XBOX 360 or PS3

XBOX 360 or PS3, What do you really like?

  • XBOX 360

    Votes: 39 59.1%

  • PS3

    Votes: 27 40.9%
  • Total voters
    66
Lol :p red ring of death... :F Can it happen more then once? If it happens once and then they repair it, can it happen again?

Anyway ... Okay, maybe Wii has a bit better graphics than PS2/XB1, but still far from XB360/PS3.

:F
 
Yes.

And I agree with that second statement, no doubt.

If Microsoft made an Xbox Lite or something to fix all those dumb problems I'd probably try my best to somehow replace my current for it. I really just want a quiet Xbox that won't die :/
 
"The Wii's graphics suck" "Nintendo is discriminating everyone by not making their console as good as they can"
Nintendo is trying to attract a general public, by making a cheap, fun and revolutionary console, the PS3 is a super-computer, NOT a gaming system, if it were a gaming system, it would be focused on gaming, not on the fact that it can play Blu-ray discs and how good its dual-core-processor-whatever is. You don't call the Wii a next gen console, I don't call the PS3 a console. Seriously, I've been to Sony forums where they were less fanboy-ey than you are (except for the official forums, you should go there, so many fanboys, you'll probably make a lot of friends), most of them even do say that gameplay > graphics and that sony made a big mistake. Heck, even sony itself admits it. If you for one second would stop caring about how powerful something is and start looking at how much fun something can be, you might realise that.

As for the graphics, I've played a PS3 on a normal TV and I wasn't like all "OMG WOW TAT OWNZ I LOV TOSE GAPICZ!", really, I don't care about them, I'd rather play a fun NES game than an every-day, unoriginal PS3 game with uber graphics, 9-million Terabyte memory and a silent dual-core processor more powerful than your average company computer. Sony is a multi-media business, the PS3 is a PS1 with way too many gimmicks for it to still look like one. It's not more of a Blu-Ray player with the option of playing video games than a game console with the option of playing Blu-ray discs.

XBox360, although not focusing on gimmicks too much, is of course a Microsoft creation, and Microsoft does like Microsoft is, copy others and just update what they had and make it look new. I've never actually played an Xbox360, so I'm not going to risk my life saying lies here :p
 
I never said that bad graphics couldn't still produce fun games. To admit any old game is fun is already defeating that purpose.

Obviously the Wii is weaker just to make it reasonably priced, which was a pretty smart move for them. But to say the PS3 isn't a game system like the Wii (Or vice-versa like Nintendo has stated in the past when they said they weren't competing against the Xbox and PS3 and were making some sort of entertainment machine that they were pretty vague on.) is really off because they all have games, they are all primarily used to play games, why does having more features exclude them from that?

The only reason PCs and cellphones aren't gaming systems is because that's not what they're primarily known for.

In my mind the PS3 is theoretically the best system because it can do the most, it has the most room to make games as large and complicated as possible. It also doesn't break or sound like a vaccum cleaner. It isn't for now because it dosen't have anything really going for it, Xbox has more games, and better online functions. If the PS3 were to fix problems like that they'd probably be the best.

All it really comes down to is selection of games, unless your into the other functions a console has. I really hate the "The Wii is the best because they're focused on the games!" argument because what does that even mean? Game developers make the games, they've always been focused on making them as fun as they can. Nobody sets out to intentionally substitute fun for visuals, it just ends up that way sometimes. It's probably easier to screw up on fun gameplay which is a hard thing to define rather than graphics which are pretty flat in front of your face.

In short: Console arguments are dumb. Fanboys are dumb. Nintendo fans are freakishly defensive with abstract reasoning. WHEN IS MY XBOX COMING BACK ARGGG.
 
I was just trying to counter Dr.Ooler's lame argument of not counting the Wii as a next-gen console purely based on graphics, which for me is the last thing to look for in a console.

PS3 obviously wins when it comes to raw power or graphics, but functionality and diversity are what makes the Wii stand out, pointer technology, completely new type of remote whilst still allowing you to use not only the previous remote, but also link a new version of it to your remote. The Wii just offers so much more diversity, whilst the PS3 and X360 keep on replying on older methods, but add more power and better graphics. Of course game developers make the game, the Wii just gives them more options to work with. The PS3 and X360 on the other hand give them more power to work with. Seeing how more and more 3th party designers also start making their games for Nintendo now shows that power is not all they care about anymore. And also don't forget that DVDs usually had enough memory to store decent games, even today, graphics require more memory, but too much memory is just too much, you can't expect game designers to just try and add as much as possible to their games. And I'd rather play a game which has been greatly improved than a game which has been extended to infinity but still has the same quality. I know that this is of course not always the case, and I know there are game designers who refuse to work with Nintendo because they don't offer enough power for their games, which would not allow the games to reach their maximum potential. (I really wonder how good your game must be if it needs perfect graphics to be good, but whatever).

Of course the Wii is not the best in every single way, and of course it's not perfect, and of course region lock is the bloody stupidest thing Nintendo could have done and it makes me just want to pull their heads off and put them in a jamjar filled with boiling oil and cobras, but saying that it's nothing compared to a PS3 is just pathetic and ignoring the truth.

