Finally gave the PS3 a through Spin

I played Resistance Fall of Man today... or yesterday.. i was at a LAN party and somone had a PS3. i was up all night playing PC games, and saw that the guys who were playing Resistance: fall of man (but ended up playing Gears of War in its entirety instead) were no-longer playing Gears of war and the TV and consoles were open to play.

i gave it a through play-through, i figure since i'm bashing it all the time i should at least TRY it. i mean it wouldn't be fair to criticize it and never actually play it.

three things:
1: the controller while light... i find it perfect, i dont care that it feels light and cheap... it isint noticeable while playing the game... though the missing rumble is noticed ( )
2: i never once had to use a cable to synch the controller to the console, i hear constatly about people * about this. and it would put me off as at my home my TV is far from my couch. with traps on the floor... it would be bad.
3: the online network sucks hard... it really does. when it was working, it was slow, and close to useless.

i can say this though:
Resistance Fall of man looked like a good game..... before i played it.
if anyone thinks Halo is a generic shooter... you will find yourself bored with Resistance quite quickly. the graphics remind me of Call of Duty 2, more than any other game. and its not the WWII theme.. no its the graphical power. essentally the team just threw aliens in the Call of Duty 2 engine and released it as a game. i was classifying this game as a "if i ever own a PS3, ill get this game" game.. but i wouldn't spend more than $20 on it now.

it seemed like the game ran at 30fps until you hit a cutscene, when it would thusly run at 60fps and with strangely better graphics. makes me wish that the rest of the game could be like that then it would be pretty.

it was debatable if Haflife 2 looked better or not, i said HL2 looks better.. Most everyone else said no... I then fired up HL2 on my computer with all the settings maxed, 1680x1050 resolution and 6x AA with HDR (yes, WITH HDR) and played it at a constant 45FPS (HDR takes about 15fps, if i turn it off i get 60fps) we then compared it side-by side... it was then unanimous, HL2 looks better.

unfortunately i dident get to try out the multiplayer (which i hear it excelled at. while the singleplayer and gameplay bored, so i guess that skewed my oppinion a bit) the reason is because the PS network was down randomly, kicking me out at odd points, and all around being garbage.

the TV was a 1080p TV, and i did get to play the GT HD demo in all its glory... and again i was unimpressed. both gameplay and graphics wize.
sure there were a few points were i was impressed with the visuals, then i noticed that the background was just a VERY high-rez static image that wouldent move as you drive....

i saw some screen-shots of GT HD before i played it, and they looked VERY close to life-like, i mean they had the Real Life pictures next to them and it was frigging close....
in-game, its not nearly that good looking. it looks like.... well a next-gen racing game. and by that i mean it looks like Project Gotham Racing but in 1080p and in the mountains.

overall, the graphics are not nearly that impressive, the network i dont find that usefull, and the only game that i THOUGHT might be worth it, Isint.

there is good news though.. all of these problems i have with the thing WILL be fixed over the course of the year.
my advice to anyone who just has to own a PS3... buy it in a year, if you HAVE to have it now.. get a 360, same experience, same graphics, less problems.