Best Current Gen. Console?

[GG-Xtreme]

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

Really? I'm going to assume I must be blind then, because most experts would classify that render as 'photorealistic'. Here's an actual game on the PS3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcgNd4ny9KQ

Show me a video of something on the 360 that looks better than the 2 things I posted (and I haven't even posted GT5 yet [NOT the Prologue]).

 

[Kayos]

Really? I'm going to assume I must be blind then, because most experts would classify that render as 'photorealistic'. Here's an actual game on the PS3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcgNd4ny9KQ

Show me a video of something on the 360 that looks better than the 2 things I posted (and I haven't even posted GT5 yet [NOT the Prologue]).

First off, it's not "photo realistic". It's a render of a car against a low detail back ground. I actually had to rewatch the video...It's just not that impressive and it's not photo realistic.

Further more, basing your assumptions on graphics on tech demos is kinda foolish. Real games are where the true tests lie.

You honestly think the 360 couldn't run LBP?

Most multiplatform titles run and look better on the 360. That's kinda sad considering the PS3 costs quite a bit more. It's like you're paying more for less.

Instead of comparing games that have different graphic engines, rendering techniques etc, why not compare exacally the same games? Is it because the 360 out performs the PS3 in almost every case?

 

[Grandcruiser]

Here's the reason why PS3 costs more: Blu-Ray disc player. If you add the price of the player to the Xbox 360's price, it's the same, or maybe even MORE than the PS3. So you're not really paying more for less...you're paying more for more features. Also, a lot of people say that the Xbox 360 have a bigger variety of games than the PS3. True, but honestly, are you going to play every single game out of that variety? I personally only like about 20 games or so...and that's all I'm planning to buy for now. I don't care about the dozens of other games out there.

 

[imaran]

Here is my say on the matter, I imagine some of this has been said, but I am going to bed soon so I hope I hit a few unsaid points:

First, whoever says the 360 vs PS3 comparisons are fair, is completely foolish. The games that are on both 360 and the PS3 are PORTS. Do you know what that means? That means that they were made for the 360 in most cases and then moved to the PS3, where it doesn't always work the same. Hence the graphics differences. If you took PS3 to 360 ports, I'd wager that the differences would be even bigger.

As for the argument that there are more good 360 games...name them. Either way, I'll take more GREAT games over more good games any day. I can say there are maybe 2-3 games I'd rather have on 360 and easily that or more on the PS3.

360: Gears of War, Ninja Gaiden 2 or w/e it's called, Halo 3...maybe (i still prefer 2)

PS3: Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Folklore, Haze (controversial but if you're going to say Halo, you certainly have to say Haze. Haze is the better game minus the online playerbase), MGS4, Heavenly Sword (while short, it's awesome) (all games I've played)

I didn't mention GT 5 or Forza as I consider them countering each other and it's a toss up for which people prefer. Gods of War 3 is coming for PS3 also. FF vs 13 is ps3 exclusive as well. I also didn't mention Mass Effect as it is better on the PC. If it was better on the 360, I'd have gladly added it.

So, unless you're going to tell me of some secret games that I've never heard of, your games argument is void.

Personally, I prefer my reliable, free online, hard drive changeable (without breaking warranty), Blue-Ray playing, alternate OS installing, next gen console (PS3). You can take your 100 good games and trade them in now that they are worth $30 combined for money to help pay your online fee.

As for price, in America at least, after 2 years the PS3 is cheaper than the 360 given the online fee. As for controller, it depends on the game. 360 has superior analog, PS3 has superior D-Pad and PS3 has motion sensing when the game uses it well (Heavenly Sword, Folklore, GTA IV). In the end, my favorite game is for both (Assassin's Creed), but there are many other great games for PS3 that the 360 lacks and the same can't be said for the 360, despite whatever fanboys claim. Good, yes. Great, no.

Yes, 360 has more consoles out so more of your friends probably have 360s and therefore their online play is slightly better. Still doesn't make it worth it in my eyes.

