“PS3 in Danger of Dying” Crowd Debunked

[quote name='FloodsAreUponUS']No Nintendo proved them wrong.
Nintendo is expanding the market more then microsoft could ever dream.[/QUOTE]

And when have N's products been unreliable?
 
[quote name='FloodsAreUponUS']No Nintendo proved them wrong.
Nintendo is expanding the market more then microsoft could ever dream.[/quote]

The Wii isn't a game console.
 
Eh the firmware updates aren't reason to avoid PS3, but it's definetly one of many problems that do pile up while using/considering the system.

PS3 is third string this gen, with all the problems that go along with it. It's not the end for them, but it's not good.
 
[quote name='evanft']The Wii isn't a game console.[/quote]

Posts like this are just stupid. The wii is a game console. Lemme guess some smart ass rebuttal about LAWL SHOVELWARE, LAWL WII FIT!
 
[quote name='Malik112099']It is if you count tons of shovelware as games.[/quote]

The wii might have more shovelware then the other consoles, but it still has more games on it that I want to play then the other two combined.
 
So, semantically speaking, if you ignore the Wii's console sales and software, if you rationalize away the RPGs on the DS and PSP (not to mention also the DS' hardware sales, and if you ignore all countries except for the United States, the 360 is the #1 console.

Right. So to sum, focusing on only one country and only two consoles, the 360 is the best. Well, that's tough to refute.

Between me and my dog, I'm the toughest motherfucker ever.

EDIT: Quillion, go grab a burger from Zola.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, semantically speaking, if you ignore the Wii's console sales and software, if you rationalize away the RPGs on the DS and PSP (not to mention also the DS' hardware sales, and if you ignore all countries except for the United States, the 360 is the #1 console.

Right. So to sum, focusing on only one country and only two consoles, the 360 is the best. Well, that's tough to refute.

Between me and my dog, I'm the toughest motherfucker ever.

EDIT: Quillion, go grab a burger from Zola.[/quote]

I like your ideas.
 
[quote name='FloodsAreUponUS']The wii might have more shovelware then the other consoles, but it still has more games on it that I want to play then the other two combined.[/quote]


You can't even be remotely serious. Between 1st party exclusives, 3rd party AAA titles and the XBL Arcade and PSN games there is no way in hell there is more games you honestly want to play on the Wii unless you love bottom of the barrel low grade games with lower production values than their iPhone counterparts.

Well, maybe you are a Nintendo 1st party game whore.
 
What's so bad about liking Nintendo games? Last time I checked Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart, and the other first party games on the Wii were pretty fun. They're not hardcore fragfests but they still deliver on the fun factor.
 
Nintendo's actual games these days are few and far between & when you are the only one making anything worth a damn on your console there is a problem.
 
GCN Japan:
2001: 888.897
2002: 1.184.348
2003: 1.025.827
2004: 721.536
2005: 272.982
2006: 75.878
2007: 10.593
2008: -
----------------------
Total: 4.180.061


PS3 Japan:
2006: 457.518
2007: 1.184.118
2008: 934.775
----------------------
Total: 2.576.411

linecompare.png


:whistle2:\"
 
Okay I love you now for posting those numbers, DMK.

PS3=GameCube (and here comes the bubububububububububu Sony fans, it's mostly a joke, guys.)

Especially pathetic considering how much the market has grown since 2001. I'd like to see PS3 put alongside the N64. (Which did huge huge numbers at release, so it might not exactly be fair)
 
I was a GameCube first owner last gen and I played more games on that system than I played on PS3 while I owned one.

I watched almost the same amount of Blu-Ray movies on GameCube as I did on PS3 too, though.

Malik, you're kind of an ass. The Wii is okay. Moms buying Petz Monkeyz House aren't going to affect you being able to play dead space and call of duty.
 
Picking out the Gamecube's Japanese sales to stress how poorly the PS3 is doing is inaccurate, seeing as how the GC was #2 in Japan. Like the PS3 is currently. The GC did very well in Japan, and did poorly in the US. You've even made this argument in the past, DMK, to dampen arguments that the GC did poorly globally.
 
I don't see the problem. They're both launch aligned, they're both japan sales.

PS3 is on par or below the GameCube's sales in Japan. If that's a good or bad thing is in the interpretation of that comparison. The GameCube wasn't a flop in Japan, but It also floundered next to the PS2. And the same can virtually be said about the PS3 with those comparison numbers.
 
[quote name='FloodsAreUponUS']Posts like this are just stupid. The wii is a game console. Lemme guess some smart ass rebuttal about LAWL SHOVELWARE, LAWL WII FIT![/quote]

No, the Wii is a family entertainment device.
 
Man, my family is so entertained with my device that I use to play World of Goo, Mega Man 9, River City Ransom, Sam and Max, Day of the Tentacle, and No More Heroes.

