True unbiased Ps3 vs. 360 comparison




Posted by IPwnN00bs117

first i would like to say that, i don't wan't nintendo fans going like "they're both crap" because that is not true. and i'm sure you've seen this headline many times, but this one is different. i own both, and i will give my unbiased opinion. i'm sure you know the routine, i will go through some aspects of each system (that actually matter), and give a comparison. and i would like ppl to actually read the whole thing before responding. thank you.

1: Hardware-
The 360 and ps3 each have good hardware. they each have a good video/audio output, up to 1080p and each run games very well. The Ps3 has a slight upper-hand in hardware, but it doesn't really amount to the price difference you pay over the 360

2: Software:
The 360 is dominating in this category in my opinion. the ps3 has some core games, that are amazing, but there just aren't enough to compete w/ the massive amount of awesome 360 games. the 360 has the advantage because it has been out for about a year longer.

3: Online-
Xbox live is very extensive, w/ just about every function one could ask for online. games load quick, lags very infrequently if ever (depending on connection situation, my wireless works flawlessly). except all those are expected when you pay $60 a year.

PSN is a very nice program. it supports online play nicely, and has a nice web browser. but sometimes the updates can cause an online game to malfunction, and sometimes it can be unreliable, when you are accessing the XMB from a game. it may freeze, or kick you out. but what do you expect for nothing.

4: MEDIA-
The 360 is slightly lacking in this category. it has basic functionality of video/audio play. Ripping ability (which is unpredictable, because you cannot rip burned cd's unless they are burned precisely they way it wants), PC connectivity, which doesn't account for much because rarely do you have a setup where that is possible and i think they could do better. all of which were fine w/ me until i got a Ps3. The 360 is good, but does not exceed expectations.

The Ps3 has an excellent media function. Videos, music, and pictures can all be easily copied to the Ps3 with very little wait, and very little frustration. itis more accessible for more different media types, that aren't accessible on the 360 until the media update. if you have a video on your ipod, you just go to Video, Portable Device, Copy. which is very efficient. but the visualizations on the ps3 are crap.

5: Memory-
The 360 has plenty of memory for just about everything you need, especially if you have the elite like me (which as nearly twice the memory of the biggest Ps3, and costs the same). The Ps3 sounds appealing at first w/ all that memory, but half of it is for common data, and half is for game saves. So whatever Ps3 unit you were planning on getting, cut it in half. and if you get close to that limit it refuses to let you to play online, because it needs the virtual memory, unlike the 360.

6: Miscellaneous-
The 360 is a strong system w/ a very large line of awesome games, a good online function, a passable media function, and nice all around. But the 360 is loud and more prone to damage from overheating, (and i HATE the NXE dashboard, and you can't disable it). And personally i like the 360 controller better, but that is probably because i never owned a Ps-anything except a psp.

The Ps3 is a very extensive system, although the hardware/software is not balanced like the 360. there are too many processors, not enough memory to support it's own gaming functionality. and small overlooked details like that. i have both, and i must say that the graphics, aren't really that nuch different, especially for games like Assassin's Creed, which is for each. so they could probably scrap 4 processors, and charge you $150 less.


overall i think that both systems are great systems. if they were one they would be flawless, but as for "which one is better" they each, are better where the other is worse, so for me it is hard to tell. The 360 has a lot of things that i wish the Ps3 had, and the Ps3 has things that i wish the 360 had. sorry people. Which one do i play more? the 360 definately, because of all of the awesome games. and i realized that there aren't really any "party" games for Ps3. except things like Guitar Hero which is also on the 360.




Posted by Linko_16

they're both crap




Posted by IPwnN00bs117

i knew that would happen.




Posted by Shade

No you didn't.




Posted by maian

In all honesty, I hardly see a need for "console wars" at this point. 360 and PS3 are almost the same things, with a couple of different exclusives, and Nintendo is just off in its own little world (To their own benefit).

It really is a joke that, every time I ever stumble into GT forums, every thread inevitably turns into a mindless argument over 360/PS3 superiority. It's saddening.

I like all of 'em, personally. Except for Wii. That might change if Nintendo learns how to not be retarded.




Posted by #061402

The saddest thing indeed is how many think superiority lies with superior hardware.




Posted by Speedfreak

He pwns noobs 117 days a year.

Presumably because his win percentage is under 33%.




Posted by Klarth

consumer electronics products




Posted by #061402


Quoting Speedfreak: He pwns noobs 117 days a year.

Presumably because his win percentage is under 33%.


I'm guessing the '117' is a reference to Master Chief.



Posted by Speedfreak

That's a lot funnier.




