PDA

View Full Version : xbox 306 or ps3



markabbott
2007-02-02, 08:11 AM
which it the better out of the two becouse im gunna get one of them but just want to know which one should i get.

Azrael
2007-02-02, 08:16 AM
you need two threads for this question?


(I've helped you out, and sent this one to the Mods)

Death, your friend the Reaper
2007-02-02, 08:17 AM
Well, I would go for the ps3.

Sneak
2007-02-02, 08:18 AM
you need two threads for this question?

Maybe he was having second thoughts about the whole thing.

Death, your friend the Reaper
2007-02-02, 08:18 AM
I would go for the xbox360.

Azrael
2007-02-02, 08:19 AM
Death -- why couldn't you have kept your silly on topic thoughts to ... the other ... one.

Yeah.

:smallamused:

This is gonna make for some tasty reading once the two threads get merged.

:smalleek:

Zaggab
2007-02-02, 08:23 AM
It's really hard to say which one is the best. There are fanboys on both sides that claim that their favoured console is the best. Personally, I only have experience with the xbox 360, but I can still say some things.

Here's a short list:

Playstation 3:
+ probably the most CPU (I have not found any conclusive proof that this is the case, though it's the thing most often claimed about the PS3)
+ blue-ray included
+ some other things included (Wi-Fi, I think)
- EXPENSIVE!!!
- The newest console, so there aren't that many games
- apparently hard to use all the graphical and techincal horsepower, so that even if the console COULD have excellent graphics, games probably won't.

Xbox 360:
+ Cheaper
+/- less things included, so you won't have to pay for something you won't need. On the other hand, you may need to buy some extra things to have what you want to have
+ Currently more games
+ Apparently easier to make games for, so the capacity can be used to a higher degree
- Probably weaker in a strictly mechanical way (again, I haven't found any 100 % convincing proof)

That is my short, and largely uninitated list.


Though remember that even though one console can be more powerful than the other in terms of physics and graphics, it's the games that matter. The console with the best games is the best console. Unfortunately, I don't know your gaming preferences, so I can't help you there. As of now, the X360 has more games, but that will (obviously) change.

Hope that helped

Edit: Gamespot did a graphics comparison bewteen the two, and the conclusion they arrived at was that the xbox 360 had better graphics, even though the ps3 apparently is stronger on paper.

Amiria
2007-02-02, 08:27 AM
I'd also buy a PS3 when it becomes affordable. I don't buy more Microsoft products than neccessary to run my computer.

Yeah, I don't have the money to buy a Mac and I am to lazy to learn Linux.

Khantalas
2007-02-02, 08:27 AM
I'd go for PS 3. It will have DMC 4 and MGS 4.

The fact that XBox 306 is fiction has nothing to do with it.

Khantalas
2007-02-02, 08:29 AM
Yeah, I don't have the money to buy a Mac and I am to lazy to learn Linux.

That's because Mac is special and great. And now it can run Windows games, too!

What's not to love?

Sure, you don't have the right click, but a Mighty Mouse will fix that. And they are cordless now. I want one of those things.

Death, your friend the Reaper
2007-02-02, 08:34 AM
Death -- why couldn't you have kept your silly on topic thoughts to ... the other ... one.

Yeah.

:smallamused:

This is gonna make for some tasty reading once the two threads get merged.

:smalleek:

Wait, you actually read the other one? I was hoping no one would particularly notice....

But the blue ray reader on the ps3 would make it my one of choice out of the two, but a lot of my friends have the xbox360 anyway, so I have tried that, it is rather good, but I can't say from practice how the ps3 stacks up...

markabbott
2007-02-02, 08:42 AM
Yeah sorry iv got to because this one had a couple of mistakes and when I changed them I some how posted agen

Azrael
2007-02-02, 08:54 AM
Wait, you actually read the other one? I was hoping no one would particularly notice....

I was hoping to steer this one into oblivion, leaving the other one all pristine for on-topic conversation.

Zaggab
2007-02-02, 08:55 AM
But the blue ray reader on the ps3 would make it my one of choice out of the two, but a lot of my friends have the xbox360 anyway, so I have tried that, it is rather good, but I can't say from practice how the ps3 stacks up...


I'm not sure if it's true, but I've heard that you can get an xbox 360 + an Xbox HD DVD player for less than you can get a ps 3. With that in mind, the blu-ray isn't that strong a card. Though apparently blu-ray appears to be winning the war, so perhaps it is a strong card anyway.

EmptyH
2007-02-02, 09:21 AM
I went with the X-Box 360, because of Oblivion and Halo (and of course because of price). But like Zaggab said it really depends on what games you are interested in. Sony has some really good exclusive titles.

Also I wouldn't rule out the Wii, it looks like it has a lot of really cool games and the unique interface would make it a blast at parties.

