PS1 vs PS2 vs PS3 vs PS4

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Here's one for you...

With four highly successful consoles under Sony's belt, and with the PS4 doing just as well as its predecessors, which generation of Playstation do you think was the best for its time, taking into consideration the factors at the time of release. You can use any criteria you like, not just sales figures (such as greatest impact on gaming, greatest legacy, best games - anything you want).

What is everyone's take?

For its time? As in 'back when' probably the PS2. Huge library, with some very strong games in every genre, and lots of 3rd party support. Having said that I think some of the games probably haven't aged as well as we'd all like to think they have.

PS3 was also very strong, but didn't have many standout games that weren't also on every other console and graphing calculator.

PS4, as with the Xbone, I'm on record believing were out and out scams, sold on a hotbed of lies, false promises and backpeddling, and only a complete apology for this new Gen and free backwards compatibility will make up for it. Having said that, all the lies aside, some current era games are pretty good. But not one of them couldn't have been on a PS3 with a software update.

PS1 I've completely forgotten about...

Tricky question.

PS1 was a solid platform with some amazing games for it's time (which for the most part haven't aged well at all)

PS2 had an extensive library and pretty much every game i played worked well without any running issues

PS3 had lots of technical issues with 3rd party games which made it a worse option than xbox 360, despite the 360 breaking with any real usage.

PS4 is solid enough but it lacks any real competition and some of the game loading times are plain insulting.

So it's really a question of PS1 or PS2 for me. I'll pick PS1 because at the time it was amazing and it had the platinum range of games dragging down the cost of gaming for the masses. The PS2 is a very close second.

Silentpony:

PS1 I've completely forgotten about...

I'd argue the PS1 had the more diverse library of games than the PS2 because the PS1 covered games from both 2D Sprite Era and Polygonal 3D Era.

Samtemdo8:

Silentpony:

PS1 I've completely forgotten about...

I'd argue the PS1 had the more diverse library of games than the PS2 because the PS1 covered games from both 2D Sprite Era and Polygonal 3D Era.

I guess maybe a larger library, sure, but a lot of Sprite games bled together. Larger, certainly, but more diverse? That I'm a little less sure on. I mean like Atari had a huge library, 90% of which were space shooters.

'Legacy' is a bit of non-issue when you're talking about the same series of consoles. It's objectively the first one, you can't really answer it any other way as each proceeding console is a symptom of the original's legacy.

Avoiding that, however, I've fed each of them to each of my cubs and whomever lives the longest from that point is the winner. Unfortunately my plan failed as they all seem to have died whilst I was off in the toilet. That was much faster than expected. And I cannot be arsed to make more of the needy bastards. So either all of them won or all of them lost.
For now, am going with the only one currently entertaining and surprising me; the pisspoor...because I live in the moment...man. (Not a conscious choice).

PS2. Not just because of the huge library but also because of the ease of use. The old days when consoles had the advantage over PC's because they're easier to use is pretty much gone. Back in the PS2 era all you had to do is pop the disc in and start the game. So that coupled with the library of games at the time is why PS2 is still the king of consoles IMO.

I'm going to have to say PS2 still reigns as best PlayStation. The quality and diversity of that library is still amazing. It was the time after the rather bumpy road into 3D (PS1), remember when Syphon Filter was thought as being good? It was also the time before AAA got so homogeneous that every game had to sell millions upon millions and just about everything somewhat popular became copied ad nauseam from all shooters being MMSs to Open World: The Game to Batman Arkham combat that even found its way into Uncharted. We are just now starting to recover from the sameness of AAA gaming in the AAA landscape itself along with a bunch of mid-tier devs making really great games like the Divinity Original Sins or Shadow Tactics and many more. What, to me, has made the PS4 gen way better than PS3 is that just about any PC game that you'd expect to be on just PC is on PS4 too whether it's the aforementioned games or stuff like Cities Skylines to The Sexy Brutale and so many more. The 1st few years of PS4 was still last-gen bleeding in with basically its complete stagnation so it's not nearly up there with PS2.

