Does anyone find the PS3, and xbox 360 boring?

[gf78]

Where did 80% even come from? That has to be from a random number generator or common core mathematics.

I'm still trying to figure out how a sequel to a game looking and playing better negates the fun of previous entries?  Does Final Fantasy XV somehow make my experiences with Final Fantasy VII moot?  Should I not enjoy Uncharted Drake's Fortune any longer because A Thief's End is out?  It's preposterous. 

[gf78]

Who says that I wanted to chance your opinion, plenty of people love the xbox 360, ps3 etc yet I'm not one of those guys.

It is BTW you who actually responded to my post wich was not even intented to you.

I'm pretty sure it is around 80% not that most of the other games are any good anyways. Like I said realistic games are the tradmark of these consoles only reason why I use the term. Never stated it is exactly 80% just an estimate.

95 - 99% of ps3 games suck in my opinion, ps3 and xbox 360 are the worst consoles ever made. I would not even want to see them games like uncharted on my shelves even if i got them for free. Would litterally toss them in the garbage can that's how much i appreciate most of the ps3 xbox 360 console games.

I like especially older games and I pretty much don't care about current gen very few titles that pick my interest.

Also your statement about rehash and little variety is also pretty false for the mario (kart) and smash games allot of things are different. Also the story line of the zelda game is also plenty different from other games i could give examples but there are far to many to state.

Yet with titles as infamous, the next parts are just slightly better and the older games are far inferior and usually not worth it to play once again unless they messed up the new games. With assasins greed only the best titles with a certain time period will be replayed the others will be forgotten.

What is it with you, your hemorrhoids acting up or something?  I'm allowed to reply to posts here.  That's the point of the forum.   

You are acting like a petulant child.  You would throw away PS3 and 360 games if someone gave them to you?  Do everyone here a favor before you do that:  Let people know what you have and we will pay you to ship them to us.  This sounds like the ravings of a rabbid fanboy. 

Mario Kart and Smash are pretty much the same game every iteration.  They may adjust a tuning option here or add a character there, but they are essentially the same exact game with a fresh coat of paint.  I never said the Zelda games didn't play differently, only that the stories are rehashes where there is no evolution to the storyline and instead restarts every time a bit differently.

Your statement "Yet with titles as infamous, the next parts are just slightly better and the older games are far inferior and usually not worth it to play once again..." is absolutely ridiculous and a complete contradiction to your collecting habits and statements.  You collect and play games primarily for older systems.  So...do you not play older Mario or Smash games?  You don't play older Zelda games?  As I see it, it's more that you are being a hypocrite and bashing the collective libraries of two of the greatest consoles ever released and saying that once a new game comes out, it's useless to go back and play a previous and crappier entry in a series on them while simultaneously singing the praises of going back and collecting & playing Nintendo and Sega games.  By your reasoning, you have never played a 2D Mario game since Mario 64.  Right?  Because we all know that 2D is inferior to the 3D releases like Galaxy, right?   

[sworddude]

Who says that I wanted to chance your opinion, plenty of people love the xbox 360, ps3 etc yet I'm not one of those guys.

It is BTW you who actually responded to my post wich was not even intented to you.

I'm pretty sure it is around 80% not that most of the other games are any good anyways. Like I said realistic games are the tradmark of these consoles only reason why I use the term. Never stated it is exactly 80% just an estimate.

95 - 99% of ps3 games suck in my opinion, ps3 and xbox 360 are the worst consoles ever made. I would not even want to see them games like uncharted on my shelves even if i got them for free. Would litterally toss them in the garbage can that's how much i appreciate most of the ps3 xbox 360 console games.

I like especially older games and I pretty much don't care about current gen very few titles that pick my interest.

Also your statement about rehash and little variety is also pretty false for the mario (kart) and smash games allot of things are different. Also the story line of the zelda game is also plenty different from other games i could give examples but there are far to many to state.

Yet with titles as infamous, the next parts are just slightly better and the older games are far inferior and usually not worth it to play once again unless they messed up the new games. With assasins greed only the best titles with a certain time period will be replayed the others will be forgotten.

What is it with you, your hemorrhoids acting up or something?  I'm allowed to reply to posts here.  That's the point of the forum.   

