Psst. PS2 / PS3

[_sunshinegirl]

Can someone breakdown the differences for me between PS2 and PS3 besides prices? I have as of late become a very BIG fan of Rock Band 2 and I hear that PS is the best platform. I know that overall PS3 is a better system, but it also costs "a lot".

Thanks

 

[Kharak]

Can someone breakdown the differences for me between PS2 and PS3 besides prices? I have as of late become a very BIG fan of Rock Band 2 and I hear that PS is the best platform. I know that overall PS3 is a better system, but it also costs "a lot".

Thanks

Are either of them any good at all?
I bought a terrabyte of hard drive space, a dual quad core processor, a GeForce 9800 GT and a snazzy case for half the price of a PS3. Together with the price I spent on a standalone Bluray player, I still have not spent as much money as a PS3 cost (though the player was discounted thanks to generous amounts of blackmail and death threats). Even adding a real electric guitar, I still have not spent as much as a PS3 costs!

The PS2 can be, however, bought at a steal and you can play Monster Rancher 2 and Ace Combat Zero on it. Aside from the outrageous cost, anything with the label "Sony" on it should be observed with general skepticism, and with a gameplay based title such as Rock Band, the additional eye-candy that a PS3 "may" provide is definitely not worth shelling out a hundred extra dollars on an already expensive series. Aside from that, FPS and RTS are always better on a PC. If anyone doubts it, they are either lying or intiates in some sick console cult.

Ace Combat 6 is on the X-Box 360, by the way. But I would not touch either console with a hundred foot pole.

 

[Windmill]

Can someone breakdown the differences for me between PS2 and PS3 besides prices? I have as of late become a very BIG fan of Rock Band 2 and I hear that PS is the best platform. I know that overall PS3 is a better system, but it also costs "a lot".

Thanks

PS3 is a current-generation system.

That means that the vast vast vast majority of the games currently being made are only compaitable with the PS3.

This is because the PS3 has much better hardware/specs so it can handle games with much nicer graphics, more stuff happening at once, etc etc.

Its games can also be played online. So you can play Rock Band online against other people for free.

It also has downloadable content. This is because the PS3 is set up to be able to connect online seamlessly. You can connect online, and download system updates, games, demos, videos, downloadable content (some of it free most of it not including downloading rock band songs) and patches for games and what-not.

The PS3 is also a media hub. You can store music on it, videos and photos. You can also play DVD's, CD's and Blu-ray movies on it.

The PS2 is purely a game machine, though you can play DVD's and CD's on it. It cannot (except in a few exceptional cases) connect online. It plays games and the games graphics are not as good. Because the hardware isn't as good, the games also can't handle some of the stuff PS3 games can. So for instance, it can't render as many enemies on-screen as the PS3 can.

The PS2 has many good games. But the experience isn't as seamless and streamlined as the PS3 is. If you just want to play music games, then get a PS2. It is cheaper and the graphical upgrade isn't that big of a deal, nor is the extra processing power. If you want to also play action/RPG/racing games (as in, non-casual games.non-musical games) then you also have loads of games to pick from for really cheap prices.

If you want to experience the "best-of-the-best" and play the latest games and play online, then the PS3 is the console for you. It is $300 extra over the PS2 but if you like this sort of stuff, it is well worth it.

 

[Windmill]

Are either of them any good at all?
I bought a terrabyte of hard drive space, a dual quad core processor, a GeForce 9800 GT and a snazzy case for half the price of a PS3. Together with the price I spent on a standalone Bluray player, I still have not spent as much money as a PS3 cost (though the player was discounted thanks to generous amounts of blackmail and death threats). Even adding a real electric guitar, I still have not spent as much as a PS3 costs!

The PS2 can be, however, bought at a steal and you can play Monster Rancher 2 and Ace Combat Zero on it. Aside from the outrageous cost, anything with the label "Sony" on it should be observed with general skepticism, and with a gameplay based title such as Rock Band, the additional eye-candy that a PS3 "may" provide is definitely not worth shelling out a hundred extra dollars on an already expensive series. Aside from that, FPS and RTS are always better on a PC. If anyone doubts it, they are either lying or intiates in some sick console cult.

