Best Current Gen. Console?

[GG-Xtreme]

When you played Halo and/or Halo 2 on the PC, did you try online play at all? Online on Halo One with rockets and grenades is soo fun on Blood Gulch and Battle Creek!

Sure I had fun. But not nearly as much fun as felt it would take to justify the cost. To give an idea of games I like, UT2004 is probably my favorite FPS of all time (even though I have UT3) and I do enjoy most other types of games including RPG, fighting, racing, etc. (though most of my favorites come from Nintendo and my favorite platform games are SM64 and Crash Bandicoot).

 

[terrysolid]

best is a sub-optimal word to use here

in terms of hardware, the ps3 is a winner hands down

however the xbox 360 still has a wider userbase, a dedicated online service, and a wider selection of titles, as well as a more attractive price tag

until the ps3 drops in price or a 'killer app' comes along, we can expect the xbox 360 to remain more popular amongst the masses

 

[socialnu2]

I'm actually suprised at the little votes for the nintendo wii, sure not many people have it, but it is the next generation console. Totally different controllers, different gameplay and basic a whole new generation when you think about it.
I can almost garuntee you that there will be more consoles like the nintendo wii coming soon.

 

[GG-Xtreme]

I'm actually suprised at the little votes for the nintendo wii, sure not many people have it, but it is the next generation console. Totally different controllers, different gameplay and basic a whole new generation when you think about it.
I can almost garuntee you that there will be more consoles like the nintendo wii coming soon.

I own a Nintendo Wii, I love Brawl and Corruption, but I find the Wii to be in a league of its own. Nintendo's games are just downright fun, but their consoles aren't targeted at any sort of new technology or hardware (motion sensitivity is not new, but it was done very well for the Wii).

 

[Alpinestar]

Got Both Xbox, PS3. I personally prefer PS3

 

[wiileg3nd]

It sickens me how 360 is winning, it's just a dumbed down PC with a crappy controller and you have to pay for the online.

THE WII is more for family/friend play however it does have some competitive games.

The ps3 is like a better version of the 360 in every way.
-$50 more
-Blu Ray
-Better Graphics
-Better controls
-Same games.

The wii has so much potentional however Nintendo is too stupid to live up to it. I would've buy it $50 more for better graphics, I would pay $20 for a headset, I would pay an extra $20 to get rid of stupid friend codes for every freaking game.
NO WAY CAN YOU ARGUE WITH ME... IF the developer makes good controls, no console can beat the Wii's FPS. Try out Medal of Honor Heroes 2, especially for the online. The game itself isn't a good FPS however it's the wii's capabilities that makes it so good.

 

[gazza123]

It sickens me how 360 is winning, it's just a dumbed down PC with a crappy controller and you have to pay for the online.

THE WII is more for family/friend play however it does have some competitive games.

The ps3 is like a better version of the 360 in every way.
-$50 more
-Blu Ray
-Better Graphics
-Better controls
-Same games.

The wii has so much potentional however Nintendo is too stupid to live up to it. I would've buy it $50 more for better graphics, I would pay $20 for a headset, I would pay an extra $20 to get rid of stupid friend codes for every freaking game.
NO WAY CAN YOU ARGUE WITH ME... IF the developer makes good controls, no console can beat the Wii's FPS. Try out Medal of Honor Heroes 2, especially for the online. The game itself isn't a good FPS however it's the wii's capabilities that makes it so good.

I think your being a little harsh on the 360, but I generally agree with you. I've got a Wii and love its innovative controls, yet Nintendo could have pushed out the boat a bit on the graphics front. I still need to witness a PS3 in action... hopefuly its graphics live up to my expectations...

 

[Synoryth]

I'm a die-hard fan of Playstations, but the XBox 360 has me right now. There's a much larger gamebase, and it's more popular. Sure, online costs a bit, and it's annoying, but you get used to it. For hardware, though, the PS3 wins without a doubt.

The Wii can be fun at times, but the 360 has me this time.


~Syn

 

[Grandcruiser]

I love my PS3 and I've played the Wii and 360 before. True that the 360 has more games but I use my PS3 for everything. The games that DO come out on the PS3 are pretty good...like MGS4!

 

[Sohail]

The PS3 can do anything the other consoles can do and more! It has around 50GB of storage on it's Blu-Ray disks meaning nothing can beat its graphics or sound. You don't have to pay to play online. "Home" is going to be released soon, you can search it up in Google. Has a great interface, you can chat with your friends by voice or text. Almost all games are now playable online so you don't need to throw the game away once you've finished it. Has a large HD for storing music, movies and pictures. Has a built in internet browser and SixAxis motion sensitive wireless controllers.

 

[unpixelatedgamers]

It sickens me how 360 is winning,

Considering your name is "wii legend" I'm can't say I'm surprised. :biggrin:

[...] it's just a dumbed down PC [...]

Well its not really fair to single out the Xbox 360 on that. What ALL games consoles are is dumbed down PCs. Specialised, stripped out chips, non-upgradeable, often with no OS of its own (the last gen is a little bit of an anomaly in that respect).

