Umm i dont know to many people that would outcast someone for having a ps3
And i dont think its a matter of $100 for kids in most cases. I think its a matter of parents that dont approve of video games. Im talking about those kids, not the kids with cool parents that say, "its only $100, and now we can play mgs4, possibly the coolest game to hit a console since mario", im talking about the parents that buy the systems reluctantly, that feel video games are dumb and kids could be outside...you know..chucking dirt at their faces and all that other healthy outside activity that kids do ( i actually used to do that with friends..chucking dirt....fun for a while, but in the end it just kinda sucks lol). But the kid begged, and begged, and begged, so the parent goes "well, i guess he has been good, we can get the silly game once" and those are the parents that say..."why would we get you the $500 console when we can get you the $400 dollar one (this is when the first came out apparently, im not backspacing for the prices lol) that is JUST as good!"
Oh, I see what you mean. Well, my main point is that if you can afford a 360, you can most likely afford a PS3, which still stands- the parents could still afford the PS3, but found more value in a less pricey system. Which is fine, but I'm just saying that if you can afford a 360, you can most likely afford a PS3.
That may be stereotyping, but that is how i have seen parents react all too often in my area, maybe its different in other places but from what i've seen its usually the same story.
Yeah, that's normally the way I would have gone with my own arguments in this thread, but everyone here seems to claim that they're 25 and buy everything themselves... Well, I'm sure you know what I mean
But if your employed, it certainly comes down to what you want in the system economics are not even worth worrying about, if you want quality pay for it. Lets hope the ps3 can give some other titles as epic as mgs4
It will, but they'll most likely be available on nearly every other system, which is kind of the problem. I'd also like to say that quality is in the eyes of the beholder- I mean, for these few coming years, games are not going to require much more than what the 360 can handle. I'm just talking about the future, really, when games start becoming so enormous and put so much demand on systems that such things like cells (if done correctly) can handle.
Now, on another note, I think it would be wonderful to see the functionality of the Wii with the game selection of a 360 and the power of a PS3. That would be amazing.
Not to say that the Wii doesn't have great games, but, let's face it, the 360 is currently offering more (in number) great games.
But, you're still heavily stereotyping. Nearly anyone that can afford an Xbox 360 can afford a PS3 now. It's only another $100. In our economy, $100 means nothing. It's less than a month worth of gas. If you can afford, what is it, $300-something for a 360, you can afford a PS3. It may mean one less stop to McDonald's a week, or one less road trip, or missing that concert, but you can do it.
I'm convinced that the majority of middle-school level kids buy 360's because of its games- lets face it, currently it has the widest selection of great games, and the future couple years are looking promising.
That, and of course, kids that old are heavily susceptible to peer pressure and wanting to fit in, and since so many kids have one, it can easily become a way of judging a kid's worth. Yes, it happens- I was just teaching some 400-something of them at a music camp these past two weeks and I even heard kids saying stuff like that.
But, I'm willing to bet it's really the great game selection- it really does (and so does the Wii.) That's really the major issue for the PS3- many of the games that were going to be exclusives are now being changed at last minute to multiplatform. It's both a good and a bad thing for me- as a gamer, I'd say it's good because more people get to enjoy the games I enjoy. As a PS3 Fan Boy, it's a bad thing because it spells the end for any hope of the PS3 ever picking up. Now, I have faith that Sony has learned it's lesson and the next time around will be a force to be reckoned with, but that's generally how revolutions- even technological ones- are recieved at first. Hopefully the next wave of next-gen consoles will have learned from Sony's mistakes and Microsoft's blessings- great games.
You can have the greatest system on earth, but if you have no good games to play on it, you might as well just own a rock with a DVD Drive strapped to it.
by outdated..do you mean..affordable???or convenient? because last time i checked the 360 was a hella lot cooler than any silly playstation for da rich kids. "hey wada you doin tonight rich guy?" "you know, goin down to the play station 3" "oh, ill go hang out at the economic club 360"....my silly analogy O_o, but i guess all the mvp people chill in da ps3
No, I mean outdated technology. The 360 runs on the Xenon, alone, alone, while the PS3 runs on cells, which have been designated as the future of computer processing. They are slated to be released to the public for installation in the coming years. The world's fastest super computer currently is running on cells.
