Ben-DutkaIt looks like Sony might be on the cusp of discontinuing PlayStation 3 for good . It's not official or anything but we're probably nearing the end.
The question is, will PS3 go down in history as the least impressive PlayStation console ever?
Personally, I don't think any PlayStation era was "bad" or even "mediocre;" I think they were all pretty great. However, I think PS3 is the one PlayStation console that suffered through the most backlash, the most vitriol-laden hate articles (especially at the start), and ultimately didn't win over the gaming community until at least three years into its reign. As such, I think it's inevitable that if we are to rank the PlayStation home machines after the current generation is over, PS3 will be at the bottom of the list for most.
The original was iconic and revolutionary in a dozen different ways. It gave us some of the most legendary IPs in gaming history and helped to pioneer 3D gaming. It burst onto the scene and magically stole a ton of momentum away from Nintendo and Sega, two companies that had dominated the console industry for nearly a decade. PS2 was a beast of a machine, eventually dominating a generation like no other console in history and rightfully so. You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who has a lot of bad things to say about that unit.
And PS4 has been on the right foot from the moment it was announced. Granted, it hasn't exactly come with the awesome exclusives just yet, but that's about the only category in which it's currently lacking (and we all know the heaviest exclusives have yet to come). PS3 introduced us to the likes of Uncharted , sure, but I think there was too much darkness surrounding it. It had unquestionably the worst launch of all four consoles, what with a very limited selection of games (and only one great title) and a stupid $600 price tag.
Yeah, I think PS3, as much I liked the console, will ultimately be at the bottom of the PlayStation heap.
I mean heck. I couldn't even play fighting games online on PS2. For me PS3 saved my major interest in the genre.
I bought and played more PS3 games, as well, but it definitely was due to being a poor university student most of the PS2 lifespan. I had to be selective!
"Least impressive" is probably more accurate. Worst makes it sound like it was bad, it's just the least of the best.
Last edited by Draguss on 10/1/2015 11:56:55 PM
I think that says a lot about the Playstation brand if you want to look at it that way. I wouldn't ever treat it in such a way. It's with out a doubt one of the best gaming systems ever.
That's wonderful Wizard. Remember only anyone can ever claim is their personal experience they had with a said console. I actually played Xbox way more than my PS2 at the time. Most everything I liked on PS2 existed better on PS3. Ps3 also gave me remasters of many of the best ps2 games.
PS3 is currently the best console I've ever owned, no matter the press. It'll stay hooked up for some time.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/1/2015 10:18:42 PM
Same here.
"PS1 and 2 were missing a lot of genres that the PS3 had in spades."
What genre did PS3 have that PS2 didn't?
Timesplitters was multiplat and best on Xbox. Red Faction was the red-headed step child of Halo, Halo 2, Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay, Unreal Championship 2, Republic Commando, and Doom 3. The PS2 was just not the machine for FPS games that generation.
It more than made up for it in most other genres, though.
Probably the most notable would be WRPGs. PS3 got Oblivion, Skyrim, Mass Effect 2 and 3, etc. whereas the PS2 had none.
Of course the PS2 had super ownage dungeon crawlers like Champions, Return to Arms, Dark Alliance and Dark Alliance whereas PS3 only got Diablo III.
hows that?
Please. The PS3's gameplay potential still hasn't even been pushed to the max. 😉
PS3 gave us the Souls series, nough said.
Halo is the most overrated franchise in video game history, so whatever. And if TimeSplitters was better on Xbox, how exactly did every PS2 version outscore every Xbox version, especially TS2 (92% to 88%)? The original Red Faction and MoH: Frontline remain two of the highest-scoring FPSs of that generation as well. But I guess we have to ignore their existence because of Halo.
Outside of a few WRPGs, PS2 had every genre PS3 had. To say PS1 and PS2 "were missing a lot of genres PS3 had in spades" is just plain wrong, especially in regards to PS2.
Not true at all. Red Faction and Medal of Honor: Frontline were fantastic games and that was only in the first full year of the PS2's existence. TimeSplitters was another excellent franchise on PS2.
Kinda weird to call one franchise overrated and then use ratings to justify saying other franchises are better.
Medal of Honor: Frontline averaged an 88/81 on Metacritic.
Halo averaged 97. Halo 2 averaged 95.
Go by ratings or don't, but cherry picking like that is just silly. More importantly, the PS2 had no exclusive, quality FPS. The closest they came was Killzone 1, and that game will eventually be considered a war crime.
Not by a long shot!
