Why do so many gamers hate Sony?

[quote name='Cthulhu8u']
...
Blu-Ray hasn't hurt anyone (I even hear it's selling well), the console's prices have dropped, the online is eons ahead of the Wii's (and that's my Ninny-loving friend's opinion, not mine. Actually after he showed me the Wii channel stuff, I now share his opinion), and the system's only been out for 13 months so did you expect an instant gaming renaissance? The 360 has recently gotten its act together, and it has a few years on Sony.

Everyone has an opinion, I support that. It's just that some of the arguments here are so personal, it makes me think the money you spent on a console is better spent on a therapist. You'd think Sony went to your house, stole your bike, kicked your dog, and fondled your sister. Unless you personally own stock in the company, why do you care so much? If half of you Negative Nelsons even owned a PS3, then you might have a reason to complain (I do, and I don't). Yet so many of you are in the Sony forum. You're either trolling or closet Sonysexuals.
...[/quote]

:lol: :applause:

You ask them "why do you care so much?" That's what I wanted to understand and why I started this topic. The answers I was given were nothing more than self-perceived personal offenses.

It's like some people perceived Sony's actions/decisions as personal affronts and then used Sony's slightest blunders as fuel to rationalize their own irrational feelings.

This behavior is very immature and ultimately self-defeating. It is immature because the people making it personal assume that the company "didn't listed to them" (knew what they wanted and didn't care). It is self-defeating because eventually the company will get things "right" and then those same people will have difficulty getting over their hate and do business with that company.

Does anyone care if some CEO's of Ferrari are "arrogant"? Does anyone actually believe that Bill Gates is not? Maturity means understanding that Ferraris and Xbox360s are made by hundreds of people who probably like their CEO much less than you do.

Finally, let me add that BluRay is indeed vital to games and that Sony did the right thing to include it in PS3. I don't say this because of capacity (you could just install on hard disk, like PC games). I say this because of the hard coating that BluRays have. You can rent games and buy them used without having to worry that the disks are scrathed.

PS3 has a lot going for it and anyone who refuses to get one just because of some self-perceived personal affront by Sony is just hurting himself.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']I wonder if Nitwit's IP address would be similar to that of TMK?[/quote]

This post does read a bit like a TMK post, but with 34% less crazy. We could be doing Nitwit a great dis-service, I'm sure he/she is quite normal.

[quote name='Teh Nitwit']
Finally, let me add that BluRay is indeed vital to games and that Sony did the right thing to include it in PS3. I don't say this because of capacity (you could just install on hard disk, like PC games). I say this because of the hard coating that BluRays have. You can rent games and buy them used without having to worry that the disks are scrathed.[/quote]

Eh?
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']I wonder if Nitwit's IP address would be similar to that of TMK?

Unless hes using a proxy.. I dunno.[/quote]

Funny how you are using TMK to make a lame ad hominem attack while showing less class than he ever had. I don't know why he got banned, but I doubt it was because of making personal attacks.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']
Eh?[/quote]

What? You didn't know that BluRay disks have hard coating and are highly resistant to scratches? Great, you just learned something.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']What? You didn't know that BluRay disks have hard coating and are highly resistant to scratches? Great, you just learned something.[/quote]

I didn't know Blu-Ray was essential to gaming because it made the discs harder to scratch, but you're right, I have learned something.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll wait for reviews and personal opinions of the final released version, thanks, instead of taking the word of a preview build as gospel truth.[/quote]

I was just passin' on what I read.

I personally got the PC version of Orange box, which is superior to both console versions. Team Fortress 2 supports more players on the PC version, and at launch the multi player lag for team fortress was painful. (I think patched that problem by now). Also, the MODs man!! There will be next to no mods available for the console versions of Orange Box. PC > all for Orange Box.

Check out this side-by-side comparison of COD4 for the PS3 and 360 (I know its gotten rounds around here previously...):

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/27571.html

There are no tangible differences. Maybe a minor texture thing, or a small color difference, but so similar any arguments saying one is better than the other is nitpicking.

It *is* possible to make 360 games play great on the PS3, and I am fairly confident that it is possible to make PS3 games run great on the 360 (no examples I am aware of to cite where the dev was heavily PS3 focused, then ported 360 -- only the other way around).

