PS 3 or X Box 360???

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Now can some gaming geek advise me which to buy? A PS 3 or an X Box 360?
What I'm looking at is:

> Graphics.
> Ease of handling.
> The price.
> Availability of titles.
> Backward compatibility.
> Looks.

I believe the greenbacks one has to shell out for a PS 3 is more than a ride aboard the Soyuz for a weeks vacation on the ISS??




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
mmm check the other threads?


if you can't afford a PS3 dun buy one, or wait til prices drop rly.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Now can some gaming geek advise me which to buy? A PS 3 or an X Box 360?
What I'm looking at is:

> Graphics.
> Ease of handling.
> The price.
> Availability of titles.
> Backward compatibility.
> Looks.

I believe the greenbacks one has to shell out for a PS 3 is more than a ride aboard the Soyuz for a weeks vacation on the ISS??


PS3, considering it's also a blue-ray player, you can't go wrong.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by thehumbleone]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   
>Graphics: The PS3 has a slight edge in this department, although not very much at this moment because PS3 just came out. The PS3 has more potential of creating better looking games, but the 360 is easier to develop games for. In terms of video playback, the PS3 easily wins with it's next generation Blu-Ray player that produces 1080p resolution (highest resolution possible) and 7.1 Dolby Digital sound. You'll need to shell out $100 to buy an extension for the 360 in order to watch HD-DVD's on it, which is useless considering the fact that you can now buy DVD players that can upscale regular dvd's to play in HD format. Anyways, PS3 wins this category.

> Ease of handling: Both consoles are very easy to handle. If you can find your way around your PC, then using a PS3 or 360 will be like a walk in the park. I should also mention that with the PS3 you can browse the web, watch movies on Blu-Ray (ouputs videos at 1080p), use motion-sensing controller, save games to a compact flash card (60GB model only, $599) and connect wirelessly to the web (you can also do this with the core version of the xbox360). All of those features are fairly easy to use. In terms of amount of things you can do with the PS3 and it's ease of use, I think it also wins this category.

> The price: The PS3 has two different models: one that comes with a 20 GB HDD and another that has a 60GB HDD. The 20GB model does not have wi-fi, no compact flash card slots and a very bland cover, and will set you back $499. The 60 GB has all that along with some of the other things I mentioned in the Ease of Handling section for $599. The Xbox 360 also has two different models, the more expensive one now costing $399. It can play DVD games (not HD-DVD, you'll have to buy an extension for around $100 to do that), has a wider selection of games out than the ps3 at the moment, has better online service for gaming (XBL) and has wireless controllers with vibration (the ps3 has no vibration, but the controllers are wireless). When you consider all that you're getting for your money, it's easy to see that the PS3 wins this category as well, but if you want to pay less for a gaming system, the 360 is the better choice for you.

> Availability of titles: As I've already mentioned, the PS3 was released mid-november, so they do not have as many games as the Xbox360 right now. However, Playstation 2 (ps3's predecessor) has more games than Xbox and Xbox360 combined, so you know what's going to happen with the PS3 in about a year. Basically, in the upcoming years, you'll have three times as many games on the PS3 than you would on the 360.

> Backward compatibility: I've heard that the 360 only plays some Xbox games, so the backwards compatibility isn't so great. The PS3 plays all PS2 games and most PS1 games, which totals to something around 15,000 games (less than a thousand with xbox). It's clear to see the winner in this category.

> Looks: Well, that all depends on you. Personally, I love the shiny midnight black finish of the PS3 ($599 version only). The 360 looks pretty sleek, but I don't really like that lime-green on white.

PS3:
www.tendancehightech.com...

Xbox360:
xbox.about.com...

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Impreza]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Now can some gaming geek advise me which to buy? A PS 3 or an X Box 360?
What I'm looking at is:

> Graphics.
> Ease of handling.
> The price.
> Availability of titles.
> Backward compatibility.
> Looks.

I believe the greenbacks one has to shell out for a PS 3 is more than a ride aboard the Soyuz for a weeks vacation on the ISS??


Graphics- In a side by side comparison of games that were ported, or just made for both 360 and PS3 it's hard to tell, but on the first party games that were made exclusively for PS3, you can really tell that it is better. Check out Resistance: Fall of Man, MotorStorm, Heavenly Sword, GranTurismo, etc. I'm not sure if all of these are first party, but they all look very nice. Also, it's only a matter of time before Sony goes and teaches all of the third party companies how to properly utilize the Cell processor, which is definitely another plus.