 

[deathlyrage]

I would go with a PC because game consoles are basicly a small verson of the computer with a different os etc.

 

[GG-Xtreme]

First off, it's not "photo realistic". It's a render of a car against a low detail back ground. I actually had to rewatch the video...It's just not that impressive and it's not photo realistic.

Many people would say the car looks pretty photorealistic, especially considering it's being done in realtime under YD Linux using only 6 SPE's and not even utilizing the RSX.

Further more, basing your assumptions on graphics on tech demos is kinda foolish. Real games are where the true tests lie.

I thought we were talking about the console itself. That is what this thread is about? Then it doesn't seem appropriate to compare just games.

You honestly think the 360 couldn't run LBP?

Considering how much processing power it takes to create different materials and calculate physics in realtime, it would be a different game on the 360.

Most multiplatform titles run and look better on the 360. That's kinda sad considering the PS3 costs quite a bit more. It's like you're paying more for less.

Most multi-platform titles are ports. I think it's been established that it's easier to port something to the 360 than to the PS3. It's more like developers aren't making it a priority.

Instead of comparing games that have different graphic engines, rendering techniques etc, why not compare exacally the same games? Is it because the 360 out performs the PS3 in almost every case?

Just as I said above.

 

[Kayos]

Many people would say the car looks pretty photorealistic, especially considering it's being done in realtime under YD Linux using only 6 SPE's and not even utilizing the RSX.

It's not though. It's a nice model sure, but it just doesn't look photo realistic. When I watched the video I was expecting to be blown away by how real it looks, but I was treated to a really ugly car against really ugly backgrounds. I mean, tell me why you think it looks photo realistic.

I thought we were talking about the console itself. That is what this thread is about? Then it doesn't seem appropriate to compare just games.

But as we all know, tech demos are far from the truth in a lot of cases (Killzone 2's tech demo). They hardly represent real what games will look like. Plus, games are the most important part of a video game console. Smart consumers don't watch tech demos and say "Wow, that car looks photo realistic, let me buy a PS3 so I can watch a still car being rendered".

Most multi-platform titles are ports. I think it's been established that it's easier to port something to the 360 than to the PS3. It's more like developers aren't making it a priority.

So? If the PS3 was as powerful as you think wouldn't it be the lead platform in games? Most games that are developed are developed on the most powerful system and then ported to the lesser ones.

Is it because the PS3 is hard to develope for? Probably. It's not even really the PS3's fault though. Many developers, inclusing Valve's Gabe Newell, think developing on the PS3 is a waste of time. So obviously we are going to see more crappy ports to the PS3 in the future. Not only that developement cycles get hurt because of the PS3's difficulty to develope for, which in turn delays games. As we've already seen it happen with games such as GTA4.


But really, is it an excuse not to compare multiplatform games? Nope.

 

[GG-Xtreme]

It's not though. It's a nice model sure, but it just doesn't look photo realistic. When I watched the video I was expecting to be blown away by how real it looks, but I was treated to a really ugly car against really ugly backgrounds. I mean, tell me why you think it looks photo realistic.

It demonstrates realistic ambient lighting and raytraced reflections, which the 360 appears incapable of.

But as we all know, tech demos are far from the truth in a lot of cases (Killzone 2's tech demo). They hardly represent real what games will look like. Plus, games are the most important part of a video game console. Smart consumers don't watch tech demos and say "Wow, that car looks photo realistic, let me buy a PS3 so I can watch a still car being rendered".

Then you are looking at this topic differently. I don't see it so much as the best console to own or buy, but the one with the best hardware, design and features.

So? If the PS3 was as powerful as you think wouldn't it be the lead platform in games? Most games that are developed are developed on the most powerful system and then ported to the lesser ones.

Exactly, which means that most games are developed on the PC first, making the next obvious choice for development the 360. Starting on the PS3, regardless of how powerful, would be difficult to port to other platforms, simply because of the radically different architecture.

