[Divinorum]

PC... I don't support gaming consoles personally.

And the Wii isn't considered the same generation as the PS3 and Xbox 360 are, just thought I'd let you know that.

[oxyshow]

Xbox 360. I really enjoy Halo 3.

[SilentKayos]

Originally Posted by GG-Xtreme

I don't play sports games. Maybe because I'm a PC gamer, my standards for different types of games are different, but IMO, the entire Halo series sucks. The remaining games are either on other platforms, in which case I'd rather have it on the PC or PS3, or they're not worth mentioning. The only PS3 exclusive games I'd play are probably GT5 and MGS4, but I can't think of any 360 exclusives I like (GoW is on the PC too, so it doesn't count).

You thinking a series sucking means nothing. I know you probably wont accept it but the truth is that the 360 has more and better games than the PS3. If the only games you'd play on the PS3 are MGS4 and GT5 that's wonderful but you still fail to prove the most important feature about the console.

How does the PS3 have a better game library?

The 360 has the most diverse library of all the systems catering to both casual and hardcore.

Now if you're going try the "also on PC" argument then I'd suggest holding your breath. The thread is about consoles as a stand alone unit but really even if it was part of the OP my stand still would stay the same.

In the end, it really isn't even worth purchasing a PS3 for it's current selection of games. With Final Fantasy being the latest exclusive the 360 stole from the PS3 very few games look like system sellers.

Right now it's still a glorified blu-ray player that can play MGS4.

[kkenny]

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

Respectfully, I disagree.

[b]
Outperform? In theory, yes, the CPU inside the PS3 (the Cell) is more powerful than that in the 360 and certainly the Wii. However, the graphics card (the RSX) despite what Sony would have you believe, is not as powerful, or as advanced, as the 360s Zenos. This has been proven time and time again with direct side-by-side comparisons of games which appear on both platforms. Either they are entirely equal, or the 360 versions look marginally better.

Nevermind the fact that I've heard of several instances where PS3 developers are having to nick some power from the Cell to prop up the RSXs rendering power. Thereby diminishing both the theoretical processing power lead, and actual performance.


That makes it a DVD player. Not a console. In fact, for a console, it was a bad choice.

Sure, you can get more stuff on there with less compression than the standard DVD used by the 360 or the Wii. However, you're still entirely restricted by both your size of memory, and your transfer bandwidth.

In the case of transfer bandwidth, the Blu-ray spec implemented by the PS3 is overall slower, than a DVD9. Ergo: Longer loading times. Case in point: GTA IV for the PS3 has a mandatory partial-install. While the 360 version does not.

(As an aside, when MS updates the dash with the NXE interface, that will bring with it the feature to install the entire game to the harddrive, to further improve loading times)

Even if you do need the extra space, say for some long HD CGI cinematic movie sequences, (read: Eastern RPGs), multi-disc games are not unheard of. Blue Dragon for the 360 was multi-disc. And the only thing that changed from disc to disc was the cinematic videos. The entire gameworld was still present on each disc. Sims 2 for the PC, in its CD version, was no-less than 4 discs.

If the content is worth it, gamers will put up with disc-changing.

More over, its rather an odd thing to say the Blu-ray is an advantage really. Its made it far more expensive than the other two, and in terms of a democratic vote, most people obviously don't think blu-ray is all that. (2/3 consoles DON'T have it. 4/5 current gen console owners DON'T have it. and lets not even go into the whole HD penetration thing, since HDTV is still extremely niche, let alone people that actually put HD content on their HD sets).




First point: How many games for the PS3 support mouse and keyboard controls? I'm not sure myself, but I'm guessing the answer is: "Not many".
So, if you're not going to be using it most of the time, how is it an advantage.

Indeed, the Wii has near-mouse control from the hardware up.

Second point: For many people, its not just about "control" its about having fun. *points at broad range of dance mats, steering wheels, joysticks and not to mention, gamepads available on the market*


Third point: Most games consoles are going to be in a living room or bedroom. Not somewhere with a desk. Having to use (or feeling like I have to use, simply to compete in MP) a mouse and keyboard, with a desk, in my gaming-space is not thought I'd like to persue.

Perhaps for you its different. Since as a PC gamer you're entirely accustomed to sitting at a desk to play games. But that just feels to much like work to me.



Debateable. The 360 is certainly a close second even if the PS3 is the best. You've got ya-know, actual windows media centre integration. Streaming... anything. Movie rentals straight to your harddrive, and on some ISPs, it can act as a HDTV receiver.

But I digress, how does this make it a better games consoles as stated in your original point?



Honestly, how many people have PSPs? More people use their mobile phones to stream video and music from websites now-a-days.