Posted by IPwnN00bs117

let me just clear some things yes it is a reference to master chief. (which is a Navy rank who knew?), my recent exposure to ps3, and the one-sided comparisons gave me the idea to do this, and amen to Maian on just about every account.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: The 360 and ps3 each have good hardware.


stopped reading. 360 doesn't have good hardware



that's unbiased.



Posted by IPwnN00bs117

i believe that i requested all to "read the entire thing before replying" when you don't, THAT is biased




Posted by #061402


Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: stopped reading. 360 doesn't have good hardware


It has good hardware alright. It's just craptastically built. :cookie: Don't hate the hardware, hate the technician who put it togethar.



Posted by coromoro


Quoting maian: I like all of 'em, personally. Except for Wii. That might change if Nintendo learns how to not be retarded.


What, in your opinion, would make Nintendo "non-retarded?"



Posted by Speedfreak

They could give the next Zelda good level design.




Posted by coromoro

TP's level design was bad? Do explain. :o




Posted by maian

[quote=coromoro]What, in your opinion, would make Nintendo "non-retarded?"

How about remembering that they actually have a fanbase beyond 25 year old women that live in modern apartments? I mean, gawd, Nintendo is indeed raking it in. They're making nearly triple, if not more than PS3, 360, and PSP combined. But haven't you noticed? What really good, I mean, really good Wii games have come out since, hell, Brawl? I know that for 360 and PS3, we've gotten titles such as Fallout, Fable, Gears, LBP, MGS4, Dead Space, Resistance 2, and more. There hasn't been a single game for the Wii I've wanted to buy since March. There's a few that have kind of caught my attention, but when I look at the choices I have on the other end, they suddenly don't look appetizing. Not because of hardware capabilities, as I've stated time and time again that I don't care about graphical capabilities and whatnot in the least.

The fact is, Nintendo has forgotten about the hardcore market. At least, they have for the last eight months. Do you remember E3? To please their "core gamers", Nintendo showed GTA DS, Clone Wars, and fscking Rayman. Please. They showed off Animal Crossing for their core fans, only for it to be released as a complete rehash of Wild World that any player who has played Animal Crossing before won't care to buy. Not to mention they advertised it as another casual game, obviously marketed to the non-gamers. The big game that made a flashy entrance with smoke and drumrolls at E3 was Wii Music, a mediocre instrument simulator with less capabilities than Garage Band that received 5.0s across the board.

Nintendo sucks right now. Almost everybody agrees. I never thought I'd see myself saying it, since I've been Nintendo biased my whole life. But until Nintendo remembers that they have a real fanbase, I no longer care for them. Zelda Wii MIGHT change that, but then, TP was a disappointment to me. Nintendo's making more money than anybody, but money doesn't always mean quality. I'm absolutely loving the Playstation 3 right now, and Sony's the ones that are technically doing the worst. But, I don't care, because I've gotten to play games like MGS4, LBP, and Home while I sadly watch dust collect on my Wii.




Posted by coromoro

I partly sympathize with you there, maian. I'm pretty sure I came off as a jerk there. I thought you were coming from the standpoint of "Wii-controllers-suck-that's-why-the-other-consoles-are-better." Sorry.

I just thought it a little harsh of you to call Nintendo retarded, when they are simple company making a profit, in an innovative way. A company's goal is usually to make as most money as possible, so it's understandable. I'm not angry at Nintendo because they've innovated gaming substantially and have brought so many people into the gaming world. The games that have actually been made for us hardcore gamers on the Wii have turned out to be fantastic (Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3, Zack & Wiki), but the sad thing is that there is few. Nintendo has sacrificed their main focus on hardcore gaming but it's at the price of innovation. I have a strong belief that this sacrifice is only temporary... And if I'm right then it's a small price to pay for this era of innovation. For now, hardcore gamers have the PS3 and the 360, so I'm not worried.

I've also been a loyal Nintendo fan since I was a kid, but nowadays my Wii collects dust in another country, and I'm considering buying either a PS3 or a 360. The hardcore gamer in me hasn't been very satisfied lately.




Posted by maian

I understand how they're driving for innovation, but for the gamer, it's all in vain when they sacrafice actual good gaming for it. Would I rather play a good game with traditional controls, or a terrible game with controls that are, conceptually, really good? The former.

I was a VERY strong believer of the "temporary" status of the Wii, and that developers would change their mind and Wii would become a strong force for core gamers. After two years, Nintendo's "temporary" drought has not changed. While I'm slowly waiting for Nintendo to, someday, become awesome, I'll be happily playing better than awesome games that come out nearly every month for PS3 and Xbox.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: It has good hardware alright. It's just craptastically built. Don't hate the hardware, hate the technician who put it togethar.


