getting worried

You can say what you want about Halo, but the point is it sells systems. Resistance, which I have heard is a fine game and I will definitely play it when the ps3 price comes down a bit, did not sell systems. Just because you can have more players and a longer single player does not make it a better game. I mean, if we're going by length of game, Dragon Warrior 7 would be a much superior game to Final Fantasy (insert number here), now wouldn't it? Is Sony screwed? No. Is this the way they wanted it to turn out? Surely not. Sony seriously underestimated how well both the Wii and the 360 would do, just like nintendo seriously underestimated Sony when they first came out with the playstation. This stuff happens all the time.
[quote name='Thomas96']HALO 3 has 16 players matches... Resistance, Warhawk, has 32. and I think Killzone has 32 as well. I think that if Sony gets their online together [where its easy to communicate with friends and get friends to join online.. then MS is screwed. 16 players vs 32.. that's a big damn difference... and I don't see anyone else pointing that discrepancy out. IGN says in their review of Resistance that its a 12-15 hour campaign. and 32 player max online matches vs. HALO 3's 9 hour, and 16 player online max matches. if you hide the names of the game it would sound like we're talking about two games from two different generations. lol yet Sony's screwed... okay.. let me know when it happens..[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='dallow']Holy crap, this is such a stupid thread.
It's the same shit as like 3 other threads going on.[/QUOTE]



thread pwned by new evil Dallow :lol:
 
Ugh, I can't believe I even posted in here earlier. Yep, stupid thread.

I'm trying to promote seeing things equally, MS got the lead early no doubt they're not resting on their laurals, but neither is Sony.

Instead of arguing over who is better, who is worse, we should be celibrating as gamers, non-aligned gamers who will be getting a plethora of high quality games come 2008 as the console wars heat up.
 
Honestly, people tout 'online, online, online' in almost every pro-Sony argument, yet what about those of us who don't give a shit to be social and play online against other people? Games like Warhawk and Calling All Cars hold NO interest to me and the sequels coming out of popular games from LAST gen are just that, more of the same crap I've seen xyz times before.

Let devs and pubs come out with something unique, something ORIGINAL, then we can talk.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Honestly, people tout 'online, online, online' in almost every pro-Sony argument, yet what about those of us who don't give a shit to be social and play online against other people? Games like Warhawk and Calling All Cars hold NO interest to me and the sequels coming out of popular games from LAST gen are just that, more of the same crap I've seen xyz times before.

Let devs and pubs come out with something unique, something ORIGINAL, then we can talk.[/quote]Funny cause a game like Calling All Cars has a very original and quirky feel to it. Not that you'd know or anything.

Not to mention how pretty much everyone on these boards is in love with XBL and the grand social aspect it's bringing.

Keep on buying penny guides though.
Rock on!
 
[quote name='dallow']Funny cause a game like Calling All Cars has a very original and quirky feel to it. Not that you'd know or anything.

Not to mention how pretty much everyone on these boards is in love with XBL and the grand social aspect it's bringing.

Keep on buying penny guides though.
Rock on![/quote]

LOL I guess I'm the only anti social person on these boards then, huh? I honestly couldn't care less if I ever play online against others, since I enjoy the face to face comraderie and gloating of owning my friends in person. Plus, none of my friends are even connected to ANY form of the internet, so I'd be SOL as far as connecting at their places and I don't have the room here, so again, I'm SOL.

I guess I'll always be an offline single/multiplayer type of game player and the day most/all games hit online only status, is the day I guess I start continuously playing my backlog and older games.
 
Actually, I am anti ANY system thus far this gen, since the Wii has nothing I'll play, even Zelda, since it was never my kind of game before. The 360 has the hardware failures which are rampant and the PS3 has extra crap I don't want or need, which could drop the price to something more reasonable if they gutted all the garbage out of the system.

