PS 3 or X Box 360???

Originally posted by grimreaper797
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.

1080p is the highest of HD, it's what bluray was designed for. As far as the screenshots go, well that's unfair to both systems, because it is very hard to capture the true beauty of a game with a screenshot. You don't see how smooth the physics are, the changes in lighting etc.

It's understandable that you have your reasons for liking the 360, and we have ours for liking the PS3, but we are not here to argue, this thread was started to help mikesingh decide whether to get a PS3 or an Xbox. As you can see in my first post, i provided him with honest information about both systems, along with an occasional opinion of mine. You can also notice that he decided to get the PS3, so basically we have done what we are here for.

We can argue all day, but y'all won't like the PS3 any more, and we won't like the Xbox 360 any more that we do, so there's really no point in arguing. We've helped mikesingh make the choice, so i'm sure there's plenty of other places where we can go argue about which is better blah blah blah. In reality only time will tell which system is more popular, because that's what really counts in the end, how much money you've made from your games.

So, mikesingh, I'm glad that we could help you, I wish you the best with your choice regardless of what it is in the end, good luck.

Peace,

Pancho

Originally posted by grimreaper797
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.

What are you talking about? 1080p is the highest resolution possible, and the PS3 supports it right out of the box with a built in Blu-Ray player and a Talladega Nights DVD. Please don't kid yourselves on the 360 being better graphically! The only reason why some games right now look slightly better is because of the amount of time Xbox game developers have had time to work with the system.

And someone up there said that they can't say much for the PS3's line-up for 2007. Lol, take one look at MGS4 (it'll be out November '07) and you'll understand what next-gen graphics really mean. Even in it's current development phase it looks better than every game the 360 has out or is to be released any time in 2007.

And to the guy bashing the PS3 controller, please don't make me laugh. Neither I or any of my friends have had the slightest of problems with the controller, so I don't know where you're pulling your info from. The 360 controller is clearly inferior in that it's using last-generation technology. When you're playing a PS3 game without rumble, you don't even notice it being gone, and I've yet to hear anyone complain about it.

Online being a hassle and lagging? Even on the PS2 I've never had a problem with lagging when playing a game that was designed right. Take MGO for example, it is a beautifully crafted online game, and there is no lag. Also, PS3 online is free, so you can't beat that. Xbox charges you $50 a year for their online service, which is better than what the PS3 offers, but I'd rather not pay money to enjoy online.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Impreza]

got the i and p mixed up again. I can't seem to stop doing that.

Originally posted by Impreza
What are you talking about? 1080p is the highest resolution possible, and the PS3 supports it right out of the box with a built in Blu-Ray player and a Talladega Nights DVD. Please don't kid yourselves on the 360 being better graphically! The only reason why some games right now look slightly better is because of the amount of time Xbox game developers have had time to work with the system.

i got i and p mixed up. Look it up though. if you have 1080i you wont see much difference then 360 and if you have the 720 i or p blue ray doesn't reconize it and the blue ray drive downgrades to 480 which is not too good. The 360 might not be better graphically, but unless you have 1080p (finally got the right version haha), you won't see much a difference, and if your playing on a 720i or p the 360 will actually seem better because ps3 blue ray doesn't support it I believe.

The reason the games look slightly better has NOTHING to do with time to work with the system. They had just as much time to work with the PS3 system, they just kept pushing the release date back because problems with the blue ray drive and such. They both been working on their games about the same times.

And someone up there said that they can't say much for the PS3's line-up for 2007. Lol, take one look at MGS4 (it'll be out November '07) and you'll understand what next-gen graphics really mean. Even in it's current development phase it looks better than every game the 360 has out or is to be released any time in 2007.

omg talk about a fanboy right here. MGS4 is one game, and the funny part is that it wont be any grpahically better then Halo 3. If you have the 1080p and get the HD-DVD for 360 you get the same graphics again. Its just a matter of PS3 forcing you to get bluray whether you need it or not and 360 giving you the choice of whether or not you want HD-DVD.

