I always argue with this debate and IMO Xbox is better for the live, yes you have to pay, but its better and PS3 players always go on about blu ray which is HD TV just built in to the PS3 and the xbox can have as good graphics if you have an HDMI cable. Also the xbox exclusives are better such as Halo, PGR and Fable, anyways i just wanted to know what ya'll think is better

Oops, meant to vote PS3.

The PS3 is better in virtually every way. Cheaper, better community, MUCH lower failure rate, (IMO) a better selection of games. To each his own, though.

Also, Halo and Fable aren't exclusives.

Captain_Trips01 wrote:

Also, Halo and Fable aren't exclusives.

Yes they are, Exclusive to Microsoft, who owns Xbox

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

Captain_Trips01 wrote:

Also, Halo and Fable aren't exclusives.

Yes they are, Exclusive to Microsoft, who owns Xbox

True, but they aren't exclusive to XBox. They're both available on PC.

Well, with the launch of the "new" Xbox which apparently whisper quite it should only be slightly louder than a PS3 considering that your standard 360 makes a HUGE amount of noise.

On top of this, I feel that when compared, our graphics are slightly better, the Xbox has some nice cut scenes, but nothing in game that is particularly amazing.

Next, I'll move onto the move and kinect systems. The move is cheaper while the kinect costs more, much like the PS3 compared to the Xbox. I have yet to see any games on the move, but the ones I see on the kinect system, I may as well use a wii for those as it seems they're just copying some of the most well known games from Nintendo. May I mention the wii is much cheaper and the most family friendly of these 3 systems but doesn’t have the graphics or game support that the PS3 and Xbox have.

Next, the exclusivity. Yes, you guys have halo an Fable, but the age of Xbox exclusivity is ending as the makers of halo (Bungie) leave to works with Activion, several games pledging exclusive support for the PS3 (Ex:Medal of honour on the PS3 also give a remastered version of MoH frontline)

Finally, Xbox does, I admit, have a better multi-player service but you have to pay for it.


Summary
PS3
+ Quieter
+ Slightly better graphics
+ Cheaper
+ Move system is cheaper
+ Growing exclusive support

- Multiplayer that isn't at Xbox standard but is still good.

Xbox
+ Good multiplayer experience
+ Halo and Fable exclusive, both good games in their own right.

- Kinect systems more expensive than a move
- Have to pay for multi-player
- Worse graphics out of cut scenes
- Noisy
- Expensive
- Creates allot of heat.

Thats how I feel.

Because this forum always needs more fanboy fuel, amirite?

The Dreadnote wrote:Because this forum always needs more fanboy fuel, amirite?

Oh my, didn't you think the OP's post was well phrased and supported his arguments well?

I mean, the Xbox can play BluRay quality movies with an HDMI cable, didn't you know that.......................?

BAWTRM wrote:

The Dreadnote wrote:Because this forum always needs more fanboy fuel, amirite?

Oh my, didn't you think the OP's post was well phrased and supported his arguments well?

I mean, the Xbox can play BluRay quality movies with an HDMI cable, didn't you know that.......................?

i said The Xbox has HD if you have a cable...

BAWTRM wrote:I mean, the Xbox can play BluRay quality movies with an HDMI cable, didn't you know that.......................?

You made a funny.

720i upscaling =/= 1080i native HD (blue ray) + Blue Ray supports 7.1 surround sound and higher (when enabled on the disk)

The PS3 isn't cheaper the Xbox has always been cheaper than the PS3.

Also on the argument of exclusives:

In the top 10 most purchased games for Xbox there are 4 non exclusives: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare + Modern Warfare 2 + World at War and Grand Theft Auto IV
the exclusives are: Halo 3/ Halo 3:ODST, Gears of War 1 + 2, Forza Motorsport 2, Fable II

In the to 10 most purchased games for PS3 there are 3 non exclusives: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Final Fantasy XIII, and Grand Theft Auto IV
and in the top 20 there are only 5 non-exclusives.

Xbox 360, cause ps3's exclusives don't interest me, except for killzone, but I ain't buyin for that.

wizard12 wrote:Well, with the launch of the "new" Xbox which apparently whisper quite it should only be slightly louder than a PS3 considering that your standard 360 makes a HUGE amount of noise.

I own a PS3 and a 360. The PS3 is far, far louder. I do not hear my 360, even with a fan attached to it. Your example is flawed.

On top of this, I feel that when compared, our graphics are slightly better, the Xbox has some nice cut scenes, but nothing in game that is particularly amazing.

Uh, graphics in game are actually the same for all intents and purposes. The only real difference is going to be "HURR! 3D! HURR!" crap that Sony's pushing.

Next, I'll move onto the move and kinect systems. The move is cheaper while the kinect costs more, much like the PS3 compared to the Xbox. I have yet to see any games on the move, but the ones I see on the kinect system, I may as well use a wii for those as it seems they're just copying some of the most well known games from Nintendo. May I mention the wii is much cheaper and the most family friendly of these 3 systems but doesn’t have the graphics or game support that the PS3 and Xbox have.

The Move is cheaper for one unit. Each Move requires two controllers at $50+$30 each+the initial investment of an EyeToy(no word yet on if EACH Move requires an EyeToy, or if it can track multiples. If each Move requires an EyeToy, you're looking at either buying an $80 PER person bundle to use the Move...alongside of getting endless amounts of bundled copies of the Sony WiiSports). Kinect supports 4 people/per unit @ $159.99.

Next, the exclusivity. Yes, you guys have halo an Fable, but the age of Xbox exclusivity is ending as the makers of halo (Bungie) leave to works with Activion, several games pledging exclusive support for the PS3 (Ex:Medal of honour on the PS3 also give a remastered version of MoH frontline)

lolwut? Exclusivity, period, for the titles themselves is coming to an end. Metal Gear is launching on 360, Mass Effect 3 looks set to launch on PS3, etc.

The only "exclusive" is going to be DLC and when it's launched. Activision, for example, has signed it so all Call of Duty content is launching on 360 first, months in advance.

Finally, Xbox does, I admit, have a better multi-player service but you have to pay for it.

And you definitely get what you pay for. Not only does Live give you access to a buttload of DLC, but it also allows for downloading/streaming movies, TV shows, etc.

Of course that's also going to be rolled into the Playstation Plus service...which apparently you have to...

*gasp*
Pay for!

Kanluwen wrote:
I own a PS3 and a 360. The PS3 is far, far louder. I do not hear my 360, even with a fan attached to it. Your example is flawed.

Your PS3 then must be really loud. Mine barely makes a sound. My elite is isn't loud or anything, but isn't exactly quiet either.

Kanluwen wrote: Uh, graphics in game are actually the same for all intents and purposes. The only real difference is going to be "HURR! 3D! HURR!" crap that Sony's pushing.

This depends on the game and it's ability to scale to whatever TV you're running.
Final Fantasy XIII for example.
720p gameplay, 1080p cinematics (PS3)
576p (Xbox 360)

So no, not all the same.

Xbox 360 is better in my opinion.

I have a personal prefernce for the 360, but this is due more to intangible reasons than anything else. I just like the total package better than the PS3s. In terms of features, games, and the like the two systems seem to me to be practicaly identical (I know that the video and audio philes will probably argue that with me ), certainly to a greater extent than has been seen in previous console generations where there were clear differences. True, you pay for Xbox Live gold, but TBH the cost is pretty nominal for me and doesn't factor into the equation a whole lot.

Imo i prefer the 360 the online is more enjoyable and the controller is very comfortable unlike the PS3's where a 'claw' like grip is required to hold it..........

Imo i prefer the 360 the online is more enjoyable and the controller is very comfortable unlike the PS3's where a 'claw' like grip is required to hold it..........

Imo i prefer the 360 the online is more enjoyable and the controller is very comfortable unlike the PS3's where a 'claw' like grip is required to hold it..........

PS3 Has no games !

For me the only deciding factor would be if there were people I wanted to play with online, I would buy what ever they had.

This is going to come down to preference. Right now I think the 360 has access to a much wider variety of games, and good games. Many of the PS3's good games can also be found on the 360. The only killer apps the PS3 really has to itself thus far have been GoW3 and MGS4. They have other good games but lack the 360's larger number of exclusive killer apps; Halo, Gears, Fable, Mass Effect. The Xbox also has superior online, though it's online community is just horrible.

Right now the biggest weakness for PS3 is their lack of exclusive that can really sell the system. They have good ones but none save GoW and MGS can stand up against the might of Gears and Halo. This will likely change in the next year or so though. I don't see it staying this way.

However as a previous poster mentioned exclusivity is coming too an end. Its not financially sustainable anymore for a developer to make a game for just one platform. The costs of a single game are too high.

I've been saying for years that eventually game consoles are just gonna be the equivalent of DVD players. You buy whichever brand works for you and then you just buy the games you want. The loss of exclusivity is step one in the process.

This depends on the game and it's ability to scale to whatever TV you're running.
Final Fantasy XIII for example.
720p gameplay, 1080p cinematics (PS3)
576p (Xbox 360)

So no, not all the same.

I think what he meant was that we've nearly hit the limit of what we can do with graphics in respect to photo realism. I don't think the typical TV watcher or gamer can really tell the difference between 576, 720, and 1080. I'm a hardcore gamer, and I honestly, don't see what the big deal is. I see the difference, but it's so tiny as far as what really matters goes that I'm like "You have 1080P? So what?". The geist of it is that graphics pretty soon aren't going to be a selling point anymore, because we've pretty much hit the wall of affordability and practicality. And even in the end, graphics are just graphics. They don't sell games as well as gameplay does.

To me they came out as equals when I thought about purchasing them. Yes the ps3 is a little ahead with graphics capabilities but the online capabilities of the 360 top the ps3's. I got the 360 first because of one particular game. Dead or Alive 4. I still play it and it was a launch title. I own em both and still don't consider one "better" overall. Like most people who have been gaming for 20+ years I know to just check the exclusive titles and get whatever system has more games I want to play.

Xbox 360 by far. The games are better. PS3 has slightly better Graphics, but only a tad. They market that buy showing how much more Streamline and Sleak the PS3 is. The Xbox was built around Online play, where as the PS3 was not. And the amount of RRoD in an Xbox is very slim if you don't get the arcade. Anyways, people got the RRoD because of 4-6 hours of intense online play time on the Arcade which wasn't designed to do that. With the new fixes, the RRoD is gone.

I'd a get a PS3 if I sold my soul (I vastly prefer the controller to the xbox)... but hey, I already have plenty of PCs capable of playing anything and more than either console, and the only tiny little piece of crap stinking up my world is that gameplay quality in general has fallen significantly due to games being made for oversimplified controllers.

Move/move/whatever is a gimmick, and regardless of what you pay for them, they're worth the same in the end.

I wouldn't buy a console for Halo titles because they're an unoriginal and completely underwhelming catalog of games.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I'd a get a PS3 if I sold my soul (I vastly prefer the controller to the xbox)... but hey, I already have plenty of PCs capable of playing anything and more than either console, and the only tiny little piece of crap stinking up my world is that gameplay quality in general has fallen significantly due to games being made for oversimplified controllers.

Agree. It's not just controllers though. It's general catering to the casual gamer with oversimplification and dumbing down, and the general habit of games being a gradual succession of clones with an occasional original idea being thrown in once every five years if we're lucky.

I wouldn't buy a console for Halo titles because they're an unoriginal and completely underwhelming catalog of games.

Disagree. Now Halo may be generic but when the game first came out a decade ago (damn I'm getting old...) Halo CE was revolutionary and revitalized a stagnating FPS market that was in much the same state we see it in now; that state being a constant outpouring of games that are essentially little more than clones of each other with different wrapping paper. While Halo may be standard shooter far today, Bungie is one of the few publishers still putting out games that rise above the dribble. The only developers who really seem capable of it anymore are Bungie, Nintendo, and Bioware, and I highly doubt Bioware's long term sustainability now that their under EA's gold plated titanium fist of generic-ness. Pretty soon, baring unforeseen curcumstances, Nintendo and Bungie gonna be the only developers I have any respect for. All my old favorites have hit rock bottom (I'm looking at you Infinity Ward) or sold them selves out (yeah Blizzard that one was directed at you).

If my only choices are crap, I'll take Bungie's high quality crap that entertains me for at least an hour for every dollar I spent and thank them for somehow managing to maintain the quality.

Xbox, mainly because its alot cheaper than a ps3. Plus no one I know owns a ps3, so yeah, no point getting one.

When I bought my 360, the price difference was enough to pay for about 4 years of live subscription (about 1 year to go on that and any my 360 is still going strong, despite being dropped on the floor by my wife ).

I have to say that I've never really liked the games on the PS, ever since it was released and I was always a PC gamer until I got my 360 (and perhaps when I got my xbox, but less so).

Even now there are only a handful of games on the PS that I can't get on the 360 that I might be interested in, and none of them is good enough to tempt me into buying one.

I've always found the PS controller to be really uncomfortable as well. I remember getting hand cramp from using my brother's PS1 controller for anything longer than 30 minutes.

As has been mentioned, no one I know has a PS3, so there was not really much point in me getting one (not that I wanted one anyway ) so I could play against them online.

So yeah, I prefer the 360 over the PS3.

LordofHats wrote:This is going to come down to preference. Right now I think the 360 has access to a much wider variety of games, and good games. Many of the PS3's good games can also be found on the 360. The only killer apps the PS3 really has to itself thus far have been GoW3 and MGS4. They have other good games but lack the 360's larger number of exclusive killer apps; Halo, Gears, Fable, Mass Effect. The Xbox also has superior online, though it's online community is just horrible.

Right now the biggest weakness for PS3 is their lack of exclusive that can really sell the system. They have good ones but none save GoW and MGS can stand up against the might of Gears and Halo. This will likely change in the next year or so though. I don't see it staying this way.

Exclusives for the PS3:
Mod Nation Racers
SOCOM 4
SOCOM: Confrentation
Killzone 3
Killzone 2
inFamous 1/2
Uncharted 1/2
God of War 1/2/3
MAG
Heavy Rain
LittleBigPlanet 1/2
Grand Trusimo 5

and they are many more worth while PS3 exclusives

Squig_herder wrote:

LordofHats wrote:This is going to come down to preference. Right now I think the 360 has access to a much wider variety of games, and good games. Many of the PS3's good games can also be found on the 360. The only killer apps the PS3 really has to itself thus far have been GoW3 and MGS4. They have other good games but lack the 360's larger number of exclusive killer apps; Halo, Gears, Fable, Mass Effect. The Xbox also has superior online, though it's online community is just horrible.