Largely a useless feature I my eyes.

Oh, and network connectivity is free on the Wii. Even internet connectivity is free.

Of course, for the 360 you have to pay a premium if, and only if, you want play against/with other people over the internet. Everything else is there still free.




Lul, GT5. You're sadly deluded if you think GT5 takes the cake in terms of simulation. That goes to Forza 2 if anything.

Heck, if you wanted "some of" the best and most unique games, you should honestly be telling people to buy a pimped out PC. There are millions and millions of unique games there.

Littlebigplanet sounds interesting sure, but how many people are going to be buying it? Honestly.

360 on the other hand, has loads of good games. Many great games. Certainly more than the PS3.




Ever heard of XNA?

But Linux, how does that make it a better console? A more versatile machine sure. A PC even, but there aren't exactly many games for Linux now are there?


Granted, the 360 has had its problems. But nothing that a quick call to MS and a few weeks not-gaming won't fix. Certainly if you buy a newer, or new console, you might not experience these problems at all.

The Wii, has had no hardware trouble to my knowledge. Apart from some wrist-straps breaking early on. Again, those are fixed now.


If you're serious about MP gaming, or even thinking about getting into it, this is a serious strike against the PS3. Whats the point in spend more on a system than either of the other two, if you can't even play with your buddies online easily?



Anyway, overall: considering the potential of the console, the peripherals, the online service, stuff thats coming, and most importantly; the choice and quality of games, its clearly got to be:

Xbox 360

Wait, why the hell do I always make massive posts in this forum?

You just said everything i was about to argue in about his post.

Very good post. One of the best I've seen.
Xbox 360 is the rough winner. Their is no clear winner in my opinion.

[MicrotechXP]

Sorry Wii does not count as a current Gen console. They have last gen hardware, and they are not competing vs. the PS3 and x360.

PS3 FTW.

[unpixelatedgamers]

Originally Posted by MicrotechXP

Sorry Wii does not count as a current Gen console.

Says who? A handful of people at best.
It was released in the same time frame, is a current seller for one of the big 3 console manufacturers, and actually, has (to-date) outsold both the PS3 and the 360. Thats a big load of elitism you've got there.

PS3 FTW.

I always find your name so ironic


Edit:
Sorry to double post, but this is a substantial new bit of text.

Edit 2: Ooh, it appended it to my last post. Sweet!

Originally Posted by GG-Xtreme

I live in NY, and the PS3 is cheaper than the 360 where I live.

How is that even possible? There are 3 versions of the 360 currently available, all 3 of which are cheaper than even the 40GB PS3 here in the UK. I can't imagine what you say is true for the vast majority of people.

Since you can already install games to the PS3 hard drive to surpass 360 loading times, I don't see the problem.

I wasn't aware that you could install any game you liked to the PS3 HDD. A few quick Google searches tells me that only some of the games have installs, kinda disproving your point. Some of which are mandatory while others are optional. GTA IV, for example, has a mandatory, partial install. Not everyone is going to want to wait around at the start of the game installing it. Which is part of the reason why many people prefer console gaming in the first place.

Its a moot point though, as within a few months, 360 gamers will have the ability to install the entirety of any 360 game they wish to the HDD; if mid-session loading times are a drag even for them.

About cost and the rest of your argument, that would probably fit into my 'future-proof' point--I doubt that in 4 years from now, HD will still be such a small niche.

In terms of future proofing, aren't movie rentals and buying going towards digital distribution? Sony certainly has a huge advantage here with its vast library of in-house films. But MS also have several partnerships with other movie studios to offer on-demand film and TV episode downloading.

Plus, the whole DVD thing didn't really take off until DVD players were a lot cheaper than Blu-ray players are now. In terms of timeframe, DVD was finalised in 1995, but didn't really overtake VHS as the format of choice for 5 years or more. At that time, the PS2 was perfectly placed as a DVD player + games console package and was snapped up.

Blu-ray on the other hand, requires people to upgrade at least their TV set (and preferably their sound system as well), whereas DVD did not. It just gave a sharper picture on the resolution we already had.

If history repeats, this current generation of consoles will be all but over by the time Blu-ray comes close to mass-market penetration.

Perhaps by then, a slimmer PS3 will be on the market and will sell in droves as a cheap Blu-ray player. But I see no reason that pure-blu-ray players won't be even cheaper, smaller, and more convenient to use than a console.

Heck, MS once said (though they later redacted it, of course, since back then they officially had a pro-HD DVD stance) that if Blu-ray won the format war they would bring out a Blu-ray add-on drive. Useless for games on 360 of course, but it would likely be a quicker drive than the one currently in the PS3, and when you've got all the other features that 360 beats the PS3 at (size of games library, online service), why would you not want it instead of a PS3?

