Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3

esmufc10 said:
I don't even think 4 DVD's for a game is a problem really. We saw it with the PS1 with the FF games which spanned 3 and 4 discs, and it was never a problem. It becomes a problem when you have to cut things out/lower the quality of the game to make it fit on a reasonable number of discs. Off the top of my head I think the 360 version of FF13 contains 18.6GB of data over 3 discs, whilst the PS3 version has 38GB of data on 1 disc. That's half the size! All you need to do is look at the screenshots of the games and you can see the difference. All the previews have said the PS3 is by far the better version also.

I remember arguing with the likes of you and RedKaos a couple of years ago over the need for Blu-Ray, why I didn't mind paying extra and why ultimately it would be needed, but you laughed it off if I remember correctly and called me an idiot. Looks like now only 1 of those is true.
Click to expand...

:lol:


Definitely the compression of games is a major issue, but i also really can't be done with changing disks. As you say, games, visually and audibly are already starting to be better on the PS3, games such as 'Rage'.

I said i personally didn't need the blu-ray player for watching films, with DVD being more than adequate.
At the time HDDVD was still in existence, so i presumed that when it came to it, the xbox would run games from the external player.

also, out of interest do you know a bar/club in Preston called Lava?
 
1871_Biscuit said:
:lol:


Definitely the compression of games is a major issue, but i also really can't be done with changing disks. As you say, games, visually and audibly are already starting to be better on the PS3, games such as 'Rage'.

I said i personally didn't need the blu-ray player for watching films, with DVD being more than adequate.
At the time HDDVD was still in existence, so i presumed that when it came to it, the xbox would run games from the external player.

also, out of interest do you know a bar/club in Preston called Lava?
Click to expand...

HDDVD was never going to beat Blu-Ray. If MS had have built it into the console, then maybe things would have turned out differently, I don't know. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Only having it as an optional feature was a bit silly though, IMO.

And yes, it's shite. Not been there since last August.

WeasteDevil said:
Sony has a technique to up it to around 66GB without any messing, others (Hitachi) have something else that can take it up to 200GB I think with current drives.
Click to expand...

I can't ever see a game being 200GB really. Well, not for a long time anyway. FF15 maybe :)
 
1871_Biscuit said:
:lol:


Definitely the compression of games is a major issue, but i also really can't be done with changing disks. As you say, games, visually and audibly are already starting to be better on the PS3, games such as 'Rage'.
Click to expand...

18GB for FFXIII, thank god that it's linear for the most part, or otherwise, arcade and 20GB XB360 owners would be shuffling the discs in and out ad infinitum. I think that Versus XIII is not linear.
 
esmufc10 said:
HDDVD was never going to beat Blu-Ray. If MS had have built it into the console, then maybe things would have turned out differently, I don't know. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Only having it as an optional feature was a bit silly though, IMO.
Click to expand...

At one time Microsoft was part of the Blu-Ray Association. They only dropped out at the very last minute just before XB360 was released. Their dropout was highly inspired by the fact that the BDA didn't use VC1 as the default codec, and didn't use the MS interactivity feature (I can't remember off hand what it was called, but it was used on HDDVD), instead going for Java. Almost all BD films now use Java in the form of BD-Live and H.264 as the codec. No royalties for Microsoft, boo hoo.
 
I will soon be a Ps3 owner and will be able to judge properly then. But from what I have played on a mates recently. Killzone 2 didn’t overly impress me. Great looking but from what I played and my mate agreed it was not as good as Halo or Gears.


But Unchartered 2 really impressed me and from what I have seen on youtube God of War 3 looks fecking incredible. I will be buying both as soon as I get the machine.

Oh and tried Little Big Planet, maybe it takes a while to get into but I was not too arsed with it
 
I think the reason why the XBOX 360 doesn't appeal to a vocal minority of gamers is because:

1. Most of the exclusives can be played on the PC
2. Pay to play for XBOX Live
3. Lower quality of exclusives compared to the PS3.
 
I had an Xbox, it broke.

I have had a PS3 since August. I prefer it.

I hope this helps.
 
