Aimless Posted January 3, 2008 Posted January 3, 2008 Right now the 360 is the better console to own, but to my mind the PS3 will eventually end up its superior for many due to Japanese support and shifts in development that make PS3 the 'lead' platform out of convenience if nothing else. 2008 is going to be an interesting year for the PlayStation 3 as you'll see a few of the bigger titles start to hit — MGS4, GT5, Tekken, Wipeout(?), etcetera — plus the online service should start to bloom. By that I'm not necessarily talking about Home as not everyone will be interested in that, but I think PSN will continue to show up Xbox Live Arcade's original offerings with the likes of Echochrome and the signing of independent games akin to Everyday Shooter. Also, as I touched upon before, we will start to see far fewer development houses 'porting' 360 games to the PS3, with dual development or even a PS3 bias becoming the norm. (That isn't to say the versions on Sony's consoles will necessarily be better — although some will see perks such as Devil May Cry 4 being able to preload content onto the PS3's harddrive to get rid of loading times — but we should see an end to the days where the 360 version was always king.) You should bear in mind that Microsoft have said pretty much bugger all about their 2008 line up, though. This could mean that is all they have to talk about, or it could more likely be they've just been biding their time 'til the New Year. Although they have been haemorrhaging exclusive studios of late... I should also perhaps mention that I do hold some resentment towards the 360 as I am on my fifth replacement unit and it's still a noisy, stuttering, cross-your-fingers-and-hope-for-the-best machine. You could also take this as an endorsement of the games, though, especially if you haven't touched upon the console's back catalogue before: if there wasn't a good selection of games there is no way I would have put up with the terrible hardware up to now. In the end my suggestion is the terminally unhelpful, "Get both!" But if you're after something for the short-term then buy a 360 now as there are lots of games already out there and I'm sure it has quite a few gems in its future yet. For me personally the PS3 is the better long-term choice, but that does require a certain amount of faith and it could all go horribly wrong. It's all a question of risk-reward, really. Those are a bit of a stretch... He also mentioned both PGR3 and 4, so surely that's 'cheating'? Also, Kameo. Kameo!
Caris Posted January 3, 2008 Posted January 3, 2008 Those are a bit of a stretch... No offence Cube but have you played them? There really good fun solid games, there not average crap.
Cube Posted January 3, 2008 Posted January 3, 2008 No offence Cube but have you played them? Resistance was better than Halo 3, but not great. It's just that, unlike Halo 3, I don't know anyone who cares about it. Same for Motorstorm. I've heard quite a few people talk about Uncharted. If it were lists on what I like, then there will be a lot more changes.
jammy2211 Posted January 3, 2008 Posted January 3, 2008 Right, we've not really had many good words for the PS3 yet, so I'm going to assume the role of why I think the PS3 is a better purchase then the 360, in the long-term at least. The main reason for me, is that Microsoft have yet to convince me they're going to try and push innovation and 'different' games in any sort of way. Their stronghold is in making traditional games(albeit making them kickarse) i.e. FPS's, Racers, Sports, a few third person games... and er, it gets a bit dry from their. For some people it's great, but I prefer Sony's approach where they make these sort of games, but push the different and innovative ideas too (LittleBigPlanet, White Knight Chronicles, Eyetoy stuff, Buzz, Singstar etc). Whatsmore, I also feel the PS3 has the potential to create the better games. I'll admit that 95% of games will be multiplatform and similiar, but even it's just a few first party games, PS3's advantages like Blu-Ray, every console having a hard-drive, the better hardware, more lenient restrictions on home-brew and support for many different peripherals via blue-tooth do present a potetially better platform for developing a game, obviously it could be years until we see the results of that, who knows? Anywho, it's just my opinion, I'm all open to debate it though, as I'm sure many of you know :P. And er, list of exclusive PS3 games I'd class as exciting (albeit some might be 2009 releases): The Agency Disgaea 3 Eight Days Final Fantasy XIII Final FantasyvsXIII The Getaway 3 God of War III Gran Turismo 5 Haze InFamous Jak and Dexter: The lost Frontier Killzone 2 L.A. Noire LittleBigPlanet Metal Gear Online Metal Gear Solid 4 Motorstorm 1 & 2 Ratchet and Clank: ToD Socom Confrontation Tekken 6 Uncharted: Drakes Fortune WarDevil White Knight Story (Chronicles) Yakuza 3 Albeit 2008 lines ups is hard to tell, Microsoft will no doubt be adding to there's at some point, and I'm sure Sony will have some additions too, who can tell. In my opinion you're going to be in gaming bliss with either console, just Ps3 you might have to wait a few months to reach it (if you don't want any of the games out now :/).
