no one understands how great the ps 3 is for 1 year console

first year exclusive resistance, motorstorm, ridge racer 7, lair, heavily sword, warhawk, uncharted, rachet and clank, haze, unreal 3, folklore, eye of judgement, 2 of sony's basket ball games nba or what ever there called, ngs, genji 2, untold legends, gundam, uncharted, ect. not shore if i miss any. that so far19 to 20exclusives in one year. but every one keeps on comparing it to a two year old system. then you have tekken on-line, star dust hd, flow, ect. in one year sony has put alot into it. then you have mutiplat games like oblivion ect. so don't say ps 3 has nothing to play.

yes i now some of these games are not that great but there are some that are like warhawk, heavily sword, ngs, motorstorm, resistance. ridge racer 7.the ones that are still to come out have a chance for being good also. but keep saying the 360 has a bettergame line up but all of these games like bioshock halo3 masseffect are all 2 year gen games and they look like sonys 1st year gen games like heavily sword, haze, unreal 3, rachet and clank, uncharted looks if not better then those three above. heavily sword has better face animations than mass effect and this is a first gen game.

Many of those games suck, and most are not even out yet.

There are 3 worthwile games on the PS3: Warhawk, HS (rental), and RFOM.

And none of them have scored AAA, while the 360 had an AAA at launch, and has had a handful thereafter.

Anyway you slice it, the PS3's line-up is sub-****ing-par. :|

Firstly, the 360 did better with it's exclusives if we look at it from the same time period. It had more exclusives AAAs within it's first 8 months (heck, it had SOME).

Secondly, the 360 is not going to suddenly not stop getting games for a year to let Sony catch up. It was Sony's decision to launch a year later, and to level the playing field they have to get more exclusives more quickly than the 360 did. So far they've failed to even keep pace, so while analytically you might have a point, it's not going to matter when someone goes to buy a console.

There are 3 worthwile games on the PS3: Warhawk, HS (rental), and RFOM.jethrovegas

first year exclusive resistance, motorstorm, ridge racer 7, lair, heavily sword, warhawk, uncharted, rachet and clank, haze, unreal 3, folklore, eye of judgement, 2 of sony's basket ball games nba or what ever there called, ngs, genji 2, untold legends, gundam, uncharted, ect. not shore if i miss any. that so far19 to 20exclusives in one year. but every one keeps on comparing it to a two year old system. then you have tekken on-line, star dust hd, flow, ect. in one year sony has put alot into it. then you have mutiplat games like oblivion ect. so don't say ps 3 has nothing to play.

yes i now some of these games are not that great but there are some that are like warhawk, heavily sword, ngs, motorstorm, resistance. ridge racer 7.the ones that are still to come out have a chance for being good also. but keep saying the 360 has a bettergame line up but all of these games like bioshock halo3 masseffect are all 2 year gen games and they look like sonys 1st year gen games like heavily sword, haze, unreal 3, rachet and clank, uncharted looks if not better then those three above. heavily sword has better face animations than mass effect and this is a first gen game.

GARRYTH

I stopped right there.

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]There are 3 worthwile games on the PS3: Warhawk, HS (rental), and RFOM.SolidSnake35

And how many hours of gameplay does HS have for 60$?

Like I said... worthwile for a rental.

I agree, but people have to moan about something, and that something just happens to be the PS3.SolidSnake35

It's just an unexceptional system at this point.

Many of those games suck, and most are not even out yet.

There are 3 worthwile games on the PS3: Warhawk, HS (rental), and RFOM.

And none of them have scored AAA, while the 360 had an AAA at launch, and has had a handful thereafter.

Anyway you slice it, the PS3's line-up is sub-****ing-par. :|

jethrovegas

wroung. many of them didnt score aaa here, but other places they did. and the aa title 360 got a luached, we all no what that game really was....it didnt even deserve an a score at the most. ps3 line up of games are waaay better than anything that luanched on the 360. resistance was a bigger hit than any titles on the 360 at luanch, the game is still conciderd till this day better than geow.

again, as far as exclusives go the ps3 has yet to beat what the 360 launched with. the one year head start does not matter. CaseyWegner

For someone that's been on these boards as long as you have, you sure made an odd comment. Tell us, how does the years start not matter? How did the year start not influence devs? How did the year start not influence buyers? How did any of the prior stated issues not affect the games?