Your statement "Yet with titles as infamous, the next parts are just slightly better and the older games are far inferior and usually not worth it to play once again..." is absolutely ridiculous and a complete contradiction to your collecting habits and statements.  You collect and play games primarily for older systems.  So...do you not play older Mario or Smash games?  You don't play older Zelda games?  As I see it, it's more that you are being a hypocrite and bashing the collective libraries of two of the greatest consoles ever released and saying that once a new game comes out, it's useless to go back and play a previous and crappier entry in a series on them while simultaneously singing the praises of going back and collecting & playing Nintendo and Sega games.  By your reasoning, you have never played a 2D Mario game since Mario 64.  Right?  Because we all know that 2D is inferior to the 3D releases like Galaxy, right?   

With slightly better I mean adding a few things here and there. That's aside from the point.

I've played them nes to wii u games. All games are different and fun to play don't give me that crap about slightly better. What I say applies for ps3 and xbox 360 games since the newer parts aren't that much different. Sega and nintendo titles are memorable and the occasional ps2 titles such as ico and shadow of the collosus.

2D and 3D are different, 2D games can be better than 3D games and he other way around.

Also putting mario games aside I do prefer 2D games, I am a sega guy after all, sega sure does have many good 3D games

Furthermore your going way off topic were talking about why ps3 and xbox 360 games have low value and why the wii actually has value. With what I said before being part of that reason.

Wii games aren't rare and yet titles such as mario and pokemon retain there value the only thing I'm saying is that those titles are unique unlike games such as infamous 1 and 2 the 2nd one being superior and the first one forgotten since the games don't have to much of a variety except for the story. If a next one will be made It;s all about the newest game older games will be forgotten.

Has nothing to do with my opinion.

[turf]

Massive walls of text.... over and over.... Walls of Text

[maximo310]

 Sworddude, some of those statements above would actually seem reasonable if it was just about your opinion, but you instead act like its the ultimate truth.

It's ridiculously biased to say that the  ps3 and the xbox 360 are the worst consoles ever and that 95% of the library is horrible garbage and then put Nintendo up on a pedestal by saying that their games are always unique.
That has become increasingly harder to believe if you look at the main series output of stuff like Mario, Paper Mario, Star Fox, etc. and interviews with those developers show that the big N is gonna require a lot of work to change because of the rigidity of many in the company.

[gf78]

With slightly better I mean adding a few things here and there. That's aside from the point.

I've played them nes to wii u games. All games are different and fun to play don't give me that crap about slightly better. What I say applies for ps3 and xbox 360 games since the newer parts aren't that much different. Sega and nintendo titles are memorable and the occasional ps2 titles such as ico and shadow of the collosus.

2D and 3D are different, 2D games can be better than 3D games and he other way around.

Also putting mario games aside I do prefer 2D games, I am a sega guy after all, sega sure does have many good 3D games

Furthermore your going way off topic were talking about why ps3 and xbox 360 games have low value and why the wii actually has value. With what I said before being part of that reason.

Wii games aren't rare and yet titles such as mario and pokemon retain there value the only thing I'm saying is that those titles are unique unlike games such as infamous 1 and 2 the 2nd one being superior and the first one forgotten since the games don't have to much of a variety except for the story. If a next one will be made It;s all about the newest game older games will be forgotten.

Has nothing to do with my opinion.

You are dismissing the entire library of PS3 and 360 games based on the assumption that the sequels are "slightly better by adding a few things here or there."  That is exactly what Nintendo games do!  They are the same formula, they just add a Tanooki suit or whatever for the next game. 

You sit there and sit all NES to Wii games are different and fun to play, yet can't manage to see how someone could enjoy Infamous 1 and Infamous 2, finding things they like about each that wouldn't negate the previous entry.  Have you played Infamous 1 or 2?  Both?  If you had, you would know that the first game is usually considered better than the second.  But you are just pulling an argument out of your ass to bash a system you don't like.  Wanna deny it?  Go back to your statement about if someone gave you PS3 games, you wouldn't want them in your library and would throw them out.  You said that.

It's been a fact all the way back from the NES on that Nintendo-made titles are considered valuable.  Much of that is a more modern trend where resellers are buying up anything made by Nintendo and jacking the prices up.  This wasn't even true five years ago.  You could buy Super Smash Bros. Melee or Zelda Wind Waker for Wii for $5 a pop.  We have this artificial speculator's boom going on, inflating the prices beyond what most people would even pay for the games and suckering in fans who may have missed out before because we live in a society of "I gotta have it!  I gottta have it now!" folks who will blow their money no matter what. 

