A rational discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the ps3 and xbox 360

[PS3Aussie]

As my name-sake imply s I am a PS3 fanboy but only without a PS3 Because of the ONE thing that makes me consider an 360 price ITS Bloody expensive I am forced to lust after my friends PS3 while I am left $500 short of my own. I'm in the middle of the console war with PS3 1 Nintendo
and one Xbox fanboy as friends. HOWEVER I still think that the PS3 will become the favorable console buy say 2009 but for now long live PC

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

Consoles already won that war.

How can you say that.
consoles do have more games but pc's have much better graphics.
and now u will say that one needs to own a 3000$ pc to enjoy those graphics, but tell me one thing does every body buy a mercedes or a lamborgini.
CONSOLES ARE FOR AMATUERS BUT PC's ARE FOR HARDCORE GAMERS !

Ooookay.

 

[TSED]

I did a LOT of research before buying my 'next-gen' console.

I bought a PS3.

A huge part of this is personal preference. That's what will win the console war - what genres are more popular.

I, personally, can't stand FPS. At all. I find them tedious, boring, unimaginative, condescending, and way too easy. I have great twitch reflexes, which saves me in a lot of games, but I prefer to think my way through things. Thus, I tend to prefer RPGs that have complicated character development / combat systems, where foresight can turn my dinky little guy into an undefeatable monstrosity. This makes most RPGs easy for me, too, but at least they aren't boring about it. Action games, which usually require either twitch gaming or finding a long and complicated combo and then spamming that ad nauseum, play to both of those strengths (in some cases, at the same time). As a third genre, fighting games always hold a special place in my heart. Not sure why. Maybe it's the actual martial artist in me? /shrug.

So, with that in mind, look at the list of exclusive games on the 360 that appeal to me:

...
..
.

Mass Effect? Maybe?


Yeah, not really worth it.

The PS3, however, has Heavenly Sword, Ratchet & Clank, had DMC4 (it switched to cross, but it wasn't when I got my PS3), Metal Gear Solid, Tekken 6, LittleBig Planet, and quite a bit of setting-favourites. As a HUGE boon on top of that, the PS3 has backwards compatibility with the PS2 - which has a ton of games I really want to play, but never had a PS2 to play them on. I'd be lying if I didn't say I was disappointed with the Guitar Hero backwards 'compatibility', but them's the brakes. At least I can sort of play GH1 on it (as an aside, I found I quite like using a regular controller for some songs, so I should be thankful.)

For me, the choice was obvious. As an added bonus, I got to dehook my old PS1.

For a FPS fan, I can't really tell you what to do. If you are like me, one of the fourteen people on the planet who play games but hate FPS, I would really urge looking at what you'd be getting from the 360.

To show how much I hate FPS's, though, I'll give you an example: I bought Half Life 2 for $20 some time in the fall, and played it twice. Twice. Every one raving about how great and amazing a game it is and I can't be bothered to play it because I hate its gameplay.


I couldn't care less about how what a system can do compared to another. I just want to play games I like. The PS3 was the choice for me. The free online play and the *built in* wireless internet, however - that gets major bonus points. Even if I never use the online play for anything but Guitar Hero.

 

[Girlysprite]

The PS3 has a more powerful processor. The reason you don't get to see so much of it, is because it is a ***** from hell, with a whip in one hand and a tazer in the other to program for.

 

[Carbon016]

Correction - the PS3 has six general purpose cores, and one core devoted to handling them all. Those general purpose cores are arguably not as powerful as the 360's cores, as they are not optimized for graphics-related tasks such as floating point operations.

 

[stompy]

I did a LOT of research before buying my 'next-gen' console.

I bought a PS3.

A huge part of this is personal preference. That's what will win the console war - what genres are more popular.

I, personally, can't stand FPS. At all. I find them tedious, boring, unimaginative, condescending, and way too easy. I have great twitch reflexes, which saves me in a lot of games, but I prefer to think my way through things. Thus, I tend to prefer RPGs that have complicated character development / combat systems, where foresight can turn my dinky little guy into an undefeatable monstrosity. This makes most RPGs easy for me, too, but at least they aren't boring about it. Action games, which usually require either twitch gaming or finding a long and complicated combo and then spamming that ad nauseum, play to both of those strengths (in some cases, at the same time). As a third genre, fighting games always hold a special place in my heart. Not sure why. Maybe it's the actual martial artist in me? /shrug.