Pronewbie said:
I think the reason why the XBOX 360 doesn't appeal to a vocal minority of gamers is because:

1. Most of the exclusives can be played on the PC
2. Pay to play for XBOX Live
3. Lower quality of exclusives compared to the PS3.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact most exclusives suck on PC compare to 360.

70 bucks a year is not much in Australia.

What are we talking in terms of the quality of exclusives?
 
Pronewbie said:
I think the reason why the XBOX 360 doesn't appeal to a vocal minority of gamers is because:

1. Most of the exclusives can be played on the PC
2. Pay to play for XBOX Live
3. Lower quality of exclusives compared to the PS3.
Click to expand...

I think this is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

I am a big big fan of a number of Xbox exclusives

Halo
Gears series
Extra games for Grand Theft Auto are fantastic
Left 4 Dead Series
Forza 3
Shadow Complex


And every one else will tell you Mass Effect, although I have never played the games
 
The only exlusive i have seen on PS3 that i have been slightly annoyed isn't on 360 is the one with like 256 people in one server fighting a big war, it looks fun, but surely is impossible to get the team work required.
 
Since I got my 360 I kinda prefer it to the PS3, but I still like all the consoles. (Nowhere near as much as my SNES though
love-smiley-007.gif
)
 
Christofaux said:
Aside from the fact most exclusives suck on PC compare to 360.

70 bucks a year is not much in Australia.

What are we talking in terms of the quality of exclusives?
Click to expand...

Er... what? Want me to go through a list of the 360 exclusives and say why the PC version was either identical or, in many cases, better?
 
Christofaux said:
Aside from the fact most exclusives suck on PC compare to 360.

70 bucks a year is not much in Australia.

What are we talking in terms of the quality of exclusives?
Click to expand...

That's crazy talk. The games look much better on my PC.

Another problem is that most of the so-called exclusives are actually time-based, which I don't mind waiting since there are so many good games out there these days.
 
Randall Flagg said:
I think this is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

I am a big big fan of a number of Xbox exclusives

Halo
Gears series
Extra games for Grand Theft Auto are fantastic
Left 4 Dead Series
Forza 3
Shadow Complex


And every one else will tell you Mass Effect, although I have never played the games
Click to expand...

I agree to a certain extent, especially if shooters are your cup of tea, but the general opinion is that the PS3 exclusives are better than the 360's, which ties in with the point I made.

I am one of the few who do not understand the hype surrounding Halo ever since the first one on the XBOX. Mind you, I am very fussy with shooters because I used to play them heavily as a student. I'm sure titles such as Max Payne, Half-Life, Serious Sam, Counter-strike, Team Fortress, Hitman, Soldier Of Fortune, Quake, COD etc. all ring a bell.

Hence, Halo was just another one of those games that although in my opinion played poorer than most of the aforementioned, got unfair praise due to its exclusivity. This is the same for Killzone 2. Other than the peripheral post-processing graphics (pardon the layman term) which I didn't like, the gameplay, once again, was average.

Gears was quite fun on the PC. The story however...

L4d's clearly meant to be played on a PC, especially in a LAN environment. I've enjoyed the games immensely.

I was disappointed by GTA 4 partly due to the hype it generated, and also because it played almost the same as its predecessors and it seemed like the Rockstar spent too much time in the graphics department and didn't pay enough detail to the gameplay and story. Not played the DLCs, and honestly have no interest in purchasing them even if they come out on the PSN.

Forza 3 - never played it. Heard lots of good things about it.

Shadow Complex - What's that?

Mass Effect 2 - Just started out on the PC, but haven't got the time nor do I feel compelled to carry on at the moment. Probably because it plays like a shooter Dragon Age.

Dragon Age for the PC - Now that's a good game.
 
WeasteDevil said:
Oh, I agree, but when you go back two or three years, all the XBox owners were laughing and talking bollocks, and ho ho ho, it's now time to eat some crow. Because there is nothing on the XB360 that looks like Uncharted, Uncharted 2, Ratchet, God of War, Wipeout HD, GT5, Killzone 2, the list goes on.

They really need to redo that old ad with this track.
Click to expand...

Aye, we like gameplay you see.

:smirk:
 
WeasteDevil said:
I don't want to piss on your chips or anything.
Click to expand...

