Post by: BIGMANSLIM on October 27, 2005, 10:01:00 PM
This post has been edited by BIGMANSLIM: Oct 28 2005, 05:08 AM
Post by: Xombe on October 28, 2005, 11:21:00 PM
I'll buy both, because both the PS2 and Xbox both had some really great titles. Same goes for the PSOne and N64. Both had some really great titles.
So, I've never been much or a "tech/spec" guy. The PSOne vs. N64 gen was like apples and oranges on the hardware level, but they both had kick-ass games. I bought a Dreamcast for the same reason.
I'm waiting to see more of the Revolution, but that's the first system since... maybe the Saturn (which I eventually bought to chip for imports) that hasn't been a must-buy for me.
Fanboys fight over numbers. Number of polygons, number of scanlines, number of times of AA, number or clock cycles.
Numbers have one meaning for me: Number of games that I want to play. Now that Sega is a software-only dev and the Revolution is a waiting game, I need both a 360 and a PS3 to play all the games that have me interested.
Post by: malignantmartyr on October 29, 2005, 01:55:00 PM
Post by: BIGMANSLIM on October 29, 2005, 11:48:00 PM
Post by: malignantmartyr on November 02, 2005, 02:05:00 AM
Post by: PowerCosmic25 on November 03, 2005, 03:47:00 PM
Post by: malignantmartyr on November 06, 2005, 10:22:00 PM
Post by: BottleB on November 15, 2005, 11:17:00 AM
Post by: emudogz on November 18, 2005, 12:16:00 AM
This post has been edited by emudogz: Nov 18 2005, 08:17 AM
Post by: guidop on November 20, 2005, 06:52:00 PM
Post by: Tom-2k5 on November 21, 2005, 05:04:00 AM
Post by: alsybub on November 22, 2005, 04:45:00 AM
Post by: guidop on November 22, 2005, 07:11:00 AM
QUOTE(Tom-2k5 @ Nov 21 2005, 10:04 PM)
im usually a playstation fan but i think i am going to buy the 360 as it looks awesome.
yeah you should buy both, it's the only way to truly make your mind about which is better. i was going to buy both until i heard they are sticking with that double dildo controller
Post by: grogger13 on November 23, 2005, 03:43:00 PM
Post by: guidop on November 23, 2005, 11:19:00 PM
QUOTE(grogger13 @ Nov 24 2005, 08:43 AM)
first of all im not rich, and i bet most people are the same as me on this one, buying both is not an option. That would be about $1000 and maybe more adding games and controllers. I have never been a sony fan and have never owned one of there consoles, but i have been thinking of waiting for ps3 with all the reports of xbox 360 being only a slight improvement to xbox. Anypne think those reports are true or is that just people expecting way to much.
you are misinformed if you think that the 360 is only slightly better than the xbox bcause it's not it's a whole lot better there's a greater jump ps1 to ps2. also both systems are basically the same performance wise it all comes done to what games you prefer
Post by: KAGE360 on November 25, 2005, 11:01:00 AM
Post by: ronetone on November 27, 2005, 03:22:00 AM
Post by: StepsAscend on December 08, 2005, 09:51:00 AM
Post by: Foe-hammer on December 09, 2005, 02:29:00 AM
QUOTE(StepsAscend @ Dec 8 2005, 09:58 AM) 
....multiple monitor support....
Ya, i'll believe that when i see it. There is no fing way it will support two monitors in 1080p res, unless the games are ps1 graphics.
Post by: kics on December 11, 2005, 11:25:00 AM
here are some specs on the consoles
http://hardware.game...ST-x-1985-x-x-x
btw, none of the games on the 360 convince me..... maybe later it will have good titles, i'm interested in ghost recon advanced warfighter and GoW.. and resident evil... so, i'll think i'll wait for the ps3 to see them both in action....
Post by: p2y2r7o on December 11, 2005, 07:03:00 PM
QUOTE(BottleB @ Nov 15 2005, 07:17 PM)
Im getting x360 for sure since nextgen is a week away...maybe ps3 will be stronger but its like waiting to buy a computer...ill wait 2 years later because the processor and ram and whatever will be faster... i think that x360 offers enough power to run the games i want in awsome resolution (hi-def) i don't really care that ps3 has blu-ray since im not buying my gaming console for video...also, being that x360 is a week away and blu-ray like 1/ 1/2 to two years....im going with x360
It's not just movies that will be on blu-ray, the games will be on blu-ray also.