Now, IMO, that is part of the PS3's 'problem'. Lets pretend its a few months ago, and that COD is my favorite game series ever, and I plan on buying my next gen console as soon as COD4 comes out.

If I can get it in an identical way on both the high power next gen systems, and the 360 is cheaper, what compelling reason do I have to spend more for the PS3 if the sole reason I'm getting a new console is available for both? Exclusives are irrelevant if the bread and butter of the pre-Wii common gamer is friggin Madden or other EA multiplatform crap.

I was going to bite on a PS3 for Ratchet and Clank Future some time this December, but I have decided to put off a PS3 for another few months, and get Rock Band, a multiplatform title that I want more than R&CF, in stead. In my case, a solid Multi platform title has delayed my adoption of a new console.

Exclusives are certainly important, but how many millions of copies of Madden are sold a year, and how many people buy a new console just for Madden itself?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What factual basis do you use to claim that Orange Box is better on the 360? What meangingful, substantive differences are there between the two versions? Do tell indeed.[/QUOTE]



lol you know he's just echoing things that he's read. If Kotaku hadn't have wrote an article on the Orange box issue concerning PS3 he would not have said what he just said.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']Funny how you are using TMK to make a lame ad hominem attack while showing less class than he ever had. I don't know why he got banned, but I doubt it was because of making personal attacks.[/quote]
Oh no, you misunderstand I'm not attacking anyone. I think you read a lot like TMK, and this topic is VERY similar to stuff he posted. I think you could be him, and I think ruling it out (by having a mod verify the IP addresses used) could be prudent.

For the record, I like TMK, and think his being banned was bullshit, and that his account should be enabled again.

My appologies if you take being compared to TMK as an insult. It isn't. While the very definition of a Fanboy, he most of the time supported his arguments very well, and always made for an interesting read. If you check my post history, somewhere way, way down there, I broke down and called TMK on the fanboy... ness ... and I came off as a total ass because of it.

Then after talking with him over the months, I generally defended him, and always responded to him in a respectful way. I think TMK was more an asset than an ass to CAG, and I miss having him around.

So, in being compared to TMK, I'm saying you're an interesting read. I don't think that is an attack.




As an aside, work is VEEEERRRRRYYYY slow for me today. :cry:
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']Oh no, you misunderstand I'm not attacking anyone. I think you read a lot like TMK, and this topic is VERY similar to stuff he posted. I think you could be him, and I think ruling it out (by having a mod verify the IP addresses used) could be prudent.

For the record, I like TMK, and think his being banned was bullshit, and that his account should be enabled again.

My appologies if you take being compared to TMK as an insult. It isn't. While the very definition of a Fanboy, he most of the time supported his arguments very well, and always made for an interesting read. If you check my post history, somewhere way, way down there, I broke down and called TMK on the fanboy... ness ... and I came off as a total ass because of it.

Then after talking with him over the months, I generally defended him, and always responded to him in a respectful way. I think TMK was more an asset than an ass to CAG, and I miss having him around.

So, in being compared to TMK, I'm saying you're an interesting read. I don't think that is an attack.

As an aside, work is VEEEERRRRRYYYY slow for me today. :cry:[/quote]

Sorry I made an incorrect assumption.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']I was just passin' on what I read.

I personally got the PC version of Orange box, which is superior to both console versions. Team Fortress 2 supports more players on the PC version, and at launch the multi player lag for team fortress was painful. (I think patched that problem by now). Also, the MODs man!! There will be next to no mods available for the console versions of Orange Box. PC > all for Orange Box.[/quote]

I'm ill prepared to have a computer debate. I'm don't game on computers at all, and, in fact, I'm a Mac user. But, since my MacBook Pro is on the porch at the moment, with easy access to my dissertation data/chapters/proposal with it (though it is backed up), waiting to go back to Apple - long story short, since 11/21 it has been, in my hands, working for 2 days (last week after I got it back following repair on a Tuesday, it worked until Thursday). I'm in no shape to have this conversation. :lol:

Check out this side-by-side comparison of COD4 for the PS3 and 360 (I know its gotten rounds around here previously...):

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/27571.html

There are no tangible differences. Maybe a minor texture thing, or a small color difference, but so similar any arguments saying one is better than the other is nitpicking.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Not surprising, either. Really, if you watch both Madden 08 versions side by side, at full speed, you may occasionally notice a difference in the frame rate. People really blow that difference out of proportion, and act as if Madden PS3 is an unplayable piece of garbage. Which, if it is, is strictly because it's a Madden title, and that's a crossplatform flaw. ;)

It *is* possible to make 360 games play great on the PS3, and I am fairly confident that it is possible to make PS3 games run great on the 360 (no examples I am aware of to cite where the dev was heavily PS3 focused, then ported 360 -- only the other way around).
Click to expand...