So to rate the systems by game libraries it would be...
PS2 >>> PS4 > PS1 >>>>> PS3

Hardware-wise (ignoring just plain power and specs) I think PS1 would be the worst as it was just designed to play games. PS2 was amazing at the time for being a DVD player, which was my DVD player for years along with my primary console. PS3 suffers from being the 1st gen of consoles getting PC features like hard drives and patches and it obviously stumbled pretty hard out of the gate with game updates not being able to be done in the background (so very annoying). Also, the reason both PS3 and 360 had major hardware issues is because they weren't allowed to use lead solder. However, the PS3 was a cheap and good blu-ray player much like the PS2 with DVDs and the PS3 has an amazing MP3 player of the sound quality of something you'd expect from Cowon / jetAudio while the PS4's music player sucks ass. Thus, PS3 had some greatness in features while also being marred by major failures. PS4 fixed all of last-gen's issues with the transition to basically a PC-in-a-box along with the hardware issues. PS4's ability to capture game footage is really awesome.

So to rate the systems by hardware (for their time), it would be...
PS2 > PS4 > PS3 >>> PS1

PS2

Adam Jensen:
The old days when consoles had the advantage over PC's because they're easier to use is pretty much gone.

PS4 fixed all those issues, you just pop in the disc and you're playing within minutes after the short "initial" install as the rest of the game installs as you play. Updates download and install basically transparently without you even knowing it quite often. There's a reason consoles are still selling like hotcakes without a mass conversion to PC gaming. You don't have to worry about specs or the game not running similar to the Arkham Knight scenario (which is a rarity but still can happen). Plus, just about every PC game that would normally be a PC exclusive is on PS4 so there's even less reason to play games on a PC than ever before honestly. Also, remember the PC just got freaking refunds this gen and convenient controller support also very recently, I remember having to download Japanese drivers to use a DualShock3 on my PC last-gen. Now, I can just plug in a PS4 controller for Divinity Original Sin and it works, that's a very new development for PC gaming. I bought Divinity on PC because that was a type of game that I completely didn't expect to get a console release. Both platforms are basically moving squarely towards each other. "The times, they are a-changing."

This might have been difficult to answer if you could only play PS1 games on a PS1. Since the PS2 had a legendary and huge library and was fully backwards compatible, it's the PS2, hands down. 3 and 4 don't even show up on the radar.

Too early to tell since this generation isn't over yet, but two was pretty much king of the hill that built on the original's steam, three was the tooth-and-nail come from behind underdog generation where free online and some killer exclusives saved them, and four so far looks like a return to two's glory.

The thing is we've still only had a handful of exclusives, which have all been great but something tells me we've yet to see the best the system has to offer.

60GB launch PS3 since you get flawless PS1 and PS2 emulation with the PS3 library.

Silentpony:
For its time? As in 'back when' probably the PS2. Huge library, with some very strong games in every genre, and lots of 3rd party support. Having said that I think some of the games probably haven't aged as well as we'd all like to think they have.

PS3 was also very strong, but didn't have many standout games that weren't also on every other console and graphing calculator.

PS4, as with the Xbone, I'm on record believing were out and out scams, sold on a hotbed of lies, false promises and backpeddling, and only a complete apology for this new Gen and free backwards compatibility will make up for it. Having said that, all the lies aside, some current era games are pretty good. But not one of them couldn't have been on a PS3 with a software update.

PS1 I've completely forgotten about...

Uncharted 4/Lost Legacy both had maps far larger than any of the PS3 games, and used real time cutscenes vs pre-rendered that masked load times of very linear levels on PS3.

Horizon Zero Dawn is far beyond what could've been done on PS3. At the very least they would have had to cut corners to the point of making a square a circle. It would've been like how God of War1/2 faked the titans' sense of scale vs how 3 made them fully rendered character models. Between the expansive map, dynamic destruction, and the detail involved in making those machines, Horizon is probably the most technically impressive game yet this generation.

Leg End:
60GB launch PS3 since you get flawless PS1 and PS2 emulation with the PS3 library.

That's not emulation, since the PS2 chips were built onto the motherboard.

The PS3 was too compact, which added to the failure rate. I wish consoles were bigger now, for proper airflow. They're so loud. The fan has to run so fast. With the slim PS2, it wasn't a problem, since it didn't run that hot.

PS1 was amazing. PS4 haz no games and just remasters old games.

Dare I say it, pretty much every PlayStation console was great for its time, especially the PS1 and the PS2 with their ginormous library of games.

PS2 will always be my favorite PlayStation - and my favorite console, for that matter.