I still don't see why both the Wii and PS3 supposedly have browsers for the internet this gen, since I have my PC for my net surfing if I need or want to be on the net. If Sony dumped all the stuff I may never use(card readers, WiFi,Blu-Ray movie playback) and kept the Emotion Engine and the GPU for better BC, I might consider it.

Of course, it'd have to be MUCH cheaper at that point, possibly as low as $300-400, before I'd even consider it. And the extra peripherals would have to be the same price as last gen, since I don't find anything particularly innovative about motion sensing or even rumble to actually justify the $20 spike in price.

Maybe I'm too much of a cheapass, but isn't that what this site is really about?

I really can't see how many are willing to be forcefed the new systems with such steep price increases from 2 of the 3 developers, without alot saying 'we won't pay'.

So, to sum up, I'm against ALL of the current gen systems, since I don't think any of them have anything right now or will have anything in the near future that makes them worthy of a purchase to me.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Honestly, people tout 'online, online, online' in almost every pro-Sony argument, yet what about those of us who don't give a shit to be social and play online against other people? Games like Warhawk and Calling All Cars hold NO interest to me and the sequels coming out of popular games from LAST gen are just that, more of the same crap I've seen xyz times before.

Let devs and pubs come out with something unique, something ORIGINAL, then we can talk.[/QUOTE]


Thank you. The only games I ever played online religiously were Diablo and Diablo 2. The only reason I played both D games so long was the fact that a BIG group of people I know played as well. Otherwise It would have been single player for me.

XBL is full of a bunch of 13 year old fucking morons. I see my friends play on it and all I can do is laugh.

I would have no problem getting a 360 if they brought out different games instead of the same shit they try to shovel off as new. At least with Sony I know I will be getting some RPG action going.
 
First of all, I don't keep track of other posters on here and I'm my own person.

I bought a PS2 at full price last gen and that was the ONLY damned time I'd ever done that. And, I had what I thought were video problems with the SYSTEM, but it turned out to be my TV. So, I gave Sony and their PS2 alot of grief for being a 'piece of shit', when it fact it was all of the plugging and unplugging of the system that caused my problems.

But still, I'm a more 'wait and see' kind of person, since right now there is NOTHING I really want to play and want to spend the money on a WII, 360 OR PS3 for. Maybe if the PS3 suddenly halved in price, I might CONSIDER it, but then again, I waited till used PS2s were $100 to buy another one after my supposed 'video problem' ones. So, if that gives you any idea how LONG I'm willing to wait to play any games from this gen, then SO BE IT.

I'm definitely NOT interested in the next: Metal Gear Solid, Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, GTA, etc,etc,etc,etc. All that these big sequels show me is that devs know how to milk their prized series to death by remaking and sequelling them into the ground. I also never liked the Final Fantasy series, so that is most certainly NOT a 'system seller' to me. And while I MAY eventually get a 360 or PS3, I doubt I'd pick up Halo either, since I think it's severely overrated.

I admit, I bought a PS2 last gen blindly after I saw GTA III on the shelves, as well as the update to Spy Hunter, which I still think is a great series that needs another GOOD incarnation. I'd played the GTA games on PC and on PS1, so I was curious as to how it translated into 3-D. I thought many of the characters were blocky messes after playing it for a while, but I WAS intrigued by it.

I loved Vice City and San Andreas, though Vice City more since I was a kid in the 80's and the whole atmosphere and all of the pop culture references got me going 'no shit, they put that in here too'.

And while I thought God Of War was a great 2 part series, I find myself disappointed that it is being done ONLY for PS3. That does mean that I have to wait innumerable years before I can play what is supposed to be the end of the story supposedly. To me $500 is NOT a splurge purchase, nor is $300-400 and the same with $250.

Now, if game systems were something I truly NEEDED and used more than 10-20% of the time, I might consider a next gen system. But, for now, I'm content to sit on the sidelines and hope both new dvd formats fail horribly, so I can keep buying my super cheap DVDs and not have 'high def' garbage thrown in my face at every turn, with people thinking 'I should buy it because it's zomg great'. And yes, this would leave Sony in the lurch, since I feel they only put Blu-Ray in the PS3 for THEIR benefit, though videophiles also love it. I do not happen to be one of them, however.

