| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4) | |
Anonymous Source Posts: 8 Joined: 20 Oct 2007    | |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 93 Joined: 11 Sep 2007   | Uh oh. Here they come. *hides under desk* |
Muckraker  Posts: 307 Joined: 17 Oct 2007  | I have a strong feeling this thread will get locked in short order. Rationality is simply not possible in a discussion concerning the console wars. |
Muckraker Posts: 307 Joined: 17 Oct 2007 | I have a strong feeling this thread will get locked in short order. Rationality is simply not possible in a discussion concerning the console wars. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 53 Joined: 22 Dec 2007 | In the hopes of keeping this rational, Id thought I'd give my thoughts. Firstly: Why the hell does there have to be a console war? Both platforms are big enough to stand on their own, both have enough shared games and exclusives for them to do perfectly well, though I really hate exclusives, people should be able to go for the system they are most comfortable with, controll wise, not worry they wont get to see the end of a series of games they have been following. Secondly: A lot of gamers are kids, its the case. Why must console developers then act like children and make boasts and slam each others system? As much as they were hyping their own systems they were bashing the others, one of the reasons this console war appears to be everywhere. Thirdly: Will people please please stop talking about: A) the graphics when the games arent even released, so they could be made better, or much more likely cut back. B)(This ones far more annoying) The gameplay of games that havent come out yet. I actually got into an argument with someone telling me while Crysis's graphics maybe slightly better than Killzone 2's, Killzone would be much more fun to play. How the hell did he know? And why compare a game thats out to one that isnt on different platforms??? |
BANNED  Posts: 6317 Joined: 29 Nov 2007     | I think both systems stand pretty firm on their own. You just have to take the good and bad from both. It's not so much of a war, as it is a compensation contest. User was banned for: The hypocrisy is KILLING me.. (Permanent) |
Muckraker Posts: 307 Joined: 17 Oct 2007 | I would give my thoughts on the matter, but Gabe Newell said them for me: |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 925 Joined: 4 Oct 2007     |
Because most people can't/won't afford both, and the consoles are loss-leaders for their parent companies, who make money on the games. They need to convince you to get their console so that you'll buy the games that make them money. Surprisingly, Sony and Microsoft do not make consoles to sell to people out of their love for the gaming public. Hard to believe, I know, but they really are in it for the money. This is why they make and sign deals for exclusives, so that if you want to play *that* game, you'll need to get *that* console, which will in turn direct you to buying more of the games that make them money. This is why the companies fight each other, because every person who buys one of the other guys' consoles probably isn't going to buy one of yours as well, which means you're going to sell fewer games. (And this in turn leads into the feedback spiral I've already talked about elsewhere) As to the original poster, I might remind you about the Xbox 360 hardware problems that people have been having. Now hopefully a newer console won't have those problems, but it's something purchasers should consider. Also, with respect to the console war, we skipped it and bought a Wii instead. Primary considerations were, in order of importance: Size, price, energy usage, and don't have to sit in "hunchback pose" to play. Oddly, the things you mention weren't concerns at all for us. |
Anonymous Source Posts: 8 Joined: 20 Oct 2007 | That's a good point about the 360 red ringing. I forgot to mention that. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 53 Joined: 22 Dec 2007 | I never said I didnt understand why they did exclusives, I just said I hated them. And obviously there are out to make money because if they werent they wouldnt be making consoles at all. My point was why is this console war continuing on the net when all systems are doing perfectly fine for this stage in their console life spans. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 4090 Joined: 10 Nov 2007     |
Not so sure about that. XMB is pretty appalling when it comes to dealing with long menus, like the Settings menu. (also, from a system standpoint, the Xbox 360's OS is far smaller, with a much lighter memory and CPU footprint) |
Beat Writer  Posts: 214 Joined: 21 Dec 2007    | You could compare this ongoing console war with the one before. You see, the 360 is like what the PS2 was back in 2000, a next-gen console released before every other next-gen console. (Some of you will probably bring up the Dreamcast keeping in mind that it also was a white next-gen console with a circle-shaped logo released to early, but since we all know how that worked out compared to the 360, I found the PS2 a better comparison) The 360 was released 2 yrs and ten months before the PS3, giving it a massive head-start in sales. The PS2 was released 2000, one year before the Xbox, and became the fastest selling game console, EVER. So why am I comparing the 360 with the PS2? It is because both of them were the middle-weights in their periods of the console wars.(I'm making it sound like it is a real war, forgive me) The console war before this one, had the Xbox as the heavy-weight champion with the built in harddrive and massive proccesors, while the PS2 was the middle-weight. This time, the tables have turned and the PS3: "a shiny cromed spiderman-typed faced thing the size of a small car loaded with the argueably the most powerful top of the range hardware" -Ben Croshaw has becmoed the heavy-weight. However, if we learned something from the last console war, the middle-weight champion won in the end, making a profit in billions of dollars while the rest got not as much. Sure, the Xbox had Halo and Xbox Live, period, but I wonder how Nintendo survived with their purple Gaycube. So my money is on the 360. Maybe not as powerful as the PS3, and not as child-friendly as the Wii, but has the best choice of games, compared to the other two, and a decent hardware. |