Right now the biggest weakness for PS3 is their lack of exclusive that can really sell the system. They have good ones but none save GoW and MGS can stand up against the might of Gears and Halo. This will likely change in the next year or so though. I don't see it staying this way.

Exclusives for the PS3:
Mod Nation Racers
SOCOM 4
SOCOM: Confrentation
Killzone 3
Killzone 2
inFamous 1/2
Uncharted 1/2
God of War 1/2/3
MAG
Heavy Rain
LittleBigPlanet 1/2
Grand Trusimo 5

and they are many more worth while PS3 exclusives

I never said there were none. Read the post again. There are many and I'm sure they're good. But look at that list of games again. How many there seem to carry the same level of hype that Halo or Gears of War do? Grand Trrismo and God of War are about it. I suppose I should include SOCOM, but I forgot that series existed XD. It's been so long since they released an actual sequel.

Uncharted, Mod Nation (heard good things), LittleBigPlanet, Heavy Rain etc I'm not saying they aren't good or worthwhile. They're like side kicks. Side kicks are good (the good ones, I don't think Killzone or MAG are all that good), but they aren't the heroes. PS3 AT THIS TIME, doesn't have very many heroes. Block buster games with massive fan bases and hype built up around them so much you wonder if the game comes with crack or something. These games sell systems, because of good games, they're like Superman. Other heroes are cool, but Superman is just so overtop, the rest of the heroes seem like silly people running around in their underwear. PS3 doesn't seem to carry those with it at the moment. No where near as many as the XBox is totting around.

PS: GoW 1-2 don't count, they're PS2 games. Yes I know you can play them but I'm sticking to games made for the system. I'm not counting KoTOR for the Xbox 360. Grand Turismo isn't out yet.

Like I said in my post. I expect it to change. PS2 was in much the same situation, but it was alright for the PS2 to sit there because it had a massive library of decent games to fall back on. That advantage went to the 360 this generation, so the PS has to counter by finding something that can really sell the system. Sony, as much as I hate them, aren't idiots. They'll realize this eventually if they haven't already.

I cast my vote in for the 360. I have both but have gotten more out of my 360. Then again I'm without games for my PS3 plus I play WoW anyway.

The 360 does seem to have a nice library though... Gears of War, Mass Effect, Halo 3... actually you could also say thats why it might suck.

*runs off to play WoW*

I had both, but ended up selling the PS3 due to not getting on with it.
As Kanluwen said before me, the PS3 is actually louder, not a problem though since i just turn the volume up, or i have music playing anyway.

I just find the xbox much better to get on with online, and its alot more amusing IMO.
Not only that, but after playing MW2 on both PS3 and 360, i find it 1,000x better on the 360.
Just seems to run alot more smooth with less problems.

I will cast my vote for the PS3 only because it really does do everything.

When the Move comes out you can play Wii on it, and thanks to playstation plus you have the option to pay for onlive services just like xbox live.

The 250GB 360 may be $50 cheaper than the 250GB PS3, but you will more than fill in that gap to make the 360 comparable. Which is possible except for the ability to play blu-ray discs.

Online service= $50 for a year.
Making the controller rechargable= $20 for a kit containing the charging cable and the battery pack.

So this will bring the total to:
PS3=$349.99
360=$369.99(only includes one month of service).

Also, the 360 is sponsoring the "My World" Justin Bieber tour so yeah, my vote stays with the PS3.

LordofHats wrote:I never said there were none. Read the post again. There are many and I'm sure they're good. But look at that list of games again. How many there seem to carry the same level of hype that Halo or Gears of War do? Grand Trrismo and God of War are about it. I suppose I should include SOCOM, but I forgot that series existed XD. It's been so long since they released an actual sequel.

Uncharted, Mod Nation (heard good things), LittleBigPlanet, Heavy Rain etc I'm not saying they aren't good or worthwhile. They're like side kicks. Side kicks are good (the good ones, I don't think Killzone or MAG are all that good), but they aren't the heroes. PS3 AT THIS TIME, doesn't have very many heroes. Block buster games with massive fan bases and hype built up around them so much you wonder if the game comes with crack or something. These games sell systems, because of good games, they're like Superman. Other heroes are cool, but Superman is just so overtop, the rest of the heroes seem like silly people running around in their underwear. PS3 doesn't seem to carry those with it at the moment. No where near as many as the XBox is totting around.

PS: GoW 1-2 don't count, they're PS2 games. Yes I know you can play them but I'm sticking to games made for the system. I'm not counting KoTOR for the Xbox 360. Grand Turismo isn't out yet.

Like I said in my post. I expect it to change. PS2 was in much the same situation, but it was alright for the PS2 to sit there because it had a massive library of decent games to fall back on. That advantage went to the 360 this generation, so the PS has to counter by finding something that can really sell the system. Sony, as much as I hate them, aren't idiots. They'll realize this eventually if they haven't already.

I see your point but hype =/= good, I have all 3 consoles and find that 360 games such as Halo series and GoW are all hype and not the best games, yes they may have a large community but that doesn't equal good. Personally I think halo 3 and up are average games, not something I can enjoy for long and the same with fable. They aren't "heros" in my books, they are poster boys with heaps of promise but little substance. Then again I didn't buy either console for their killer apps.

Who honestly gives a gak?

Play whatever games you enjoy most on whatever system you like, if you're playing online, play the system that most of your friends have, if that's what you like. Who cares if your console is inferior or superior in monetary value? Whatever gives you most enjoyment is superior, and to try and argue the minutiae of an argument that is, at the end of the day, completely subjective, is ridiculous.

Good day.

(Oh, and I play a 360 and a PS3, but have got more fun out of the 360)

sA

Squig_herder wrote:I see your point but hype =/= good, I have all 3 consoles and find that 360 games such as Halo series and GoW are all hype and not the best games, yes they may have a large community but that doesn't equal good. Personally I think halo 3 and up are average games, not something I can enjoy for long and the same with fable. They aren't "heros" in my books, they are poster boys with heaps of promise but little substance. Then again I didn't buy either console for their killer apps.

Agreed that hype doesn't equal good. But the industry realized as a result of Halo that hype = sales. And while you and I may find games with lots of hype behind them not that great (I like Halo, but I don't like Gears or Fable) they usually do very well among casual gamers who are the primary demographic for the consoles. The hype of the games sells the consoles, which in turn causes developers to reconsider what console(s) they want to launch on.

But again that dynamic changing. Exclusives aren't profitable anymore. We'll see them completely disappear by the end of the current console generation, with of course the exception of games made by the console's producer, which will always be exclusive.

It also depends on what your friends/family have. If they own a PS3 and your friends have a 360 you can't play online with them and vice versa. If you don't like your friends you could always get the console the majority of them don't own.

I have 360 because not one person I know has PS3.

And the only interesting PS3 game to me is killzone since Armored core isn't ps exclusive anymore.

Xbox because the games may not have perfect graphics but theyre gameplay is better by a longshot, and as said before the controller is very comfortable to hold where as ps3 controllers are not.

I prefer the PS3 simply because I have found the graphics to be my personal preference but the Xbox controller is better (it...erm...actually has all thumbsticks)
The only Xbox exclusive that seems cool to me is Halo 3.
Also I do agree that PS3 doesn't really have that many good exclusives, I can see why the top games are MW2 and such.

I voted PS3. While I have both, the 360 is more expensive. I've had to have it repaired twice w/o warrenty and while cheaper than purchasing another 360, this made it cost more than the PS3. Now they both have problems nicking away at their good points but I haven't heard of people with sending their PS3's in a 'coffin' to get fixed either.

To list:
Coding is/was harder on the PS3 making designers lean away from that console but the games on the 360 for the most part don't interest me (Halo's story was horrible and didn't bring anything new to FPS; I feel it didn't deserve that much hype)
The network is slower on the PS3 but it is free.
I like the controller better, the 360's feel to far fo a controller and too close for keyboard and mouse.

I voted PS3.

I like the Blu-ray player.

My list of PS2 games made it an easy choice--I have the original PS3 so the PS2 games are part of my PS3 library (I enjoy replaying games).

I think Mass Effect 2 is about the only game that has made me think "Aww. . .no PS3 version".

I destroyed the HDD on it a while back (it was all me. . .I know better, but I killed it), but that was a simple SATA Laptop drive swap (bought for $50) and now I have a 300gb HDD and full compatability.

Editing to add:
The controller is another issue as well. I am 100% comfortable with dualshock, but the rest are simply uncomfortable to hold.

All the xbox 360 games i give a damn about are on pc as well and i hate the 360 controller. That and i have a few hundred ps1/2 games that my 60 gig can play. Ps3 for the win.

I never really got Halo hate, or comments about how it was a generic shooter. I mean sure it's generic now but that's because everyone else has started copying it XD. Halo: CE stands among Goldeneye, Wolfenstien, and Doom as a revolutionary game. Hype is never deserved. Part of hype is giving a game more credit than is really warranted, but it's an advertising scheme. It's supposed to work that way

If there were any game that is overhyped on the 360 I would point to Gears and Fable. Gears is a third person Halo that's had gray paint splashed over it along with Epic's typical one dimensional plot line and characters with typical run and cover gameplay. Fable isn't a bad game by it's own, but when you look at the game it attempts to clone you start wondering why they decided to make a less fun version of Elder Scrolls instead of a funner version XD. Fable is actually the only game I'd ever list as being all hype no substance.

Ok. I like the XBox. it is Loud But, It is Oldish. It used to be Hush Hush. You cant say PS3 is more quit because you got it yesterday. (so to speak) My ps3 is fun, So is Da Box. Ps3 Looks great but Who Cares!!! I dont care if that guys face has 2, 200, 2000, or 2 Million dots of color and detail, You are not supposed to sit so close that you see the difference. Put a 360 on a nice TV, Attach the HDMI cable from your PS3, and sit back.
If you are still not happy go play Game Cube for a little wile. See how that is "old"
Or If you are up for a challenging N64."Super Old"
or Maby Nes. "2000 BCE"

Or go to an Arcade, (They are Still real!) "10,000 BCE"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

@Lordofhats: Fable is not like elder scrolls. The most they have in common is they are fantasy and RPG. i have to ask, Did you Play fable? fable and Fable 2 are Mutch more Story based than Elder Scrolls. I am not saying ES Sucks. I love the game.

But do not Compare Red Apples and Blood Oranges. All you will get is red and fruit.

I have a 360 and I voted for PS3. Why? Because microsoft charge for everything! Examples are: Xbox live $200 Austalian dollars a year,Consoles are crappy well at least the older 1s.
I'm not so sure of the new 1 but I would go 4 a PS3 any day over these pieces of gak

LordofHats wrote:I never really got Halo hate, or comments about how it was a generic shooter. I mean sure it's generic now but that's because everyone else has started copying it XD. Halo: CE stands among Goldeneye, Wolfenstien, and Doom as a revolutionary game. Hype is never deserved. Part of hype is giving a game more credit than is really warranted, but it's an advertising scheme. It's supposed to work that way

If there were any game that is overhyped on the 360 I would point to Gears and Fable. Gears is a third person Halo that's had gray paint splashed over it along with Epic's typical one dimensional plot line and characters with typical run and cover gameplay. Fable isn't a bad game by it's own, but when you look at the game it attempts to clone you start wondering why they decided to make a less fun version of Elder Scrolls instead of a funner version XD. Fable is actually the only game I'd ever list as being all hype no substance.

Finally, someone who agrees. Halo set the brick for which all good shooter games should base themselves off of. It's just a classic.

CaragaraPDF wrote:

@Lordofhats: Fable is not like elder scrolls. The most they have in common is they are fantasy and RPG. i have to ask, Did you Play fable? fable and Fable 2 are Mutch more Story based than Elder Scrolls. I am not saying ES Sucks. I love the game.

I played the first Fable, and about four hours into the second before I decided it was the same game all over again and quit. They're more similar than being Fantasy RPG's. They're both Free Roaming Open Ended Fantasy RPG's with large amounts of player choice being the primary focus of gameplay. Fable and Elder Scrolls are the exact same kind of game. The difference is that Fable has a notable lack of substance and is mostly flash and fancy "look what you can do!" features with mountains of technical glitches and bugs (This was more evident in Fable II than in Fable I). The only difference between ES and Fable is that ES does a better job in the respective genre, and while Fable does offer a lot to differentiate itself, the things it does don't outweigh what it loses in quality and substance. Calling them apples and oranges is like calling Call of Duty and Medal of Honor chickens and cows.

But do not Compare Red Apples and Blood Oranges. All you will get is red and fruit.

I do like your analogy btw

They're just about equal. The xbox360 is a little worse because it gets the red rind of death. (I don't know if they fixed that problem with the newer xbox360 go Google it yourself) I had an xbox360 for awhile until it got the red ring. Now I have a ps3.

Red Ring is a somewhat ambiguous way for the system to tell you there is a hardware error. It can still happen, but the prime cause of RRoD in G1 and G2 360's has been fixed for a few years and doesn't happen anymore than you'd expect a general hardware malfunction to occur in any system.

Ps3 simply because of little big planet
it justifys the price of a ps3 10fold

Egad, Halo love. It set alot of bars yes, but I don't like those bars too much because it makes the game easy for me.

Oh and to anyone who cares, they're remaking 007 Goldeneye for the Wii and I had darn well better be able to use my N64 controller to play it.

Who cares? They're both good consoles. PS3 gets a bad rap because it was insanely expensive at first, and since nobody wanted to shell out that much for it there aren't as many games for it as there are the 360. Still, the internal Blu-Ray alone is worth it, IMHO. And free multiplayer is a huge bonus

360 is also good too, but as there are more players there's more of a chance you'll meet annoying fethers. I really don't like paying for Live, it's not that it's expensive, but when I don't have the time to head to the store nor access to a credit card, it's a pain. Regardless, games like Red Dead and Halo make the Xbox worth it, same with the HD.

PS3s have a Blu-ray player. Not only is this nice for watching movies, but it also essential for the life of the system and the quality of exclusive games. PS3 games can hold 80 gigs of content per disc. X-Box 360 games can hold 8 gigs of content per disc.