Your points are completely valid, but mouse and keyboard support is one of the reasons you can install Linux on a PS3, and most good games do support them.

I'm still failing to see how anything else, apart from a web browser (which, incidentally, the 360 currently lacks. Make that a single strike against 360), would really be a huge benefit. It is a neat feature, and if I had a PS3 I would probably install Linux on it myself. But do people really need another PC? Whats the point in buying something that has a specific purpose, only to turn it into something that has a very general purpose?

The thread is not 'Best Current Gen. Console for Games', it's 'Best Current Gen. Console'. All aspects must be considered.

Fair enough. Sony's extensive Hi-Fi knowledge certainly give them an advantage here. But the 360s Media Centre capabilities aren't BAD by any means. Though you may have to fiddle around with codecs etc. I don't off-hand know of anything the PS3 can do, media wise, that the 360 can't.

I have one, and while it's pretty unpopular, the ability to stream PS1 and even PS3 games to a PSP is unique.

That is true. I'll give you that. But it does rely on you buying another piece of their hardware. Thats another £130 by a quick search on popular site.

Actually, you have to pay to install the Opera browser on the Wii

I know you have to pay for the Opera browser, but thats a one-off for that particular service. Online MP is free, but like the PS3, even in the best games, it isn't as fully featured or as easy to use as the 360's Live service is.

Then explain why games like UT3 have no mod support on the 360.

I would imagine because Epic would like 360 gamers to buy Gears of War 2.

That aside, theres nothing in MSs rules for Live that preclude them from having mod support, indeed, they even updated their SDKs around the same time to add some more support for community content. The lack of mods in the 360 version was largely Epic's choice.

(perhaps a mistake, since UT3 360 has basically fallen off the face of the planet)

That may be subjective, but I found GT5 to be superior in terms of realism.

Fair enough, thats your opinion on the two. But just because you find one game on the console better than a similar game on another console usually isn't a reason enough to buy that console. Especially when there are 200+ other games on the system.

I think you meant to say that the 360 has more publicized games than the PS3. I've found that most of the 'popular' 360 games are pretty lame and overrated.

Ouch, thats harsh.

But no, I meant exactly what I said. The 360 has more good games than the PS3.

92 for 360
40 for PS3
20 for the Wii.

You can definitely say this is partly due to it coming out earlier, so having a foothold in the market, and attention from developers, for more than a year prior to the PS3. But the fact remains: If you want the largest choice of good games out of these three consoles, choose the 360.

Evidence, for those who need it.

I know 5 people that have owned 360's. 4 of them have had the red-ring-of-death once, and the 5th person has had it twice. Should a smart shopper really overlook that?

No. Is the simple answer.

However, the PS2, by far the favourite of the last generation, suffered a multitude of a problems. I know of several people that had to buy over 5 PS2s in the gaming lifetime of the console because they kept breaking.

Point is: reliability issues aren't entirely debilitating, and unless they are extremely severe (your example is a marginal case), people will still buy.

Regardless, if you buy now, you are entirely protected from having to pay anything out over RROD failures until 2011. At most, you'll have a few weeks less gaming.

I'm against MP on consoles completely. I find the online environment to be poisoned with stupidity and immaturity, and people tend to play more for points and ranks than for friendly competition. As a PC gamer, this isn't what I like my MP experience to be.

The high entry price of PC gaming, as well as never having any formal "ranking" system in most games, has obviously an entirely different culture for many PC games. But alas, it is not entirely devoid of it itself either. I just have to look at one popular web-based game: Runescape, to find a festering pit of scum and villainy. Many-a-tale there has been of unscrupulous players luring newbies into the mist, killing them, and taking all their stuff.

In the annoymous matching system you get in many 360 games in particular, you can often find idiots. But it is no where near as bad as many people make it out to be.

Should you choose to, you need never hear another player on XBL, and even, never play with a person you don't already know. The systems are all there in place. People just need to use them.

One could also argue, that the pay-for-play aspect of Xbox 360s online keeps out the very worst of the bad players. Since every time they want to start a new account and annoy some people, they have to pony up some more cash.

I don't play sports games. Maybe because I'm a PC gamer, my standards for different types of games are different, but IMO, the entire Halo series sucks. The remaining games are either on other platforms, in which case I'd rather have it on the PC or PS3, or they're not worth mentioning. The only PS3 exclusive games I'd play are probably GT5 and MGS4, but I can't think of any 360 exclusives I like (GoW is on the PC too, so it doesn't count).

