It’s been pretty easy lately to bash SCEA. The PS3 is generally pretty universally considered the worst of the next generation consoles; it has even become fashionable in some gaming circles to call the PS3 DOA. I was pretty eager to jump on this bandwagon myself, as a Wii owner, and as someone who didn’t want to shell out the money for a PS3 based on its lackluster library. But I’ve done a lot of thinking about it, and after all of it I’d like to present an argument in favor of the PS3, detailing, essentially, why I think the system actually has more promise than any of the other consoles in the seventh generation.

The easiest way to do this, it seems, is to break down the two strongest arguments about the PS3, and talk about how they are in fact arguments in its favor, not against it. I want to debunk myths about the PS3 and explicate the shortcomings that it does have.

First and foremost is the price tag. The PS3 has two retail versions: there is a basic system and a premium system (the Xbox 360 did this as well; however, the difference between the two releases is marked). The basic system (referred to by Sony as the "20GB HDD configuration") retails for $ 499, and the premium system (referred to by Sony as the "60GB HDD configuration") retails for $ 599. The system can be hard to find, but at least the premium version can be ordered online from game stores like EB, whereas the Wii is still found only through a combination of luck and waiting. There are two things to talk about here. One is the difference between the versions: whereas the Xbox 360’s basic version has no HDD (one can be purchased separately), only wired controllers (although wireless ones can be purchased for it), no Hi-Def hookup cables, and is missing a few other features (the price difference there is $ 299 vs $ 399), the difference between the PS3s really pretty much is the hard drive capacity, and 20GB is quite a bit of hard drive capacity for a video game system. The 60GB configuration also has built-in Wi-Fi, but since both consoles have 4 USB ports, getting Wi-Fi on the 20GB model isn’t difficult. While this does make the premium system seem more superfluous, it’s a good thing for the PS3 because the basic version really is worth it (whereas only suckers bought the Xbox 360’s “core” system). Next, there is the price point itself. I think it’s safe to say that one can reasonably acquire a PS3 for $ 499. This puts it at $ 100 more than a buyable Xbox 360, and at twice the price of a Wii. This is often how it is viewed (or even more so, the $ 600 price point is used because it makes for a flashier argument). However, the comparison doesn’t hold up. In terms of hardware, it has been argued that the PS3 is twice as powerful as the Xbox 360 and fifteen times more powerful than the Wii. One reason for the short supply of PS3s is that hospitals bought them up like crazy, because of the sheer number of things they were able to process at once. A lot of times, the response to this is that “graphics don’t make a game great. Graphisc just make up for a game’s other shortcomings”. However, this argument is not only wrong, it’s incomplete. It’s like saying that looks don’t matter in attraction; of course they do, they’re just not enough on their own. A game is a visual medium, and so the better it looks, the better it’s going to be. This plays in to suspension of disbelief, enjoyment, and overall playability. You’re not going to keep coming back to a game that looks horrific, even if it has an original concept or mechanic. That said, hardware isn’t just responsible for sheer graphical output. The hardware in a game system determines many things, including how many characters it can render, how much those characters can be doing at the same time, how quickly/responsively the game plays, and how smooth the feel of the game is. This is the reason that gaming PCs which are capable of putting out the same basic picture (a function of the graphics card, surprinsgly enough) range in price from about $1500 to $4000. Processor speed, RAM, all of these things determine how much fun a game is to play, and the difference between a PS3 and a Wii or Xbox 360 in these respects is marked.

The final thing I’ll say about this is that, with a PS3, you’re getting a few thousand dollars’ worth of hardware for 500 or even 600 bucks. That’s not too shabby, even before the blu-ray player is thrown in. Sure, it’s steep compared to a Wii. But a more accurate comparison is to a pretty competitive PC (essentially, a PS3 is a very competitive PC), at which point the price is a fraction of reasonable.

After this argument has been debunked or ignored, there is what in my opinion is the more relevant argument: the library. I will be the first to say that the PS3’s launch library sucked. Hard. The one decent game, Resistance: Fall of Man (which I’ve gotten a chance to play, and really is quite decent), was overshadowed by its main competitor, Microsoft’s Gears of War, a game that consistently blew critics and players out of the water (I’ve also played it, and its praise is more than merited). There was no reason to buy a PS3 at its launch, and Microsoft perfectly timed Gears’ release to shut out the one reason that anyone might have had. However, one must look at the future of Sony’s library, as well as its potential and promises, before damning it completely. Given the trajectory of Microsoft’s console development alongside Sony’s (even Nintendo doesn’t view Nintendo as a competitor to Sony, although I don’t think this is fair, particularly given the Legend of Zelda series), Gears is really more of a fluke than anything else. The Microsoft consoles are hailed, more than anything else, for the Halo series - the most derivative of all games, and that’s putting it kindly. Other than these, and ports, the Microsoft consoles don’t get much in the way of stellar games - even their highly reviewed “killer apps” fail to be anything more than virtual fodder - very little, if anything, that appears on Microsoft’s consoles can be considered to be pushing video gaming in the direction of art. Gears of War may have been an incredible game, but its appearance is also pretty much inexplicable in the Microsoft timeline. The 360’s launch, even, was arguably just as bad as the PS3’s (it didn’t even have a game on par with Resistance until Gears). It just caught less flak because it wasn’t competing with other launches.

The only data I can really have for this argument comes from either prospective games or past libraries, and I will draw on both. The original Xbox was hailed as a “shooter’s console,” something that I don’t imagine was intended as an insult, although I certainly think less of it for that view. While trying to break that image, the 360 still has had what can only be described as a mediocre library for long time now - lots and lots of games that are kinda fun to play, but nothing that can be described as incredible, and at $ 60 a pop, isn’t an incredible gaming experience a reasonable request? The PS3 had a strong start with Resistance, although a shooter, and isn’t one among a slew of launch titles enough? It certainly used to be. That aside, even, for a moment, look at Sony’s game history. If you scroll down the page to my other video game article, you will notice a top 5 list. What you may not notice right away is that four of the five are or were Sony-exclusive (Shadow of the Colossus/Ico; Grand Theft Auto series; Final Fantasy series; Silent Hill series). Shadow, Ico, and Silent Hill were even all first-party developed! Not to mention the fact that Sony has always been the company to attract the best in independent game developers, and it seems that that’s going to be somewhat true for this generation as well. Sure, Sony platforms release a lot of stinkers. They’re allowed to, because they also get almost all of the greats; few games that can be considered art are released on anything other than Playstation platforms (the others are all either on Nintendo (and this, again, is mostly limited to Zelda games and the early Final Fantasy games) or PC, both of which I own anyway, and think every serious gamer should). One look at Lair or White Knight Story will convince, I think, most non-believers that the system has a lot of promise. One look at Sony’s past and legacy will confirm it.

So yes, the console is expensive. And yes, the launch was lackluster at best. But I have renewed faith in the console after seeing promise that its tradition will continue, and sooner or later, as much as it may kill my indie cred to say it, I am going to buy a PS3.