8 separate processors
Blu-ray Disks
Motion sense, but not to much motion sense (Yes i mean you Wii)
Free online play
Bluetooth
Gameing selection
Ok that is it in a nutshell, all you Xbox fans who are steaming mad at me, and all u PS3 fans who are like "Duh" LETS HAVE DEBATE
ID:277665
 Oct 11 2007, 12:24 pm
|
|
|
Oct 11 2007, 12:47 pm
|
|
Xzar
 |
This debate is overdone already.
|
Lt. Pain wrote:
8 separate processors You mean 10 virtual processors, which have been shown to make limited difference in speed. There is only ONE physical processor, and it can carry out 10 instructions at once. I really don't doubt it's a good processor, but historically, dual-core processors have show to not play nice with videogames, or in the best case, make little to no difference in videogames. But I will say you have us beat in core speed, and in the process department. We tap out at 3.2ghz. You tap out at 4ghz. Blu-ray Disks A media format that is, yes, more compact, but historically more problematic. Motion sense, but not to much motion sense (Yes i mean you Wii) Don't list peripherals in a console war. Free online play Touche'. Bluetooth Wireless headsets. Gameing selection Not yet. Ok that is it in a nutshell, all you Xbox fans who are steaming mad at me, and all u PS3 fans who are like "Duh" LETS HAVE DEBATE Now, I will say something about Sony. They are lying scumbags who can't back up claims. They claim their PS3 runs 10x faster than your average PC. This is true if the average PC has a 400MHZ processor. I will say, however, that Blu-ray is no more advantageous in a hardware sense to the consumer than HD DVD formats are. HD DVDs will use a blue laser to access the data, because blue light is diffracted less, meaning smaller laser, meaning tighter interlay of data on the disc. Blue Ray and HD DVD only have one difference, Blue Ray uses 50gb disc sizes, while HD DVD uses 30gb. The only people this matters to, are developers, not users. Unless developers are making 50gb games, the consumer isn't going to care. Either way you look at it, a console is a console. All that matters are the games. And I personally, play a lot of FPS games over the Xbox Live, so I can't complain. I wouldn't want a PS3 for the price of a PS2. If I want more generic RPGs, fighting games, and third person beat-em-up games, I'll break out the PS2. If it really is better than the XBox, the sales will show the difference, not the specs. | |
Ter13 wrote:
I will say, however, that Blu-ray is no more advantageous in a hardware sense to the consumer than HD DVD formats are. HD DVDs will use a blue laser to access the data, because blue light is diffracted less, meaning smaller laser, meaning tighter interlay of data on the disc. I think I've read somewhere each map in Killzone 2 is a few GB. | |
...in price only.
Lt. Pain wrote: Blu-ray Disks Doesn't matter for crap. This is at best neutral. Motion sense, but not to much motion sense (Yes i mean you Wii) Or more accurately, half-baked motion sensing. See Lair. Free online play Poor online access. Gameing selection Xbox 360 has a bigger software library than the PS3. You have this exactly backwards. Ok that is it in a nutshell, all you Xbox fans who are steaming mad at me, and all u PS3 fans who are like "Duh" LETS HAVE DEBATE Is there really any point in a debate among crazed fanboys? I see no good coming of this. Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Is there really any point in a debate among crazed fanboys? I see no good coming of this. Actually this was going to be the time we all sat down, talked it out, and came to a final conclusion that everyone could agree with, but your 'crazed fanboys' comment just ruined it. | |
For all 8 separate processors, the Playstation 3 still has games with bad to terrible frame rates. multi system games I might add, that run otherwise better on the other systems.