Guest Jordan Posted January 3, 2008 Posted January 3, 2008 the better hardware, Theres really no evidence to suggest which is the better console. Its all down to the developer and the engine used.
Roostophe Posted January 3, 2008 Posted January 3, 2008 I can only think of one reason to get a PS3: MGS4. I had hundreds of reasons to buy a 360...
jammy2211 Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 Theres really no evidence to suggest which is the better console. Its all down to the developer and the engine used. Fair enough, it was just one point out of a few though. It's still too early to be judging PS3 graphics I guess.
Colin Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 I'm taking the plunge tomorrow..............and I've been waiting all of '07 to decide on what is really going to offer me more and what suits me. That plunge though is the 360. I think about MGS and Gran Turismo, but those games really aren't for me. I also don't give a damn about wacky jappy RPG's.........I have a life, and even thinking about playing games that are above 40hrs to complete does my head it. Not sure I can add much more to this. I know, Rez HD and Ikaruga on Live Arcade early this year attracts me.......along with that perfection that is Pac Man CE. I know we've played them all before, but the 360 just suits my gaming wants more than the PS3.
RoadKill Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 the better hardware Only because it has blu-ray. The GPU is inferior, the non unified memory architecture is inferior, and the CPU is over complicated wankery. Almost all multi platform games perform worse on the PS3. The only reasons I can think of that I would get a PS3 for are MGS4 and GT5, and that just doesn't seem worth the money currently, seeing as there is a greater selection on the cheaper 360, which has way better online.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 which has way better online. For a price though. I need to fully make up my mind by Monday to get a PS3 or 360. What buggers me with the 360 is that I will personally need a wireless adaptor to connect as my broadband hub is downstairs; I'm in the attic! And then there is the 40 quid subscription which truthfully doesn't seem like much but when you're a tight arse like me and calculate all your out-goings it does seem stressful. So thats about 100 (sorry pound sign has mysteriously turned into a dollar sign) altogether on top of the 250 and a hdmi cord and ofcourse some GAMES!! Bundles are shite for the 360. With the PS3 all I need to get is the hdmi in my quest to experience my first bit of all this High Def stuff. Sure the games are limited but a game like pro Evo 08 online will graciously drain hours off my life. The bundles offer 2 key PS3 games for free! Fact is though, an 'elite' 360 should have been wifi'ed or come with a free adaptor.
Cube Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 For a price though. I need to fully make up my mind by Monday to get a PS3 or 360. What buggers me with the 360 is that I will personally need a wireless adaptor to connect as my broadband hub is downstairs; I'm in the attic! And then there is the 40 quid subscription which truthfully doesn't seem like much but when you're a tight arse like me and calculate all your out-goings it does seem stressful. So thats about 100 (sorry pound sign has mysteriously turned into a dollar sign) altogether on top of the 250 and a hdmi cord and ofcourse some GAMES!! Bundles are shite for the 360. With the PS3 all I need to get is the hdmi in my quest to experience my first bit of all this High Def stuff. Sure the games are limited but a game like pro Evo 08 online will graciously drain hours off my life. The bundles offer 2 key PS3 games for free! Fact is though, an 'elite' 360 should have been wifi'ed or come with a free adaptor. I hate it when people talk about High Definition gaming as if it's brand new...It's new for consoles but PCs have been doing it for around 10 years now. Anyway, you can have 1080i without any extra cables with the 360. HDMI cables don't make a massive difference. every console having a hard-drive Doesn't the slowness of the Blu-Ray drive cancel out most of the advantage of a hard drive?
Calza Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 You can install games on to the hard drive so the PS3 actually has (in theory) quicker loading times. Devil May Cry 4 is an example of this, the PS3 version is supposed to load alot quicker but thats not saying the 360 version takes ages to load, just the PS3 is quicker.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 I hate it when people talk about High Definition gaming as if it's brand new...It's new for consoles but PCs have been doing it for around 10 years now. Anyway, you can have 1080i without any extra cables with the 360. HDMI cables don't make a massive difference. Doesn't the slowness of the Blu-Ray drive cancel out most of the advantage of a hard drive? Its sort of brand new for me as I'm not an avid PC gamer and I just got an HD tv for Christmas. But the hdmi lead does make a difference right?
