PS1 PS2 or PS3? which one is better

[FluxCapacitor]

This really is comparing apples, oranges and pears.

* The PS1 was created pretty much entirely because Nintendo screwed Sony on developing a disc based gaming console - in this era, Sony were willing to take chances because they didn't really know the market well, so they had to spread their effort. Some great games, a lot of shit ones.

*PS2 was such a leap forward in gaming that it held crushing market dominance over the gamecube and latecomer xbox - they had a huge range because all the 3rd party devs coded for the playstation first and foremost. A lot of great games, a forgotten mountain of poor ones.

*PS3 was beaten to market by the 360, so it was playing catchup from day one. Games these days are MUCH more expensive to make, and the industry as a whole has become much less risk averse. Some truly great games, some crap ones, but less games overall due to price of production.

The comparison of these 3 systems seems to mirror the history of console gaming as a whole over the last 15 years, so why limit the discussion to how shit the PS3 is? This seems an awful lot like trollbait. You know that the xbox fanboys will come running, and then the PS fanboys will defend, and then it's THAT thread again..

TL;DR - no vs threads

 

[Wolfenbarg]

The PS2 was the highest selling console of all time, and has the titles to back it as the greatest console success story in history. It was definitely worlds better than the PS3 and the PS1, the library is just unmatchable.

 

[Rooster893]

PS1, no contest!

Klonoa, Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus, and Jersey Devil are enough to win it over.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

PS3. Does all the PS1 and 2 did and more (looks nicer too).

 

[w@rew0lf]

PS3, because you can play PS2 games while enjoying the current gen.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I love my PS2 and PSX. I just don't think the PS3's great graphic system can live up to the fast Online Connection and brilliant games on the Consoles.

QT : I have to say.. PS2. It has some of my favourite games (Prince of Persia, Silent Hill 2,3,4,Shattered Memories, Soul Collector,Re4, Ico, Shadow of the Collosaus, and Half-Life).

The only reason why I still have my PS2 is because Sony decided to be little Dog-Fuckers and Decided to remove the Back-Wards Compatability from the Module of my PS3, Smarmy Cunts. Nah, Sony is just... Stupid, they wouldn't really scam me!...I hope....

 

[Sovvolf]

I'd say the PS2. Its library was pretty strong and it had a good amount of console exclusives to boot. The PSX was good but the PS2 blew all its competition out of the water (even though I preferred my Xbox).

 

[The_Echo]

Launch PS3 is the best, because it'll play PSX and PS2 games. I think they got rid of that with the Slim model (correct me if I'm wrong).

So you get all the classic PSX games, all the amazing PS2 games, and the PS3 games, several of which are downright awesome, and all the extra features like Netflix and online and shit. I see no downsides.

 

[Cheery Lunatic]

Well if you wanna get technical with it, I prefer my PS3 cuz it can play PS3, PS2, AND PS1 games.
Though the PS2 definitely had the better library, I still thoroughly enjoy my PS3 games.

 

[rokkolpo]

Might've been because I was a kid. but I never had as much fun with gaming as I had as a kid playing ''Bugs Bunny lost in time''.

Fun times were had.

 

[New Troll]

System-wise? PS3 hands down. One of mine plays most all the games from all three systems, and both of them are also BluRay players letting me enjoy all my favorite movies in true high definition. Plus with the PS3, I can go on PSN and download tons more games, some nostalgic from the PSX/PS2 days, some newer.

Game Library-wise? I'd probably go with the PS2, though that is a tough choice between both the earlier systems. The games do of course look better on the newer system, but I've never been a graphics whore, just considering graphics a nice bonus. But where the PS2 games did shine over the PSX is with sandboxing. I've spent many a day and night just cruising around my Vice City, sometimes looking for mischief, sometimes just relaxing to the radio and enjoying the scenery.

 

[Onihoshi]

TO be quite frank, gaming itself is a pretty young thing so I would have to say that the consoles, especially playstation, reflect upon one generation of gamers. with the PSX ( I refuse to call it otherwise) it was baby steps for what was then considered "next-gen gaming" 3d graphics and actual music instead of MIDI type songs. The PS 2 kicked in refined and with amazing 3'rd party support resulting with one of the best consoles of all time. About the PS 3 ,along with everything else nowadays, there is only one thing to be said... The hardcore gamers of the PS 2 became the casual kid possessing gamers of today and that why all the games that come out now are 5 hours tops to finish. so to sum up...