Blu-Ray has yet to prove it's point. Most of the games I owned, were either multi system, or able to be held on traditional media formats. Not only that, the graphics have not yet reached the level that has been promised. Right now, Blu-Ray is only making the system more expensive. The Sony PS3's sixas controller has proven to be a bomb. A lot of developers feel it was thrown on as a token idea and a lot of them feel it is completely unessesscary and don't even support it. The ones that do support the sixas controller motion sensing, have to deal with gummy controls. The idea of motion sensing on the PS3 is nothing but a gimmick at best. At least with the Nintendo Wii, it was part of the foundation on what the system was designed around and works fantastic. How about the fact that the PS3 is only now starting to get rumble technology back, after they told us it was old news, that it wasn't important? The Nintendo Wii supports Bluetooth and can even accept input from other Bluetooth devices. You can use the Nintendo Wii remote as a mouse on your PC if you want to. Gaming selection is a terrible reason. Worst library out there right now. Most of their best exclusives has now went multi syste, | |
Revenant Jesus wrote:
Blu-Ray has yet to prove it's point. I think later on down the track it could provide a pivot for the PS3 to turn things around on. If they managed to bring Blu-Ray and PS3 production costs down enough (which is a pretty big if) you could see games on the PS3 that dwarf the games on other consoles. Of course we're talking about a huge reduction in the production costs. | |
Revenant Jesus wrote:
The Sony PS3's sixas controller has proven to be a bomb. A lot of developers feel it was thrown on as a token idea and a lot of them feel it is completely unessesscary and don't even support it. The ones that do support the sixas controller motion sensing, have to deal with gummy controls. The idea of motion sensing on the PS3 is nothing but a gimmick at best. At least with the Nintendo Wii, it was part of the foundation on what the system was designed around and works fantastic. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/09/24 | |
PS3 cannot > Xbox 360, and I don't even own either. I will say, that I only have one friend with a PS3, versus 4-5 with a Xbox they carry with them everywhere, complete with Ipods(which work better with it than microsoft MP3 players, go figure) and extra controllers, to maximize the experiance.
I still say Xbox has too many buttons. I only need A and B, but I'm old-school like that. As a nintendo fanboy, I think Wii has promise to at least compete with Xbox, if they beef up the game selection and stop treating the Wiimote like a novelty toy and actually utilize it effectivly. getting some of the SNES RPGs available on the virtual console would also make it much more fun, but alas, this isn't part of the argument. The PS3 is nothing more than what the PS2 was to the PS1, and systems have gone so far as of late that just upping the graphics, throwing in a new DVD player, and a couple new features just isn't cutting it; especially since so far, every decent game that has come its way is available on either Wii or Xblock. remember, in a true console war, everything needs to be taken into account. yes, even color. plaino grey to black, to... black again? at least Xbox sticks with its black and green color scheme, and offers skins and wonderful costomization options. Now, wait, has anyone defended poor sony? lulz | |
Big the ED wrote:
The PS3 is nothing more than what the PS2 was to the PS1 ....HELL no. The PS2 in my opinion was a HUGE jump in every single aspect from the PS1. The PS3 is just a big jump in price from the PS2 along with some graphical improvements. 3D games on the PS1, while bearable, was really hard on the eye. Graphics were poor, FPS was poor, response time was poor. PS2 was a friggin huge leap in all of that. Everything was smooth as anything. Compare absolutely anything from PS1 to PS2 games, there's no comparison. Xbox came in really around the time PS2 did, basically making the PS1 forgotten. PS2 and Xbox were on par. PS3 and XBox 360? Neither actually went very far from the previous system. The only difference is that now Sony and Microsoft are putting more effort into the graphics from the games themselves. PS1 could not handle much. PS2? Just about anything you could want, it could be made on this system. Xbox? Same, just a different controller. PS3? Sure it can probably handle more but not enough of a leap to stop using your PS2. Xbox 360? Same. | |
Not very far from the next system? THe Xbox had a superior processor to the PS2, at a whopping 766mhz of pure speed. The 360 has a 3.2ghz processor, and the PS3 has a 4GHZ processor.
Not to mention the jump in graphical capability, upgraded OSes, automatic updates(Xbox only, sorry PS3, but you'll have to buy your upgrade when they release the PS3 improvement). XBox took their console to a whole new level with the 360, and literally has set themselves up to come in second, at the very worst of cases to the Wii. Unlike the Wii, however, Sony and Microsoft have plans to use the 360 for years to dominate the gaming industry, and like Nintendo generally does, they have basically said: "Our fanbase will buy a new console when we tell them to. Why? Three words: New Mario Game.". I'll sum up what the three companies have been acting like: Nintendo: "Look, it's link! And hey, it's mario! See the streamlined shape of the controller? You can play hands free! Can only be used with Nintendo brand lubricant." Microsoft: "If you can't beat it, buy the rights. Oh, by the way, the chord to the controller, you gotta buy that seperate. ...And if you want buttons, that'll be an extra $29.99." Sony: "It's more expensive, therefore, better." I'd buy a PS3, if it had a sandwich drive. | |
Problem there is, that production time and costs for videogames have become staggering in recent years, because of the upgrade in hardware...