You just insulted a lot of people's favourite games there.

Anyway, this again comes down to a HUGE component of your personal preference. A million people play Halo 3, COD4 and GTA IV online, every week on 360. Each.

Just because the games presented the way they are, in comparison to those available on other platforms (again, PC doesn't really count in this discussion), don't appeal to you, doesn't mean that they don't to a lot other people.

Sports games, movie tie-in games, and some music games (Rock Band, Guitar Hero) are some of the most consistent sellers. Which, to boot, are available in abundance on the 360.


And so ends another colossal post...

[GG-Xtreme]

Originally Posted by SilentKayos

You thinking a series sucking means nothing. I know you probably wont accept it but the truth is that the 360 has more and better games than the PS3. If the only games you'd play on the PS3 are MGS4 and GT5 that's wonderful but you still fail to prove the most important feature about the console.

How does the PS3 have a better game library?

The 360 has the most diverse library of all the systems catering to both casual and hardcore.

Now if you're going try the "also on PC" argument then I'd suggest holding your breath. The thread is about consoles as a stand alone unit but really even if it was part of the OP my stand still would stay the same.

Since there are many people on both sides of the argument, you could say that the quality of games is completely subjective. I tend to watch/read console game reviews done by PC game reviewers and the usually bottom line for games like Halo: "nothing new, any aspect of the game that made it interesting has been done before, and done better". MGS4 and GT5 may only be 2 games, but you won't find many games like them on the PC. Yes, this whole argument about the PC seems off-topic, but that's due to another statement made by unpixelatedgamers, which I will respond to below.

[GG-Xtreme]

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

How is that even possible?...I can't imagine what you say is true for the vast majority of people.

As someone who know how to build a PC from parts, I know where to look.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

I wasn't aware that you could install any game you liked to the PS3 HDD. A few quick Google searches tells me that only some of the games have installs

Ok.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

Not everyone is going to want to wait around at the start of the game installing it. Which is part of the reason why many people prefer console gaming in the first place.

Are you saying that most console owners lack the virtue of patience--is that the reason why most console games are released as lackluster?

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

Its a moot point though, as within a few months, 360 gamers will have the ability to install the entirety of any 360 game they wish to the HDD

I wonder how many will actually use it, since you stated above that most console owners don't want to spend the time.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

Plus, the whole DVD thing didn't really take off until DVD players were a lot cheaper than Blu-ray players are now. In terms of timeframe, DVD was finalised in 1995, but didn't really overtake VHS as the format of choice for 5 years or more. At that time, the PS2 was perfectly placed as a DVD player + games console package and was snapped up.

Blu-ray on the other hand, requires people to upgrade at least their TV set (and preferably their sound system as well), whereas DVD did not. It just gave a sharper picture on the resolution we already had.

If history repeats, this current generation of consoles will be all but over by the time Blu-ray comes close to mass-market penetration.

The rest of the hardware. The 360 generation is likely to be over before the PS3 generation. As most people complain, the PS3's potential has not been fully used yet.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

I'm still failing to see how anything else, apart from a web browser (which, incidentally, the 360 currently lacks. Make that a single strike against 360), would really be a huge benefit. It is a neat feature, and if I had a PS3 I would probably install Linux on it myself. But do people really need another PC? Whats the point in buying something that has a specific purpose, only to turn it into something that has a very general purpose?

Some gamers end up spending money on a PS3 before realizing that a PC CAN be cheap. Now the PS3 running Linux/Windows isn't anything special at the moment, but you can't assume that everyone who has a PS3 has a PC.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

Fair enough. Sony's extensive Hi-Fi knowledge certainly give them an advantage here. But the 360s Media Centre capabilities aren't BAD by any means. Though you may have to fiddle around with codecs etc. I don't off-hand know of anything the PS3 can do, media wise, that the 360 can't.

I never said that the 360 media center is bad. Just not as good as the PS3's IMO. You can rip movie ISO's and music to the PS3's hard drive, and then access them from any PSP with an internet connection. I guess that's not saying much for the 360, since it doesn't have a portable platform that it can interconnect with.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

That is true. I'll give you that. But it does rely on you buying another piece of their hardware. Thats another £130 by a quick search on popular site.

I agree. But having the feature has to count for something.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

I know you have to pay for the Opera browser, but thats a one-off for that particular service. Online MP is free, but like the PS3, even in the best games, it isn't as fully featured or as easy to use as the 360's Live service is.

I agree, that's why I didn't mention multiplayer in my first post.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

I would imagine because Epic would like 360 gamers to buy Gears of War 2.