In addition, Nintendo doesn't release Best of or Greatest Hits games very much anymore and when they do, they are in limited quantities.  Sony and Microsoft on the other hand have no problem releasing Greatest Hits, Platinum Hits or compilations.  Sony has released entire series in "Collections" for some time now.  If you just want to play the game and not collect it, would you spend $80 to buy the PS2 Ratchet & Clank games or just pick up the PS3 Collection for $20?  I will also use this opportunity to say that the Ratchet & Clank games have more heart, charm & fun factor than any 3D Mario entry.

The story is precisely why people love these series that you bash.  But I guess playing "Boop-boop-be-boop!" Sega classics and old Mario games where every damn time Bowser kidnapped the princess is more thrilling than good gameplay and an engaging story to you?  Ok.

And if you want to talk about value, where is the value in Sega games?  You can buy a Sega console these days with every damn game they made already built-in for fifty bucks.  True classics.   

[sworddude]

With slightly better I mean adding a few things here and there. That's aside from the point.

I've played them nes to wii u games. All games are different and fun to play don't give me that crap about slightly better. What I say applies for ps3 and xbox 360 games since the newer parts aren't that much different. Sega and nintendo titles are memorable and the occasional ps2 titles such as ico and shadow of the collosus.

2D and 3D are different, 2D games can be better than 3D games and he other way around.

Also putting mario games aside I do prefer 2D games, I am a sega guy after all, sega sure does have many good 3D games

Furthermore your going way off topic were talking about why ps3 and xbox 360 games have low value and why the wii actually has value. With what I said before being part of that reason.

Wii games aren't rare and yet titles such as mario and pokemon retain there value the only thing I'm saying is that those titles are unique unlike games such as infamous 1 and 2 the 2nd one being superior and the first one forgotten since the games don't have to much of a variety except for the story. If a next one will be made It;s all about the newest game older games will be forgotten.

Has nothing to do with my opinion.

You are dismissing the entire library of PS3 and 360 games based on the assumption that the sequels are "slightly better by adding a few things here or there."  That is exactly what Nintendo games do!  They are the same formula, they just add a Tanooki suit or whatever for the next game. 

You sit there and sit all NES to Wii games are different and fun to play, yet can't manage to see how someone could enjoy Infamous 1 and Infamous 2, finding things they like about each that wouldn't negate the previous entry.  Have you played Infamous 1 or 2?  Both?  If you had, you would know that the first game is usually considered better than the second.  But you are just pulling an argument out of your ass to bash a system you don't like.  Wanna deny it?  Go back to your statement about if someone gave you PS3 games, you wouldn't want them in your library and would throw them out.  You said that.

It's been a fact all the way back from the NES on that Nintendo-made titles are considered valuable.  Much of that is a more modern trend where resellers are buying up anything made by Nintendo and jacking the prices up.  This wasn't even true five years ago.  You could buy Super Smash Bros. Melee or Zelda Wind Waker for Wii for $5 a pop.  We have this artificial speculator's boom going on, inflating the prices beyond what most people would even pay for the games and suckering in fans who may have missed out before because we live in a society of "I gotta have it!  I gottta have it now!" folks who will blow their money no matter what. 

In addition, Nintendo doesn't release Best of or Greatest Hits games very much anymore and when they do, they are in limited quantities.  Sony and Microsoft on the other hand have no problem releasing Greatest Hits, Platinum Hits or compilations.  Sony has released entire series in "Collections" for some time now.  If you just want to play the game and not collect it, would you spend $80 to buy the PS2 Ratchet & Clank games or just pick up the PS3 Collection for $20?  I will also use this opportunity to say that the Ratchet & Clank games have more heart, charm & fun factor than any 3D Mario entry.

The story is precisely why people love these series that you bash.  But I guess playing "Boop-boop-be-boop!" Sega classics and old Mario games where every damn time Bowser kidnapped the princess is more thrilling than good gameplay and an engaging story to you?  Ok.

