This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 3
  3. Do you see PS3 as a failure?

User Info: InuboyNetwork

InuboyNetwork
1 month ago#1
I do. Only because of the fact we didnt get a lot of the games we were promised during the generation. The Last Guardian skipped PS3 entirely. Final Fantasy XV skipped PS3 entirely despite is originally being in development for it. I just feel like we didnt get enough of the great games we needed to put it at the same level as PS2.
Watch as I surpass my own origin!!!

User Info: xOmniCloudx

xOmniCloudx
1 month ago#2
You're considering the PS3, a Sony console a failure for things that have nothing to do with Sony? The 2nd part is pure opinion and you also ignore all the MANY things PS3 can do that PS2 can't do as well as things like graphic and resolution which to some people are REALLY big deals. Regardless, it's always going to be someone's opinion which console is better. Only thing you can't debate is options.

I imagine for most PAL gamers, PS3 was probably the best generation ever. No more s***ty unoptimized 50hz, region free console (first region free console so for importers like myself PS3 was an amazing platform for that alone) even if they did, they actually got most the same games NA and Japan got and didn't have absurd late releases of games up to a year or more later.
This is GameFAQs. People here take great pride in ignoring common sense.

User Info: AndreLeGeant

AndreLeGeant
1 month ago#3
I thought the PS3 proved to be quite a success. I probably bought more games for it than any other system since the SNES. It was the first generation where third person and first person games were "figured out." You didn't see games with really wonky camera controls anymore. Even "bad" games were mostly just uninspired games or a little buggy; there were few disasters. At the same time, development costs hadn't yet skyrocketed to where they are now, so we still saw AA titles released.

My one complaint was the lack of JRPGs compared to the PS2.
"Not only is Andre way smarter than you, he's also way smarter than you think you are." - SaikyoStyle

User Info: xOmniCloudx

xOmniCloudx
1 month ago#4
AndreLeGeant posted...
I thought the PS3 proved to be quite a success. I probably bought more games for it than any other system since the SNES. It was the first generation where third person and first person games were "figured out." You didn't see games with really wonky camera controls anymore. Even "bad" games were mostly just uninspired games or a little buggy; there were few disasters. At the same time, development costs hadn't yet skyrocketed to where they are now, so we still saw AA titles released.

My one complaint was the lack of JRPGs compared to the PS2.


Preach about the camera controls. Those were a mess since 3D gaming started but that had noting to do with Sony. Game design itself just evolved. Online and patches were also a huge game changer, especially in regards to playing with so many of my friends as we became adults and couldn't really get together as much. Not to mention, all the amazing people I met online and became friends with.

The only major genre that really got nuked last gen was JRPGs as you said since the devs just couldn't keep up at the time and also struggled to evolve with the industry. I do hate how so many games were dumbed down for a mainstream audience and where originality and innovation was starting to noticeably drop, especially in regards to the shooter genre.

PS3 also started off being able to play PS1 and PS2 games natively (which it did poorly at first until patches) and while it lost PS2 native BC, it later providing them digitally (along with PS1 games) was a great option.

All in all, PS3 gave a greater experience than PS2 did to me though PS2 had more games I was interested in playing. However, PS2 also had a lot of middle of the road games that while interesting, weren't necessary. PS3 had more games that wowed me. They're pretty close all things considered. I still prefer PS1 over both though.
This is GameFAQs. People here take great pride in ignoring common sense.

User Info: AndreLeGeant

AndreLeGeant
1 month ago#5
I think access to PS1 and 2 games on the PS3 was quite good all things considered. Losing BC sucked, but digital access was a nice plus. I also enjoyed the HD remasters, as SD looks pretty awful on a HDTV.

Free online was great, too.

I think it was toward the end of the PS3 gen we really saw the greater homogenization of games that we have been stuck with this gen.
"Not only is Andre way smarter than you, he's also way smarter than you think you are." - SaikyoStyle

User Info: xOmniCloudx

xOmniCloudx
1 month ago#6
Ah yes, HD remasters actually had a point then. Now most are just cash grabs. Let's HD remaster something already in HD. That'll be $40-60.
This is GameFAQs. People here take great pride in ignoring common sense.

User Info: AndreLeGeant

AndreLeGeant
1 month ago#7
I mean a good emulator can negate the need for the HD remaster, too, but PS3 wasn’t able to do that IMO.
"Not only is Andre way smarter than you, he's also way smarter than you think you are." - SaikyoStyle

User Info: Drethrake

Drethrake
1 month ago#8
You can't blame FF15 for hitting PS4 instead of 3. It's because of the Development Hell it was put through. It would have been a failure if it was released on the PS3 and not PS4. Besides, by the time they were done, the game was much too powerful to run on the PS3 properly. And they'd have to downgrade the game.

Last Guardian also had a long cycle. By the time they were done, PS4 was the smarter option to make the most money.

