[hillstones]

Quote:

---

Not quite. Although HD is one benefit, there is much more to conceder. The Cell Broadband Engine inside the PS3 is 40 times faster than the PS2. Blu-Ray provides access to almost 50GB of data. Even at lower resolutions you have so much more going on in more realistic ways. Anyone trying to make the point that a PS3 is ONLY worth it for HD has lost there mind. I know for a fact a PS3 is at least worth a lifetime supply of taco's. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

---

Unfortunately, the PS3 is not getting good reviews:
http://arstechnica.c...dware/ps3.ars/1
The CPU does nothing. If the game is poorly written in code, you will get a terrible experience. One game they played in the review had poor frame rates, jerky motion, and bad graphics.
They commented that the online experience was a mess, and very slow. It will probably get worse as more PS3 users log on to the online store. They also commented that the PS3 lacked an internal scaler, so if your HD set could not display a particular resolution, it dropped to 480p. Or, if your HD set could not display 1080p for Blu Ray movies, they looked grainy.

[cyberhazard]

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, the PS3 is not getting good reviews:

---

Not True.
CNET PS3 review 8.8
GameZone PS3 Rating 9.7
Digital Trends PS3 score 8.5
PC Magazine PS3 Editors Rating 4.5 out of 5
But of course different people have different expectations, and some people have the ability to adapt to new technologies while others lack the aptitude to program a VCR.
Bottom line. The best review is always your own.