I commend everyone who has bought into this gen, but quite frankly, there must be alot more people out there with disposable income than I thought who don't have real bills to pay and can just go 'ill take the $500 game system and uhhh those 3 games there' and not flinch even a bit.

But, I digress....since I'm looking at this from afar, as a neutral party and going 'wtf', since I can't understand how SO MANY are willing to plunk down so much on a second or third place system or something that, as many say about it, is 'two Gamecubes strapped together'.
 
[quote name='blackjaw']Just give the system a while to catch on with the devs and to pick up some steam in Japan. It will all catch on eventually....even the PS2 had a slow start.[/quote]
The thing is though the "slow start" was just in software. The system was selling like Wii's are now even with limited software available. The reason everybody wanted it was:

Japan- Cheapest DVD player available and the jump from VHS to DVD is more significant than the jump from DVD to Blu-Ray/HD-DVD for normal consumers. All PS1 franchises were going to PS2 as well.

US- Madden sold most of the original PS2's because of its great graphics and new engine. It was not available on any other system in that quality since EA stuck their nose out at Sega. Cheap DVD player also helped but the biggest thing was nearly full backwards compatibility with PS1 games, a first in the US market for consoles since the Atari years.

Now you have a $500-$600 machine the head honchos at Sony can't decide on how to market (1 week it's the home entertainment solution next it's a video game system.) Also instead of the Sony that openly courted developers and gave them what they wanted, they treat developers like second-fiddle now and those developers are either abandoning them or going multi-platform, eating into sales.

Sony is just now getting an official online network going while Microsoft has been doing it for over 5 years and even Nintendo got a headstart on them, at least with the DS.

While the Sony network is free, it's interface is more difficult to use than Microsoft's, gamers are awarded with a scoring system on all games to keep track of on Microsoft while nothing available yet for Sony, Microsoft has additional game content, small games, movies, and TV shows available for download while Sony can only do small games, game content, and movie trailers right now (also in fewer number than Microsoft.) All Microsoft games share the same friend list that can be accessed both in and out of game while Sony's does not work that way, universally, yet.

Sony supporters can bring up dedicated servers all they want, but when a beta (CoD 4) can keep track of all of my stats, including how many kills I get per gun, in real time, and a full online only game (Warhawk) that had a 3-month beta can't keep stat tracking accurate even after weeks of server patches and won't let people into the ranked games 50% of the time, the dedicated server argument loses IMO.

Let's not even discuss rumble :) Don't get me wrong; I got the 60GB PS3 after price drop so I would have guaranteed hardware backwards compatibility and I'll enjoy MGS 4, FF, and the Sony exclusive AAA's when they come out, but I'll always look at the PS3 as my secondary system.

The only third-party games I'm even thinking about getting on PS3 vs. 360 are Stranglehold CE (for the HD remake of Hard Boiled if it ever comes out) and possibly UT3 if the online is PS3/PC at the same time and the PC features being added for the PS3 version work as advertised.
 
You really are Dr. Mario Kart.
I'm surprised you don't know him, he's an imfamous member here, opposed to all next gen systems and online gaming.

Super passionate about it.
And a super cheapass gamer too!
 
Well, up till last gen, I had never bought ANY console at full price and after last gen, I never will again. To me, even $300 is too much to pay for a console, since I don't use the damned thing 24/7, even if I get immense pleasure from playing games on it.

And, I think I've seen Dr. Mario Kart around on the boards, but I'm not 100% sure. Either way, I do like the look of some of the games coming out, but with a couple publishers whoring out their top series with 3-5 different bullshit editions, I'm being swayed away from supporting those titles until I can find either cheap clearance copies eventually or super cheap used copies.

I mean, wtf is someone gonna do with a helmet replica from Halo 3? Ooooo, it looks so purdy next to my anal retentive ALL non-gh game collection. I buy games to play them, not look at the 'extras' or covers they came with.