The PS3 has been so awesome this is the first time I don't feel like rushing to get a "Nextgen" console.
There are many games I still want to play on it and the graphics still look fine.
I might get a PS4 next year, but the PS3 will remain my main console even after that.
Quality FPS's for starters. Medal of Honor and Killzone we're terrible compared to Halo at the time.
I see alot of these comments and think to myself, how can you make a sound judgement when you did not own alot of games for PS1 or PS2? The PS1 was great, even snatcing up some PC titles like Diablo, and Mecwarrior 2. Large library of many genres. The PS2 era had an enormous amount of games, different types of games. Many, many of which I played. PS3 shoved the FPS genre down our throats at every turn. Sure, there were some amazing non FPS games, but it just wasn't enough to call the PS3 "memorable". There are also several other reasons I would also vote the PS3 worst PS,but I won't get into it.
ben, im going to agree with you on this great write up. ps3 had its great moments but i was just over it halfway through its lifespan and was waiting for next gen. thats when i actually jumped back into pc gaming and waited until ps4.
i went to pc gaming bc i had more games to play that wasnt on consoles and at that point the ps3 internals were practically obsolete and the system just felt slow and laggy. i had a launch edition then sold it and got the 2nd gen slim and by the time 3rd gen slim came, i was over the ps3 and was waiting for ps4
Killzone's review average wasn't bad, either. Neither was Black. None of these games were bad or even mediocre; they were actually decent but not great. Over the years, this has translated to "war crimes," apparently. That's a skewed perception that has never been right. You can't name FPS as a genre PS2 didn't have. And if you want to contend that only idiots like me would want to play shooters on PS2, that's your business. Hardly makes it right.
The point is, what you said is wrong, even though you've never once said you were wrong in your life. You said PS3 had genres "in spades" that PS1 and PS2 didn't. You still haven't named any, aside from WRPGs, which isn't even a genre; it's a sub-genre. I'm waiting to see you validate your statement but of course, you won't; you'll just keep turning back on me and avoiding the point.
Your statement was inaccurate at best. It's fundamentally wrong as far as most with a brain are concerned.
Pretty sure the Vita will hold that title. Even if it was portable its still a console. PSX sold even worse.
While I did own alot of games on ps2 I got in later in the life cycle plus I was still at school then with no income whereas when ps3 came out I had money.
Same reason as Underdog. No time or money during most of the PS2's life. What money and time I did have, it was spent playing Wind Waker and Resident Evil Remake. I got most of the games I really wanted to play like Metal Gear and FFX before I let for school.
But even so, after I got the PS3 and looked back at some of the games I missed on PS2 the only franchise I didn't play that I actually loved was God of War.
Last edited by Jawknee on 10/2/2015 2:14:54 PM
Speak for yourself….the PS3 was ace and what really got me into gaming. PSone, for me was forgettable and I didn't play many games on my PS2. But that PS3, oh that PS3. I"m all for freedom of speech, but "don't be disresptcin my PS3 up in dis joint" 😉
Imma go with Vita.
Honestly, if I was going to go back and play on an older system I'd pick the ps3.
Not really, it started bad, but picked up momentum and never looked back.
TLOU and UC2 are proof that it's not guaranteed to be the worst.
PS Vita is the worst ever and it's not even 5 years old yet.
Last edited by Snaaaake on 10/2/2015 6:44:57 AM
You can make a similar argument about each console. PS1 and 2 were missing a lot of genres that the PS3 had in spades. That's more a circumstance of their respective eras than a knock on the machines themselves.
That seems really strange, given the massive library on PS2, the wider diversity in overall title selection, and the length of time PS2 was actually active in putting out games. Just out of curiosity, are you guys sure this wasn't due to outside factors? You know, platform preference change, age, time available for entertainment, etc?
Of just the actual consoles, yeah I'd go with PS3 but if we're going to include all the systems they've created I'd have to go with the PSP.
I'm surprised as well, Ben. I honestly can't see how anyone could enjoy the ps3 more than the ps2. Not saying the ps3 was bad, but the ps2 library and wide range of genres was amazing!
Indeed.
same
I hope not. I actually bought and played more games for it than both my PSX and PS2 combined.
Last edited by Jawknee on 10/2/2015 12:28:44 AM
I would hope not any time soon. I own more games for ps3 than any other playstation I've owned.
Then again I did suffer a yellow light of death, but I would still want to be able to replace mine if it died.
I already have to replace a dualshock 3, which still aren't that cheap.