Returned my PS3

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hans030390

Diamond Member
Feb 3, 2005
7,326
2
76
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
No where did i say resistance "sucked".

Um, yes you did, in your largest paragraph in your first post:

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
Secondly, some of the games that looked cool: resistance, lair, heavenly sword...well, they sucked.

You just briefly went over the "like CoD" explanation in your first post. You make much more, agreeable sense in the post replying to what I said.

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
Seems like you care.

Ok, so maybe I do...I do care when people say Resistance "sucks".


 

GrantMeThePower

Platinum Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,923
2
0
Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
But until a winner of the high def disk format is clear or until they have games that are totally exculsive and revolutionary, then I will not buy it again.

It's your choice of course, and there's definitely not much extra gaming value in a PS3 for someone who already has a 360 and a PS2, and plays cross-platform games on the 360 instead. You even have the PS2 to keep you company when the 360 red-rings.

You're missing the chance to see hundreds of movies in 1080p instead of 480i, but many people don't care enough about picture quality for that to matter.

I rent from Netflix, so even if HD-DVD does manage to stop losing I'll only be out the cost of the PS3. Once I have a Falcon 360 I'll probably pick up its HD-DVD too so I can rent those movies as well.

you brought up the biggest point: The xbox, in my opinon, has really screwed up when it comes to reliabilty. I dont really care about the extended warrenty...they HAD to do that. its the fact that the PS3, which is much more complicated, as it uses much more state of the art components (the xbox is basically a regular computer with the exception of the shared ram) and the xbox still can't hang with the ps3 reliability.

however, i do have an HTPC for upconverting my regular dvds, so i'm not missing out on that, either. I also play games on my computer.

But thanks for being able to stay nuetral. I dont understand "fanboy-ism" and especially at some place like ATOT or avsforum, i'd expect a lot more mature discussion.

The only "state of the art" component the PS3 has is it's cell processor, which is barely even being utilized by any games. The rest are just regular PC components.

I never figured out why they scrimp on the RAM so much in consoles, both the 360 and PS3 only have 512mb. I would think at least 1gb would be the minimum.

...and blu ray disc drive. So cell + blu ray. and i agree whole heartedly on the ram aspect. especially at how cheap ram is. I always rationalized it that the os doesn't need as much as a computer, but it just doesn't matter...load that shit up.

 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
You may regret it later when games like White Knight Story, Last Remnant, MGS4, and FFXIII come out, but you may not since I don't know you favorite genres of gaming. Also, you can always just purchase another when games come out that you like.

If you weren't using the thing, it's good that you sold it.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
...and blu ray disc drive. So cell + blu ray. and i agree whole heartedly on the ram aspect. especially at how cheap ram is. I always rationalized it that the os doesn't need as much as a computer, but it just doesn't matter...load that shit up.

On the other hand, more ram = longer loading times. With less RAM the developers are forced to use it wisely and load stuff on the fly
 

Jules

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,213
0
76
Originally posted by: Ackmed
Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
Originally posted by: Ackmed
Yeah, we needed to hear this post. Blah blah blah. Just replace all you said, with "im a 360 fanboy".

Then don't post.

Your name says it all. As is obvious from your posts in this topic. Jump on the bangwagon, just dont make it sag. I wasnt even talking to you, but felt like you had to chime in, another fan of mine. How cute. :)

What I said was true, you are nobody to tell me to post or not. Nobody here is.

Continue your crying then.
 

Jules

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,213
0
76
Originally posted by: hans030390
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
No where did i say resistance "sucked".

Um, yes you did, in your largest paragraph in your first post:

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
Secondly, some of the games that looked cool: resistance, lair, heavenly sword...well, they sucked.

You just briefly went over the "like CoD" explanation in your first post. You make much more, agreeable sense in the post replying to what I said.

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
Seems like you care.

Ok, so maybe I do...I do care when people say Resistance "sucks".

