Was Sony always shit?

I really didn't like the PS4, but was forgiving of the PS3 later down the line. However, one thing I've realized that many of the issues I have had with the PS4 seem like they may have been an issue with Sony consoles since the beginning, but I just didn't notice because at the time what the PS1 and PS2 offered was still kind of a novelty. And I say this as someone who thoroughly enjoyed both consoles back in those days.

The Playstation 1 & 2 basically changed video games from toys and a platform for avant-garde creators to another form of mass entertainment, delivering greater "cinematic experiences", which at the time was interesting, but perhaps now is much less so. And in other ways, what I thought made the Playstation 1&2 so great may have only seemed great because these were the only platforms I had access to for that type of gaming experience. If I had had a top of the line PC back then or if I could have read moon runes, I wonder if I would have had much reason to even own these two consoles at all.

Am I tripping, or am I starting to see the light?

sony as a company is jewish as hell. the psx and ps2 were definitely the best of their generations though and did great things for us as consumers (i still remember justifying the price of a PS2 for myself since it doubled as a DVD player, which were expensive as fuck) and as game players (by making their consoles easy and cheap to develop for)

ps1 and ps2 had fun games to play so no its not shit

The thing is, if we're just looking at hardware capabilities, the PS1 and PS2 were both pretty weak compared to their competition and certainly inferior to PC at the time. And while they both had larger game libraries than their competition, they probably had roughly the same number of high quality titles as their competitors. While the PS1 had 7,000 games released for it and the N64 only some odd number over 300, I'd say both consoles have pretty much the same amount of games actually worth getting (somewhere around 40), but that's just my opinion.


It's not really a question of whether or not the consoles had fun games, but I think whether the PS1 & PS2 in fact suffered from the same problems people often complain about with the PS3 and PS4 and yet we only notice these problems now. But if we're talking about games themselves as well, many of the best Playstation titles in those days were always available on other platforms in the same, if not greater quality. Really, looking back on it, the only thing we ever played on the PS1 in our house were RPG's and Resident Evil.

Things that are Jewish and shit when taken to their logical extremes can be good in a limited form.
While Sony as a company was likely always Jewish as fuck the hardware capabilities of the time didn't allow them to fully exercise their kikery. Hence, the PS1, PS2 and PSP are all pretty good machines.

ps2 succeeded at least to some extent by being the most generic console. none of nintendo's gimmicks or overbearing quality control, none of the the xbox's weird proprietary hardware. ps4 is sort of a repeat of this environment insofar as it's the only platform not to implode trying to reinvent the wheel. ps3 was the most infuriating platform for me because it marked the change from 'dumb specialized media machine' to 'corporate fuckery license box'

Sony consoles have always been the best, library-wise.

It's pretty much a successor to the NES and SNES due to how versatile its library is.

All console manufacturers are always shit no exceptions. Proprietary software/hardware is cancer and any support it are cancer as well.

PS1 was weak to the N64 only in terms of raw graphics. It outclassed the N64 in terms of audio, memory, game storage size, ease of development, and many other things not worth mentioning.

It didn't have as high a clock speed as the Sega Saturn but most devs had trouble utilizing SS's 2nd core, plus the PS1 had real alpha-channels whereas the SS used dithering to do it's transparency.

Only if you count every region/revision of every game. Unique entries number around 2.5K or so.

The PC was becoming rather desirable by the mid 90s, especially in 98. Even in the early 2000s though, PC gaming was still pretty expensive and the software was still pretty shit (install-shield, AOL was still around, DSL still wasn't very common, etc.).

Consoles still had exclusives so there was still a lot of justification for getting a console.

The Saturn could do real transparency, but it required some black magic with video rendering that no one wanted to do barring a few hyper-autistic programmers.

Also, what the fuck is with no one remembering IMAGE RELATED, and Sony telling everyone to eat shit when they tried to file a warranty claim.

Yeah i had this issue with a Slim PS2 model. But only with dual layered games like MGS2 Substance. I had to open the PS2 up and make the laser more powerful.

Sony was always shit, but the PS1 and PS2 were excellent, the PS3 was mostly-okay, but the PS4 is not so great.

who cares? i don't. remember the atari jaguar?

DVD players were a lot cheaper than PS2's. At the time the PS2 launched you could get a $100-120 dvd player.

source: wayback machine, best buy online catalog archive from 2000.

Turning up the laser diode's potentiometer was like flooring it when you're almost out of gas, but if the analogy worked both ways, the car that was low on fuel wouldn't even start unless you had the pedal to the metal when turning the key.


I still have my first DVD player, and it was four hundred dollars. There was fuck all in the way of cheaper options prior to the launch of the PS2 in my tri-state area.