Cube Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 But the hdmi lead does make a difference right? Yes, not a massive difference. It's hardly necessary for the 360 as you get a HD Component Cable with it.
Guest Jordan Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 All 360's come with a HDMI out these days. HDMI is basically the middle ground between VGA and Component. Its far easier, since its one cable rather than 5 too. And HDMI black levels are from what i can tell far superior to other HD formats. Thing is, no matter what cable you use, it doesn't make fuck all difference. You can't distort a digital signal particularly easily, so that means that most 3rd party cables that are HDMI aren't as bad as say a 3rd party SCART cable was back in the day.
RoadKill Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 All 360's come with a HDMI out these days. HDMI is basically the middle ground between VGA and Component. Its far easier, since its one cable rather than 5 too. And HDMI black levels are from what i can tell far superior to other HD formats. Thing is, no matter what cable you use, it doesn't make fuck all difference. You can't distort a digital signal particularly easily, so that means that most 3rd party cables that are HDMI aren't as bad as say a 3rd party SCART cable was back in the day. I'd agree with one exception, HDMI is the best connection, better than VGA in theory seeing as it's a purely digital connection. The video part of HDMI is simply DVI, and we all know DVI gives a clearer picture than VGA. But for your home console, I wouldn't even stress. Component, VGA and HDMI will all give an amazingly clear picture with almost no difference to pick between them. If my TV had component inputs, I would just use those with the cable that comes with the 360 and leave it at that.
Guest Jordan Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 I'd agree with one exception, HDMI is the best connection, better than VGA in theory seeing as it's a purely digital connection. The video part of HDMI is simply DVI, and we all know DVI gives a clearer picture than VGA. I think my point came across wrong. Basically, on the 360 i've used every input going. Composite, Component, VGA and HDMI. Component gives very good colour where as VGA tends to look washed out. VGA is much sharper than component. But HDMI is the middle ground, because you get components colour (and more some) and VGA's sharpness.
RoadKill Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 Ah fair enough, you know you can change the colour "washed out ness" in the options now if you have a VGA cable though right? Go into the "Reference Levels" option, it was added in the Spring update of 2007
Domo Kun Posted January 4, 2008 Author Posted January 4, 2008 Ahhh! This gets harder and harder! I'm pulled towards Metal Gear like a magnet, but the 360 does really appear to be better in general. A consideration - is it best to get a PS3 because most AAA 360 games are out/will come out on the PC? I have a PS2 and I'm very happy I didn't get an Xbox instead as I have Halo 1+2, and Star Wars Knights on PC. Considering that Halo 3 will most likely come out the PC, Bioshock is already out...
Shino Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 Ahhh! This gets harder and harder! I'm pulled towards Metal Gear like a magnet, but the 360 does really appear to be better in general. A consideration - is it best to get a PS3 because most AAA 360 games are out/will come out on the PC? I have a PS2 and I'm very happy I didn't get an Xbox instead as I have Halo 1+2, and Star Wars Knights on PC. Considering that Halo 3 will most likely come out the PC, Bioshock is already out... That's the problem with 360, most of the games that interest me are on PC too. Bioshock, Halos, Gears of war, Assassins Creed, Alan Wake, etc... And the exclusives are never certain.
jammy2211 Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 Doesn't the slowness of the Blu-Ray drive cancel out most of the advantage of a hard drive? No, in theory a game could be played entirely off the hard-drive (some are) and thus load times would be reduced. It's mainly a bigger advantage for online gaming, where lag can be reduced greatly seeing as everyone has a hard-drive to do stuff quicker. I'm no expert but I know it works something like that, helps with load times too. I mean, A PS3 game can be developed knowing they can handle some loading / storage etc on a hard-drive, they can't do that on the 360 due to the Core / Arcade packs.
flameboy Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 I have held back getting a HD console until I entered the world of HD TV's just didn't see the point. But I'm gonna pick myself up a budget one, so can now see myself getting a new console. I am siding towards a PS3 just because there are more titles on the horizon that interest me and whilst it may not have the back catalogue just yet it will time....
Caris Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 I think my point came across wrong. Basically, on the 360 i've used every input going. Composite, Component, VGA and HDMI. Component gives very good colour where as VGA tends to look washed out. VGA is much sharper than component. But HDMI is the middle ground, because you get components colour (and more some) and VGA's sharpness. Er, what? VGA is not sharper than Component. VGA has a very soft picture. It looks like you have turned the sharpness on your TV down from 80 to 40. I think there is a big difference between all 3 inputs and HDMi is defiantly the best by a mile.
Recommended Posts