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Many of those games suck, and most are not even out yet.

There are 3 worthwile games on the PS3: Warhawk, HS (rental), and RFOM.

And none of them have scored AAA, while the 360 had an AAA at launch, and has had a handful thereafter.

Anyway you slice it, the PS3's line-up is sub-****ing-par. :|

G10mgs4

wroung. many of them didnt score aaa here, but other places they did. and the aa title 360 got a luached, we all no what that game really was....it didnt even deserve an a score at the most. ps3 line up of games are waaay better than anything that luanched on the 360. resistance was a bigger hit than any titles on the 360 at luanch, the game is still conciderd till this day better than geow.

Who the hell considers RFOM to be better than GeoW? You have to be kidding me.

Gamerankings doesn't.

GS sure as hell doesn't.

Listen man, who cares what you think about PDZ, it got AAA at GS and that's all that matters.

That was at launch. Think about that. The 360 has the PS3 beat from launch. :|

wroung. many of them didnt score aaa here, but other places they did. and the aa title 360 got a luached, we all no what that game really was....it didnt even deserve an a score at the most. ps3 line up of games are waaay better than anything that luanched on the 360. resistance was a bigger hit than any titles on the 360 at luanch, the game is still conciderd till this day better than geow.

G10mgs4

the ps3 has zero AAAEs at gamerankings.

wroung. many of them didnt score aaa here, but other places they did. and the aa title 360 got a luached, we all no what that game really was....it didnt even deserve an a score at the most. ps3 line up of games are waaay better than anything that luanched on the 360.G10mgs4

Rule number one on GameSpot is you have to go by their ratings first. Sorry.

Also, the PS3 has 0 AAAEs at GameRankings.

the game is still conciderd till this day better than geow.

G10mgs4

It's not commercially (Gears of War has sold more) or in terms of critical acclaim (Gears of War has a higher score on GameRankings).

again, as far as exclusives go the ps3 has yet to beat what the 360 launched with. the one year head start does not matter. CaseyWegner

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]again, as far as exclusives go the ps3 has yet to beat what the 360 launched with. the one year head start does not matter. The_Crucible

For someone that's been on these boards as long as you have, you sure made an odd comment. Tell us, how does the years start not matter? How did the year start not influence devs? How did the year start not influence buyers? How did any of the prior stated issues not affect the games?

re-read what i said. question answered.

=

Tell us, how does the years start not matter?

The_Crucible

Because practically, Sony will always be a years worth of games behind the 360, unless it manages to achieve more AAAs than the 360 does in the same time period. So far it has failed to not only close the gap, but even failed in stopping it grow larger.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]again, as far as exclusives go the ps3 has yet to beat what the 360 launched with. the one year head start does not matter. GARRYTH

Who cares about what you think of PDZ? It has AAA at GS, end of story.

And RFOM didn't break AAA at GameRankings either. :|

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]again, as far as exclusives go the ps3 has yet to beat what the 360 launched with. the one year head start does not matter. GARRYTH

i'll be a nice guy and drop pdz down to AA for you. now the ps3 has only tied what the 360 launched with. :?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]again, as far as exclusives go the ps3 has yet to beat what the 360 launched with. the one year head start does not matter. The_Crucible

For someone that's been on these boards as long as you have, you sure made an odd comment. Tell us, how does the years start not matter? How did the year start not influence devs? How did the year start not influence buyers? How did any of the prior stated issues not affect the games?

He saidPS3 doesn't have what360 had atlaunch. SO the year difference does not matter ;)

For a console as expensive as the PS3 is the 1st year line up does not justify the price. The PS3's library is just not up to snuff yet. I understand fully it's a matter of taste, but the PS3's library up to now is not that interesting. It does not match the 360's first year line up, which wasn't all that spectactular either....heretrix

the ps3 dosnt just play video games, and thats not the only reason any body bought a ps3 either, if they did then there supid as heck. ps3 dose other things that well support the 600 price tag like free onnoline, blu ray player, ps1ps2 games, upscales dvds, upscales ps1ps2 games, web browser, hdmi for the highest crisp picture. 4 usb ports, card readers ect. all of these functions can be used, and thats why the ps3 is 500 dollars, and if you bought it not wonting to use thouse features, please returnit and get your self a wii.

