Why PS3 is better than Xbox 360? WTF lol Fanboys...

[Emerald Lance]

Again, I'm going to quote my all time hero MovieBob (the Game OverThinker). "The PS3 is just an all purpose Blu-Ray player that just so happens to be able to play Metal Gear Solid 4." Admittedly, his words on the 360 weren't all that great either (since the video was talking mainly about how cool Nintendo is) but at least his biggest issue with the 360 was the "hardcore" emphasis on FPS games (which he doesn't like) and not on the system itself, like the PS3. lol

(I think MovieBob is a pretty cool guy. Eh kills P3S and doesnt afraid of anything...) ^-^

[longy999]

I had both but got rid of the PS3 when I realized the 360's could be flashed. The only thing I preferred about the PS3 was the control pad, so much better than Microsofts efforts, the amount of times my character has jumped instead of chucking out a super move on street fighter is unreal. Although I'm yet to try the new and improved ones their releasing, maybe that will be problem solved.

[MaSTA SoLIDUS]

I think better is too difficult a word to use in gaming anymore. Sony, MS and Nintendo all started the generation attacking different markets. At this point, Microsoft has a lock on FPS, Mass Market, and North American gamers. There isn't really a competition there. Nintendo has Family gaming tied up. But Sony...I really don't know that Sony cared about gamers of any sort until midway through this gen.

I mean, technologically the PS3 isn't better than the 360 except in two real ways: Real HD output, and wifi out of the box (but Xbox 360 Slims have that now). The RAM is too little for most games to take any better advantage of the chipset than games did in 2006. Plus, Xbox has the marketshare, so games are either developed on it first, or are developed to handle the baseline abilities of the two consoles, which leaves the PS3 games to look identaicl, or similar to 360 counterparts.

If you had to ask me which system a game without either should buy, I'd say 360 because there is a bigger selection and variety of top-flight games. But MGS4 makes me hesitate...I bought my PS3 for it, and sold the system after I beat it a few times, lol.

If Sony and Square announce a FFVII remake, PS3 wins, hands down. lol

[cybersam]

oh come on... don't take the technology argument here...
if you go that way then i have to comment on this..
as non of the "next-gen" console really have a good technology as both of them never really used hddvd (which is the better technology whise)
if you go by graphics well that is a game developers problems not really of the console as both of them have equal hardware (ene if the ps3 was released later)

about that ram thing... well this is also something developers don't realy care about anymore...
the only thing devs & publishers care about these days is making money... not making a good game with good performance

i still can remeber back in the last days of the super nintendo
this console was never desgined to have a game with voices...
and the devs made it possible anyways...

oh come on... not that sony square crap... square wouldn't even exist anymore if it wasn't for nintendo big rescue mission and the real final fantasy which saved square
look it up if you didn't know about this

square should never have gone to sony... the should have sticked to nintendo and later maybe move to ms for consoles whith better grafik ability
and sony should have died the time they released they ps(x)
as that was a stolen technology anyway ^-^'''
all because nintendo didn't want to cd...

now i'm going to stop.. as i could go on forever with this ^-^'

[Emerald Lance]

Well, I don't know if you could say they "stole" the CD tech. If I remember correctly, they're the ones who developed it for Nintendo, then Nintendo made a sudden and unplanned public announcement that they were breaking it off with SONY (read: "backstabbing"). One could argue that SONY's entire reason for jumping into the gaming scene in the first place was because Nintendo betrayed them.

As far as the quality of the PS1, sorry, it was awesome. It was very akin to the Dreamcast: before its time. Nintendo still held a very strong place in the market, but with smash hits like Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, and Chrono Cross, SONY was able to do quite a bit of damage to sales. Then the Dreamcast came out and everybody forgot about Nintendo and SONY for about a week, then the PS2 came out and the Dreamcast (along with SEGA itself) died almost as soon as it had started.

Now seeing as I am on a Xbox360 site, I hesitate to say this, but it is the truth and cannot be denied: PS2 owned Xbox and Gamecube up and down the block. Was it as powerful as an Xbox? No. Could it do as many thing as Xbox? No (Xbox had internal HDD and could rip music, as well as ethernet support right out of the box). Was it better? Sadly, yes. Some may say it is just a matter of opinion, but sales numbers are not opinion; they are fact, and the PS2 dominated the market.