But hey, to each their own...
 
I buy games to play as well.
But I can't wait for months like some of the patient cheapasses here.

Machines are worth these large amounts of cash to me since I'm pretty much going to have them the rest of my life.

I spend more on drinks in a weekend than I do on a new game.
I get to at least keep the game.
So it's very worthwhile for me.
 
hay guys, whuts goin on here?
icon_rotate.gif
 
[quote name='dallow']I buy games to play as well.
But I can't wait for months like some of the patient cheapasses here.

Machines are worth these large amounts of cash to me since I'm pretty much going to have them the rest of my life.

I spend more on drinks in a weekend than I do on a new game.
I get to at least keep the game.
So it's very worthwhile for me.[/quote]

I don't drink, smoke or do any drugs, so gaming is my only remaining vice. But, it's a vice that I am a cheapass as far as buying stuff for goes. So, quite frankly, I have the most patience in the world as far as waiting for potential price drops on games and systems. But, traffic is a different story, specially if you cut me off in traffic. :bomb:
 
[quote name='docvinh']You can say what you want about Halo, but the point is it sells systems. Resistance, which I have heard is a fine game and I will definitely play it when the ps3 price comes down a bit, did not sell systems. Just because you can have more players and a longer single player does not make it a better game. I mean, if we're going by length of game, Dragon Warrior 7 would be a much superior game to Final Fantasy (insert number here), now wouldn't it? Is Sony screwed? No. Is this the way they wanted it to turn out? Surely not. Sony seriously underestimated how well both the Wii and the 360 would do, just like nintendo seriously underestimated Sony when they first came out with the playstation. This stuff happens all the time.[/QUOTE]

Look I'm not [not that I could if I wanted to] trying to take anything away from HALO 3, its a system seller, people are going to enjoy it. If HALO 3 had 40 player online matches, and Resistance had only 16, then that would be even more points off from resistance. All I want to do is give Resistance some credit, for besting HALO 3 in some important aspects of the game. HALO 3 may win FPS of the year, but is it because it was purely a better game, or because its kin to HALO 1 and 2?

[well Final Fantasy was almost twice as long as Dragon Warrior]
 
[quote name='Blackout542']:roll:[/QUOTE]
What a witty and incisive response! There were some valid points made in my post and if all you can come up with is ":roll:" then there's really a problem.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The other question this begs, is "is there such a thing as a $500 game."
[/QUOTE]

I would say yes based on the few people I saw at the midnight Halo 3 launch with game($130 version) and console($400 Halo ed.) in hand. Not to mention one guy in addition to that had the Halo wireless headset ($60), the two Halo controllers ($120) and the strategy guide($20). So to him Halo was worth about $775 after tax. I'm sure he isn't alone either.

[quote name='dallow']Holy crap, this is such a stupid thread.
It's the same shit as like 3 other threads going on.[/QUOTE]

At least this one has a decent discussion going and hasn't devolved into fanboy territory like every other one. It's only a matter of time, but so far so good. :)
 
The 360/PS3 debates boil down to this:

The 360 offers all (almost) the games that the PS3 does, and the system is cheaper. Furthermore, it's been out longer, and has therefore gained more momentum. Finally, to the serious gamer, Achievement Points are often the deciding factor when a game is available for both systems.

Sony really has their work cut out for them. Once the big franchises start releasing the sequels, things will get a little better for the PS3. But they need new IPs as well.

I own all 3, and the 360 is just a superior machine in terms of what it can offer me.
 
[quote name='the ender']
Sony really has their work cut out for them. Once the big franchises start releasing the sequels, things will get a little better for the PS3. But they need new IPs as well.

I own all 3, and the 360 is just a superior machine in terms of what it can offer me.[/QUOTE]There are many new IPs coming to PS3 (especially by Sony themselves).

For me, the 360 is far from being a superior machine, but it is good. I'm no serious gamer, so I don't give a shit about achievement points.
 
