RF Generation Message Board

Because you don't have a PS3 or because you're not interested in the game itself?

Both. I've committed to not getting a PS3 until it's under $200 (maybe even $150). And of the exclusives to the PS3, I'm just not interested in the Resistance IP. Little Big Planet and Unchartered look really good, though. And I'm sure God of War 3 will be awesome.

I got the 360 because I preferred its lineup of games, what it offers online for both marketplace & online play, and its nearly full backward compatibility. It's also the system I prefer to play with friends.

A joke right? Little more than a third of the Xbox library of games being supported is hardly "full" by any stretch. I trimmed my Xbox collection from 150+ down to less than 70 and still only half of them are supported. :P

I didn't know that...the list seemed impressive to me with regards to what was offered as BC overall though. The only game I really miss not having available as BC is Def Jam: FFNY. 8)

Sorry I was mistaken, somewhere between a third and less than half. I forgot about the groups of repetitive sports titles that clutter the list. It's not an all-bad list, but if you were to make a top 25 or top 50 all-time Xbox list, you'd be surprised at how many of the Xbox's greatest games aren't supported nor will ever be.

Here's my personal list I blogged about a long time ago:

Advent Rising
Arx Fatalis
Beyond Good & Evil
Blood Wake
Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, The
Conflict: Global Terror
Dead Man’s Hand
Deus Ex: Invisible War
Hitman 2: Silent Assassin
MechAssault
Oddworld: Stranger’s Wrath
Painkiller: Hell Wars
Pirates of the Caribbean
RalliSport Challenge 2
Samurai Shodown V
Secret Weapons Over Normandy
Spartan: Total Warrior
Star Trek Shattered Universe
Star Wars: Obi-Wan
TransWorld Snowboarding
Tron 2.0: Killer App
Yager

 :P

phoenix has been anti-Sony for awhile. I daresay I miss the days before this gen when we argued for hours about the consoles and I was known as the Maligned Sony-Fan Leon or something like that.

^I'm not "anti-Sony". I still have a PS2 and a bunch of games for it. I just resent the fact that they decided to force-feed Blu-Ray technology into the price of the PS3. I can't/won't utilize the technology, so I refuse to pay for it. That's why I've set an "Under $200" price point before I'd consider buying a PS3. It may mean I'm a cheapass, but oh well. 8)

There's some really good games in that list. Quite a shame that they won't be supported.

What is it with now-gen consoles and their backwards compatibility anyway? Has it become too difficult to make these machinese fully (or like...95%) backwards compatible? The PS3 suffers from the same thing. Those in stores right now aren't even backwards compatible at all. :-\

As far as I can tell the PS2 didn't had so much trouble playing PSone games.

Kinda like how the PS2 force-fed DVD technology into the price? And what do you mean you can't utilize it?

Price. People complain that they want cheaper consoles, but they want all the stuff that's still in them. Something has to give.


They play PS1 games just fine.

DVD was a standardized format at the time. A DVD is a DVD and is not a proprietary technology. The Blu-Ray format is Sony-proprietary...they didn't have to go Blu-Ray this gen, but they decided to do so to push the format to the consumer. So if you wanted a PS3, you're paying a premium for it when compared to DVD technology.

I also have no interest in Blu-Ray because the quality differences to upscaled DVDs are only  noticed at 1080p and I don't have a 1080p TV.  I'm happy with my current DVD player and have no interest in buying movies on Blu-Ray. Hence, I would not use the technology. Sure it can play regular DVDs, but I already have a 3 DVD players for that (1 regular DVD player, and the players in my PS2 and 360)...I don't need a 4th.

And again, I'm not interested enough in the PS3 library to plunk down the money for the console until it drops below $200 (and maybe even $150) for it to be worth it, imo.

Stop making these silly arguments and embrace your fanboyism. No reason to deny your love for M$. EMBRACE IT!

So the PS3's in stores now play PS1 games but not PS2 games? Lol, what's the logic in that?

Maybe fun for us "old schoolers" but younger gamers couldn't care less about PS1 games.

Because PS1 emulation has been around for so long now that every PC, low-end or not, and every console, has more power and resources necessary to be able to run them. So throwing in a small app onto the partitioned space of the PS3 HDD is no biggy and adds an extra feature for bragging rights.

PS2 emulation by contrast has many more flaws, much like that of the Xbox to Xbox 360 emulation. A matter of priority and overall quality that they don't include it anymore. I also suspect it helps sales of PS2s when you can't just buy an "all in one" system that will do everything.

^ I see. Thanks. :)

Blu-ray is not proprietary and it never was. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Personally, I'm contemplating a PS3 solely for the PS1 emulation ability alone. Soon I'll have 270+ PS1 games and not even close to enough memory cards to use them. A 160GB HDD for memory saves is just what I need at this point and probably cheaper than buying another 50 or so 1st party PS1 mem cards if you include shipping, gas, fees and time searching. :P

Though I'm with Phoenix on the library. The system has been out for 2 years now and other than $15-18 bargain bin titles, only one game has interested me new (Valkyria Chronicles).