Shadow Complex is an excellent platformer on the Xbox arcade for about €12 quid. Why compare Wipeout to it?

I was just merely pointing out that there are some really good exclusives on the Xbox too.

I realise Left 4 Dead is on the PC as well, but aren’t the Halo and Gears games on PC too? I listed them because they are not available on Ps3.
 
Tbh, the only PS3 exclusives that have excited me are Heavy Rain and Uncharted, the others i've not been too fussed about.
 
Randall Flagg said:
Shadow Complex is an excellent platformer on the Xbox arcade for about €12 quid. Why compare Wipeout to it?

I was just merely pointing out that there are some really good exclusives on the Xbox too.

I realise Left 4 Dead is on the PC as well, but aren’t the Halo and Gears games on PC too? I listed them because they are not available on Ps3.
Click to expand...

You could come up with many a game that is downloadable over PSN that are not on XB360 - it's a bit daft to even bring them into the mix.

None of the recent Halos or Gears are available on PC, so much for Games for Windows.

Are you really trying to compare first party offerings to first party Sony offerings?
 
personally, couldnt give a stuff about how a game looks or weather the story is good or how much space it takes up or what rendering engine it uses. to me thats all just numbers that people bring up to try and justify why one game or console is better than the other and at the end of the day all that matters is that the game is fun. i still play on my megadrive quite often, its nowhere near as powerful as a ps3 or an xbox 360 but the games ive got are more fun than most of the drivel brought out on the aforementioned consoles. sometimes i get the impression that game developers are more interested in making ultra realistic foliage or a game that plays like a movie or uses 400tb of data on the disk and they completely forget to make the game fun to play. meh, ill expect somebody to tell me how wrong i am soon enough, just my two cents worth.
 
WeasteDevil said:
What you are fussed about isn't the point, it's about the quality, if you like it or not.
Click to expand...

it kind of is if were talking about the original topic of the thread instead of having yet another "my console has a bigger petaflop than yours" argument
 
chris2403 said:
personally, couldnt give a stuff about how a game looks or weather the story is good or how much space it takes up or what rendering engine it uses. to me thats all just numbers that people bring up to try and justify why one game or console is better than the other and at the end of the day all that matters is that the game is fun. i still play on my megadrive quite often, its nowhere near as powerful as a ps3 or an xbox 360 but the games ive got are more fun than most of the drivel brought out on the aforementioned consoles. sometimes i get the impression that game developers are more interested in making ultra realistic foliage or a game that plays like a movie or uses 400tb of data on the disk and they completely forget to make the game fun to play. meh, ill expect somebody to tell me how wrong i am soon enough, just my two cents worth.
Click to expand...

This.
 
chris2403 said:
personally, couldnt give a stuff about how a game looks or weather the story is good or how much space it takes up or what rendering engine it uses. to me thats all just numbers that people bring up to try and justify why one game or console is better than the other and at the end of the day all that matters is that the game is fun. i still play on my megadrive quite often, its nowhere near as powerful as a ps3 or an xbox 360 but the games ive got are more fun than most of the drivel brought out on the aforementioned consoles. sometimes i get the impression that game developers are more interested in making ultra realistic foliage or a game that plays like a movie or uses 400tb of data on the disk and they completely forget to make the game fun to play. meh, ill expect somebody to tell me how wrong i am soon enough, just my two cents worth.
Click to expand...

i like you. when did you get here? (i've decided to adopt your dropping of capital letters also)
 
chris2403 said:
personally, couldnt give a stuff about how a game looks or weather the story is good or how much space it takes up or what rendering engine it uses. to me thats all just numbers that people bring up to try and justify why one game or console is better than the other and at the end of the day all that matters is that the game is fun. i still play on my megadrive quite often, its nowhere near as powerful as a ps3 or an xbox 360 but the games ive got are more fun than most of the drivel brought out on the aforementioned consoles. sometimes i get the impression that game developers are more interested in making ultra realistic foliage or a game that plays like a movie or uses 400tb of data on the disk and they completely forget to make the game fun to play. meh, ill expect somebody to tell me how wrong i am soon enough, just my two cents worth.
Click to expand...