That is true, but Microsoft wouldn't reach an agreement on mod support with Epic for UT3 360, which is why they were stuck with nothing extra but splitscreen.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

Fair enough, thats your opinion on the two. But just because you find one game on the console better than a similar game on another console usually isn't a reason enough to buy that console. Especially when there are 200+ other games on the system.

Having a lot of games doesn't mean anything.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

Ouch, thats harsh.

But no, I meant exactly what I said. The 360 has more good games than the PS3.

92 for 360
40 for PS3
20 for the Wii.

You can definitely say this is partly due to it coming out earlier, so having a foothold in the market, and attention from developers, for more than a year prior to the PS3. But the fact remains: If you want the largest choice of good games out of these three consoles, choose the 360.

I looked down a list of 360 games today. For me, most games fit into 2 categories: 'better on another platform' or 'I wouldn't play it'. That's just my opinion. I also found that the few ones I liked had little replay value, probably to get users to buy more games.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

However, the PS2, by far the favourite of the last generation, suffered a multitude of a problems. I know of several people that had to buy over 5 PS2s in the gaming lifetime of the console because they kept breaking.

Irrelevant, the PS2 is a last gen console that I never liked anyway. I guess I can see the trend of the worst console being the favorite every generation.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

[Point is: reliability issues aren't entirely debilitating, and unless they are extremely severe (your example is a marginal case), people will still buy.

I find that many failures severe, even if people insist on still buying it.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

The high entry price of PC gaming, as well as never having any formal "ranking" system in most games, has obviously an entirely different culture for many PC games. But alas, it is not entirely devoid of it itself either. I just have to look at one popular web-based game: Runescape, to find a festering pit of scum and villainy. Many-a-tale there has been of unscrupulous players luring newbies into the mist, killing them, and taking all their stuff.

PC gaming does not have a high 'entry price' at all, that is a common misconception. Very few games (such as Crysis) require PC's above $1000, but most games can be played on $500 or less PC's. And I don't mean the weekend-special Dell Inspiron, it's not my problem if people can't buy computer parts and assemble their own computer. The lack of typical ranking systems is because PC most gamers don't spend hours trying to get an achivement or move up in the ranks, they play to be with friends online and for fun. There are rankings and competitions available if that's what you like, but it stays friendly and clean, and it's usually a way to get to know someone. I agree that XBL is the second-best experience to the PC.

Runescape...*shudders*...don't mention that sin again...you should stay VERY far away from the dark side...

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

One could also argue, that the pay-for-play aspect of Xbox 360s online keeps out the very worst of the bad players. Since every time they want to start a new account and annoy some people, they have to pony up some more cash.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to pay-to-play multiplayer. All the PC games I have are free-to-play, but due to very efficient global moderation and GUID systems, when someone is banned, they stay banned.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

You just insulted a lot of people's favourite games there.

Anyway, this again comes down to a HUGE component of your personal preference. A million people play Halo 3, COD4 and GTA IV online, every week on 360. Each.

Just because the games presented the way they are, in comparison to those available on other platforms (again, PC doesn't really count in this discussion), don't appeal to you, doesn't mean that they don't to a lot other people.

Sports games, movie tie-in games, and some music games (Rock Band, Guitar Hero) are some of the most consistent sellers. Which, to boot, are available in abundance on the 360.

While I didn't mean to insult anyone, I was being completely honest. Maybe it's because I played PC shooters first, like UT2004 that I found Halo to be lacking in the 'fun' factor, but if someone asked me to play Halo 3 right now, I'd say 'No'. Of course, everyone has their preference, no problem with that. And I don't understand why you'd defend the 360 with games like COD4 and GTA IV, when they are on the PS3 as well. I guess COD4 is game most people would rather play on XBL, but the game itself is not much different.

Originally Posted by unpixelatedgamers

And so ends another colossal post...

I had to break my post in 2 :D

And I don't mean to offend anyone at all by my statements. I am just trying to defend my position.

[Tech_Geek]

PS3 hands down.

[Smith6612]

Originally Posted by GG-Xtreme

While I didn't mean to insult anyone, I was being completely honest. Maybe it's because I played PC shooters first, like UT2004 that I found Halo to be lacking in the 'fun' factor, but if someone asked me to play Halo 3 right now, I'd say 'No'. Of course, everyone has their preference, no problem with that. And I don't understand why you'd defend the 360 with games like COD4 and GTA IV, when they are on the PS3 as well. I guess COD4 is game most people would rather play on XBL, but the game itself is not much different.

When you played Halo and/or Halo 2 on the PC, did you try online play at all? Online on Halo One with rockets and grenades is soo fun on Blood Gulch and Battle Creek!