This is a very interesting question.

In terms of raw game value, or in other words, in terms of which generation had flat out more great games, I'd have to say playstation 2. That system had a huge library of great games in literally every single genre with the possible exception of RTS as those games were almost strictly PC at the time.

However, it is hard to deny the HUGE step in the video game medium that the Playstation 1 provided. Because that was the first system to be fully supported by developers and publishers that used CD based media. Which means that system is the first system to truly experiment with having HUGE games. Because unlike with cartridges, CDs allowed games to cross through multiple disks, with huge worlds, huge stories, and more complex gameplay and graphics. Top that off with the playstation having a fantastic library as well. You could really argue that the first Playstation was the best system of all time, simply because of the step up in game design, size, quality, and variety.

As for the PS3 and 4? Well these systems haven't done shit to expand and innovate in any positive ways imo. Sure graphics are better, and multiplayer is better. They've also come with far more negatives than ever before, IE. Lootboxes, paid online services, buggy game releases to be patched later, etc. Now both these systems have some of the best games EVER made, the ratio of shit games to fantastic games is wider imo.

hanselthecaretaker:

Silentpony:
For its time? As in 'back when' probably the PS2. Huge library, with some very strong games in every genre, and lots of 3rd party support. Having said that I think some of the games probably haven't aged as well as we'd all like to think they have.

PS3 was also very strong, but didn't have many standout games that weren't also on every other console and graphing calculator.

PS4, as with the Xbone, I'm on record believing were out and out scams, sold on a hotbed of lies, false promises and backpeddling, and only a complete apology for this new Gen and free backwards compatibility will make up for it. Having said that, all the lies aside, some current era games are pretty good. But not one of them couldn't have been on a PS3 with a software update.

PS1 I've completely forgotten about...

Uncharted 4/Lost Legacy both had maps far larger than any of the PS3 games, and used real time cutscenes vs pre-rendered that masked load times of very linear levels on PS3.

Horizon Zero Dawn is far beyond what could?ve been done on PS3. At the very least they would have had to cut corners to the point of making a square a circle. It would?ve been like how God of War1/2 faked the titans? sense of scale vs how 3 made them fully rendered character models. Between the expansive map, dynamic destruction, and the detail involved in making those machines, Horizon is probably the most technically impressive game yet this generation.

Bull. Uncharted 4s map was as big as Just Cause 2's map, no bigger.
And yeah, HZD had big monsters. So did Shadow of War and Shadow of the Colossus. And Horizon isn't even the most impressive game, graphics wise. That still goes to the phenomenally boring Order: 1886

I have not played a Playstation console since the PS2 so I'm going with that one. There are a couple of games I've wanted to play on the PS3 and 4, but not enough to make me want to spend the money on the console and now I can't afford it anyway.

Silentpony:
Bull. Uncharted 4s map was as big as Just Cause 2's map, no bigger.
And yeah, HZD had big monsters. So did Shadow of War and Shadow of the Colossus. And Horizon isn't even the most impressive game, graphics wise. That still goes to the phenomenally boring Order: 1886

To say the PS4 and Xbone were sold on a hotbed of lies is such an exaggeration. The 1st PS4 game I played was Watch Dogs and to get PS3 Uncharted-level graphics (probably even better than Uncharted) in an open world game is quite a leap forward. Do you not recall the gimped last-gen versions of Watch Dogs, Shadow of Mordor, and Dragon Age? We're going to get smaller (less noticeable) jumps forward in graphics because we're at the point of diminishing returns. The Order may have the most polygons per square inch or something like that but on other technical levels, I'm guessing it doesn't do much because there's very little dynamics going in such small and static levels. The biggest "jump" with regards to what these new systems can do is that consoles finally got some RAM; devs had to work with 256MB (MEGABYTES!!!) on the PS3. Also moving to an x86 architecture along with the RAM is probably the main reason PS4 has gotten so many PC games that consoles have never gotten in the past. The fact that I can play just about any PC game that would've been a PC-only game on PS4 is pretty awesome, not what Sony advertised but still quite awesome. PC gamers should be more disappointed in graphics than anyone because where's today's Crysis that pushes PC hardware and graphics? Pretty much all the PC exclusive games aren't close to the graphics you'd find in a PS4 exclusive game and PC gamers are just left with playing console games at higher resolutions and framerates while a PC without a video card could probably run most of PC's best exclusives (for example, I play Divinity Original Sin without a video card). Lastly, if you're complaining about gameplay not changing much, that's to blame on the developers as it's kinda hard to blame the hardware manufacturer for shitty software. And, again, some of the best gameplay of this gen hasn't required the forward push in graphics because gameplay isn't really dependent on graphics.

