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

[Renegade]

When it comes down to video game consoles and high quality and high definition hardcore gaming, the Sony PlayStation 3 and the Microsoft Xbox 360 are the only two names that come to mind. These consoles have developed and advanced massively over the years, and they offer us the opportunity to play some intense video games with amazing graphics. In addition to that, these consoles have also become full-fledged media centers today because there is so much more that can be done with them. This includes activities like watching and downloading movies and other content, surfing the Internet, playing online games against gamers from anywhere in the world, storing gigabytes of content and streaming live content online.

But in the midst of all this is an intense battle between the two consoles to see which can gain greater market share and which can leave an indelible mark in the gamers mind. There are enthusiasts for both sides of the argument and there are plenty of reasons why one console is better than the other. At the end of the day, the PS3 vs Xbox 360 decision comes down to a personal choice of the gamer.

What Makes PS3 Better than Xbox 360?

Here, we will be talking about the benefits of the PS3 over the Xbox 360 and all the salient features that make it a better console and a better deal for gamers. The Xbox 360 released around a year before the PS3, so their sales figures are slightly higher and there are more games available for the console as a result. But when you compare details about the two consoles there are many reasons that make the PS3 the better choice. Here are some of the most prominent ones.
1.The single biggest advantage of the PS3 is that it can play Blu-Ray discs. The Xbox 360 can only play regular DVDs and other discs, and the ability to play Blu-Ray discs is a great advantage. The cost of a standalone Blu-Ray player is $200 and due to this Sony loses around $30 for each console that it sells. But from a buyers point of view this is a great deal.
2.When it comes to trusting a console, the PS3 takes the cake yet again. The infamous Red Ring of Death (RROD) of the Xbox 360 is something every gamer dreads and it is perplexing how so many people still complain about this problem. The PS3 also suffers from problems once in a while, but there is no debilitating and notorious defect like RROD that can affect it.
3.The Xbox 360 is also known to create an annoyingly loud noise when it is used for long hours, and this along with its overheating problem makes it quite unstable. The PS3 has no such issues that are anything but ordinary.
4.The graphics of the PS3 are far better than the Xbox 360, so more and more game developers are now making exclusive titles for the console. It is believed that the exclusive title field for the Xbox 360 is dead with only the Halo series a prominent member. The PS3 has several great exclusive titles like God of War, Gran Turismo, Killzone, Uncharted and LittleBigPlanet.
5.Admittedly the online multiplayer mode of the Xbox 360 (Xbox Live) is better than that of the PS3 (PlayStation Network). But you have to pay for Xbox Live whereas the PlayStation Network is absolutely free. To be able to surf the web and play online multiplayer games is another answer to Why PS3 is better than Xbox 360.
6.Another factor to take into consideration when we are trying to decide which is better - PS3 or Xbox 360 is their latest offerings. The PlayStation Move is very similar to the Nintendo Wii but it offers many 'serious' games for hardcore gamers. The Microsoft Kinect is a truly revolutionary technology, but the nature of games available for it are still quite childish and in their nascent stage.
All other technical specifications of both these devices are quite similar to each other, and there is very little difference between them. The pricing strategy is almost the same, though the PS3 does tend to be a bit more expensive. Looks wise the PS3 is slightly more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion, but this is a matter of personal choice. At the end of it, the PS3 has much more to offer serious gamers and it definitely has the upper hand in this market segment.

/lies.

[cybersam]

lol... well it is better... i mean the ps3... beacuse their security is.. well... how to put it... pretty much non existant ^-^'''

and on a side note... the wii is better then both of them ^.^

[TLOR FETT]

So who wrote this? Im sure they adressed the massive price drops in PS3 and them coming out with ump teen different models/hdd sizes and scrapping the ever beloved Backwards compatibility.

[jordanpower6]

Most people get a xbox for the games which is what most people do on a console lol not gonna buy a ps3 and just scroll through it's options and seeing how the xbox has more and better games Xbox is best.

[Renegade]

So who wrote this? Im sure they adressed the massive price drops in PS3 and them coming out with ump teen different models/hdd sizes and scrapping the ever beloved Backwards compatibility.Some random person on a PS3 fan site.