Please don't pull the "only rich kids buy PS3" stuff, it's not a mature or factual argument. I work at Subway and am still paying my PS3 off- I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination.
I also never said that poor people buy 360's- it's a great American-made gaming console that is probably the last of it's kind. It will work for now, but as the years go on, at least by the end of the next decade, it will be completely outdated.
Well, I'm a "PS Fan Boy" for better or for worse, so I don't really care, as long as I get to play both of them. It is rather ridiculous though, especially since Final Fantasy XIII was formatted thoroughly for the cells and has to be dumbed down significantly for the 360's outdated technology... But on the other hand, more people can play it now. You win some, you lose some, I guess. I'm really hoping for a good FF game for the Wii, though :rolleyes:
Yeah, now that Square Enix isn't a Sony exclusive company, Playstation took a major hit there, not to mention their wide array of JRPG's (the Final Fantasy Series, Kingdom Hearts Series, The Last Remnant, and the like), that will most likely start becoming multiplatform.
Sony's PlayStation 3 started off strong during its Europe launch last weekend, selling around 600,000 units compared to Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Nintendo's Wii first month sales in the region totaling 500,000 and 700,000, respectively. British and French retailers are reporting "huge demand" for the PS3. The Financial Times reports Sony said an estimated €400 million of PS3-related sales were made over the weekend in Europe for consoles, games and peripherals. The FT also notes the PS3 launch has easily eclipsed that of the PS2, which took several weeks to reach similar levels. Loyal fans waiting for the console's Europe debut were encouraged by more games available for the PS3 than its rivals when they were launched. Gartner forecasts the PS3 will have outsold both the Xbox 360 and Wii by 2009.
Actually it's not bad at all, since the PS3 has a ton of USB ports for USB mouses, USB keyboards, etc. And if you use a controller a lot like me then it's no problem You're just used to the Wii remote.
And yeah, Twilight Princess was good. I think it was also a major step up in graphics from most Gamecube games
Um... Link, I've played nearly all of them- I have almost every system, and have had one of each, between my sibbies and me. They're great games, just don't superimpose your opinion on everyone else. If I choose to like Final Fantasy because each one has a distinctly unique story line, defined characters, and a sweeping world (which are all the main keys of a good RPG), then don't pester me by posting "lawlzors final fantasy 32 lmao" at the end of your posts.
Zelda is a very good action/rpg, and is also a very good game of it's kind. To compare two different genres by pointing out a flaw on the opposite side is kind of pointless- the "flaws" we see in each aren't important to that genre, so, conclusively, it would be like saying "The tragedy Phantom of the Opera did not have good comical points, therefore it is a bad play compared to the comedy Importance of Being Earnest, which is much funnier."
Also, comparing games does not prove anything conclusively about a system. Next year, and the following year, all the games systems will have their shining games that get 9.0's and 10.0's, like Devil May Cry (is it 3 or 4?) or Halo 3 and sell millions in their first weeks, and as well will have their flukes, like that Gameboy Advance game "Deal or No Deal?" which broke the record for the worst game on earth by selling a total of one copy (last time I checked- I read it in Game Informer magazine.) Now, does that mean a system is bad? No, I don't think so. What makes a system bad is slow processing, red rings of doom, no-read discs, dated graphic rendering, faulty motion sensor technology, and so on- things that are defined by the hardware and not by the software.
Of course, I was doing that earlier, too. Maybe I should take my own advice...?
Yes, in your opinion. Does that factually make the game as terrible as Link said? No. If he'd played them, he'd have realized that every single one has a completely unique story line. He said they were all the same thing with progressively better graphics. I just don't understand how two games with completely different characters, different worlds, different story lines, different musical scores, different art concepts, and different character behavior are the same thing rehashed with new graphics. I guess I'm missing something, oh well.