ID:183193
 Sep 24 2007, 3:40 am
|
|
I dont no which one to get most ppl say to get the ps3 but theres a lot of games on 360
| |
anything good that comes out for the 360 also comes out on the ps3 or pc, i see no point in getting one
only exclusive game sorar for the 360 ive been interested in is dead rising | |
Falacy wrote:
anything good that comes out for the 360 also comes out on the ps3 or pc, i see no point in getting one Don't you mean the reverse(besides 360 to pc)? PS3 lost alot of its exclusives and they're going to 360 also despite the fact that developers haven't gotten used to makin above 360-par graphics & etc. on ps3. So basically you're gettin the best of both worlds by buying the cheaper 360 alone..At least for now..Keep in mind I have neither, but I'm leaning towards a 360. | |
"The games that come out on the 360 also come on on the PC/PS3"
Well wouldn't the best choice be to buy the cheapest of the 3 (360) for the exact same games? Anyways, I suggest you look at the lineups for PS3 and 360 of games. That's really what it comes down to, what type of games do you like? Currently the 360 has the largest lineup out of the two, and usually gets the better performing of the multi-console games. | |
The Playstation 3 has been a failure in the eyes of not only many people, but developers and companies. Not only due to the fact of the lack of titles, but the high price point and the bugs that always seem to be coming out for the system. I recently read in a article that there are even some developers who refuse to work with the Playstation 3, not only because of the high price point, but because the Playstation 3 is the hardest system out of the three to develop for.
Also keep in mind, that Sony has been loosing a lot of exclusive content. Games like Grandtheft Auto, Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy and Assassins Creed were all supposed to be exclusive to the PS3. From what I read in a few articles, it was because developers wanted Sony to pay for the exclusive right to that content and Sony thinks that they shouldn't have to pay for that right. Most titles worth playing are not only showing up on the PS3, but also the Xbox 360. Usually when comparing the games side by side, there is almost no difference between the two games, visually. The few exclusive titles for the Playstation 3 that fans have been looking forward to have been mostly disappointments. Also keep in mind, both Microsoft and Sony are playing games with their systems and price points right now. I believe we are going to see a adjustment in prices on and off for awhile yet until they hit that "perfect" price point in which most games will buy their systems. Right now I'd go with the Xbox 360, but I already own one. I owned a PS3 and sold it. | |
lol wow that video owned
however, xbox live is crap, ps3 offers games online for free, xbox you have to pay to play? wtfs! and oddly enuf, even though xbox is the microsoft console, the playstation versions of games seem to be the ones that can cross server with the pc, alowing pc and ps players to play together. and from what ive heard xbox 360 has had more trouble then the ps3 bug wise. and so the ps3 costs twice as much, blue ray disks can hold 10x the amount of a dvd, which means fully used to their extent ps3 games can be 10x better, at least content wise, than 360 games definetly true that killzone sucked, and that ps3 is losing alot of exlcusive titles, but this cant really be blamed on the ps3 as everyone tries to do, its the company's choice if they want to go multi console, and of course they do, it means more money for them and as i said before, a high % of games come out for the pc, just buy an adapter cable and a controler for 20 bux and play them on your computer instead EDIT: also! ps3 can play ps2 and ps1 games, can it not? while the 360 is only capable of playing certain xbox games that they deem worthy | |
Yeah, you are right, Xbox Live requires people to pay to use their online service. I am one of those people who do pay to use Xbox Live and I can tell you, from owning both a Xbox 360 and a Playstation 3, that Xbox Live is simply a much richer, enjoyable online experience.