[quote name='torifile']What a witty and incisive response! There were some valid points made in my post and if all you can come up with is ":roll:" then there's really a problem.[/quote]

All you said is the typical Sony is doomed bullshit. The PS3 hasn't even been out a full year yet. Should MS have packed its' bags because 360 wasn't so hot in its first year? After all I remember people constantly bashing 360 because it "had no games", and that it cost too much for what you get (at the time). PS3 is going to be fine.

IMO, PS3 will be alright. I'm just going off past systems, but the Playstation brand created new series and games that were amazing. It went from Crash Bandicoot and Tomb Raider to Ratchet & Clank and God of War. If they do that again this gen there is no reason why PS3 won't even out.

There was talk about online earlier. I think it is an integral part of 360 and PS3. If you take away XBL, there are stil great games like Gears, Crackdown, Halo 3, etc, but that "it" factor is missing. If you take away online from PS3, the same thing happens, just not to the extent as XBL.

I admire all the CAGs who are sticking it out and waiting until these systems and games get cheaper. I honestly cannot wait that long. I think the systems are worth the price tag, because with anything it is an investment. I'll get my moneys worth with all the games I play.
 
[quote name='integralsmatic']i don t know. The board has seen this debate a gagillion times and no one budges.

Its simple....peoples wallets are light and PS3 too expensive. with cheaper alternatives..people will buy that instead. 250 for a wii which is only gaming is the cheapest next gen you could get. wait till people get better jobs and the ps3 will be attainable. Its only a want but if a person can get the same want cheaper..than they will go cheaper. its that plain simple...This is from a buisness aspect..not a gaming one because that topic has been beaten like a dead horse.[/QUOTE]

No, but why does it matter that the system isn't selling? They aren't going to pull the plug on the system in the next year or something like that. Just buy the shit you want and leave the doomsday scenarios to the analysts.
 
[quote name='Blackout542']

IMO, PS3 will be alright. I'm just going off past systems, but the Playstation brand created new series and games that were amazing. It went from Crash Bandicoot and Tomb Raider to Ratchet & Clank and God of War. If they do that again this gen there is no reason why PS3 won't even out.
[/quote]

Not to nit pick but Tomb Raider 1 was on PC, Saturn and Playstation 1. So you can't really give Playstation any credit for it.
 
[quote name='VidgamesgivemeA_D_D']Not to nit pick but Tomb Raider 1 was on PC, Saturn and Playstation 1. So you can't really give Playstation any credit for it.[/QUOTE]


Tomb Raider got its start on PS1, did good on PS1 and then went to other platforms. Give PS some credit for helping to establish a brand name.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']LOL I guess I'm the only anti social person on these boards then, huh? I honestly couldn't care less if I ever play online against others, since I enjoy the face to face comraderie and gloating of owning my friends in person. Plus, none of my friends are even connected to ANY form of the internet, so I'd be SOL as far as connecting at their places and I don't have the room here, so again, I'm SOL.

I guess I'll always be an offline single/multiplayer type of game player and the day most/all games hit online only status, is the day I guess I start continuously playing my backlog and older games.[/QUOTE]

I'm the same. Very little interest in online gaming. But I'm not opposed to it like some dumbasses like Dr. Mario Kart, nor think it will ruin single player gaming like he does etc.

The vast majority of games have great single player modes and great online modes for those that like it (Gears, Halo, Resistance, etc.).
 
[quote name='VidgamesgivemeA_D_D']Not to nit pick but Tomb Raider 1 was on PC, Saturn and Playstation 1. So you can't really give Playstation any credit for it.[/quote]

I was just giving an example of a game that was pretty big on PS1. You could also say Tekken, Driver, Twisted Metal, RE, stuff like that.
 