Silentpony:

hanselthecaretaker:

Silentpony:
For its time? As in 'back when' probably the PS2. Huge library, with some very strong games in every genre, and lots of 3rd party support. Having said that I think some of the games probably haven't aged as well as we'd all like to think they have.

PS3 was also very strong, but didn't have many standout games that weren't also on every other console and graphing calculator.

PS4, as with the Xbone, I'm on record believing were out and out scams, sold on a hotbed of lies, false promises and backpeddling, and only a complete apology for this new Gen and free backwards compatibility will make up for it. Having said that, all the lies aside, some current era games are pretty good. But not one of them couldn't have been on a PS3 with a software update.

PS1 I've completely forgotten about...

Uncharted 4/Lost Legacy both had maps far larger than any of the PS3 games, and used real time cutscenes vs pre-rendered that masked load times of very linear levels on PS3.

Horizon Zero Dawn is far beyond what could?ve been done on PS3. At the very least they would have had to cut corners to the point of making a square a circle. It would?ve been like how God of War1/2 faked the titans? sense of scale vs how 3 made them fully rendered character models. Between the expansive map, dynamic destruction, and the detail involved in making those machines, Horizon is probably the most technically impressive game yet this generation.

Bull. Uncharted 4s map was as big as Just Cause 2's map, no bigger.
And yeah, HZD had big monsters. So did Shadow of War and Shadow of the Colossus. And Horizon isn't even the most impressive game, graphics wise. That still goes to the phenomenally boring Order: 1886

That's really generalizing things though. We might as well say the console versions of Crysis were the same as the PC version.

What was the last game that really push boundaries or legitimized the need for newer hardware in your opinion, just curious?

hanselthecaretaker:

What was the last game that really push boundaries or legitimized the need for newer hardware in your opinion, just curious?

None. Not a single console game I have or have seen has justified the new hardware. I have Bloodborne, Doom, DA: Inquisition, the Sexy Brutale, Borderlands Collection, TitanFall 2, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Horizon Zero Dawn, Little Nightmares and the Bioshock collection.
Half of those are on the old gen consoles already, and the other half look exactly like the should be.
I can't tell the difference grpahics, FPS or gameplay wise between Shadow of Mordor and Horizon Zero dawn. Skyrim looks just as visually stunning and glistening as Doom ever did. Titanfall 2 can't hold a candle to Halo Reach, either in story, gameplay, AI path-finding(And halo is notoriously bad) or graphics. Wildlands is fun, but the graphics aren't any better than Just Cause 2.

Phoenixmgs:
SNIP

Oh please. Remember all the mandatory gimmicks and addons that suddenly were no longer mandatory after launch? Remember all the gameplay trailers about how much the new consoles utilized the new hardware, only to find out those were the PC versions and the consoles were no better than the PS3 era.
Or what about the improved gameplay and new IPs? Only to have tired retreads, needless sequels and more remakes than JJ Abrams' studio! I mean Horizon Zero Dawn is arguably the most original IP out there, and its just any other Sand Box with the Dinobots scattered about.

Silentpony:
Oh please. Remember all the mandatory gimmicks and addons that suddenly were no longer mandatory after launch? Remember all the gameplay trailers about how much the new consoles utilized the new hardware, only to find out those were the PC versions and the consoles were no better than the PS3 era.
Or what about the improved gameplay and new IPs? Only to have tired retreads, needless sequels and more remakes than JJ Abrams' studio! I mean Horizon Zero Dawn is arguably the most original IP out there, and its just any other Sand Box with the Dinobots scattered about.

What gimmicks and add-ons? The Xbone had the stupid Kinect and the TV stuff but everyone knew that stuff was dumb; it can do everything your Smart-TV already does!!! Although the HDMI-in can be pretty useful. Sony just advertised the PS4 as nothing but a system that plays games, it couldn't even play a MP3 on release in fact. What gameplay enhancing gimmicks and add-ons were advertised (outside the Kinect that was already a 360 add-on)? Nintendo is the one that pushes gameplay gimmicks to the detriment of gameplay.