Tell me what other PS3 exclusive games their will be? I can name 5 big 360 games right off the bat. Halo 3, Alan Wake, Lost Odyssey (grpahically utilizing the 360 capabilities), then Halo Wars, Mass Effect, Fable 2, and possibly others since there are a couple which simply don't have enough info about them out.

you dont have GTA anymore, its moved to 360. We already got a Final Fantasy and I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up getting another one. If MGS does go to the 360 you dont really have much of anything thats exclusive to PS3.

for people like me who have a 480 HD and not a 1080p Ill stick to 360. If I got a 1080p, I would just get a HD-DVD, because the PS3 doesn't have any games worth spending 600 dollars for a system for. I can get GTA on 360 when it comes out, I can get resident evil on 360 when it comes out. And the original makers of the Final Fantasy games are on mistwalkers now, which makes 360 only games (lost odyssey is one of them.)

So what reason should I want the ps3 over the 360? I got my 360 with the full package, 4 games, a DVD remote, a DVD and an extra wireless controller as a bundle pack for 700 dollars when it came out last year.

Like I said unless you have a 1080p, the games will be graphically very similar. If you do have it, there is always the HD-DVD drive you can buy for 360 which will just update the graphics again.

Online being a hassle and lagging? Even on the PS2 I've never had a problem with lagging when playing a game that was designed right. Take MGO for example, it is a beautifully crafted online game, and there is no lag. Also, PS3 online is free, so you can't beat that. Xbox charges you $50 a year for their online service, which is better than what the PS3 offers, but I'd rather not pay money to enjoy online.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Impreza]

Then your the only one. I was a big playstation person up to about a year into my playstation2 then I picked up an xbox cause I was sick of all the imperfections.

but I like xbox live more then what I have seen from the PS3 online, and Im happy to pay the 50 dollars a month for a service that has always given me excellent customer service whenever we had the slightest problem with the xbl service. Try the service with playstation online. Spent an ENTIRE night trying to get playstations online to work, and still we couldn't get it to work.

I think the 50 dollars is WELL worth it, and have no problem paying 50 dollars a year for such a service. The whole set up of the xbl service is one of the reasons I ended up switching. It was easy and very fun to use.

I'm not even going to bother with you, especially since not even you know what you're talking about with most of the things you say. PS2 was lacking in it's online during initial phases, but I see no problem with it now.

Don't bet on MGS4 coming to 360, as Hideo Kojima has already decided it's not happening. Final Fantasy XI isn't realy an FF game, it's just an online game with no real beginning and end. I'm an FF fan and know many others who don't consider it to be one, so don't kid yourself on getting the best from Playstation. The only exclusive Xbox has that comes close to the amount of money Playstation exclusives make is Halo, all the others suck and make **** worth of profit.

And in case you haven't noticed, next-gen isn't just referring to now where most people don't have 1080p televisions, they will be sticking around for the next 6-8 years.

I'm done here, please go read up a bit on these kind of things.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Impreza]

lmao ok fanboy, keep thinking that. Final Fantasy isn't the best of playstation since none of the original people from FF creators are there anymore. Alot of them are on mistwalkers which is making Lost Odyssey for 360 only.
If we don't get Final Fantasy, I am personally fine with that since I didn't like IX and X was too short. The ones past that aren't even worth playing. So enjoy the washed up title. Im happy with the fact we have the original makers of FF working on a new game for the 360 which will be good.

I now realize your bias toward microsoft in general is probably why you dislike everything on it. MGS4 wont be godly. Ive seen the same videos you have, the same screenshots, and all of that, and its not looking that special. Your best game will probably be FFXIII, but that probably wont be as good as Lost Odyssey. Alan Wake is completely Original and will be a refreshing game to play considering PS3 hasn't had anything of interest and ingenuity.

Gears of War out did Resistance, Halo 3 will outdo MGS4, Lost Odyssey will most likely out do FFXIII, and if it does Fable 2 will. MGS1 is one of my all time favorite games, right under FF7, doesn't change the fact that I can realize Sony is falling fast. My two favorite games of all time are on the PS1, in fact I would still choose them over most games today, but that doesn't change the facts. MGS is played out and they are trying to milk it for what its worth. FF isn't the old team it use to be, and PS simply isnt going to compete in FPS.

I do my reading, and I can face the facts when I see them.

Ok, i see we are still at it, so i might as well clear up some facts.