Resistance rocks. Was about to pick up a ps3 just for that game. ill wait just tad bit longer.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
I want to get a PS3, but like most people, I also don't want to pay 600 dollars for it. The Xbox360 is the only console that I don't want to buy, I haven't actually heard of anything positive about it. People raved about Gears and when I finally had a chance to play it, it was just another shooter with your standard subpar console graphics.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Originally posted by: mugs
On the other hand, more ram = longer loading times. With less RAM the developers are forced to use it wisely and load stuff on the fly

This seems like quite the blanket statement and is dependent on implementation. More RAM may create a higher initial load time if the developer tries to fill the RAM at one point, yet even using your point, more data can be loaded on the fly if there's more RAM available.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
32,039
32,527
146
Originally posted by: Naustica
I like mine. I've yet to play any PS3 game or watch Blu-ray movie.
I'm still content watching dvds and playing ps2 games. It's the best upconverting dvd player I've seen.
It really is a great upscan DVD player, most Blu-Ray movies look incredible *300 not so much*, and never having owned a PS2, I'm getting a chance to play the greats I have always read about. I like Resistance quite a bit too, has many of the better elements of good shooters, and the graphics are crisp and clean. Some day I'll get in the MP, I just haven't been into the throw down thing lately. The audio in fall of man and motorstorm, is top notch, and the BD movie audio as well.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my 360 is RRoD, and they haven't even gotten me my box yet, it has been 8-9 days already. It only took that many business days for the entire process with my first one. I suspect I'll have my copy of Halo 3 sitting here without a console to play it on. :frown:
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,638
6,522
126
Originally posted by: Bateluer
I want to get a PS3, but like most people, I also don't want to pay 600 dollars for it. The Xbox360 is the only console that I don't want to buy, I haven't actually heard of anything positive about it. People raved about Gears and when I finally had a chance to play it, it was just another shooter with your standard subpar console graphics.

lmao.
 
Oct 19, 2000
17,860
4
81
Originally posted by: Bateluer
People raved about Gears and when I finally had a chance to play it, it was just another shooter with your standard subpar console graphics.

Hahaha. You stick with your $500 video card plus various other PC components to play your standard shooters, and I'll stick with my $350 console to play standard shooters. You could've atleast used the whole kb/mouse arguement that most PC gaming enthusiasts use, but saying a game like Gears has "subpar console graphics" doesn't give you any credibility at all.

Besides, graphics aren't everything. Of course you don't mention anything about the gameplay.
 

MikeyLSU

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2005
2,747
0
71
Originally posted by: blurredvision
Originally posted by: Bateluer
People raved about Gears and when I finally had a chance to play it, it was just another shooter with your standard subpar console graphics.

Hahaha. You stick with your $500 video card plus various other PC components to play your standard shooters, and I'll stick with my $350 console to play standard shooters. You could've atleast used the whole kb/mouse arguement that most PC gaming enthusiasts use, but saying a game like Gears has "subpar console graphics" doesn't give you any credibility at all.

Besides, graphics aren't everything. Of course you don't mention anything about the gameplay.

you really sound stupid and so does everyone else when they try to say that you need a $500 graphics card to play the current games.

I built my system in April for $500, yes that is right, $500 and still play all current games at full settings.

Video card was $150, x1950 pro.
 

Beev

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2006
7,775
0
0
Gears as a whole was very subpar. I was incredibly disappointed.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
34
91
Originally posted by: Dumac
You may regret it later when games like White Knight Story, Last Remnant, MGS4, and FFXIII come out, but you may not since I don't know you favorite genres of gaming. Also, you can always just purchase another when games come out that you like.

If you weren't using the thing, it's good that you sold it.

Exactly. He will have no regrets later if he just picks it up when it has the games he wants to play. That's his entire argument and it's a damn good one. Why let something collect dust for 6 months (in his case) if you could just buy it 6 months from now?
 
Oct 19, 2000
17,860
4
81
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
Originally posted by: blurredvision
Originally posted by: Bateluer
People raved about Gears and when I finally had a chance to play it, it was just another shooter with your standard subpar console graphics.

Hahaha. You stick with your $500 video card plus various other PC components to play your standard shooters, and I'll stick with my $350 console to play standard shooters. You could've atleast used the whole kb/mouse arguement that most PC gaming enthusiasts use, but saying a game like Gears has "subpar console graphics" doesn't give you any credibility at all.

Besides, graphics aren't everything. Of course you don't mention anything about the gameplay.

you really sound stupid and so does everyone else when they try to say that you need a $500 graphics card to play the current games.

I built my system in April for $500, yes that is right, $500 and still play all current games at full settings.

Video card was $150, x1950 pro.