Now, finally, is PS3 better than 360? I think not. The 360 has higher gross sales. It also has Kinect (say what you will, Kinect is a huge step forward in gaming technology, while PS3 MOVE is a blatant and obvious rip-off of the Wii). It has better exclusives. The games that have been released for both (prime example, Armored Core For Answer) run better on the 360. While Blu-Ray is a higher end disk tech, the PS3 lacks the resources to fully draw out its potential, so each game looks/sounds/feels almost exactly the same as it would on the 360. The only thing (THE ONLY THING) that give the PS3 an edge over 360 is that it doubles as a Blu-Ray player; still, I know Blu-Ray is going to replace DVD (like how DVD replaced VHS) but the transition hasn't happened yet, so Blu-Ray in and of itself (in a gaming console) is extremely redundant.

[MaSTA SoLIDUS]

oh come on... don't take the technology argument here...
if you go that way then i have to comment on this..
as non of the "next-gen" console really have a good technology as both of them never really used hddvd (which is the better technology whise)
if you go by graphics well that is a game developers problems not really of the console as both of them have equal hardware (ene if the ps3 was released later)

about that ram thing... well this is also something developers don't realy care about anymore...
the only thing devs & publishers care about these days is making money... not making a good game with good performance

i still can remeber back in the last days of the super nintendo
this console was never desgined to have a game with voices...
and the devs made it possible anyways...

oh come on... not that sony square crap... square wouldn't even exist anymore if it wasn't for nintendo big rescue mission and the real final fantasy which saved square
look it up if you didn't know about this

square should never have gone to sony... the should have sticked to nintendo and later maybe move to ms for consoles whith better grafik ability
and sony should have died the time they released they ps(x)
as that was a stolen technology anyway ^-^'''
all because nintendo didn't want to cd...

now i'm going to stop.. as i could go on forever with this ^-^'

Seems like you didn't bother reading my post thoroughly lol. I'll explain a tad what I mean.


My FIRST sentence was that BETTER isn't a word we can use anymore. Each company is strategically feeding different markets. They all don't really compete anymore. If you need to explain why I think that, that's fine.

I mean, technologically the PS3 isn't better than the 360

Sony and MS are competing, and the only reason is that they have so many multiplatform games on the consoles shared. If we were to remove all multiplatform games, Sony's focus is clearly different from Microsoft's. Those different focuses make it hard to have a apples-to-apples comparison.

You've got the Web Services Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, which are fairly similar. XBL has more robust multimedia options, but on a purely gaming level, XBL and PSN are equal. XBL Online Gaming is better, but it SHOULD be, we pay for it.

And I also said that RAM is fairly irrelevant because most games are multiplatform.

Plus, Xbox has the marketshare, so games are either developed on it first, or are developed to handle the baseline abilities of the two consoles, which leaves the PS3 games to look identical, or similar to 360 counterparts.

As far as developers not caring about quality, that's a load of crap. They invest hundreds of millions, and the vast majority of their customers have gamed for decades (meaning they know good from bad)...and somehow, they'd knowingly make the games worse? For what? That's not good business.

The technology this generation is good enough to last another 3-4 years IMO. The game fidelity and creativity shown on all the systems prove that.

But if I had to pick one, it'd be 360 because I think Xbox Live and the First party games Microsoft has are more likely to provide a game or two that will be long-lasting fun. Not to say Sony wouldn't (MGS4, GT5, GoW, Uncharted), but I think MS's lineup is stronger.

...and the Sony/Square bit was tongue in cheek, lol. My point with that was FFVII is so good if they provide a remake/sequel and it were exclusive, I'd buy 4 PS3s and I know a tone of people who are STILL waiting on that game.

(Square made the right move going with Sony, history proved that.)

[MaSTA SoLIDUS]

Well, I don't know if you could say they "stole" the CD tech. If I remember correctly, they're the ones who developed it for Nintendo, then Nintendo made a sudden and unplanned public announcement that they were breaking it off with SONY (read: "backstabbing"). One could argue that SONY's entire reason for jumping into the gaming scene in the first place was because Nintendo betrayed them.