Post by: StepsAscend on December 15, 2005, 10:16:00 PM
Post by: HotCross435 on December 15, 2005, 11:48:00 PM
Post by: sunbound on December 31, 2005, 09:48:00 AM
I own all three current generation game systems, and I purchased the PS2 first because I had a play station one, and at the time a DVD player was still expensive. So not only could I still play my old games, I could play new games, and DVDs. Xbox really didnt have anything I really wanted. It did not have a previous console, and I had to buy a remote to play DVDs.
Then I bought my game cube cause i'm a RE freak, and I felt that game cube had better graphics than playstation 2.
Then I bought my Xbox because I wanted to play splinter cell, but with the best graphics.... that, and all the things you can do with a hacked Xbox.
PS3 is intreguing because of the blue-ray, and the multi-TV support. Granted, the demos as E3 looked great... but im waiting to see actual games run on actual hardware.
I know I love my 360, the ability of watching content on another storage device, especially my computer downstairs (about 600 gigs of movies), made it more than worth it. The backwards compatibility is only a small plus for me, considering I cannot get on XBL with my hacked box, but now I can play some of my XBL games on my 360.
I will probably be buying the next Nintendo machine, for the basic fact that I can download and play the entire old library on it, and play my game cube games (its busted right now). That and the last machine was cheap compared to the other 2. The next machine is rumored to cost $100.
I might buy a PS3, depending on capability and games. I like MGS, and thats about the only PS exclusive series Im interested in at the moment.
I dont think I will be catching the next 2 systems at launch. I dont have as much interest in them right now... but things might change, and I might be a nut job again, camping outside for the next piece of gaming fun.
Post by: jesterrace777 on December 31, 2005, 12:26:00 PM
Post by: TheColonel on January 03, 2006, 07:53:00 AM
Post by: aquitoy on January 13, 2006, 01:45:00 PM
Post by: metaldevil on January 19, 2006, 03:39:00 AM
The next big thing is the price. While I can afford it, I'm less inclined to purchase a system that costs $500+ at launch than a $400 one, especially if it doesn't come with a game and a second controller.
Post by: rasstar on January 19, 2006, 12:33:00 PM
Post by: SpartanMasterChief on January 25, 2006, 12:04:00 PM
I'm satisfied with all my games for my Xbox 1/Xbox 360 and I love what it can do as a system. Live Marketplace, Live Arcade, Connectivity with my Media Center, I couldn't ask for more.
Post by: Reaper527 on February 07, 2006, 12:43:00 AM
QUOTE(sunbound @ Dec 31 2005, 11:55 AM)
I will probably be buying the next Nintendo machine, for the basic fact that I can download and play the entire old library on it, and play my game cube games (its busted right now). That and the last machine was cheap compared to the other 2. The next machine is rumored to cost $100.
where did you hear that rumor? the only rumors i've heard is that a smash bros game is already under development by the same team that made the first 2, and will be ready for launch. i saw on IGN that nintendo is probably going to release some more details at the GDC in march
http://revolution.ig...5/685830p1.html
QUOTE
While all this is still specualation at this point, it wouldn't be surprising for Nintendo to make an announcement of some sort prior to E3 in order to build excitement for the still-mysterious Revolution. That said, IGN Revolution has heard from sources close to Nintendo that the company will not go all out with Revolution information prior to E3 2006. More likely, say insiders, the company will speak specifically to developers about the potential of Revolution at GDC and keep secrets about pricing and release date info closely guarded.
sounds like price is still very uncertain, and i'm curious as to when it was going to come out, i had heard spring a while back, but if they aren't releasing most of the specs til may, i think fall is much more likely.
didn't mean to hijack the 360 or ps3 discussion (although i think revolution should be part of it)
i personally think the 360 is the best of the bunch, i have mine already and absolutely love condemned, perfect dark zero, and doa4, and the xbox live arcade is great, hexic and geometry wars are some of the best "sit down and play" games i've ever seen.
ps3 hasn't really shown me anything that impresses me, and they have been known to overpromise and under deliver. they have already started that, originally they where claiming the cell was going to be 4ghz, now everything online says its actually 3.2, and the every ps3 will come with a harddrive, they seem to be backing away from that. they claim they will make a unified online service better then xbox live, but they must have no idea as to how hard that actually is in practice because to get the developers on board to support it, plus all the technical network work that has to get done, they are in for a big surprise.
the revolution would have me much more excited if they would show some games in action and show what kind of games will take advantage of the motion sensors in the controller. i'm very excited at the smash bros. rumor and the controller is very hit or miss, but i like the idea and can't wait to try it out. i will definately be buying a revolution at launch if its $200 or less like the gc was.
Post by: kidkinetix on February 09, 2006, 04:17:00 PM
If we had this argument in 3 years, each console would have it's strengths and weaknesses out in the open. If i were to randomly guess a grade for each.