Is it because the PS3 is hard to develope for? Probably. It's not even really the PS3's fault though. Many developers, inclusing Valve's Gabe Newell, think developing on the PS3 is a waste of time. So obviously we are going to see more crappy ports to the PS3 in the future. Not only that developement cycles get hurt because of the PS3's difficulty to develope for, which in turn delays games. As we've already seen it happen with games such as GTA4.


But really, is it an excuse not to compare multiplatform games? Nope.

The difficulty of development (or the laziness of the developer) is, as you said, not the PS3's fault. It's either Sony's fault for not helping developers enough to grasp their console's design, or just lazy developers who see an easier opportunity in the 360. I didn't say multiplatform games shouldn't be considered, they just shouldn't have as much weight as you suggest. If 'ports' were such an important factor, I'd have no reason to buy a console, as I can get a better version of the game on the PC.

 

[Kayos]

It demonstrates realistic ambient lighting and raytraced reflections, which the 360 appears incapable of.

Wait, so for me to see how photo realistic the video is I am only suppose to look at the lighting and reflections?

Then you are looking at this topic differently. I don't see it so much as the best console to own or buy, but the one with the best hardware, design and features.

Then you're wrong either way. The success of a console will always be judged by the games. Games are what make or break consoles, not hardware. If hardware is all that was needed then we would have seen consoles like the N64 and original Xbox the number one victors of there generations respectively.

Exactly, which means that most games are developed on the PC first, making the next obvious choice for development the 360. Starting on the PS3, regardless of how powerful, would be difficult to port to other platforms, simply because of the radically different architecture.

How can the PS3 be more powerful, regardless of different architecture, and not be used as lead platform in most multiplatform games? Most developers aren't going to use the lowest common denominator and work there way up. It's just that from the viewpoint of developers the 360 is still the more powerful system with the better developement tools.

The difficulty of development (or the laziness of the developer) is, as you said, not the PS3's fault. It's either Sony's fault for not helping developers enough to grasp their console's design, or just lazy developers who see an easier opportunity in the 360. I didn't say multiplatform games shouldn't be considered, they just shouldn't have as much weight as you suggest. If 'ports' were such an important factor, I'd have no reason to buy a console, as I can get a better version of the game on the PC.

The difficulty to develop games on the PS3 is a huge flaw. It's not the developers laziness, it's the PS3's architecture. It wouldn't be a issue if only 1 or 2 developers are speaking out, it's almost unanimous across the board. That's not laziness right there.

Once again, ports are an important factor to console only gamers. You can preach all you want about how the PC gets the best versions, but I'm speaking strictly consoles.

 

[imaran]

Instead of going and quoting everything, I'm just going to reply.

First, the reason why games aren't developed for the PS3 first, as has been said is that it is more difficult. The reason being is that game creation technology hasn't found out how to best utilize the multiple core technology. Even the best of PC games are only really using 2-cores at a time, not to mention anywhere near the 7-8 in the ps3. When/if game developers catch up, then it will be well worth the advance. If not, then it will be a waste. To debate at this time is futile.

As for the games making the console, I partially agree. But given that it is at least somewhat true, my point earlier in my previous post about how many GREAT games each console has, pretty clearly shows that the ps3 should be considered better even by that standard. I would take 5 great games over a thousand good games any day.

PS3 great game count is 6-8
360 great game count is 3-5

The rest are cross console and don't matter.

 

[oliveoil]

wii!

 

[Kayos]

Instead of going and quoting everything, I'm just going to reply.

First, the reason why games aren't developed for the PS3 first, as has been said is that it is more difficult. The reason being is that game creation technology hasn't found out how to best utilize the multiple core technology. Even the best of PC games are only really using 2-cores at a time, not to mention anywhere near the 7-8 in the ps3. When/if game developers catch up, then it will be well worth the advance. If not, then it will be a waste. To debate at this time is futile.