You're the one who sounds stupid my friend. I never said you needed a $500 video card to play the current games. The asshat I responded to said that Gears of War had "standard subpar console graphics". GoW has been critically acclaimed over and over for it's graphics, so this would imply that said asshat can only be satisfied by the top-level, high-end graphics on the PC that only a $500+ video card can give (along with a damned powerful CPU, memory, etc) at high resolutions with all the eye-candy and lighting effects enabled.

There are many variables in the whole PC-versus-console graphics debate, with each having it's pros and cons. But for a PC-only gamer to say Gears of War looks "subpar" is akin to a console-only gamer saying that Crysis looks subpar....it's a ludicrous statement either way. Would you not agree?
 

Randum

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2004
2,473
0
76
I have all the systems and two things are fairly evident for the 360 ps3 comparison.

a.) Ps3 does have the most potential, you can try to argue, but we all know, based on whats included with the system ,and where it can go, it does offer some huge advantages for advancement.

b.) The 360 library and the upcoming library is unbeatable at this moment in time.

Honestly, the only thing holding the ps3 in place is the original ps2 fanbase it has, and the blu ray factor. I had an odd circumstance on why I kept mine, but Im not going to lie, my 360 has seen a ton more gametime..... However, warhawk is a great game for the ps3, and the small library I do have, I have beat to death. It has quality titles, but its just a huge dissapointment when you hear " well home will come out later" or "oh updates will come later to fix that.." but a huge kick in the pants is the Xbox Live. Regardless if you use it or not, the small things really add up. No packed Mic for ps3 users...not all games support in game voice chat??
Now its a mud slinging contest, but wait until the dust settles...I am keeping my fingers crossed the ps3 gets its crap together and really puts up a fight because we all lose as a consumer if another console is taken out of the game...
 

VashHT

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2007
3,353
1,434
136
I would have to agree that the ps3 library is pretty weak right now, but warhawk really surprised me with how fun it is. I have a ps3 and a 360 now, and will probably buy cross platform games for my ps3 because my 360 has already died once. for me there are exclusive games I want for each platform.

I could've waited for a ps3 as well but decided to get a 60Gb one with ps2 hardware since I have such a large library of ps1/2 games. The emulation on the ps3 is great for ps1 and ps2 games. Playing on a 37" screen can make ps1 and 2 games look terrible, but the upscaling helps, and the smoothing helps a ton in 2d games.
 

ZYFER

Senior member
Nov 2, 2002
720
5
81
Being an owner of all three latest consoles, I can say each one has its advantages and disadvantages. It is important to remember what each console lacks, and which other can make up for it. As of yet, the PS3 library is not all so impressive. It will get better, guaranteed. The Xbox 360 has some good games as it is, personally though, I am a little disappointed at the RPG offerings, but that is just me. Gears of War was a good game within itself, the world of co-op campaign is a good one, online co-op makes these games so much better. The Wii I would say is the leader in "fun" games. Those type of games that everyone can enjoy and does not require you to throw a whole heap of time into.

The PS3 offers the most potential in expansion, sad though that Sony hasn't been taking advantage of it they way that they should be doing. The Wii offers the most unique gameplay experience, with its control and all the possible add-ons you could make with it, the possibilities seem almost endless. The Xbox 360 has the big library possibilities, with its software very similar to Windows on the PC, it can easily bring in a bigger library. What I would like to see is game ports of older games come in. C&C3 showed it could be done somewhat effectively, use a keyboard and mouse, you could be golden. Imagine your classic games like as Warcraft 2 & 3, Starcraft, previous C&C games, or various shooter types and RPGs of the past PC years brought to life? It seems almost like an untapped market Microsoft didn't consider. This would make their "Arcade" seem like a pointless endeavor.

What all three lack? Divx/Xvid support! All three have the processing power necessary for it, but none of them offer it built-in. Xvid is all about open source, a good many would be overjoyed with this option, something as small as this could even increase sales, something the PS3 is suffering in currently.

Backward compatibility? Sony has done a so-so job, Microsoft has done a very iffy job on theirs, the fact you have to bring a list with you for either console is disappointing if you plan on visiting a Gamestop. The Wii since due to not changing much in the core of their console, has the best success, not unexpected ofcourse.