Quality has everything to do with hardware, which is where the 360 fails pretty badly. **** hardware.



Posted by #061402

Yeah I'm pretty sure I'll change my mind when my box goes to Xbox Heaven.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

and it will. otherwise you're not a true xbox owner




Posted by #061402

It should come soon. I basically let it run for several hours a day.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

should happen within a year and a half of purchase.




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

mine happened exactly 18 months after i started playing

the 360's hardware is definitely terrible. my SNES still works despite me throwing it as a kid and dropping pepperoni slices in there, but a year-old console i treat with complete care? ONE RED RING BUDDY




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

November 2005 to May 2007.

Surprised how long it lasted considering it was a first-gen




Posted by #061402

A year and a half? Still got about a year left, then.




Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=coromoro;906651][COLOR=limegreen]TP's level design was bad? Do explain. :o[/COLOR]

First room: Here is a key
Second room: Here is a locked door
Third Room: Use item here.

I shouldn't have to explain why this is bad.




Posted by coromoro

Oh, yes, I guess you're right. Comparing that to the Water Temple in Ocarina, for example, really puts it into contrast.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Except that was the other extreme if you ask me. They just need to find a balance between the water temple and all of TP.




Posted by coromoro


Quoting maian: I understand how they're driving for innovation, but for the gamer, it's all in vain when they sacrafice actual good gaming for it. Would I rather play a good game with traditional controls, or a terrible game with controls that are, conceptually, really good? The former.

I was a VERY strong believer of the "temporary" status of the Wii, and that developers would change their mind and Wii would become a strong force for core gamers. After two years, Nintendo's "temporary" drought has not changed. While I'm slowly waiting for Nintendo to, someday, become awesome, I'll be happily playing better than awesome games that come out nearly every month for PS3 and Xbox.


But see, to me it seems like we're just being selfish. There are three great and popular consoles out right now, and as opposed to them all being similar, as we saw during the last generation, one's striving to be different. You're right, they've put us core gamers to the side, and you're right, this might not be temporary after all. Three great consoles, note that this hasn't happened in years (I guess it [url=http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/images/2008/02/14/video_game_console_timeline.jpg]has happened[/url], but never to this current extent of popularity, excluding last-gen, of course.), and we want all these three consoles to focus on the core gamer. There's already two solely devoted to that, and yes, though Nintendo's core games have always been different and fantastic in their own way, maybe it's time for us to forget about them. At least they're bringing more people into the gaming world, and we'll still get the occasional first-party hardcore game, but they won't all be so.



Posted by coromoro


Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: Except that was the other extreme if you ask me. They just need to find a balance between the water temple and all of TP.


I kinda liked it when it was that extreme. A temple giving me a ****ing hard time, and being stuck on it for days.

I remember always being pi[color=limegreen]ss
ed off at the Water Temple, and then watching my little brother (who must have been 7 years-old at the time) playing through it for the first time. I remember commenting on its difficulty and how he'd probably have to ask me for help. He beat it in less than 40 minutes and didn't once get stuck... ****, there's a new Zelda master at the house, I thought. :([/color]



Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: A temple giving me a ****ing hard time, and being stuck on it for days.


That's never really why I played Zelda. I mean, it definitely needs to be harder than TP/WW, but it doesn't need to be difficult. I never saw the point in making an adventure game difficult. But that's just me.



Posted by coromoro

Oh, I see. I guess we just have differing opinions.

For me the way it should be is that you're setting out on a long adventure that won't be easy! You'll find many difficult dungeons and monsters along the way. You're on a huge quest to save the world, and you're one against hundreds! :link:

That kind of mindset makes it more worthwhile at the end for me. :cool:




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

That kinda **** makes more sense when it's a game like DMC or Ninja Gaiden. You know, where the combat is a bit more fleshed out and allows for the easy juggling of multiple enemies. Only place Zelda needs to step it up is in puzzles and bosses. Enemies shouldn't be ****hard, but bosses should, you know, pose at least a minor challenge. And puzzles should be more difficult than "you found a key, open door!" or "step on block, open door!"

But again, I don't want to be sitting in front of a puzzle for two days wondering what the **** I should do. Difficulty along the lines of Portal would be nice. Just hard enough to make you stop and think for a couple seconds, but not hard enough to be frustrating.




Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;907193]Except that was the other extreme if you ask me. They just need to find a balance between the water temple and all of TP.

