twitstamp.com

Friday, April 21, 2006

Being less abrasive


I didn't get a chance to do it yet, but I'll be changing some of my choice words. Instead of calling these guys idiots, I think I'll call them, "Anonymously confused," or something along those lines.

For all I know, they might not really be idiots.

I still find it interesting that they argue with me when I've said time and time again, I'll have PS3. I've already sadly admitted that I was a Sony fanboy before. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it. I'm not getting it for anything it's supposed to do; just for games I can't get elsewhere. When that happens anyway.

Anyway, "Anonymously confused #3," I'll respond when I have more time. I'm going home.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dude... I couldn't care less if you buy PS3 or not. I just disagree with you. I'm very pleased with PS2, more than I was with PS1. Xbox would have been a MUCH better choice if it had MUCH better graphics, free LIVE, a decent controller, and more exclusives than PS2. That's why my reception to the Xbox and Xbox 360 launch has been lukewarm.

Anyway, I expect your response on the innovation front.

"Anonymously confuded #3"

5:50 PM  
Blogger Eric said...

See, I have the opposite experience. My PS2 experience was lukewarm (owned a PS2 two years before the Xbox, and played it very little). Since I was a Sony fanboy, naturally I hated the Xbox and its controller at first. I even got a controller adapter to use a dualshock (which was even worse). After playing through a few games found the s-type controller much better than the Dualshock controller.

The analog sticks are more responsive and the triggers are easier to work with than R1 and R2. The black and white buttons worked for me, although I like the 360's controller's setup better. I recently tried to help a room mate with Splinter Cell on the PS2, and it was frustrating as hell using the floppy sticks. Changing the controller didn't help.

I don't see how it's possible to seriously say that the XBox doesn't have MUCH better graphics though (unless you are referring to the earliest batch of games). First off, the Xbox has supported 720p this whole time (even though both Sony and Microsoft act as if it is new). We compare the different console's games all the time (two TVs in the living room)...the PS2 versions don't hold up (Burnout, Splinter Cell, Tiger Woods, and Need for Speed are some examples). However, it's obvious that because PS2s are rampant, developers don't spend as much time on the Xbox versions as they could. Doom 3 is a good example, because there's no way a PS2 could handle that game (without making the graphics really bad).

Xbox Live was useful, so I didn't mind the small monthly fee. We got more than our money's worth out of it. It makes replay value astoundingly higher.

On the other hand, I've yet to have a good experience with the PS2 online. My network adapter is pretty much only used for the hard drive...but I don't really use that either.

After fixing a bunch of PS2s for friends or for trading them in for profit at Gamestop...I lost confidence in Sony hardware. Possibly a coincidence, but I had several Sony DVD players, DVD burners, and CD burners go bad around that time as well (which I couldn't fix for friends).

Not to be snide, but I don't believe I was talking about innovation to begin with, but I'll cover that when I officially respond.

6:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home