Ease of Handling- Both Are fairly large machines, but when handling a PS3 you do have to watch out for those fingerprints, they become noticeable, so if you get a PS3 a polishing cloth would be advised.

Price- Premium PS3 (the only one in my opinion) $599 with High-def Bluray player (which i might add that all of the PS3 games are on bluray, not standard DVD like 360) Premium 360 $399 with no HD-DVD player. HD-DVD player is $199, so if you plan on getting that, you might as well just go ahead and get a PS3.

Wireless controller for 360 are $49, a charge and play kit is $19, and a rechargeable battery pack is $11. The PS3 controllers are already wireless and equipped with rechargeable battery and a mini usb/usb cord for charging, extra controllers are $50, same as 360, but with a rechargeable battery and cord included. Games are the same price, if you plan on going for HD, i would say that the PS3 is the way to go.
Xbox 360 Accessories
PS3 controller

Availability of Titles- Well, obviously the 360 has had a year on the PS3 so they will have more titles, and probably more that are available now. Give this some time and it won't be an issue.

Backwards Compatibility- List of Xbox games that work on 360
There's not an "official" list of games that work or don't work on the PS3, they are working on a firmware update that you can download to resolve most of if not all issues here.

Looks- That's a no brainer, the PS3 is gorgeous. The 360 isn't impressive at all, it has a flat white finish, and the PS3 has a very, very shiny black finish, and yes i've seen them both up close.
PS3 and Xbox 360 side by side

In my opinion, the PS3 is way better than the Xbox 360 (i've played both). It comes with a High def player already, and wireless controllers (although only one in the box). The physics are extremely smooth on the PS3, if you get the premium version (which is the only version you should even consider buying) you get wi-fi capabilities, a 3-in-1 compact flash card reader, a Gigabyte ethernet cable comes with it if you don't have wi-fi.

The controllers don't have rumble, but i don' care about rumble (both of my dualshocks 2 controllers, after much abuse from a younger brother, stopped rumbling, so the motion sensing capabilities are a big plus for me) The motion sensing is cool, not as good as the Wii, but it is definitely a big plus. The only thing that is annoying is that there is no HDMI cable in the box, so if you have a HDMI capable TV or DVI capable TV you will have to go pick up a cable (assuming you don't already have one).

If you are big on graphics, power, HD, looks of the system, and (in my case) the awesome feeling that you get when playing a PS3, the PS3 is the way to go, because if you do get an Xbox, you have to get the $200 HD-DVD upgrade (which games don't play on, only movies) you would essentially be paying the same price as for a PS3. Also, i know that for some people, the extra $200 may seem steep, but how often are you going to buy another console, I don't know about Xbox 360, but Sony says that they want to keep the PS3 supported for ten years.

If you have the money, get the PS3, if you can't get the extra $200 and aren't going for HD movies, then go for the 360.

I hope that was gaming geek enough for you

Good luck with your decision.

Peace,

Pancho



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Neither..


Get a PC. Games are better (in either graphics, gameplay or variety), the technology is upgradable, plus a decent gaming PC is more powerful anyway. Also, on a PC, you can do much more than on any console.

My machine at home cost me £600, which isn't too much more than a PS3 and it is a 64bit, Dual core with SLI graphics cards and a wedge of RAM big enough to club a small dog to death.

Consoles are for part-time gamers who don't know better. PC's are the way.

(By the way, I am a self confessed PC fascist. No amount of flaming, probing or any other attempt to make me change my mind WILL fail
)



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Thanks a million, guys! This was really informative!

Thanx especially to 7pan7cho7 and Impreza. I've made my decision based on the advice given by you geeks!!

It's the PS 3 for me!!!

[edit on 3-12-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Thanks a million, guys! This was really informative!

Thanx especially to 7pan7cho7 and Impreza. I've made my decision based on the advice given by you geeks!!

It's the PS 3 for me!!!


BOOOO! HISSSS!!!

Seriously though, whilst the price is obscene, the PS3 is a good console. I do own a PS2 myself, so I am not adverse to using one...

Still....