Ace Combat 6 is on the X-Box 360, by the way. But I would not touch either console with a hundred foot pole.

How can she play Rock Band and other party games on a PC, hm? She obviously enjoys party games, and the PC does not provide that, unless you go through loads of effort to set it up to do that, and even then there is no rock band equivalent.

 

[Kharak]

How can she play Rock Band and other party games on a PC, hm? She obviously enjoys party games, and the PC does not provide that, unless you go through loads of effort to set it up to do that, and even then there is no rock band equivalent.

I did note that a real guitar is cheaper than a PS3. I could buy a good keyboard too.

And you've never heard of LAN parties? Good: Save yourself.

 

[Breetai]

Can someone breakdown the differences for me between PS2 and PS3 besides prices? I have as of late become a very BIG fan of Rock Band 2 and I hear that PS is the best platform. I know that overall PS3 is a better system, but it also costs "a lot".

Thanks

Some versions of the PS3 can play PS2 games.

Windmill gave you a pretty good comparison, I think.

I did note that a real guitar is cheaper than a PS3. I could buy a good keyboard too.

And you've never heard of LAN parties? Good: Save yourself.

Please stop trolling.

 

[_sunshinegirl]

*Thanks everyone*

 

[seeingstars]

I hear that PS is the best platform.

You heard wrong. XBox 360 rules all, and LIVE is well worth the money.

 

[Breetai]

You heard wrong. XBox 360 rules all, and LIVE is well worth the money.

Nope. PS includes the Playstation, Playstation 2 and Playstation line-ups. The 360 cannot compete with either the PS1 or the PS2 line-ups. The failure rate for the 360 is so huge, you can almost expect to have to send in your 360 to Microsoft for repairs (360 failure rates are between 10%-30%, PS3 failure rates are between 1%-3%... I have official sources if you need), and I'm not sure why paying to play online is such a good thing. For a casual player especially, there's just no point to paying to play online. Both the PS3 and the Wii offer players the ability to download games and play games online for free. That's more than most casual players even use.

Sorry, but I will never recommend a console with between a 30% failure rate (older models) and reported 10%-16% failure rate (newer models) to anyone. This is coming from a guy who owns 29 individual consoles. After the X-Box 360, the NES, SNES, Game Gear and PS2 have the largest failure rates... and they aren't even in the same ballpark as the 360 failure-wise. They can all be repaired relatively painlessly at home. The 360 needs to be send in to Micro$oft when it breaks.

 

[seeingstars]

The last update to the 360, the Jasper chip, lowers the 360 failure rate to about 4%. But I would even reccommend the older models over the PS3 any day. At least it has games which are worth playing, unlike anything from Sony.

 

[Breetai]

The last update to the 360, the Jasper chip, lowers the 360 failure rate to about 4%. But I would even reccommend the older models over the PS3 any day. At least it has games which are worth playing, unlike anything from Sony.

Which games, exactly, do you recommend?

The argument that "PS3 has no good games" is so... early 2007.


By the way, the only people I've seen reporting the 360 failure rate being around 4% (actually, 5%) is Microsoft themselves. Sony claims 0.2% for the PS3. Do you believe either first-party?

The current rate for all 360s as an average has been reported at around 16% by an electronics trading firm a few months ago (link). The PS3 and the Wii are both around 3% according to the same report. As for the newest model 360s with the "Jasper" chipset, I have no idea of their failure rates. I really couldn't find any decent sources. I suspect it's much lower, and hope it is.

In my view, the PS3 and X-Box 360 offer a very similar experience game-wise. The PS3 is compatible with PS1 games and some (mine, at least) can play PS2 games also. I like that. The 360 lets you play quite a few, but not all, X-Box games on it if you pay for their online service AFAIK. The failure rate is low and it is also region-free, which is very attractive to me (I cannot play a lot of games in English on a Japanese 360, which is very annoying for me!!!! I can play anything I want from any country on the PS3). To be honest, if the failure rate on the 360 was never and issue and it wasn't region-locked, I very well might've gotten a 360.