I'm again not mentioning the X360 because I still haven't had a chance to play it, I heard its online capabilities are great, which is probably a great plus, but I really can't say much other than the fact that it did sell less copies than the Wii at this point, which I think someone here claimed otherwise.
 
With that logic the DS is better than the Wii because they have less space to work with and don't have to focus on graphics and expansion much at all.

I have seen several examples where developers have stated that they have been restricted by the Xbox when they were trying to make a cross-platform game. I know one example it GTA4 where they were initially making it on the PS3 but realized they had to take out or find huge work-arounds for the same game to work on the Xbox. Another game (I think it was an Unreal Tournament game) is going to have more multiplayer levels in the PS3 version simply because it has much more space. Also the creator of Metal Gear Solid 4 has pretty much flat-out said there is no way the game can be ported to Xbox, unlike the previous games.

Although that isn't a usual complaint about developing on PS3 games, it shows that if they work really hard to make a big game that truley could have never worked on an older system. The PS3 is probably the best place to work on it. Developers don't TYPICALLY try that hard, I know. But if they want to they at least have the option now.

In fact, if you're a developer who wants to make a small quick and easy game for the Xbox or PS3- you can always make an Xbox Arcade game of PSN game. Those are downloadable, and the Xbox ones are usually around 50-200 megs in size (so they are SMALLER than Wii games.) They're very basic and straight to the point, while still bring up to standard in HD and Widescreen. People who don't own those systems usually aren't familiar with those (in fact some people who own them never find out either :x)

Nintendo made a great marketing move economically, but I gotta say I'm kinda tired of seeing them defend their flaws as if it's some reason that they're better than the competition. Not that Sony doesn't do it too, but Nintendo never really gets called out on it like Sony has a thousand times over.
 
Really I just don't like the selection in the Wii its graphics don't neccasarily suck. There ok but next-gen wise they don't compare

I hardly play on the Wii just on PS3 and 360 but so im not sure but I don't think Wii has the capabilities for HD DVD or Blu-Ray or DVD it needs to catch up to the current!

To me I let my little Brother keep the Wii its selection varies with just to much of an overflow of kiddish game titles. There is some great titles great out there for Wii but it looks like they stopped making more mature games or games for Teens to enjoy.

The Wii was hype in my perspective the only great feature in it is just Ineractive gameplay but most of the games don't really use its capabilities.

My final verdict is PS3 vs. 360 ??? there very diverse consoles and are both great people who hate on PS3 just don't own one probably or is a fanboy. People who hate on 360 haven't experianced the beauties of next-gen! But over all I can't tell which one is better.
Overall 1. 360 or PS3 2. 360 or PS3 3. Wii.

Also if your one of those people who cares about making a difference in the enviroment the Wii isn't for you. According to Green Peace the Wii is the worse system to get. Im pretty sure it has something to do with the releasing of Carbon emittions.
 
"Kiddish", everything which doesn't involve guts flying around and brains popping out of skulls should not be played by people over the age of 10? Or are just referring to games which "da kool kidz" don't want to been seen with? Because you're seriously offending the entire community here if you're saying games like Pokémon are kiddish and have no value for more mature gamers. And unless I totally misinterpreted your post, you said that teens can not enjoy Games like Mario or Pokémon, in which case I'm seriously wondering if you consider me a 10-year old.
Obviously the Wii does not have the capabilities for blu-ray or HD, Nintendo made that specific decision to keep the price reasonable. Nintendo's also not a multi-media business, they don't gain advantage by adding gimmicks related to other hardware or software produced by the company. There is, however, a Wii coming out which can play DVDs, the reason why the current Wiis could not do this is because Nintendo wanted a low release price and also wanted to provide as many Wiis as possible for possible clients before starting to add a bunch of gimmicks and make their console more expensive.

Of course there are racing games and shooters for the Wii, it's just that, unlike what seems to be the case with the other consoles, Nintendo is releasing a wider range of genres. The only so-called great games I head about for the X360 or PS3 are shooters and race games, with an occasional Viva Piñata to get the younger generation of gamers to ask their parents to buy them a PS3/X360. Saying that a game is kiddish just because its genre doesn't involve shooting people between the eyes with a bazooka is pathetic.
If you're a hard-core, die-hard shooter fanatic, obviously either the PS3 or X360 is the console for you (although I personally do think the pointer just makes shooters so much different, no aiming with auto-aim or by using your joystick or arrows or whatever), if you're not afraid to play other genres which does not include guns, cars or footballs, the Wii probably has a lot more to offer for you, as well as still providing you with enough of the previously mentioned kinda of games.

The Wii did get a 0 from Greenpeace because it refused to reveal its environmental and recycling policies, not because it sends massive amounts of toxins into the air. Microsoft only scored a little better because it promised to reduce the amount of toxins produced somewhere in the not-so-distant future. Sony did get a great score, however.
 
Kiddish I mean like a flood of games intended for 5-7 years old when the Wii came out it had pretty cool games like Red Steel Call of Duty etc. Now its like EA Playground Battalion Wars Deweys adventure and etc. lately the Wii has been lacking its only for titles.