And if you want to talk about value, where is the value in Sega games?  You can buy a Sega console these days with every damn game they made already built-in for fifty bucks.  True classics.   

yes I have actually played games like red dead redemtion, infamous, uncharted  and assasins greed I don't like them games deal with it. Didn't care about the story and if the 2nd part of infamous was better or worse than the first one. Plenty of friends have these games so yes again I actually played them games so there is a reason why I find them so bad. Would rather do something else with my free time.

Go back to your statement about if someone gave you PS3 games, you wouldn't want them in your library and would throw them out.  You said that.

I'm not lying I would actually do that believe it. I really don't care about pretty much all of the ps3 library. it's my opinion not a fanboy just zero interest in those games. It's not only for ps3 and xbox 360 games I just don't like to have trash on my shelves.

Again opinions you like mascots such as ratchet and clank while I find them mediocre. The only playstation mascots that are excellent in my eyes are snake and cloud wich both aren't even mascots pretty much a shame.

Also again why talk about value, I also am the kinda guy that get's pretty much all of his games for 5 pop a piece or less even the more expensive older titles in the modern days where these are overpriced.

@Maximo

Again It's my opinion and I do find them to be the worst consoles to be made nothing biased about if It's my opinion

Many people like these systems, seriously why care if one person does not like the ps3 that much.

Furthermore Your misunderstanding the concept with value for the nintendo titles being unique that had nothing to do with ps3 etc being the worst console. That part was about why wii games had value and ps3 and xbox 360 overall not that much.

[desocietas]

Well, to get back on-topic, sworddude finds last gen to be boring while gf78 does not.



Cool beans; good talk, folks

[gf78]

Well, to get back on-topic, sworddude finds last gen to be boring while gf78 does not.



Cool beans; good talk, folks

Yeah. I think it's over.

[dreama1]

I think 360 and PS3 are in the purgatory that every previous gen console gets stuck in. It isn't nostalgic yet and it isn't new and flashy. Not enough time has passed to make us miss It but In 10 years it will be nostalgic and collectible and we will love it again. But right now its all about PS4 and One. Which are pretty much 360 and PS3 with better graphics in all honesty. And it doesn't help that One and PS4 are rereleasing a lot of the gems from last gen on the next gen consoles. It limits are reasons to go back.

What about the wii?

Same period, same gen yet way more games that are actually memorable and definitely raising in price big time.

PS3 And xbox 360 overall just inferior games of ps4 etc. Way less memorable unique games. Titles like the last of us or GTA will never be memorable on those inferior systems and games like journey or certain rpg's are already rising in value. Nothing will chance there aren't to many interesting titles out there anyway for these systems.

Your logic does not make any sense I highly doubt we will see a grow in prices of xbox 360 and ps3 except for the few unique titles and special CE. If it actually was the case than it should have been the same as wii wich it is not.

I somewhat agree. The same way the Xbox and PS2 really aren't rising in value like GameCube, other than some niche games. Wii was my favorite, and I think it'll definitely be the tougher console to track down in the future by a lot, as will the Wii U.

I have to agree as well. The ps2 game market is rather stone cold at the moment to be fair compared to the gamecube in general, a part from the horror and jrpg games of course. I think that much is clear.

Do you guys remember some months ago; some no name user on here with zero posts was trying to sell ps2 game discs that he had stored from blockbusters or something? Don't think he was able to sell a single one. I'm guessing they still cover his house. I think he would of done better for himself if he grabbed game cube discs, or just gave them to gf78 instead. The reasons for grabbing gamecube discs in that guys position as opposed to the other systems have already been stated as @sworddude said.

[dreama1]

I think 360 and PS3 are in the purgatory that every previous gen console gets stuck in. It isn't nostalgic yet and it isn't new and flashy. Not enough time has passed to make us miss It but In 10 years it will be nostalgic and collectible and we will love it again. But right now its all about PS4 and One. Which are pretty much 360 and PS3 with better graphics in all honesty. And it doesn't help that One and PS4 are rereleasing a lot of the gems from last gen on the next gen consoles. It limits are reasons to go back.

What about the wii?

Same period, same gen yet way more games that are actually memorable and definitely raising in price big time.

PS3 And xbox 360 overall just inferior games of ps4 etc. Way less memorable unique games. Titles like the last of us or GTA will never be memorable on those inferior systems and games like journey or certain rpg's are already rising in value. Nothing will chance there aren't to many interesting titles out there anyway for these systems.