It is completely untrue that the Xbox 360 is the one having trouble having cross console service online with other systems. As a matter of fact, Microsoft is one of the first pioneers to even begin considering this. Besides that, their new OS system Windows Vista was designed with that concept in mind. If a Xbox 360 game is also available on PC and PS3 there is a iincredibly high chance that you can play with any one who owns that title. Trying to point fingers at different systems, crying out bugs is pointless. Every single system has their fair share of bugs, some more then others. There was a temporary bug with Nintendo's Online connection, that actually bricked a few Nintendo Wii systems, but they got it fixed and refunded the people. So I see no sense in arguing about it. I simply don't want to hear the Blu-Ray argument. I don't like Blu-Ray at all. What Sony is trying to do is force a new media down our throats that we simply do not need, at a expanded price point. There were VHS and then Sony came along and tired to do one better with the Betamax. Then we had CDs and Sony once again tried to do one better with the mini disk format, once again a failure in the eyes of many consumers and in the industry and a whole. Now Sony is trying to do it to DVD with their Blu-Ray format. I don't care if the Blu-Ray DVD format can hold 10X more data. I don't care how crystal clear people seem to think it is. DVDs were already good enough for me. And with all the crap they already stick on DVD movies, why the heck would I want the movie industry to have even MORE room to put useless crap on? You do have a point though, even if Blu-Ray fails as a movie medium it could still have a lot of potential for use as a game medium. Your argument in size for games though fails. Since the Xbox 360 has both online access and a readily available hard drive unit in the system, not only could game data be compressed on a normal disk and then expanded to the hard disk (a trick some PS3 games already use), but any extra content people want, they are free to purchase online. The games could look better using the Blu-Ray media as well, too bad most of the games that I have seen or played still fails to impress me any more then the Xbox 360 can. Just like the PS3's older brothers, I fear we won't start seeing any real kind of graphical quality in PS3 games for awhile yet. It can defiantly be blamed on the PS3 that it is loosing a bunch of exclusive titles. Why? Because the company that produced the PS3 is also one of the biggest figures in the equation when it comes to exclusive titles. If the company that developed a system doesn't have enough faith in that system to pay a little extra money for exclusive titles, what does that say about it? Finally, you are right the PS3 can play PS1 and PS2 games, but just like the Xbox 360, it has problems playing some of these games, even after system updates. There was a number of PS1 games I owned that only partially worked, missing graphics or having messed up graphics, or simply refusing to work at all. The same was for the PS2 games, I had 4 or 5 PS2 games that did not work right. Many of them would crash randomly for no reason or even refuse to boot, Monster Rancher 4, one of my favorite PS2 games, wouldn't let me swap disks, which totally killed the game from that point on. Right now, both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 have a growing list of games that do not work for the system. Back-wards compatable indeed! And I'd like to add that, I am just as disappointed in Microsoft about that as I am with Sony. Nintendo did the job right, the only game I have heard of having problems is Phantasystar Online and that is because the game was designed to work with the Gamecube's ethernet adapter. Off line game play works fine. | |
Revenant Jesus wrote:
The few exclusive titles for the Playstation 3 that fans have been looking forward to have been mostly disappointments. I agree that most of the hyped games have been disappointments, but I think that's because they tried too hard to pull themselves out of a nose dive. A lot of the earlier hit titles lacked lasting appeal. ie, Resistance Fall of Man didn't do it's job and become a staple of the PS3 library. This created a bubble where the PS3 didn't have anything to really toot it's horn about. They couldn't hype something like MGS4 because it's release was too far away. They couldn't push already released content like Resistance because people were done with it. So they had to choose between hyping good non-exclusive games and hyping the few remaining exclusives. They choose the exclusives and that's how things like the Lair lashback happened. Lair was meant to be a sweet game but it's not a system seller and was clearly never meant to be. In a library as strong as the PS3's should have been by this point it would have been a solid backing. Fans of the genre would have been happy, it would have drawn in a few console sales, and generally been around there to back the rest up. However lets look at the non-exclusives. They're pretty good. They don't help you choose between PS3 and XBOX 360, but they're worth looking at because you'll probably want to own a couple. If there's a dozen games there you would like to own, look at the exclusive titles and see which exclusives you'd like to own more. Personally after weighing it all up I end up on the XBOX 360. I know a bunch of people who use XBOX Live, and I'll choose playing with friends over playing with strangers every time. I can also afford to pay the $10 a month for XBOX Live Gold. If you can't then the PS3 is a better choice. I will say that it's well worth the money. It may seem like Microsoft squeezing another dime out of players, and they are, but you're getting something in return for it. Your getting Microsoft pushing developers to not only add online content but to add good online content. The PS3 library only has one must have exclusive title in the pipelines for me; Metal Gear Solid. However like I said it's a must have. So I'll buy a PS3 for it. | |
I agree with most of what you said, except for the Metal Gear bit. Metal Gear simply hasn't been "Metal Gear" for awhile.