PS3s have an 8-core processor. X-Box 360s have a dual-core processor. When games take advantage of this, it really shows.

PS3's have the capability to install any size hard drive you want, as long as it's a laptop format HDD. PS3's have remote capability with the PSP, for things like media streaming and remote gameplay (from anywhere with an internet connection, as the PS3 becomes a server in itself), as well as cross-platform functionality. Though it hasn't shown much promise so far, the Dualshock 3 has motion sensors, as well as pressure-sensitive face buttons which the X-box 360 lacks completely. The 360's D-Pad is also of awful quality, which makes playing some genres of games much harder. The X-Box 360 is sitting somewhere near a 56% failure rate (which technically makes it illegal to sell), while the PS3 is sitting somewhere around 7%

Though the online service for the X-Box 360 is superior in terms of server space and the friend system, it is also pay-to-play and is, strangely enough, bogged down completely by advertisements and a crappy interface which makes it nigh impossible to find some of the features hidden within. The PS3's XMB is really easy to navigate and virtually advertisement-free. PlayStation Home trumps the 360's Avatar editor hands down, despite being rather light on content at the moment.

I also greatly prefer the PS3's exclusives, but that's simply a matter of taste.

LordofHats wrote:I never really got Halo hate, or comments about how it was a generic shooter. I mean sure it's generic now but that's because everyone else has started copying it XD. Halo: CE stands among Goldeneye, Wolfenstien, and Doom as a revolutionary game. Hype is never deserved. Part of hype is giving a game more credit than is really warranted, but it's an advertising scheme. It's supposed to work that way

If there were any game that is overhyped on the 360 I would point to Gears and Fable. Gears is a third person Halo that's had gray paint splashed over it along with Epic's typical one dimensional plot line and characters with typical run and cover gameplay. Fable isn't a bad game by it's own, but when you look at the game it attempts to clone you start wondering why they decided to make a less fun version of Elder Scrolls instead of a funner version XD. Fable is actually the only game I'd ever list as being all hype no substance.

On the halo part, I agree.

Gears of war though, that set the standard for the whole cover system that everyone tries to copy these days.

Fable, 1 and 2, is nothing like ES, Fable is even crappier then ES.

Cryonicleech wrote:Who cares?

Well by the looks of it most people...

Soladrin wrote:Gears of war though, that set the standard for the whole cover system that everyone tries to copy these days.

I could agree with that. I found the cover system standard because I'd played several other games, but Gears was the most fluid of them all.

I didn't like Halo because it WAS a generic shooter. It didn't add to the genre. Granted that doesn't make it a bad game per se, but it didn't make FPS better.

Actually, GoW ripped its cover system from Killswitch and probably a but from Splinter Cell. Those both had cover systems and both of those came out in 2003.

mrwhoop wrote:I didn't like Halo because it WAS a generic shooter. It didn't add to the genre. Granted that doesn't make it a bad game per se, but it didn't make FPS better.

Halo was the first shooter to really work on consoles. Sure, it had been done before, but everything up until that point had been pretty atrocious. The only saving grace of any FPS game on consoles before Halo was the fun that could be had with split-screen (That, and we really didn't know any better. GoldenEye was basically par for the course). Speaking of split screen, Halo was the first FPS to feature full co-op play. It introduced the concept of regenerating shields/health, which is used in basically every competitive first person shooter to date. That completely changed the face of first-person shooters, whether or not you recognize it. They went from being a race for the next health or shield powerup to actually placing value in strategy and taking cover. Also, the AI in Halo was easily the best AI in any game up to that point, and it still holds up fairly well against the patterns of modern AI. Enemies actually took cover, flanked you, ran away from grenades, and rallied together when separated. That was simply unheard of when Halo came out. The production values of the game were also amazing, and set a new standard for the genre (although that's slightly superficial, it's still relevant).

I'm actually not a big Halo fan, but I can still recognize that it was way more innovative than most people tend to think.

Chrysaor686 wrote:I'm actually not a big Halo fan, but I can still recognize that it was way more innovative than most people tend to think.

You win an internet.

I have both of these consols both running on 1080p with a HDMI cable each , i would say that the Xbox360 is much better online as it is more durable and i find that the ability to change your gamertag is very useful. However i do prefer the Playstation 3 console for the fact that you can edit movie clips on it and that you can put your own themes on it to customise it for your personal needs.

PS , i do not have Halo 3 and really need to know if it is worth getting for Xbox simply for the fact that my modelling eats up most of the money that i gain and do not want to waste money on it if it is not worth the price that it costs.

Thanks ~UnDeAd~

You can now get Halo 3 for 25-30 USD. If you've played Halo 1 or 2, you know basically what to expect from it. The biggest difference is the change in the structure of multiplayer, which has the potential to eat up a lot of your time.

At this point, I would just wait a little while for Halo Reach, because that game looks amazing. It's one of the few games that I'm actually anticipating. Even if you hate Halo, you have the potential to love Reach.

The things Goldeneye did were never really appreciated when it came out. First zoomable sniper rifle, the popularization of dual wielding (First seen in Marathon but it never caught on), and MOST IMPORTANT: Area specific damage. Goldeneye was the first game where shooting a guy in the hand did less than shooting him in the chest and head shots always killed in 1 bullet

To Chrysaor686: I thought Medal of Honor did the regen health thing first? I also read up on the AI programmer's notes. While it does some innovative things, a good bit of it is subjective. Ex. You think the AI's smarter when really they just coded him with more hp.

Still, I have notched up my opinion of the series if only for that. And since I did look around I read some things on the Reach that I may keep tabs on. Not gonna buy it but I will probably give it a play if it was at a friend's house.

Halo combined regenerating with med kits actually, you had 2 seperate bars in halo 1. In 2 and 3, healthbar died.

Halo reach is bringing it back though thank god.

Oh, and wasn't halo the first game to put grenades on a seperate button instead of making it one of your main weapons ? (not sure of this though)

And I can vouch for the AI though, I've come up on Elites that after a few shots just hid somewhere, and like 15 minutes later, when I'd completely forgot about it whacked me in the back and that was that.


oh and... ELITES ARE COMING BACK, WOHOO.

Brutes are lame.

mrwhoop wrote:To Chrysaor686: I thought Medal of Honor did the regen health thing first? I also read up on the AI programmer's notes. While it does some innovative things, a good bit of it is subjective. Ex. You think the AI's smarter when really they just coded him with more hp.

Still, I have notched up my opinion of the series if only for that. And since I did look around I read some things on the Reach that I may keep tabs on. Not gonna buy it but I will probably give it a play if it was at a friend's house.

I swear I specifically remember picking up medkits in Medal of Honor, but I could be wrong. I died at a few points in that game because I didn't have enough health to continue? Perhaps it was introduced later in the series.

'Tough' does not equal 'Intelligent'. Having more HP does not account for flanking, hiding behind cover, dodging out of the way when you've got a bead on them, running away to lick their wounds when they're about to die, or running to go get help. This basically blew away every person who picked up the game when it first came out, as most first person shooters before that had nothing more complex than 'Stand and shoot with your nifty auto-aim'.

Actually it does. In a programmer notes he lists 40 something things that they did that was AI but wasn't 'Intelligent'. One of them was that when an elite died they had to make every grunt run every time for people to notice that brilliant piece of programming.

They programmed set 'goals' that the AI had to 'defend' or run back to. You're attributing 'licking their wounds' to at a certain level of health run here every time. Yes they did some smart programming but a number of it is subjective.

Another point they made was interviewing testers. "If the game goes from easy to hard and back again, players attribute the easy parts to poor AI and the hard parts to evil level designers.” Even though it was the exact same programming. "It's the illusion of intelligence" even though it takes good programming to get there, it's still your projection of intelligence on the exact same bots in the same scenarios.

And I will again say this knowledge increased their standing with me, but it's not as big an innovation as you make it out to be.

~UnDeAd~ wrote:I have both of these consols both running on 1080p with a HDMI cable each , i would say that the Xbox360 is much better online as it is more durable and i find that the ability to change your gamertag is very useful. However i do prefer the Playstation 3 console for the fact that you can edit movie clips on it and that you can put your own themes on it to customise it for your personal needs.

PS , i do not have Halo 3 and really need to know if it is worth getting for Xbox simply for the fact that my modelling eats up most of the money that i gain and do not want to waste money on it if it is not worth the price that it costs.

Thanks ~UnDeAd~

I wouldn't get it personally the game. Its just the same as the other 2 and is easy to beat even on hard (Don't do lengedary cause the bots always know were you are) not a good game.

Yak9UT wrote:Don't do lengedary cause the bots always know were you are

Only if you let them. Legendary may be challenging, but the AI doesn't cheat AFAIK.

Yak9UT wrote:

~UnDeAd~ wrote:I have both of these consols both running on 1080p with a HDMI cable each , i would say that the Xbox360 is much better online as it is more durable and i find that the ability to change your gamertag is very useful. However i do prefer the Playstation 3 console for the fact that you can edit movie clips on it and that you can put your own themes on it to customise it for your personal needs.

PS , i do not have Halo 3 and really need to know if it is worth getting for Xbox simply for the fact that my modelling eats up most of the money that i gain and do not want to waste money on it if it is not worth the price that it costs.

Thanks ~UnDeAd~

I wouldn't get it personally the game. Its just the same as the other 2 and is easy to beat even on hard (Don't do lengedary cause the bots always know were you are) not a good game.

Then your doing something wrong, beat it on Legendary on day one.

And mrwhoop, where did you find those notes, cause now I want to see them too

mrwhoop wrote:Actually it does. In a programmer notes he lists 40 something things that they did that was AI but wasn't 'Intelligent'. One of them was that when an elite died they had to make every grunt run every time for people to notice that brilliant piece of programming.

They programmed set 'goals' that the AI had to 'defend' or run back to. You're attributing 'licking their wounds' to at a certain level of health run here every time. Yes they did some smart programming but a number of it is subjective.

Another point they made was interviewing testers. "If the game goes from easy to hard and back again, players attribute the easy parts to poor AI and the hard parts to evil level designers.” Even though it was the exact same programming. "It's the illusion of intelligence" even though it takes good programming to get there, it's still your projection of intelligence on the exact same bots in the same scenarios.

And I will again say this knowledge increased their standing with me, but it's not as big an innovation as you make it out to be.

That's exactly what AI is, and Halo CE was praised for innovating it and it was in fact very innovative at the time.

Don't be fooled by Hollywood. AI will never be sentient, free thinking, or anything like that. A computer can only do what you tell it to do. Even if I were to program it to "learn" it's limited to learning whatever I have programmed it to learn and learning it in the way I programmed it to learn. YOu gan complicate the process infinitely, but in the end, a computer can only follow it's programming; it can't think. That's why it's Artificial Intelligence, as opposed to Synthetic Intelligence.

http://aigamedev.com/open/reviews/halo-ai/
is the link. And no, telling to do the same line of programming isn't intelligence. It's applying what was programmed. It will not run to another area but to where you designate it. Even if that area is past you it will run toward you to get there. This is the same kind of coding that bosses have been using. Get 1/2 hp, go here. 1/4 go here. Halo is the same; that's not innovation. The AI won't go somewhere else, thus not intelligent just clever programming. That's been done. And other shooters before Halo had the AI throw the grenades back, I consider that more impressive than running from it.

Nice shooter, but not defining the 360. PS3 has had innovative games. A number of them weren't liked but they tried to go beyond what the 360 was doing.

Uh, I don't know what PS3 games you've been playing but there's nothing really innovative.

LBP, ModNation Racers, Killzone, Ratchet and Clank.
LBP and Modnation are just creative games, the closest things SONY has to Mario in my opinion, but they let people design their own characters, levels, etc.

Killzone introduced the sway seen in Gears of War when a person runs, not the 3rd person view thing. Killzone also made the illusion that you were actually throwing a grenade by making the screen sway in a way that mimicked the view of actually throwing a grenade with effort. It also let you choose a character during the campaign, each with different load-outs, abilities, and different endings and objectives.

It also made sniping hard as hell by making the view orange due to the sights.

Ratchet and Clank was the first game to introduce a weapon selection wheel IIRC.

Resistance has one of the most bang-up jobs I've seen when it comes to multiplayer. The first could support 40 players with no lag and the second could support 60 players with no lag.

MAG can run 256 players and has less lag than MW2.

40 players on a console was big, 60 players on a console was bigger, and 256 was OMGWTF big.

Metal Gear Solid 4 wasn't too innovative as MGS games go, but hearing that Kojima doesn't like the fact that he's making a MGS game for the 360 and in fact says that there will never be a port of MGS4 for the 360 because it would need multiple disks also speaks for the PS3.

Not to mention Valve saying the best version of Portal 2 is going to be on the PS3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pcworld wrote:"When the PlayStation 3 was introduced, I was the one of the platform's biggest critics," joked president and co-founder of Valve Gabe Newell after striding onstage to howls of surprise. "However, Sony Computer Entertainment has proved that the PlayStation 3 is the most open platform of all the current generation consoles and has worked extremely hard to make the platform the most desirable for consumers and developers.

"As such, we are delighted to announce Portal 2 for the PlayStation 3 and believe the Steamworks support included will make it the best console version of the game."

Presumed to be for Xbox 360 and PC only until today's E3 press show, the surprise PS3 version of Portal 2 will be the only version to include Steamworks.

Killzone was PS2, and that wasn't actually anything new.

Operation: Snowblind had that same "sway" that you're discussing.

I'm pretty sure that the 360 version of Portal 2 will not need Steamworks to be good - valve will not own our gaming souls!

Doesn't matter, once the game developer says the best console version is on PS3, especially when valve the ps3 to "suck it", shows that the PS3 has something to it.

Haven't played snowblind so I will take your word on that part.

Killzone 2 had some of the best fire I have ever seen in a videogame though. Along with enemies that flushed you out of cover, if you were up against 5 enemies 3 would wait while one tried to flank and the other threw a grenade to get you out of cover, when you broke cover the other three would open fire. Really good AI, they also talked about why your allies were not as smart by saying that they were clearing entire rooms before your guy could even enter the room.

The medal of honors did not have a recharging health bar, you had to find health. The first one was med kits, rising sun had noodles, european assault had stims basically.

Call of Duty 2 had recharging health though, and that was out well before Halo.

