Shoutbox

I may have written in this thread before, but whatever.

I was playing on a Playstation 3 for a few hours the other day, on some of the games that I've owned/played on the Xbox 360 and so far I have to say that I prefer the 360. I admit that they're stupid for refusing to get blu-ray attachments etc (although I think later in the year they will), but the hardware etc is just better.

Go to eurogamer.net for comparison on the games about most of the time the 360 dominates or is better (even if it's very slight - read the GTA IV article for example).

I can't just say that I played on a PS3 and didn't like it without explanations so I'll explain myself.

The Controllers:
The L2/R2 buttons are convex, so without having a great grip your fingers are likely to slip off, whereas on the 360 they're concave so you'll always have a great grip on. Also the resistance of the buttons is really peculiar, it just feels wrong. The 360 has got their button placement perfect now, whereas Sony have been too scared to change their controller for ten years. Obviously it's good that they've, ahem, adapted to the Wii, by adding 'six-axis', but it's largely a novelty that isn't of much use and was unnecessary - they should've kept the rumble feature in, instead of having to bring out a new controller that consumers will have to buy.

That's what I love about the 360, it's kept to it's roots and kept simple - nothing unnecessary, the only changes they've made in updated version of 360 controllers are aesthetic, such as the release of the elite controllers, and if you compare the controllers to the original ones that came with the 360, you'll see that they were originally glossy, but now they're matte.






Check out the concave/convex thing I was talking about, you'll see what I mean.

The Console:
Initially, I liked the way that the Playstation 3 looked, but heck does it need to be so shiny? They've tried to make it look futuristic, but when I saw it in person and looked at it, the dirt is really apparent - fingerprints cover it if you aren't careful when moving it making it just look a bit filthy (don't you just love matte? ).

Sony users used to moan about the Xbox, saying how big and chunky it was, I find it hilarious that now it's the other way around, they call it 'beefy'. It's hilarious. It is a massive console, but I'm not going to moan about that, but once again, why convex? That's using more material, which is a waste of money and a waste of space. The emphasis of the 360 is of course, on the concavity. It is smaller and therefore easier to fit in your room.

In all honesty though, everyone has to agree that the Wii is the best looking one, I don't even own it but it's eye-candy.



The 360 just looks so much nicer.

The hardware:
I don't understand why the PS3 uses a 640p resolution that means it has to upscale, I'm sure there are technical reasons for it but it's just made it more difficult for developers to create multi-platform games - just look at GTA IV once again. It's not even that good an idea, just use regular resolutions and it'll make everything easier.

Why has the PS3 got an internal hard-drive? Surely it'd make more sense for Sony to have made it easy for users to remove the HDD without voiding the warranty, what happens when they download games, demos etc and want to keep them but can't? It's completely ridiculous, especially if you take into account the fact that some of the games on the PS3 use the hard-drive feature, where several gigabytes are installed onto the PS3 to make loading times 'quicker'. I've put that in inverted commas because this feature really doesnt do a lot for loading times, again a useless feature. The 360 of course, does have a removable hard-drive, which can be upgraded to the new, 6-times bigger 120gb hard-drive, to allow users to download all of the high-definition movies from Xbox Live - how very handy.

I stood in the Sony Entertainment shop once watching them play the PS3 on a huge high-definition tv, which in all fairness did look great. But the exhibitionist was then queried by a teenager: "But does this have better graphics than the Xbox 360", to which the exhibitionist was obliged to reply: "Well, no. The xbox 360 has a better processor, RAM and the graphics are slightly better... but the PS3 is a great competitor because of Blu-ray, which means games load faster, but run quicker on the xbox" I think that speaks for itself. (That was verbatim obviously). The frame rate is also constantly better on the 360, so you know... that's another positive.

Obviously, Sony's Blu-ray feature is pretty much flawless, having destroyed hd-dvd (haha, that makes me laugh), so that's the definite buying point of the Playstation 3. However, why not wait a while, because the 360 system may surprise some people with blu-ray? Who knows.

Obviously, there's the 'ring of death' problem, which I have honestly had recently, after over a year of having the console, but I have to say that the service for getting that fixed is all pre-paid and astounding, I got it back within 2 weeks. I'm sure that when purchasing a newer system as well, this is much less likely to happen.



Just look at that Screenshot comparison, check out the anti-aliasing etc, the ps3 just has blur to try to get rid of it (due to up-scaling).

The games:
Every year since the PS3 came out, owners have simply said: "Yeah, they may not have any good games... but this year they will completely dominate the 360." I first heard that 2 years ago... The amount of amazing games that you can get on the Xbox 360 is immense: Halo, Gears of War, Project Gotham,  Bioshock... obviously then you've got the cross-platform games that in all fairness are great (Oblivion ), but if you play them the xbox 360 usually out-performs the PS3. Seriously, check it out... I've played Oblivion on PS3/360 on high-definition tvs to be so disappointed by the PS3's performance.

This is largely down to the fact that PS3 is supposed to be a really time-consuming console to develop games for, due to how complicated it is... something that I feel Sony has screwed up on. This means that time after time, titles are being delayed - oh no.



We can see how much 360 had a nice head start.

Online:
It is great that the PS3 offers online play for free, making it a great competitor, because you can get on there with all of the eight year olds who don't know what they're doing. But seriously, it's clear that because it's free, there have to be sponsors, otherwise they wouldn't run and therefore the servers aren't going to be as good (Gamespy) as those that you have to pay a yearly rate for, allowing the servers to be kept up and running for long periods of time, faster loading times etc.

Obviously we have to take into account the fact that every service has downtime, just look at what happened to Xbox Live in December, that was catastrophic. But on a whole, PS3 users have suffered more when compared to the 360 when it comes to online play.

Everyone knows that Xbox Live is award-winning and runs great if you've played on. Obviously I have played on the PS3 online, to be disturbed constantly by people with awful broadband lagging, making it near impossible to play and enjoy - those who spend money on Xbox Live are more likely to have the disposable income to spend on a better internet connection, it's basic maths.

Conclusion:
The Playstation 3 is a great console with some amazing features, such as blu-ray, but other than that I don't think there's a lot to it, especially when you can purchase a cheaper console that competes with it unbelievably and has a wider array of games that you'll enjoy playing.

Obviously I am an Xbox 360 owner, so you may think this is just one hell of a biased post - but I've kept my biases to a minimum and tried to be as objective as possible. I have been disappointed in the past by the Xbox 360, but not as disappointed as I have been by the Playstation 3. It's all down to the individual to be honest, but personally I feel that the Xbox 360 is a better console, where the PS3 has got it wrong the xbox has got it right, and Microsoft really have got it right.

I hope people read this, it's taken me like 40 minutes haha.

If you just look around for comparisons you'll see that the Xbox 360 far outperforms the PS3, cpu wise etc.

Go for it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by traxor
Obviously we have to take into account the fact that every service has downtime, just look at what happened to Xbox Live in December, that was catastrophic.

---

And they're fixing that ;p

quote:

---

Originally posted by traxor

Obviously, Sony's Blu-ray feature is pretty much flawless, having destroyed hd-dvd

---

by destroyed, you mean out-bribed right?

Yeah you know what I mean though. In all honesty blu-ray is great and nobody can say it isn't, but I'm not saying that it's good for the PS3, it's just a good format.

And yes, they fixed it a while ago, they even compensated xbox live gold users with a free game, how generous. Microsoft really have their customer support sussed.

I just brought myself a PS3, and in all honesty I believe it has a better feel to it, than the weekend I was playing my friend's Xbox 360.

I think the console has a brighter future ahead, I just couldn't see much else on the 360 that is coming in recent years (apart from Banjo).

Traxor, do you even know what you are talking about? First of all, You can upgrade the HDD, without voiding the warranty, You are also not limited to 120GB. I have a 500GB HDD in my PS3 . The PS3 doesn't "use a 640p resolution" either. The only game I know of that does, is GTA IV, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Doesn't halo run at 640p anyway?

My PS3 also fits nicely under my TV, Unlike my old 360 because of its huge external Power Supply.

Almost everything in your post reeks of M$ fanboyism.

I'm eager for the PS3 Home to come out, it will dominate xbox live!

(P.S, you've chosen a great console ross )

I'm with Dazzy...

none of you has a NPOV, face it. now now, PS3 fanboys, support your opinions the way traxor did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dazzy
Doesn't halo run at 640p anyway?

---

Yes, but a far superior 640p.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bnet
Naturally it’s more complicated than that. In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers – both of which render at 1152x640 pixels. The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see – lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible – so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image.

This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately “real” feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels. Making this decision simpler still is the fact that the 360 scales the “almost-720p” image effortlessly all the way up to 1080p if you so desire.

In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet’s propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven’t mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings.

---

I don't know about the quality of the graphics or the console quality because I haven't used either PS3 or XboX 360. But I believe that the design of PS3 cannot be compared with XboX 360. The PS3 looks amazing. Also, the controller of PS3 is more easy and practical to use while the controller of XboX 360 is very big and difficult to play with. Last but not least, PS3 has a variety of games while XboX has contracts only with several companies and so it has fewer games

quote:

---

Originally posted by Basilis
I don't know about the quality of the graphics or the console quality because I haven't used either PS3 or XboX 360. But I believe that the design of PS3 cannot be compared with XboX 360. The PS3 looks amazing. Also, the controller of PS3 is more easy and practical to use while the controller of XboX 360 is very big and difficult to play with. Last but not least, PS3 has a variety of games while XboX has contracts only with several companies and so it has fewer games

---

Sorry but you are clearly misinformed.

The Xbox's game range is far superior to that of the PS3s.

Nor can you give a comparison of the controllers if you

quote:

---

haven't used either PS3 or XboX 360.

---