So, with that in mind, look at the list of exclusive games on the 360 that appeal to me:

...
..
.

Mass Effect? Maybe?


Yeah, not really worth it.

The PS3, however, has Heavenly Sword, Ratchet & Clank, had DMC4 (it switched to cross, but it wasn't when I got my PS3), Metal Gear Solid, Tekken 6, LittleBig Planet, and quite a bit of setting-favourites. As a HUGE boon on top of that, the PS3 has backwards compatibility with the PS2 - which has a ton of games I really want to play, but never had a PS2 to play them on. I'd be lying if I didn't say I was disappointed with the Guitar Hero backwards 'compatibility', but them's the brakes. At least I can sort of play GH1 on it (as an aside, I found I quite like using a regular controller for some songs, so I should be thankful.)

For me, the choice was obvious. As an added bonus, I got to dehook my old PS1.

For a FPS fan, I can't really tell you what to do. If you are like me, one of the fourteen people on the planet who play games but hate FPS, I would really urge looking at what you'd be getting from the 360.

To show how much I hate FPS's, though, I'll give you an example: I bought Half Life 2 for $20 some time in the fall, and played it twice. Twice. Every one raving about how great and amazing a game it is and I can't be bothered to play it because I hate its gameplay.


I couldn't care less about how what a system can do compared to another. I just want to play games I like. The PS3 was the choice for me. The free online play and the *built in* wireless internet, however - that gets major bonus points. Even if I never use the online play for anything but Guitar Hero.

I'm not going to flame you, as buying a PS3 is your choice. But what I'm puzzled about is that you say you don't like twitch games, yet say Heavenly Sword, DMC and Tekken were deciding factors. Aren't these game filled with "Shenmue style button-mashing", usually requiring either twitch-like reactions, or memorisation.

For me, I prefer the 360, as I don't have a high-end, or even mid-end PC, and don't have the money to upgrade. And I like shooters.

I also have another question to, and I'm not being sarcastic about this. What I wanna know is, PS3 fans seem to complain the entire 360 line-up is nothing but shooters. But this is coming from fans of a console that's AAA games are Resistance, Warhawk, and Killzone. While PS3 fans may respond with lack of other genres AAAs (such as JRPGs) on the 360, this isn't that case, with critically acclaimed games that weren't shooters, such as Ace Combat 6, PGR and Viva Piñata.

 

[shadow skill]

Here is the problem with that how long has the 360 been out? Honestly how long its completely retarded how many shooters have come to the console (Platform exclusives mind you) in this period of time. When people say shooters typically they mean first person rather than third person shooters. At least that is what I mean in this context, but even if you decided to include third person shooters and even multiplatform games, you still come back to the point about time frame. This isn't even about useless labels like AAA, but what do you think of when you think of a system. This year I can only really think of one maybe two games not all but doomed to "fail" on the 360 not because they will be bad but because they won't appeal to the demographic that has been caught by the 360.

I fully expect Too Human to get "god of warred" much like Heavenly Sword, and Fable 2 is all but guaranteed to fail just because its Fable 2. (I have no real opinion on whether it will be good or not.) Ninja Gaiden 2 is essentially immune to failure because Team Ninja will NOT fuck that game up period and it is quite popular here in the west (Though I am not so sure about Japan.) After these three games there is pretty much a void for this year. (Gears probably wont make it until 09 honestly.) Pretty much everything else that might even be worth looking at after those three is either on PC or PS3 or both.

 

[ilves7]

First of all, slightly off topic, did people here actually consider Fable to be a good game? I thought that was one of the worst RPG's I've ever played. It was like you took a decent RPG, then dumbed it down, and made it incredibly linear with no real character development. It was like the RPG you give to a first timer so they have an idea of what it should be... anyway, I just have no idea why people are looking forward to Fable 2.

Going back on topic... I don't have either of the consoles currently, but am definitely looking into getting one or the other, still in money saving mode so I can afford to get one since I just bought the precursory HD TV last weekend. So far my thoughts are thus:

XBOX 360: Game line up is currently better and better online from what I've heard. I've never been a Halo fan, but Mass Effect might be good. I do have a PC so bioshock and the like I would play on that, since I like shooters with a mouse better anyway. Also the red ring of death isn't encouraging.