The games will play in 720P or 1080p if they are capable, the movies are having issues upscaling, but all sony needs to do is create a firmware update and problem will be solved. They are working on this update, as well as a few others, and as far as I know there isn't a 720i that i've ever heard of.

The reason that the games on both PS3 and Xbox 360 look about the same is the fact that Sony hasn't taught everyone how to properly utilize the cell processor. Look at these games, MGS4, Heavenly Sword, Resistance: Fall of Man, Motorstorm, Killzone, and Lair, this is what we have to look forward to once everyone knows how to get every ounce of power out of the cell processor. Yes, sony has a pretty weak launch lineup right now, but that won't matter once these games start to come out. Oh yeah, all of these games are coming out in '07 along with others (Warhawk just to name one more).

Also You can't play games on the HD-DVD drive add on for 360 only movies.

I mentioned some PS3 exclusive games above, and to add on to that list Factor 5
List of PS3 exclusive games (42) (+2 for PC also)

I would like to add that i have never had a problem with the PS2 or the Online service (although for PS2 i do have to admit that xbox was better, but i have yet to see the online services for PS3 vs. Xbox 360)

Oh yeah, one more thing You can not play games with the HD-DVD add on for Xbox, only movies

Lmao at Halo fanboys. They showed a 1 minute video during e3 and all the fanboys think it'll automatically look like the best game ever. If e3 previews are any indication, Killzone looks ten times as good as Halo 3. Also, Alan Wake looks like utter crap, and Lost Odyssey looks like the hundreds of other games in it's genre.

All of your list of exclusives, with the exception of Halo 3 look like a bunch of mediocre games. Now take a look at this list: Final Fantasy XIII and Versus XIII, Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo 5, Devil May Cry 4, Ratchet and Clank, and Killzone (rumored to be a Halo Killer with a team of 120 people and costing the most amount of money out of any game in history; $21 million). Those games are franchises that have established a very large population of gamers, not games like Lost Odyssey and crappy Alan Wake.

And before you bring PGR to the conversation, let me tell you that as a car enthusiast, that game feels and looks like ****. Not even the 360 version is as good as GT4 on the PS2 in terms of physics or attention to detail or amount of cars, lol.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Impreza]

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Impreza]

Get your facts straight about 1080p grimreaper, woo hoo!! i gotta a 1080p TV, once i get a ps3, it will be glorious.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Get your facts straight about 1080p grimreaper, woo hoo!! i gotta a 1080p TV, once i get a ps3, it will be glorious.

I would love to have your monster of a TV. I have a 27" HDTV that has VGA, DVI, component, AV, svideo, etc. But no HDMI, and as far as I know, no 1080p (but you can bet i will try it anyways to find out if it does.) I love my flatscreen, because it doubles, triples, as a TV, Monitor, has DVI for PS3.

But 65", that is ridiculous! But I would Love to have one.

Originally posted by Impreza
Lmao at Halo fanboys. They showed a 1 minute video during e3 and all the fanboys think it'll automatically look like the best game ever. If e3 previews are any indication, Killzone looks ten times as good as Halo 3.

except that Halo 3 was atleast actual ingame footage, and Killzone was entirely pre-rendered as "estimated graphical capability" So far that is a curse of a bad game. Red Steel anyone?

Also, Alan Wake looks like utter crap,

So you dont like games with a story and mystery in a massive free roaming enviroment? okay.

and Lost Odyssey looks like the hundreds of other games in it's genre.

And look, you beat down lost odyssey with what appears to be no knowledge of the game besides its genre, and you praise two of the predeccessors as one of the "awesome list of games" for the ps3. hypocrasy anyone?

All of your list of exclusives, with the exception of Halo 3 look like a bunch of mediocre games. Now take a look at this list:

Yes, lets.

Final Fantasy XIII and Versus XIII

Two cheap shells of Final Fantasy born in a gimmick that sony is so fond of, make one game two different ones. You know, like the other one on your list, Grand Turismo...either buy the one with no tracks or the one with no cars. God, its like pokemon with racing games. If you talked about Lost Odyssey, you have to throw these out.