Muckraker Posts: 307 Joined: 17 Oct 2007 | Even if (emphasis on "if") the PS3, in years to come, manifests an acceptable game library, it won't matter. By that time, Xbox will have acquired the majority of the market (not counting the Wii in this equation, as Nintendo is cleaning up,) so whatever graphical masterpieces are available simply won't have the same demand. That said, the PS3 is good at crunching numbers, and that's about it. It is NOT the visual powerhouse that computer illiterate suckers like to think it is. In my opinion, Sony should cut their losses and run, leasing their cell processors for research companies, who can actually use them: http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=220 |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1429 Joined: 7 Nov 2007     | I prefer the 360 as a piece of equipment and as I've not had any of the hardware faults that apparently plague everyone else to the tune of a $1bn repair bill to Microsoft last financial year I can call it a reliable console. I like it's functionality, I like the marketplace, and I like the fact that Microsoft don't release new firmware for it every eight minutes. The exclusives on the 360 are more intereting to me at current, as the only exclusives that interest me on the PS3 at this time are the JRPGs, a phase I am outgrowing. I'd rather play Halo 3 and Mass Effect. However, I won't say the PS3 is a bad machine. After all, I fully intend to buy one when there are games on it that I like. I have a PSP and I've come to like the XMB interface as opposed to the 360's blades. The XMB is nicely uncluttered by comparison. There are games coming out in 2008 I am more interested in playing than the non-event that was this year, but given my already acknowledged lack of interest in many popular PS2 franchises it's hard to say if the PS3 will edge out the 360 this year, especially since I need to address the $700 AUD price point before I can even consider what titles I'm interested in. I just know that the 2007 lineup didn't do it for me. And that's all there really is to it. As a machine, they're probably quite evenly matched. The 360 has the better lineup because it's been out longer and Xbox Live is the superior online service. What would it take? Silent Hill 5 as PS3 exclusive. That would have me down to EB Games like a gunshot, only overtakien by my laserbeamesque fiancee. Sorry if this post seemed rather rambly, I'm at work and suffered several interruptions. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2220 Joined: 23 Dec 2007    | i think that to see the advantages of a console you should just look at sales i mean take the wii as an example in any case err ps3 disadvantage: if blu ray goes under so does it Btw kermi surely you should be working instead of posting on a forum |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 556 Joined: 4 Dec 2007   | I myself have got a 360, and I would say that it is slightly better, if only because of the games. The PS3 has more processing power than the 360, albeit with a slightly weaker graphics card, and it does have a good library of games (Resistance, Ratchet and Clank and Warhawk spring to mind. The main disadvantage is the price. The 360's main advantages are the cheaper price and the games. BioShock, Mass Effect, CoD 4, Viva Pinata, Oblivion etc (I'm not going to mention Halo 3 as I don't think it is particularly good), and soon Fable 2, Fallout 3 and Borderlands, to name a few, definitely beat the PS3's lineup. Although, in the near future the PS3 will have MGS4 and FFXIII, although I've never particularly been interested in those series. The main disadvantage of the 360 is the hardware problems, although my 360 hasn't failed so far. The motion-sensing in the SIXAXIS controller is really just a gimmick which very few games utilise well. |
Anonymous Source Posts: 1 Joined: 24 Dec 2007 | Let me start by stating that one of my ongoing pet peeves is people who do not even attempt to use correct grammar, spelling, or punctuation while on the internet in general. Just because you talk like that doesn't mean you necessarily need to type like that. I have a southern accent in real life, but the word "ya'll" will never appear in any of my typed dialog. Now that that's out of the way, on to criticism. I have a lingering distaste for the Playstation controllers. I am not saying that this, by itself, makes the console bad, but for that reason I have not bought a Playstation console and will not in the future. If I sit in temple-ramming frustration because I can't master the controller, there is no way I'm going to like the game, even if it is well done. The reason I did buy an Xbox and later a 360 was that I liked the controller far better (after they came out with the ones that were not ridiculously massive), and yes, I'll say it, Halo is my favorite game for consoles. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with Halo 3, but I won't get into that on this thread. In any case, this is a moot point because PC games are FAR better than any console game could ever hope to be. And, as a side note, are they really making a Fable 2? That would be something to look forward to. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2684 Joined: 12 Oct 2007   | Meh niether of these consoles really have what we would consider a line-up as the past two years have been a mountain of crap save a few gems. Most of the really big games for the 360 were better off being played on the PC just because the controls were so pathetic or had bugs that just did not exist in the PC version. (Orange Box) The past two years would have been better spent building an entirely new computer rather than buying a 360 and (to a slightly lesser extent) a ps3. Xbox Live itself is just one big joke since the most important feature the online play is inherently broken since it uses a player connect mechanism that they expect you to pay for the privelage to use. I thought Halo 3 was pathetic considering that it was being marketed as the second coming, and by then I had already seen the beta which looked like Halo 1 to me (I haven't played Halo 2), it didn't help that I had access to the Call of Duty 4 beta which basically erased alo before it ever even came out. Mass Effect while the story was good just plain fails as an rpg. The game actually made you not want to explore anything because the driving was so terrible. The party system was more or less useless because you could never take control of the other characters, and you could easily become a god if you used Liara and jst poured everything into her biotics. All of the weapons were the same and its almost inconsequential which ones you use. The whole Paragon Renegade thing actually went backwards from the KOTOR games in that it was not really possible to influence the behavior of your party members through your actions. I was struck by the total lack of response from anyone when I elected to shoot an old gang buddy in the face, or an Asari scientist on the second to last story planet. As far as the PS3 goes the line up did pick up a bit towards the end of this year with Rachet and Clank Future (I haven't smiled so much while playing a game in a very long time.), Uncharted, Folklore (The game is rather odd, not for everyone.),Heavenly Sword (The facial capture in this game makes Mass Effect look old.) and Warhawk. I will close by saying that the quality of the games available on the PS3 (Excluding the multiplatform games.) is much higher than that of the 360. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 153 Joined: 19 Dec 2007  | Im definitely going to have side with the Xbox 360, if only because im a huge fan of the Halo games and am looking foreward to "toiling in the microsoft overmind's offworld mining complex". |
Paperboy  Posts: 13 Joined: 18 Oct 2007  | Well, I don't have any of the 'next-gen' consoles so im going to ramble on about them in general as well as the games mentioned instead, kind of like an outsider looking in on them. The PS3 and Xbox 360 basically offer the same thing in a different box as far as im concerned - ie media hub/games console. So the whole thing about one being better than the other is all bull, as the only thing that really differentiates them is the brand and the price tag. There will be good exclusive games on both systems so they don't count. As for Uncharted, I simply don't think the lean against wall and shoot over mechanic from Second Sight will match up to Jak 2 and it's GTA crossed with platformer style. My thoughts on Ratchet and Clank are that it simply wont be as funny as number 3 (especially Quarks plan of attack), although at least Insomniac decided not to include a multiplayer in tools of destruction. If im wrong about any of my presumptions then please tell me :) Now as for Haze, well im something of a Free Radical fan so i generally look at all of their stuff through my extra strength rose tinted glasses. However you seem to be presuming that Haze is a playstation exclusive, which is wrong - Haze is a timed exclusive. Don't believe the lies of Gamespot and the like, all of which seem to be taken from some reworded Ubisoft documentation that i suspect has been put there to get the sony fanboys to hype the game. Bioshock i have on PC and is a classic example of a developer over using new graphical technology, kind of like all the games that used way too much bloom when it first came about. This time however they decided to stick what i like to call 'shiny textures' on everything - including clothing, so everything looked like it was made out of metal. I haven't played Halo 3, but if its anything like the first one the multiplayer will probably be quite good and the story mode will probably be best avoided. The lack of variety in the settings along with the reuse of large portions of the maps gave me the feeling i had spent 2 hours walking in one giant circle on the original.
So you think the Xbox 360s architecture is crap as well, since it wasn't that long ago he was complaining about that too.
LIES - they didn't make Goldeneye or Perfect Dark - that was the team from Rare that founded Free Radical |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 4090 Joined: 10 Nov 2007 |
Uncharted is a very good game. Could have done possibly with a little more platforming and a little less shooting, because the shooting isn't the strongest out there (the weapons feel piddly, and there's frequent cases of transparent whack-a-mole enemy spawning). Animation's gorgeous though.