You can't say thats a strike against the 360 only. It just illogical.

Now, you could argue that the original Xbox was just a dumbed down PC because, well, it was.

It used standard intel and nVidia chips, standard 3.5" HDD, standard DVD drive. And, believe it or not, a customised version of the Windows 98 for its operating system.

The current gen consoles all have specially made chips, custom OSs and swanky cases.

The ps3 is like a better version of the 360 in every way.
-$50 more

More expensive automatically makes it better? You might as well get a $5000 PC.

-Better Graphics

Simply not true. You're just buying into the Sony hype machine.

-Better controls

Debateable. I know of many people that would say the 360s controller is more precise, and far more comfortable than the 10 year old design of the dual Shock.

-Same games.

Again. Not true. There are a handful of exclusives on the PS3 side, but more than a 100 games on 360 that the PS3 simply does not have.

The wii has so much potentional however Nintendo is too stupid to live up to it. I would've buy it $50 more for better graphics, I would pay $20 for a headset, I would pay an extra $20 to get rid of stupid friend codes for every freaking game.
NO WAY CAN YOU ARGUE WITH ME..

Erm, you've already argued with yourself. Graphics, sound aren't great, no in-game voip, annoying, difficult to use, and poorly implemented online etc.

It has around 50GB of storage on it's Blu-Ray disks meaning nothing can beat its graphics or sound.

*buzzed* Wrong.

The ability to store large amounts of data does not equal the ability to play back said data.

All the data used in games is highly compressed. Its compressed to keep the loading times a bit lower, while still retaining a similar level of quality.

ALL consoles do this. Not to compress your data would lead to it not only taking up a ridiculously long time to load, but also taking up far too much of your available RAM space.

Heres a fact for you: The PS3 has the same amount of total RAM as the 360 does.

Actually even thats not true, the 360 has 10MB more specifically for frame buffering, so we can discount that.

Unless you're going to argue that the Cell's marginal performance lead over the Xenon means that the developers can use more advanced audio codecs to get higher quality audio that still fits on the RAM....

But then the whole "ZOMG 50GB of space!" is kinda discounted is it not?

Its the same with textures and poly-nets: They're very highly compressed.

So, in any one place you're simply NOT going to get better graphics and audio.

Never mind the fact that the 360s GPU, the Xenos, is better than PS3s RSX. As I believe I've said before.

So, what? You're going to argue that this allows developers to put larger, longer games on PS3 as opposed to xbox 360?

Again. Not true. Multi-disc games have happened in the past, within the last year on Xbox 360 (Blue Dragon).

Also, with current-gen development being a lot more costly than last gens, particularly in the Art and design departments which is what you need to expand to have more content, do you honestly think said developers are going to invest that much money into a game that is only going to come out on the least popular current-gen console?

DVDs are dirt-cheap to manufacture now. Theres absolutely no reason to assume that games in the next 3 or 4 years won't come out on single blu-ray for the PS3 and multi-DVD for the Xbox 360.

IF that happens, and I actually doubt that it will; developers will simply invest in better compression techniques, it will only be on a small number of games.

1 out of 20 or 30 games you may buy being multi-disc is hardly a great inconvinience.

Has a large HD for storing music, movies and pictures.
If storage matters to you, you can very easily purchase the so-called "Elite" version of the Xbox 360 which has a 120GB harddrive. And the standard one (premium, pro, whatever) will be 60GB soon.

Also, if you have a networked PC, you can store all your non-game media on there and stream it. As you can, I believe, with the PS3; its moot.

 

[GG-Xtreme]

I mostly agree with unpixelatedgamers above me (even though I still prefer the PS3 to the 360 any day). Here is my response keeping fair his arguments.

Simply not true. You're just buying into the Sony hype machine.

The argument for a console having 'better graphics' doesn't make sense. That's like saying a box has 'better graphics'. The PS3 has the potential to display video games at a superior graphical quality and level of photorealism compared to the 360 (GT5 may only be one example, but many people underestimate the fact that the PS3 can render photorealistic graphics in real-time even with its outdated GPU).

Debateable. I know of many people that would say the 360s controller is more precise, and far more comfortable than the 10 year old design of the dual Shock.

Then hopefully more PS3 games will have mouse and keyboard support. I personally don't like either joypad--I find the analog sticks on the Dualshock awkward and the 360 controller too bulky.

All the data used in games is highly compressed. Its compressed to keep the loading times a bit lower, while still retaining a similar level of quality.

Not necessarily, the compressed textures look pretty crappy on all 3 current-gen consoles.

Heres a fact for you: The PS3 has the same amount of total RAM as the 360 does.

Actually even thats not true, the 360 has 10MB more specifically for frame buffering, so we can discount that.

You can't store game data in the frame-buffer memory. That memory is used to provide a cheap anti-aliasing method by limiting the resolution of games to 720p.