@sam - gameboy > Wii

[cybersam]

@Renegade
lol...
i thought we are talking about the next-gen consoles ^-^

[jmg28662]

A few of them are true though. The graphics are pretty much or par with each other. When it comes to exclusives I like the PS3s better. I just don't like the Halos or Gears. Be honest the 360 doesn't have any better exclusives other than Allan Wake and 1 or 2 others. Name the other exclusives and I can shoot them down easy. If you look at 2011 exclusives PS3 wins this year by a large margin. XBL is way better than the PSN but PSN is coming back with PS1 games such as Xenogears. Online gaming is better on the 360. Most Multi-platform games are better on the 360. Devs just suck at porting games over to the PS3.

It really comes down to which system has a better version of a game to me. And this fanboyism needz to go. Buying all the systems is the way to go now, unless you want to marry your 360 or PS3 and be a slave to either Sony or MS.

[Mocha]

Xbox is more fun
/thread

[Goltoof]

Xbox is more fun
/thread

Agreed, I own both systems and I would have to say the xbox is the better choice for me. I only play the exclusive stuff on ps3 wich only amounts to a small handfull of games however, the xbox's online service is stellar when compared to the crappy psn service. I know it's free, but it shows in quality why it's free, (turd).

As far as kinect goes, yeah I would have to agree that is it definatly geared more toward the younger audience and family time and that's why I do not have it. I want to get move just for the assault rifle thing for Killzone and Socom 4!

Pro's n con's for each I guess.

[CloudStrife7x]

i have to agree that each system has it pros and cons but over all i like the 360 better but i still like the ps3 just depends on the game in my mind

[Paprika]

Agreed, I own both systems and I would have to say the xbox is the better choice for me. I only play the exclusive stuff on ps3 wich only amounts to a small handfull of games however, the xbox's online service is stellar when compared to the crappy psn service. I know it's free, but it shows in quality why it's free, (turd).


The old saying goes "You get what you pay for" You get it for free so people can't really bitch when they say it is inferior.
I myself only use the PSN for their store, which I must admit I do like more so than the 360's all because they have psone games.




As far as kinect goes, yeah I would have to agree that is it definatly geared more toward the younger audience and family time and that's why I do not have it. I want to get move just for the assault rifle thing for Killzone and Socom 4!

Pro's n con's for each I guess.

Though Kinect has far more capabilities and potential than Move has its just as for a gaming device it (to me) hasn't actually shown anything worthwhile, though as far as using it for development (games, 3d etc) it has the potential to be one of the best and most cost effective pieces of tech available for motion capture

a bit of topic but it relates to 360 tech so meh :-D

[Sephiroth]

Im not a fan of wii,playstation,sega or xbox but i have to say the ps3 is better!

Why? -
Because..

Free online gaming!
Never experienced any lag
Never had any problems/issues
Never had the damn rrod or something like that..(wasted 1 core and 2 xbox360 pro consoles)
My ps3 still looks good as new :)
No gay,crazy,weird,strange grinding noises when trying to play a game.http://www.360haven.com/forums/images/icons/NewfunnyIcons/Hehe.png
Haven't experienced any freezing problems
blablabla.. and much more!

[Renegade]

Im not a fan of wii,playstation,sega or xbox but i have to say the ps3 is better!

Why? -
Because..

Free online gaming!
Never experienced any lag
Never had any problems/issues
Never had the damn rrod or something like that..(wasted 1 core and 2 xbox360 pro consoles)
My ps3 still looks good as new :)
No gay,crazy,weird,strange grinding noises when trying to play a game.http://www.360haven.com/forums/images/icons/NewfunnyIcons/Hehe.png
Haven't experienced any freezing problems
blablabla.. and much more!My respect for you just went negative sir :'(

[Sephiroth]

My respect for you just went negative sir :'(
http://www.blog.inspiretech.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Microsoft-Xbox.jpg

[jmg28662]

lol...It's a tie for me.

[pureIso]

I would say ps3 but I don't have one. So Xbox is the better console :P

[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...