PSX - Great games, shitty technology
PS 2 - superb games, great technology
PS 3 - Casual games, superb technology

So for me its PS 2 all the way in the first place... and about the other two I would have to say its equal since both have advantages that can't really make them bad, but also have flaws which hold them back as being great which leaves them at good... but for the PS 3 we can blame the developers so its ps 2, ps 3 and psx in that order.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

ive been thinking alot about the PS3 and ive realized that it is shit compared to the PS1.

i kno it "newer" and more advanced but if you think about games and the quality of them the PS1 has alot more to deliver then the PS3

I have a release "fat" PS3, so for me, they're all the same thing. Hell, I used to play more PS2 and PS1 games on my PS3 (cause with "infinite" save cards, why not?) than I did PS3 games. I still like to replay my old games a lot, but there are enough PS3 games I enjoy enough to make it more or less even.

Also, my old PS1 was glichy as hell. How was that better?

The PS2... I can't deny that that was one of the best game machines ever made. Nothing beats the PS2 for a huge library of quality games.

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

PS3, you can dl PS1 games and play them on it, mean while my PS1 and PS2 sits in the corner looking all sad

 

[Dags90]

PS2 hit a 'sweet spot' in the gaming industry. Being popular enough to get plenty of original, big budget titles but not so popular that an arse tonne of unoriginal, grey, gritty cash ins were made for it.

You must not have seen many PS2 games then...

There's also the fact that the PS2 is one of the best selling systems OF ALL TIME. So he's trying to say that the most popular system of ALL TIME wasn't popular enough to get an ass ton of terrible titles.

I only briefly owned a PS3, the first one when it came out. For starters, way too big and awkwardly designed. The stupid rounded top even meant I couldn't put game cases on top of it, and the fingerprints. Good Lord the fingerprints.

I would probably go PS2/PS1/PS3. Though I have to give some credit to both the original and third for breaking ground in being multifunctional devices.

One thing I've liked about the Playstation line in general is their commitment to keeping older generation systems relevant by reselling them as cheaper and smaller. Of course, when we did vacation we brought the GameCube, not the Playstation.

 

[taciturnCandid]

I recently recieved a ps2 for my birthday. And I'm having alot more fun with it then I did with my next gen consoles. In fact.. I haven't touched my 360 or wii for a while......

I wouldn't touch a ps3 either. Only game I want to play on Ps3 is LittleBigPlanet 2. Everything else just doesn't appeal to me. Guess that is what i get for being a hardcore turn-based fan

 

[Luke5515]

I think ps2 had the best library because it was so massive, and it had just the right balance of power and price, so I'll go with that.

 

[chanceisshane]

I started with the PS1 and each as served me quite well but I'd have to go with the PS2.

I don't blame the PS3 for its larger amount of lower quality games. I believe the PS2 had such great games because its graphical limit was achieved quickly and developers could focus on gameplay rather than being graphics whores.

 

[EzraPound]

List of the 'greatest' consoles of their time:

1. SNES
2. NES
3. PS2

So, yes, the PS2 is the 'best' PlayStation.

1. NES
2. 2600
3. PS2
4. SNES
5. GEN
6. N64

ive been thinking alot about the PS3 and ive realized that it is shit compared to the PS1.

i kno it "newer" and more advanced but if you think about games and the quality of them the PS1 has alot more to deliver then the PS3

The PSOne was a pretty awful system, IMO. . . in large part, the problem was that it wasn't really equipped to play 3D games, which meant that humdrum load times, claustrophobic environments and painted backgrounds were par for the course. Looking back at titles like Resident Evil, Syphon Filter, Tomb Raider, Driver, etc., most of them have not aged well, even if Tekken, Final Fantasy Tactics, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, etc. have.

So it was just misguided--developers trying to make expansive 3D games and being stifled by the technology, rather than focusing on the 2D ones the PSOne was adequate for (some 3D games, it should be mentioned, worked out--fighters, RPGs). By comparison, titles like Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, GoldenEye, Conker's Bad Fur Day, etc. still hold up well, as do a lot of Dreamcast and Sega Saturn games.

 

[mitchell271]

i actually think ps3 is the best for one reason: mine is completely backwards compatible with my ps2 library (which includes the god of war games, ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, ratchet and clank, silent hill 2, RE4 and Disgaea which I don't have for ps2 but for psp).

The ps2 era was the best though because a lot of games that are classics were made in it and they couldn't patch games or add DLC. DLC can be a good thing but often isn't; if you can't patch a game, you have to make sure it's bug free before you release it; you had to socialize to play multiplayer. The only way to play multiplayer games was to bring friends over to your house and play splitscreen.