It also said that Halo was innovative because of drivable vehicles, except for the fact that Battlefield 2 had come to the consoles a year before Halo was released.

The grenade button was cool, but that is simply hot keying. You cannot still fire your weapon while throwing a grenade because the weapon is momentarily switched out for the grenade, you still switch to a grenade, its just faster.

And yes, Goldeneye was innovative as hell whenit came to the damage of various body parts. Even when it came to deaths caused by shooting various parts.

Shoot a guy in the rear and he jumps up grabbing it. Shoot a guy in the neck and he grabs his throat, shoot a guy in the head and he drops like a rock. The red stains also show up too.

OH, and Goldeneye also had the ability to shoot through walls with certain guns. That effectively beat MW over a decade or so.

And the only reason Valce will never own your gaming souls is because you already sold it to xbox-live.

You really need to do some factchecking before you post.

Halo: Combat Evolved came out in 2001, for the Xbox. Halo 2 came out a few years later. Battlefield 2 for the consoles came out on the 360/PS3.

That's a pretty hefty gap for a game to "come to the consoles a year before Halo was released".

Call of Duty 2 came out in 2006, for the 360 and PS3.

Killzone 2 had some of the best fire I have ever seen in a videogame though. Along with enemies that flushed you out of cover, if you were up against 5 enemies 3 would wait while one tried to flank and the other threw a grenade to get you out of cover, when you broke cover the other three would open fire. Really good AI, they also talked about why your allies were not as smart by saying that they were clearing entire rooms before your guy could even enter the room.

F.E.A.R. was the first game to really do such with success. Killzone is a horribly overrated game. Its good, but it's mostly touted by PS players and Sony as they're Halo (Epic, innovative etc) despite not being anywhere near as good. It's good yes. And my opinion of it would likely be higher if people stopped trying to turn it into something it's never been. It's a solid shooter, but it's not spectacular.

Most of the games you list are not innovative at all, but rather high quality products. Resistance is of notable high quality from a very creative developer (but not that creative). Same folks I believe who made Rachet and Clank.

MAGS is another game that much like Killzone is being touted as something it's not. The game is widely known to be glitchy, unbalanced, and lacking in polish. More importantly having a massive number of players means little if the game doesn't work. The entire premise of the game is flawed as it assumes players WANT to work together. Any experience in gaming will tell you they don't. You only find teamwork in video games among close friends and Clans. Never in random pubs, which is what most console players are. Even the console based Clans are rarely clans; just people with fancy stuff in front of their names.

Valve doesn't get to have an opion, seeing as the only games they've ever actually made are HL and HL2

Call of Duty 2 had recharging health though, and that was out well before Halo.

And I thought my sense of time was bad .

Call of Duty 1 wouldn't exist until 3 years after the release of Halo CE.

Infinity Ward has never had an original idea in their lives. All their story lines are ripped from movies, in some cases, they've ripped ENTIRE SCENES! They just produced games with excellent quality. They copied and borrowed from the works of others. That's all well in good, and their games were a blast, but they're not an innovative company.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, while we're talking about original ideas I should point out that Halo 1 was very heavily influenced by the film Aliens.

To be honest I think this thread has descended into fanboy "my console has a bigger willy than yours" (possibly quite some time ago ).

Whoops, the google got me there. Gave me a different Halo release date instead of the original. That was my bad.

Although there were games that did it well before Halo. As far back as 1992 on the sega genesis.

Oh and the PS3 does weigh more than the 360 so it is bigger!

The Dreadnote wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, while we're talking about original ideas I should point out that Halo 1 was very heavily influenced by the film Aliens.

If all we do is look at the design of the Marines, which is a lot like the Colonial Marines. THe Flood are pretty much Zerg/Tyranids with some Head Crab thrown in. Master Chief is a... well he's a Space Marine lmao. Halo's humans draw a lot from Bungies previous work on Marathon.

Halo has a lot of influences in terms of its design and story line; it's fairly common in scifi to draw elements from other science fiction works. More so than in most genres of fiction. Bungie self admitted them a few years ago on a history channel special about Halo and it's development. They describe the game as "Robocop and the Colonial Marines vs Predator and Zombies." Most of Halo's innovations were in technical areas and gameplay. Just because you draw storyline elements from other sources doesn't instantly amount for a lack of creativity until you go the route of IW and copy paste movie scenes into your game .

And they also proved (imo) that drawing ideas from multiple sources can combine into something good.

Oh, and IMO the halo novels have the best space battles I've read so far. (Ship to ship combat) Hurray for keyes loop :3

What about "Double Eagle", I thought that was supposed to be pretty good?

"Double Eagle" isn't space battles.

It's air combat, similar to the Battle of Britain.

Gosh darn. I had my hopes up for space battles in it.

If abnett expanded on that one low-orbit battle in the saint part of the gaunt series, it could be decent. I thought that double eagle would be that expansion. I guess I was wrong.

Is it good though?

It's good, but you really need to actually start reading the backs of books

Anyone have any novels that can 1up halo on epic space battles?

Reach was fun.

Haven't seen an actual copy of Double Eagle in real life. Just the front cover in another book.

Oh, and star wars may beat halo in epic space battles. Star Wars books that is.

For me, star wars loses by default... hate that universe. Not a single good thing I can say about it except...




ITS A TRAP!

What about the tie fighters? They make an awesome noise when they move.

If you want epic space battles, read the stuff that Dan Weber puts out, for space battles most notibly the second book in the Dahak series, i belive it was called Armagedens Inheritance. In this "universe" we have an Imperium that fights with ships called planitoids, as they are the same size as a large moon.

Star Wars books are awful, even if you like Star Wars.

That's a shame to hear. I do like star wars and all of the pew pew lasers...

Some of the games are pretty fun though. Empire at War became a favorite of mine, but I also enjoyed Sins of a Solar Empire. Nice space battles in Sins.

my vote went for the ps3 because of the exclusives that i DID buy the system for... most notably, Killzone 2, and Metal Gear Solid 4.

Even MGS4 on its own is worth the cost of the system.

As has been mentioned before, the reliability issues of the 360 pushed me away, as did the size and shape of the controller, as did the graphics.

Im sorry, but put any sports games side by side, each system hooked up to an HD TV with HDMI cable, and you will notice how much better the playstation looks, if you dont, you need an eye exam.

There was a thing that the 360 had issues with in terms of graphics.

I heard that at a far enough distance enemies in Halo are non-3d pixels to let it run smoother. Don't know if this is fake or not though.

One thing I do know is that the 360 has issues with movement. If you play a sports game and make sudden movements the graphics get a little blurred and lead to a lower definition image. It is noticeable, but won't really ruin the game for anyone.

halonachos wrote:I heard that at a far enough distance enemies in Halo are non-3d pixels to let it run smoother. Don't know if this is fake or not though.

This is true of more games than just Halo (The birds that "flew" in the sky in Halo 2 weren't fully rendered in 3D, and I do seem to remember reading an article about this but not about enemies). It's a common technique with background, very small, or far off objects. It's not like you need to fully 3d render something that a player will never see close up. That's just a waste of processing power.

EDIT: Ah hold on. Misread . Yes. The above is true. Though it's not pixels. Pixels are never 3D. It's polygons. There are algorithms that decrease how many polygons are used to draw an object, not just enemies any object, to decrease how much processing you need to do and to keep everything smooth. It's not unique to the 360. In PC versions of Unreal Tournament, It's possible to see the switch from fewer polygons to more in an object if you have the right graphics card and set the settings just right.

One thing I do know is that the 360 has issues with movement. If you play a sports game and make sudden movements the graphics get a little blurred and lead to a lower definition image. It is noticeable, but won't really ruin the game for anyone.

The game has issues with you making sudden movements, not the 360. I don't play sports games, but I've never noticed blurring that wasn't intentional in any of the games I've played that was the fault of a perfectly running 360 just because I moved the analog stick suddenly. Are you spinning the character around wildly? You'll see a lower definition image on almost any computer system doing that because it stresses the processors. The image isn't really losing definition, the frames are just jumping and this can create an optical illusion.

Halo Reach FTW

Okay then, like I said its not much of a difference. Sure its there but I don't know too many people who decide the greatness of a game based on the blurring of motion. That stuff with the polygons and such bothers me a bit, but not too much.

I just feel proud that in killzone 2, everything is in 3d, even the backgrounds.

Except everything isn't... A large amount of the background, just like any other game, is rendered in 2D.

Hell, even the Support Drones that you get in MP are 2D until they actually enter play.

Except it was stated in the developement notes tht everything even the background was 3d. Now the sky and such may not be 3d, but all of the buildings and such were said to be actual 3d.

Then they lied. Because a large amount of the buildings are rendered in 2D.

halonachos wrote:Except it was stated in the developement notes tht everything even the background was 3d. Now the sky and such may not be 3d, but all of the buildings and such were said to be actual 3d.

Development notes? Those are more lists of ideas that may or may not be in the final version of the game. Lots of times things are listed in development notes that never materialize. That's why they're development notes.

Man, there was a video talking about it on youtube before the game came out but now I can't find it. I will keep looking for it, but I will let you know it did win Best Graphics in G-phoria.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing for me is the story. I just like Killzone's over Halo's as some like Halo's over Killzone's I can't explain that.

The first person view in the entire game makes me very happy along with the fact that the character reaches out to push buttons and doesn't use telekinesis to do it. Not very major, but still fun.

I guess that's the basic thing about a game though, whatever makes it fun.

As far as I can remember... isn't killzone just ww2 in space?

Dutch people made it, so it needs nazi's.

Isn't Halo just WW2 in space?

Same basic storyline:
1) Someone was invaded/attacked.
2) The invaded/attacked people fight back.
3) The invaded become the invaders.
4) The enemy has an idealistic leader/leaders who are more or less dictators.

Its just that Killzone had the balls to make it more obvious.

halonachos wrote:Isn't Halo just WW2 in space?

Halo is self admittedly: "Robocop and the Colonial Marines vs Predator and Zombies." I prefer to think of it as Starship Troopers vs Predator vs Tyranids.

Most of the things you listed are typical of many video games. The thing for Killzone is that the enemies look noticeably like German SS in winter gear. I don't really think that's a it's a bad idea though. Calling on collective cultural images can really help get a point across. Lucas did the same thing with Vader's helmet in Star Wars (Which used the same distinct helmet design you see on enemies in Killzone). Can't get any more evil than Nazi's right

Zombie nazis, or vampire nazis, or robotic vampire zombie nazis. Now that may be even more evil.

halonachos wrote:Zombie nazis, or vampire nazis, or robotic vampire zombie nazis. Now that may be even more evil.

Robotic Zombie Ninja Nazi's. They're in the apocalypse somewhere I swear.

Robotic Zombie Ninja Vampire Nazis formed together in some kind of Frankenstein's monsterish creature that was created by a pact with the devil himself.

I chose PS3 because, well I own 1! Plus PS3 also has Exclusives that are just as good as Xbox 360 exclusives.

Such as:
LittleBigPlanet
Killzone 2
Metal Gear Solid 4
God of War III and a bunch of others

HiyoshixMasa wrote:I chose PS3 because, well I own 1! Plus PS3 also has Exclusives that are just as good as Xbox 360 exclusives.

Such as:
LittleBigPlanet
Killzone 2
Metal Gear Solid 4
God of War III and a bunch of others

But Halo rules them ALL....

HiyoshixMasa wrote:I chose PS3 because, well I own 1! Plus PS3 also has Exclusives that are just as good as Xbox 360 exclusives.

Such as:
LittleBigPlanet
Killzone 2
Metal Gear Solid 4
God of War III and a bunch of others

Of those, only four I can think of are good.

Resistance 1+2(counts as one, since they're very very similar to each other)
MGS4
Killzone 2
inFamous

Pretty much every other game on the PS3 is either completely blargh or a shared game with every other platform out there.

Which kinda negates the whole "we have better exclusives than you" angle that PS3 owners seem to take, and then leads them to their fallback of "But everything looks better on the PS3!"(which really, it doesn't. It depends on the TV you're using--a crummy TV is going to have a crummy image, period).

I bought a Xbox 360, and I regret it. I should have bought a ps3. Seriously, I hate paying monthly fees.

Well, considering that Sony is moving to a monthly fee structure--you'd be just as regretting it there too.

Kanluwen wrote:Well, considering that Sony is moving to a monthly fee structure--you'd be just as regretting it there too.

The Playstation Plus network is going to be voluntary. The free version will remain with full features, for now.

I won't be surprised if a year or two down the road they cut the free version and just keep the paid subscription one.

Except Xbox Live Gold is just as voluntary, wouldn't you say?

I mean Silver nets you the 'basics' of playing online.

Kanluwen wrote:Except Xbox Live Gold is just as voluntary, wouldn't you say?

I mean Silver nets you the 'basics' of playing online.

You can't play a game online with a silver account. Silver is just a normal online account with access to basic features yes, but you can't play a game online without Gold. That's the most important feature. You can't get it without a Gold account. As far as I know, PS+ won't be adopting that model. The free version of the network still gives multiplayer access.

Pretty sure I've seen people in-game with Silver accounts, so I highly doubt that.

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty sure I've seen people in-game with Silver accounts, so I highly doubt that.

XBox Live Subscriptions

Maybe the people you noticed had cards for free game time?

I have a Silver account and play online. Though that is just because my gamertag is SilverMK2

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty sure I've seen people in-game with Silver accounts, so I highly doubt that.

XBox Live Subscriptions

Maybe the people you noticed had cards for free game time?

So, you can in fact play online with a Silver account.

I REST MY CASE!

Kanluwen wrote:So, you can in fact play online with a Silver account.

I REST MY CASE!

Those cards only last 48 hours. You'd have to pay $60 for a new game every 2 days

I seem to remember the good old days though, where those things ran for at least a month, and sometimes three. That was awesome. Back then you actually could keep up constant online access by just buying a game you would have probably bought anyway XD. And they were packaged with everything, even games with no online

Ediin wrote:I bought a Xbox 360, and I regret it. I should have bought a ps3. Seriously, I hate paying monthly fees.

Your avatar is an xbox 360 exclusive title. I sense cognitive dissonance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

HiyoshixMasa wrote:I chose PS3 because, well I own 1! Plus PS3 also has Exclusives that are just as good as Xbox 360 exclusives.