[Emerald Lance]

I agree with everything you said, especially about why the Dreamcast fell (SEGA's lack of advertising). Everything, except this:

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...
This sounds like something a Smash Bros tournament goer would say; that each side needs to be the same for the comparison to be "fair"; this is a contradiction. The point of which one is better is decided by one side being better than the other. Giving them both the same resources makes neither one of them better, it makes them both the same. Making them equal voids the contest.

I remember I was playing Melee one day during my high school days. Our high school had a video game club after school on Wednesdays, and kids would bring their Xboxes and Gamecubes to play Halo 2 and Melee. An acquaintance of mine was owning everybody on Melee that day with Marth. After they all lost, they said he should play against me and that I'd probably win. So I accepted his challenge and and we played. And then I found out why he kept winning: he insisted on tourney rules (most characters banned, Final Destination only, no items, 3 stock) in order to make everything "balanced" and "fair". I told him that, if he were really that good, he could win regardless of the conditions of the fight. That ticked him off, so in his pride, he excepted anything goes. I picked Samus (I was itching to prove my point) and he picked Marth, we played 5 stock with all items on, and the stage was Onnett; he lost extremely fast. And of course, he threw a fit, because I was being "cheap" by using items and projectiles. So I said we could play tourney rules as long as I could keep Samus, and he agreed. Final Destination, no items, 3 stock. Again, he lost. And again, he blamed it on my cheap playing. Feeling he had been cheated, he stormed off and left for home, after which I explained that the reason he lost wasn't because I was "cheap" but rather because he just sucked.

Smash Bros' Tourney rules were not made to "level the playing field" and "erase unfair advantages" as they put it, they were made so that people who blow @$$ at the game can feel like they're good at it; in reality, if somebody beats you, they don't do so because they're cheating (unless they are actually using a cheat device like AR) they do so because they are better than you. The same goes for consoles. 360 and PS3 are in the same console generation, they're competing for the same market, so it is a fair comparison. The one with the better stuff is the better system, period. Since the PS3 needs better resources to handle its own format to its fullest, the 360 has that above the PS3. Fairness be damned.

[MaSTA SoLIDUS]

I agree with everything you said, especially about why the Dreamcast fell (SEGA's lack of advertising). Everything, except this:

This sounds like something a Smash Bros tournament goer would say; that each side needs to be the same for the comparison to be "fair"; this is a contradiction. The point of which one is better is decided by one side being better than the other. Giving them both the same resources makes neither one of them better, it makes them both the same. Making them equal voids the contest.

I remember I was playing Melee one day during my high school days. Our high school had a video game club after school on Wednesdays, and kids would bring their Xboxes and Gamecubes to play Halo 2 and Melee. An acquaintance of mine was owning everybody on Melee that day with Marth. After they all lost, they said he should play against me and that I'd probably win. So I accepted his challenge and and we played. And then I found out why he kept winning: he insisted on tourney rules (most characters banned, Final Destination only, no items, 3 stock) in order to make everything "balanced" and "fair". I told him that, if he were really that good, he could win regardless of the conditions of the fight. That ticked him off, so in his pride, he excepted anything goes. I picked Samus (I was itching to prove my point) and he picked Marth, we played 5 stock with all items on, and the stage was Onnett; he lost extremely fast. And of course, he threw a fit, because I was being "cheap" by using items and projectiles. So I said we could play tourney rules as long as I could keep Samus, and he agreed. Final Destination, no items, 3 stock. Again, he lost. And again, he blamed it on my cheap playing. Feeling he had been cheated, he stormed off and left for home, after which I explained that the reason he lost wasn't because I was "cheap" but rather because he just sucked.

Smash Bros' Tourney rules were not made to "level the playing field" and "erase unfair advantages" as they put it, they were made so that people who blow @$$ at the game can feel like they're good at it; in reality, if somebody beats you, they don't do so because they're cheating (unless they are actually using a cheat device like AR) they do so because they are better than you. The same goes for consoles. 360 and PS3 are in the same console generation, they're competing for the same market, so it is a fair comparison. The one with the better stuff is the better system, period. Since the PS3 needs better resources to handle its own format to its fullest, the 360 has that above the PS3. Fairness be damned.

Friend Requested.

This quoted post is so full of truthiness and win I am at a loss. Good work.