MTH

ravenkith
2007-02-02, 11:33 AM
I've got a PS3. Got it retail, by a stroke of blind luck, without having to wait.

Right now,as of this moment, the clear leader in the console war is the 360, mostly because the PS3 and the Wii haven't had a whole lot of time to build up a library of decent games.

Right now, the 360 has better graphics, having edged out the PS3, because it is relatively simple to program for, and is further into it's development cycle by what, almost a year?

It's true, 360 ftw as of right this moment.

A year from now? I think it's going to be the PS3 that blows the 360 away. Why? Well, quite simply, because of the processor architecture.

When they start to push the limits on the two systems, you'll find that the PS3, because of it's chip architecture, will handle the graphics calculations at a higher rate of speed than the 360...which, ultimately, means less lag, and an overall smoother gameplay experience.

One of the biggest problems facing console manufacturers is the tendency towards online play, from deathmatches to mmorpgs...and, as everyone knows, that means lag, the more people you have on the screen at once, the slower your computer goes.

So Sony's machine is actually better designed to support that kind of environment, based on my understanding of the products in question. If Sony can get their internet service up and running at least as well as Microsoft's, if not better, that's it, game over. Given a choice between a laggy interface and one that isn't, 90% of people are going to choose the one that doesn't lag, especially in online play.

In addition, if Sony wins the Blue Ray/HDVD war, more people will buy a PS3 simply because it is a cheap blu ray player...

So, the PS3 is an investment in future happiness, whereas the Xbox 360 is a textbook case of instant gratification.

Once the developers get a full handle on how to program for the PS3, the $600 machine is going to hit the 'I win" button.

Wii, on the other hand, will sell well regardless, because of it's low cost...but only if they stick to the 'fun first' mantra they seem to be operating on at the moment. The novelty of the machine is going to wear off, real fast, so unless the games are actually fun, it's going to end up in the same dumpster as the sega cd.

It's important to remember, that the first time you do something, you've got to get everybody's attention, and make sure what you do is good.

The second time, it's all about showing that the first time wasn't a fluke.

The third time, it becomes about longevity: outlasting your opponent.

This third round of the console war is just heating up, but it's pretty clear that latecomer to last round Microsoft wanted to be the first to market, having seen what an advantage an existing market share can be. In return for the advantage, they put together a system that would meet the minimum needs for immediate satisfaction, with little room for improvement over time. Really, for them, though, they are only just now in their second round, and that's the war they are prepared to fight.

Sadly for them, Sony, on the other hand, put together a package
that would meet immediate needs, but left room for massive improvement over time, as programmers get used to the interface. They had already been through rounds one and two, and were in the third round mindset: who can outlast the other guy.


Here's what's gong to happen: Xbox is going to peak midway through this console cycle...but PS3 is going to keep getting better right up until the day they announce the PS4. What does this mean?

Well, in theory, it means that Microsoft will take an early lead (which they have), then for a period of time, they will both sell equally as well, and then as things close in on the end of the console cycle, Sony will bury Microsoft's sales, because the xbox doesn't get any better, while the PS3 does.

Leaving sony in the cat seat for round 4.

Look at what xbox did to ps2: it came out with better hardware, close to the end of the cycle, and crushed the competion, because it could still improve, while ps2 had peaked. The perceived value of the xbox was much higher than that of the ps2, hence the higher price tag.

Now, sony has taken that lesson to heart, and have taken steps to try and make sure it won't hapen again. If they can make it through this rough patch, and keep the developers pumping out good games, like Resistance and (hopefully) Lair, they'll beat microsoft by round 5 or 6.

Like a seasoned boxer, they've realized a knockout punch is out of the question, while the rookie wades right in, looking to cold-**** 'em. The wiser fighter looks to beat the opponent later in the game, absorbing a little punishment now, in return for the ability to strike a killer blow later, while their opponant is exhausted.

That's my take: I could be wrong.

Argent
2007-02-02, 12:01 PM
For me, the 360, for a number of reasons.

- Price. Much cheaper than the PS3.
- Availability of games. Much wider selection.
- Titles. There are several Xbox series (Halo, Gears of War, and god help me, Dead or Alive) that I really enjoy more than the big PS3 series. And now that one of my great PS2 loves - Guitar Hero - will be on 360, I've got no reason to stay with Sony products.
- The Live system is actually pretty neat, and once my internet connection gets fixed, I'm looking to do some more playing online with my buddies.

And Ravenkith, I have my doubts about Sony winning the Blu-Ray war. They don't exactly have a track record of success with their proprietary technologies (memory stick versus SD/MMC cards, minidisc players, etc.).

ravenkith
2007-02-02, 03:16 PM
@ Argent: Yeah, that's why I said 'if'...and that part of my argument was purely secondary.

Price will come down.

More games will be made.

