360 vs ps3

[I_am_Not]

I, myself as an American do not consider the consoles a blessing.

 

I'll leave you at that

 

o and lolnogames

[sees_all1]

Fat Princess is the reason I own a PS3.

 

[Faux]

I was over at my friend's place today playing FIFA. It just wouldn't be the same if we played at our own houses in front of a computer

 

Or maybe consoles are just better for people with friends, lol.

 

tl;dr

the PS3 has no games

That's not a tl;dr, that's an assumption. And a very ill-informed one at that.

 

Anyway, barring any "PC is superior" comments (which it is if you like modding, and shelling out cash to make an amazing rig), the game franchises you like define what console you should get.

 

Like Halo and Gears of War? Go for a 360.

 

Like Uncharted and Killzone? Go for a PS3.

 

For me, personally, I preffer the ps3, I won't deny that. I've been in love with the Resistance series because Insomniac isn't afraid of making things hopeless to the point that the main character has to be killed. Also, the ps3 has a higher limit on the number of players it can support in one match for many games (MAG, R2), although I'm not sure if that's a hardware thing or a developer's choice. The only weakness I've seen lately with the PS3 architecture is that it is a lot more rigid in RAM usage, which led to lag (thankfully fixed) in Skyrim. The fact that many multi-platform titles tend to be ported over to the PS3 also means that sometimes they don't pay as much attention to the final product (with Bethesda being the main culprit here).

 

Maybe it's just me but I always prefer small team games over big team. It is impressive to have an all out war of 100 v 100. But it's uncoordinated and sloppy. Just a mess. If you're not carrying the team, you're getting carried. It's more fun to have a group of 5 people working together instead of a huge army without any teamwork. Especially anything that isn't team deathmatch, all people worry about are their KD ratio.

[decebal]

Maybe it's just me but I always prefer small team games over big team. It is impressive to have an all out war of 100 v 100. But it's uncoordinated and sloppy. Just a mess. If you're not carrying the team, you're getting carried. It's more fun to have a group of 5 people working together instead of a huge army without any teamwork. Especially anything that isn't team deathmatch, all people worry about are their KD ratio.

It's definitely not just you, I am merely stating something I've noticed about the PS3 that I find enjoyable. I know, that in those 30 vs. 30 TD's, I will have 5 Fareye snipers ready for me to cross their sights, 8 Wraith [bleep] spinning their miniguns ready to burst my face open, 5 more Marksmen ready to take me out before I can take them out, 6 Augers observing me through walls, the occasional Rossmore shotgunner or Splicer wreaking havoc whenever you go indoors, a Bellock user wreaking havoc and pain from atop a building, and a couple of Bullseyes tagging you, with a few carbine users waiting for your corpse to be lifeless so that they can loot their 40mm grenades.

 

Not everyone likes this chaos (which is why you only see about 2 matches like this on the R2 servers), and some people preffer the more calm Skirmish mode where you gain points in smaller squads (similar to MAG), but I just love that feeling when you dodge bullets like Spiderman :mrgreen: . That's kind of the reason why I never got into R3.

 

Of course though, some people do preffer the smaller 8 vs 8 games, which is why many developers opt to go that route instead. As I've said, it really is a matter of personal choice.

[Sbrideau]

tl;dr

the PS3 has no games

That's not a tl;dr, that's an assumption. And a very ill-informed one at that.

 

Anyway, barring any "PC is superior" comments (which it is if you like modding, and shelling out cash to make an amazing rig), the game franchises you like define what console you should get.

 

Like Halo and Gears of War? Go for a 360.

 

Like Uncharted and Killzone? Go for a PS3.

 

For me, personally, I preffer the ps3, I won't deny that. I've been in love with the Resistance series because Insomniac isn't afraid of making things hopeless to the point that the main character has to be killed. Also, the ps3 has a higher limit on the number of players it can support in one match for many games (MAG, R2), although I'm not sure if that's a hardware thing or a developer's choice. The only weakness I've seen lately with the PS3 architecture is that it is a lot more rigid in RAM usage, which led to lag (thankfully fixed) in Skyrim. The fact that many multi-platform titles tend to be ported over to the PS3 also means that sometimes they don't pay as much attention to the final product (with Bethesda being the main culprit here).

 

Then again the PS3 has half the RAM the 360 has, so it's bound to happen from time to time.

[decebal]

tl;dr

the PS3 has no games

That's not a tl;dr, that's an assumption. And a very ill-informed one at that.

 

Anyway, barring any "PC is superior" comments (which it is if you like modding, and shelling out cash to make an amazing rig), the game franchises you like define what console you should get.