The "starting" platform is a valid point; I brought up Splinter Cell earlier (yet nobody in this thread has admitted to buying the "Vastly inferior" (by their current sharp-knees-standards) PS2 versions of multiplatform games last go-round; I'm a little let down by that). Surely the fact that it was originally developed for the Xbox allowed for the benefits it has, in level size, dynamic lighting, load speeds, that the other versions do not have.

It will be interesting to see how games being developed for the PS3 that will make their way to the 360 at a later date (UT3 and Haze come to mind) perform comparatively.

Now, IMO, that is part of the PS3's 'problem'. Lets pretend its a few months ago, and that COD is my favorite game series ever, and I plan on buying my next gen console as soon as COD4 comes out.

If I can get it in an identical way on both the high power next gen systems, and the 360 is cheaper, what compelling reason do I have to spend more for the PS3 if the sole reason I'm getting a new console is available for both? Exclusives are irrelevant if the bread and butter of the pre-Wii common gamer is friggin Madden or other EA multiplatform crap.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I think I'm an anomaly for having my reasons, as are the "achievement whore" crowd. Most people (and I hate to say this, as it gives some deference to economists and their way of thinking) simply think "Madden here, Madden there - they don't look different. Gimmie the cheaper console."

Then again, Madden Wii ain't *that* ugly compared to the PS3/360 version, and sold dreadfully. So my theory ain't all that fleshed out. Which is good, because rational choicers can bite the big one. :lol:

I don't think the average consumer is as well-educated as we'd like them to be. They'll buy GTA4 in the same proportions for each console (3-5:1 360:pS3), irrespective of Microsoft shellin' out some ducats to get exclusive DLC for the game.

I was going to bite on a PS3 for Ratchet and Clank Future some time this December, but I have decided to put off a PS3 for another few months, and get Rock Band, a multiplatform title that I want more than R&CF, in stead. In my case, a solid Multi platform title has delayed my adoption of a new console.

Exclusives are certainly important, but how many millions of copies of Madden are sold a year, and how many people buy a new console just for Madden itself?
Click to expand...

Quite true. Strangely, I've resigned my PS3 to be my "multiplatform" console, and my 360 is my "exclusive" console. I'll buy GoW, but CoD4 (should I ever be any good at the CoD series, I'll pick it up) will be a PS3 purchase. I don't trust my 360 enough to invest in it beyond 360-exclusive games. To be fair, I did buy two multiplatform games recently for it: (1) Rock Band, because of the X-Plorer guitar compatibility that the PS3 software-only version lacked, and (2) WWE 2008, because it featured custom entrance themes which, again, the PS3 version lacked.

I don't know if RB is a fair comparison, given its price. What kinda glutton would you feel like if you dropped $170 and $460+ in such a time frame? I could be wrong, though.

I don't know how many people buy a new console for Madden, but I believe that the 360 version outsold the PS2 version, which doesn't resolve that it's a bit of a chicken/egg issue (what came first? The next-gen console, or the insatiable desire to have next-gen Madden?).
 
When I saw the Time Crisis 4 review in this month's EGM I immediately thought of whoknows :lol:
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']

Finally, let me add that BluRay is indeed vital to games and that Sony did the right thing to include it in PS3. I don't say this because of capacity (you could just install on hard disk, like PC games). I say this because of the hard coating that BluRays have. You can rent games and buy them used without having to worry that the disks are scrathed.

[/QUOTE]

Blu-ray is not vital to games at all. Important? Debatable but not in any way vital.
 
The newest issue of EGM said that the PS3 version of the Orange Box was not handled by Valve and it has frame rate issues not found in the other versions (along with choppiness).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't know if RB is a fair comparison, given its price. What kinda glutton would you feel like if you dropped $170 and $460+ in such a time frame? I could be wrong, though.[/quote]
I technically could buy both... but I don't let myself do that kind of thing. Then again, that restraint is probobly why I can afford to.