(please keep in mind this is all BS, or assumption per say
)PS3 : score B
- same 'ol story; Huge lineup of games, Lots of standout titles
- Blu-ray A nice feature but noly being utilized by 20 % or so of owners for movies, but number climbing fast
- Good Online Support, Friendslist etc, games use p2p bandwidth rather than hosted servers, unless the publisher provides the service.
- Controller ugly but actually comfortable. When thrown out windows will not return like boomerang despite numerous claims on 360-FanboyLove.com
360 : score B-
- Xbox Live Arcade Huge Hit, over 400 titles, many of which have online play. Rebirth of many classics, Great original titles.
- Xbox Live still best console online network
- Lineup very solid, many ports between ps3 and 360. Decent amount of standout titles (unique to console)
- Windows Vista used in home more, streaming video on the mind of every 360 owner. 80% of users playing their own music in games (streamed over network)
Gamers : Score A
- Lots of choices, Lots of online games, Lots of Co-op play, Constantly in contact with fellow gamers for easy pick up games.
- Choice and 2 power hungry consoles and one neato console with amazing IP (intellectual properties)
infinium ? Labs Phantom : Score A+
- hah.
Post by: Chicken_Chaser on June 25, 2006, 06:23:00 PM
Post by: lostboyz on June 26, 2006, 05:26:00 AM
there are plenty of new topics that you can talk about all day but leaves ones like these to die
Post by: incognegro on June 27, 2006, 07:35:00 AM
Nintendo Wii:
There is a reason why this system is being seen as a budget system, because that was nintendo's intention all along. They knew they can't match up with MS and Sony so they went a separate route. Now I have never been the biggest nintendo fan (ever since the nes I have disliked them) but the wii has potential. Nintendo has always been the king of crappy gimmicky and over the top peripherals and it shows with the wii controller which I dont dislike. the main problem have with the wii is that the focus is more on casual gaming rather than hardcore which may cause players to think of it as a "mario party" system. It's obvious when you see how the competing companies look at the system (they all think its a good "alternative") and I think that its a gift and a curse. I mean wario ware is the most promising title for the system as far as im concerned and that is just weird to me. I can't take a system like that seriously, im sorry (and the name doesn't make things easier). Its not a must buy, its more like a if-I-have-change-left-over purchase. Atleast its cheap....
Sony Playstation 3:
I used to tolerate sony in the psone days cause I had no real choice and they managed to impress me with how they managed the psone. That all ended with the ps2. The dreamcast was cheaper and more impressive. The ps2 had some great but nothing that would make me buy the system (multiplayer titles are must buys for me), anyways it doesn't matter cause it sold like crazy. I got both anyway and didn't like it, plus with sega being out the game i really wasn't looking forward to playing games anymore. Anyways I got a psp and I thought it was kool but it also help me realise what sony's weakness really is (i mean the whole company not just the gaming division) they suck at software type stuff. so the hardware never really see its potential because the software driving it seems to be flawed. I expect all the stuff to affect the ps3 especially since its so ambitious. With this in mind I dont think the ps3 will be worth its price. Does anybody think that the ps3 ( or any gaming system for that matter) is worth $600 and $60-$70 games? I don't. This is not a bias against sony I just can't see myself spending that type of money on a gaming system. Whats worse is its not my favourite company in the world. Until the ps3 actually becomes worth the money theyre asking for (probably 2 years into its cycle) im not interested.
Xbox 360:
Yes I do like the 360 and currently own one. I like it because of its potential. Like nintendo MS is sticking to what they do best: software. Sure the 360 has killer hardware but MS has succesfully turned XBL into the 360's real killer app and I like that direction. As a result MS has achieved a fine balance between games and hardware and thats what is essential to succes. They also managed to do this before any of its competition hits market (and everyone knows MS is at their best when monopolizing). They did a good job so far. Already with a handful of good games and budget titles the 360 would be a safe bet as far as im concerned.
Post by: Mr Invader on July 09, 2006, 01:17:00 PM
What definetely wins me over in a console war isn't the specs of the console, it isn't the 720p or 1080i/p, and it isn't even the online. ITS THE GAMES. I don't care about anything else. All the fancy mumbo-jumbo is just an add on. Great games like Halo, Zelda, Oblivion, KOTOR, Ghost Recon, Super Smash Bros, etc. is what I'm looking at. I'll start caring about High definiton later on when they are actually widely available and more affordable. As for console specs... they both look the same on a standard 480p television. So yeah idc. And online play is a very nice feature to any console, but as long as the game has a solid single player (Zelda, Oblivion, etc.) then i dont really need online (but it is nice to have for all those multiplayer games)
thats me and my opinion about the console wars
Post by: Sc4rfac3 on July 10, 2006, 10:35:00 AM
but my main will always be the 360.