[quote name='Corvin']I would say yes based on the few people I saw at the midnight Halo 3 launch with game($130 version) and console($400 Halo ed.) in hand. Not to mention one guy in addition to that had the Halo wireless headset ($60), the two Halo controllers ($120) and the strategy guide($20). So to him Halo was worth about $775 after tax. I'm sure he isn't alone either.
[/QUOTE]

I meant more in the lines of a $500 game that could get a system selling in mass quantities to help it catch up in the console war.

There will always be some hardcore people willing to pay insane amounts for whatever game their a huge fanboy of.

[quote name='Corvin']
At least this one has a decent discussion going and hasn't devolved into fanboy territory like every other one. It's only a matter of time, but so far so good. :)[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Good discussion here, and little or no fanboy drivel through 7 pages. I'm impressed.
 
Sony's managed to sell 5 million PS3s so far.

What's to worry about again? We're a vocal minority here. Think of all the shit people here talk about the PSP. Well, it's now sold over 25 million units worldwide (which, although it's tough to compare with consoles, is barely greater than the overall number of next-gen consoles sold thus far, and additionally, greater than the worldwide sales of the Xbox 1 and Gamecube separately).

You're worried over something in your mind that is separate from reality. The PS3 ain't going to die. Now, had you bought a Jaguar, Nuon, or N-Gage, then you'd be spot on in your worries.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']No, but why does it matter that the system isn't selling? They aren't going to pull the plug on the system in the next year or something like that. Just buy the shit you want and leave the doomsday scenarios to the analysts.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it "matters", but I just like discussing the game industry, where it's going, what may happen etc. I don't give a shit who wins or losses as their just stupid game machines. But I'm interested in the business side of it for whatever reason.

As such, this had been a good, civil and entertaining thread IMO.
 
Simple. I play RPG / sRPG almost exclusively. PS3 has no RPGs I'm interested in. 360 and wii do, I can buy both for less than PS3. Not to mention the fun of the wii remote.
 
[quote name='Aegith']Simple. I play RPG / sRPG almost exclusively. PS3 has no RPGs I'm interested in. 360 and wii do, I can buy both for less than PS3. Not to mention the fun of the wii remote.[/quote]I like RPGS too!
There are like 4 on 360 in USA right?
And like 0 on Wii right?

I'm not saying PS3 has more (it doesn't) or is better.
Just making fun of you saying that they do.
 
Well, I don't think that Halo 3 should win fps of the year if it's soley on the single player experience, I would think that right now Bioshock has that one locked down, although I'm sure some people would disagree.:) I do see your point however that Halo 3 is popular due to the previous two installments, but I think even if you judged it on it's own merits, it's an excellent game. It is definitely one of the best fps's on the console right now. Which final fantasy is twice as long as dragon warrior 7, I'm pretty sure I read that it takes at least 60-70 hours to beat that game. Hell, I played it for 20, and I was no where close to beating it.:)
[quote name='Thomas96']Look I'm not [not that I could if I wanted to] trying to take anything away from HALO 3, its a system seller, people are going to enjoy it. If HALO 3 had 40 player online matches, and Resistance had only 16, then that would be even more points off from resistance. All I want to do is give Resistance some credit, for besting HALO 3 in some important aspects of the game. HALO 3 may win FPS of the year, but is it because it was purely a better game, or because its kin to HALO 1 and 2?

[well Final Fantasy was almost twice as long as Dragon Warrior][/QUOTE]
 
Yes, Dragon Warrior 7 (and 8, and most games in the series) have been a good deal longer than their contemporary final fantasy counterparts.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Tomb Raider got its start on PS1, did good on PS1 and then went to other platforms. Give PS some credit for helping to establish a brand name.[/quote]

Oh I forgot it was on PS1 first, been along time. Ok I give PS credit for Tomb Raider then.
 
[quote name='Aegith']Simple. I play RPG / sRPG almost exclusively. PS3 has no RPGs I'm interested in. 360 and wii do, I can buy both for less than PS3. Not to mention the fun of the wii remote.[/QUOTE]

Really? I have thought that this generation so far has been fairly anorexic in terms of RPGs (and I don't believe *any* strat RPGs exist on any of the three, though correct me if I'm wrong). Up until Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata hit, what was there outside of the dismal Enchanted Arms?