Not many games cost $170 USD, though... no question there. Cost is a bigger factor for this title that initially detered me -- I played the demo, though, and really loved it. Then I saw the first downloadable songs. The Black Sabbath song pack is what sealed RB as a purchase for me. If the other DLC is half as good, I'll get many moons of playtime out of rock band.

With the PS3, I'd spend way more money, and beat R&C:F like a drum in a week. Thinking about it as a fiscally responsible gamer, waiting on the PS3, and getting a great party game like Rock Band, that I'll play for months, seemed the wiser choice.

When Starcraft II releases... eventually (I'm hoping for some time before 2011), I may never buy another game... ever, because I'll get so much out of stomping 'foos online.
 
Regardless of what the differences are, people who have played both versions (which include none of us in this thread) say that orange box runs worse on PS3.

Not to mention with how slow the online community is for TF2 on 360, the PS3 version should be a ghost town considering it's many times smaller userbase.

Given the choice between the two (because most of us, even if we could afford it, don't truly have need for both) the vast majority of people would be better served by 360, and thats why you see the vast majority of people buying 360 over PS3. That's just how it is.
 
Supposedly, Bladestorm runs better on PS3 than XBOX 360 (so does Conan). It depends on which game is being compared on the systems.

Early on, the 360 version was the superior version. Now, it seems to be 60% towards 360 and 40% towards PS3.
 
[quote name='opportunity777']Supposedly, Bladestorm runs better on PS3 than XBOX 360 (so does Conan). It depends on which game is being compared on the systems.

Early on, the 360 version was the superior version. Now, it seems to be 60% towards 360 and 40% towards PS3.[/QUOTE]
Where do you get 40% from?

You just named two budget titles that haven't been confirmed as even being superior.:lol:
 
I think the performance of multiplatform games on a particular system is tied solely to the developer, and the effort they put into the port.

Orange Box does have problems on the PS3 in comparison to its 360 & PC counterparts. But what did you expect? Valve, and specifically Gabe, came out and said: "Eff the PS3, I dont like it, I dont care about it, and if EA wants to publish the game on that console, then they can port it over." You knew right then and there that PS3 owners were gonna get shafted on OB.

Orange Box is an example of the dedication and attitude you DONT want to have when making a multiplatform game. For every OB type example, there are more examples of ports done right. Oblivion runs well on both consoles, CoD4 as well, there are more examples Im sure.

Almost every example of a PS3 port being delayed, or not running as well on the system, can be attributed to the developer not dedicating the time, money, personel, and other resources needed to the project. Halfassed ports are not an indication of a consoles inferiority.

Now wether or not its cost effective for a developer/publisher to devote the necessary resources to doing a PS3 port right is another argument entirely.
 
I dunno.. I enjoyed Conan for the most part... it's not perfect, but it's got some fun play to it... if a bit repetitive (although, I can never seem to tire of lopping peoples' arms off though...)

I've not tried Bladestorm, but I'll rent it I'm sure (I played the demo... and it had potential.. YMMV).. when Conan hits $30 or less I'll snag it for a nice distraction.

Whether or not the game itself runs better (I'm thinking Conan here) is highly subjective, but I found the PS3 to be a bit more fluid with the game than I did the 360 (both demos, I mean.) Not noticeably so, but there were occasions where the action would stutter a bit on the 360, but didn't do so on the PS3. *shrug* like zewone said though. it's a couple of budget titles to be sure. :)

I'm sure there are cases on the PS3 Conan (had I played it longer) that stuttered.... I just didn't encounter them in the same place as the 360's were. (Not that it affected gameplay all that much, anyway..)
 
my pr: was buying a new game system and at the time the ps3 cost 600!!!! I got a wii instead and can actually afford the system and games.
 
My Ps2 crapped out on me and they wanted more than I paid for the system to repair it. My PSP had multiple dead pixels and they basically told me to go die in a fire because I wanted to swap it for a good one.

Microsoft in comparison has treated me like royalty.
 
