Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Xbox 360 vs. PS3
So at this point, I'm thinking the 360's looking better and it seems to have a better selection, than the PS3 will have at launch. And don't bring up MGS4, because it insn't coming out till Q4 2007. Games that used to take a couple years to produce are now taking three or four. But back to the subject.
As far as hardware goes. It's sounding like the 360 is again...prevailing. The blue ray is about the only thing that sort of prevails over it with, but then again, it sounds like blue ray is going to be the next UMD. The HD-DVD movies have already been said to look better and alot of studios are starting to reject blue ray, so it looks like the kiss of death for Sony. Failing console, failing DVD format, failing portable device, and not to mention the UMD, what more can they ask for?
The hard drive space doesn't matter to me at all. It's not like I'm going to transfer music to it or that much video. I'm already just hooking my ipod up to my 360 and playing the music and movies off of it. I wonder if the PS3 will support that?
I talked about the difference in the visual quality of the games. Since Sony has blue ray, she should be outputting higher resolution textures and maps. Sorry to be a graphics fanboy, but it's kinda true. However, I don't think they're going to master it and M$ is doing fine with 10GB on their regular DVD's. Plus the PS3 is having alot of glitchy graphics problems, especially with that offroad 4 wheeler game that looks so amazing. I guess we'll have to wait on that till the console comes out.
As for games on the actual gameplay (and not graphics), Resistance: Fall of Man for the PS3 looks like one of the most generic FPS's ever made. I don't give a shit that it's aliens instead of Nazis during WW2. There's nothing cool or very original at all about it. I'll take Gears of War for the 360 that's looks completely awesome. From reviews, it's the roughest console FPS ever made. It's like if you don't get under cover, you will die, and that by itself makes it cool. Along with that, you get co-op campaign, and a sweet multiplayer, that very involved, so it's a totally complete game.
And to continue, COD3 has been said to look better on the 360, and the PS3 seems to have more linear gameplay, meaning that there's more boundries on your map and it putting you in path that you have to follow.
As far as hardware goes. It's sounding like the 360 is again...prevailing. The blue ray is about the only thing that sort of prevails over it with, but then again, it sounds like blue ray is going to be the next UMD. The HD-DVD movies have already been said to look better and alot of studios are starting to reject blue ray, so it looks like the kiss of death for Sony. Failing console, failing DVD format, failing portable device, and not to mention the UMD, what more can they ask for?
The hard drive space doesn't matter to me at all. It's not like I'm going to transfer music to it or that much video. I'm already just hooking my ipod up to my 360 and playing the music and movies off of it. I wonder if the PS3 will support that?
I talked about the difference in the visual quality of the games. Since Sony has blue ray, she should be outputting higher resolution textures and maps. Sorry to be a graphics fanboy, but it's kinda true. However, I don't think they're going to master it and M$ is doing fine with 10GB on their regular DVD's. Plus the PS3 is having alot of glitchy graphics problems, especially with that offroad 4 wheeler game that looks so amazing. I guess we'll have to wait on that till the console comes out.
As for games on the actual gameplay (and not graphics), Resistance: Fall of Man for the PS3 looks like one of the most generic FPS's ever made. I don't give a shit that it's aliens instead of Nazis during WW2. There's nothing cool or very original at all about it. I'll take Gears of War for the 360 that's looks completely awesome. From reviews, it's the roughest console FPS ever made. It's like if you don't get under cover, you will die, and that by itself makes it cool. Along with that, you get co-op campaign, and a sweet multiplayer, that very involved, so it's a totally complete game.
And to continue, COD3 has been said to look better on the 360, and the PS3 seems to have more linear gameplay, meaning that there's more boundries on your map and it putting you in path that you have to follow.
Comments
For me, I get bored with the old look in every single game. Because, after all, aren't we trying to experience things in games that we can't experience in real life. Like Burnout for example. We all wish we speed through large cities and not get pulled over, but we obviously can't, due to the fact we could only do it once and we'd probably perish in the act. So, we make simulations (games) that help us fulfill those dreams. BUT, when those games don't look real, it's hard to fully experience it. That's why new consoles are created, so we can get closer and closer to that ultimate realistic representation.
It seems we're getting awfully close to it, but I'm wondering what we'll do when get there. At that point, M$ and Sony (if it still exists then) will have to steal from Nintendo, and have a submersing controller. Or, maybe, they could create one of those military training systems. That's where they have a treadmill, a face mask, and sensors everywhere. ORRRR, we could go matrix style and all get hole and chips in our heads. That would be the best.
For instance, when I try to go back and play CS 1.6, it's not like playing CS:Source. There's something left out. For me, it's the physics and the textures, and just the realism you feel when you're playing it. And really, why play the old when you can play the new. It's that simple. I always enjoy the next game better than I did the one before. Developers find what they did wrong, and they also make new innovations to the game. I mean, let's not stick in the dark ages forever. It's not like increasing the video quality ruins the game.
Starcraft, Mario Brothers 3 and Tetris all games that don't need good graphics and continue to be fun.
Further demostrating that if you have a good game graphics don't mean much. When you mentioned CS you mentioned Physics, that isn't graphics. Could it be that the new counterstrike has better physics and that really is what is adding to your enjoyment? Generally though in the realm of first person realistic shooters, more realism is what you are looking for. Driving sims are the same way unless you are playing Mario Kart or F-Zero. Whether graphics matters has alot to do with the type of game and the art direction.