Such as:
LittleBigPlanet
Killzone 2
Metal Gear Solid 4
God of War III and a bunch of others

Of those, only four I can think of are good.

Resistance 1+2(counts as one, since they're very very similar to each other)
MGS4
Killzone 2
inFamous

Pretty much every other game on the PS3 is either completely blargh or a shared game with every other platform out there.

Which kinda negates the whole "we have better exclusives than you" angle that PS3 owners seem to take, and then leads them to their fallback of "But everything looks better on the PS3!"(which really, it doesn't. It depends on the TV you're using--a crummy TV is going to have a crummy image, period).

Both platforms have similar numbers of high quality console exclusive titles. Console exclusivity as a concept has been on the decline for years as the systems reach parity of power and features with one another. If you want exclusives get a wii.

The wii has some good exclusives, although they all devolve into "Mario Something", "Something Bros", or "Metroid [insert name/number here]". So if we go by franchises, exclusives drop like a rock for all companies.

Microsoft: Halo, Gears of War, Fable, Forza, sure that there are others but I don't own one and can't think of any at the moment.
Sony: Killzone, Resistance, Little Big Planet, Gran Turismo, MLB the Show, Motorstorm, Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid(so far), Infamous, God of War, Modnation racers, and soon to be out Twisted Metal.
Nintendo: Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Pokemon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, with the plus its not mandatory and will never be mandatory. Although having it does give you discounts on most of the DLC and gives you early access to certain demos.

Got to be the PS3. IMO the better console and Uncharted 2 is the ultimate 'next gen' experience.

I should add I am a slight fanboy...

Don Cooperino wrote:Got to be the PS3. IMO the better console and Uncharted 2 is the ultimate 'next gen' experience.

I should add I am a slight fanboy...

Uncharted 2 is a third person adventure/shooter. It's in every way a last gen experience that was just very, very good. It didn't revolutionize game design in any way, it was just a tremendous game. If you want a "next gen experience" you're better off looking at little big planet or fallout three. The former for its social integration and the latter for it's ability to render appreciably a large and fully realized world in which to explore and play. Both design concepts require current generation technologies that were not available previous.

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty sure I've seen people in-game with Silver accounts, so I highly doubt that.

You haven't. The only games you can play online with Silver are (a very limited version of) Halo 3, and subscription-based MMOs like Final Fantasy XI and Phantasy Star Universe.

ShumaGorath wrote:Uncharted 2 is a third person adventure/shooter. It's in every way a last gen experience that was just very, very good. It didn't revolutionize game design in any way, it was just a tremendous game. If you want a "next gen experience" you're better off looking at little big planet or fallout three. The former for its social integration and the latter for it's ability to render appreciably a large and fully realized world in which to explore and play. Both design concepts require current generation technologies that were not available previous.

I will definitely agree with LittleBigPlanet, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with Fallout 3 being a truly progressive gaming model. Bethesda's been making these incredibly expansive worlds since 1996. In fact, they seem to be getting smaller and losing detail the further technology progresses, due to time spent on graphical engines as opposed to actual content. The Elder Scrolls series has been around a long time, and has achieved the exact same thing. I seriously suggest you check out Daggerfall if you're at all doubtful. You can download it for free from Bethesda's website, but good luck running the damn game.

I would say that if you're looking for a true example of a large-scale and fully realized world that is only possible with the current generation of technology, look no further than Red Dead Redemption. Now that is a perfect example of a 'next-gen' rendition of an open-ended game.

Kanluwen wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty sure I've seen people in-game with Silver accounts, so I highly doubt that.

XBox Live Subscriptions

Maybe the people you noticed had cards for free game time?

So, you can in fact play online with a Silver account.

I REST MY CASE!

Do read a thread thoroughly.

Free game time+Silver account=playing on Live with a Silver account.

Magic!

Kanluwen wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty sure I've seen people in-game with Silver accounts, so I highly doubt that.

XBox Live Subscriptions

Maybe the people you noticed had cards for free game time?

So, you can in fact play online with a Silver account.

I REST MY CASE!

Do read a thread thoroughly.

Free game time+Silver account=playing on Live with a Silver account.

Magic!

That is not analogous to playing games for free on a silver account. That's a demo. You're splitting hairs to prove yourself right when you made a somewhat inane comment comparing PSN to silver live status. They are not comparable and the PSN network is truly free to use for online play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I will definitely agree with LittleBigPlanet, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with Fallout 3 being a truly progressive gaming model. Bethesda's been making these incredibly expansive worlds since 1996. In fact, they seem to be getting smaller and losing detail the further technology progresses, due to time spent on graphical engines as opposed to actual content.

How are they less detailed but more graphically impressive? Also the entire point was that the games open world graphical detail allowed for a form of experiential gameplay that was not possible in titles such as morrowind. It takes a semi lifelike vista to incite a feeling of wonder and thirst for exploration in that kind of title. Morrowind was fun, but it doesn't really hold up to the "Gawking as a form of gameplay" form that they helped pioneer with oblivion (something the last gen could also not play).

There is a difference between an open world game and an open world game with high graphic fidelity. They are experienced differently psychologically and different things are prioritized by the player. Fallout 3 also had more quests and discoverable areas then morrowind and less but better quests then oblivion (with more discoverable areas still).

I seriously suggest you check out Daggerfall if you're at all doubtful. You can download it for free from Bethesda's website, but good luck running the damn game.

I would say that if you're looking for a true example of a large-scale and fully realized world that is only possible with the current generation of technology, look no further than Red Dead Redemption. Now that is a perfect example of a 'next-gen' rendition of an open-ended game.

That is another great example. Both are good examples in my opinion, as is oblivion, as is GTA4, as are several of the MMOs on the PC platform.

And the "truly free online play" is garbage, in my experience.

Relying on players to host games, etc is an idiotic way to do it for the most part.

Kanluwen wrote:And the "truly free online play" is garbage, in my experience.

Relying on players to host games, etc is an idiotic way to do it for the most part.

Thats still truly free. Stop being hyperbolic because you were wrong, the quality of the connection is irrelevant to it's cost to the users on PSN.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And the "truly free online play" is garbage, in my experience.

Relying on players to host games, etc is an idiotic way to do it for the most part.

Thats still truly free. Stop being hyperbolic because you were wrong, the quality of the connection is irrelevant to it's cost to the users on PSN.

There's no hyperbole involved.

I've played on both setups, and have a PSN account--and you get what you (in this case) don't pay for.

Dropped games, people closing games because they're getting beat and more.

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And the "truly free online play" is garbage, in my experience.

Relying on players to host games, etc is an idiotic way to do it for the most part.

Thats still truly free. Stop being hyperbolic because you were wrong, the quality of the connection is irrelevant to it's cost to the users on PSN.

There's no hyperbole involved.

I've played on both setups, and have a PSN account--and you get what you (in this case) don't pay for.

Dropped games, people closing games because they're getting beat and more.

But thats irrelevant, you're attempting to change the subject so that you don't have to admit to being wrong.

ShumaGorath wrote:How are they less detailed but more graphically impressive? Also the entire point was that the games open world graphical detail allowed for a form of experiential gameplay that was not possible in titles such as morrowind. It takes a semi lifelike vista to incite a feeling of wonder and thirst for exploration in that kind of title. Morrowind was fun, but it doesn't really hold up to the "Gawking as a form of gameplay" form that they helped pioneer with oblivion (something the last gen could also not play).

There is a difference between an open world game and an open world game with high graphic fidelity. They are experienced differently psychologically and different things are prioritized by the player. Fallout 3 also had more quests and discoverable areas then morrowind and less but better quests then oblivion (with more discoverable areas still).

Detail is not inherent in graphical quality alone. The contrast in the effort put into Morrowind as opposed to Oblivion is vast. There is certainly an equal amount of effort applied to both games, but said effort is applied in completely different areas. This is a much easier comparison to make than the difference between Fallout 3 and Morrowind, as Oblivion exists iwithin the same series, so I'll go ahead and make it. The differences are fairly analogous anyway.

There were far more quests in Morrowind than there were in Oblivion. Oblivion's full voice acting was nice for the sense of immersion, but it really hindered how many quests they could fit into the game. I also felt that the quests in Morrowind were written to a higher standard, and actually got you more involved than the quests in Oblivion (since Oblivion held your hand throughout the whole game). Morrowind had more unique loot, as well as more care put into the placement of enemies and the creation of dungeons (since Oblivion let a randomized system handle most of the work). Oblivion had absolutely no unique loot, as it existed on a randomized generic loot system. There is also a lot of recycling of objects in Oblivion and Fallout 3, which wasn't nearly as apparent in Morrowind.

Though this is partially due to the fact that Tamriel was a horrible place to set an Elder Scrolls game, there was far more variation in the actual land and architecture of Morrowind. Ash wastes, swamps filled with logic-defying flora, great expanses of plains, a tundra, etc. Morrowind had about five or six completely different types of towns that all greatly varied in architecture. Tamriel was simply a lot of generic grass, forests, and castles (This was also a major problem in Falllout 3; everything bled into an endless sea of depressing and overbearing brown that I ultimately couldn't force myself to care about exploring). There was much more time spent on the lore in Morrowind. Most of the lore found in Oblivion is completely recycled from the previous game. The storyline in Morrowind is also far superior by all counts, and I don't think anyone could really disagree with that.

I could go on, but I think these examples should be sufficient in explaining exactly why a focus on graphical fidelity and AI can really hinder the other detail-oriented aspects of a game.

I was also thoroughly amazed throughout my time in Morrowind, and actively thought about how much effort was put into making the game for all 500+ hours of gameplay I got out of it. I was thrilled to simply explore and experience the world. Perhaps that's just me, or perhaps taking a step backwards makes this fairly impossible. Sitting and marveling at the graphical detail presented in games has been around since the start of this generation, and that sort of thing is not unique to open-world games.

That is another great example. Both are good examples in my opinion, as is oblivion, as is GTA4, as are several of the MMOs on the PC platform.

I'd have to disagree with MMOs as well. Most of them having been running on what is essentially the same exact engine as EverQuest since 1999, and nearly every single MMO could easily be text-based without losing any gameplay elements.

I'd have to disagree with MMOs as well. Most of them having been running on what is essentially the same exact engine as EverQuest since 1999, and nearly every single MMO could easily be text-based without losing any gameplay elements.

I... I don't think you actually know what the word engine means in the context of videogame development.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'd have to disagree with MMOs as well. Most of them having been running on what is essentially the same exact engine as EverQuest since 1999, and nearly every single MMO could easily be text-based without losing any gameplay elements.

I... I don't think you actually know what the word engine means in the context of videogame development.

I'm not talking about the context of videogame development; I'm talking about the end result that's apparent for all to see.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'd have to disagree with MMOs as well. Most of them having been running on what is essentially the same exact engine as EverQuest since 1999, and nearly every single MMO could easily be text-based without losing any gameplay elements.

I... I don't think you actually know what the word engine means in the context of videogame development.

I'm not talking about the context of videogame development; I'm talking about the end result that's apparent for all to see.

Then don't use the term game engine incorrectly. Use visual aesthetic or environmental design or something. These terms have meanings.

ShumaGorath wrote:Then don't use the term game engine incorrectly. Use visual aesthetic or environmental design or something. These terms have meanings.

Visual Aesthetic or Environmental Design don't get the point across quite as well, as neither are accurate descriptions for what I'm trying to convey.

Thanks to the popularity of World of Warcraft, and developer's hopes that they can cash in on the same formula, nearly every MMO that has been released in recent memory follows the exact same general outline. They play in exactly the same way, follow the same type of level progression and general class system, exist as themeparks which are raid-based and loot-centric, and place little to no value in player interaction outside of instances or raids. If it weren't for graphical upgrades or minor tweaks inherent to each game, then yes, they might as well run on exactly the same engine as EverQuest, as 80% of any MMO released since WoW has done little to nothing to differentiate itself from Blizzard's Magnum Opus (Which is essentially a more polished version of EverQuest).

Does that help anything?

Visual Aesthetic or Environmental Design don't get the point across quite as well, as neither are accurate descriptions for what I'm trying to convey.

Well game engine certainly didn't.

Thanks to the popularity of World of Warcraft, and developer's hopes that they can cash in on the same formula, nearly every MMO that has been released in recent memory follows the exact same general outline.

Champions online, APB, Tabulas Rasa (dead), Aion (Dying), Conan (who even knows now), to name a few. The highest profile WoW clone was Warhammer online, and that thing tanked. Most developers want to be as disimilar to WoW as possible at this point.

They play in exactly the same way, follow the same type of level progression and general class system, exist as themeparks which are raid-based and loot-centric, and place little to no value in player interaction outside of instances or raids.

Everquest pretty much pioneered all that. You should probably just realize those are tropes of the genre itself. In retrospect, you did.

If it weren't for graphical upgrades or minor tweaks inherent to each game, then yes, they might as well run on exactly the same engine as EverQuest, as 80% of any MMO released since WoW has done little to nothing to differentiate itself from Blizzard's Magnum Opus (Which is essentially a more polished version of EverQuest).

I don't think you've actually played very many of them, but who is to say?

Champions online, APB, Tabulas Rasa (dead), Aion (Dying), Conan (who even knows now), to name a few. The highest profile WoW clone was Warhammer online, and that thing tanked. Most developers want to be as disimilar to WoW as possible at this point.

The only one of those games that is truly dissimilar from WoW is APB, which is not even an honest-to-goodness MMO (And instead follows a horrible business model that's similar to Global Agenda). Champions Online is a last-ditch effort to save a half-finished game (It's a bad mash-up of remnants of Cryptic's previous engine and the same general setup as WoW). The combat is entertaining, but not really all that different (just set at a faster pace), and balance in Champions is nigh impossible. Keep in mind that as I say this, I currently have a subscription to Champions, as I really enjoy the customization present in the game, but for all intents and purposes, it's a half-finished game at best. It also shares far too many similarities with WoW, and if you can't see them, you're blind.

Tabula Rasa's only defining characteristic is the pseudo-3rd-person-shooter element that you can find in games like Fallen Earth and the 'new' Star Wars Galaxies. Aside from that, it was essentially the same. That's kind of a moot point, as it's ten feet under in it's current state.

Aion is the Korean (Subscription) WoW, except for the fact that you can fly (a limited amount). Woohoo.