[quote name='zewone']Ah two games that haven't been released. Yes.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty much the same thing as saying that Orange Box is better on the 360. People that have actually played it say so.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']However, regarding their effect on prices, you gotta ask yourself how much more would Microsoft and Nintendo be able to charge for their consoles if they didn't have to compete with Sony. That competition drives prices down is a fact.[/quote]

The early statement of sony keeping the competive prices low has to be the worst, most biased statement I've ever heard in my life. That statement really lives up to his username.

If that is to be said about anyone it would be nintendo. Nintendo games are the only games to be at a "competitive" price. if nintendo didn't charge $50 for its new releases, I think we'd see $120 ps3 games (with no periferals mind you about to mention the existing guitar hero and time crisis $100+ games).

Sony has been very arrogant in just about everything to do with the ps3. developing ps3 games has proved to be difficult for many developers and sony's original thoughts on the issue were "well, they'll adapt to us, they need us" (not a direct quote mind you).

I don't "hate" sony. although I will never be sold on a product mearly because it is sony. I don't own a 360 or a ps3. I have a PC which usually receives all the top titles for those systems anyway (and I like my mouse and keyboard) and have a wii and ds for different types of games that are fun. I've considereed buying a 360, but haven't even considered a ps3. sony really hasn't showed me anything special, I'm not excited about blue-ray, and thats really the only thing I've seen offered for the extra cash I'd have to invest in the ps3.

I just recently bought a ps2... not because sony made it, but because its a good system that has good games. I should have picked one up earlier but being cheap and having an xbox I passed on the ps2 exclusives for a while. sony can earn my shelfspace, but it hasn't shown me anything that I need for the cash and shelfspace of the ps3 (ps2 slimline earned it, and maybe if the ps3 wasn't bigger than my laptop, ps2, and wii combined)

I've mentioned of a lot of rambled points and don't feel like compiling them all. But I'm no "casual" gamer to say the least. I play a lot of games and just don't see any value in the modern sony. Again, I don't "hate" sony, I just don't want to adjust my living room, budget, and life to enjoy a gaming system when I'm not sold on it improving my enjoyment without sacrifice. (and not to mention there is only a handful of games out that I'd actually spend money on)

My systems include:
Ps2, Xbox(orig), Wii, ds lite, gba, n64, and PC.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']News stories picked up on early builds of the Orange Box for the PS3 having nigh unplayable framerate issues with HL2.. and I think some of the other ones..?: http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/halflife2episode2/news.html?sid=6183470

Also, Valve outsourced the development of the PS3 version, because they got sick of trying to get it to run well on the PS3. Valve doesn't give two shits about the quality of the PS3 version. EA is finishing it up:
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/25/ps3-version-of-orange-box-might-be-downright-unplayable/

As the PC and Xbox 360 versions have no framerate issues, one COULD say it is superior to the PS3 version.[/quote]
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8520153&publicUserId=5380373

This is probably what myke wanted to see:
EA seemed genuinely confused about the most severe framerate issues we brought up, so when they offered to drive retail copies of the game that had just arrived in their offices over to us, we were happy to give them a look to see if somehow the wires had gotten crossed at EA and the "review code" was not adequately representative of the final game. This hardly ever happens, but we were happy to check out the retail code in order to make sure we weren't misleading anyone with what we wrote.

Over the following day, we split up duties and had David Ellis play through most of Half-Life 2, Ryan O'Donnell play through most of Episode One, and me on Episode Two. It took a ton of time and basically wiped out our work day, and I hope that shows how seriously we take this kind of thing. What we found was that the worst of the problems we talked about in Half-Life 2 were gone. Each of the Half-Life games still showed consistent minor framerate issues, on par with what we saw in the review code (with Episode Two having the biggest problems), but the "unplayable" sequences were gone.

Is it annoying that the game isn't a perfect port, especially considering it's already shipping after the PC and 360 versions? Definitely. The worst of the three versions? Yes. But "downright unplayable?" No. The big question of why EA didn't delay this version further until it was equal in quality to the 360 game remains, but it's certainly close and not a bad game.

