PS3Extreme: I only just recently realized that there may be a bigger gap between the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 than previously recognized, and it has to do with the software. Or rather, the intention of that software.
Im not really an online gamer (2 good at it) ill stick Killzone 2 on every now and then and waste a loada mofos, i played the Bad Company 2 beta hell of alot (day 1 purchase), i tend 2 get rather bored playin games online after a couple weeks of doin so And when u play online u cant pause the game 2 go skin up (im a mega stoner) or send a txt message 4 example (im 4-ever bein distracted), u hav 2 wait till u die and even the if u leave it 2 long youll get kicked outta the game 4 time wastin Ill settle 4 an epic single player story driven game ANY day - im lookin at u Heavy Rain and The Last Guardian
If I want multi-player games, I'll switch to MMOs for a while. Consoles, for me, are for immersive, story-driven experiences (which you generally don't find in MMOs - Guild Wars being an exception or sorts). And I'm not a PC snob, I love my consoles, but I'm not a fan of FPS targeting on a controller. At least when I'm spazzing out with the analog sticks in an offline, single player game, no one is laughing at my ineptitude :)
If you can only have one system the PS3 is good for offline and online. Obviously it has the best single player games and the online is free which is just as good as XBL. PSN does exclusive things more than XBL and vice versa. If you can only have one then obviously it's a financial decision and PS3 is the best bang for your buck.
I like both quite a bit. Whether it's the perpetual MP madness of WarHawk, or the SP goodness of Motorstorm Pacific Rift (The Best Off-Road Racing Series of All-Time), which just so happens to also have a great mp experience it's been proven to me over and over that the PS3 offers the seasoned gamer a more robust, and well rounded offering of these types of games. from article: "But even so, I'm still ticked off. I really wanted to love L4D2; I had heard such great things about it. But without the multiplayer, it's a total waste of time. And you know, a lot of the 360 games I've played are like that. Not that it's a problem, per se, but it is for me." Yeah the 360 offers a fantastic mp to most of it's games & not so much in terms heralded sp experiences, whereas the PS3 takes it a step further by being able to offer both, mainly because of the depth and richness of its first party titles. Now with that said, if EA can stick with it's (((awesome))) mp formula displayed in the BFBC2 Beta and marry it to an unforgettable sp campaign, then this will be one 3rd party app that CANNOT be missed as you accurately eluded to Hells. The game (beta) was already a serious time waster for me and I. cannot. wait.
Not just single player, but overall.
Same. My most played online game is Warhawk and i've logged about 200hours in that. But that's about the only online game i have logged more than 10 hours in this generation. I usually just get so bored of playing one game online for so long. I prefer a good story driven single player
Warhawk, Killzone2, Uncharted 2, MAG in the near future, and all the 3rd party games as well. Once these premimum features come out it'll be interesting to see how the Live v. PSN articles compare and contrast the two services.
I am going to take a guess and say that this is written by that raging retard, Ben Dutka. Will not click. They're consoles, they both do the same things. Only through demented intellectual gynastics can you arrive at the hair brained notion that one is better purposed for single gaming.
I'm a 35 year old gamer and for me and most of my 30 something gamer friends, games have been single player experiences most of our lives. Sure, the odd split screen game or two player game would be great, but the bulk of our time was spent playing games by ourselves, and this still seems to be the case for the majority of us. Whenever I see my friends playing games on their PS3's, they're playing games like Batman, Uncharted, Fallout, Dragon Age. We all have a game like Modern Warfare that we'll throw in from time to time to get our online fix, but I'm sure if it came right down to it we could probably all even do without any multiplayer games and be perfectly content. That was one of my deciding factors for cancelling my XBL subscription. Why pay monthly for something I was using maybe once every couple of weeks, if that? Nothing against online games. They have their place, but for older games like me, gaming is still a bit of a solitary experience. Edit below: Before I just got my online fix on the PC for free, but now the PS3 is online game console of choice just as I use my PC primarily for work and don't game on it anymore. I agree, it was never really about the price to me either - but I just never used XBL when I had it. What's the point in paying for something you rarely use?
@ darkride66 Single player games are why I let my Live membership downgrade to Silver. It's not that $50 is a problem but like you I rarely do any online multi-player gaming. I figure now I'll just do it for free on PS3.
mgs4 uncharted 1 and 2 resistance r and c YES it is it has great multiplayer 2! :)
...unless it RRODs again lol. 5th times the charm they say...
Then I guess the 360 would be the multi-player console of choice seeing at most of the PS3's exclusive games don't let you play cooperatively or split-screen with local buddies. This is a feature that is missing in a lot of big PS3 games that even include co-op but not split-screen whereas it's nearly present in every 360 game.
I'm a 34 yr old gamer and all my friends are older or a little younger, and yes single player games are fun for a rental, but you buy games with great multiplayer for the replayability and for the fun of playing with your friends, whether it's some co-op campaign in ODST or multiplayer in MW2.....and I'm a law enforcement officer in nj and any given day I log on to xbl I see too many of my cop buddies playing something in multiplayer. I guess it's the competitive nature of the alpha male.
That's one of the things i like about ps3. Some people aren't hardcore online gamers and for those people $50 a year is unnecessary for a feature they barely use. With ps3 you don't have to pay that yearly fee and you can still play online whenever you feel like it, even if you're a single player person, you can still go online as you please.
