The Playstation 3 SHOULD be #1

no it shouldn't cowthe_h_bomb

@TC. Nice post and I agree. But I see the PS3 really picking up this year.

By giving this machine parallel processing to handle so much more, with Blu Ray allowing faster reading from disc as well as more space, and a built-in hard drive (as opposed to MS' has-to-run-without-it-even-though-everybody-bloody-has-one mentality), it just seems like common sense that the PS3 should be blowing the 360 away.

jvonrader

It should be, but the problem is Developers are not ready for such power. The ps3 is 5 years too early..

I like having a removable hard drive. I can take it over to a friends house instead of my entire console which is really handy.Juggernaut140

yeah, removable hard drive is nice. the best of both worlds would be the removable drive and the OPTION to load an entire game on it.

[QUOTE="jvonrader"]

By giving this machine parallel processing to handle so much more, with Blu Ray allowing faster reading from disc as well as more space, and a built-in hard drive (as opposed to MS' has-to-run-without-it-even-though-everybody-bloody-has-one mentality), it just seems like common sense that the PS3 should be blowing the 360 away.

xsubtownerx

It should be, but the problem is Developers are not ready for such power. The ps3 is 5 years too early..

is that why crysis looks so terrible?

Well, lots of arguments can be made about any console deserving to be #1. If we go by tech-specs, the Xbox should have been #1 because it completely beat the crap out of the PS2 in terms of hardware. The PS2 simply didn't compare, but it still was the #1 console of last gen (sales-wise). I'm sure their software will get better as devs finally get over the PS3's initial lackluster sales, but as for now, I see no reason as why it SHOULD be #1.glitchgeeman

First -- Blu-ray disks read slower then DVD9 thats why they install to cut down the would be obscenely long load times

Second -- The PS3 is the greatest peice of hardware on the market but as its a games console i coudnt care less,i want it for games,and as i have all my muliti-Platform games on my xbox360 that leaves a very small liberay for my PS3.

Third -- I couldnt vare less about the price of Xbox live,as long as its the best ill continue to pay for it,I dont like the idea of home so thats a moot issue,and PSN simple isnt as developed as Xboxlive,and why sghould it be?its barely a year old.

As soon as the PS3 gets the amount of amazing exclusive titles past Sony products have ill be happy with it collecting dust in the corner,and i dont mean high profile ultra hyped crap like MGS and Killzone i mean the small games that go relativelt un-noticed,such as Disgaea.

Why is it better because Sony says so... Look the problem I have with Sony is not many of their games appeal to me, I plan on getting a PS3 in the future, but I'm only interested in about 2-3 of their games none of which include MGS4, FF, LBP, R&C, Dax or anytype Japanese type RPG. So what does that leave me, I'm a gamer first and plan to have both a 360 and a PS3 but I won't as many games for it as I would my 360