So who's at fault here for all the attention the negativity in our preview got? Partially EA, for sending out review code that was slightly different from retail code. Partially message boards and blogs, for not understanding what "at worst" means. And partially us, for not providing enough context in our preview. In the end, just know that the PS3 ports of Half-Life 2, Episode One, and Episode Two don't seem to be ideal, but still look to be better than most games out there.
Click to expand...
The game was pretty much doomed when it was announced that Valve outsourced the game to EA. It seemed to show that they didn't care enoough about it, maybe due to Newell's opinion's on the PS3.
 
why even bother bringing a game to PS3 if you aren't going to make sure that its a quality product, w/o framerate issues.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']why even bother bringing a game to PS3 if you aren't going to make sure that its a quality product, w/o framerate issues.[/QUOTE]
Because they can make money, by spending very little to port it and selling the game to uninformed consumers.

Think a little.
 
[quote name='Msut77']My Ps2 crapped out on me and they wanted more than I paid for the system to repair it. My PSP had multiple dead pixels and they basically told me to go die in a fire because I wanted to swap it for a good one.

Microsoft in comparison has treated me like royalty.[/quote]

That's the main reason I still have yet to pick up a PSP (although I may soon enough) or a PS3. While the latter is a solid console so far construction-wise, my experiences with the PS1 and PS2 have soured me on buying any hardware from Sony within the first two years.

When I had to call and talk to 6 different CSRs on several different days at different times to get Sony to repair my PS1, that was an issue. The fact that all of them said that I would have to pay $150 and shipping ~both ways~ for a possible repair even though the system was still well within their waranty was an absolute joke. The PS2 was a similar situation, with them wanting $180 while still well within waranty, but we eventually got through to a CSR who had some synapses still firing up there.

I do enjoy Sony's products and whatnot but, honestly, I'm not an early adopter in their camp any longer. While I have had the same issues with the 360 just a few months ago, the repair went smoothly and getting it authorized by a CSR took relatively no time at all.

I'll get a PS3 eventually but its large size and previous physical problems within the brand name have made me shy away. I don't have time to talk to CSRs who juggle my call like a circus performer while trying to find someone who comprehends that "active waranty + broken system = repair". ;)
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']DMC4 and Burnout Paradise are both better on the PS3.[/quote]

Yeah but MGS4 and FF XIII both run smoother on the 360. The framrate hiccups from the PS3 versions are gone, plus theres the extra content.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']Yeah but MGS4 and FF XIII both run smoother on the 360. The framrate hiccups from the PS3 versions are gone, plus theres the extra content.[/quote]

lies the 75 cartridge MGs4 snes versions have no loading time! they also display in 2160p.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']DMC4 and Burnout Paradise are both better on the PS3.[/quote]If you could provide some links or other supporting information to backup your assertion, that would be great.

At the very least try and explain *why* the games are better; it will elevate your comment to 'useful'.

The Orange Box thing, based on the near-retail preview code, was an understandable conclusion. In the correction that was posted by FriskyTanuki, the piece still concluded that it wasn't AS good for the PS3 (BUT they still said the game was good), as there were parts where lag or degraded framerates exist compared to the other versions -- A conclusion that is much better than 'this game is unplayable'. However, the updated article only changed the degree by which the PS3 version is inferior, (according to the reviewers), not the conclusion that it is.

But yeah, please support your argument with an article, or facts.. hell, even a second hand anecdote would be fantastic.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']If you could provide some links or other supporting information to backup your assertion, that would be great.

At the very least try and explain *why* the games are better; it will elevate your comment to 'useful'.

The Orange Box thing, based on the near-retail preview code, was an understandable conclusion. In the correction that was posted, the piece still concluded that it wasn't as good for the PS3, as there were parts where lag or degraded framerates exist -- which is much better than 'this game is unplayable' -- it changed the degree of the inferiority, but not the end conclusion.

But yeah, please support your argument with an article, or facts.. hell, even a second hand anecdote would be fantastic.[/QUOTE]


In the latest 1up show they discuss why DMC4 is better on the PS3. Better framerate, no screen tearing, and better controls on the PS3 version.
 
I would definitely expect DMC4 to be better on PS3. While multiplatform generally hurts games overall, usually one platform is favored over another, and this game started with the PS3 in mind, or so they say.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I would definitely expect DMC4 to be better on PS3. While multiplatform generally hurts games overall, usually one platform is favored over another, and this game started with the PS3 in mind, or so they say.[/QUOTE]

Definitely, but we are also talking about Fanboy Bettenhausen. You have to take any Sony related review/preview by him with a grain of salt, and usually subtract a point or two to put it in line with other reviewers. Every Playstation 3 game is the greatest game ever compared to anything on the 360 and Wii.