They found it, Majora's Mask had glorious level design. Unfortunately we have the director of the series saying s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it like this:

[quote]I’m happy that [Ocarina of Time] remains highly praised to this day, but that also shows how none of the subsequent games in the series have surpassed it. As someone who is still working on the series, I have mixed feelings about that. Because I haven’t yet surpassed it, I can’t quit. Surprisingly, that simply motivation may be the reason I continue to work on the Zelda series.

They should stop trying to make the game as long as possible and bring back the second quest instead, with rock-hard versions of the bosses and dungeons.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Most fans are in agreement that OoT was the best, and that seems to be what he's referring to, that no game since has gotten the same praise and he can't quit until he surpasses that level of praise. Not that he personally thinks it's the greatest.

That's how I read it anyways. And in that regard, can't really blame him for saying that, since it's more or less true.




Posted by IPwnN00bs117

i think that the quality of the Wii is just below that of even the 360, it may die, and you may lose if for 2 weeks, but at least you can get a lot of awesome games. the wii misses out on so much that the ps3 ans 360 share. including:

Prince Of Persia
Assassin's Creed (not the sh!tty ds version, i'm talkin the REAL version)
Lost Planet
BioShock
COD 4

the list goes on.

i got a wii for free, left it in the box, and sold it on craigslist. i think even tho the 360 has a minor defect that puts one's xbox out for 2 weeks, the wii hardware is still unmatched to that of the 360 and ps3. The ps3 doesn't have that many great games, but the ones they do have are really good. and they both have HD, HDMI, 20GB-120GB of memory, DVD playback, and all those good games that are exclusive and shared between the two. i think that nintendo could do much better if they really wanted to.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: 360 has a minor defect


Complete system failure isn't a minor defect. It's a horrible, serious flaw that costs a lot of money in replacement or repairs. Causing a company to lose over one billion dollars doesn't equate to something minor.



Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

minor defect = your console ****ing dies, yeah okay buddy

dvd drive = awful
GPU = melts
processor = melts




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

xvamp samepost cross-counter combo attack activate!!




Posted by IPwnN00bs117

well then, you play your wii, and i'll play my 360 and ps3. the point is that it is still better that the wii. no need for hate, i was just sayin...




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

the 360 is the best console but its hardware ****ing sucks




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

uh, me and x are huge xbots. That doesn't stop us from, you know, admitting it has some of the ****tiest hardware in a gaming machine to date.

Seriously, for an apparently unbiased opinion on consoles you sure are biased.




Posted by IPwnN00bs117

defective, poor design: yes. bad: not necessarily i don't think.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

No, that's bad. Over a 30% rate of failure is abysmal for any product.




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

if you dont think a 1/3 of all 360s failing is bad you're freakin nuts bro




Posted by #061402


Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: Complete system failure isn't a minor defect. It's a horrible, serious flaw that costs a lot of money in replacement or repairs. Causing a company to lose over one billion dollars doesn't equate to something minor.


Indeed. It's true that a billion dollars is probably just pocket money to them, but still. I'm surprised they haven't done enough to stop it by now.



Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

More profitable for them to have the fault exist. I've bought two consoles from them already.




Posted by Sapphire Rose

same bought a xbawx and it broke

got a new one broke

aaaaaaaaaaaaand got a new one.... broke

no more for me




Posted by Aioros

[COLOR="Yellow"]I bought my Xbox on April of 07' and it still works fine, how much longer do i have before it explodes? Or is mine a newer/ better version, less likely to malfunction? [/COLOR]




Posted by maian

good thing ps3s aren't doing that

lol




Posted by #061402


Quoting The X: More profitable for them to have the fault exist. I've bought two consoles from them already.


Don't they repair it for you though, if you have the warrant?

Also is there some fail percentage on the Elites?



Posted by Prince Shondronai


Quoting maian: good thing ps3s aren't doing that

lol


Among the other things that ps3s aren't doing...Like playing good exclusives! Zing!



Posted by WillisGreeny

Valkyria Chronicles and Little Big Planet? w/e




Posted by Colonel

The PS3 and the Xbox 360 are similar. I have nothing against the PS3, but I own a 360 and I don't regret it.




Posted by maian


Quoting Prince Shondronai: Among the other things that ps3s aren't doing...Like playing good exclusives! Zing!


Yeah, LBP and MGS4 kind of suck. One thing I do love about Nintendo is the online gaming.

ohwai



Posted by WillisGreeny

don't be stupid. The Wii is all about the graphics.




Posted by coromoro

Psh, who cares about graphics and games when you have a quality-built console like the Xbox 360?




Posted by WillisGreeny

Absolutely! Coro sure does bring up a valid point. When it comes to which system's best, Xbox 360 has it all. Most reliable hardware since NASA.




