I have the best taste in expensive computer game consoles.
The PS3 is a testament not only to technological brilliance but also to brilliance itself. This machine plays games, Blu-Ray (high definition) films and videos, stores photos and mp3s, has a massive hard drive and a full internet browser, features downloadable content (including complete games), uses motion-sensitive wireless controllers (7 can be used at once), complete 1080p HD support, and all kinds of other technical stuff that is in abbreviations that I don’t understand. But it’s probably awesome.
Or, at least, it is in comparison with Microsoft’s convexed box of crap. It only has 4 controllers (and, if you own the core model, has no wireless capability), has worse graphics, and you need to pay a subscription for the online stuff. The fact that it’s made by Microsoft should be warning enough, but Bill Gates’ bitches are still willing to fork out £40 to play Halo with each other over a phone line.
Why? Halo sucks anyway. How is it different to the other 20,00 near-future FPS games on Xbox? Except the shockingly bad ad campaigns. Plastic toys and pianos - a recipe for success, in the eyes of morons.
As for the Wii, here is a list of the times when you will actually use it following the two-week honeymoon period:
- When you have drunken relatives over
Pah! The PS3 has it all: party games for parties (Guitar Hero III), shooters for Xbox converts (Resistance: Fall of Man) and pretty much everything else (Motorstorm, PES, Ratchet and Clank, GTA IV…). All this from a machine that costs £299 at the least and £349 at most.
It’s a shame then that Sony kind of ballsed it up to begin with. It didn’t help that their E3 Games show presentation involved a game that boasted both “famous battles which actually took place in ancient Japan” and “giant enemy crabs”, as well as “real-time weapon change”. As opposed to the kind of weapon change where it takes a good few minutes? Way to piss on your own bonfire, Sony.