What games required the power of last-gen systems? Shooter controls did get massively better as good FPSs or TPSs were about once in a blue moon (probably ever rarer) on PS2/Xbox/GC but new hardware wasn't required for that. Then, all we got for PS3/360 were boring ass MMSs. Something like Bayonetta was obviously done on earlier hardware ala DMC. The better hardware of PS3/360 allowed for better open worlds, but is that really a good thing considering how awful most open world games are while ruining many good games that depend on good level design, which goes to shit in open worlds. PS3/360 was easily the worst gen in gaming with seeing games becoming so homogeneous (MMSs, cover TPSs, Arkham combat, open worlds) that many genres basically disappeared as every publisher was trying pull in literally every gamer with every game. PS4 easily has a better library than PS3 and it's not even close. Current-gen hardware has allowed much better open worlds with actual density instead of barren wastelands. The fidelity and density seen in Horizon's world is just not close to possible on PS3. Sure, the gameplay of Horizon could be done on PS3 but you can make that argument against PS3 games too. New IPs are always riskier, thus in lower numbers than sequels and that will always be the case.

Silentpony:

hanselthecaretaker:

What was the last game that really push boundaries or legitimized the need for newer hardware in your opinion, just curious?

None. Not a single console game I have or have seen has justified the new hardware. I have Bloodborne, Doom, DA: Inquisition, the Sexy Brutale, Borderlands Collection, TitanFall 2, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Horizon Zero Dawn, Little Nightmares and the Bioshock collection.
Half of those are on the old gen consoles already, and the other half look exactly like the should be.
I can't tell the difference grpahics, FPS or gameplay wise between Shadow of Mordor and Horizon Zero dawn. Skyrim looks just as visually stunning and glistening as Doom ever did. Titanfall 2 can't hold a candle to Halo Reach, either in story, gameplay, AI path-finding(And halo is notoriously bad) or graphics. Wildlands is fun, but the graphics aren't any better than Just Cause 2.

Phoenixmgs:
SNIP

Oh please. Remember all the mandatory gimmicks and addons that suddenly were no longer mandatory after launch? Remember all the gameplay trailers about how much the new consoles utilized the new hardware, only to find out those were the PC versions and the consoles were no better than the PS3 era.
Or what about the improved gameplay and new IPs? Only to have tired retreads, needless sequels and more remakes than JJ Abrams' studio! I mean Horizon Zero Dawn is arguably the most original IP out there, and its just any other Sand Box with the Dinobots scattered about.

It is simply foolish or short sighted to think that current gen games would look or play as good if they were all on last gen hardware. Any developer who read the above would not know what to make of it. For example there is even a significant difference between Dark Souls 1 on PS3 and Dark Souls 2: SotFS on PS4, and that was based on last gen hardware. The textures are unmistakably sharper, and they're only up-res'd AFAIK.

All you have to do is look up some of Naughty Dog's tech documents for UC4 and compare Nate's PS4 character model to what it was on PS3. Hell even the collection had a significant visual upgrade.

hanselthecaretaker:

And is that change worth $400 to you, 'cause it sure as shit isn't to me! That's they type of change worth about $60 for a single new title on the current system, not an entirely new system with little-to-no backwards compatibility plus the price of the game itself.
And for this I'm assuming you got the game for free, and didn't actually spend $399.99 and $59.99 all plus tax for that

Phoenixmgs:
Sony just advertised the PS4 as nothing but a system that plays games, it couldn't even play a MP3 on release in fact. What gameplay enhancing gimmicks and add-ons were advertised .

apparently this deserves a thunderous applause.

image

Silentpony:

hanselthecaretaker:

And is that change worth $400 to you, 'cause it sure as shit isn't to me! That's they type of change worth about $60 for a single new title on the current system, not an entirely new system with little-to-no backwards compatibility plus the price of the game itself.
And for this I'm assuming you got the game for free, and didn't actually spend $399.99 and $59.99 all plus tax for that

I don't even have that, and I only paid $250 for my PS4 with UC4 a year ago. Still worth it though, as I recently discovered I'd be paying nearly double that for just a graphics card these days - that launched at the same price originally - (thanks cryptomining!) just to play The Witcher 3 at higher settings than what's on PS4. That's not worth it either, even though I'd still rather wait it out because I'd rather play it on PC.