 

Like Halo and Gears of War? Go for a 360.

 

Like Uncharted and Killzone? Go for a PS3.

 

For me, personally, I preffer the ps3, I won't deny that. I've been in love with the Resistance series because Insomniac isn't afraid of making things hopeless to the point that the main character has to be killed. Also, the ps3 has a higher limit on the number of players it can support in one match for many games (MAG, R2), although I'm not sure if that's a hardware thing or a developer's choice. The only weakness I've seen lately with the PS3 architecture is that it is a lot more rigid in RAM usage, which led to lag (thankfully fixed) in Skyrim. The fact that many multi-platform titles tend to be ported over to the PS3 also means that sometimes they don't pay as much attention to the final product (with Bethesda being the main culprit here).

 

Then again the PS3 has half the RAM the 360 has, so it's bound to happen from time to time.

I'm not that great when it comes to computer hardware, but from what I see the problem isn't the fact that the PS3 has half the RAM, it's that its RAM is split into 256 MB for the XDR DRAM, and 256 MB on the GDDR 3 card for video memory, while the 360 uses the same 512 MB GDDR 3 memory card to achieve both processes.

[Bubs]

I've owned nearly every console since Atari 2600, and if you want advice that isn't get a PC (which you should), get yourself a N64, by far the best console to date. :thumbup:

 

 

Edit: If you were wondering, you can slap together a gaming rig that can play anything out there for under $500 easily, so don't let price be a problem.

[Estonian dude]

Heck, my PC was 400 dollars 2 years ago and I can still play anything easily. Not necessarily with max settings, though.

[Crossed_Body]

Heck, my PC was 400 dollars 2 years ago and I can still play anything easily. Not necessarily with max settings, though.

 

Don't worry, consoles don't play on max settings either.

[stevepole]

As I sit here, a quick game of Battlefield 3 has turned into 40 minutes of downloading updates.. Updates really need to be able to download in the background..

[Estonian dude]

Oh yes, my main bother with PS3. They are ridiculous with that...

[jasignhagj]

The only reason to get a console is because all your friends have one, or you want console exclusives. The PC is superior for everything else hands down.

 

Graphics? PC all the way. Even your $500 budget gaming computer is going to put out better graphics than a console.

Socializing? PC. With Skype/Teamspeak/etc. you can do everything xbox parties can do, without the 8 person limits. On PS3 you can't even chat between games.

Controls? Not only do Xbox controllers work with PC, so do countless 3rd party ones. Plus once you get used to Keyboard + Mouse, you'll probably find you like it more.

Cost? PC. You already spend likely $500+ every time you buy a new computer. For only $300 more you can have a killer gaming PC that also does everything your regular computer would do, but better. Not even mentioning the giant savings on the cost of games thanks to Steam and piracy if you roll that way.

 

playing lying down on the couch on a big screen tv > playing on a tiny monitor

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from plugging your PC into your HDTV.

[Sbrideau]

The only reason to get a console is because all your friends have one, or you want console exclusives. The PC is superior for everything else hands down.

 

Graphics? PC all the way. Even your $500 budget gaming computer is going to put out better graphics than a console.

Socializing? PC. With Skype/Teamspeak/etc. you can do everything xbox parties can do, without the 8 person limits. On PS3 you can't even chat between games.

Controls? Not only do Xbox controllers work with PC, so do countless 3rd party ones. Plus once you get used to Keyboard + Mouse, you'll probably find you like it more.

Cost? PC. You already spend likely $500+ every time you buy a new computer. For only $300 more you can have a killer gaming PC that also does everything your regular computer would do, but better. Not even mentioning the giant savings on the cost of games thanks to Steam and piracy if you roll that way.

 

playing lying down on the couch on a big screen tv > playing on a tiny monitor

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from plugging your PC into your HDTV.

Just think of the next generation. I know that PC is better than current consoles, but just think about when they came out. Consoles were far superior than PC's that cost about the same thing when they came out. That's why so many people have them, and it's probably going to be the case again for the next generation of consoles.

 

Also, for the cost, just build me a PC that's better than the consoles for $300. I don't see a way to even have all the pieces you need to have a working computer with that budget. For the price, the console still wins, here.

[sees_all1]

Also, for the cost, just build me a PC that's better than the consoles for $300. I don't see a way to even have all the pieces you need to have a working computer with that budget. For the price, the console still wins, here.

The other thing about some of the console games is there really is no substitute for some group games on the PC. I haven't seen anyone with a PC play DDR with real life friends, or any of the Wii/Kinect/Move type games.

[Faux]

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from plugging your PC into your HDTV.

 

And use keyboard and mouse while lounging on the couch? Lol. If you're going to say "but PC games can use 360/PS3 controllers", don't bother. That's like playing handicapped against other keyboard/mouse users.

 

HDTVs are also not meant to be used as PC monitors. They have different features meant for TV/movies that makes them terrible for PC gaming. Ever wonder why a 40" monitor is about 3-5x as expensive as 40" TVs?

[Bubs]

40" monitor, ha good one.

[Randox]

40" monitor, ha good one.

I've seen at least 36" computer monitors before I think. 40" would be more than the computer though I think >.>

 

 

Also, while a TV is certainly not optimal, they can still work just fine in the right applications. For distance viewing, yes, you do need a monitor or you'll never be able to read most text. But when I got my PC last year, I didn't have a monitor to go with it because I'd been using a laptop for 3 years and got rid of the last one. So I took my 32" HDTV, put it on my desk and called it a day. Now, at that range you need to move your head a bit to see from side to side which isn't ideal, but I was close enough that I could read the text in runescape which is horrendous to read on TV's in general because its too thin. And I have to say that GTA IV has never looked as awesome as when it was taking up my entire visual field. You get used to the less crisp picture pretty quickly, and you can normally finagle the color settings to mimic a more monitory look.

 

In my usual setup, my PC is capable of using my monitor or TV (or both) depending on what sort of mood I am in. The TV mostly gets used for movies, but sometimes I carry my keyboard and mouse or joystick to the couch and play some GTA on that sucker (or I put my chair right infront of the tv first).

[Alg]

Also, for the cost, just build me a PC that's better than the consoles for $300. I don't see a way to even have all the pieces you need to have a working computer with that budget. For the price, the console still wins, here.

The other thing about some of the console games is there really is no substitute for some group games on the PC. I haven't seen anyone with a PC play DDR with real life friends, or any of the Wii/Kinect/Move type games.

Hell, any multiplayer game. There's a huge difference between playing a game with complete strangers across an internet connection and playing a game with good friends in the same room as you. For that reason, it's kind of sad that local multiplayer seems to be falling out of favor: It was probably the biggest advantage consoles had over the PC.

[Sir_Squab]

Me and my friend occasionally play games on ours PS3s in the same room as each other lol. Two tvs, 2 PS3s, bam.

[jasignhagj]

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from plugging your PC into your HDTV.

 

And use keyboard and mouse while lounging on the couch? Lol. If you're going to say "but PC games can use 360/PS3 controllers", don't bother. That's like playing handicapped against other keyboard/mouse users.

 

HDTVs are also not meant to be used as PC monitors. They have different features meant for TV/movies that makes them terrible for PC gaming. Ever wonder why a 40" monitor is about 3-5x as expensive as 40" TVs?

 

They're no more terrible for PC gaming than they are for console gaming. There is nothing special about a console output that makes it look better on a TV. You can even hook your PC up to a monitor and a HDTV at the same time. You could even have them in different rooms if you wanted (Although I believe HDMI is limited to 25 feet).

 

Just think of the next generation. I know that PC is better than current consoles, but just think about when they came out. Consoles were far superior than PC's that cost about the same thing when they came out. That's why so many people have them, and it's probably going to be the case again for the next generation of consoles.

 

Also, for the cost, just build me a PC that's better than the consoles for $300. I don't see a way to even have all the pieces you need to have a working computer with that budget. For the price, the console still wins, here.

 

It's probably doable for under $400, not including the Windows license. I'll reserve judgement on the new gen of consoles until we get real information on the specs of them, but I won't be shocked if they aren't that powerful, seeing as all the industry seems interested in right now is motion control gimmicks.

[Crossed_Body]

Also, for the cost, just build me a PC that's better than the consoles for $300. I don't see a way to even have all the pieces you need to have a working computer with that budget. For the price, the console still wins, here.

[I_am_Not]

4gb of ram is 45$, that instead of the 2x1 gb and you'll be able to play every game at the current time.

[Crossed_Body]

4gb of ram is 45$, that instead of the 2x1 gb and you'll be able to play every game at the current time.

 

He asked for a PC that is better than the consoles. I didn't even need 2Gb to acomplish that.

[Ginger_Warrior]

As I sit here, a quick game of Battlefield 3 has turned into 40 minutes of downloading updates.. Updates really need to be able to download in the background..

Background while playing other games surely? Or else the point of updates designed to repair glitches and correct unfair competitive advantages would be defeated...

[Estonian dude]

Nope, on a PS3 you have to wait whilst it updates. Can't do anything meanwhile.