PS3: Expensive as hell, doesn't have a lot of games I'd want as of yet, but future is promising. I would like to play the newer final fantasy games (i like rpg's of all sorts, Morrowind and planescape are some of my faves, but JRPG's aren't bad either), and the backwards compatability to PS2 games doesn't hurt. The blue-ray question everyone seems to be having I think is getting closer to being settled as a few big companies switched from HD-DVD to blue-ray in the last few weeks, so I'm thinkin at this point that blue-ray will be the winner, which might slightly screw the XBOX.

Unfortunately I'm behind a university firewall for the next year or so so I can't use the online features of either (angry... very angry) because of awesome firewall issues, but after that I should be in the clear, which is why I'm thinking the XBOX would be wasted on me currently, but that's a very unique situation to the larger gaming community at large. For overall success in the long run, I think PS3 has the advantage in that the blue-ray will be around longer than the HD-DVD, while the XBOX has the online experience and current gaming roster. I think it just really comes down to who is going to have more/better games in the future.

I'm also considering a wii just for super smash brothers brawl

 

[TSED]

I'm not going to flame you, as buying a PS3 is your choice. But what I'm puzzled about is that you say you don't like twitch games, yet say Heavenly Sword, DMC and Tekken were deciding factors.

WRONG. I said I hate FPS, but that I love twitchy.

Aren't these game filled with "Shenmue style button-mashing", usually requiring either twitch-like reactions, or memorisation.

Hey, that's exactly what I said I liked. Hmm.

For me, I prefer the 360, as I don't have a high-end, or even mid-end PC, and don't have the money to upgrade. And I like shooters.

Enjoy yourself! You have a huge library available.

I also have another question to, and I'm not being sarcastic about this. What I wanna know is, PS3 fans seem to complain the entire 360 line-up is nothing but shooters. But this is coming from fans of a console that's AAA games are Resistance, Warhawk, and Killzone.

... And MotorStorm, and Ratchet & Clank. I thought Killzone wasn't even out yet, and Warhawk's as much a flight sim as an FPS.

While PS3 fans may respond with lack of other genres AAAs (such as JRPGs) on the 360, this isn't that case, with critically acclaimed games that weren't shooters, such as Ace Combat 6, PGR and Viva Piñata.

So there's three. Add in Mass Effect, and you've got four.

I've already got more games than that for my PS3, not counting in PS2 games I bought since I could finally play it, and none of them are FPS.



In another thread, it came up, and I figured it was worth mentioning:

Counting up exclusives on the Wiki:
PS3 has at least 139 exclusives planned for it right now. That's exclusive, not timed exclusive.
The 360 has 87 exclusives planned for it. 3 or 4 of those are from Burger King.

Why do people say the 360 has more exclusives? When I buy a system, I want to make sure it'll be fun in the FUTURE. That it has a LIFESPAN. It's a matter of aging. The PS3 definitely looks more appealing in this regard. MS just got better launch titles (credit's due where credit's due), and has been riding that wave ever since.

 

[Drong]

Consoles already won that war.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

your stupidity amuses me greatly, thank you for brightening up a cynical old gamers day!

ok a little info time, background first, I own a PS3 and a Wii, my Bro owns a 360 and i've had some great times playing on all of them, we also both own pretty good pc's.

Now as it stands top of the range pc's exceed both the 360 and the PS3 but not by a huge amount. Whereas the consoles are stuck at the power they have now, due to Moore's law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_Law ) the pc's power will roughly double every two years. So it does not take a genius to see that it's not going to be long before they have jumped a league above what you can do on the console's.

This has happened with every console release in the past back as far as the mega drive and it will continue to happen in the future, not to mention the fact that the PC back catalogue of games dwarfs all the current generation and previous generation of consoles combined.

The PC will win this war as it has continually for nearly 2 decades.

 

[richasr]

I think it's funny to read people's 'predictions' that seem more like "this WILL happen" rather than "i believe" it's just silly, no one can properly predict anything like that, to say the PS3 will be a powerhouse that will take over the market in X amount of years is just stupid, especially with the Wii doing so well and Microsoft being the huge company it is. Same goes for the other two.

I think the console war is truly irrelevant because there will always people who decide against one console and for the other, and there are no longer consoles that just die because they couldnt get off the mark or sell enough, the Wii, 360 and PS3 are all still here and doing well.