This also excludes what Sony did as a company in itself outside of Video Games.
So many more, but whatever. Console war shit. I even hate the n64 as well, that system is a whole another story.
All you need is a Sega Genesis, Nes, Snes and PC. The rest is garbage.
Have a nice day.

k

k k

I'm not sure if this is really a fair critcism against the N64. While the N64 cartridges could hold far less megabytes, I think the memory size of the N64 carts was okay for the kinds of games that were developed for the N64. Keep in mind that as I said in the OP, Sony's console had a different approach in that for Sony, video games were just another form of mass entertainment like any other one they were involved in and one of the selling points of the PS1 to developers was the PS1's ability to provide the opportunity to said developers make bigger, louder, more cinematic video game experiences, for which Final Fantasy 7 was one of the biggest flagships, being advertised in movie theaters.

I think the carts fit the 64 and Nintendo's general approach to video games as a toy company as opposed to big electronics media giant and its particular library of games which probably didn't need much more than 64 megabytes of storage for the kind of gaming experience they intended to deliver, especially since many of them never used all that memory space. Also, in the PS1's case, most of the games for that platform probably didn't need that much space either. With how they were able to voodoo compress both RE2 campaigns into a single 64 cart and with how much space on a game like FF7 or FF8 was taken up JUST by the FMV's alone, you get the sense that the extra space disc media offered merely gave more license for developers pad their games. I know Yoshinori Kitase said in an interview about the development of FF6 that he somewhat misses the days when developers had to make the most optimal use of limited cartridge space as he feels that "there is a certain freedom to be found in working within strict boundaries". When I shit on a game like Uncharted for example, I'm sometimes tempted to look back on the PS1 and PS2 days of my youth, but then I stop and think, "Wait, maybe this whole problem I feel PS3/PS4 have began with PS1"


True. Cost definitely had an important role to play. It's easy these days to just shout PC masterrace, but only the most privileged of gamers in those days could rep PC to its fullest. But even so, many high selling Playstation games had PC ports in those times and a number of games that filled PS1's extensive library were downgraded ports of PC titles that really were not very good on console. So, if you were one of those privileged kids or young adults, you certainly were not starved of some of the greater PS1 games. And when it comes to one of the PS1's main selling points: RPG's, the Saturn, at least in the JPN region was certainly a worthy contender

For me i just had to turn it up a bit more. And that was 3 years ago. No errors since.

Also by 97 is was pretty cheap to own a okay gaming PC. I had a pentium II with a voodoo 3 1000. Worked great, though we were poor so i used that PC up to 2005.

Thread is bumplocked lol

This. PS1 and PS2 was Sony's best times.

No, you're just a pleb.

Ps1 and Ps2 were great because they had the most third party support. They had shit loads of great games. The only problem was that the hardware tended to be bullshit and you got tons of disc read errors and failures to boot into games particularly if you were an early adopter. If it wasn't for that they'd probably be considered the greatest systems ever.

No it seems more like you are just trying to bait here to me instead.

What gaming was like during the Playstation 1 and 2 days cannot be compared much with the Playstation 3 and 4 era. There are similarities sure but back then gaming was still largely about the games and nothing more. It was about getting a complete total package. Not a game sliced up into pieces thanks to DLC, season passes and pre-order incentives. There are whole genres of games from those times that are either dead or not even a factor anymore do to the changes in gaming and what developers, publishers and marketers have convinced the masses what they want.

The internet wasn't as strong then as it is now. Online gaming wasn't the cancer like it is today. Mass media and marketing wasn't as strong and jewy like it is today.

It really doesn't matter if the industry was always going to head into the direction that it did. Just because it has doesn't mean that the past generations of gaming should be looked at in a more negative light due to what came after. It is all about the context of the time period. Most people couldn't see the direction gaming would eventually go in back then.

So no those consoles were and still are great. They brought a lot of good to gaming. Of course in retrospect they could have been a bit better. We could say that about literally anything when we look back on it.

So OP you are either baiting or you are trying to reason with yourself that because gaming has shifted direction a whole lot and is far more popular now than it ever was that somehow this must mean that past generations couldn't have been as good or were perhaps planting the seeds of what was to come. That seed didn't have to become the monstrous jew it became. It could have easily went into a different direction to. You need to put the blame on the proper sources here. Not what could have or should have. That is the past. Focus on the now. We all know shit like season passes is jew fuckery and will never be okay. Yet we also know that HDD are much better than memory cards ever were. Praise the innnovations, shit on the money grubbing kikery.

I'm done here I've typed enough. You guys get the point.

A "top of the line PC" back then wouldn't have gotten you much of what the PS1 or 2 had to offer, and the few ports it did get were mostly botched in some way or another, and learning jap would've likely only heightened your appreciation for the machine depending on what you're looking for, especially the PS2 with all it's JRPGs and shit.