Video Games PlayStation 3

Any thoughts on the PS3? Ive already seen a lot of them -not naming any threads-
Considering that already the PSP is going to be like 250 something where I live(yes...you read right. 250), I dont think PS3 is going to be anything shorter than that. And for now, PS3 has nothing to go by to get attention, considering it needs it since its realease date is surely to be before the Xbox Next's. What do you think?

-KaiyonTormentor

 

Well to say about this is its going to be the consumers ideal of graphics and games as usual but also the statement of the price can kill both PS3 and the Xbox next's.Its just going to be about popularity of the systems

 

PlayStation 3 and X-Box 2? What about Nintendo *snicker*(you will never see me say that with a straight face).

But seriously, it's gonna be one big match between PS3 and XB2. Who will wn this time. I think that X-Box won this time. Better graphics, HARD DRIVE, good games, X-Box LIVE, and Halo 1 and 2. In my opinion, it doesn't get better than that.

But still, PS3 COULD change the tides this time around. I guess we'll just wait and see.

-SakataKentaro

PS:To any one that says that PS2 has GTA:San Andreas, i hate to inform you that it's coming out on X-Box, bigger, and badder. This June i belive. So i belive it's not exclusive no more.

 

Nintendo confirmed that they're working with ATI and Intel for their next generation console. It's possible that Microsoft and Nintendo may even team up, though aside from speculation due to the fact that both are using ATI and Intel, I'm not looking at it as a merger of sorts.

 

Hopefully they merge. If you kinda think about it, they would make an awsome team, and better PS3 in lots of ways, beggining with games! Graphics, and lots more. Now, if they merged, what would their name be?? Nah, not going there....too creepy....

-SakataKentaro

 

Nintendobox? X-Nintendo? NinteX-box?

Or, wait, do you mean the companies?

Hmm... Microtendo... Ninsoft... Micronintendosoft...

I think Microtendo sounds the funniest. And I'll cast my vote for NinteX-Box. :anime:

or if Nintendo merged with Sony...

Nintendostation 3! Sonintendo! Nintendony!

Hehehe, anyway, as I said in the X-box 2 thread, I'll probably pick up a Sega CD first. And maybe a Nintendo (Original). But A PS3... I'd have to see some darn good games on it before I'd buy it.

 

...PS line is from Sony; a cooperative operation carried out by Nintendo and Microsoft wouldn't help at all.

A factor that might hinder Sony is if they make the PS3 backwards compatible. Why would it hinder? In order to do that, you have to actually limit the advances you put in a machine for maximum compatibility. Note how the Gameboy Advance was the last one to have total backwards compatibility, and how the new Gameboy DS only has bc on single player modes for GBA games. This is so Nintendo can have a lot more oppurtunity in programming complexity.

Anybody know if PS3 will be backwards compatibile?

 

*glances at piggybank in desperation*

It seems every time I manage to save enough for one of these ludricously overpriced gaming systems, it becomes obsolete and I have to start the process all over again.

Hopefully PS3 is worth it ^_^

 

So far, sony has always been my personal favorite. I can't wait for the next console. I know everyone says "Oh! X-Box is Soooo powerful and it has a hard drive and Halo and Halo 2!" Big Deal. Halo sucks, it's the easiest first person shooter I've ever played and weapon selection is so limited it makes me sick. You want a real first person shooter? Play Perfect Dark for the 64, way better. I've always been a Sony fan though, I'm the type that likes good long RPGs like FF series and Xenosaga. The Cube is good for multi-player but i'm still not an X-Box fan.

 

Play it on legendary. You're either full of it or played it on a low difficulty setting

Halo 1 had 8 weapons not including grenades or vehicles. I'm sorry that you find a somewhat more realistic weapon selection bad (well, realistic as far as games go), but you'd do well to act a bit more maturely. Also, I own Perfect Dark for the 64. Halo is much better.

Funny though how you didn't bother coming up with a counterpoint to the power and hard drive comments.

 

On the PS3 its obviously way more money and not worth buying it off the bat till there are more games your able to play on it.. IDK i think PS2 is enough dont you?

 

As mentioned on the other thread about Xbox.

GO SONYISM! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

- Teddz

 

Why would you have a PS1 there? PS2 is backwards compatible. Hurrr someones a corporate *****!

 

That's why im hoping PS3 does the same PS2 did. And hopefully it will play PS1/2/3 games. Then, I'd throw my money on the PS3 a little more.

-K

 

If it doesm then the other competition (X-Box Next, and maybe the new Nintendo System) should watch out, because having 3 systems all in one is a very big "Yes!", mostly for the people that don't spend money that much, and like to play the old playstation games. Meaning that buying 1 system could mea buying 3 systems! If that were to happen, then the PS3 totally deserves the space in any gamer's shelf....

-Seishin

 

If that happens I'll laugh a bit, because being TOO backwards compatible means losing some capability.

 

Oooo, wouldn't want that, then. Still, if its backwards compatible for the PS2 games at least, then its worth half its money for now. We'll just have to wait and see what the PS3 games look, sound and play like. And hopefully, they'll stick to the usual DVD player on the PS3. heh!

- K