It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Xbox360 Vs. PS3 Vs. Nintendo Revolution

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:43 PM
Wondering some thoughts on what you guys think will be the better system of these. As much of a fan of nintendo that I am, I can not see them keeping up with microsoft or sony. They could not when the last systems were released.

I think Xbox this time blew PS2 out of the water, but I believe ps3 is really stepping it up this time. Although I stay true to my Xbox, and still waiting impatiently for the release date. :bnghd:

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:16 PM
Hmmm, well from the initial tech specs it does appear as though the PS3 is going to be more powerful than the Xbox 360, although Microsoft has been careful to argue against this perception. It is difficult to say which will be the better system without actually playing the games themselves. There was speculation that much of Sony's footage of PS3 games were actually pre-rendered video of what developers think games might look like, so until we get our hands on the thing itself, it is going to be impossible to say which console is superior.

In the end, it all comes down to games. I will probably go with the Xbox 360, if for no other reason than to play Halo 4 (or 3 if they decide to be jerks). Imagine Halo with true next-gen graphics.

Microsoft is making a huge deal about Xbox Live being an integral part of the system, but that's really not an issue for me, since broadband is still ridiculously expensive here in Australia. What is disappointing is the fact that the Xbox 360 will ship in two packages: one will have the unit, faceplate and controller and little else, whilst the other will have the hard drive (that's right, the first package does not include the HDD), controller recharger, faceplate and Xbox Live Silver membership. How many people are going to want to buy the system sans hard drive? Ridiculous.

As for the Nintendo Revolution, as much as the hardcore games enthusiast in me loathes to say it, games are moving more towards the mainstream. Nintendo will probably be dead within ten years, or be reduced to little more than a kids console. I do not say this because of the games - the Gamecube had some excellent adult games (Resident Evil, for instance). I say it because of public perception. When people think of Nintendo, they think of Mario, Pokemon and colourful, fun games. I see Nintendo becoming more and more a niche market, with their own core of hardcore fans, but failing to attract new ones. It also doesn't help that the Revolution is significantly less powerful than either the Xbox 360 or the PS3 either.

[edit on 13/9/05 by Jeremiah25]

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:25 PM
PS3 has frustrated me, I have read that Xbox had a price of (Estimates) of $299 American. But the PS3 was coming out at $499 American. So the Xbox could easily bump their product up another $100 and still sell at a Cheaper price. How can they be making relatively the same system and charge such different prices. PS3 seems to be gouging every dollar they can get. You Can not fault microsoft for closing the difference, it only makes sence in business.

Have you heard anything on this or have any thoughts?

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:51 PM
Nintendo just does it for me. The clean interface and interesting games are always personal favorites. I know the specs are not as hot as the other two but I'm all about the games and attention to detail which Nintendo is best at.

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:12 PM
I sympathize with chissler and Jeremiah points of view which happen to be my own as well. The glory days of Nintendo are sadly, all but gone thanks to the corporate monsters (Sony, Microsoft) joining the gaming industry. I had every Nintendo Console up to the Gamecube (I also own a XBOX and PS1 not 2) and even though games like Resident Evil, MGS, Halo are in my top ten list somewhere, games like all the Mario's (3 is a God), Goldeneye, Star Fox, Chrono Trigger, TMNT, oh so damn many freaking games. OH and of course The Legend of Zelda is G.O.A.T. in millions of gamers books.

The point is when I was a kid, it was Nintendo, Sega and hours of heaven. It still is that somewhat these days but something has just disappeared from the equation. Hell, maybe I'm growing older or maybe its that videogames despite the next-gen graphics and all the gizmo's have gotten stale in terms of creativity in an overall sense or maybe both. Either way I am skipping buying either Xbox 360 or PS3 for now until I see enough compelling reasons to spend double the price of the previous generation of system. I can easily preorder one of them or both but I will wait and see while I kick major league ass in ESPN MLB 2K5 for Xbox and Halo 2 XBOX LIVE (come get some biatch).

Well thats my rant for the night. Good night America and people of the world.

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:06 PM
As stated before, Nintendo is on its way down and it all started with the 64. They have cornered themselves into a certain kind of market. I don't see the new Nintendo system as being able to compete with new MS and Sony systems.

True, XBOX did take a big chunk out of the PS2 market but you have to remember one thing. The PS2 came out in like ... 1999 if I remember correctly. When did XBOX come out?

As far as the XBOX 360 vs. PS3 ... PS3 gets my vote. They both have HDs this time. But Sony developed a new processing technology thats never been done before. The cell processing idea may just blow the oldskool XBOX architecture out of the water. PLUS ... sony has the PSP which will directly interface with PS3 and double as a controller. And not to mention... most Sony games are free to play online... why pay for online gaming when you pay for the internet anyway???

If you add it all up together Sony has WAY more to offer.

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Machine
Nintendo just does it for me. The clean interface and interesting games are always personal favorites. I know the specs are not as hot as the other two but I'm all about the games and attention to detail which Nintendo is best at.

nintendo is going the way of the dodo. the game cube is nothing compared to the xbox and ps2. also no way to play online. IMHO i believe that this upcomming system will be the last for nintendo here in the US. the games arent that great. baiscally they are just whoring out mario and his pals in all sorts of sports and fighting games. nintendo is done.

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:07 AM
I say x-box will be on top with nintendo right behind them. Ps3 will probably mostly have sequel games which I am gitting sick of games such as MGS, final fantasy, Socom, even gran turismo. Even the psp games are just rehashes of the ps2 games.