I own a 360, the reason i got one was due to the games and if both consoles were out at the same time I still think I would have gone for the 360, there's something about Sony I just don't like and where Microsoft can be seen to shit all over their customers at times, they're still the more friendly company, at least for me.

 

[shadow skill]

Yes the PC will win even though the consoles have already begun to rival pc's in terms of graphical capability. If you actually understood anything you would know that were any console to have the specs of even a midrange pc they would completely destroy them since their OS requirements are far less than those of PC's. Part of the reason people even need computers as powerful as they are for games is because the damn operating system requirements have to be taken into account (Especially if we are talking about Vista.) You can't even apply moore's law in this way because its already proven to NOT apply since the games are as close as they are right now. If it did apply it wouldn't even be possible to say this for anyone.

It doesn't really matter if the hardware potential itself increases as such since it takes *gasp* time for that power to even be realized. It also doesn't really make sense to ramp up the graphics (Which lets face it is the only thing that ever really gets upped with pc games.) to the point where almost no one can play a game on the highest settings. Of course you would already understand this if you actually had any clue what Moore's law actually is and how the same rules do not apply to software nor do they work perfectly when you think of market penetration.

 

[Copter400]

I choose the Xbox 360 because it feels as though its line of games was tailored for me. Explosions aplenty with some light everything else. Well worth dodging the One Ring.

As for the PC, which has somehow entered the argument despite this originally being a showdown between the 360 and PS3, I have no problem with PC gamers who feel that it's a superior platform. I do, however, have some serioes freaking problems with elitist PC gamers, who believe that the average console gamer is on the same tier of evolution as the common tubeworm. I have some serious problems with buying $3000 worth of hardware that's soon to be outdated to get a gaming experience that I can get for a lower price.

 

[Knight Templar]

now taking bets on how long till thread is blocked.
on a related note, i thing i said it best like this.

PS3 is a- rich powerful and snobish spoiled kid

360 is a- partying, popular and drunken 19 year-old

Wii is - cheep and dirty, like a kings cross hooker.

and who doesnt like hookers?

ok its a funny way to show it but thats pretty much how it is. if you dont think i'm right fine, but I like to make everything unimportant funny. lets face it the "winner" will be decided in 10 years when the next console war begins.

P.S. I like 360

 

[qbert4ever]

Eh, guess I have to throw my hat in the ring.

I have to say 360 for a number of reasons. first, all my friends have one, so the only way I can play online with them is with the 360 (after all, whats the point of playing if you can't play with your mates?). Also, I prefer the lineup of games as compared to the ps3. Halo, Mass Effect, Gears of War, and Orange Box just have more appeal to me then Warhawk and MGS4.

Then there is the price. I know, I know, I know what you're going to say, "Qbert4ever, the ps3 is a great price when you think about all the awsome add ons!" and you would be correct, however, I dont give a damn about the add ons. I buy consoles to play games, not watch some movie that's 30% more shiny.

So I guess what I have to say is, for a casual guy that likes to frag his friends on the interwebs(yes I said it, so sue me), the X-Box is my kind of console.

Also, I loved Fable and am looking forward to its sequel. And if anybody has a problem with that, they can toss my saled all the way to china.

 

[DrmChsr0]

I've always thought Gears of Wars was real pretty. I've seen the game in motion, and boy, it was really pretty, movement and all.

Then I see some PS3 games in motion and it doesn't come as close to Gears of War in terms of looks.

I'll admit I have massive issues with FPS-type games on consoles, but boy, Gears of War was the prettiest game I've ever seen.

I haven't seen Assassin's Creed in action, though. Only some stills.

Show me a PS3 game that looks absolutely gorgeous in motion like Gears of Wars and I'll reconsider my hate for Sony (disgusting fanboys, horrible PR, rootkits rootkits lol).

As for PCs, well, sure they can run Crysis, but I don't want to spend what Africans earn in 50 years just to buy the parts needed to run this game. Also, some games are more enjoyable on a PC.

It's a matter of design when it comes to games. Some games are more suited for a console (say, for example, Psychonauts, I've always felt the controls were more for a console controller rather than a M+K), whereas some are more suited for a PC (FPSes don't work too well on a console, the controller limits almost-instantaneous action). And some games work ace on both formats (Sam and Max, Monkey Island comes to mind.)