Earthbound FTW. (came out the same time as the much prettier FF3 but is a great game as well because of it's great story and gameplay!
Almost forgot! Bionic Commando ^_^ (as far as being Rym's fav it's also one of my picks for best NES)
About the good programmers crux - sure, good programmers can try to wrangle with the new hardware, but only after sinking tens of millions in costs to develop a first-gen game for the PS3 and pray that it sells for a minimal loss will they be able to sink MORE funds into a second-gen title that MAY sell better than the first. Publishers like Ubisoft and Square Enix can afford to risk millions on a first-gen graphically inferior title and have enough funds to develop another title in the hopes of making a bigger profit than the first game. Indie and medium sized developers (unless backed by funds from a larger publisher) will not have that luxury, thus XBLA or Wii.
*Can someone add "Wii" to the spell-check? We're going to be using that word a lot come November ^_^.
All the graphics are so good on the new consoles, it's gonna be a battle of the games. Whoever can secure the best exclusive titles (or make the huge titles run the best on their system if it's mult-platform) is gonna win.
I'm really excited to see how Microsoft is going to use their Halo 3 to battle the PS3.
If there is another franchise on the rise, it's definitely Gears of War. And just like we have WoW and CoD2, lets have GoW.
Let's say you want to buy a PS3, and the only game you will play is VF5. So that comes to $600(console) + $60(game) + $40(controller) + $30(a/v cable). Is Virtua Fighter 5 worth $730? Who would pay so much money for one game? I was exaggerating when I said you could get an arcade version for that much. The arcade game would be thousands of dollars. Let's change the math and pretend we are going to buy VF5 and MGS3. We have to add $60 for one more game, but we divide by two games. So now we're only paying $395 for each game. Still a dumb idea, but definitely more reasonable. You need to buy a lot of PS3 games to make it non-stupid.
Let's do the Wii Math. ($250+$60+($50x10))/10 If I buy 10 games for Wii, which I can almost guarantee I will before summer of 2007, each game will actually cost me a total of $80 each. Not so bad. How many PS3 games would you have to buy to make sure each game actually cost you only $80? Let's find out.
($670 + ($60 * X) ) / X = $80
X = 33.5. That means you would have to purchase 34 PS3 games before the actual cost of each individual game was $80. This of course assumes each game cost $60. You have to buy only 10 Wii games at MSRP of $50 to get the same deal.
For fun, let's calculate the cost of each of my DS games. I've bought 11 games so far, and they have cost me about $320 total.
($130+$10(rumble pack)+$320)/11 = $41
Each DS game actually cost me an average of $41. Not bad at all.
Whenever I am considering buying a game console, my top decision factors are how many games for it am I definitely going to buy, and how much each of those games will really cost me. Virtua Fighter is great and all, but since I do not have a hojillion dollars, I can't understand the logic of paying $700+ just for that game. I wouldn't pay $700 for Twilight Princess either, in case you had doubts.
I have a supergun and a ton of neogeo stuff (I even have a Neogeo Hyper 64 board! 3D Fatal Fury ROCKS.)
I waited for the Naomi kit of Viruta Fighter 4 FInal Tuned to drop below a thousand dollars, and it finally did, but that's when Virtua Fighter 5 came out. With VF you really need an arcade cabinet too, the old VF1,2 and 3 only run on special monitors.
When VF5 comes out, SEGA is also putting out their new Virtua Stick, which is REALLY nice. It felt a lot like the Hori Real Arcade Pro sticks.
I got to play it once a long time ago at Epcot. It cost me $5 to play, and I won handily.
So all of us seem to despise the PS3 and it's price point, and that's all good. I especially, hated the idea of the PS3 and I'm hoping it will fail. However, I think Sony might not be all talk after all. Most of the things they showcased were pretty amazing, and the motion sensing controllers definitely add to the game play quite a bit. I think we should all stand back with our biases and watch the new consoles role out before we bash the living hell out any certain one.
A lot of people say they'll buy a PS3 JUST for game x. If that's the only console-exclusive game they pick up, then they've really wasted their money. If they're planning on getting several other games later, why not wait until the price of the console comes down? The launch lineup is fairly lackluster anyway, so you'd might as well wait. I'm dubious of this. Controllers like that have been around for over a decade, and they were annoying at best. I really think most gamers would prefer to still have their rumble.
But even if it went that way Sony'd probably drag it out forever. Bah. I'm never going to play FFXIII. :< Seems a shame after following the series and it looks real pretty but the only way I'd ever buy a PS3 at launch price would be if it had a squillion exclusive awesome games. Once the price comes down I'll probably have some other console, no doubt with awesome and exclusive games of its own. I only have time and space for so many things!
I suspect that combined with all these launch problems Sony's having the PS3 isn't going to grab enough of the market share early on to be serious competition later.
The head of Sony Australia just called the Wii "a bit pricey. "
Keep in mind that the Wii is AU$600 cheaper than the PS3.
In the same interview, he says that Microsoft's price point of AU$600 for the XBox 360 is "pricey" and a "big investment" for a family. He also says that the game selction for the XBox 360 is limited - which is true compared to the PS2, but it's not meant to compete with the PS2.
Other stupid comments:
The PS3 launch delay and supply problems will have no impact on sales.
The DS is for females.
Bottom line: If you're a consumer, Sony thinks that you are a dumb ass.