Xbox 360 seems to lead in online multiplayer mostly due to there being the online from the previous xbox. Most ps1 gamers who went to ps2 werent all about the online because it didnt really exist. Xbox was and that became the focus. If you wanted online you got the xbox. Single player...ps brand. I grew up playing nothing but single player with a few local multiplayer (fighters) games here and there. Mostly because it was just me playing. All before the craze of online play came to be. When it was online back in the day...it was on pc with counter strike and unreal tournament. I never got into the online rpg's even though i love rpg's. With the xbox came the push for online and I think that is why it is more accepted with their pay to play model. It was like that from the beginning. sony's online felt tacked on and non standardized in the ps2 era. I mean you had to have the modem/network adapter and not everyone did so it seems only obvious that the ps brand was all about single player. Some how I think the main reason their online is free now is because it is new to them and they want to establish a sizable user base. MS has done a great job in establishing online console play (even though there were others that tried) and sony wants to be as profitable just the same. It used to be when I thought madden I thought playstation. When I think online I think xbox. Not knocking PSN in any way as I think it is great that they offer 1 thing better than live and that is online play. Honestly though, while I use both services I don't game online as much as I thought I would. I did back on the reg xbox with halo 2 but this time around I find myself still playing single player more than anything else. Even with high profile games like halo 3 and killzone 2 I just dont get online to play.
I Prefer an Amazing +8hs SP Game than a short co-op game no matter how good it's The only exception is Heavenly Sword, Amazing and pretty short
It can only do everything.
I, like Chris and Darkride, am not a snobby PC gamer. Lord knows I came to game on my PC a lot later than I did on consoles. I can also play games on my PC in higher resolution and a smoother framerate as well. That be said, I still prefer gaming on consoles. As for the online aspect, I never game online. I'm all about the single player aspect. The only game I ever played online was the Resistance 2 beta. It intrigued me for a short time, but as with all multiplayer experiences, I ultimately got bored with it because, in the end, there really wasn't any point. You just shoot whatever enemy with a group of people until whatever meagre goal is accomplished. I've always been a fan of the PS family of consoles because of the great games available on them. The overwhelming majority of them happen to be story-driven, single player outings as it would happen. Is the PS3 the single player console of choice? That's best left up to the individual. For me? It's the home of the games I love the most.
I agree with the first post. I don't seem to get too into online gaming. I can play for a couple of months and then I end up taking a long break before playing again. I do give Guerilla Games. I was really into Killzone 2's MP for about 6 months.
Free online play should always be a given. I just wish more games had dedicated server support like Resistance 2, 60-players never lagging was awesome. All games should have servers like that. I'm pretty sure MAG must have good servers to run 256 players. Unlike MW2 which lags depending on how far away the host is, with no way to filter out laggy games :(
So the beta is back on? When I tried to get on yesterday, it said it was over with.
i grew up on single player games from the late 80's the most i played online was original call of duty on pc and killzone 2 ad mag but even then i got a bit bored and went back to my single player games as its all about story and emersion for me (shadow of the collosus i could play forever). most of the games im looking forward too are mostly single player (heavy rain, GOW3, splinter cell conviction, mass effect 2)but i do miss the days of split screen mario kart or me and a friend going thru the first legacy of kain together. great days.
In other words it's for people without friends.
inFamous LBP Demons Souls God of War Collection (if yet to play like myself) + numerous multi platforms. What am I talking about "We got no games"
"I ultimately got bored with it because, in the end, there really wasn't any point. You just shoot whatever enemy with a group of people until whatever meagre goal is accomplished." And how exactly does that differ in single player games? In single player, you just shoot whatever enemy (except by yourself) until a meager goal is accomplished. I don't see why everyone thinks they're so better than everyone else or more intelligent than everyone else because they don't like online. All of you who post how much you love sp over multiplayer and give stupid reasons like the one above think that you are of higher intelligence or something. It's really annoying. You talk about getting bored with the multiplayer after a couple of months? I (like most other hardcore gamers I know) get bored after the first playthrough of the campain (there are certain exceptions, UC2, BioShock, inFamous). I just hate it how you sp only gamers talk down to multiplayer gamers like they are less of a gamer or something because they play mp more than sp. If a game doesn't have a lot of personality in the sp, then it feels lifeless and desolate, because you're not immersed in anything the sp is offering (that's the way I felt with the first uncharted). But with games like UC2 that brought MP along with a great single player, it's a much better addition than if they had just made the campaign longer, because after you play the campaign once, it ceases to be any fun the second time through (for most games).
IT ONLY DOES EVERYTHING.
Except play my ps2 games
If you hadn't been cheap and bought a full priced PS3 with EVERYTHING gamers want right now, you wouldn't be complaining. Sony offered all these features and people complained. Sony took the features to lower the price and people STILL complain. You can't have both, choose one and stop complaining.
I paid the 400$ and I don't have the ability to play PS2 games. So I could have paid 200 more and got it or saved 100 more and been in the same position. Sony loves to bone people over and over.
is one of the best single player modes I've ever played the entire experience is out of this world
Could not agree more. I have been gaming for roughly 30 years and I feel UC2 is the best game I have ever played. Zoo Keeper is close second. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Gonna have to disagree with the guy above. AC2 was a steaming pile just like the first.