late '90s, and i enjoy them to death. In fact i enjoy them a lot more than the majority of shallow dumbed down cash-ins that are modern games. I clearly stated that i don't care about shiny graphics, so you shouldn't have brought that up as an argument afterwards. I honestly pity you, for you can not appriciate these old masterpieces like Fallout or Soldiers of Anarchy. You're missing out on a lot of fun mate.

I mentioned graphics once, but mentioned gameplay more. What is there to like about older games? Apart from the storyline, absolutely nothing! If you want just storyline, read a book. What is there to appreciate in games which have terrible graphics and handle even worse? Games are not books and rarely are art. As they are made using technology, they are going to become worse with age. I have a stash of PS1 and PS2 games, and I don't ever play them because I will just realise how times have changed and how they are now crap. There is no fun to be missed out in games which have no challenge due to buggy gameplay and AI. GT2 was great, but now it is crap in comparison to it's sequels. Driver was great, now it handles like a cart full of rocks with awful AI. Morrowind was amazing, but now it's combat system is painfully repetative.
Games get worse teh older they become because technology gets better. Simple.

Come off it , man! Give me the choice of replaying Contra or playing the newest Halo clone and I'll take Contra every time.

If you say video games aren't an art form, then I'm sorry but you have just offended this whole forum. I dare you to say that to anyone who has been involved in the creation of a game. They would slam you through twelve different dimensions. Video games incorporate every "art" form. They have writing, music, drawings, landscaping, and acting. Just because at the very core of the game it's only 0's and 1's doesn't exlude it from being an art form.

WTF you talkin about? I said nothing about games not being art. Read what I've said before you launch a freakin crusade on me. I merely stated that I would rather play an old favorite than a "new" game with "new" graphics that still feels like "Soldier X and the Plot of Doom."

 

[MrGFunk]

A question for all these people who are saying the PS3 is too expensive - How cheap would a PS3 have to be for you to buy it?

To expect a PS3 to be the same price as core model Xbox360 is unreasonable.

I've read people who say they wouldn't have it for free - their opinion should be disregarded as hyperbole.

 

[Wargamer]

I didnt need to counter argue

Yes you do. The reason that you are a Fanboy and I am not is because I am providing evidence and reasoned arguments, whilst you are pulling shit from your arse and calling it ice-cream.

Allow me to explain to you something that many people I deal with at work do not understand; you get what you pay for!

Case in point, cars. My sister and I both own similar cars; I have a Ford Focus, she has a Vauxhall Corsa. My car was a few thousand pounds more expensive. Allow me to list just a few of the differences:
Her car has a 1.2 Petrol engine. I have a 1.8 Turbo Diesel.
She gets about 35-40 miles to the gallon driving round town 45 on motorways. I get 40-45 round town, and up to 50 on the motorway.
Her car has two doors. Mine has four.
We both have a CD player, but mine holds six disks at a time.
My car has a more comfortable ride.
Just about the only advantage her car has is that it accelerates faster off the blocks.

In short, there's a reason that whenever my parents need to borrow a car, it's always my car they ask for. My car is better. It's also more expensive. Why? You get what you pay for.

The PS3 is no different. You're paying +£100 at most up-front. As I said in my previous posts, that +£100 is for all the things that, frankly, should be standard in this day and age that you do not get with the 360.
Plus, as I said, if you take into account the full life of the console, and all the extras (that includes Xbox Live subscription), the PS3 comes out cheaper. This, by the way, still fits my above rule; If you buy a cheap banger of a car, it'll cost far more in servicing and repair than a more expensive, better-quality vehicle.

and I said even though it got red rings I still enjoy it more that the console that dosent get a chance to because all the games suck!, not the system, the games, you know the part that really matters?

Let me guess... you read CAD, right? Maybe this strip?

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20070727

Ha. Ha. Ha. Oh, how true that is. The PS3 has only one decent game, and that's Resistance: Fall of Man. What a lark. A Console with one exclusive title and a load of shitty ports. Such utter, utter folly.

How about "no", retard. This isn't 2007. The PS3 has a truckload of exclusives, from the FPS monsters like Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 to the epic Metal Gear Solid 4, and the adorably addictive LittleBigPlanet.

