Or working out how to afford it in the first place...
...and then how to keep it from breaking.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, I'd have no issue with that. I'm not saying it as a PS3 critique. It might well end up being all the better for it.My point is purely that ign used the term 'much more interesting', which I believe is akin to trying to say it is 'much more white' than the Wii.
The PS3 might be many things, but interesting it ain't.
I mean... the Wii is a mainfestly less powerful console. We all know the reason it is doing so damn well is 100% because it IS interesting and new and novel and all that.
... I really can't believe they said that.
For some reason this post made me laugh, because I can picture you saying that all confused...
We will see when the games come out. To early. 360 games were crap at the beginning but only had COD2(was on other systems at the time) but still. PS3 has RFOM right now but maybe down the line it will have more like the 360 did. PS3's online is free too so if you are an online playing guy and a game is out ofr the PS3 and 360..get the PS3 one because 50 dollars a year pretty much will cancel the PS3s extra money you payed for it in the long wrong.
This is just confusingly wrong. More interesting? I think currently a wet pussy cat is more interesting than a PS3.
More powerful, sure. But that really amount to nil, seeing as games are practically non-existent at the moment.
So to recap:
PS3's one possible hook, Blu-Ray, is no good right now because they're still only figuring out how to compress movies onto the disc.
PS3 actually lowers the graphical quality of PS2 games.
The controller connection is iffy at best.
It only has a couple decent games, and no system-moving games.
Hmm... maybe the PS3 is most interesting. Most interesting in how it even made it to the sales stage in the first place.
I think the problem with PS3 is the price point at the moment, also the late launch, had it been release at the same price as 360 and the same time as 360, most likely it would have won out already, but Sony has recently messed things up. Its good news that the Japanese seem to love it, but the Japanese alone will not support its lifespan unless they buy as many as they did DS' or PS2s and I doubt thats likely.
I wouldn't say the PS3 is uninteresting, cos thats a rather bland and baised comment, to many, Wii and 360 aren't particually interesting, but then it is a slow comer, and although the lack of games and quality of those games released are expected of a console launch (just the same way 360's launch was god awful and how ppl compared games to xbox original graphics) it is not exactly what we want at the moment, the PS3 is interesting to former PS2 owners who haven't been interested in the competition or blu-ray buyers or techno geeks.Its just a matter of gamer appeal.
But the fact that people are comparing the PS3 launch titles to 360 2nd gen games is a sign of good things to come from the PS3, when they will come is another story, but its just time playing about here. Sony is doing my head in at the moment, but I am a former PS2 owner and would very much so like a PS3 as well as the other 2 consoles 🙂
"I wouldn't say the PS3 is uninteresting, cos thats a rather bland and baised comment, to many, Wii and 360 aren't particually interesting"
No, I disagree EXCEPTIONALLY strongly with that. I think anyone who can call the PS3 interesting and the Wii not is badly lacking in sensible judgment.
From any objective point of view, the Wii has shown itself as a far more interesting and innovative console. That doesn't mean better (though it might), but I cannot see a single way in which that claim can be reasonably disputed.
I agree with what you are saying and despite wanting a PS3 disagreed with IGN, what I was getting at is just because someone says its uninteresting, doesn't mean it is, to some it will be to others it won't, just depends on what you look for in a console, innovation, gameplay, graphics, sales, quantity of games or other features the console has not relating to games.
I think IGN could support PS3 without being so biased towards Wii, as many would disagree strongly to this point and it is rather offensive, I understand they had to give the award to someone, but there has to be better reasons then this, Wii is very much interesting, infact it's pure fun, however, I for example couldn't just blankly give an award to Wii and say its more innovative, thats it, or 360 because it has more games, these are just as bad as saying PS3 is more interesting.
lmfao... the best 'new' console.. thats the stupidest award ever... next it'll be 'shiniest console'
they totally ripped xbox's idea to reach the operating system via a button placed in the center of the controller.. and ripped off of nintendo's motion sensor controller with their SixAxis... people like that hardly deserve any kind of award IMO.
I've also heard people having trouble with the ps3 detecting HDMI on Sony monitors... /sigh
Aside from my personal viewpoint... its just too damn early to be giving out awards whatsoever.. these editors have got to be joking..
if anything, it should have been 'nicest game not out yet' and vote heavenly sword
I'm more into 'context sensitivity done right' ... like gears of war.. that whole game is build on context sensitive material and its great
so what is mass effect?
I know about bioshock.. and its ambitious.... I dont like to ride my hopes on ambitious games.. which is why I dont consider halo 3 a candidate.. it looks like halo 2.5