It's better than the third game. Not as good as the second. |
Muckraker Posts: 307 Joined: 17 Oct 2007 |
Not exactly. At the time he was complaining about the multi-core processors, (which he now praises) they weren't mainstream. However, these days you cannot find a moderate ranged computer without multi-core processors. The market has adapted them, and they are now the leading technology. The cell processor, however, will not catch on. It is far too expensive to produce. That and programming games for them is a disaster, especially on games designed for multiple systems. There's no reason for developers to completely alter their workflow for a tiny percentage of the market. This is why Apple switched from the G5, a cell processor, to the multi-core intel. Apple's are now much easier to program for, widening the market, while still maintaining a more stable OS. |
Muckraker Posts: 297 Joined: 31 Oct 2006  | heh if you could rationally answer questions like this...you'd be a very rich man. i think for mere mortals, the answer is "no fucking clue." the 360 has more great games now, but so will the PS3 come 2008 (MGS4, Gran Turismo, Little Big Planet). so it's really anyone's guess. |
BANNED Posts: 6317 Joined: 29 Nov 2007 |
But... you did.
Mmmmm, Perfect Dar-.....crap.. Need new shorts. User was banned for: The hypocrisy is KILLING me.. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1429 Joined: 7 Nov 2007 |
In an insurance call center on Christmas eve? Yeah, I'm completely flat out. :P |
On the Record  Posts: 5708 Joined: 2 Dec 2007    | Get laid more if you own a Sexbox 3sexty. And if you own a Gaystation 3... you will die. Period. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 217 Joined: 13 Dec 2007   | My thoughts: Sony has been consistently pissing me off with all the bad PR, the overpriced systems, and just their attitude that they think they know better than the consumer. That said, I do acknowledge that the PS3 has something going for it....just not yet. This is the X-mas to get a 360 (since the wii's are impossible to find) X-box has a bigger library, is more affordable (slightly), and has better exclusives. Next year will be the year for a PS3. If Sony plays their cards right and focuses their console as a GAME SYSTEM instead of a blu-ray spewing colossus then next X-mas they will be the force to be reckoned with. The system will be more affordable, hopefully the PS2 library will be backwards compatible by then, the online store will have more going for it, and the big games that it's been promising will be out. If at least half of that happens, the PS3 will do just fine. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2684 Joined: 12 Oct 2007 | You know I hate the whole we WANT A GAME SYSTEM!!!!one eleventy! people. The fact of the matter is that game systems have always been computers, they were so before some of these people were born and they will be after. It's ironic because gaming on desktop computers is very big but you do not see them marketed for games by and large. You see them marketed as multimedia devices ...which is exactly what the 360 and the ps3 are in the first place! Sony's problem was that they marketed the product under the assumption that thier target audience was more intelligent than they actually are. The fact of the matter is that feature wise none of the consoles this generation were overpriced. It also did not help that the low end model failed to differentiate from the lower spec 360. |
Muckraker Posts: 307 Joined: 17 Oct 2007 | HL2-OrangeBox (360): http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/halflife2theorangebox HL2-OrangeBox (PS3): http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/halflife2theorangebox HAHAHAHAHAhahahahHAHAHhaha. Hahaha. Ha. HAHA. ha. ohhhh. ha. i am amused. |
On the Record Posts: 5708 Joined: 2 Dec 2007 |
I think that sums it al up right there. Also I hate the PS3 ad (the one shown in Australia anyway) with the french-circus looking people dancing and doing ballet and putting a dog in a drycleaner and shit. The ads fine but at the end it states "Technology that upgrades itself" they fail to mention if you had it connected to the net. So me (who couldn't give a damn about Live or anything) would still be living with PS3 mk1. Why would they even need to upgrade their system in the first place? That's my only quarrel with the machine... Rainy out. |
Paperboy  Posts: 35 Joined: 24 Dec 2007  | This is my second console war (first being the gamecube, ps2, xbox) |
On the Record Posts: 5708 Joined: 2 Dec 2007 | It is also proven that reading more books makes you smarter. |
Paperboy  Posts: 15 Joined: 23 Dec 2007    | The 360 launched Nov 22, 2005 and the PS3 launched Nov 17, 2006 in North America. So that's a hair shy of a ONE year lead, not almost 3 like a previous poster said. That said... a one year head start is still a big deal. So, here's my breakdown: PS3 - The PS3 is more powerful, period, we're not going to have that argument. It's doing well this holiday season and that pretty much means it's here to stay. Blu-ray is a wonderful format, as is HD-DVD, but with the drive in the system it has real and tangible backing unlike HD-DVD. The ability to have all regions on a single disc and the ability to support massive data storage on a single disc are definitely going to help in the long run. All models of the PS3 have a hard drive which means developers can, are and will continue to use it to cache data. This means faster loading games that eventually will run smoother too. The PlayStation Network is in its infancy and is progressing well. Sony is an axcellent