What's more, game designers are learning that if they want to make a good multi-platform game, they need to learn the PS3's hardware. The reason the multi-platform titles have inferior graphics on the PS3 is because the makers just do a direct-port from the 360, and the hardware isn't compatible. However, games like Red Alert 3 are superior on the PS3, because the designers took the time to upgrade the graphics to run properly. The result is that out of PC, PS3 and 360, the 360 has the worst version of Red Alert 3 on the market. Oh, and the PS3 gets exclusive maps, wallpapers and themes.

When you compare exclusive titles, the PS3 is blowing the 360 away. Take, for example, Gears 2; it is brown, grey, brown-grey and grey-brown splashed over a showy polygon count. Killzone 2, on the other hand, takes every colour known to man and splashes them across the game as and when it is appropriate. Yes, you don't get a lot of bright blues and bright greens in the middle of a radioactive desert warzone, but the parts of the game set in less brutalised regions do show a much wider, crisper, cleaner selection of colours than Gears 2 is capable of.


Since I'm on the topic of shooting down the 360, I figure I'll bring up another point. Last night, my friend (who shall be named "Adam") came over to my house. He's the sort of guy who overclocks his computer and owns TVs too big to fit inside his house. He brought his PSP, and said "watch this!"

What we watched was Family Guy. He used the PSP to access his PS3, which then accessed his PC and streamed a Family Guy episode from his PC back to the PSP. All done wirelessly.

This wasn't achieved by hacking the PS3 and doing some psycho alterations... it was actually so straightforward when he explained it that anyone could do it. Yet another example of how the PS3 can be combined with other peripherals to produce a truly diverse, multi-tasking entertainment centre.

p.s.- learn how to italisize

Italics are for emphasis. I say again, italics are for emphasis! They show a stressing of the word, as opposed to the SHOUT represented by caps, or the Pay Attention To This Part represented by Bold.

Last, and related note; attempting to preach a Style over Substance argument is the typical resort of a Fanboy who can't win on facts. You can't provide any arguments to counter my points, so you criticise my use of Italics whilst wanking over a picture of Marcus Fenix.

Don't worry, little Fanboy, Micro$oft will love you no matter how stupid you are. In fact, they'll love you more because of it.

 

[MMMowman]

PS3 don't have good games simple. Xboxs have great games and better controllers. Xboxs do break down but you just need to take it back and demand the shop keeper to take it back.

 

[Captain_Caveman]

So I own a PS3 and it seems like it is getting shunned by the world of gaming. Everywhere I go there is always a Microsoft fan boy telling me how much the PS3 sucks. Don't get me wrong, I've met some PS3 fan boys and the are not any better, but why is the PS3 the scum of the universe? Maybe it is just demographics, or maybe I just don't know enough people. AND, why the f-sauce didn't they release an expansion for Fallout 3 on the PS3??????? Not cool. >.<

People are bitter because Sony promised the world & underdelivered. Also people hate sony because Sony has an extra large dose of arrogant & bullsh*t.

"it's 4D"
"next gen doesnt start until we say it does"
"$599"
""Home""
etc.....

 

[Wargamer]

PS3 don't have good games simple. Xboxs have great games and better controllers. Xboxs do break down but you just need to take it back and demand the shop keeper to take it back.

Is it "lol", "lul" or "lawlz" you people use to convey retarded amusement?

PS3 doesn't have good games? As opposed to what exactly? Halo 3 is one of the shittiest shooters around (christ, you're better off downloading DOOM or Duke Nukem 3D!), Gears 2 is a very good game, but not worth buying a 360 for, Fable II is Fable I re-released, Halo Wars is a console RTS (automatic failure!)... need I go on?

The PS3 has plenty of good games. They just require the player to have an attention span longer than the preceding sentence. I still laugh every time a 360 Fanboy turns up and announces they "completed" LittleBigPlanet in a week at their friends house...

Second, 'great' controllers? They're unremarkable at best. At least the Dualshock 3 has the whole Nostalgia vibe to it. I like being able to play PSX games I download using what is still pretty much a PSX controller. It completes the experience.

Finally, this 'if the XBox breaks just take it back'. Excuse me? If my PS3 breaks I storm back to the shop and yell "What the FUCK do you think you are doing selling me defective products!?" My PSX and PS2 both died of the dreaded 'Disk Reader Plague' that gripped both consoles. By the time the PSX kicked the bucket, they were down to £60 a pop. I replaced my PS2 last week for £40, and got two games thrown in. Considering the 'defective' editions of both PSX and PS2 lasted at least four years, and the consoles only have a 5-year lifespan before becoming obsolete, I'd say that's pretty good run.