I thought that as well.

You could also say DVD's are "Philips-proprietary" because they developed them. But we don't really look at them as Philips products but rather as something that stands alone.

The next-gen (Why am I using the words "next-gen" so much? :P) disc battle is still fresh in our memories but in a few years time we won't look at Blu-ray as a Sony product anymore.

Besides; HD-DVD was just as much a "proprietary" product. But of Toshiba instead of Sony.

First I've heard of this. However, even if Blu-Ray is not proprietary, it still is a cost adder to the PS3 when compared to DVD. And therefore it is still technology I don't feel like paying for because I won't be getting the requisite use out of it (i.e. Blu-Ray movies) due to both my current TV setup and the games I prefer to play. Drop the PS3 to under $200 and I'll think about it. 

And the PS2 is costlier than the PS1 because of DVD. You still own one of those so your argument is abit hypocritical.

Also - your 360 presents things in HD which was forced on you. Technically, you shouldn't have bought that either since you can't use it properly.

Again - pricing. It's cheap and easy to emulate PS1 games so that can be added on with no problem. PS2 games would add another 100 or so dollars to the price. People want it as cheap as possible so they dropped the PS2 backwards compatibility to meet market demands.

I didn't buy the PS2 for the DVD player just like I'm not going to be buying the PS3 for the Blu-Ray player. I got the PS2 towards the end of the last gen because at that time it was cheap enough to buy and there were enough games I wanted for it. It's going to be no different this gen with PS3...when it drops significantly in price.

The 360 didn't deliberately inflate the cost of the console by adding a Blu-Ray player to present games in HD like the PS3 does. And at the time I bought my 360, I actually could maximize the resolution capabilities from the 360 since my TV is 720p/1080i. However, they did upgrade the 360's capabilities to broadcast in 1080p, so in hindsight I probably should've waited a little while longer before buying my TV and 360. But none of this changes the fact that I've always preferred the 360's library of games.



 

This argument is silly. I mean the difference between DVD & VHS is astronomical. The visual & audio difference could be seen and heard by anyone. Even on an old black & white TV. No more flicker, no more tapes getting chewed up. You had something that was better in every way.

Why would you complain when your new system charged you a little more and gave you this great technology.

Now lets fast forward to today. Now I want someone to sell me Blu-ray. What is SO much better about it and why should I pay more for a system to use it?

Hi.

AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA... *wipes tear away* :laugh:

Anyway, the PS3 kicks major butt, and the only thing keeping it out of my grasp is the price tag. That's it. And the fact that I have shit for a TV. Standard-def PS3? I think not. What a waste.


The difference on a good quality bluray encode is amazing. Go into an electronics store, and they will (usually) have a tv with blueray next to a dvd-tv. You can see and hear the difference.

Yes, Blu-Ray is noticeably awesome. That aside, if I were buying a console the PS3 appealed to me BECAUSE IT CAME WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY. The 360 is and always will be X-Box 1.5, the PS3 is this generations only truly next-gen system--if you want it you have to pay for it.

Not true, a "generation" is simply defined by a time frame, not technology. All 3 consoles are existing in the same time frame. Looking at the previous gen, the Game Cube had significantly less capabilities, but it was still part of the same generation as the PS2 and Xbox 1.

I don't care how you define it. When I look at this generation I see the PS3, the X-Box 1.5, and the Wii. The X-Box has games that my PC can run better, the Wii is completely off the map, has been since I first laid eyes on it. The PS3 is full of hardware that is truly "next-gen" technology from the last gen. It is the only system I have considered buying, it is the only one that seems worth it.

That said, I am no more likely to buy it than you are until it is cheap as balls.

Well I'm glad some people can see a major difference. Because while I could hear and see the difference between DVD & VHS. I can't hear any difference between Blu-ray and DVD. Visually, a little sharper and more detailed. Hardly worth the price tag of a player or the disks in comparison to a DVD.

As far as the systems themselves go, none of them have really been of a great interest.
I would rather get a Zeebo (http://www.zeebo.com.br)

And as time goes on and Sony tries to replicate the success of their first two consoles, they strip features and pieces away one at a time as each model comes out with a game library barely keeping it's head above water compared to the other two. Doesn't help that all of this "new technology" isn't doing shit for making better games or easier programming. I almost hear another Dreamcast in the making.

Other than the Blu-Ray and Cell CPU, it has the same level of off the shelf parts or modified PC parts that the X360 uses.

How does one define "barely"? There have been 16.84 million PS3's sold worldwide as compared to 22 Million 360's sold worldwide. That's a disparity of about 5 million units. Considering the 360 had a pretty healthy head start, I'd hardly consider that "barely" in comparison. Other "one" is more like it as Wii's other apperent function is printing off money.

I was referring to the game library and it's lack of overall selection in general not system sales.

Maybe so, but system sales dictate if a console is going to last or not. Just look at the Wii. ;) :P

No offense to all you Wii owners but that system barely has a library (of good games, that is) but it won't be going anywhere but up.