What would make it "worth it" to you, considering you still bought into the current gen regardless? What made 7th gen "worth it" over 6th gen while we're at it, considering it was mostly just a sub-HD upgrade? We still had 3D GTA's and other sandbox type games, etc.

Interesting...If we're talking graphical capabilities, the PS3 and PS4 are not far off in all honesty. Although as someone who spent the past 2 years collecting PS3 games and seeing most of what it has to offer, I can't say that it is better than my few months old PS4. Not even graphically. Sure, I have a ton of last gen games on both platforms and can see what you mean by it not being much a difference (Persona 5, Dishonored, The Last of Us) but I do not think that these rereleases never intended to satisfy someone looking for a significant graphical upgrade anyway. I think it is about preservation and accessibility. The 7th gen of consoles did not consider preservability since it relied on gimmicks, patches, and needless install data to make a game work properly. When it comes to the plug n' play aspect of playing old games, the PS4 comes close to achieving what the PS2/PS1 did. Now not only are there better versions of the same games but the exclusivity of a PS3 is kinda stripped down by the current PS4 library. Aside from Sly Cooper 4, Infamous 1&2, some Ratchet and Clanks, and obscure titles like Nier, I do not see a need for what is arguably the most mediocre of Playstations

Now niether of those 2 compete with the PS2 or PS1 imo, though the PS4 is getting there.
If I had to say which system was best for its time, I'd have to go with the PS1. The PS2 is definitely the better system by a long shot, but I think that the Gamecube and Xbox were also pretty good competition at the time. Now the PS1? That system was fucking awesome not only for being the cheaper option compared to Sega Saturn and N64, but for providing so much originality in each genre it excelled in. The N64 was better at providing those collect-a-thon 3D platformers but was no match for all of the other genres the PS1 had to offer. Shmups, RPGs, survival-horror, stealth, platformers, fighters - you name it, the PS1 had it. I'll agree that plenty of these games did not age well at all, but the ones that did have masterful pixel art and music. Plenty of companies left Nintendo to continue their series on PS1 also sooooo yeah the PS1 undeniably won for the best of its time.

Its all about the games people, not the graphics :)

Silentpony:

hanselthecaretaker:

And is that change worth $400 to you, 'cause it sure as shit isn't to me! That's they type of change worth about $60 for a single new title on the current system, not an entirely new system with little-to-no backwards compatibility plus the price of the game itself.
And for this I'm assuming you got the game for free, and didn't actually spend $399.99 and $59.99 all plus tax for that

The main point of new consoles of any gen is basically you can play all the new games for 5+ years. If you still had last-gen consoles, you couldn't play really any of the new games regardless if they could be done on that hardware. Even then some stuff does have to be rather gimped to work on PS3/360 as shown by the early games this gen that released on last-gen systems. Outside of the jump to 3D, there's not much gameplay evolution that occurs due to hardware itself as most gameplay innovations come from the indie scene. Games looking better is an aspect lots of people do care about. Most games, even today, could be done on PS2 hardware with the graphics turned down a lot but is that really acceptable to most gamers even if they aren't graphic whores. I remember when a hand having fingers was great graphics on PS2. I want better looking games than that even if the gameplay could be done on PS2.

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
Sony just advertised the PS4 as nothing but a system that plays games, it couldn't even play a MP3 on release in fact. What gameplay enhancing gimmicks and add-ons were advertised .

apparently this deserves a thunderous applause.

image

I know you just live in Nintendo Land, but that was just Sony mocking Microsoft about the online DRM bullshit they tried to pull.

hanselthecaretaker:
SNIP

First off I didn't buy my PS4, it was a gift. Second I didn't buy my Xbox 360, it was left by my roomate who didn't want it.
And I'm not arguing that new gen consoles aren't for upgrades, they most certainly are, but they're for noticeable, actual upgrades.
Check it:



That change up? $200 on launch, Mario 64 is free.

Compared to yours


That change up was $460+
Which do you think was the better deal?