A PC would have been the better choice, IMO.....



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Neither..

Consoles are for part-time gamers who don't know better. PC's are the way.

(By the way, I am a self confessed PC fascist. No amount of flaming, probing or any other attempt to make me change my mind WILL fail
)


OK, man. Don't yell!! I get your subtle message!!


To tell you the truth, the console was for my son! I love my PC too! But I don't play games except for the realistic Microsoft Flight Sims on my high end PC with 64 bit DC and the latest nVidia graphics card with the images fired onto the big screen with the video projector. Got my bank balance screwed alright! But what the heck! There's nothing like flying through the Rockies in slightly cloudy but fair weather at sunrise!!

There's the terrain over British Colombia too! But that's another story!

Cheers!


[edit on 3-12-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Lucky kid!

Admittedly, you need some know how to enjoy PC gaming, whereas a console is good for Youngsters or someone looking for a quick fix.

Hope he enjoys it and appreciates the gift!




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
No Mention of the Wii?

Sure it has less power then the Sony PSP, a handheld, and sure the amount of games is zilch compared to the other two systems, but the price! Although some say you get what you pay for...

Also, anyone see the report on how Nintendo is scrambling? They are going to get sued big time, why? The Wii-Mote slips out of peoples hands destroying TV's, windows, that picture of Grandma, whatever. So they came up with a wrist band. Except the wrist band breaks as easily as fine china. So Nintendo is trying to get lawyers to make it so you can't sue them for your broken 65 inch flat panel HDTV Plasma TV because the strap broke and the remote shattered the screen when you went to slam the tennis ball.

So, price of Wii and a 65 inch flat panel HDTV Plasma TV, that beats the PS3 and Xbox 360 together!

Also, played a Wii, thought it would be like batting against Sammy Sosa. WHich it is, if Sammy Sosa was a black basketball on top of a cone. The graphics are horrible! As said the PSP, a handheld, has more power! Heck, wouldn't be surprised if the DS(Owner and lover of) has more power then the Wii.

Anyways, for me, when price drops, PS3. Until then it's Madden 2004 on my PS2. I love Madden 2004, I know all he tricks and tips to have a perfect team for less then Randy Moss and Michel Vick. Go Da Bears!



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
The PS3 is just a 360 plus the HD drive.

If you have a 1080i $2,000.00 High Definition television, go for it.

But if you dont, get the 360 premium package. It comes with your headset, a months free xbox live, the harddrive, a wireless controller, and an xbox live game.

Just to break it down

Graphics-The graphics are identical, for most complaints coming out, everybody is saying that graphically, the system is a waste of 200 bucks. Think about it, if your a graphics whore, the graphics in every game is IDENTICAL to the 360s.

User Interface- The PS3s user interface is terrible. You have to back out of games just to go through menus, and it is just very clunky.

Controller -The added feature to the "sixaxis" is the fact that it can be used with mild motion sensors. Too bad it was poorly made, and causes you to crash your car as it glitches out and turns to the right sharply for no reason. Ofcourse, it also lacks vibration function and its wireless controller is just plain crappy. Your trying to sync up new controllers? you cant just push a button, no, you have to play a game to turn, turn off, with everybodies controllers to get it right.

The Online play -The online play, which is ofcourse laggy, like all Playstation Online games, also involves you having to fill out a near 13 page contract to get on, in which you have to type all, in long print, using the controller. Fun.

Blu-Ray -If you have an HD tv for blu-ray, yeah, its a great deal to buy a ps3 for movies. But if you DONT have an HD tv, well, your being FORCED to buy an HDdvd player that makes your games look worse on standard def. Atleast microsoft gives you an option to install an HDdvd player into your machine. And guess what, it also saves you money, but the important thing is you have a choice, its not shoved down your throat.

the games -The most important thing to look at is the fact that 90% of the games that the ps3 has, the xbox 360 had, has, or will have soon. Theres little exclusivity, and because of how well the 360's dev kit is alot of developers are jumping over to be in house, first party devs. And those that might be interested, Microsoft pops out theyre checkbook and drops a big wad of cash to buythem into the Microsoft Gaming Studios. The current big company thats on the table: Capcom.

And the one game thats the PS3s jewel, metal Gear solid 4, will be ported to the 360, its just a matter of them officially announcing whats pretty much confirmed in the pipelines.