As for the games making the console, I partially agree. But given that it is at least somewhat true, my point earlier in my previous post about how many GREAT games each console has, pretty clearly shows that the ps3 should be considered better even by that standard. I would take 5 great games over a thousand good games any day.

PS3 great game count is 6-8
360 great game count is 3-5

The rest are cross console and don't matter.

Obviously, by your previous post, great games to you mean Folklore and Haze.

 

[imaran]

Yes, Folklore and Haze are both great games. Folklore was even rated well. Haze however is strangely given very bad scores and very false reviews. I've played the game on the easiest and hardest difficulties and I couldn't find these so called AI flaws that were on the game. In addition, to be able to add bots to the multiplayer, kept big maps from being undoable with only 2 players. The other complaint is the acting, which is done the way it is on purpose. It is part of the story and it enhances it. People complaining about the machismo and such must not have been able to comprehend the story, if they beat the game at all.

Regarldess...Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, MGS4 and Folklore all really shouldn't be debated. Haze I understand given all the lies that have been put out about it. Halo 3 is certainly not the better game between the two though. When I've spoken to people in person who have actually played it, 360 lovers included, all I hear is good things about Haze and complaints about Halo 3. Take that and compare it to what you see online. I'll take what I've seen and heard in person (in addition to my own playing it).

Also, I failed to mention that in addition to the graphical games, the PS3 has a good few more simplistic games, some of which based on motion sensing that are incredibly fun (much like some of the Wii games).

 

[Kayos]

Yes, Folklore and Haze are both great games. Folklore was even rated well. Haze however is strangely given very bad scores and very false reviews. I've played the game on the easiest and hardest difficulties and I couldn't find these so called AI flaws that were on the game. In addition, to be able to add bots to the multiplayer, kept big maps from being undoable with only 2 players. The other complaint is the acting, which is done the way it is on purpose. It is part of the story and it enhances it. People complaining about the machismo and such must not have been able to comprehend the story, if they beat the game at all.

Regarldess...Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, MGS4 and Folklore all really shouldn't be debated. Haze I understand given all the lies that have been put out about it. Halo 3 is certainly not the better game between the two. When I've spoken to people in person who have actually played it, 360 lovers included, all I hear is good things about Haze and complaints about Halo 3. Take that and compare it to what you see online. I'll take what I've seen and heard in person (in addition to my own playing it).

Also, I failed to mention that in addition to the graphical games, the PS3 has a good few more simplistic games, some of which based on motion sensing that are incredibly fun (much like some of the Wii games).

So what you're saying is that you base all of your information on the opinions of other uninformed people and that you have the ultimate say in what games are good and what games are bad?

(Protip: www.gamerankings.com and www.metacritic.com are your friend)

 

[imaran]

I'm saying that the masses will easily take on someone else's opinion to not seem different. I will make up my own mind about games. It just so happens that those that I've talked to have agreed in this case (game store employees and owners included). There have been plenty of other cases where I've liked games or hated games and most have disagreed (Fable for one...the complete lack of story imo makes it rather sucky).

 

[Kayos]

I'm saying that the masses will easily take on someone else's opinion to not seem different. I will make up my own mind about games. It just so happens that those that I've talked to have agreed in this case (game store employees and owners included). There have been plenty of other cases where I've liked games or hated games and most have disagreed (Fable for one...the complete lack of story imo makes it rather sucky).

I'd trust the average of all the reviews of a game over some opinion from some guy who works at a game store.

 

[kkenny]

I'd trust the average of all the reviews of a game over some opinion from some guy who works at a game store.

But then trusting any website isn't that good either. As we all know they could of just spoofed up all XBOX games, or spoofed up PS3 games and made on type of game rating better than the other.

 

[Kayos]

But then trusting any website isn't that good either. As we all know they could of just spoofed up all XBOX games, or spoofed up PS3 games and made on type of game rating better than the other.