Sony is working on their own version of the live system, and from the early reviews, it sounds like it should be just as good, if not better. Of course, it's hard to tell when no-one's really using it yet, because of the low number of games out.

Which leaves the last point: the actual titles available.

Both systems will have all kinds of different style games, from sports to rpgs to FPS's. While I'll be the first to admit that X-box has some killer franchises (Halo in particular), the PS3 has some killer apps as well.

Final Fantasy?
Metal Gear Solid?
Tekken?

Any of those ring any bells?

I haven't played gears of war, but I heard it wasn't that great. I don't know, I can't say for sure. <shrug>.

Guitar Hero is available on both, so it doesn't factor in anymore.

Same goes for GTA.

Same for Assasin's creed, now, apparently.

I'm excited to get my hands on Lair.

God of War, one of the most inventive games of the PS2/Xbox era, is still PS only, AFAIK...

As are Heavenly Sword and Killzone...and Mercenaries 2.

Each system has it's own benefits, and only time will tell, but my personal feeling, for all the reasons above, is that the PS3 will come out ahead.

rabish12
2007-02-02, 05:03 PM
It's really hard to say which one is the best. There are fanboys on both sides that claim that their favoured console is the best. Personally, I only have experience with the xbox 360, but I can still say some things.

Here's a short list:

Playstation 3:
+ probably the most CPU (I have not found any conclusive proof that this is the case, though it's the thing most often claimed about the PS3)
Well, yes and no. The PS3's got a nice CPU, and it excels at certain things (it does great with multimedia functions and floating point calculations), but it's still not nearly as good as they make it out to be. There are things that are rather important for games that it doesn't do particularly well, and that the 360's CPU does exceedingly well (running AI code is one of those things), and while it's got "ZOMG TEH UBAR HIGH # OF COERS!" they aren't actually full cores, and one of them can never even be accessed by any games as it's used solely for the OS. And then, of course, there's the fact that the PS3's processor is rather hard to code for, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the 360's processor (which should be accessible for any dev who's coded on a PC). The usual claim is that developers will get used to coding for it, but while that's true it's never going to stop being a crutch, and it is something that's going to make doing things like optimizing multiplatform games for the system or coding a game to run as fast as it can and really take advantage of the processor's architecture very difficult.

So... yeah. It's probably better than the 360's processor, but not by nearly as much as Sony and their hoards of devoted fans usually claim. And besides that, the 360's GPU seems to just barely edge out the PS3's, so it balances out a little right there. The way that the 360 handles its RAM (sharing 512MB between the GPU and CPU rather than having a fixed 256MB for both) balances it out a little too. Overall, I think it's at least safe to say that the gap's not going to be nearly as apparent as it was between the PS2 and Xbox, and it probably won't be noticeable enough to be worth worrying about.


+ blue-ray included
This is an advantage for movies, but not necessarily for games. As far as I know, none of the games available for the PS3 at the moment actually use the full space well (Resistance, the only one I know of that uses it, fills it through localizations and padding), very few games available on the current overall market at the moment would use it (I know that Blue Dragon could, as it's something like 3 DVDs, but that's about it), and most games in the future (with the possible exceptions of the stuff that Kojima and Square-Enix pump out) probably won't use it either. Of course, none of that would really matter when the medium does still offer that extra space, but there's a huge trade-off in terms of load times. Blu-Ray is slow, to the point where games on the system will have noticeably longer load times (as an example, the developers at Bethesda Softworks actually have to fill out the extra space on the disc just to make load times in the PS3 version of Oblivion manageable). Personally, I'd rather have my games on two or three DVDs than have to deal with that on a single Blu-Ray disc.

Blu-Ray's going to be really nice in the long run, but right now it's too slow to really be worth using in a console.


+ some other things included (Wi-Fi, I think)
Only on the $599 model.

But really, I don't think it matters which one is stronger, which one has shorter load times, which one has more disc space, or whatever. These are all things that developers are going to be able to get around, especially later on, so I'm hardly worried about them. Eventually (once the PS3's been out for a while) they'll both have diverse libraries of games, likely ones that offer very different advantages, and at that point it won't be a matter of which console is better but rather what kinds of games you prefer.


I'd go for PS 3. It will have DMC 4 and MGS 3.
DMC4 will almost definitely go multiplatform. More and more companies are shifting towards multiplatform development recently because the costs involved in developing games are often too high to justify releasing them on only one system, and Capcom happens to be one of those companies. At the moment it's still exclusive, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's released on the PS3 first, but given the selling power of the series I also wouldn't be surprised by a 360 version.

