I will admit my guilty little pleasure is watching the hordes of tweenagers in System Wars battle it out over who's appliance is better. The best part has to be when I interject with the simplest questions which seems to damn one console or another and I get flamed by one side and praised by the other.
Every generation regardless of quality or price I buy every gaming console that is available. The cost of the unit even at launch when factored in over the length of time the system will be active works out to pennies a day, and a hit of a few grand every few years is just not that big of a deal.
When the PS3 launched getting my hands on one proved to be tricky, but I was able to secure a 60GB unit.
The Blu-Ray feature was nice, but till recently (December 07) I did not have a TV that had the means to output in 1080p so I hardly noticed a difference between the Blu-Ray and the HD-DVD's I had been enjoying since I was able to get a A2 player in the middle of last year.
I have been a good little consumer; I have bought every PS3 game that was hyped. Yes, even Lair.
For those who know me I buy games like many people buy lunch, almost daily. I am a junky for anything new but as a result of this gaming gluttony I expect the games to be good and I don't need to give them 10 hours of my life to win me over, they get two.
I have tried with PS3, I truly have.
But aside from the 40+ hours I have sunk into Warhawk, I have realized that I really could have lived without a PS3 thus far this generation.
Last generation I was disappointed with god of war, because it was an amazing game that ended for me just shy of the 12 hour mark.
This generation, it seems Sony has decided that sub-10 hours and no multiplayer is not only acceptable, but it's the norm.
Heavenly Sword, Ratchet And Clank:TOD, and Uncharted laid end to end gave me 22 hours of gameplay.
There were the heavy hitters of 2007 for PS3 and they took me less time together then beating Mass Effect the first time playing the Paragon route.
$209.97 before tax for 22 hours of gameplay.
Goodness knows its not the cost that matters, I am notorious for buying games on day one and getting less then two hours of play from them before they hit the gaming wall and are reduced not nothing more then wall art in my games room.
But that was the best of the best, and it was 22 hours.
Many PS3 loyalists have asked me what about COD4? What about Rockband? How about Assassins Creed?
My simple answer is that I will not force myself to buy PS3 games just to justify its existence.
Regardless of what the loyalists may tell you, the graphic difference between PS3 and 360 on multiplats are so minor they hardly factor in when I am buying a game,
My rational for picking which console is simple:
A) If is the latest installment in a series? If so which console (controller) did I use to play the last one?
B) Is there an advantage/disadvantage to buying it on one console over another (IE Downloadable content, large install file, better controls etc)
C) Cost. If they are generally the same but one is 59.99 and the other is 69.99 its pretty simple.
D) If all else fails, what console am I currently playing most. Console hopping is annoying especially with the wide spectrum of differences in the controllers, so if I have played Console X 90% of the time for the last month and none of the above criteria fits then that will be the final factor.
I have had Guitar Hero II for 360 since April 2007, so Rockband was a no brainer for 360. I have a working guitar I can use as a bass so why not get it on the 360.
COD4, what can I say? I like Live better then PSN. I like the cross game invites I like being able to chat with a friend while I play COD4 and he is playing Enchanted Arms, and I like that I can send him a game invite while he is playing Enchanted Arms to come and play COD4.
What the really killer was recently was DMC4, I had pre-ordered it for PS3. I played the other three on a PS controller and figured I may as well get it for PS3. Then comes along the five gig install file.
Maybe other games enjoy playing one game straight through without another game touching the inside of their consoles, me on the other hand I have eight to twenty games going at once over five consoles at any given time.
Hot Shots Golf and DMC4 eating up nearly 20% of my Hard Drive is annoying, and to be told that I should:
A) Uninstall the file, and sit through the 20 minute install anytime I want to play or;
B) Buy a bigger Hard Drive
Pisses me off to no end, I had 106 Xbox games last gen and still have 50,000+ blocks free. I have 111 retail and 31 XBL games all with save files on my 360 Pro and I still have 11.6 GB of space free.
And I should buy a new hard drive because one game PS3 requires an install file that is larger then all my saved game and data files of all 106 Original Xbox games?
Perhaps Sony should have had the foresight when they built the console?
I don't download movies, I don't fill my hard drive with music, I don't fill it with media that is not game related.
Why is it Microsoft built a console that doesn't require me to buy a new hard drive, yet having 10% the size of my 360 Library in PS3 games requires more data space on my HD then my entire 360 save, data and Arcade game downloads?
This is next gen?
I understand the need for PS3 loyalist to mock the 360, but lets face it.
While using the PC is an effective way to slam the 360 for not having as many exclusives as it would have, my question is; Can I play Gears on my PS3? Bioshock? Halo?
Realistically speaking 360 second tier titles, like Dead Rising, Saints Row, Kameo, Mass Effect, Eternal Sonata, PGR 3 & 4 and on and on still seem to offer me a better exclusive gaming line-up then I currently have on the PS3. Taking out all the games that score 9.0 or higher from the 360 and I still have a broader library.
Why?
Why do I have a pile of games for the PS2 on my coffee table that I will never get through from last gen, yet the PS3 has been out for more then a year and a half and their best offering is still Resistance Fall of Man?
That would be like Microsoft not releasing any sort of exclusive till April 2007 that was better then Kameo, or Nintendo waiting till April 2008 before anything better then Zelda:TP was released.
What is most tragic is that Sony won't get that game this month, perhaps not even next month.
I watch all the Sony loyalists huddle around the faint glimmer of light that is MGS4 as though that will be the game that save the console from the taunts and the mocking, but perhaps I should be the first to ask,
Then what?
I am stoked for MGS4, but what about a month later when I have beat it eight ways from Sunday? What's next?
I made this comment in October 2007, and its even more true today.
PS3 is this generations Gamecube from a gaming stance. Great games worth playing that come few and far in between, that you should own but will never be consistent.
Gamecube has EIGHT games that were exclusive that score 9.0 or higher, basically two a year.
Is it unrealistic to hold the PS3 to even that standard? It's been more then 18 months and we have zero that fit that criteria.
MGS3 and Maybe Final Fantasy? Perhaps Killzone 2? White Knight?
Is this "Year of the PS3" going to only net 2 AAAe's?
It is truly terrible how low the bar has been set with this Console,
Perhaps now that Sony has won the format war they can focus on games.
Log in to comment