Really the only games I can think of that are good only for titles are Metroid Prime 3 Wario Ware Smooth Moves PBR Red Steel and Super Mario Galaxy. Also it looks like 7/10 Wii games will get a horrid review.

I also don't like how PS3 and 360 gets the main titles and the Wii gets the off story. Like Soul Calibur 4 its going to be for PS3 and 360 and the Wii gets the off story. Also alot of big titles aren't for the Wii :( which is a major let down. Like Call of Duty 4 Assasians Creed Mass Effect Bio Shock Heavenly Sword Halo 3 Virtua Fighter 5 and etc.
 
You haven't played Excite Truck.

You...MONSTER.

Also I think HS has pretty much enough content for a 5 page essay on the Wii now.
 
Panda said:
Kiddish I mean like a flood of games intended for 5-7 years old when the Wii came out it had pretty cool games like Red Steel Call of Duty etc. Now its like EA Playground Battalion Wars Deweys adventure and etc. lately the Wii has been lacking its only for titles.

~Lies. Red Steel sucks. They promised revolutionary gameplay and we got a piece of ... Anyway, Battalion Wars, let's say, is very good game with childish graphics.

Really the only games I can think of that are good only for titles are Metroid Prime 3 Wario Ware Smooth Moves PBR Red Steel and Super Mario Galaxy. Also it looks like 7/10 Wii games will get a horrid review.

Yes, I agree

I also don't like how PS3 and 360 gets the main titles and the Wii gets the off story. Like Soul Calibur 4 its going to be for PS3 and 360 and the Wii gets the off story. Also alot of big titles aren't for the Wii :( which is a major let down. Like Call of Duty 4 Assasians Creed Mass Effect Bio Shock Heavenly Sword Halo 3 Virtua Fighter 5 and etc.

Wii doesn't get those games, because of a bit last-gen graphics (Bwahahaha c-m).
Click to expand...

Anyway, it's true that not even XB360 and PS3 have perfect graphics. Look at Crytek for example. They said they aren't going to make Crysis for XB360 and PS3 for one reason only. Because they don't have good enough hardware. Lol. A bit of an unexpected reason, but it's true. Crysis's highest graphic quality can not be displayed on ANY computer without lag. They haven't made so good graphic cards yet. :F True. That is definition of next-gen. Lol.

XboX360 FAILS and so does PS3 in that case... And Wii also

:F
 
Yes, next gen as in THE NEXT GEN, not the current one, because seriously, if a game designer makes a game which can't even be played ATM, he's officially stupid...

Lol, if CoD can't be released on the Wii because of graphics, how come it comes out on windows?
And what's with naming 1-console-only games? Halo 3, Heavenly Sword, Bioshock (which also comes out on windows...), etc... That would be like me saying ever 1st party game for the Wii...
BTW, ever heard of commas?

And I told you this before, but I'm going to say it again: "If next-gen is only about graphics, and not innovation, then I really don't need a net-gen console"
 
In my opinion, XBox 360 is the best because, back to what Heavenly Spoon :F said, the PS3 is pretty much a super computer! I own a Wii and to be honest, the games are great, but sometimes the controls make me purposely want to throw a Wiimote at my TV! But the XBox 360 has great games and great online play. Even though half of the games on the 360 are war games or games where you shoot out people brains for fun, I still think it is a great system!
 
Okay. Crysis is next-gen, XB360 & PS3 are cur-gen (current) and Wii's graphic is last-gen. Happy? 'kay. Anyway, I don't know what ATM means, but making game with this good graphics is not dumb. I once saw a poll which FPS is most expected. The options were: UT3, Crysis, CoD4 (and few more). And ... the results were amazing, 78% said Crysis. That means the game will not fail. Also, remember Doom3? Same was with it. The graphics should be revolutionary and lalala... and the game didn't fail as well (okay, it wasn't thaaaat good after all).

Heavenly Spoon :F said:
BTW, ever heard of commas?
Click to expand...
Lol.

:F
 
Dr. Ooler :F said:
Okay. Crysis is next-gen, XB360 & PS3 are cur-gen (current) and Wii's graphic is last-gen. Happy? 'kay. Anyway, I don't know what ATM means, but making game with this good graphics is not dumb. I once saw a poll which FPS is most expected. The options were: UT3, Crysis, CoD4 (and few more). And ... the results were amazing, 78% said Crysis. That means the game will not fail. Also, remember Doom3? Same was with it. The graphics should be revolutionary and lalala... and the game didn't fail as well (okay, it wasn't thaaaat good after all).

Heavenly Spoon :F said:
BTW, ever heard of commas?
Click to expand...
Lol.

:F
Click to expand...
DO GRAPHICs REALLY EVEN MATTER!? Some of the best games have horrible grafics. Super Smash Bros (N64): Great game, bad graphics. Sonic the Hedgehog (SG): Awesome game. Graphic are like I could draw it on the computer. You kinda remind me a the people who buy an HDTV the same size as a regular TV and pay $300 dollars more just for the HiDef!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top