The PS3 is a very odd console in my opinion. I'm still on the fence whether I should get one. Back during the early days of the PS2, it was obvious that the PS2 is a more powerful console than the Dreamcast. While I'm still a big Dreamcast fan, I must admit that the PS2 ran rings around the Dreamcast. Part of it is because of the raw power of the PS2, but mostly it has to do with the DVD format.

DVD allowed the PS2 to have MPEG2 quality video and audio; some games even have DVD-style extra features to fill the disc. It really showed off what you can achieve with the extra space. As for PS3? I'm still not seeing any absolute use for all that extra space, besides high res textures. Some gamers might insist that the extra texture size does make games look prettier, but let's not kid ourselves; was it REALLY necessary? The PS3's initial promise was that ALL games will run on 1080p. What happened to that promise? It's having a hard time even trying to look like Xbox 360 games, let alone run 1080p (despite 360 games running "only" in 720p).

So, what am I trying to say? Optimisation of the system is what's required for games to perform best, not disk space. Even back during the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era, multiplatform games do not come in similar sizes. For example, Soul Calibur II might look similar across all three systems, but their sizes were not: the PS2 version was around 4+ gigabyte, Xbox version was 900+ megabyte (really), and the Gamecube version was around 1.5 gigabyte. This shows that with proper optimisation, you don't require much space to fill a disc.

Let's go back to the PS3. If Sony insisted that Blu-ray was a necessity for PS3 to happen, why are Xbox 360 games able to pull off similar graphics, and worse, even performs better on Xbox 360? Giving the excuse that the Cell processor is difficult to program for is no excuse. Gamers who want to play games with the best performance will wonder why they paid extra for less performance. In the end, Blu-ray had nothing to do with the quality of the games themselves, rather just a trojan horse to introduce Blu-ray into user's homes. You know it's true.

I may sound overly critical of the PS3, but it's only because I care. I own a PS1 and PS2 after all. But where PS1 and PS2 really trumped their competition with superior hardware and quality games, PS3 do not offer that. Yet. Perhaps MGS4 and FFXIII will change all that. Until then, I will stick to the Xbox 360 for my gaming fix.

I really don't understand some supporters. Wasn't the PS3 supposed to be at least 3 times more powerful than the Xbox 360? If that's the case, why hasn't it happened? There's a double standard going on here. When the PS3 was first unveiled, fans were quick to point out that the PS3 will wipe out the competition when it releases. Now that the PS3 is here, and it's not as promised, the supporters back up the PS3 again, saying that it needs more time?

I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. I want my purchases to justify itself upon purchase, not sometime down the road. Remember when the PS2 had games like Zone of the Enders or Ico? Those games immediately showed what the PS2 can do within the year it launched, not sometime down the road. The Xbox launched with Dead Or Alive 3 and Halo, games that showed off what Xbox can do. Dead Or Alive 3 in particular was praised for technical excellence for graphics in 2001, despite PS2 having a one year headstart at that time. So, new hardware can perform well. It just needs a good developer to harness the console's power.

Again, I'm not bashing the PS3 because it's trendy to do so or anything. There's simply not many killer apps out at the moment. MGS4 is the only graphical juggernaut on the PS3 so far. I don't doubt one day, when GT5, FFXIII or White Knight Story gets released, these kinds of discussion will be forgotten. When the time comes, PS3 will no doubt regain whatever grounds it lost this time round, and convince more developers to put out amazing games on the system. I once believed that the word PlayStation was synonymous with quality games, lots of quality games. PS1 and PS2 had an overwhelming number of games. Memorable games that I remember fondly. If PS3 were to reach that expectation someday, there can only be good news for gamers everywhere, not just PlayStation gamers. Don't take the console competition too personally.

I know what you're discussing, and I also know what I'm talking about. Why aren't you getting your money's worth from the Bluray? That's why I raised all the past platforms. Those platforms showed that DVD could really push gaming forward in ways CD simply could not. The PS3 was not delayed for it's Cell architecture or for the Nvidia based GPU; the Bluray drive was the reason. You'd think after all the delays, the Bluray drive was going to work wonders for PS3. Somehow I always knew that game assets simply wouldn't be able to fill a Bluray to the maximum. MGS4 is the only rule to the exception. Perhaps we'll see more of that down the line.