THE PS3 IS NOT ONLY AVIDEO GAME SYSTEM.

[QUOTE="The_Crucible"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]again, as far as exclusives go the ps3 has yet to beat what the 360 launched with. the one year head start does not matter. SuperMario_46

For someone that's been on these boards as long as you have, you sure made an odd comment. Tell us, how does the years start not matter? How did the year start not influence devs? How did the year start not influence buyers? How did any of the prior stated issues not affect the games?

He saidPS3 doesn't have what360 had atlaunch. SO the year difference does not matter ;)

for the ones who say pdz is better than the launch ps 3 game resistance is not a true gamer but a fanboy. GARRYTH

for the ones who say pdz is better than the launch ps 3 game resistance is not a true gamer but a fanboy. GARRYTH

Who are you to judge who is a "true gamer"?

It doesn't matter what you or I think of PDZ: It has AAA. End of story.

If you don't like GS's reviews then go to some other forum...

[QUOTE="heretrix"]For a console as expensive as the PS3 is the 1st year line up does not justify the price. The PS3's library is just not up to snuff yet. I understand fully it's a matter of taste, but the PS3's library up to now is not that interesting. It does not match the 360's first year line up, which wasn't all that spectactular either....G10mgs4

the ps3 dosnt just play video games, and thats not the only reason any body bought a ps3 either, if they did then there supid as heck. ps3 dose other things that well support the 600 price tag like free onnoline, blu ray player, ps1ps2 games, upscales dvds, upscales ps1ps2 games, web browser, hdmi for the highest crisp picture. 4 usb ports, card readers ect. all of these functions can be used, and thats why the ps3 is 500 dollars, and if you bought it not wonting to use thouse features, please returnit and get your self a wii.

THE PS3 IS NOT ONLY AVIDEO GAME SYSTEM.

No, what you mean to say is that the PS3 is a blu-ray player that also plays a handful of sub-par video games...

[QUOTE="GARRYTH"]for the ones who say pdz is better than the launch ps 3 game resistance is not a true gamer but a fanboy. jethrovegas

for the ones who say pdz is better than the launch ps 3 game resistance is not a true gamer but a fanboy. GARRYTH

Who are you to judge who is a "true gamer"?

It doesn't matter what you or I think of PDZ: It has AAA. End of story.

If you don't like GS's reviews then go to some other forum...

[QUOTE="GARRYTH"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]again, as far as exclusives go the ps3 has yet to beat what the 360 launched with. the one year head start does not matter. CaseyWegner

i'll be a nice guy and drop pdz down to AA for you. now the ps3 has only tied what the 360 launched with. :?

And that is in a years time so basically. 360 launch = ps3 1 year into life span. That is not good if you are Sony.

[QUOTE="SuperMario_46"][QUOTE="The_Crucible"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]again, as far as exclusives go the ps3 has yet to beat what the 360 launched with. the one year head start does not matter. GARRYTH

For someone that's been on these boards as long as you have, you sure made an odd comment. Tell us, how does the years start not matter? How did the year start not influence devs? How did the year start not influence buyers? How did any of the prior stated issues not affect the games?

He saidPS3 doesn't have what360 had atlaunch. SO the year difference does not matter ;)

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

[QUOTE="GARRYTH"]for the ones who say pdz is better than the launch ps 3 game resistance is not a true gamer but a fanboy. GARRYTH

for the ones who say pdz is better than the launch ps 3 game resistance is not a true gamer but a fanboy. GARRYTH

Who are you to judge who is a "true gamer"?

It doesn't matter what you or I think of PDZ: It has AAA. End of story.

If you don't like GS's reviews then go to some other forum...

*Points at Halo: CE with the 9.7.*

You have no idea what you are talking about. :|

Many of those games suck, and most are not even out yet.

There are 3 worthwile games on the PS3: Warhawk, HS (rental), and RFOM.

And none of them have scored AAA, while the 360 had an AAA at launch, and has had a handful thereafter.

Anyway you slice it, the PS3's line-up is sub-****ing-par. :|

jethrovegas

you should add motorstorm to that list, the game is great when playing with the motion controls. ngs is well worth the purchase, even if you played black.