Conan is a gory WoW with a slightly streamlined combat system and a bit more focus on PvP.

Everquest pretty much pioneered all that. You should probably just realize those are tropes of the genre itself. In retrospect, you did.

The only reason that these are defining characteristics of the genre is because no one is content to explore the inherent possibilities in creating a massively multiplayer game. Games that were released before WoW, such as Ultima Online, Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, or EVE Online did not follow this model whatsoever. They existed as true sandbox games, which encouraged community interaction and perpetuated a player-built economy, and existed on completely unique internal systems which have not been copied since (Aside from Runescape copying UO to an extent, but I hardly think that counts). Even this is pigeonholing the genre a little bit, though. My entire point is that no developer has even made an attempt at making a completely unique MMO since WoW, even though it's entirely possible to do so. This is a genre that imprisons itself so entirely in the success of it's flagship game that there's not a single company out there willing to take a risk in creating something wholly unique.

I don't think you've actually played very many of them, but who is to say?

Correction: I've played nearly every single one of them. I am still addicted to pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies, and I've been seeking for a subscription-quality MMO that can fill that void for years. There are a select few P2P MMOs that I've overlooked, but there really aren't very many that I haven't played for at least a month. A few of them have held my interest for a few months, but ultimately, they tend to make my situation worse by having me realize that the genre is doomed to repeat itself, and I'll never have a unique or memorable experience like I did with SWG.

The only one of those games that is truly dissimilar from WoW is APB, which is not even an honest-to-goodness MMO (And instead follows a horrible business model that's similar to Global Agenda). Champions Online is a last-ditch effort to save a half-finished game (It's a bad mash-up of remnants of Cryptic's previous engine and the same general setup as WoW).

Stop using the word engine. You do not know what it means.

The combat is entertaining, but not really all that different (just set at a faster pace), and balance in Champions is nigh impossible. Keep in mind that as I say this, I currently have a subscription to Champions, as I really enjoy the customization present in the game, but for all intents and purposes, it's a half-finished game at best. It also shares far too many similarities with WoW, and if you can't see them, you're blind.

Yeah, like missions, and quest givers, and a third person perspective. You know what had that? Morrowind, the game you loved so much. I'm not blind, you're just living in one giant structure made entirely out of cognitive dissonance.

Aion is the Korean (Subscription) WoW, except for the fact that you can fly (a limited amount). Woohoo.

Conan is a gory WoW with a slightly streamlined combat system and a bit more focus on PvP.

So these games are all WoW because they aren't halo? I see.

The only reason that these are defining characteristics of the genre is because no one is content to explore the inherent possibilities in creating a massively multiplayer game. Games that were released before WoW, such as Ultima Online, Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, or EVE Online did not follow this model whatsoever.

Starwars galaxies is every bit as similar to WoW as the afore mentioned tabula rasa. As is ultima.

They existed as true sandbox games, which encouraged community interaction and perpetuated a player-built economy, and existed on completely unique internal systems which have not been copied since

Every MMO has an internal player built economy.

Even this is pigeonholing the genre a little bit, though. My entire point is that no developer has even made an attempt at making a completely unique MMO since WoW, even though it's entirely possible to do so. This is a genre that imprisons itself so entirely in the success of it's flagship game that there's not a single company out there willing to take a risk in creating something wholly unique.

"I don't like WoW. Every game is like WoW now. Why can't things be like they were before".

Correction: I've played nearly every single one of them. I am still addicted to pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies, and I've been seeking for a subscription-quality MMO that can fill that void for years. There are a select few P2P MMOs that I've overlooked, but there really aren't very many that I haven't played for at least a month. A few of them have held my interest for a few months, but ultimately, they tend to make my situation worse by having me realize that the genre is doomed to repeat itself, and I'll never have a unique or memorable experience like I did with SWG.

It's funny that you enjoy one of the worst MMOs ever created so preferentially years after it came out. The mysteries of starwars fandom I suppose.

Stop using the word engine. You do not know what it means.

Fine. Game, then. Champions copied a copious amount of content from City of Heroes. I know this, because I played CoX for about a year. Champions uses practically all of the same sound effects, a lot of the same animations, and it even reuses some wireframe models. This is incredibly lazy, and this is the only genre where this practice is even remotely acceptable.

Yeah, like missions, and quest givers, and a third person perspective. You know what had that? Morrowind, the game you loved so much. I'm not blind, you're just living in one giant structure made entirely out of cognitive dissonance.

Those are very broad generalizations, Shuma. My accusations were much more specific in nature. Champions copied the same general quest structure as WoW (A disjointed assortment of quest givers with "Go here, kill this" quests present in the overworld, with all of the instancing being used for 'special occasions' and 'fat loot'; this bears a marked similarity to WoW if you're actually content to pay attention). Champions shares practically the same crafting system (Which is, ultimately, completely inconsequential, just like WoW), the same exact inventory and money management system, the same themeparked, completely linear progression, etc. The only real differences are the character creation system (Which is also ripped straight from CoX), slight changes to the combat system and skill synergy to amp up the pace a bit, and the free reign you have over choosing your character's abilities.

So these games are all WoW because they aren't halo? I see.

No, these games are all WoW because they play exactly like WoW and share the same structure as WoW. I don't even know how you thought that was relevant.

Every MMO has an internal player built economy.

Right, but every recent MMO is loot-centric, so the economy is always completely inconsequential. The economy is hardly ever completely governed by players, and the best items are always generated by NPC enemies to make raiding more of a draw. People don't depend on others within the economy of an MMO anymore (for the most part), and you can pretty much solo your way through to the top tier of item creation. This negates any true purpose of 'economy'.

"I don't like WoW. Every game is like WoW now. Why can't things be like they were before".

I liked WoW perfectly fine until every MMO made an attempt to emulate it, and it killed all possiblity of creativity within the genre.

It's funny that you enjoy one of the worst MMOs ever created so preferentially years after it came out. The mysteries of starwars fandom I suppose.

It's painfully obvious that you had never played it in it's first iteration, before they tried to turn it into EQII, and subsequently, WoW. I am by no means a hardcore Star Wars fan (I can recognize that they were some decent movies; that's about it), and every preference I had towards the game had absolutely nothing to do with the setting. The skill system gave you complete free reign over what you wanted to be (without being completely imbalanced, like Champions), the economy was completely player run with a ton of intricate facets, every single item was completely unique to itself, the game had a completely open structure within an absolutely massive and varied world (Including player built and operated towns, random mission allocation, etc.), the combat actually involved legitimate strategy, the game included real time combat segments with the release of the second expansion, you could do just about anything you could think of within the context of the world, etc. The setting was simply a bit of icing on the cake, so to speak.

Now, SWG is certainly the worst MMO in existance, but that's only due to the fact that SoE made an attempt at turning it into WoW to make them more money. It failed miserably, yet they won't admit to their mistake and revert to the old game model. I have a very strong feeling that you played SWG in it's current state, hence your opinion. If you truly think that the original SWG is one of the worst MMOs ever made, I'd certainly appreciate an explanation as to why.

Fine. Game, then. Champions copied a copious amount of content from City of Heroes. I know this, because I played CoX for about a year. Champions uses practically all of the same sound effects, a lot of the same animations, and it even reuses some wireframe models. This is incredibly lazy, and this is the only genre where this practice is even remotely acceptable.

Technically, most of the sounds they use are under creative commons. You can find them in many other games as well. NCsoft isn't exactly spending a lot of money on it's sound effects. Their car combat MMO used the same sounds as well.

Those are very broad generalizations, Shuma. My accusations were much more specific in nature.

No, they weren't. You actually made very few at all, though you certainly hinted at their existence.

Champions copied the same general quest structure as WoW (A disjointed assortment of quest givers with "Go here, kill this" quests present in the overworld, with all of the instancing being used for 'special occasions' and 'fat loot'; this bears a marked similarity to WoW if you're actually content to pay attention).

Every zone in champions is instanced, just as with city of heroes. I don't think you know what the term instancing in this framework means either.

Champions shares practically the same crafting system (Which is, ultimately, completely inconsequential, just like WoW), the same exact inventory and money management system, the same themeparked, completely linear progression, etc. The only real differences are the character creation system (Which is also ripped straight from CoX), slight changes to the combat system and skill synergy to amp up the pace a bit, and the free reign you have over choosing your character's abilities.

The money management system? You mean, you have money, and it is counted digitally? Inventory systems? You mean, you pull up your inventory and items are in there? For reference, morrowind had the same crafting system as WoW. You farmed things from plants or animals and then used your skill to make an item out of them. It's a generic system.

All of these complaints are non sensical and generic.

No, these games are all WoW because they play exactly like WoW and share the same structure as WoW. I don't even know how you thought that was relevant.

Because they don't and they're not. You have (apparently) no idea what you're talking about. Is half life the same game as doom? Is halo the same as modern warfare? Is forza the same as mariokart? Games exist within genres and differentiate themselves with specifics. Champions online is as different from WoW as MarioKart is from Gran Turismo.

The fact that you think they are the same speaks volumes for your inability to actually discuss this topic with any level of accuracy or impartiality.

Right, but every recent MMO is loot-centric, so the economy is always completely inconsequential. The economy is hardly ever completely governed by players, and the best items are always generated by NPC enemies to make raiding more of a draw. People don't depend on others within the economy of an MMO anymore (for the most part), and you can pretty much solo your way through to the top tier of item creation. This negates any true purpose of 'economy'.

Yeah, they certainly aren't all Eve online (spreadsheets in space!) though every other example given in this thread of an MMO including all those preceding WoW had the same loot driven economic system. It's a trope of the genre and has been every since the days of MUDs.

It's painfully obvious that you had never played it in it's first iteration, before they tried to turn it into EQII, and subsequently, WoW.

No, I didn't. I just know it was one of the worst rated MMOs of it's time that started tanking so badly that they had to totally revamp the game in order to stop it from dying off completely.

But hey, if you like it good on you.

WoW. I am by no means a hardcore Star Wars fan (I can recognize that they were some decent movies; that's about it), and every preference I had towards the game had absolutely nothing to do with the setting. The skill system gave you complete free reign over what you wanted to be (without being completely imbalanced, like Champions), the economy was completely player run with a ton of intricate facets, every single item was completely unique to itself, the game had a completely open structure within an absolutely massive and varied world (Including player built and operated towns, random mission allocation, etc.), the combat actually involved legitimate strategy, the game included real time combat segments with the release of the second expansion, you could do just about anything you could think of within the context of the world, etc. The setting was simply a bit of icing on the cake, so to speak.

Yeah, by what I've read all that was in there but the majority was inconsequential or dysfunctional.

Now, SWG is certainly the worst MMO in existance, but that's only due to the fact that SoE made an attempt at turning it into WoW to make them more money. It failed miserably, yet they won't admit to their mistake and revert to the old game model.

They went to the new game model precisely because the old game model was venting players like a barrel with no bottom. They aren't going to go back to what was clearly a failed system.

I have a very strong feeling that you played SWG in it's current state, hence your opinion. If you truly think that the original SWG is one of the worst MMOs ever made, I'd certainly appreciate an explanation as to why.

Critical andPopular opinion as well as playercounts over time are why. Critics thought it was bad, players wanted a change, and they started leaving. Sony altered the game, stemmed the loss of players, and those that had enjoyed the previous systems got mad because their game wasn't the same any more.

Shuma and Chrysaor you are both making gaming not fun.

Let's leave this at:

1) Fallout 3 was not revolutionary.
2) All mmo's are the same.
3) The word engine has multiple meanings.
4) Shuma knows psychological terminology and that alone should scare the gak outta you.
5) Chrysaor has a chaos marine for an avatar, a very scary chaos marine might I add.
6) Silver accounts can play demos online, but not the majority of the games available to be played online.
7) The PS3 has dropped online games(as does the 360).
8) The terms "visual aesthetic" and "environmental design" have meaning.

I will also add that I enjoy the Dynasty Warriors series even though they are all the same game more or less.

1) Fallout 3 was not revolutionary.

Opinion, and one not held by common media.

2) All mmo's are the same.

Factually and logically incorrect.

3) The word engine has multiple meanings.

And he was using it wrong no matter which one you use.

4) Shuma knows psychological terminology and that alone should scare the gak outta you.

Rawr.

5) Chrysaor has a chaos marine for an avatar, a very scary chaos marine might I add.

He might be a word bearer!

6) Silver accounts can play demos online, but not the majority of the games available to be played online.

Halolz.

7) The PS3 has dropped online games(as does the 360).

No one will ever miss chromehounds.

8) The terms "visual aesthetic" and "environmental design" have meaning.

They're important!

I will also add that I enjoy the Dynasty Warriors series even though they are all the same game more or less.

Then you'll enjoy Dynasty warriors online, the MMO that is basically just persistent dynasty warriors... Online. It's just like world of warcraft! (totally serious. It's real.)

Revised.

1) Fallout 3's revolutionary status is an opinion.
2) All mmo's have quests.

halonachos wrote:Revised.

1) Fallout 3's revolutionary status is an opinion.
2) All mmo's have quests.

Farmville is an MMO.

Shuma, your viewpoint somehow manages to be entirely too basic and far too abstract at the same time. I concede, simply because I know this isn't going to get anywhere, no matter how much effort I expend trying to make my own views clear. You win.

We've managed to drag this thread pretty far off it's intended topic. All apologies.

Shuma, your viewpoint somehow manages to be entirely too basic and far too abstract at the same time. I concede, simply because I know this isn't going to get anywhere, no matter how much effort I expend trying to make my own views clear. You win.

Cop out. My views are fairly plain and they were explained technically where such language was applicable.

We've managed to drag this thread pretty far off it's intended topic. All apologies.

But then it's back to a 360 v ps3 thread! Thats the worst kind of thread D: .

halonachos wrote:I will also add that I enjoy the Dynasty Warriors series even though they are all the same game more or less.

Dynasty Warrior's is money well spent on good simple fun. It just doesn't get as old as fast as you'd think it would

No one will ever miss chromehounds.

Nope. I only logged 80 hours on CH because I always enjoy something with giant robots XD

Cop out. My views are fairly plain and they were explained technically where such language was applicable.

r

Your views are entirely based in technicalities, and for the most part, are so simple that they have become abstract. It's not a very legitimate argument when you boil every single point I make down to it's base form, even though I know that you're intelligent enough to understand the implications of what I'm saying. Sure, you become practically irrefuteable with this standpoint (as would anyone), but the argument holds no weight anymore, and it doesn't get us anywhere. I know you don't need painstaking specifics from me to understand my point, but you expect them, simply because it makes things far more difficult than they should have to be.