As far as the quality of the PS1, sorry, it was awesome. It was very akin to the Dreamcast: before its time. Nintendo still held a very strong place in the market, but with smash hits like Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, and Chrono Cross, SONY was able to do quite a bit of damage to sales. Then the Dreamcast came out and everybody forgot about Nintendo and SONY for about a week, then the PS2 came out and the Dreamcast (along with SEGA itself) died almost as soon as it had started.

Now seeing as I am on a Xbox360 site, I hesitate to say this, but it is the truth and cannot be denied: PS2 owned Xbox and Gamecube up and down the block. Was it as powerful as an Xbox? No. Could it do as many thing as Xbox? No (Xbox had internal HDD and could rip music, as well as ethernet support right out of the box). Was it better? Sadly, yes. Some may say it is just a matter of opinion, but sales numbers are not opinion; they are fact, and the PS2 dominated the market.

Now, finally, is PS3 better than 360? I think not. The 360 has higher gross sales. It also has Kinect (say what you will, Kinect is a huge step forward in gaming technology, while PS3 MOVE is a blatant and obvious rip-off of the Wii). It has better exclusives. The games that have been released for both (prime example, Armored Core For Answer) run better on the 360. While Blu-Ray is a higher end disk tech, the PS3 lacks the resources to fully draw out its potential, so each game looks/sounds/feels almost exactly the same as it would on the 360. The only thing (THE ONLY THING) that give the PS3 an edge over 360 is that it doubles as a Blu-Ray player; still, I know Blu-Ray is going to replace DVD (like how DVD replaced VHS) but the transition hasn't happened yet, so Blu-Ray in and of itself (in a gaming console) is extremely redundant.

ALL FACTS

+1 sir

[cybersam]

well i never said that sony stole the cd tech... i said nintendo didn't want to go cd at that time...
sony's real part in this was only the cd part... the rest was more or less nintendo's part in creating the next-gen console (back then)
that is why the similarity in the controller design... as sony knew that they could never beat this design no matter what they came up with...
and that is the real reason why the xbox never even came close to the ps(x) sales wise only later they got better sales when ms finally decided to get the slim controller...
nintendo did a bad move after that with the n64 as it wasn't fully developed and the change in the controller style almost killed it
while the design of the game cube controller was a bit better again... their first steps in to cd's(dvd's) and not going for better hardware was the real bad move from nintendo's side...or they would've owned all the other consoles...

as for the dreamcast.. well truly it is dead(in a way)... but the reason for that wasn't that is not as good as the ps2 or the xbox... it was because sega never really made an effort to sell the console same goes for the previous consoles master system, saturn(which was the first cd console back in the super nintendo time ^-^) etc.
i'm a big fan of nintendo... but the sega's consoles were always better in most ways.. like nintendo's gameboy/gamboy color and sega's game gear... the gameboy color was just a colored version of the old gameboy(2bit color- 4 shades of grey) and didn't really have backlight hell not even the gameboy advance sp had background color (which was released some years later - more the 10 years later)... the gamegear however was released just a 1-2 years after the gameboy.. and had 32color with backlight... hell it even got an add-on so you could watch tv on it ^-^
but the bad marketing of sega made them only known to the real sega fans and insiders and of course they were more expensive

and one more thing... dreamcast isn't really dead... if you look at it from this perspective its the only console that is considered dead... and there are still people creating games for it...
granted... not known to many people and only in japan... as far as i know ^-^'''

now to go back on topic...
but before that...
i hate blu-ray... granted it gives us a way to get and watch our movies in HD
but its inferior to hddvd... if MS had made the hddvd as its primary drive it wouldn't have to die as it was the better technology... i'm truly sad about the fact that it had to die... -.-

and i don't think that the blu-ray is going to replace the dvd anytime soon...
i rather hope that the new dvd gen will replace the blu-ray ^-^'''

now to find my way back to topic... i'll quote this sentence ^-^'''

While Blu-Ray is a higher end disk tech, the PS3 lacks the resources to fully draw out its potential, so each game looks/sounds/feels almost exactly the same as it would on the 360.

well i think i made my point with the blu-ray thing... just right above this ^-^
sorry to burst the bubble here... no matter how many resources you'd give the ps3 it won't be better than the 360
as you'd have to give the same resources to the 360 to make a fair comparison between the two...