Developers can only work their little fingers to bone for so long. | |
Hmm...let me put it into perspective. Halo 3 is only on the 360 correct? You'd think that would make it better cause it's on a new system. Yet...it's not. My friend has Halo 3, and when I compare the graphics and gameplay of Halo 1 and Halo 3 they don't seem very different.
See what I'm trying to say is despite newer systems being able to do more, the cost isn't worth the step up. The Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube were systems worth having. Heck to me the Wii will be/is worth having. The 360 and PS3? They just won't when you take everything into consideration. Sometimes I think people forget what games are for. Fun. We all have different definitions of fun. But...just because the systems are better doesn't make the games funner than before. | |
Actually, Halo 3 has far, far better graphics than Halo. One of the things you might not think about is map size and view distance. In halo 3(And most current-gen games) you can see much farther in much greater detail. This is very important in high action games. To know what your coming up against before you get there is very important.
The PS2 was struggling at the end of its life. The hardware was completely tapped out, and it was time for a big upgrade. And the PS3 delivered. When you compare games from the beginning of the PS2 life to the end, you see a huge difference in quality, mostly because developers learn tricks constantly to streamline games for one console or another. The PS3 is going to see the same effect. Right now, the games look good(on par with the 360, when developers figure out the framerate problems{still not sure what is causing it, but there is probably a document outlining it}), but in a few years the games will look a lot better once developers take full advantage of all the hardware. The same can be said of all the current consoles, though. 360 didn't change a ton of hardware types from the xbox, but it did upgrade to DX10 and increase in power, which will take some time for developers to understand. The Wii hardly upgraded from the gamecube, but the motion controls can add a lot to a game, it just takes time for developers to figure out how to use it correctly(See: DS). Point is, if you don't want one of the new consoles, nobody is forcing you, but they are an upgrade in one way or another, and saying anything else is just wrong. | |
Ter13 wrote:
Either way you look at it, a console is a console. All that matters are the games. And I personally, play a lot of FPS games over the Xbox Live, so I can't complain. I wouldn't want a PS3 for the price of a PS2. If I want more generic RPGs, fighting games, and third person beat-em-up games, I'll break out the PS2. And if I want more generic FPSs and uhhh a few second rate racing games, I'll get a 360. At least with the PS3 you will have a bigger selection of generic and second rate games! Joking aside, blu-ray will prove to be very important in time. Games are growing in size. Textures are getting larger, maps are getting greater, and rooms are filling with more random junk(See: Elder Scrolls). This all takes it's toll on file size. blu-ray will be there when it's needed, and it will drop in price, and the PS3 will follow, even if it takes a year or so. The PS3 is multi-core(2 primary and 6 minor I believe, not sure how that's balanced out) and the 360 is as well(three primary cores). It does help in games. As AI is becoming more complicated, and physics start playing more in games, processing power has become every bit as important as graphical power. And peripherals that come with a console are important. I like the Six-axis control a lot more than the 360 control. I, personally, don't miss rumble much, but it's nice to hear it is coming back. It was excluded because of patent disputes. You really can't blame Sony, except to say they should have said "Sorry, we can't include it, we are already being sued from including it in the PS2" instead of "Six-Axis and Rumble don't get along together". I understand this was just general PR, and most companies would have said the same, but it was annoying. The 360 does have a better lineup, currently. I, however, am not interested in most of the games on it, so the majority of the lineup is null in my mind, making the PS3 and 360 about equal in games, at least to my interests. | |
Ter13 said:
Now, I will say something about Sony. They are lying scumbags who can't back up claims. As much as I have contempt for Sony, I have to comment that even if we found out tomorrow that Sony has been using little african orphans as slaves to manufacture PS3s they'd still look better than Microsoft ever could. =P | |