Since you're wondering, the first. Also since you asked what I think would have been worth $460+ for next gen, how about full VR. Like a .Hack// game. And no, not a shitty RPG .Hack//, an actual fully realized virtual reality world, indistinguishable from the Holodeck or Matrix. What's that new movie, Player 1? Yeah, that. What they have in that movie, the fully realized virtual world with sight, sound, touch, smell, etc...
THAT is worth almost $500 a person and worth the change over. Putting dirt and dimming the lights on Nathan Drake? I wouldn't even pay $20 for that.

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
Sony just advertised the PS4 as nothing but a system that plays games, it couldn't even play a MP3 on release in fact. What gameplay enhancing gimmicks and add-ons were advertised .

apparently this deserves a thunderous applause.

image

I know you just live in Nintendo Land, but that was just Sony mocking Microsoft about the online DRM bullshit they tried to pull.

This thread is about Sony. not Nintendo.

and regardless, it's still a pretty stupid thing to be applauded for when being able to play used games is one of the most basic things you can do with a video game system.

Even if Sony were just mocking Microsoft, the fact that a giant corporation like Sony feels that in order to gain sales, they need to mock their competitors on one of the biggest stages in the industry, is pretty childish of them.

Silentpony:

You originally stated you didn't seen any difference in 7th gen>8th gen graphics, and I pointed out the most basic remaster example of how that is false. The differences are only more prominent on actual 8th gen titles.

Mario 64 wasn't free for me at the time, either. I only was able to find an N64 console through Sears @ $250 and then it was weeks later that I finally got Mario 64 separately for $70. I also paid less for a PS4 bundled with UC4 over 20 years later and yeah, driving around a highly detailed Africa in a highly detailed jeep was worth it over the on-rails linear auto-driving chase sequences from the PS3 games. Having real time cutscenes with in-game character models more detailed than what they had to pre-render on PS3 is worth it. Not having to wait for games to update before you can start playing, having a sleep mode to pick up right where you left off on resume, being able to take .PNG screenshots, record gameplay, using the OS without having to close a game, all worth it.

"Indistinguishable from the Matrix" level VR is also a hell of a lot bigger jump than 2D Mario to 3D Mario. Sure I'd like it too, but let's be realistic; they're still messing around with goggles and wands, so an affordable memory foam VR bed complete with sensory hookups isn't really in the near future.

Silentpony:
And I'm not arguing that new gen consoles aren't for upgrades, they most certainly are, but they're for noticeable, actual upgrades.
Check it:



That change up? $200 on launch, Mario 64 is free.

Since you're wondering, the first. Also since you asked what I think would have been worth $460+ for next gen, how about full VR. Like a .Hack// game. And no, not a shitty RPG .Hack//, an actual fully realized virtual reality world, indistinguishable from the Holodeck or Matrix. What's that new movie, Player 1? Yeah, that. What they have in that movie, the fully realized virtual world with sight, sound, touch, smell, etc...
THAT is worth almost $500 a person and worth the change over. Putting dirt and dimming the lights on Nathan Drake? I wouldn't even pay $20 for that.

Again, at what other console gen was there an equivalent leap in gameplay from 2D to 3D? An open world game at a greater graphical fidelity than Uncharted on PS3 is quite a leap forward in graphics. Is Super Mario Odyssey anymore than a better looking and bigger Super Mario 64?

VR isn't ready at all to be the standard interface for gaming as seen by current VR. Building a console exclusively around a totally new interface technology is a horrible idea as you won't get dev support and your system will miss out on all just about all the games that use the standard interface method (as seen by the Wii). Even if this generation was fully VR in a perfect world, what would then make the next-gen worth it, hook into the game like the Matrix?

Yoshi178:
This thread is about Sony. not Nintendo.

and regardless, it's still a pretty stupid thing to be applauded for when being able to play used games is one of the most basic things you can do with a video game system.

Even if Sony were just mocking Microsoft, the fact that a giant corporation like Sony feels that in order to gain sales, they need to mock their competitors on one of the biggest stages in the industry, is pretty childish of them.

Did you not remember why Sony was able to say the PS4 supports used games? Everyone cheering was doing it in a mocking manner due to Microsoft's disaster that was the Xbox One before they finally reneged on their DRM. Microsoft deserved the mocking as don't you remember their insulting marketing campaign that insulted customers. It's really Microsoft's fault for being so goddamn stupid and arrogant that a competitor can advertise basic features in a mocking manner.
image

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here