Post by: fallen4ng31 on July 14, 2006, 10:15:00 AM
I already own a 360, I must say for the price (compared to the MSRP of the PS3) I have been pleased. Of course MS suffered from the launch, instead of having consoles on hand...well...we all know what happened there. The redesigned controller has both perks and flaws; The shoulder buttons instead of the worthless black and white being the biggest in my mind. I have found the Xbox button tends to get hit sometimes by accident when I'm playing fight night, however, which is a HUGE drawback. (An option to turn it off would be nice) No DVD dongle crap, nuff said.
Proprietary memory cards...WHY?!?! You have onboard USB... I won't mention the $100 wireless adapter, oops.
MS, however, does have quite a few more devs on board this time around. We'll just have to wait till 2007 for more than 6 decent titles.
As to the PS3, I must say first that no matter what I say I will still own one, that said. With a suggested $600 US price tag, it sees as though owning s0nys new consoles are going to require second mortgages in the future... But honestly I have no doubt that with the PS3's impressive hardware it will be an amazing machine. And, S0ny has an extensive number of soft devs already on board. I don't know if there was any creedance to the rumor, but no rumble? While this is fine for most games, I would still like to have it for the ambient effect in survival horror games and a few assorted others. Also, Blu-Ray, a good media, however if HD-DVD takes off instead, Sony maybe setting itself up for another betamax debacle, only now they have the money to keep sinking in.
Vote - 360
Post by: Foe-hammer on July 16, 2006, 05:06:00 AM
QUOTE(Chicken_Chaser @ Jun 25 2006, 06:30 PM)
I'm getting a Ps3 on launch, and maybe a 360 later on if Halo 3 and Fable 2 look good enough. I buy consoles based on graphics, and to me Ps2 and Xboxwere pretty much the same so I bought an Xbox after they were released for the different games (Plus the Halo packs look awsome). I bought a Ps2 before Xbox, so i'll buy a Ps3 before 360, even if it is released later, and hey if one of them sucks, i'll play the other! And people, stop complaining about the price. They make stuff expensive for reasons like quality, etc. otherwise everything would be the same price. Oh, and i probably won't buy a Wii. Not a nintendo fan.
You're a graphics guy and could not see the difference between xbox and ps2 games?
THen you sure as hell won't be seeing any difference between the 360 and ps3 games.Post by: yourM0M on July 26, 2006, 03:52:00 PM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Jul 16 2006, 12:13 PM)
You're a graphics guy and could not see the difference between xbox and ps2 games?
THen you sure as hell won't be seeing any difference between the 360 and ps3 games.might as well had a dreamcast too then since it out preforms the ps2 in graphics
Post by: Deftech on July 26, 2006, 09:36:00 PM
wtf? someone needs their eyes checked, pronto.
Im sure between myself and Foe, we could list 50 prime examples of games that shouldnt have even been made for ps2, and more that can't run on it period, where as the xbox versions were decent 2 excellent.
It all starts with wolfenstien, maps were cut in half due to constraints, it looked and moved terrible. I was happy they bothered though because it showed how lacking the hardware is in comparison.
every single splinter cell looks like total ass on ps2, all pea soup green crap. Dont make me post comparison pics for the 1,000 time.
R6 3 on ps2 was a freakin joke. You can hardly distinguish the weapons from the arms, that system cant run an unreal engine powered game worth shite. And if youre thinking of replying with "some games look almost the same" youll get a "because they were nothing but ps2 ports to begin with" for a reply. When a developer tailors a game for each respective system, the ps2 doesnt stand a chance in hell. The DC walked all over it, something the zombies hate hearing(something theyll never admit ofcourse).
Its sad that Ubi chose Not to tweak the splinter cell gamecube versions, they looked just as bad if not worse than the ps2. The GC is capable of much more, so moral of the story is that the ps2 comes in behind not only the Xbox, but the GC and the DC. Such is life.
the ps2 would melt trying to run something like doom 3 or half life 2. Oh wait, they do melt on their own
after all these years, the sony zombies are not only still stubborn and ignorant, but they get more ignorant with every freakin passing year.
"ps2 and xbox games looked pretty much the same"
*SIGH*
HAHAHAHAHAHA, Please forgive me, I just imagined the ps2 trying to run Rallisport/Rallisport 2
Hahahahahahahaha
Muwhahahahahahahahahahahaha
Post by: incognegro on July 27, 2006, 08:36:00 AM
QUOTE
Oh wait, they do melt on their own pop.gif
lmao