Your logic does not make any sense I highly doubt we will see a grow in prices of xbox 360 and ps3 except for the few unique titles and special CE. If it actually was the case than it should have been the same as wii wich it is not.

I somewhat agree. The same way the Xbox and PS2 really aren't rising in value like GameCube, other than some niche games. Wii was my favorite, and I think it'll definitely be the tougher console to track down in the future by a lot, as will the Wii U.

I have to agree as well. The ps2 game market is rather stone cold at the moment to be fair compared to the gamecube in general, a part from the horror and jrpg games of course. I think that much is clear.

Do you guys remember some months ago; some no name user on here with zero posts was trying to sell ps2 game discs that he had stored from blockbusters or something? Don't think he was able to sell a single one. I'm guessing they still cover his house. I think he would of done better for himself I he grabbed game cube discs instead. The reasons have already been stated as sworddude said.

[dreama1]

Well, to get back on-topic, sworddude finds last gen to be boring while gf78 does not.



Cool beans; good talk, folks

Yeah. I think it's over

I checked your games gf78, you seem heavily invested in the ps2 and ps3, and nothing else really to be fair. Not trying to be mean or anything but I think you were projecting on him a little calling him a fanboy, and bias, and whatever else. His collection seems well balanced. It's not focused on playstation only. Just saying before you throw blows at anyone and cry fanboy on someone. You should consider you own exposition.

I think you bet on the wrong horse by any leap of the imagination if you gambled everything on sony games only, if you were offended when game value was brought into the equation. But it's certainly an interesting one and It seems off topic  mentioning game price/value but not totally. It seems to overlap a little.

I think what he was trying to lead onto is that it goes hand in hand game quality/value from Nintendo"in general"with "exceptions" like everything else in the known universe. "exceptions to the rule" but it doesn't make it invalid. And they're also the last real game company if you like it or not.

Also maybe you should be reminded despite Nintendo's failings right now. They're brought out the "most" and "best" exclusives of this generation at 1080p 60fps, and touched upon concepts that not even Microsoft or sony would dare touch even with  the funding of gods behind them. Their games are holding value.

Low demand = Lack of interest /boring/was fun but no one cares about anymore - disposable entertainment/sports/shovel ware/Not art
High demand = High quality  /classic/considered art/timeless game play, and replay value/

This seems to be the formula. There's one more part to it but I'm to lazy bring in quantity vs quality, and more complicated. but it
is why you can have great games at a low price or bad games at a high price in some cases. But it seems like abnormalities.
And more often than not.

You also seemed keen to mention you can emulate all sega genesis/megadrive games for about 50 dollars. Fair enough. Yet still the value continues to rise.

While sadly on the other hand the fact is most of the PS2 generation of games and beyond are worth less than Ugandan toilet paper, and less by each passing day as opposed to the Sega or Nintendo "as a whole". It's just the truth. For why that is is open to debate.

And to be fair you wanted to bring up uncharted? It's nothing but a glorified tomb raider with a gears of war cover system thrown in and that's not my words it was exactly the sentiment and what people were saying back in 2007/2008. And it was true enough.

Half of its success was probably the lack of good tomb raider game since the ps2 games. Through for me the comments made weren't so harsh the games ranged from okay to good.  But the uncharted games would of made far far better movies than games, sorry.

From memory the game consisted of a monkey climbing sequence, a shooting sequence, a puzzle sequence, then a cut scene sequence in a loop. If I wanted to be really cold I could say that makes it shit, but no to me it makes it good for one play-through at the most. Disposable. Then never touching the game again. He said he rather dump it, than let it sit on his shelf and collect dust. Probably because the game is almost unsalable, common and most of all the demand is low. That's why dumping it seemed like a viable option rather than just hoarding junk with no replay value, nor will it ever more than likely.

They lack any imagination to create anything above average. (Bloodborne seemed to be the only killer app.) As he said why the hell play/watch a ultra realistic corridor shooter cinematic game when you could just watch a movie instead? These games are more like movies than games? But thats just my opinion if someone enjoys that, but it seems distant from the core beliefs of what gaming was. It should of existed but it should have never been dominated by this genre today, and exterminate other genres off the face of the map.  I don't know what else to say about it. Other than it's a elephant in the room, but Nintendo seemed to have somewhat stuck to the core beliefs. As for game uncharted just like many others is just like a movie, the movie is fun once maybe twice then its over. It's not crafted or designed to by anything more than that. It's price and value reflects that in the passing of time.