[quote name='BattleChicken']
The Orange Box thing, based on the near-retail preview code, was an understandable conclusion. In the correction that was posted by FriskyTanuki, the piece still concluded that it wasn't AS good for the PS3 (BUT they still said the game was good), as there were parts where lag or degraded framerates exist compared to the other versions -- A conclusion that is much better than 'this game is unplayable'. However, the updated article only changed the degree by which the PS3 version is inferior, (according to the reviewers), not the conclusion that it is.

[/QUOTE]

...and this brings us back to the arrogance argument. Even though the game is only slightly worse than the 360 version (if noticeable at all by most gamers), it will still get slack because of one reason. Bonehead executives. Everyone forgets that the PS3 is 10x more powerful than the 360!* So every game that isn't better will get flack for it because the PS3 is the end all - be all system of all time. A system that you will want to work two jobs for!*

You can build the hype machine all you want, but when you fail to live up to it gamers will call you on it. That, and the internet never forgets.

*according to Sony executives.
 
[quote name='Corvin']You can build the hype machine all you want, but when you fail to live up to it gamers will call you on it. That, and the internet never forgets.[/quote]

I basically agree with your post except that people do forget like all the goodwill Sony generated with the PS1 and PS2, game-wise. They also forget that both Microsoft and Nintendo left their last generation console owners twisting in the wind by dropping support for their consoles and pushing new ones while the PS2 still lives on. Basically, the rule is (or should be), what have you done for me lately? Sony just needs to get some high-quality software like it had in the past and everyone will forget that it was cool to hate on Sony.
 
Eh, it's circumstantial that you're right, since the review came out after you made the claim.

I like making decisions about something, and then fishing for evidence after the fact to support my claims. :roll:
 
I knew the PS3 version was going to suck when it gets delayed for ages.
 
[quote name='jer7583']Plenty of impressions were available before IGN's review went up.[/QUOTE]

And allow me to say, again, that any pre-gold master impressions are only that: impressions. You're not wrong, but being right is coincidental, seeing as how you made up your mind before the jury was out.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And allow me to say, again, that any pre-gold master impressions are only that: impressions. You're not wrong, but being right is coincidental, seeing as how you made up your mind before the jury was out.[/quote]

First off, I don't agree with Jer's tone at ALL. It tries to make people 'winners' or 'losers' based off of some reviewer's opinions. Being correct in that kind of circumstance is just pointless. The review spoke for itself, no need to rub it in like a douche.

But, to be fair, there certainly is a strong correlation between the quality of a late preview build, (like the kind they sent IGN), and the final retail code. More often than not, crappy preview = crappy game, great preview = great game.

In this case, the final product was very much improved -- thats what the crunch time is for, but it is NOT foolish to think 'bad preview build, bad game' because more often than not, that is the case with the final product. But, as a whole, it is better to wait for the final review for final impressions.
 
[quote name='mxpowar']I basically agree with your post except that people do forget like all the goodwill Sony generated with the PS1 and PS2, game-wise. They also forget that both Microsoft and Nintendo left their last generation console owners twisting in the wind by dropping support for their consoles and pushing new ones while the PS2 still lives on. Basically, the rule is (or should be), what have you done for me lately? Sony just needs to get some high-quality software like it had in the past and everyone will forget that it was cool to hate on Sony.[/QUOTE]

The PS2 lives on not by choice, they would probably prefer the PS3 was adopted. Secondly how much of the PS2 lives on due to the Wii, think about that?

I am in the market and may sway towards a PS3 this time around for the LBu player, giving it just a bit more until I decide however. I have already had and sold the 360 once.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']The PS2 lives on not by choice, they would probably prefer the PS3 was adopted. Secondly how much of the PS2 lives on due to the Wii, think about that?

I am in the market and may sway towards a PS3 this time around for the LBu player, giving it just a bit more until I decide however. I have already had and sold the 360 once.[/QUOTE]
I'm not following the connection you made between the PS2 and the Wii. What do they have to do with each other? I think people buy a PS2 or a Wii for very different reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top