Grow up. There's games for everyone on Wii. Not as many as the other systems, but they're there if you look.
 
[quote name='jer7583']I don't see the problem. They're both launch aligned, they're both japan sales.

PS3 is on par or below the GameCube's sales in Japan. If that's a good or bad thing is in the interpretation of that comparison. The GameCube wasn't a flop in Japan, but It also floundered next to the PS2. And the same can virtually be said about the PS3 with those comparison numbers.[/QUOTE]

That's my point. We're cherry picking data (at least DMK's using data) and sculpting our arguments (if you ignore all consoles but the 360 and PS3, and only look at the US, the 360 is #1 by a margin of 2 to 1) to support the conclusions we brought into this thread.

Take the same data frame that DMK provided above, and frame it in terms of US sales since launch instead of Japan. You'll get markedly different numbers, I'm certain.

In short, looking through a very, very, very narrow frame might give you the picture you want, but it's not the whole picture.

[quote name='jer7583']Man, my family is so entertained with my device that I use to play World of Goo, Mega Man 9, River City Ransom, Sam and Max, Day of the Tentacle, and No More Heroes.

Grow up. There's games for everyone on Wii. Not as many as the other systems, but they're there if you look.[/QUOTE]

If you could actually make that claim about the PS3 instead of dumping on it perpetually, I'd have some semblance of respect for you.

In fact, the statement above "There's game for everyone on ____" holds true for every console, save for perhaps the 3DO and N-Gage.

There's, I think, a sound definition of "fanboy." If you find yourself struggling to legitimately say "There's games for everyone on ____," then you have too much irrational affinity for one console over another.

Am I calling you fanboy? No. Perhaps I'm implying it. If you can say something as boring and redundant as "there's games for everyone on Wii" (no shit, right?) and have to struggle and think through whether that holds true for the other two consoles, then you really need to rethink your perspective on game consoles, and reconsider whether or not it's healthy for you to have an opinion on them.

Seriously.
 
There are games for everyone on the iPhone but I dont see anyone taking it seriously as a handheld gaming device.

At the end of the day Nintendo did something different this gen and no matter what they do, the Wii will not be considered to be on the same level as the PS3.

That aside I honestly feel the PS3's undoing this gen was launching a year later than the 360 without significantly more powerful hardware.
 
Don't forget the cost. Folks on here who follow the gaming industry may cite "Sony's arrogance this gen," but that's just poppycock. Consumers don't care about arrogance in the slightest, even if they are aware of it (and they aren't, generally, in this case).

But, yes, being comparable to the 360, offering then-very-uncertain technology in Blu-Ray, and being $600 was a combination of too much. Add in outstanding marketing for the 360 (along with Sony's perpetually weird-as-fuck campaigns, from the crying baby in the white room to the moving pictures on t-shirts crap/"movie downloading machine" campaigns of today) and new franchises to exploit like Gears of War - and Sony partially set themselves up for failure.

But there's very little I can play on my 360 and not my PS3. If you *really* pare down the 360 exclusives, they aren't as deep and amazing as people seem to think. They're there, and they're important. But people seem to act like there are dozens of 360 exclusives that are totally shitbomb awesome and worth playing that the PS3 doesn't have. And I don't think that's true. You get many potentially great but ultimately sub-par titles like Ninja Gaiden 2 for every one Gears of War.

But I'm not trying to argue that one console is inherently better than the other. I'm simply saying that enjoyment is to be found on any of the consoles, and I feel better about enjoying games than I do sales ratios. Even if the latter is pretty interesting.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']There are games for everyone on the iPhone but I dont see anyone taking it seriously as a handheld gaming device.

At the end of the day Nintendo did something different this gen and no matter what they do, the Wii will not be considered to be on the same level as the PS3.

That aside I honestly feel the PS3's undoing this gen was launching a year later than the 360 without significantly more powerful hardware.[/QUOTE]

That's a good point, If you're going to charge "significantly more" money for the console, then the hardware needs to be significantly more powerful, at least so people can justify the purchase. PS3 doesn't have very much software that can definitely show that its more powerful than the 360. There's metal gear, and Killzone... The problem is that IF the PS3 was significantly power than the 360, we wouldn't know it, because there are so few games (especially muticonsole games) that try to optimize for the PS3. Take Burnout, it was developed first on the PS3, however IF it could have been better for PS3, we wouldn't know it, because the game was developed to a point where it could be easily ported to the 360.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

But there's very little I can play on my 360 and not my PS3. If you *really* pare down the 360 exclusives, they aren't as deep and amazing as people seem to think. They're there, and they're important. But people seem to act like there are dozens of 360 exclusives that are totally shitbomb awesome and worth playing that the PS3 doesn't have. And I don't think that's true. You get many potentially great but ultimately sub-par titles like Ninja Gaiden 2 for every one Gears of War.
[/QUOTE]

How is Ninja Gaiden 2 "sub-par"?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But there's very little I can play on my 360 and not my PS3. If you *really* pare down the 360 exclusives, they aren't as deep and amazing as people seem to think. They're there, and they're important. But people seem to act like there are dozens of 360 exclusives that are totally shitbomb awesome and worth playing that the PS3 doesn't have. And I don't think that's true. You get many potentially great but ultimately sub-par titles like Ninja Gaiden 2 for every one Gears of War.