Posted by coromoro

I say Microsoft should build the next spaceship. Forget about NASA. :o




Posted by WillisGreeny

Run the whole planet says this obersver!




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: More profitable for them to have the fault exist. I've bought two consoles from them already.


Makes their sales look better, but I doubt it garners them any more of a profit. Keep in mind a lot of people send their consoles in for repairs, and that whole deal cost a billion dollars. Far more than what they'd make off console purchases from a consumer's second or third box.



Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

[quote=maian;907751]good thing ps3s aren't doing that

lolthe only reason you bought a ps3 was to play a game you became SUPER KAWAII INTERESTED in after 2 months, get out of this argument




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

I'd actually rather have some games to play and my console break down rather than a pristine console with nothing to play. But that's just me.




Posted by maian

I have found lots to play on my PS3. :cool2:

Anyway I refuse to get into a 360 VERSUS PS3 argument because that's all I ever see on the internet anymore and frankly, I like them both.




Posted by IPwnN00bs117

this wasn't intended to be a bash Microsoft thread, i got mine...December '06, and i haven't had the RROD for some reason, all of my friends got it, but i didn't. i like the xbox 360. regardless of company conspiracy theories for sales, and supposed inferiority to the Wii. which in no way is true, but this isn't a console wars thread either. it is a comparison between the ps3 and the 360. which are both far better than the wii. regardless of high price or defects. i would still rather play games like Mirror's edge (which i got, and it pwns), and things like Too Human, Prince of persia, Gears of War 2, Fable 2, Resistance 1-2, Heavenly sword, and Bioshock. i believe i have already made the point that regardless of catfights over hardware specs, that the games alone make the ps3 and the 360 both better systems to get over the wii. but leaving the games aside, the features such as the memory, media functionailty, and other things to that effect. as i said earlier, i will play my PS3 and 360, and you can play your wii. at the end of the day, that is all that we can do.

and i agree w/ maian. i like them both. more so than the wii.




Posted by #061402

Consoles are basically just there to entertain and waste our time. Why argue about which one is the best as long as it fulfills its purpose?




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: I have found lots to play on my PS3.


Cause you're playing all the multi-plat games on the PS3. Even though most are the inferior versions...


Quoted post: this wasn't intended to be a bash Microsoft thread, i got mine...December '06, and i haven't had the RROD for some reason, all of my friends got it, but i didn't. i like the xbox 360. regardless of company conspiracy theories for sales, and supposed inferiority to the Wii. which in no way is true, but this isn't a console wars thread either. it is a comparison between the ps3 and the 360. which are both far better than the wii. regardless of high price or defects. i would still rather play games like Mirror's edge (which i got, and it pwns), and things like Too Human, Prince of persia, Gears of War 2, Fable 2, Resistance 1-2, Heavenly sword, and Bioshock. i believe i have already made the point that regardless of catfights over hardware specs, that the games alone make the ps3 and the 360 both better systems to get over the wii. but leaving the games aside, the features such as the memory, media functionailty, and other things to that effect. as i said earlier, i will play my PS3 and 360, and you can play your wii. at the end of the day, that is all that we can do.


since when was this a thread about the Wii? Everyone here is in more or less agreement that the Wii is lacking pretty hard in just about every department. Are you trying to be an idiot?



Posted by IPwnN00bs117

no, i don't know. people are being dumb. i thought that the anti-xbox duo that's been tag-teaming me with xbox hate, were nintendo fans. but that was a little out of place. i just realized that the wii conversation was a little while back, but i've been away, and was just reading most of it for the first time, so i felt the need to defend myself, whilst you guys have moved on.

apologies.




Posted by WillisGreeny

[quote=The X;907585]More profitable for them to have the fault exist. I've bought two consoles from them already.

Was this guy part of the anti-xbox duo? :amy:




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: i thought that the anti-xbox duo


You mean X and I? hahahaha

might want to read back a bit. Just because we can admit the faults of a console doesn't mean we're against it.



Posted by WillisGreeny

Fukken Vamp and X, unable to shut their mouths about how much the Wii rocks, and shootan sux. GAWD.




Posted by pokemon2905

xbox owns.all i can say it owns




Posted by maian


Quoting pokemon2905: xbox owns.all i can say it owns


wtH we all know ps3 is so much bettr it has 8 cell processors fckng retard xbot



Posted by #061402

Snes owns them all, period. The console is made entirely out of nostalgia.




Posted by Speedfreak

That's probably more of an insult to the SNES library if its worth is nothing but nostalgia.




Posted by #061402

Eh, take it as you will.




Posted by WillisGreeny

I gotcha back numbaz