Metal Gear Solid 4

You talk about Halo 3? MGS has been a bloated and dieing corpse of a series from the one game that was absolutely perfect. Each game after the original MGS has been worse in terms of its story and design. And with MGS3 they didnt even care enough to give the bosses names. "Bee soldier guy" yeah, okay. Besides, MGS4 is actually being ported to the xbox 360 like MGS2 was.

Gran Turismo 5

Like I said, I love having to pay $120.00 for one game to get the complete package.

Devil May Cry 4

If its like the first and third it will be good. If its like the second it will suck, its a hit or miss and I cant really make a fair estimate on it.

Ratchet and Clank

Ratchet and Clank is worth $600.00 as much as Viva Pinata is worth $400.00...though viva Pinata is a good game, and ratchet and clank has begun to wore out its welcome.

Killzone (rumored to be a Halo Killer with a team of 120 people and costing the most amount of money out of any game in history; $21 million).

Killzone 1 was supposed to be the rumored halo killer, and it flopped as a mediocre First person shooter with stale enviroments, bland locations, repetitive gameplay, a shallow story, and the most unimaginative barriers imaginable (You cant go this way because a small pile of rubble a foot high is blocking it.)



[edit on 12-3-2006 by WolfofWar]

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Get your facts straight about 1080p grimreaper, woo hoo!! i gotta a 1080p TV, once i get a ps3, it will be glorious.

I bet it will be. I gotta say, if you arewilling to spend $3599.99 on a 65" 1080p HDTV, by all means, the PS3 is the way to go.

But for me, I dont really want to spend over $4000.00 to get the fullest out of my gaming system, I'd rather upgrade my computer, or put the money down on a car.

but if you want a ps3, go right ahead, spend that 4 grand.

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Get your facts straight about 1080p grimreaper, woo hoo!! i gotta a 1080p TV, once i get a ps3, it will be glorious.

I bet it will be. I gotta say, if you arewilling to spend $3599.99 on a 65" 1080p HDTV, by all means, the PS3 is the way to go.

But for me, I dont really want to spend over $4000.00 to get the fullest out of my gaming system, I'd rather upgrade my computer, or put the money down on a car.

but if you want a ps3, go right ahead, spend that 4 grand.

But i already got the TV, all i need is the ps3.

Originally posted by thehumbleone


But i already got the TV, all i need is the ps3.

Like I said, then get it, its definitely the better choice if you havethe tv.

But for the hopefuls out there that dont have it, in order to actually get anything more out of the ps3 then a xbox 360 in a coat of black paint, they HAVE to buy that 4500.00 tv.

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by thehumbleone


But i already got the TV, all i need is the ps3.

Like I said, then get it, its definitely the better choice if you havethe tv.

But for the hopefuls out there that dont have it, in order to actually get anything more out of the ps3 then a xbox 360 in a coat of black paint, they HAVE to buy that 4500.00 tv.

I disagree, even without the hdtv, i think the ps3 will be a much more engaging experience with sixaxis control and all, you also have to remember the titles coming out for it, MGS4, FFXIII, devil may cry,etc.

Also, in six to 8 years, the ps3 won't be as outdated as the 360.

Originally posted by thehumbleone

I disagree, even without the hdtv, i think the ps3 will be a much more engaging experience with sixaxis control and all, you also have to remember the titles coming out for it, MGS4, FFXIII, devil may cry,etc.

The sixaxis controller that doesnt work right? which randomly glitches out and causes you to crash or die in a racing game, or is generall completely unresponsive in most tasks in games? Nah, thats not much more engaging at all.

And again, okay, four titles, in 5 years, one which is being ported to the 360, the other may suck like its other predecessors, the fables "halo killer" having had nothing shown of it except CG movies, and FF being a gimmicky copout from Enix. The real FF fans now all having migrated over to play Mistwalker, the original FF creators before Enix hostiley took them over.

Without the HDTV, the ps3 simply is a xbox 360. Except without Halo or Deadrising or Mass Effect or Alan Wake or Gears of War or soon Resident Evil (because Microsoft Game Studios is in process of buying Capcom as an inhouse) or any of the other quality games that are from inhouse party developers.

But when you have that HDTV, man, I would have to say, it would surely be a more viseral experience, I would never deny that.