But then it's back to a 360 v ps3 thread! Thats the worst kind of thread D: .

Agreed, but there is room for a general MMO thread elsewhere.

It hasn't gone off-topic yet! This still has potential to be a really good Halo argument thread! We all know that's what PS3/XBOX threads are really about anyway.



Call of Duty, not Medal of Honor, featured a regenerating mechanic in a modern FPS... that might be where the previous confusion came from. That was two years after Halo. If we go back to Faceball, a SNES/Megadrive game from the early nineties... oh look, same thing. Plenty of platform games have used the idea too. Halo moved it to a shield, and kept the classic health bar.

Unreal (1998) supported co-op play, through its massive and revolutionary 'single player' mode, which did a lot more for 3D rendering and gameplay mechanics than Halo did. The multiplayer was also extremely good, so much so that it inspired a purely multiplayer franchise of four successful games (three and a half at minimum - UT3 didn't do as well as its predecessors).

Three years later, Bungie released a very popular and well-polished FPS called Halo. It is kind of fun to play. The AI is pretty good but merely a refinement. Like Half-Life three years before it, Halo uses a similar node-based AI system. When they tried to emulate the squad mechanics used by other titles in Halo 3, the AI arguably became worse.

I've played Halo a lot (it's easy to pick up, which is a pro for the wider audience), but don't own it. The community misunderstanding about it being 'revolutionary' has always... well, excluded me from the Halo community.

Now Dynasty Warriors... there's a franchise I can burn away weeks on.

Your views are entirely based in technicalities, and for the most part, are so simple that they have become abstract. It's not a very legitimate argument when you boil every single point I make down to it's base form, even though I know that you're intelligent enough to understand the implications of what I'm saying.

Your arguments are overtly simplistic and founded on spurious logic that doesn't up up under scrutiny. I could either refute you by saying "No you are wrong" or by using technical terms and explanations.

Sure, you become practically irrefuteable with this standpoint (as would anyone), but the argument holds no weight anymore, and it doesn't get us anywhere. I know you don't need painstaking specifics from me to understand my point, but you expect them, simply because it makes things far more difficult than they should have to be.

I understand what you are saying perfectly. The issue is that your opinions are wrong concerning certain issues (such as all MMOs being the same). If you are arguing from pure hyperbolic opinion then I can accept it, but thats not a legitimate opinion or discussion then. I accepted your opinions on fallout, but your opinions concerning things like MMO design are seemingly based on design qualifications and experience but then fall apart when scrutinized under the same.

I don't need specifics, I need your opinions to stop being wrong concerning the areas of our dispute.

Nope. I only logged 80 hours on CH because I always enjoy something with giant robots XD

I logged a good bit of time in as well, but mostly just because I love making robots. The gameplay was deplorable (putting on armor made you MORE vulnerable).

Unreal (1998) supported co-op play, through its massive and revolutionary 'single player' mode, which did a lot more for 3D rendering and gameplay mechanics than Halo did. The multiplayer was also extremely good, so much so that it inspired a purely multiplayer franchise of four successful games (three and a half at minimum - UT3 didn't do as well as its predecessors).

Halo set a standard for bump and normal mapping in that generation. Unreal was great looking, but it was pretty cookie cutter in the old trop of "bigger environments, higher res textures". Halos true accomplishment was being the first majorly successful console FPS and building in vehicles from the ground up to function in engine without seeming tacked on. For a time it was (and still in my opinion is) the best vehicle implementation in any FPS game.

Three years later, Bungie released a very popular and well-polished FPS called Halo. It is kind of fun to play. The AI is pretty good but merely a refinement. Like Half-Life three years before it, Halo uses a similar node-based AI system. When they tried to emulate the squad mechanics used by other titles in Halo 3, the AI arguably became worse.

The programming methodology (node vs overarching tiered for instance) doesn't really make an ai system better or worse. Many would argue that the AI functions much better in halo (keep in mind squad based AI combat is an abstraction that is difficult to experience) then in comparable AI environments. In the end it depends on how it feels, and halos AI feels smart due to the vast number of unique AI routines it runs.

I've played Halo a lot (it's easy to pick up, which is a pro for the wider audience), but don't own it. The community misunderstanding about it being 'revolutionary' has always... well, excluded me from the Halo community.

It was revolutionary. Far more so then unreal, slightly less so than half life, far more so than anything with the word quake in it. Revolutionary is an opinion as there is no objective standard to game quality. Halo did many things quite well to the degree where it could be considered revolutionary and it's sequel "revolutionized" the console online gaming space.

Now Dynasty Warriors... there's a franchise I can burn away weeks on.

I never understood the draw personally.

stinking the place up with your douche-baggery as usual I see, Shuma.


The last console I purchased was a dreamcast, and it was neato. I am fine with my pc, but I WOULD buy a PS3 for Killzone 3 and Tekken 6. If I had the extra monies.

stinking the place up with your douche-baggery as usual I see, Shuma.

If you don't like it you can go back to reddit!

that'd be to easy for you.

IG_urban wrote:that'd be to easy for you.

You kidding? I love our little talks. Every time we do it you get all huffel puffel and I go away thinking you might just have learned something. They're great!

IG_urban wrote:stinking the place up with your douche-baggery as usual I see, Shuma.

Throwing out supposedly classy insults as usual I see, Urban.

The last console I purchased was a dreamcast, and it was neato. I am fine with my pc, but I WOULD buy a PS3 for Killzone 3 and Tekken 6. If I had the extra monies.

...
You purchased a Dreamcast?

You sir, should exit this thread hanging your head in shame. Paying money for a Dreamcast...

Hey, the dreamcast had Shenmue and... That one dragon game.. Also dialup connections!

Kanluwen wrote:

IG_urban wrote:stinking the place up with your douche-baggery as usual I see, Shuma.

Throwing out supposedly classy insults as usual I see, Urban.

yeah, why not? you, shuma, and a few other users on this site are know-it-all troll basterds are always in a pissing contest to determine who is more of a master of the universe.

The last console I purchased was a dreamcast, and it was neato. I am fine with my pc, but I WOULD buy a PS3 for Killzone 3 and Tekken 6. If I had the extra monies.

...
You purchased a Dreamcast?

You sir, should exit this thread hanging your head in shame. Paying money for a Dreamcast...

Your arguments are overtly simplistic and founded on spurious logic that doesn't up up under scrutiny. I could either refute you by saying "No you are wrong" or by using technical terms and explanations.

How simple a point in an argument can manage be is a testament to it's resounding truth.

My logic may be a bit over-exaggerated at times, but it's never flawed to the point of being factually wrong. I may use connotations of words as opposed to literal, defined meanings of words, but that doesn't make my point any less valid. And your scrutiny is the equivalent of this:

'I hate Halo'
'Well, Halo shares similarities to Half-Life, so that must mean you don't like Half-Life, either'

It's incredibly frustrating, based in nothing, and is completely circular logic that gets you absolutely nowhere. It forces me to discuss complete trivialities with you that should have no place in an intelligent debate. I assume that you can understand the meaning of a statement without me having to hold your hand throughout the entire discussion.

I understand what you are saying perfectly. The issue is that your opinions are wrong concerning certain issues (such as all MMOs being the same). If you are arguing from pure hyperbolic opinion then I can accept it, but thats not a legitimate opinion or discussion then. I accepted your opinions on fallout, but your opinions concerning things like MMO design are seemingly based on design qualifications and experience but then fall apart when scrutinized under the same.

I don't need specifics, I need your opinions to stop being wrong concerning the areas of our dispute.

It is hyperbolic. I don't expect you to take 'exactly the same' literally. That was simply a matter of emphasis. I feel that MMOs are now far too similar to WoW for me to enjoy them (And saying that every shared aspect is an absolute requirement of the genre is utter crap; the genre could easily branch out in different directions but does not due to conscious development decisions). You feel that they are not. Good for you; I'm incredibly envious of you if this is really the way you feel. Perhaps I'm too picky or demanding, but there's not much I can do to sway my own dissatisfaction. Ultimately, it's a hopeless situation for me, as I'm not willing to adopt the viewpoint that exceedingly minor differences are enough to differentiate MMOs from one another.

It's incredibly frustrating, based in nothing, and is completely circular logic that gets you absolutely nowhere.

It's not circular, it's just actual logic. When you state that champions online is just like WoW it precludes logic at all. They are not exactly the same. They are not even very similar. You dislike my call to specifics because when you speak in generalities and make hyperbolic statements that are clearly against the grain of even popular public sentiment (let alone actual factual reality) it's all I can do. The trivialities of game design are exactly what you are discussing, you just don't want to discuss them. You want to talk about how they "feel" without using examples. Could it be because there is a disconnect between the reality you are experiencing and your opinions? Humans are very prone to confirmation bias, and I strongly suspect that if you just delved a little bit into the design theory behind games you would find that there are significant differences.

It is hyperbolic. I don't expect you to take 'exactly the same' literally. That was simply a matter of emphasis. I feel that MMOs are now far too similar to WoW for me to enjoy them (And saying that every shared aspect is an absolute requirement of the genre is utter crap; the genre could easily branch out in different directions but does not due to conscious development decisions). You feel that they are not. Good for you; I'm incredibly envious of you if this is really the way you feel. Perhaps I'm too picky or demanding, but there's not much I can do to sway my own dissatisfaction. Ultimately, it's a hopeless situation for me, as I'm not willing to adopt the viewpoint that exceedingly minor differences are enough to differentiate MMOs from one another.

I see, then we simply disagree on what constitutes a minor difference and this discussion is entirely based on personal preference and not the logic behind those preferences. Ok. Cool. Argument done then. We will not reach consensus here.

ShumaGorath wrote:The gameplay was deplorable (putting on armor made you MORE vulnerable).

And don't forget movement speed! You could go slow as a snail, or so fast that a pebble will stop you cold if you so much as glance it, and going fast still felt like you were a snail-bot

I never understood the draw personally.

It's mindless fun. The basics of the game are so simple that only a total idiot could screw it up. They make up for the lack of gameplay depth with lots of replay value.

That said, you'd think that after a decade they'd do more with the sequels than put up new wall paper. Still fun though.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Unreal (1998) supported co-op play, through its massive and revolutionary 'single player' mode, which did a lot more for 3D rendering and gameplay mechanics than Halo did. The multiplayer was also extremely good, so much so that it inspired a purely multiplayer franchise of four successful games (three and a half at minimum - UT3 didn't do as well as its predecessors).

Halo set a standard for bump and normal mapping in that generation. Unreal was great looking, but it was pretty cookie cutter in the old trop of "bigger environments, higher res textures". Halos true accomplishment was being the first majorly successful console FPS and building in vehicles from the ground up to function in engine without seeming tacked on. For a time it was (and still in my opinion is) the best vehicle implementation in any FPS game.

Three years later, Bungie released a very popular and well-polished FPS called Halo. It is kind of fun to play. The AI is pretty good but merely a refinement. Like Half-Life three years before it, Halo uses a similar node-based AI system. When they tried to emulate the squad mechanics used by other titles in Halo 3, the AI arguably became worse.

The programming methodology (node vs overarching tiered for instance) doesn't really make an ai system better or worse. Many would argue that the AI functions much better in halo (keep in mind squad based AI combat is an abstraction that is difficult to experience) then in comparable AI environments. In the end it depends on how it feels, and halos AI feels smart due to the vast number of unique AI routines it runs.

I've played Halo a lot (it's easy to pick up, which is a pro for the wider audience), but don't own it. The community misunderstanding about it being 'revolutionary' has always... well, excluded me from the Halo community.

It was revolutionary. Far more so then unreal, slightly less so than half life, far more so than anything with the word quake in it. Revolutionary is an opinion as there is no objective standard to game quality. Halo did many things quite well to the degree where it could be considered revolutionary and it's sequel "revolutionized" the console online gaming space.

Now Dynasty Warriors... there's a franchise I can burn away weeks on.

I never understood the draw personally.

Then a matter of opinion it remains!
The original Halo had great AI, vehicles and was very well executed overall, but it remains far from my personal favourite FPS games to play. If I was set out to play FPS games I wouldn't be talking about consoles anyway.
I have to admit that I formulated my opinion of Halo based largely on my experience playing the original PC version, which had not implemented the mapping seen later... I'll certainly grant you that one. The concept of mapping was not original, but like most everything else, it was implemented well. Your point is a good one - Marx never started a revolution so much as he invented bump mapping... or something.


As was the topic of a thread I started recently, I'd like to get a PS3 so I can get BlazBlue. Now I know that people will have bad things to say about that franchise, if they've heard of the related series at all.

It's not circular, it's just actual logic.

Unnecessary logic.

When you state that champions online is just like WoW it precludes logic at all. They are not exactly the same. They are not even very similar.

I stated that Champions Online is a mashup between City of ____ and World of Warcraft, which I feel is an incredibly accurate description. If you did a side-by-side comparison of WoW and CO, all of the points I mentioned comparing the two would be ridiculously obvious. Instead, you resorted to using incredibly generic statements to disprove me. Sure, any two things can be compared when you pick them apart as you have, but all of the similarities are blatant plagiarism. All of the aforementioned elements share the same visual design, down to the way that the menus are organized. You justify this as 'requirements of the genre'. Plagiarism is a requirement of the genre? I don't think so. Inspiration, possibly, but not plagiarism.

You dislike my call to specifics because when you speak in generalities and make hyperbolic statements that are clearly against the grain of even popular public sentiment (let alone actual factual reality) it's all I can do.

You can't tell the difference between an obvious overstatement used for emphasis and what is believed to be truth? You must think I'm fething slowed, because I use hyperbole a lot for that purpose exactly, especially when I'm frustrated. I speak in generalities because they get my ideas across when I don't want to spend a lot of time picking apart points that I don't feel are important. I'm not going to go into specifics with every single MMO you mentioned, for instance, because I don't care about them enough to do that.

The trivialities of game design are exactly what you are discussing, you just don't want to discuss them. You want to talk about how they "feel" without using examples. Could it be because there is a disconnect between the reality you are experiencing and your opinions? Humans are very prone to confirmation bias, and I strongly suspect that if you just delved a little bit into the design theory behind games you would find that there are significant differences.