The 360? Well, go browse this site and you'll find people who seem to have replaced their machines three times in eighteen months. That's not inconvenient, that's a fucking crime against the consumer! If I pay £200+ for a console, I expect at least five years of perfect / near-perfect operation from it. Not five months.

 

[Artemis923]

I loved my PS2 but the PS3 has nothing that I couldn't have on a 360.

That, and I freakin hate the thumbsticks on the PS controller.

 

[Wargamer]

I loved my PS2 but the PS3 has nothing that I couldn't have on a 360.

That, and I freakin hate the thumbsticks on the PS controller.

How does that work? Seriously, the difference between a Dualshock 2 (for PS2) and Dualshock 3 (for PS3) is the "Turn the Console / Controller On" button where the "Turn the Analog Sticks on/off" button used to be.

How can you love the PS2, then declare your hatred for its controller on its successor?

 

[PAGEToap44]

I just don't see the difference in graphics. And if they are slighly better then the price still doesn't reflect it's true value. And the controller gives me blisters.

 

[Artemis923]

Easily. I don't recall playing an FPS ever on the PS2 until Killzone. Compared to the Box's sticks the Station's are way too erratic and sensitive.

I loved my PS2 but the PS3 has nothing that I couldn't have on a 360.

That, and I freakin hate the thumbsticks on the PS controller.

How does that work? Seriously, the difference between a Dualshock 2 (for PS2) and Dualshock 3 (for PS3) is the "Turn the Console / Controller On" button where the "Turn the Analog Sticks on/off" button used to be.

How can you love the PS2, then declare your hatred for its controller on its successor?

Easily. I don't recall playing an FPS ever on the PS2 until Killzone. Compared to the Box's sticks the Station's are way too erratic and sensitive.

 

[Wargamer]

Easily. I don't recall playing an FPS ever on the PS2 until Killzone. Compared to the Box's sticks the Station's are way too erratic and sensitive.

Hmm... nope. I've played FPS games on the PSX, N64, PS2, Xbox, PS3 and the 360. Whenever an issue of control arises, it is because of the game, not the controller.

Try adjusting the in-game sensitivity settings to something you can handle.

 

[Artemis923]

Easily. I don't recall playing an FPS ever on the PS2 until Killzone. Compared to the Box's sticks the Station's are way too erratic and sensitive.

Hmm... nope. I've played FPS games on the PSX, N64, PS2, Xbox, PS3 and the 360. Whenever an issue of control arises, it is because of the game, not the controller.

Try adjusting the in-game sensitivity settings to something you can handle.

I've said my two cents, and your over the top crusader attitude isn't gonna change my mind.

 

[Davey Woo]

I've said this time and time again.

The PS3 came out too late.

It does everything the 360 does, (possibly slightly better)
It's twice as expensive as the 360
It came out at least a year after the 360, giving everyone time to settle with it, meaning a lot of people "shun" the PS3 because in all honesty, it's no better.

I think if the PS3 came out first, people would be making "why does the 360 suck" threads instead.

 

[Wargamer]

I think if the PS3 came out first, people would be making "why does the 360 suck" threads instead.

Given what the PS3 can do, if the release dates were reversed we'd have "What the fuck is Microsoft doing re-releasing the original Xbox?" threads.

As I've said, the only thing the 360 does is play games... and most of the 'big games' seem to be FPSs at that. The PS3 can play games to... but it also plays Blu-ray, allows you to surf the net, lets you store music and photos, lets you stream stuff to your PSP, can be set up to interact with your PC... in short, it behaves far more like a PC than a traditional console, and I think that's where consoles have to go.

The 360 is just like it's flagship game series; hyped up, well presented, but brings nothing new to the table.

 

[SidiousCyanide]

To be honest I think a lot of people's views on the PS3 are about a year out of date. I have both the 360, which I've owned for over a year, and more recently the PS3 which I've been nothing but impressed with. The PS3 has an ever expanding line up of triple A platform exclusives which boast some of the best graphics around on ANY system on top of a long list of multiplatform games, anyone who says different really do not know what they're talking about, or/and a fanboy. I think both systems are excellent it just annoys me when the illinformed dis the PS3... although it could do with a price cut.

 

[floppylobster]

I haven't forgiven them for their role in the death of the Dreamcast.

I'll forgive them when Team Ico release a new game.