But I'm not trying to argue that one console is inherently better than the other. I'm simply saying that enjoyment is to be found on any of the consoles, and I feel better about enjoying games than I do sales ratios. Even if the latter is pretty interesting.[/quote]

I think the "exclusives" thing is something to be explored more deeply. For me, I look at my 360 collection and I see a fuck-ton of cross-platform games. I would be just as happy playing these games on a PS3. However, as these are the types of games I like to play, I have little incentive to buy a PS3. Even if I were about to be a new entrant into the market, it would be better for me to get a 360. The system is cheaper and the games are comparable.

That the PS3 is a more versatile multimedia machine is a good talking point, but in practice, not some thing that I need. I'm still happy watching movies in 480p off of DVD. I have a laptop and my computer hooked up to the TV for internet. And while XBL costs money, I'm a CAG so even that cost doesnt get me up to PS3 levels.

I still think that, long run, the PS3 will be fine. It has games and it has Blu-ray. That may be more of a selling point in the future, but for now, for a multi-plat gamer like me, the 360 seems to make more sense.

Happy Christmas everybody!
 
It just makes me feel all warm inside when a bunch of kids have nothing better to do than argue which system is "betterz" when in reality, every one of them suck-ass in their own unique and special way.

Every one of them has games (yes, even the Wii. In fact, I only own a Wii and even despite this being a "transition" year, I still found more than enough quality games to be entertained this year. Wii has no games my ass. This is coming from the same person who ditched Nintendo gaming for the PlayStations of yesteryear). It's just each one has their own unique problems that need to be addressed.

The Xbox 360 hardware fucking blows, end of story. My little brother has sent his to Microsoft over four times now, and he takes care of his gaming stuff.

The PlayStation 3 lacks exclusives, big time. For the few that it does have, like MGS4 and Valkyrie Chronicals, they end up selling piss poor with the exception of MGS4.

The Wii has a fucking terrible online system, even the Dreamcast is far more advance than this. Not to mention the shovelware, it came a lot more quickly than expected.

But I will tell you, each one of these systems kick ass and even though I only own a Wii, I've played more than my share of the other two and looking at it, I can be more than content with owning any one of them. Unless you have no fucking life whatsoever, I would imagine it would be near impossible to play every single good release. And that is what makes this generation great, all three systems have that. :)
 
[quote name='zewone']How is Ninja Gaiden 2 "sub-par"?[/QUOTE]

Metacritic scores:





1. Xbox 360: Ninja Gaiden II (2008) 81
Microsoft Game Studios / Tecmo

2. Xbox: Ninja Gaiden (2004) 91
Tecmo

3. Xbox: Ninja Gaiden Black (2005) 94
Tecmo

4. Playstation 3: Ninja Gaiden Sigma (2007) 88
Tecmo

5. Nintendo DS: Ninja Gaiden: Dragon Sword (2008) 83
Tecmo

Ninja Gaiden II is the 4th game of the Ninja gaiden franchise, it should NOT have camera problems. Although I don' think that it could possibly be a worse game than the DS' Dragon Sword.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Maybe if you've never played DMC4.[/QUOTE]
Okay, except I probably played DMC 4 before you.
[quote name='Thomas96']Metacritic scores:





1. Xbox 360: Ninja Gaiden II (2008) 81
Microsoft Game Studios / Tecmo

2. Xbox: Ninja Gaiden (2004) 91
Tecmo

3. Xbox: Ninja Gaiden Black (2005) 94
Tecmo

4. Playstation 3: Ninja Gaiden Sigma (2007) 88
Tecmo

5. Nintendo DS: Ninja Gaiden: Dragon Sword (2008) 83
Tecmo

Ninja Gaiden II is the 4th game of the Ninja gaiden franchise, it should NOT have camera problems. Although I don' think that it could possibly be a worse game than the DS' Dragon Sword.[/QUOTE]
An 81 as the lowest score is definitely not "sub-par". Also, NG2 is the 4th game? Ninja Gaiden 1 and Black are basically the same game, so no. And the team who did the "sub-par" NG Sigma isn't the same team who did NG2, so no. NG2 is only the second game. And I was able to beat it twice, never noticing any sort of camera problem that made it "sub-par".