[QUOTE="G10mgs4"][QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Many of those games suck, and most are not even out yet.

There are 3 worthwile games on the PS3: Warhawk, HS (rental), and RFOM.

And none of them have scored AAA, while the 360 had an AAA at launch, and has had a handful thereafter.

Anyway you slice it, the PS3's line-up is sub-****ing-par. :|

jethrovegas

Who the hell considers RFOM to be better than GeoW? You have to be kidding me.

Gamerankings doesn't.

GS sure as hell doesn't.

Listen man, who cares what you think about PDZ, it got AAA at GS and that's all that matters.

That was at launch. Think about that. The 360 has the PS3 beat from launch. :|

huhh? people who have played both, even people on teamxbox.xom realize that rfom is beetter than gears, from stry, to multiplayer play, to online play, to more people to enjoy the game on the screen, than a measly 8. then you have the fact that the game actually takes 13 to 15 hours of hard gameplay to beat even at the medium setting. then add teh fact that tyheres coop play, that adds another 5 hours to the game play.

The only thing gears had on rfom, is graphics, and that only because it only held 8 people on the screen cmopared to rfom 40 people, with no lag online play might i add. geow gameplay wise has nothing on resistance, rfom has better weopons better campaighn, better stratagies to be held out in matches, because yes i can have a 4vs4 match or i can have a 20 vs 20 match.

wroung. many of them didnt score aaa here, but other places they did. and the aa title 360 got a luached, we all no what that game really was....it didnt even deserve an a score at the most. ps3 line up of games are waaay better than anything that luanched on the 360. resistance was a bigger hit than any titles on the 360 at luanch, the game is still conciderd till this day better than geow.

for the ones who say pdz is better than the launch ps 3 game resistance is not a true gamer but a fanboy. GARRYTH

saying that somebody is a fanboy because they don't agree with your opinion about a game is practically the definition of fanboyism itself.

[QUOTE="SuperMario_46"][QUOTE="The_Crucible"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]again, as far as exclusives go the ps3 has yet to beat what the 360 launched with. the one year head start does not matter. GARRYTH

For someone that's been on these boards as long as you have, you sure made an odd comment. Tell us, how does the years start not matter? How did the year start not influence devs? How did the year start not influence buyers? How did any of the prior stated issues not affect the games?

He saidPS3 doesn't have what360 had atlaunch. SO the year difference does not matter ;)

Yes because PDZ would have another year in development :|

[QUOTE="heretrix"]For a console as expensive as the PS3 is the 1st year line up does not justify the price. The PS3's library is just not up to snuff yet. I understand fully it's a matter of taste, but the PS3's library up to now is not that interesting. It does not match the 360's first year line up, which wasn't all that spectactular either....G10mgs4

the ps3 dosnt just play video games, and thats not the only reason any body bought a ps3 either, if they did then there supid as heck. ps3 dose other things that well support the 600 price tag like free onnoline, blu ray player, ps1ps2 games, upscales dvds, upscales ps1ps2 games, web browser, hdmi for the highest crisp picture. 4 usb ports, card readers ect. all of these functions can be used, and thats why the ps3 is 500 dollars, and if you bought it not wonting to use thouse features, please returnit and get your self a wii.

THE PS3 IS NOT ONLY AVIDEO GAME SYSTEM.

So all these features are acceptable in lieu of an actual decent games library?

but are you saying pdz is better than resistance which is the best launch fps ever.GARRYTH

better than halo?

[QUOTE="heretrix"]For a console as expensive as the PS3 is the 1st year line up does not justify the price. The PS3's library is just not up to snuff yet. I understand fully it's a matter of taste, but the PS3's library up to now is not that interesting. It does not match the 360's first year line up, which wasn't all that spectactular either....G10mgs4

the ps3 dosnt just play video games, and thats not the only reason any body bought a ps3 either, if they did then there supid as heck. ps3 dose other things that well support the 600 price tag like free onnoline, blu ray player, ps1ps2 games, upscales dvds, upscales ps1ps2 games, web browser, hdmi for the highest crisp picture. 4 usb ports, card readers ect. all of these functions can be used, and thats why the ps3 is 500 dollars, and if you bought it not wonting to use thouse features, please returnit and get your self a wii.