| |
Pacchiana2 wrote:
I dont no which one to get most ppl say to get the ps3 but theres a lot of games on 360 Right now, the 360 has a lot of good games, and many are exclusive to it. The PS3 has great potential, but very little in the way of console-exclusive "killer apps". Afrika and L.A. Noire look good, but neither has a firm release date. Plus, with PS3 you're paying a premium for the included Blu-Ray, which for me is moot since I have a standard TV. I've had my 360 over a year and I'm quite happy with it. I was a Sony loyalist from PSX and PS2, and fully intended to get a PS3, and probably still will eventually -- but at the moment, the 360 is the more attractive choice overall for me. | |
Monkeykid0049 wrote:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cNtLvHheias http://youtube.com/watch?v=YHluc5rZn3M this discredits it all =P | |
PS3 VS 360, right now 360 hands down. Next year? Who knows...360 is at a point where it is struggling to sell...even with Halo 3 coming out you will see a boost in sales for a limited time (from now till xmas, but that is it). I am not a fan of 360 or PS3 but this year 360 has the games compared to PS3, next year...ps3 is firing some hot games, but will they be scorching?
I have played against people using XBL and PSN, XBL is much faster and reliable in my opinion. PSN is good for a free service. Six-axis is a bunch of crap. At the rate PS3 is going a lot of developers are really worrying about their existing up-coming games for the console, especially square enix. If PS3 fails developers will switch the game to PC and 360 in my opinion. Since i am from the UK, i can tell that there are a lot of sony suckers...they still cling on to the "but it is playstation". Most UK Gamers love Pro Evolution Soccer and solely want a PS3 for that game and Metal Gear Solid. SONY Just about break even on the units sold in EU. If MGS and Pro went 360+PC+/-Wii then the little glory Playstation has in the UK will crash. And people who do not care how much their console sells is stupid. The more a console sells the more games it will have, just look at Playstation 2. However, will PS3 pick up? It may, but it won't last for long. By the time PS3 gains, a new console from Microsoft will be born rivalling the PS3 in terms of hardware. | |
You really think that Microsoft will have a new console out so soon? The expected lifespan of current gen consoles is 5+ years. The PS2 is still a hot seller, and games are still being developed for it. You may think this sounds bad, but it's actually very good for the PS3, because a game for the PS2 is also a game for the PS3. So it would be a small jump for gamers to move from the PS2 to 3, aside from pricing issues.
Also, the PSN works great. It's clearly just a website with a lot of stuff on it, but I've not had troubles with it. It works well and is simple to navigate. The only thing they are really missing is search and advanced finding features. The PSN chatting isn't exactly great, but I've had no problems with it. And the fact that developers are free to use their own server architectures is truly a good thing, just look at UT3 for a good example. But I wont deny, Six-Axis has yet to have a good implementation. Then again, the DS took over a year before a game worth playing used the second screen correctly. Many developers actually love Sony for the choices they made. Naughty Dog, Epic, Polyphony Digital, and Insomniac to name a few. The biggest downfall is the price point. It's a good, solid console, ignoring the price point. But I can tell you, there are a lot of good games that I'm really looking forward to. Warhawk was one of them, and it is a great game. Uncharted is a must buy. Ratchet and Clank will be mine. Gran Turismo 5 looks awesome, and reports claim that in its current state, it is the best looking game to date. But that's not to say the 360 is without merit. It has a lot of good games. It has solid online abilities. The controls don't feel like they'll blow away with a strong wind. But most of the points you made against the PS3 are just plain not valid. | |
Well it depends, do you mind having all of those silly bugs on the PS3? Really, to tell you the truth between the 360 and the PS3 either one you get you'll be satisfied with I think. I say this because I've been playing my PS3 everyday since school started and I don't consider it a failure at all. Sony has the industrial might, just like Microsoft, to back its PS3 up. Not to get too far into detail but uh... No the PS3 isn't going to die. Besides~ Sony won the E3 hands down by dazzling me and thats all that counts so in your face >=o!... Yeah.
| |
I like my PS3, personally. It took a long time for it to get enough games to play, but now I'm playing it almost daily(which is a lot for me, I'm a PC gamer). If you do decide to get a PS3, the $500 60GB is currently the best bet. It has the best backward compatibility and the only difference in it and the $600 80GB is the 20GB. My 20GB PS3 has been enough for me so far, and if I need more space, I can buy almost any laptop harddrive.