When I hear "sub-par", I don't think of games that score in the 80-90 range.

I think of games like Lair, Haze, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, etc.
 
[quote name='zewone']Okay, except I probably played DMC 4 before you.[/QUOTE]

True, but I, like most people have to wait for a game to be released and actually buy it to play it.

Still, that has nothing to do with DMC4 being better.
 
[quote name='zewone']Okay, except I probably played DMC 4 before you.


I think of games like Lair, Haze, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, etc.[/QUOTE]

damn Zew, can you just think of one subpar 360 game... LOL

Heavenly Sword could have been better than Ninja Gaiden 2 is it was longer.

Also, that 81 may be misleading, because NG II was a big game, got a lot more exposure, and there were probably more reviews. After looking a various games being reviewed from the well know sites to the undergroud sites, I really believe that some sites give games low scores JUST to be outside of the box, hoping to score hits to their site.
 
[quote name='zewone']Okay, except I probably played DMC 4 before you.

An 81 as the lowest score is definitely not "sub-par". Also, NG2 is the 4th game? Ninja Gaiden 1 and Black are basically the same game, so no. And the team who did the "sub-par" NG Sigma isn't the same team who did NG2, so no. NG2 is only the second game. And I was able to beat it twice, never noticing any sort of camera problem that made it "sub-par".

When I hear "sub-par", I don't think of games that score in the 80-90 range.

I think of games like Lair, Haze, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, etc.[/QUOTE]

Team Ninja made Sigma as well, but Itagaki wasnt involved.

Also I would say Folklore and Heavenly Sword are a lot better than Lair and Haze is just crap
 
Heavenly Sword and Ninja Gaiden are nothing alike. Why are you trying to draw comparisons between them?

I still am kind of bitter that Sony didn't continue to develop the Heavenly Sword series. With a little more effort that series could have been a true system seller and been the 1B to God of War (hell I had more fun with Heavenly Sword than I did with either God of War game).

Also a lot of those subpar games that Zoo named are things on my list to play. I have been meaning to finally get around to playing Folklore.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Heavenly Sword and Ninja Gaiden are nothing alike. Why are you trying to draw comparisons between them?

I still am kind of bitter that Sony didn't continue to develop the Heavenly Sword series. With a little more effort that series could have been a true system seller and been the 1B to God of War (hell I had more fun with Heavenly Sword than I did with either God of War game).

Also a lot of those subpar games that Zoo named are things on my list to play. I have been meaning to finally get around to playing Folklore.[/QUOTE]

Ninja Gaiden and Heavenly Sword are both ACTION titles, however, Ninja Gaiden does have some more Adventure Elements to it, due to the little exploration that you have. But they're both beat em up, 3rd person games. I'm really bitter that Sony didn't decide to continue with Heavenly Sword, the game was great, and sometimes its better to give a franchise a second try before giving up on it.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Folklore is far from sub-par.[/quote]

yeah it's more like average.

nothing wrong with loving an average game though. zelda fans have been doing it for years.

i keed, i keed.
 
Ninja Gaiden 2 is a million times better than Devil May Cry 4. Anything Ninja Gaiden is better than anything DMC. DMC is the action game-lite. It's like budweiser. Ninja Gaiden is like good beer.

As for myke's assertion that I'm somehow a fanboy- I had a bad experience with the PS3 in owning it. I think it's the only system which has not gotten enough software to justify its hardware cost, yet. The 360 was there almost immediately, and the Wii got there last year for me. (thanks more to the Virtual Console, which is a bit sad)

It's my opinion that the PS3 lacks enough unique and quality software to justify the $400 price. If one of those variables came closer to the other, than that might change. Sorry that makes me a fanboy, but it's my opinion.

Could also be because I thought MGS4 was half a game, and they can't get Gran Turismo 5 out before 2010, and I have no need for Blu-Ray also.
 
Ninja Gaiden two was fun, but I did not like it as much as DMC4.



The only fact in there is that its my opinion!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But there's very little I can play on my 360 and not my PS3. If you *really* pare down the 360 exclusives, they aren't as deep and amazing as people seem to think.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I don't get why people act like the 360 has so many more amazing games than the PS3.

Pretty much anything worth playing nowadays is on both.
 
That's your opinion and in my opinion your opinion is wrong.

Even then, since the games are on both, why pay hundreds of dollars more for a PS3 that offers less or the same experience?
 
Because it offers more to me? Most of my friends have a PS3, so that alone makes it more worth it to me since I can play games with them. Not only that, I don't have to pay to play online. Also I like saving video/music on my PS3. I like that it has built in wi-fi.

I had a 360 as well, but when I saw that all the games I wanted for it were also on PS3 I sold it. No reason to have both.

But since I'm somehow wrong, name all the amazing 360 games that came out this year that aren't on PS3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top