If I were strictly an RPG/sRPG player, I'd only own a DS and PSP at this point.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Really? I have thought that this generation so far has been fairly anorexic in terms of RPGs (and I don't believe *any* strat RPGs exist on any of the three, though correct me if I'm wrong). Up until Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata hit, what was there outside of the dismal Enchanted Arms?

If I were strictly an RPG/sRPG player, I'd only own a DS and PSP at this point.[/quote]The 360 has a handful of strategy RPGs in Japan only from mostly NIS.

However, still, he can't be serious.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Really? I have thought that this generation so far has been fairly anorexic in terms of RPGs (and I don't believe *any* strat RPGs exist on any of the three, though correct me if I'm wrong). Up until Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata hit, what was there outside of the dismal Enchanted Arms?

If I were strictly an RPG/sRPG player, I'd only own a DS and PSP at this point.[/QUOTE]

Well, I guess if you count western style RPGs, you have Oblivion on the PS3 and 360 and Mass Effect coming soon to the 360.

But yes, it's been pretty crappy. I'd still have to imagine the PS3 will eventually be the place for J-RPGs though. The 360 is selling too poorly in Japan to get much support from the Japanese RPG makers (aside from the couple they paid to make exclusives--and Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata turned out mediocre from the looks of the reviews).

I guess the Wii could end up with a lot down the road given how well it's selling in Japan and worldwide.
 
[quote name='Aegith']Simple. I play RPG / sRPG almost exclusively. PS3 has no RPGs I'm interested in. 360 and wii do, I can buy both for less than PS3. Not to mention the fun of the wii remote.[/QUOTE]


yeah you right...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, I guess if you count western style RPGs, you have Oblivion on the PS3 and 360 and Mass Effect coming soon to the 360.

But yes, it's been pretty crappy. I'd still have to imagine the PS3 will eventually be the place for J-RPGs though. The 360 is selling too poorly in Japan to get much support from the Japanese RPG makers (aside from the couple they paid to make exclusives--and Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata turned out mediocre from the looks of the reviews).

I guess the Wii could end up with a lot down the road given how well it's selling in Japan and worldwide.[/QUOTE]

It's entirely possible, but with Disgaea 3 in development for the PS3, it seems that developers seem to (if only for the moment) see what they can do with the high-powered systems. Of course, if the PS3 fails to keep pace with the Wii, they could move there in a heartbeat. Blue Dragon DS seems to suggest how fickle RPG developers can be with the market in Japan (same w/ DQIX, FFIVA, etc.). Frankly, I'd be amazed if Blue Dragon 2 ever made it to the 360.
 
[quote name='dallow']Read my post above about RPGS on 360.
They have like 10 or so RPGs over there that'll never make it to America.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, just saw that, you posted it while I was typing the above.

That really surprises me that they even have those give how few 360s have sold over there.

But moot point since they'll never make it over here. And moot for me as I seldom play RPGs anymore (no time for long games) and never liked strategy RPGs.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's entirely possible, but with Disgaea 3 in development for the PS3, it seems that developers seem to (if only for the moment) see what they can do with the high-powered systems. Of course, if the PS3 fails to keep pace with the Wii, they could move there in a heartbeat. Blue Dragon DS seems to suggest how fickle RPG developers can be with the market in Japan (same w/ DQIX, FFIVA, etc.). Frankly, I'd be amazed if Blue Dragon 2 ever made it to the 360.[/QUOTE]

True, I had that thought that some would want the next gen power.

But I put it aside when remembering that DQIX (the biggest RPG series over there) was going to the DS.

They clearly care about installed base to a great extent. And I don't see the PS3 ever catching up to the Wii. It's just a crazy phenomenon just like the DS, and it's much cheaper price tag makes it much more accessible.

Sony just needs to put all efforst on catching MS and battling for second place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top