...it's the main reason I'm working hard to develop a new idea for 'professional' or tournament play. The game itself should be the focus, not some fake rules you implement yourself. Its true that some games are inherently unbalanced, but the developers tend to balance those things out over time. And even if they don't, if they are known issues, train tonot be subject to them. I never played Smash because of the tourney types, lol. I love just playing it with super competitive friends of mine that pick games up quickly; it's way more fun, and more of a legitimate challenge.

And in regards to the systems, I agree that it is fair to compare which is better, but I still think the consoles are so different now that comparing them would only prove a person's preference. Things like Network reliability, Console fidelity, library size/quality, first party games, ergonomic controller...stuff that can be objectively compared, that stuff can be fairly compared IMO.

All that said, I think it stacks up in 360's favor.

[cybersam]

@Emerald Lance
what i ment with giving the 360 same resources as you'd give to the ps3 was not to make both consoles be the same...
but adding these resources to their current status...
which in the end... the 360 would still win ^-^

[Emerald Lance]

@Emerald Lance
what i ment with giving the 360 same resources as you'd give to the ps3 was not to make both consoles be the same...
but adding these resources to their current status...
which in the end... the 360 would still win ^-^
Oh, I see. Then please forgive my blunt argument, as it was based entirely on a misinterpretation. Yes, I agree with you, if we list the resources of one, we can't hold a comparison with the other without first listing ITS resources as well. Touché.


Friend Requested.
Friend Accepted. ^-^


And in regards to the systems, I agree that it is fair to compare which is better, but I still think the consoles are so different now that comparing them would only prove a person's preference. Things like Network reliability, Console fidelity, library size/quality, first party games, ergonomic controller...stuff that can be objectively compared, that stuff can be fairly compared IMO.
In the specific niche audience each is shooting for, yeah. But for everything else (there's Master Card lol) it be compared fairly and without bias.

[aksparky]

Well, I am new to the website, but as an owner of both systems, I have noticed subtle differences that is kind of changing me from a PS3 fan t a Xbox 360 fan. You have to remember that the PS2 (released in 2000) and Xbox 360 (released in 2005) were fighting each other for about a year or so before the PS3. Then the Xbox 360 had to evolve more to compete with the PS3 and minus a Blu Ray player, the system has. I know I was a heavy gamer of the PS2 (mainly RPGs) I was looking forward to owning a PS3 to try out Final Fantasy XIII. I bought a PS3 with the game about a year ago, and I enjoyed playing it immensely. The PS3 has a stability of not putting a ring around my CDs if I bump my desk on accident. I purchased a XBox 360 this past year and within a month of purchase, I got a ring around one of my CDs. The place I bought it at (Gamestop) would not exchange the system even with a receipt.

That being said, the Xbox 360 has the best ability of all over the PS3, and that is the ability to edit saves! I was an avid user of the Codebreaker CDs when I played my PS2 and loved having the ability to edit my game either harder or (most often) easier. The PS3, thanks to its ridiculous 128-bit encryption, makes it impossible (at the moment) to edit save files. I hate the system for that reason.

I purchased both Star Ocean TLH on both systems, and even though the game is the one CD on the PS3 and three CDs on the Xbox 360, I like the 360 version better. The same held true for Final Fantasy XIII.

BUT, I liked playing Red Dead Redemption on Xbox 360, however, the PS3 version had more weapons (explosive rifle and tomahawks, including their side missions). That was the only real difference I could see between the two games.

So in my personal opinion, the Xbox 360 is a better system for editing save games and for the most part is a decent system. Neither system has many RPGs like the PS2 had which as a role playing game fanatic, is kind of depressing.

aksparky

PS - I have a Nintendo Wii, too, but that system is more for the kids than me...I don't like a game system calling me obese! lmao

[kman2fly]

I enjoy both my PS3 and Xbox 360 :bigsmile2:

[Kakeh]

what happened to when people just respected the other consoles and played their preference? I have all of the current gen systems. They all have their faults and their bonuses. Anyone who disagrees that all have their good merits is a fool and a fanboy

[tsmithson]

I think it mostly comes done to personal opinion and what your friends have. All the people i know have a xbox so i got a xbox to play online with them.