Also, in six to 8 years, the ps3 won't be as outdated as the 360.

Not true, because in five years, the ps3 and the xbox360 will both be outdated, as EVERY gaming system only has a lifespan of five years.

And besides, the new 360 sequel is already being produced in its early stages, the next-next gen wars always begins in five years, no system lasts more then five, especially not to 8 years.

except that Halo 3 was atleast actual ingame footage, and Killzone was entirely pre-rendered as "estimated graphical capability" So far that is a curse of a bad game. Red Steel anyone?

Okay, so you base your claim on a rumor that Killzone was CG, fine with me.

And look, you beat down lost odyssey with what appears to be no knowledge of the game besides its genre, and you praise two of the predeccessors as one of the "awesome list of games" for the ps3. hypocrasy anyone?

Yeah, I hear a lot of hype for Lost Odyssey...NOT! FF games captivate the imagination of millions all over the world, wtf is Lost Odyssey? It's nothing more than a generic game of it's genre. There is no hypocracy involved here, just the truth that I speak on behalf of the nearly 10 million people fan-base of Final Fantasy.

Two cheap shells of Final Fantasy born in a gimmick that sony is so fond of, make one game two different ones. You know, like the other one on your list, Grand Turismo...either buy the one with no tracks or the one with no cars.

Okay, so you don't know **** about the upcoming FF games. The games are way different from one another and are not linked, with the exception that they are set in the same universe. This is just another way that Square Enix sets itself apart from everything else out there. By being creative, they can hit two birds with one stone.

Gran Turismo 5 will be a complete game. You're thinking of GTHD, which has already been dropped in order to work on GT5, so get your facts straight.

You talk about Halo 3? MGS has been a bloated and dieing corpse of a series from the one game that was absolutely perfect. Each game after the original MGS has been worse in terms of its story and design. And with MGS3 they didnt even care enough to give the bosses names. "Bee soldier guy" yeah, okay. Besides, MGS4 is actually being ported to the xbox 360 like MGS2 was.

Again, you're misinformed, for as I mentioned earlier, Hideo Kojima has said time and time again that MGS4 will be a PS3 exclusive. This is also the wish of Sony, so don't bother thinking it'll be out on 360. You're obviously in the minority if you think MGS2 and 3 were horrible games, that's all I have to say about that.

If its like the first and third it will be good. If its like the second it will suck, its a hit or miss and I cant really make a fair estimate on it.

I can say the same about HALO, seeing as how the second one blew.

Ratchet and Clank is worth $600.00 as much as Viva Pinata is worth $400.00...though viva Pinata is a good game, and ratchet and clank has begun to wore out its welcome.

Take a look at how many people play each of those games and you'll know why R&K is worth the $600 and Viva Pinata isn't worth the $400.

Killzone 1 was supposed to be the rumored halo killer, and it flopped as a mediocre First person shooter with stale enviroments, bland locations, repetitive gameplay, a shallow story, and the most unimaginative barriers imaginable (You cant go this way because a small pile of rubble a foot high is blocking it.)

It flopped only due to the limitations it was facing with the PS2. With more than enough power, the PS3 will allow Killzone to reach new heights in video games and show you how it's done. Anyone with a decent amount of brain power could have told you that the potential was there to kill Halo with Killzone, but it couldn't outperform Halo because the PS2 had no HDD and the online was inferior to that of Xbox.

all i can say is remember how ps2 games first looked then how they looked later on

a huge difference, so there is always the room and ability for improvement

The sixaxis controller that doesnt work right? which randomly glitches out and causes you to crash or die in a racing game, or is generall completely unresponsive in most tasks in games? Nah, thats not much more engaging at all.

Don't worry, it is a minor bug that will be fixed, however, i wouldn't be surprised if microsoft tries to copy them by coming out with a similar controller.

my god please don't tell me your rating how good a game is by its fan base rather then the content of the actual game. The fact FF has such a large fan base suggest more hype then Lost Odyssey. People look at it with unbias opinion rather then seeing Final Fantasy and thinking "omg its going to be awesome" yet they haven't even seen it yet. Final Fantasy 9 was NOT awesome, so yea I don't go judging just because of its title.