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:32 AM
I'd say you all need to do quite a bit of research before saying what you are all saying.

I would go into it all, but I'm tired, so here are some links... okay one linke, but it has everything you need, and the people are quite intelligent (for the most part). , just click the dropdown menu at the bottom to go to the different forums.

Though I'm not going into detail on it all due to the whole sleep being required for a healthy life blah blah blah, I can tell you I'm going for PS3, and if wallet permits, a 360 (simply for Gears of Wars, Halo 3/4, and Ninety Nine Nights, nothing else is too impressive so far). Power wise, PS3 it's at the top, yeah 360 is getting a head start to the market, but that doesn't gurantee success by a long shot (Dreamcast anyone?).

Revolution.. it's very promising, but I figure my girlfriend will end up getting that (for the love of NES and SNES).

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:29 PM
First of all I'd just like to say how much I hate companies for releasing cinematics and saying it is in-game play, and for gamers judging it by this. Half of what they show isn't gameplay at all. It's just cinematics. Might as well buy a DVD player then.

Onwards.. You can bet Revolution is going to come out at $199. Nintendo has always been the most competitive, price-wise. When I saw the remote thing, I thought "You have to be kidding..." but I think when I get one in my hand I may like it. Plus with the shell, you can't go wrong.

I think this time around Nintendo is going to either make it or break it. Lately they have been disappointing me. I never got on the GBA train. I have a DS... but now they aren't releasing any decent games for it until at least Christmas, and I beat Mario within like a week. Revolution is going to be big. They're either going to come back on top as the leader of the pack, or die out in the process.

If Nintendo stops with the gimmicky crap and kiddie games, I think they can regain their title as the #1 in gaming.

Sony I knock out right away. Never been a fan. I just have a bias against it in the same way as Harry Potter or Pepsi. Sony is having a lot of financial trouble right now with lawsuits over movies, where it apparently made up movie reviewers who aren't even real people, and it's electronics are going down the crapper. Gaming is really all it has left, so I think it is probably going to pull a Dreamcast.

Microsoft is the only real competitor for Nintendo. It has a fairly good thing going, although now it's controller has a disadvantage with no motion-sensing. I don't want to judge them yet. If Revolution sucks, I'm probably going to buy an X360.

Any of the three companies could pull a big blunder and shoot themself in the foot, if any of the systems has any significant flaw.

[edit on 21-9-2005 by Yarcofin]

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:45 PM

First of all I'd just like to say how much I hate companies for releasing cinematics and saying it is in-game play, and for gamers judging it by this. Half of what they show isn't gameplay at all. It's just cinematics.

Actually that technique is slowly going the way of the dodo as most "Cinematics" are rendered In-Game nowadays, GTA series is a good example of that as is Max Payne and Half Life 2. There are dozens of other titles that use this technique to cut development cost's. Only exceptions are Blizzard and Squaresoft but that's a selling point for their titles not a misdirection.

Pre-Rendering is relatively easy to spot but it's getting harder and harder as more developers are deciding that in-game scripted sequences was "enough."

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 01:33 AM
Poor Dreamcast, too far ahead of it's time

There is no way Nintendo would even want to directly compete with Sony or MS. There work of kiddie games as you put it is guranteed, because it is guranteed profit. And how can you possibly say that MS is at a disadvantage using a controller without a motion sensor?!?!?!

Let's see... less is known about the Revolution than PS3 or 360... the big, pretty much only point about it (apart from roms) is the motion sensor controller. This hasn't been done before, basing a system around something such as that, so how in the world can it be considered a disadvantage when another company isn't doing it? This is no make or break situation for Nintendo... they will be fine financially, no matter how well the PS3/360 do.

And, as an afterthought, I don't recall any companies releasing cinematics and calling it in-game footage, especially this year. Less of course you mean the Killzone fiasco (which has already been proven, multiple times, to be in-game, though the one shown was at 5 fps sped up due to to having the final dev kits or RSX yet). I love when people say that it couldn't be in-game due to how great it looks... do they even realize the Cell has been in development for 5 years, five straight years of work specifically for this. And the RSX hasn't even been placed in yet

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 06:25 AM
The main thing Nintendo is doing that I like is... not including all those darn extras. I buy a video game console for gaming, period. Not for watching DVDs, listening to music, or uploading photos to it, etc etc. I think it will weaken the other systems because they try to make it to so many other things at once. The Blu-Ray idea just reminds me of Beta. Pretty big risk taking those while not knowing if it is going to take off or not.

And a lot of specs that people use to say "this console is better..." blah blah, are irrelevant. So what PS3 disks can hold 64GB more memory than the other two or something like that. All that extra space is useless anyway! No game has ever been larger than 6 GB thus far. I don't really know or care what a 1 teraflop float-point performance means. Crazy specs don't really matter, because no developer ever uses the system to it's full potential anyway. Obviously none of the major systems are going to come out with some 6 bit system or anything. They will all perform generally the same. All that really matters is gameplay when it comes down to it.

And I didn't mean that the motion-sensing controller necessarily gives the other companies a disadvantage, but it just takes gaming off in a whole other direction. Either it will create a whole new way of playing games, or it will just be another Virtual Boy. I expect something called Revolution to be just that... revolutionary in it's design and gameplay (which may be sort of weird to adjust to at first because it is so new).

top topics


log in