Square did not want FF15 to be FF9. FF9 came out around the time the PS2 launched and it was shadowed by the might of the PS2, despite FF9 being one of the greatest JRPGs of all time on the PS1 (In my Personal Opinion).

~~~~~

In terms of Hardware, the PS3 did everything it needed to do to put PS2 into the dust in terms of performance and gaming quality. The PS2 wouldn't have been able to run Uncharted, or The Last of Us, or Black Ops 1-2, etc.

It also had an online feature, but this time it hooked up wirelessly via Wifi which was pretty neat. Online was free for multiplayer, so you didn't need PS+ for a vast majority of games. That was also a step in the right direction for me.

The PS3 continued to prove it was the multimedia powerhouse compared to the 360. Like the PS1 could play Music CDs, like the PS2 could Play music CDs, AND DVDs, the PS3 could run CDs, DVDs, AND Bluray Movies. At the time of its launch, the PS3 was the cheaper option if you wanted a Bluray Player as well as everything else the system offered.

The one disappointment I had/have with the PS3 Post Launch models is that it does not play your PS2 hardcopies.

Then again, neither does the PS4 run your PS2 or PS3 games. Backwards compatibility after the PS2 kinda tanked with Sony's consoles.

The One can run 360, and I think it also runs OG Xbox games, too. Backwards compatibility is a great thing, because the previous generation could have an AMAZING library of games, and if your out-dated console doesn't work anymore, you can't enjoy what you paid for. You pay for the next gen console, it SHOULD offer the previous gen's goodies. But it's whatever.

I bought more PS3 games than any other console. But then again I was also old enough to afford them by the time I was playing PS3. There are a BUNCH of PS2 games I would love to add to my collection, but many of them are so expensive nowadays due to rarity. The library for the PS3 is smaller than the PS2, granted. But keep in mind the PS2 was and I think still is the best selling console ever made. Didn't it also have a larger library than the Gameboy?

The PS3 was an incredible success, with only a few minor setbacks preventing it from being a fantastic console. The PS4 is just the natural progression of things. As games get stronger, you need stronger goodies to run them. And if they release on both previous and current gen. The previous might be downgraded.

A prime example of this is Shadow of Mordor. The PS3 port compared to the PS4 port shows exactly the limitations of the system, (or just downright intentional downgrading to get you to buy the new console). But other examples include Black Flag (minor graphical details are omitted in PS3 port), Inquisition, and more.

In my Opinion, while the PS4 is the better machine, I feel it's less of a success than the PS3 was. It took a step backwards with the PS+ online play feature. I feel that was not the best of ideas, but that wasn't my decision to make. I never had + on my PS3 because there are many months when I don't want/can't pay for the subscription. And if I don't have it, I lose access to alot of goodies.

I dunno, I just feel like if you buy a game, you should have access to everything the game offers, including the online content that was created for that game without having to pay EXTRA for + to access it.

Personal Taste: PS3 >/= PS2 > PS1 > PS4 IMO.

Library Wise - PS2 > PS1 > PS3 > PS4
I'm a Writer and also a Gamer.
(edited 1 month ago)

User Info: xOmniCloudx

xOmniCloudx
1 month ago#9
AndreLeGeant posted...
I mean a good emulator can negate the need for the HD remaster, too, but PS3 wasn’t able to do that IMO.


Even today PS2 emulation is far from perfect even on a top rig PC. Sony was still figuring out PS2 emulation throughout the PS3's life and understandably it was far from a main priority so it's nice that we got it at all given how complex it was to do on the PS3. However, it's criminal how basic the PS1 emulation was on PS3. PS1 games should have looked a lot better and been allowed to do more things.
This is GameFAQs. People here take great pride in ignoring common sense.

User Info: AndreLeGeant

AndreLeGeant
1 month ago#10
xOmniCloudx posted...
AndreLeGeant posted...
I mean a good emulator can negate the need for the HD remaster, too, but PS3 wasn’t able to do that IMO.


Even today PS2 emulation is far from perfect even on a top rig PC. Sony was still figuring out PS2 emulation throughout the PS3's life and understandably it was far from a main priority so it's nice that we got it at all given how complex it was to do on the PS3. However, it's criminal how basic the PS1 emulation was on PS3. PS1 games should have looked a lot better and been allowed to do more things.

PS2 emulation is quite mature at this point. Very few games have issues now, even on a less than stellar CPU. That said, some major games like GTA San Andreas are unplayable because of graphical issues, so it's not perfect at all. But for a PS3, pretty difficult to achieve via emulation, so HD remasters really were a better plan for many games to look good in HD.

I agree about PS1.

I think the PS4 just feels like a PS3 with a boost in performance. It didn't bring anything to the table in gameplay improvements.
"Not only is Andre way smarter than you, he's also way smarter than you think you are." - SaikyoStyle
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 3
  3. Do you see PS3 as a failure?