Playstation 2 vs Playstation 3



22 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Sony Playstation 2


Initial release date: March 4th, 2000

Initial price: $299

Lifespan: 2000 - present

Units sold: 142.8 million

Number of games released: Over 4500.

Notable games:

Grand Theft Auto series

Metal Gear Solid series

Gran Turismo series

God of War series

Devil May Cry series



Shadow of the Colossus

Final Fantasy X

Other notes:

- Best selling video game console of all time.

- The first video game console to use DVD technology.

- Backward compatable with 95% of PSX software.


Sony Playstation 3


Initial release date: November 11, 2006

Initial price: $499 and $599

Lifespan: 2006-present

Units sold: 33.5 million.

Number of games released: Over 600.

Notable games:

Uncharted series

God of War III

Metal Gear Solid 4

Killzone 2

Elder Scrolls: Oblivion

Heavy Rain


Other notes:

- The first video game console to use Blu-Ray technology.

- Backward compatatible with PSX and PS2 games (sometimes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose the PS2, because it was the best console since the NES for a back catalogue of games. You had great titles like Smackdown: Shut your mouth and here comes the pain, along with the best GTA games in my opinion in 3 and Vice City, both games were so engaging and fun to play.

You also had the God of War series debut, which was a fun series, and of course countless other games that came on the console, but also the stupid eye play technology, which was a sort of pre-cursor to the Wii in a sense, you could actually see yourself on screen fighting off ninjas.

Other notables are the fact that it would work as a DVD player, meaning you could have both a games console, and DVD player for one price, back when DVD players were still expensive, and most couldn't afford them yet. Also, it was backwards compatible with the PS1, which meant you would not have to get rid of your old games, or have to hook up to separate consoles, which was new at the time.

I did not choose the PS3 as unlike the PS2 it does not have an expansive library and is still trying to find it's place with gamers today, although it is getting there, but still at this very moment, the best console to choose was the PS2.

Sorry, I went a bit long there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS2. PS3 is pretty but over-priced, the PS2 had massive longevity, tonnes of games, masses of sales and was the first to incorporate tech that went beyond simple gaming, it was a home entertainment platform thanks to its DVD player.

Look at it this way. Its so damn good I've owned two, both original and the compact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS2. Why? Good price, good amount of value for what you get, great game library (Kingdom Hearts, FFX and FFXII, Okami, Odin Sphere), backwards compatibility means that I can pla PS games on it, and they're still producing for it well into the next gen here. (Plus, it was the console that got me started.)

PS3 meanwhile is only selectively backwards compatible, costs way too damn much (it would take me several months to be able to afford one, not to mention the games), and with its high initial prices, shut out a good part of the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS2. I root for Nintendo despite not being much of a gamer anymore, but watching Kaz Harai claim you'll want to get a second job to afford the awesome of the PS3 and then watch it fail at launch was pretty hilarious! The PS2 is a much more accessible machine and built upon the PS1 in every way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Both systems sputtered from a game standpoint at launch, and a lot of the PS2's early success had to do with the competition (or lack thereof).

This generation, the Wii and 360 are putting up much more of a fight than their predecessors. I think that the PS3 still has the potential to become great, but it won't reach the heights that the PS2 did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony got arrogant and lazy with the PS3. People weren't going to buy it just because it said PlayStation on it. They found out real quick that price is pretty fucking important. Look how many features they have dropped since it first came out so they can make it cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PS3 certainly helped win the format war. It was part of the plan. Sony's library was a much larger component of that, but the install base didn't hurt. Especially considering the cost of BD players and the fact that the PS3 was subsidized, making it for a long time one of the cheapest (and most futureproof) you could buy.

The PS2. It benefited greatly from good timing, as DW alluded to. The PS2, in its time was where you HAD to be for home console gaming. It didn't have a lot of impact with regards to the way people played their games or even looked at their systems (maybe the DVD player, but it was kind of annoying with that), but it was #1, so it was where the overwhelming majority of great games were. It also brought in the DVD as the dominant format for gaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS2 did for using DVDs as game meida what the PS1 did for CD's as game media, throw on the fact that it was the first to effectively be usable as an entire home entertainment setup and that SWEET game lineup AND backwards compatability with one of the best systems ever, PS2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PS3 is too expensive. I think that's been the biggest thing holding it back.

The PS2 leaves everything else in the dust in terms of units sold. Longevity has been great too. The PS3 may have great hardware, but it isn't going to have nearly the impact the PS2 had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.