As for MGS4 (I take it the 3 was a typo), a similar situation applies. Konami has shifted towards multiplatform development, which makes it likely that many of their future games will be available on both the 360 and PS3. On top of that, the only game in the series that's been exclusive to a Sony platform is MGS3, the most recent, and the series overall started on a Microsoft platform (the MSX). They have good reason to go back. Add to that Kojima's recent statements on the subject (emphasis mine):

"I do have strong interest in creating something for the Xbox 360. In the US and Europe, it is selling, and I think it will sell a lot this year as well. I'm a fan of Gears of War as well, it's very interesting.

Frankly speaking, I want to create something on the PC. It's a multi-platform [format]. I've been regularly studying work on the PC anyways, and I want to provide something as a world-wide platform because of the consequences with timing on the PlayStation platforms, MGS4 is actually for the PS3 only so far."

So an MGS4 port seems really likely. But even if it doesn't happen, Kojima's ending the series with MGS4, so the PS3 won't get too much MGS lovin'.


Sony is working on their own version of the live system, and from the early reviews, it sounds like it should be just as good, if not better. Of course, it's hard to tell when no-one's really using it yet, because of the low number of games out.
It's actually not nearly as good, even conceptually. No game-to-game chat, no overall gamer scores, and as far as I know the service as a whole isn't hosted on Sony's servers (which means that lag will likely be a bigger issue). It's free, which in my eyes makes it better by default, but it's still crushed by XBL in terms of overall quality.


I haven't played gears of war, but I heard it wasn't that great.
Most critics disagree with you (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928234.asp).


God of War, one of the most inventive games of the PS2/Xbox era, is still PS only, AFAIK...
And the only announced and unreleased game in the series is coming to the PS2, not the PS3.


and Mercenaries 2.
Published by EA. I can guarantee that it'll come out on the 360, from that fact alone.


Final Fantasy?
Metal Gear Solid?
Tekken?
I already covered MGS in this post. Most of the people that attracted fans to the FF series are no longer involved in it, and series creator and director of most of the games has moved on to developing for the 360 exclusively. In fact, his first game has what many SE fans seem to consider the "dream team" (designed and produced by Hironobu Sakaguchi, with characters designs by Akira Toriyama and a soundtrack composed by Nobuo Uematsu), and I'd say that would trump Final Fantasy. As for Tekken, the 360's got Dead or Alive (which, again, trumps what the PS3 has there, at least in terms of popularity).

Deaddude
2007-02-02, 05:16 PM
Well I would buy a XBOX 360! Why?... I just like xbox more than playstation.

Tobaselly
2007-02-02, 05:35 PM
Get an xbox 360 and a wii for the same price that you would spend on the ps3. Better games, better graphics, better online services. And by getting two systems for the price of one you have a whole lot better selection of games and play styles than you would with the ps3.

rabish12
2007-02-02, 06:03 PM
Get an xbox 360 and a wii for the same price that you would spend on the ps3. Better games, better graphics, better online services. And by getting two systems for the price of one you have a whole lot better selection of games and play styles than you would with the ps3.
360: $399
Wii: $249
Total: $648

"Premium" PS3: $599
"Core" PS3 (which isn't crippled like the core 360): $499

Either way you look at it, the PS3 isn't the same price as a Wii60 combo, it's cheaper. As for the rest, the 360 has better games at the moment because the PS3 just came out, the difference in graphics in negligible, and while the 360's online service is better it also costs money (and the Wii's intended online play platform, which hasn't been rolled out yet in North America isn't even worth mentioning).

Druid
2007-02-02, 06:15 PM
If you do go with PS3 I'd hold off on buying it for a while. It has one game that's supposed to be any good (Resistance) and to be honest I wasn't that impressed with it.

I also think that Sony is going to lose Final Fantasy as an exclusive. Why? Square has shown that they're interested in making money, not staying loyal to one company. When Nintendo made the bad decision to stick with cartridges for the 64 they jumped ship to Sony. Even though Sony now has a hand held Square is only putting out hand held games for the better selling DS (not just remakes, there's an original sequel to FF 12 in the works for the DS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_12:_Revenant_Wings)). If by the time FF what ever their up to comes out Sony doesn't have a good lead on Microsoft (they're currently way behind) I could definitely see it being ported to the 360. I wouldn't be that surprised to see Sony lose a few of their other exclusives as well.

rabish12
2007-02-02, 06:51 PM
Even though Sony now has a hand held Square is only putting out hand held games for the better selling DS (not just remakes, there's an original sequel to FF 12 in the works for the DS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_12:_Revenant_Wings)).
Actually, there are a couple of Square-Enix games headed to the PSP right now. One of them is another FFVII game, and the other is a remake of Final Fantasy Tactics. Also, for the DS you missed Dragon Quest IX, which I think is a much bigger deal than a spin-off FF title.


I wouldn't be that surprised to see Sony lose a few of their other exclusives as well.
They kind of already have. Armored Core and Virtua Fighter games are the most recent major ones I know of to switch over to multiplatform, though the exclusives have been dropping from the system at a moderately steady pace for quite some time now.