Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

PlayStation 3... Best Games?

2nyRiggz said:
COD4 is the top gun for online multiplayer.
Click to expand...

Yep, CoD4 is uber-solid. Best FPS of the year bar none.

2nyRiggz said:
HAZE
Click to expand...

Yeah, Haze has been a pretty obscure/'unknown' but since seeing the commercial that features a few seconds of gameplay...Haze looks like it will be sweet. Plus it's Free Radical, the geniuses behind Time Splitters, so yeah...must buy for me (once I finally get my Ps3 next year). ;)
 
Uncharted

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is the must have game for the PS3. I would venture to say it will be the PS3 game of the year for 2007.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3A110a Safari/419.3)

Not to be judgemental towards single player only games like Uncharted, Assassins Creed and the like, but I would personally not spend my money on buying those games
because of the typical lossof interest once you beat them. It would be smart to rent those, and instead invest in games with online/split screen capabilities like COD4 and Resistance :) that's just my opinion (excluding Oblivion though, that one is a must buy).
 
Zwhaler said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3A110a Safari/419.3)

Not to be judgemental towards single player only games like Uncharted, Assassins Creed and the like, but I would personally not spend my money on buying those games
because of the typical lossof interest once you beat them. It would be smart to rent those, and instead invest in games with online/split screen capabilities like COD4 and Resistance :) that's just my opinion (excluding Oblivion though, that one is a must buy).
Click to expand...

If everyone did that then developers would stop earning money for their great single-player games and all we would have would be multiplayer games that while great, are not replacement for a good single player romp from time totime.

Besides, some games are way too big to beat in a rental and there is always the fact that you can play them anytime you want if you desire a few years down the line.

Best PlayStation 3 game? Well Ratchet & Clank is nice and Uncharted is pretty good as well, if you haven't played it though, you should grab Symphony of The Night from the Playstation Store.
 
Chone said:
If everyone did that then developers would stop earning money for their great single-player games and all we would have would be multiplayer games that while great, are not replacement for a good single player romp from time totime.

Besides, some games are way too big to beat in a rental and there is always the fact that you can play them anytime you want if you desire a few years down the line.

Best PlayStation 3 game? Well Ratchet & Clank is nice and Uncharted is pretty good as well, if you haven't played it though, you should grab Symphony of The Night from the Playstation Store.
Click to expand...

I like your reasoning, and I agree that many single player games are fully worth it to pay 60$ for the ability to play whenever you like (back in the N64 days this was all I did), but from a spending point of view and also coming from a typically less than casual gamer, I prefer to invest in such a way that maximizes value for what I spend, but this applies to the minority of the gaming population, and I agree that supporting very well made single player games is a good idea, and will remain commonplace. I am just forced a little bit to be somewhat of a tightwad after engaging in this reasoning for many years, and for many many hundreds of dollars :)
 
Some people play console games because they want a "quick fix". Sometimes you just want to save the world, or even just punch Hehachi in the face a couple times. But not play on an incredibly difficult level, or invest huge amounts of time into it.

With online games - some of the fun factor is taken away by the hard-core players. I mean, I don't mind playing COD4 - but getting smoked every 12 seconds by 13 year olds who play 24-7 who do nothing but swear into the mics - gets old fast. So to the casual player, it isn't much fun, and lets face it - many of us don't have the time to "power level" in order to compete with them.
 
Big-TDI-Guy said:
Some people play console games because they want a "quick fix". Sometimes you just want to save the world, or even just punch Hehachi in the face a couple times. But not play on an incredibly difficult level, or invest huge amounts of time into it.

With online games - some of the fun factor is taken away by the hard-core players. I mean, I don't mind playing COD4 - but getting smoked every 12 seconds by 13 year olds who play 24-7 who do nothing but swear into the mics - gets old fast. So to the casual player, it isn't much fun, and lets face it - many of us don't have the time to "power level" in order to compete with them.
Click to expand...

Yeah that can really be annoying, the only game I could really get into online for a long time was Warcraft III but even then I had to browse forums and play constantly to even be able to maintain a 50% record... don't get me wrong, it was fun for me (otherwise I wouldn't have done it) but such competitiveness is too much to handle and sometimes you feel like you are on an e-sport competition and not just relaxing to have fun.

That is why I prefer playing with actual people on LAN parties or with multiple controllers on the same console, it is not only more entertaining, it's also darn funny as well. The only benefit online has is convenience but that's it.
 
Big-TDI-Guy said:
Some people play console games because they want a "quick fix". Sometimes you just want to save the world, or even just punch Hehachi in the face a couple times. But not play on an incredibly difficult level, or invest huge amounts of time into it.
Click to expand...

Exactly...no matter how short that game is I will not sit there for 8 hours and finish it....I rather play it for two hours then rest my brain on it and play another game.

I never really get the "short" thing....It takes me at least couple of days to beat a game because I pace myself and look for everything I could find...I guess its just me then.

Online play is always a good thing(FPS) but some games don't require it and I will still purchase the game no matter the length.


Bless
 
MacRumorUser said:
Jumping Flash 2 is out ? Runs to the PSN.....

How come we never got a Jumping Flash sequel on ps2.?
Click to expand...

I played it on my PS3 - but it was a PS1 game. :D

I wish there was another sequel, that series was "different" - and thats what made it very fun.
 
I've ripped both JF1 and 2 for my PSP. Jumping Flash, Loaded, Battle Arena Toshinden were the first games we played on a PS1 and stuck with us :) I'd buy a new JF for PSP if one was ever made. *HINT*
 
raggedjimmi said:
I've ripped both JF1 and 2 for my PSP. Jumping Flash, Loaded, Battle Arena Toshinden were the first games we played on a PS1 and stuck with us :) I'd buy a new JF for PSP if one was ever made. *HINT*
Click to expand...

YES, YES and YES!

I loved Battle Arena - I had 1 and 2 - with 3 they got kinda weiiird so I never bought it. I still maintain it is the ONLY true 3d fighter out there.

And tack on Wipeout, Air Combat and the original Warhawk. (the new one is NOTHING like the original - and that's bad)

Sorry for the hijack - just can't sit on my hands when some of the all-time PSX greats are being talked about. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back