Reliability - Sony's notoriously cheap. They make theyre products as cheap as possible, and in the end you have to pay. Melted disc trays, malfunctioning laser readers, overheating graphics cards, easily broken insides. All of this happened frequently to the ps1 and ps2, and unlike microsoft, sony makes you PAY to fix theyre mistakes. The ps3 already is no different, with massive overheating issues across the board.

Bottomline - If your about gaming, and not watching movies, the 360's cheaper on your wallet and a better quality product. The ps3 just isnt worth it.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Wolf pretty much said what needed to be said.

If you don't have a cutting edge TV, graphics are the same. If you care about quality games 2007 will be a big year for 360. I can't say that much for PS3 unfortunately.

360 will have better games all next year, and graphics are the same unless you have a cutting edge TV. Thats just the way it is.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
For those that dont believe me, I do have some great comparison shots of the graphics. These were all taken on the same high def tv.

Fight Night Round 3



The ps3 looks slightly better on this side to side, a bit crisper. But its hardly leaps and bounds abovethe ps3. And thats what the ps3 needs to shoot for, after all, its creators said that it was the strongest gaming system ever, and that the next gen race didnt start till the ps3 was launched.

Tony Hawks Project 8



I dont see any difference, infact, the 360's version looks a bit crisper.

NBA2k7



The character models look EXACTLY the same. But the difference is the background figures, thanks to the 360s higher ram, look much better and more fleshed out.

Call of Duty 3



The 360's version has better shadows and textures


There were some "minor" wins in terms of afew that look marginally better, but, is it worth the extra 200 bucks? I dont think so.






We want for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else...The PS3 will instill discipline in our children and adults alike. Everyone will know discipline.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Wolf of war, who do you think you're kidding?

Remember, the ps3 just came out while developers for the xbox have already had a year to learn how to develop for it.

Give ps3 a year and you will be eating your own words.

Also, for the fight night 3, the ps3 looks WAAYY better. just look at the detail on the arms and the lighting.

I also think those call of duty pics are decieving.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by thehumbleone]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Fight Night was revamped for the PS3. If you have seen the previews for future 360 games, you can see that the 360's full potential hasnt been used yet either.

We aren't kidding anyone. PS3 and 360 are the same unless you have a real good HD TV, 1080i for example.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Wolf of war, who do you think you're kidding?


Nobody, I wasn't kidding.


Remember, the ps3 just came out while developers for the xbox have already had a year to learn how to develop for it.


Technically since the ps3's launch titles were being worked on from 2-3 years in advanced, just like the 360's they're all pretty much at the same development level, the only added distinction is that the ps3 was delayed about three times, which SHOULD have given them more time to produce finishing touches on games.

An important thing to note is that the 360 has an amazingly well designed developer kit, which has been praised by many developers, even Hideo Kojima. It allows developers to produce games faster and make them look stronger and run smoother.


Give ps3 a year and you will be eating your own words.


Thats kindof a blanket statement. We dont know what will happen with the ps3 in a year, we dont know what the 360 will do in a year. Its an open ballpark, we're talking in termsof now. But with sony's trackrecord, I sincerely doubt I will be eating my words


Also, for the fight night 3, the ps3 looks WAAYY better. just look at the detail on the arms and the lighting.


It looks better, but it doesnt look WAY better. It has a stronger texture design to it, and refined lighting, but its not WAY better.


I also think those call of duty pics are decieving.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by thehumbleone]


Well they are not.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
PS3's cost waaaaay too much for what they are.

360's are cheap (within reason), have tons of great games out and are only a few minutes away from being online.



My advice, get the 360 and wait until the PS3 has better games and doesn't burn a hole in your wallet/trousers/floor.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Fight Night was revamped for the PS3. If you have seen the previews for future 360 games, you can see that the 360's full potential hasnt been used yet either.

We aren't kidding anyone. PS3 and 360 are the same unless you have a real good HD TV, 1080i for example.


Well thats good for me, cause i have a 65 inch 1080p hdTV.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
as I recall 1080 p doesnt make a difference, you need the highest of HD that is currently out in or for the blue ray to make a difference. Even then you can buy the HD drive for 360 for 200 more dollars and have the same quality if you want it.





top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join