Miles Tormani said:
Pray tell, if you already have a PS2, why the fuck do you care about backward compatibility in the first place? The only reason I can think of is the use of virtual memory cards on the hard drive as opposed to using one you probably already have. And 90% of the value? That's a fucking laugh as well. See, I personally am under the impression that the reason for a new system is for NEW games, not old ones for a system you already have. No one bought an Xbox 360 to play Halo 2 for instance.
If you really think that the only appeal of the PS3 was its backward compatibility, then here's a novel idea. You could... just use your PS2 and stop bitching because you don't like the games on this new system that other people happen to like.
Because the only reason I would consider buying a PS3 is as a *replacement* for my PS2. I don't want to have two systems taking up space. A *huge* part of the reason I bought a PS2 was because of all the PS1 games that would run on it in addition to PS2 games. When there's a choice of a platform that has 10 decent games on it and one that has 70, guess which I'll choose.
When Sony originally announced the PS3, I was excited at the prospect. I thought I'd be able to replace my PS2 and still play all my games. Plus, there would be the added benefit of HD output that could, theoretically, make the old games look marginally better on my HD tv.
I was hugely disappointed when I found out from reviews that PS2 games actually looked *worse* on the PS3 due to anti-aliasing bugs. Then when Sony scrapped BC altogether, I lost interest.
Maybe you're happy spending $300 on a system that does nothing but play current-gen games, but it sounds like a huge waste of money to me.
As to your Halo 2 remark- I think that's one of the strongest selling points of the 360. If it weren't for all the RROD problems, I would have already bought a 360 for precisely that reason. I'm still strongly considering it- just waiting to see if the new chipset really fares any better.