Never mind the fact that the 360s GPU, the Xenos, is better than PS3s RSX. As I believe I've said before.

Many of Sony's hardware demos have shown that you can effeciently offset load to the CPU without a drop in performance and visual quality. Even Intel is attempting to make game visuals more CPU-heavy (although Intel is doing an awful job at it).

Again. Not true. Multi-disc games have happened in the past, within the last year on Xbox 360 (Blue Dragon).

That sounds more tedious than a partial install...

1 out of 20 or 30 games you may buy being multi-disc is hardly a great inconvinience.

But a Blu-ray disc doesn't really inconvenience you (I agree that games on Blu-ray discs is unlikely any time soon).

Also, if you have a networked PC, you can store all your non-game media on there and stream it. As you can, I believe, with the PS3; its moot.

Can the 360 do the visa versa (stream from console to PC and other devices)? The PS3 can do that as well.

 

[Grandcruiser]

Woohoo! Another PS3 supporter!

 

[Kayos]

The argument for a console having 'better graphics' doesn't make sense. That's like saying a box has 'better graphics'. The PS3 has the potential to display video games at a superior graphical quality and level of photorealism compared to the 360 (GT5 may only be one example, but many people underestimate the fact that the PS3 can render photorealistic graphics in real-time even with its outdated GPU).

But it really doesn't have better graphics or the potential for better graphics. It looks good on paper but when it comes to real world performance the 360 just handles everything better.

Don't believe me? Listen to people who actually know about game development.

http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/20047

 

[GG-Xtreme]

But it really doesn't have better graphics or the potential for better graphics. It looks good on paper but when it comes to real world performance the 360 just handles everything better.

Don't believe me? Listen to people who actually know about game development.

http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/20047

Then 360 developers need to kick it up a notch. I've seen graphical demos on the PS3 that trash anything the 360 has ever rendered. Why is it that GT5, LittleBigPlanet and even the EyeToy demo look better than anything the 360 has to offer? Also, John Carmack was very specific in stating that the 360's GPU could render larger amounts of vertices and would be faster at rasterization. That doesn't mean better graphics at all. Not if the CPU does half of the work. None of the games on the PS3 have enough AI or physics to take up the entire Cell, so why not dedicate the remaining power to graphics? There is enough left over power on the Cell to raytrace complex scenes in real-time. Who needs rasterization then? Whatever method Sony is using, it's been shown that it can work.

 

[Kayos]

Then 360 developers need to kick it up a notch. I've seen graphical demos on the PS3 that trash anything the 360 has ever rendered. Why is it that GT5, LittleBigPlanet and even the EyeToy demo look better than anything the 360 has to offer? Also, John Carmack was very specific in stating that the 360's GPU could render larger amounts of vertices and would be faster at rasterization. That doesn't mean better graphics at all. Not if the CPU does half of the work. None of the games on the PS3 have enough AI or physics to take up the entire Cell, so why not dedicate the remaining power to graphics? There is enough left over power on the Cell to raytrace complex scenes in real-time. Who needs rasterization then? Whatever method Sony is using, it's been shown that it can work.

Did you even watch the video?

Did you miss the part where he says:

On almost anything on the strictly graphical side in terms of pushing vertexs and triangles on there the 360 hardware is superior to the Ps3's RSX

and

It's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is the better platform to develop for

Although he did state that the PS3's blu-ray is the only advantage over the 360.

 

[GG-Xtreme]

Did you even watch the video?

Did you miss the part where he says:



and



Although he did state that the PS3's blu-ray is the only advantage over the 360.

Did you even read my post? I can have a game with 10 trillion polys that looks like total crap. Yea, the 360 is easier to develop for, that's why I haven't seen anything on the 360 that comes close to photorealism. Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6yoz4iL8kQ
The only thing the RSX was doing in that video was outputting the image to the screen, everything else was done on the Cell alone.

 

[Kayos]

Did you even read my post? I can have a game with 10 trillion polys that looks like total crap. Yea, the 360 is easier to develop for, that's why I haven't seen anything on the 360 that comes close to photorealism. Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6yoz4iL8kQ
The only thing the RSX was doing in that video was outputting the image to the screen, everything else was done on the Cell alone.

That's supposed to be impressive?

 

[GG-Xtreme]

That's supposed to be impressive?

No. Yet it puts the 360's visuals to shame anyway (if you actually watched the video at 0:19). Don't start giving me a list of games, I've played just about any game you could mention on either console. Don't even bring up Forza 2, the visuals suck, like Gran Turismo 4 with bloom, innacurate lighting and shading, and really bad crash effects.

 

[Kayos]

No. Yet it puts the 360's visuals to shame anyway (if you actually watched the video at 0:19). Don't start giving me a list of games, I've played just about any game you could mention on either console. Don't even bring up Forza 2, the visuals suck, like Gran Turismo 4 with bloom, innacurate lighting and shading, and really bad crash effects.

So, uhm, how exactly can't the 360 do "that"? It doesn't even look good to begin with.