That's why I choose various different sites. I personally like reviews with out a ranking system, like the ones they do on Katoku the most but I also look at places like metacritic and game rankings which show me all the reviews for each game. I like the options to see why each reviewer gave the score that they did.

Not only that but I play games before hand, except in the cases where I really am looking forward to certain games.

 

[GG-Xtreme]

Wait, so for me to see how photo realistic the video is I am only suppose to look at the lighting and reflections?

Photorealistic does not have to look like something real. It has to look like it could be made real and not be noticeably off.

Then you're wrong either way. The success of a console will always be judged by the games. Games are what make or break consoles, not hardware. If hardware is all that was needed then we would have seen consoles like the N64 and original Xbox the number one victors of there generations respectively.

The first part of that completely ignores my statement. And I did find the N64 and the Xbox the best consoles of their generation (though the Xbox kind of tied with the Gamecube for me).

How can the PS3 be more powerful, regardless of different architecture, and not be used as lead platform in most multiplatform games? Most developers aren't going to use the lowest common denominator and work there way up. It's just that from the viewpoint of developers the 360 is still the more powerful system with the better developement tools.

That is completely wrong. The 'lowest common denominator' method is exactly how a large number of developers work. A developer that thinks that the 360 is the most powerful system is a fool.

The difficulty to develop games on the PS3 is a huge flaw. It's not the developers laziness, it's the PS3's architecture. It wouldn't be a issue if only 1 or 2 developers are speaking out, it's almost unanimous across the board. That's not laziness right there.

You can't blame the architecture. The architecture is fantastic, or the PS3 wouldn't be so much more powerful than the 360. By your logic, things shouldn't change. Just because an idea doesn't fly, doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. And just because everyone across the board agrees, doesn't mean they're right.

Once again, ports are an important factor to console only gamers. You can preach all you want about how the PC gets the best versions, but I'm speaking strictly consoles.

Would you like to go into the flaws of console-only gaming?

That's why I choose various different sites. I personally like reviews with out a ranking system, like the ones they do on Katoku the most but I also look at places like metacritic and game rankings which show me all the reviews for each game. I like the options to see why each reviewer gave the score that they did.

Not only that but I play games before hand, except in the cases where I really am looking forward to certain games.

This is probably the most trustworthy reviewer I've ever heard of: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation
And even he thinks Halo 3 is loaded with mediocrity.

 

[imaran]

I'd trust the average of all the reviews of a game over some opinion from some guy who works at a game store.

I do neither. I take it all into consideration when any sort of money transaction is going to take place but when I get into a game (whether I pay money or I borrow it or even just play a demo) I give it a full shot at making it's own impression on me. There is not any one game that I didn't give a shot because of what I heard, nor is there any one game that got so hyped that I claimed to like it when I didn't, even though everyone else did.

If you let the reviewers make up your mind for you, what is the point of playing?

Examples of my point:

1. Haze was poorly reviewed, I expected to be disappointed when I got into it. I wasnt.

2. Halo 3 was hyped endlessly, I was extremely excited about it given my love of Halo 2. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't what the hyped built up.

3. Nascar 08, I was very excited about this game. I rented it and expected to love it. The controls were AWFUL. I returned it after a full day of not being able to keep the car from spinning out. Nascar 09 came out and I was very wary. Tried it and they had fixed the controls. I like the game.

4. Fable, one of the most hyped games I've seen and I was so pumped about it. Got in and the story had potential, then went no where. I could still be playing today and still might see no plot progression.

5. Final Fantasy 9 and X-2. After the previous games came out and had their success(8 (my all time favorite RPG) and X) both of these games were hyped. Neither one lived up to the games that came before them.

6. Kingdom Hearts, one of the most loved and talked about rpgs. There were just too many pointless battles in this one. If you had to go back to look for anything you fought twice as many battles. It just got to be a bit old. Story was good, but the amount of meaningless mobs was just too much for me. It made the story progress too slowly to me.

There are many more but those are pretty well known games and you get the idea.