THE PS3 IS NOT ONLY AVIDEO GAME SYSTEM.

[QUOTE="SuperMario_46"][QUOTE="The_Crucible"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]again, as far as exclusives go the ps3 has yet to beat what the 360 launched with. the one year head start does not matter. GARRYTH

For someone that's been on these boards as long as you have, you sure made an odd comment. Tell us, how does the years start not matter? How did the year start not influence devs? How did the year start not influence buyers? How did any of the prior stated issues not affect the games?

He saidPS3 doesn't have what360 had atlaunch. SO the year difference does not matter ;)

He said that the PS3 launched with less exclusives than the 360. AND the year head start don't matter PS3 could've launched first and maybe RFoM would've gotten a 9 here, and PDZ would've gotten an 8.6(Even though it deserved it). But the point is PS3 isn't beating the 360 in exclusives not for now. And the future isn't looking as perfect as you would think.

*Points at Halo: CE with the 9.7.*

You have no idea what you are talking about. :|

Heck, I think Medal of Honor was better than Resistance and that was a 360 launch game too.

but are you saying pdz is better than resistance which is the best launch fps ever.GARRYTH

I dont even know what to say :|

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"][QUOTE="G10mgs4"][QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Many of those games suck, and most are not even out yet.

There are 3 worthwile games on the PS3: Warhawk, HS (rental), and RFOM.

And none of them have scored AAA, while the 360 had an AAA at launch, and has had a handful thereafter.

Anyway you slice it, the PS3's line-up is sub-****ing-par. :|

G10mgs4

Who the hell considers RFOM to be better than GeoW? You have to be kidding me.

Gamerankings doesn't.

GS sure as hell doesn't.

Listen man, who cares what you think about PDZ, it got AAA at GS and that's all that matters.

That was at launch. Think about that. The 360 has the PS3 beat from launch. :|

huhh? people who have played both, even people on teamxbox.xom realize that rfom is beetter than gears, from stry, to multiplayer play, to online play, to more people to enjoy the game on the screen, than a measly 8. then you have the fact that the game actually takes 13 to 15 hours of hard gameplay to beat even at the medium setting. then add teh fact that tyheres coop play, that adds another 5 hours to the game play.

The only thing gears had on rfom, is graphics, and that only because it only held 8 people on the screen cmopared to rfom 40 people, with no lag online play might i add. geow gameplay wise has nothing on resistance, rfom has better weopons better campaighn, better stratagies to be held out in matches, because yes i can have a 4vs4 match or i can have a 20 vs 20 match.

wroung. many of them didnt score aaa here, but other places they did. and the aa title 360 got a luached, we all no what that game really was....it didnt even deserve an a score at the most. ps3 line up of games are waaay better than anything that luanched on the 360. resistance was a bigger hit than any titles on the 360 at luanch, the game is still conciderd till this day better than geow.

Who in the hell considers RFOM to be better than GeoW besides you and a few PS3 fanboys?

Gears has a higher GameRankings average.

Gears has a higher GS score.

Gears has much higher sales.

Gears of War is a better game than RFOM. End of story.

[QUOTE="G10mgs4"]

[QUOTE="heretrix"]For a console as expensive as the PS3 is the 1st year line up does not justify the price. The PS3's library is just not up to snuff yet. I understand fully it's a matter of taste, but the PS3's library up to now is not that interesting. It does not match the 360's first year line up, which wasn't all that spectactular either....heretrix

the ps3 dosnt just play video games, and thats not the only reason any body bought a ps3 either, if they did then there supid as heck. ps3 dose other things that well support the 600 price tag like free onnoline, blu ray player, ps1ps2 games, upscales dvds, upscales ps1ps2 games, web browser, hdmi for the highest crisp picture. 4 usb ports, card readers ect. all of these functions can be used, and thats why the ps3 is 500 dollars, and if you bought it not wonting to use thouse features, please returnit and get your self a wii.

THE PS3 IS NOT ONLY AVIDEO GAME SYSTEM.

PS3 has left the PlayStation brand as movie playing brand.

[QUOTE="GARRYTH"]but are you saying pdz is better than resistance which is the best launch fps ever.CaseyWegner

better than halo?

:lol: