Xbox 360 vs PS3

[CupraR]

So, who is waiting for the PS3, who is getting the Xbox 360 (if you can find one), who is buying both and who is sticking with their Sinclair Spectrum 28k?

Personally I'm waiting for the PS3 because a) I have a PS2, b) it seems to be the more powerful console and c) the initial game lineup looks better. I don't see a killer game in the Xbox 360 lineup.

EDIT: Sorry forgot to include the Nintendo Revolution in the title

>> Edited by CupraR on Wednesday 30th November 14:18

[Jaglover]

I'm waiting to get the 360 when prices come down.

[scorp]

Ill get both

[Raify]

I'm waiting for the PS3, because I can live without playing HALO.

[xm5er]

So where can I get a really cheap PS2?

[Nevin]

CupraR said:

So, who is waiting for the PS3, who is getting the Xbox 360 (if you can find one), who is buying both and who is sticking with their Sinclair Spectrum 28k? Personally I'm waiting for the PS3 because a) I have a PS2, b) it seems to be the more powerful console and c) the initial game lineup looks better. I don't see a killer game in the Xbox 360 lineup.

Getting both, but not for a couple of months after release.

Why is having a PS2 relevant to your decision though? Are you proposing getting rid of it if the PS3 is backwards compatible, or just keeping it?

Likewise with the power. PS3 may be more powerful on paper than the 360, but they are both at such a level that this is pretty much irrelevant. It will be the games that make the system. Power battles have fallen by the wayside since the old 16/32 bit wars.

No killer 360 games? What about Project Gotham 3? I would buy one for that alone. Perfect Dark Zero as well is something I am looking forward to.

Too busy working through stuff on my PSP and DS just now though.

[neil.b]

I want a Nintendo Revolution.

The only new console that seems to be doing something different apart from "we can put eleventy squillion pixels on the screen so nerrrr....."

IMHO

[Nevin]

neil.b said:

I want a Nintendo Revolution. The only new console that seems to be doing something different apart from "we can put eleventy squillion pixels on the screen so nerrrr....." IMHO

Yup, that's my most eagerly awaited of the three. No particular innovation on a PS3 or 360, i.e you could do most of their games on a PC.

Nintendo have always had the vision, they just lack the public buy-in nowadays.

[Jaglover]

Nevin said:

Perfect Dark Zero as well is something I am looking forward to.

Me too

and of course Halo 3

[andy mac]

Nevin said:

neil.b said: I want a Nintendo Revolution. The only new console that seems to be doing something different apart from "we can put eleventy squillion pixels on the screen so nerrrr....." IMHO Yup, that's my most eagerly awaited of the three. No particular innovation on a PS3 or 360, i.e you could do most of their games on a PC. Nintendo have always had the vision, they just lack the public buy-in nowadays.

Nintendo's games never seeed as good as the PS or X-box. They were always too cartoony, and platformy! It think the rest have a far better range of games.

[slapmatt]

PS3, same reasons as you Cupra dude

[CupraR]

Nevin said:

Why is having a PS2 relevant to your decision though? Are you proposing getting rid of it if the PS3 is backwards compatible, or just keeping it? Likewise with the power. PS3 may be more powerful on paper than the 360, but they are both at such a level that this is pretty much irrelevant. It will be the games that make the system. Power battles have fallen by the wayside since the old 16/32 bit wars. No killer 360 games? What about Project Gotham 3? I would buy one for that alone. Perfect Dark Zero as well is something I am looking forward to. Too busy working through stuff on my PSP and DS just now though.

Yes, the PS3 is backwards compatible (as is the Xbox 360 I think) so that's important because it means I can keep my PS2 games.

Perfect Dark Zero does look good but I'm not really a Project Gotham fan. Give me Gran Turismo any day.

[TheLemming]

andy mac said:

Nevin said: neil.b said: I want a Nintendo Revolution. The only new console that seems to be doing something different apart from "we can put eleventy squillion pixels on the screen so nerrrr....." IMHO Yup, that's my most eagerly awaited of the three. No particular innovation on a PS3 or 360, i.e you could do most of their games on a PC. Nintendo have always had the vision, they just lack the public buy-in nowadays. Nintendo's games never seeed as good as the PS or X-box. They were always too cartoony, and platformy! It think the rest have a far better range of games.

They did and do tend towards the cartoony and platformy, but they also tend towards the highly playable and innovative.

Very much a personal taste thing, having said that I havent had a nintendo home console since the Super Nes. I've just never gotten round to one, always meant to...

Portable wise, I always have the previous generation handheld when the next one is released (ie will buy a DS when they release the next one... or when its damn cheap in a couple of years). They are always priced to move and have some trul great games.

[neil.b]

CupraR said:

Nevin said: Why is having a PS2 relevant to your decision though? Are you proposing getting rid of it if the PS3 is backwards compatible, or just keeping it? Likewise with the power. PS3 may be more powerful on paper than the 360, but they are both at such a level that this is pretty much irrelevant. It will be the games that make the system. Power battles have fallen by the wayside since the old 16/32 bit wars. No killer 360 games? What about Project Gotham 3? I would buy one for that alone. Perfect Dark Zero as well is something I am looking forward to. Too busy working through stuff on my PSP and DS just now though. Yes, the PS3 is backwards compatible (as is the Xbox 360 I think) so that's important because it means I can keep my PS2 games. Perfect Dark Zero does look good but I'm not really a Project Gotham fan. Give me Gran Turismo any day.

360 backwards compatibility is an ongoing project for MS. There's a slowly growing list of titles that work. Many hundreds that do not. Its largely because the 360 runs a Xbox emulator to enable you to play old Xbox games and, as such, is troubled by incompatibility.

PS3? Well, Sony promised backwards compatibilty for the PS2 with PS1. I'll let you decide if they made a good job of that....

[Jaglover]

I had a N64

Played the legendary Goldeneye and the first Perfect Dark

[CupraR]

Jaglover said:

I had a N64 Played the legendary Goldeneye and the first Perfect Dark

Same here. Goldeneye in multiplayer mode has to be one of the best games ever.

[Cyberhuss]

Are they not recalling the 360s? because they keep on crashing on people with a 'general game fault' error or something similar. people where taking pics and recording videos of it and posting them on the 360 forums iirc, from what i've heard it's a very buggy system!

News reports:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4466688.stm

http://news.com.com/Crash+reports+hit+Xbox+360/2100-

www.forbes.com/markets/2005/11/25/microsoft-target-conocophillips-cx_ab_1125video2.html?partner=rss





Actual video of it crashing:

http://209.59.179.55/3260052289-xvid.avi

>> Edited by Cyberhuss on Wednesday 30th November 14:34

[scorp]

Ive got a 360 here, seems stable to me. I heard its something to do with faulty cooling systems in a limited number of units.

[dick dastardly]

CupraR said:

Personally I'm waiting for the PS3 because a) I have a PS2, b) it seems to be the more powerful console and c) the initial game lineup looks better. I don't see a killer game in the Xbox 360 lineup.

Exactly the same here. Other than the Halo and PGR games I think that Sony have the better titles by far.

[Nevin]

andy mac said:

Nevin said: neil.b said: I want a Nintendo Revolution. The only new console that seems to be doing something different apart from "we can put eleventy squillion pixels on the screen so nerrrr....." IMHO Yup, that's my most eagerly awaited of the three. No particular innovation on a PS3 or 360, i.e you could do most of their games on a PC. Nintendo have always had the vision, they just lack the public buy-in nowadays. Nintendo's games never seeed as good as the PS or X-box. They were always too cartoony, and platformy! It think the rest have a far better range of games.

I don't think you could necessarily accuse Nintendo's games of being too platformy. Cartoony maybe. And anyway, there were always dozens of non-Nintendo games available on Nintendo consoles.

What Nintendo games almost always have is the elusive element of playability which so many other developers fail to capture. Massive budgets and development teams certainly help, but you need the right vision and empathy to do this. I would rather have one Legen of Zelda or Super Mario game for every ten FIFAs, Tiger Woods, etc which seem to be the staple diet that infests Playstation and XBox.

Not saying that there aren't a lot of good games on those systems as well though.

When choosing though, just go for the console which looks olike having most of the type of games you like playing of a decent quality and you can't go far wrong.