student and is learning a lot from X-Box Live. Yes, the PSN has a ways to go, but it is evolving constantly. XBox 360 - The 360 is a far superior system to the original Xbox in almost every way. XBox Live is better than ever, as was mentioned, the online experience on the 360 just isn't matched. The 360 has a year head start and has taken full advantage of this. Being the first Next Gen system it has sold well and built an impressive library that continues to drive sales. The system's pricing is better as well. The real issue is that the 360 launched a year earlier than the PS3 and isn't as powerful. Without a built in high capacity disc drive multiple discs and multiple regioned versions are going to become an issue over the remaining life of the system. Also, Microsoft simply dropped the ball by not including a hard drive in/with every system. The Core and Arcade bundles are great for comsumers looking to get into the Next Gen more cost effectively, but are going to seriously hurt them in the future because developers won't use it to cache data since they can't count on everyone that would buy the game owning a 360 with a hard drive. Conclusion - The 360 will continue to do well for another 2-3 years and most likely maintain the lead it has over the PS3 though that lead may shrink in the coming years as the PS3 becoms more affordable and games being to equal or surpass the 360 visually. Sometime around 2010 or 2011 the 360 will start showing it's age. Developers will have all of their tools running much better for the PS3 and as many developers have stated they will start with PS3 development since it is harder and then port down to the 360. At that point Microsoft will have to launch a new console. This is where the issue really, truly lies. Microsoft will launch a new console as the PS3 is still gaining steam. They will hit a brick wall of consumers not willing to purchase another new console considering they already have atleast one and that many of them may already have Wii's or even Wii 2's and the new affordable PS3. That's how I feel anyway. I own both. The 360 for gaming goodness now, the PS3 for the future. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 4090 Joined: 10 Nov 2007 |
If the PS3 is still "gaining steam" in three years time, it will have failed. By then everyone in the world and their dog will already have a Wii, and the software library of the PS3 will be nothing like the PS2s (which is what it still keeping it going), because there's very little incentive to develop exclusively for it, given that it's in third place in the market. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 53 Joined: 22 Dec 2007 | I do think its funny that everyone keeps talking about what a powerfull piece of kit the Playstation 3. Sure its good, but is it really that good at games? For all the benchmarks and uses ive seen of the PS3, ive never seen anything thats shown it can do something more impressive in a game than a PC or even the 360. I mean its a amazing at doing floating point operations but what about hyperthreading? What has the PS3 done or supposed to be able to do that the Xbox360 cant? (Btw this is a genuine question) |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4) | |
I was just over at gametrailers, checking out video of DMC4, and i noticed the forum discussion of the video had turned into a giant fanboy argument over which console was better. I decided that I needed to make a forum post about this, in order to convince myself that there are still sane, rational gamers in the world. And what better place to find them then on the escapist forums? This is how I see it, and I'd love to hear your thoughts, too.
Firs of all, I want to say that I finally got a PS3, after much deliberation about which one would be better for me. This is what I came up with:
Xbox 360 has a pretty unparalleled online experience. The playstation network is nice, and it's free, but the library of demos, classic games, and downloadable games, is much larger on xbox live. As far as multiplayer goes, though, both systems will get you there, and performance is about the same.
I favor the Playstation 3 in terms of exclusive titles, however. Initially they had almost nothing, save for Resistance, but now they have Uncharted, Ratchet and clank, Warhawk, and eventually, MGS4. Haze could go either way at this point, and while there is no doubt that Killzone will be gorgeous, It's gameplay could go either way.
I'm not ignoring the 360's strong exclusive library, with Halo 3, Bioshock as a console exclusive, and Mass Effect coming to mind, I'm just saying that my personal preference leads me to want Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted over Halo 3 and Mass Effect. It is a shame that I'm missing out on Bioshock, though, because my macbook definitely can't run it.
As far as actual hardware goes, Blu-ray is nice, though I don't see myself buying many movies for it, The fact that SIXAXIS controllers are rechargeable out of the box is a huge plus. Rumble is on its way, but I've been playing without it and I never really notice that it isn't there.
I think the PS3 OS is more elegant, but the Xbox360 OS is more functional.
The other main drawback of the ps3 is the constant delays, but hopefully developers are figuring how to code for the Cell, so it will be less frequent as time goes on.
What do you guys think about the current console war?
NOTE: I didn't include the Wii here because it is so different from the 360 and PS3. I think everyone should have one, because Nintendo makes the best video games, period. If you want to talk about that, then feel free.