I still play my Amiga, so?

chris2403 said:
it kind of is if were talking about the original topic of the thread instead of having yet another "my console has a bigger petaflop than yours" argument
Click to expand...

Well, the arguments that you are making have been done before, and the people that make them all miss something quite key to everything, and that's the immersion level. What more powerful hardware and greater storage space provides is the ability to make the game more immersive, be it the video, the audio, or even things such as physics. It's supposed to be interactive entertainment at the end of the day - or you could go and play with a hoop and a stick.
 
chris2403 said:
personally, couldnt give a stuff about how a game looks or weather the story is good or how much space it takes up or what rendering engine it uses. to me thats all just numbers that people bring up to try and justify why one game or console is better than the other and at the end of the day all that matters is that the game is fun. i still play on my megadrive quite often, its nowhere near as powerful as a ps3 or an xbox 360 but the games ive got are more fun than most of the drivel brought out on the aforementioned consoles. sometimes i get the impression that game developers are more interested in making ultra realistic foliage or a game that plays like a movie or uses 400tb of data on the disk and they completely forget to make the game fun to play. meh, ill expect somebody to tell me how wrong i am soon enough, just my two cents worth.
Click to expand...

My PSP would agree with this. I haven't bothered downloading PSP games since GT PSP. Most of the time all it plays are MVS, SNES, Mega Drive and CPS2 games. I guess the gaming industry finally stood up and realised the huge financial potential of such games in recent times and that's why casual/re-made games have made a huge splash in the industry.

However, I do not agree that we should regress in game development technology, if that's what you're saying. The Japanese gaming industry in general has actually developed according to your vision of what games should be, and many of their companies are struggling this gen because that's not worked out well. Remember, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
 
WeasteDevil said:
I still play my Amiga, so?



Well, the arguments that you are making have been done before, and the people that make them all miss something quite key to everything, and that's the immersion level. What more powerful hardware and greater storage space provides is the ability to make the game more immersive, be it the video, the audio, or even things such as physics. It's supposed to be interactive entertainment at the end of the day - or you could go and play with a hoop and a stick.
Click to expand...

if the hoop and stick is more fun than the game, then ill have the fecking hoop and stick. the immersion level isnt key to shit, you could have the most immersive, realistic, beautiful game in the world but if its boring its boring and id rather do something else.
 
Christofaux said:
Though its my opinion, and none of those games bar ratchet and clank interest me.

Was laughing for a year and then some when everyone was waiting for their PS3.
Click to expand...



I've had a PS3 for a couple of months now. . .and I've only played one game(LBP). I just can't be arsed with anything on it. That said, I feel the same way for my 360 at the mo - Alan Wake looks interesting, though.
 
Pronewbie said:
My PSP would agree with this. I haven't bothered downloading PSP games since GT PSP. Most of the time all it plays are MVS, SNES, Mega Drive and CPS2 games. I guess the gaming industry finally stood up and realised the huge financial potential of such games in recent times and that's why casual/re-made games have made a huge splash in the industry.

However, I do not agree that we should regress in game development technology, if that's what you're saying. The Japanese gaming industry in general has actually developed according to your vision of what games should be, and many of their companies are struggling this gen because that's not worked out well. Remember, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Click to expand...

i dont think we should allow the technology to regress, its still important, just not as important a some people make out. the overiding aim of a game development effort should be to make the game fun, then you can worry about the rest. It seems a standard argument in the whole ps3 v 360 that one console has better graphics than the other or can do more calculations per nanosecond than the other, its all very well and good but if the games are about as fun as repeatedly hitting yourself on the head with a lump of wood then whats the point. its like saying "my dicks bigger than yours" when youve got an erectile dysfunction.
 
chris2403 said:
if the hoop and stick is more fun than the game, then ill have the fecking hoop and stick. the immersion level isnt key to shit, you could have the most immersive, realistic, beautiful game in the world but if its boring its boring and id rather do something else.
Click to expand...

That's not the point though, the point is that if a game is designed well, then it will be far more enjoyable on a Wii than on an Atari 2600, because at the end of the day, there are certain things that cannot be represented clearly if at all on an Atari 2600. Why was sound added to cinema, why was colour added to cinema?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.