One thing I tip my hat off to Sony for is including Blu-Ray. Sure this increases the price, but if we factor in Microsoft's add-ins to equivalent it, we end up over the price and taking up more space, I didn't include the wireless adapter either. With it bundled, the PS3 can have all its games in that format, allowing better in-game movies, more complex worlds, and no need to switch discs.

Square-Enix should really have tapped into this. A Final Fantasy Collectors Edition and Dragon Quest Collectiors Edition both would sell greatly. They could alleviate compatibility issues and release a guaranteed to sell PS3 game bundling in all PS2 and previous console and handheld games into a single game disc. Sadly, this would be impossible to do with the 360 due to it being only able to use DVD9 discs. I hope by next time new consoles come out, they will at least have HD DVD/Blu-Ray combo drives. I'd expect by then, the market will shift much closer to that.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: blurredvision
You're the one who sounds stupid my friend. I never said you needed a $500 video card to play the current games. The asshat I responded to said that Gears of War had "standard subpar console graphics". GoW has been critically acclaimed over and over for it's graphics, so this would imply that said asshat can only be satisfied by the top-level, high-end graphics on the PC that only a $500+ video card can give (along with a damned powerful CPU, memory, etc) at high resolutions with all the eye-candy and lighting effects enabled.

There are many variables in the whole PC-versus-console graphics debate, with each having it's pros and cons. But for a PC-only gamer to say Gears of War looks "subpar" is akin to a console-only gamer saying that Crysis looks subpar....it's a ludicrous statement either way. Would you not agree?

Instead of crying so much why don't you go out and buy a PC. GOW uses the U3 engine, nothing that spectacular. I imagine by the time that engine is put to bed there will be hundreds of PC games that used it. And those games not restricted in graphics capability by a console bretheren version will look better on a PC than a console. Or as the xplay peeps said, is it winning all the awards cause its that good - or is it the only thing good enough for people to be playing.


Besides, wake me when UT3 comes out and all the console girls are crying cause they are getting the butts kicked.
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
The backwards compatibility of the PS3 was brought up in here; is that really an issue? I own one, and I have played almost all my ps2 games (around 24 or so) and a couple ps1 games without problems, and I had no clue that there was a confining list. Is this just luck?
 

mlm

Senior member
Feb 19, 2006
933
0
0
Originally posted by: Dumac
The backwards compatibility of the PS3 was brought up in here; is that really an issue? I own one, and I have played almost all my ps2 games (around 24 or so) and a couple ps1 games without problems, and I had no clue that there was a confining list. Is this just luck?

The 60/20GB models have 98-99% BC. The 80GB has less than that, but it's really not as bad as people make it out to be.
 

GrantMeThePower

Platinum Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,923
2
0
Originally posted by: Dumac
The backwards compatibility of the PS3 was brought up in here; is that really an issue? I own one, and I have played almost all my ps2 games (around 24 or so) and a couple ps1 games without problems, and I had no clue that there was a confining list. Is this just luck?

The 60 GB version includes a chip that makes the backwards compatability better, and most of the games are supported, especially the popular ones. Other PS3 versions will use emulation on the cell processor and need more software support so people wont seem as "lucky" at first.
 

randay

Lifer
May 30, 2006
11,018
216
106
yes, because the sony haters would so lay down 600 bucks if only backwards compatibility on the ps3 wasn't so pathetically miserable.
 

ZYFER

Senior member
Nov 2, 2002
720
5
81
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
Originally posted by: Dumac
The backwards compatibility of the PS3 was brought up in here; is that really an issue? I own one, and I have played almost all my ps2 games (around 24 or so) and a couple ps1 games without problems, and I had no clue that there was a confining list. Is this just luck?

The 60 GB version includes a chip that makes the backwards compatability better, and most of the games are supported, especially the popular ones. Other PS3 versions will use emulation on the cell processor and need more software support so people wont seem as "lucky" at first.

It includes the Emotion Engine, the same exact thing that is in the PS2. Unfortunately any game that did not work with the PS2 seems to have issues, also some others as well. Their backward compatibility is better than the 360 though. The 80GB model and the ones in the UK lack the Emotion Engine and rely on software emulation. The issue with the 360 though, if it is not on their list, it won't work at all, no ifs ands or buts. In some cases, it is just a matter of them allowing the game to be playable via an update, there is nothing major to be changed to allow it to work. For the PS3, if you put it in and it works, it works and there you go, no need to be on the list just to work.