I rather have game with the best game play on the planet that's fun than the most realistic game on the planet.


Last note.

"If not for PlayStation, we wouldn't have great games like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil,  Silent Hill or Tomb Raider."
 
Not true really. Tomb raider started out on the sega saturn, and resident evil was planned first on the sega saturn. but the original build was cancelled from international jewry from sony probably or whatever lol. And silent hill? Well.. True but I don't want to open up any old wounds or anything from those still moaning but we don't have the franchise anymore. It could of easily ended up on saturn if things played out slightly different anyway.


The rant is over kind regards gf78

[Flashback2012]

"If not for PlayStation, we wouldn't have great games like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil,  Silent Hill or Tomb Raider."
 
Not true really. Tomb raider started out on the sega saturn, and resident evil was planned first on the sega saturn. but the original build was cancelled from international jewry from sony probably or whatever lol. And silent hill? Well.. True but I don't want to open up any old wounds or anything from those still moaning but we don't have the franchise anymore. It could of easily ended up on saturn if things played out slightly different anyway.

The Wiki entry for Tomb Raider seems to back up what you're saying but the Resident Evil/Biohazard claim doesn't seem to check out. You make it sound like Sony waived some $$$ at Capcom but the more likely scenario is the PS1 was/is better at handling 3D graphics than the Saturn and by default was the premier console of choice to put their killer app on. Don't misinterpret that as Sony fanboyism, I prefer my Saturn 11 times out of 10 over my PS1 but I always did feel that 3D games looked inferior on that system.

[dreama1]

"If not for PlayStation, we wouldn't have great games like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil,  Silent Hill or Tomb Raider."
 
Not true really. Tomb raider started out on the sega saturn, and resident evil was planned first on the sega saturn. but the original build was cancelled from international jewry from sony probably or whatever lol. And silent hill? Well.. True but I don't want to open up any old wounds or anything from those still moaning but we don't have the franchise anymore. It could of easily ended up on saturn if things played out slightly different anyway.

The Wiki entry for Tomb Raider seems to back up what you're saying but the Resident Evil/Biohazard claim doesn't seem to check out. You make it sound like Sony waived some $$$ at Capcom but the more likely scenario is the PS1 was/is better at handling 3D graphics than the Saturn and by default was the premier console of choice to put their killer app on. Don't misinterpret that as Sony fanboyism, I prefer my Saturn 11 times out of 10 over my PS1 but I always did feel that 3D games looked inferior on that system.

Resident evil was delayed on saturn but the superior version probably it had more content as well. It's worth mentioning resident evil 2 was in the works by the war years already at 1997/1998 It was cancelled with many other titles.

The 3D debate is also highly controversial. And i'm not a expert to talk about it but the 3D wasn't always superior. The Saturns potential was only just starting to be unlocked when they pulled the plug. I don't believe it hit it's limits. Panzer dragoon saga for example is one of the only games to use all 3 processors? Check out the games by lobotomy those 3d games are superior on Saturn anyway.

This guy seems to explain it quite well maybe you'll find value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OchOV_WDg

[Flashback2012]

Resident evil was delayed on saturn but the superior version probably it had more content as well. It's worth mentioning resident evil 2 was in the works by the war years already at 1997/1998 It was cancelled with many other titles.

This is from the RE Wiki article:
"Almost all development was done on Silicon Graphics hardware using the software program Soft Image. The PlayStation was chosen as the lead platform because the development team felt it was the most appropriate for the game in terms of things such as the amount of polygons."

There's a footnote that cites an article from an issue of EGM where they apparently interviewed the development team.

The 3D debate is also highly controversial. And i'm not a expert to talk about it but the 3D wasn't always superior. The Saturn's potential was only just starting to be unlocked when they pulled the plug. I don't believe it hit it's limits. Panzer dragoon saga for example is one of the only games to use all 3 processors? Check out the games by lobotomy those 3d games are superior on Saturn anyway.

This guy seems to explain it quite well maybe you'll find value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OchOV_WDg

I watched that whole thing and what he covers makes a lot of sense. It's that "AHA!" moment in that he does a good job explaining the subtle yet important difference between the PS1 and Saturn. That video contains a WEALTH of good information and I thank you for linking it.