When the significant differences are buried under the surface of the game that's presented to you, why does it matter? If a game makes me feel as if I was playing WoW in a different setting, intricate knowledge of the inner workings of a game and it's design are completely inconsequential to my enjoyment of the game. I can recognize that there are differences between them, but I can also recognize that there could be much greater differences than there currently are. If you don't think it's due, in part, to developer's fear of failure and need to cash in on a successful formula, then you're focusing too much on the intricacies of a game's design and you fail to see the bigger picture and the potential of the genre.

I see, then we simply disagree on what constitutes a minor difference and this discussion is entirely based on personal preference and not the logic behind those preferences. Ok. Cool. Argument done then. We will not reach consensus here.

Even though you've gotten me all riled up again.

Even though you've gotten me all riled up again.

Hey, at least Urban isn't stalking you now too!

ive got both PS3 and 360 and i just like the 360s online and library better (Love party chat and Halo ) But ps3 is good too i just like xbox better

360 for me. The PS3 just doesn't have any exclusive titles I'm interested in. The graphics of either console look equally terrible on my 30-something year-old television anyways.

i had to go for the Xbox 360 for the followin reasons:

1. Better games(Oblivion being the best atm (Sorry Fable 2 although gd, you wernt gd enough))
2. Better online capabilities
3. All my friends had 360s

in my 3 yearsish of owning an xbox iv owned 3 different xboxes. the 1st 1 i got was actually preowned and worked for about a year till my warranty with gamestation ran out then it gubbed up... my 2nd one i got at christmas gubbed up 2 days after gettins it D: , laser wouldnt work, sent it off tho and it was fixed..... not too long ago it done the same thing so sent it off but it had been replaced not fixed

minor inconvieniences, but worth it

btw there is a ps3 in the household but gets used alot less than the xbox lol

Xbox...

I play PS3 all the time, and both are on HD TV's, and let me tell you all this, "PS3 has better graphics" I don't think is true, they both look the same to me...

People say ohh PS3 has free online, but it has no requirements, which promotes lag...

I think the poll says the facts to...

Xbox...

I play PS3 all the time, and both are on HD TV's, and let me tell you all this, "PS3 has better graphics" I don't think is true, they both look the same to me...

The PS3 does not actually have better graphics, its GPU is weaker then the 360s while it's cpu is more powerful. This allows the PS3 to perform more advanced physics and particle operations but fewer shader operations with lower resolution or number of textures. There is an artifact of compression in 360 games though, the ps3 due to it's BD drive is able to pack far more high res textures into a game then the 360 is, even if it's not as capable of displaying them. Thus it will have fewer high res textures at once but they will appear much more often. Most multiplatform games look better on the 360, while a few notable first party ps3 games look better than comparable first party 360 titles (killzone v halo for instance).

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:Revised.

1) Fallout 3's revolutionary status is an opinion.
2) All mmo's have quests.

Farmville is an MMO.

Farmville also has quests.

To build a barn you must aquire wood, nails, hay, etc. There's also the quests to grow certain kinds of fruits/vegetables in a certain time limit. These quests also have co-op as your neighbors can try to help you.

My previous revision stands.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:Revised.

1) Fallout 3's revolutionary status is an opinion.
2) All mmo's have quests.

Farmville is an MMO.

Farmville also has quests.

To build a barn you must aquire wood, nails, hay, etc. There's also the quests to grow certain kinds of fruits/vegetables in a certain time limit. These quests also have co-op as your neighbors can try to help you.

My previous revision stands.

Don't all games have those?

Hmmm... all games do have goals to reach, but not necessarily quests. Brain Age has goal while Professor Layton has quests, both are brain teasers.

The quests in Farmville are not goals because they are set demands you must reach or you fail the quest. In Brain Age you don't fail, you just perform poorly or perform great.

I think he means like WoW quests, not plant 200 crops and you get to post some dumb banner on your wall bragging about it.

I mean the plant so and so vegetables because a school needs them in this time limit to get rewarded.

Not all quests are epic, just look at runescape and some other games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Mass Effect 2 is packing its bags and moving to the PS3. So Microsoft has Forza, Gears of War, Halo, and Fable still.

halonachos wrote:I mean the plant so and so vegetables because a school needs them in this time limit to get rewarded.

Not all quests are epic, just look at runescape and some other games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Mass Effect 2 is packing its bags and moving to the PS3. So Microsoft has Forza, Gears of War, Halo, and Fable still.

It has quite a few more exclusive titles then that.

I believe it does, but I can't even remember all of the PS3 exclusives off of the top of my head, so if you remember the 360 ones go ahead and lay them down.

halonachos wrote:Also, Mass Effect 2 is packing its bags and moving to the PS3. So Microsoft has Forza, Gears of War, Halo, and Fable still.

Are they releasing ME1 too? I gotta tell you, the default story build isn't the best

LordofHats wrote:

halonachos wrote:Also, Mass Effect 2 is packing its bags and moving to the PS3. So Microsoft has Forza, Gears of War, Halo, and Fable still.

Are they releasing ME1 too? I gotta tell you, the default story build isn't the best

It's not happening until Mass Effect 3(which is what's releasing on the PS3, with ME+ME2 potentially being released).

As to the number of console exclusives...

360(discounting XBL Arcade games) has 66 exclusives, available pretty much worldwide.

PS3 has 116 exclusives, but the issue is that a large number of them are exclusive to one region only.

Well that's good. I honestly think that ME2 is no where near as good without import saves. The default story line with no import isn't the best imo. There's no Wrex XD

No, ME2 is releasing next January with ME3 most likely being multiplatform.

ME will not be going on the PS3 at all similar to how MGS4 will not be on the 360.

As far as the whole uploaded story vs default story, I think that they'll have a short segment as a tutorial level and to also give ps3 owners a small semblance of an uploaded game.

Xbox 360 is better IMO, it just seems to me like they have better exclusives like Halo and Fable, And Ps3 sold a large demo (Gran Turismo 5, Prologue) for the price of a normal game which is pretty stupid

LordofHats wrote:This is going to come down to preference. Right now I think the 360 has access to a much wider variety of games, and good games. Many of the PS3's good games can also be found on the 360. The only killer apps the PS3 really has to itself thus far have been GoW3 and MGS4. They have other good games but lack the 360's larger number of exclusive killer apps; Halo, Gears, Fable, Mass Effect. The Xbox also has superior online, though it's online community is just horrible.

Right now the biggest weakness for PS3 is their lack of exclusive that can really sell the system. They have good ones but none save GoW and MGS can stand up against the might of Gears and Halo. This will likely change in the next year or so though. I don't see it staying this way.

Its funny you mention the "killer aps" because I happen to despise Halo with a passion (although it is quite enjoyable over lan after a long night of drinking with friends), and I find Fable and Mass Effect to be rather mediocre (but I've played soooo many RPG's over the years that it would take something truly amazing for me to get excited by one at all). Gears is the only one of the 4 "killer apps" that I enjoyed, but that happens to be available on PC...

And you missed Resistance and Killzone for PS3 (although to be honest, I was a bit disappointed by the second installments in both series. Resistance 2 seemed to backtrack on a lot of the cool backstory from the first game, and made the Chimera far more "generic sci-fi zombie aliens," and in general reminded me too much of Halo for its own good, and Killzone's storyline was a bit weak, multiplayer was not that great, and the storyline lacked the extremely varied campaign environments of the 1st one).

Other than that, I never could get used to the Xbox controller (I've been playing with the PS controller since the PS was released in the 90s), I just find it to be too big and unwieldy for comfort, and I despise Xbox Live because of the type of gamer I seem to run across (usually a spoiled pre-teen with too much time on their hands that likes to teamkill and scream incessantly over comms). PS3 online, in my experience, seems to cater to a slightly more mature gamer (although hilarity ensued when I ran across a couple of junkies from Manchester, England), and if they aren't, then I sure as hell would never know due to the general lack of comms.

Disagree. Now Halo may be generic but when the game first came out a decade ago (damn I'm getting old...) Halo CE was revolutionary and revitalized a stagnating FPS market that was in much the same state we see it in now; that state being a constant outpouring of games that are essentially little more than clones of each other with different wrapping paper. While Halo may be standard shooter far today, Bungie is one of the few publishers still putting out games that rise above the dribble. The only developers who really seem capable of it anymore are Bungie, Nintendo, and Bioware, and I highly doubt Bioware's long term sustainability now that their under EA's gold plated titanium fist of generic-ness. Pretty soon, baring unforeseen curcumstances, Nintendo and Bungie gonna be the only developers I have any respect for. All my old favorites have hit rock bottom (I'm looking at you Infinity Ward) or sold them selves out (yeah Blizzard that one was directed at you).

See, the funny thing is that the original Halo really didn't do all that much to revolutionize the shooter genre. It basically just took some innovative ideas from a few different games, slapped it together, and then gave the game an actual story worth paying attention to, sorta (unlike most other FPS games barring Half-Life).

Don't be fooled by Hollywood. AI will never be sentient, free thinking, or anything like that. A computer can only do what you tell it to do. Even if I were to program it to "learn" it's limited to learning whatever I have programmed it to learn and learning it in the way I programmed it to learn. YOu gan complicate the process infinitely, but in the end, a computer can only follow it's programming; it can't think. That's why it's Artificial Intelligence, as opposed to Synthetic Intelligence.

You need to read up on advances in AI some more. There are programs out there that now have the capacity to write and rewrite themselves, without any limitations, in order to make themselves capable of completing a certain task.

And they also proved (imo) that drawing ideas from multiple sources can combine into something good.

Only if you've been living under a rock all your life

Your avatar is an xbox 360 exclusive title. I sense cognitive dissonance.

No, ME 1 and 2 are both available on Windows, and ME 2 and 3 are both coming to PS3.

And the "truly free online play" is garbage, in my experience.

Relying on players to host games, etc is an idiotic way to do it for the most part.

Kanluwen, are you referring to the PS3? No clue what you're talking about. Bad Company 2, for example, is hosted by DICE servers, not by player hosts. Plenty of the more recent MP releases for PS3 are the same.

Opinion, and one not held by common media.

"The masses are asses." - John Locke

Besides that, the opinion IS held by me, so it means more than your opinion

No one will ever miss chromehounds.

I do. You lose.

The PS3 does not actually have better graphics, its GPU is weaker then the 360s while it's cpu is more powerful. This allows the PS3 to perform more advanced physics and particle operations but fewer shader operations with lower resolution or number of textures. There is an artifact of compression in 360 games though, the ps3 due to it's BD drive is able to pack far more high res textures into a game then the 360 is, even if it's not as capable of displaying them. Thus it will have fewer high res textures at once but they will appear much more often. Most multiplatform games look better on the 360, while a few notable first party ps3 games look better than comparable first party 360 titles (killzone v halo for instance).

It is actually noticable on a 40-50 inch flatscreen (trust me I know). Also, a multiplatform game will look best on the console it was originally coded for. My understanding is that most multiplatform titles start life on the 360 because it's easier to code for (and very similar to coding for PC, so its effectively killing two birds with one stone), and are then converted to PS3 afterwards. But heres what happens when the opposite is the case: http://www.community.eu.playstation.com/t5/Final-Fantasy/A-REAL-PS3-vs-360-graphic-comparison/m-p/10334083 (and thats with scaled back PS3 graphics btw, the test image from the PS3 version is not running at full capacity (supposedly)). And from what I recall, RSX is actually fairly on par with Xenos, but the PS3 has the added benefit of being able to lend extra cores from its processor to assist with graphics AND have additional cores working only on physics, etc.

If you can't tell, I voted for the PS3, but truth be told, I'm a little bit fed up with video games in general. For the most part it seems to be the same thing over and over again within any given genre. I'm looking forward to R.U.S.E. but other than that I'm wary of getting too excited for any game on either console.

Whether or not the killer apps are enjoyable by one person, or are good games, isn't really the point. I hate Gears and Fable. I think they're crap. But OTHER PEOPLE and a lot of them, love the games. The 360 has a lot of such games. That helps the 360 sell systems, which in turn contributes to a larger play base and more third party development and thus an increased games library. It's exclusives are pushing it ahead. The same isn't true of the PS3, which has plenty of exclusives, but not many with the same level of hype and popularity we see directed at Halo, Fable, Gears, and the like.

It basically just took some innovative ideas from a few different games, slapped it together, and then gave the game an actual story worth paying attention to, sorta (unlike most other FPS games barring Half-Life).

That's not revolutionizing? They pulled things together in a way no one had ever managed before, with a high degree of quality. Halo CE might not be novel in its core ideas, but the way they put everything together and executed it a novel way.

PS3 Has No Games!

360 Has No Games!

See, I too can create a compelling argument.

I think I said this before, but just in case I haven't; Microsoft supports Justin Bieber's "My World" tour.

halonachos wrote:Microsoft supports Justin Bieber's "My World" tour.

I dont think many people would care about that. Whats microsoft gonna get more attention for?? Bieber or their Xbox?? I have to say Xbox wins hands down....

The 360.

I have all seventh gen consoles, and my 360 is the most used.
Sure, the PS3 has some better exclusives - but I'd rather get the multi-platform for the 360 because they generally always have better graphics. Why pay the same for a lesser product?

I care that Bieber is supported by Microsoft....nothing should support him.
Alot of the reasons i hate Xbox and prefer PS3 have already been said.

johnscott10 wrote:

halonachos wrote:Microsoft supports Justin Bieber's "My World" tour.

I dont think many people would care about that. Whats microsoft gonna get more attention for?? Bieber or their Xbox?? I have to say Xbox wins hands down....

A company is going to support something that their demographic will enjoy and will also use it to try to get new members in as well.

As microsoft is supporting justin bieber their goals are one of two things: 1) Showing their demograpic that they support what they're into(little kids like Justin Bieber) 2) Micosoft is trying to get more little kids to support their products.

Its not what they'll get attention for johnscott, it shows microsoft marketing to younger kids.

The PSP has a kid as a spokesman, but they even say that the PSP "is for big boy games".

For me 360 at the moment hands down.

There hasn't been a PS3 exclusive game out yet that has made me want to buy the system.

Last time I had the PS2 first and it was when a game came out on the xbox (can't remember which one now) that I finally got one. Then found Halo and so forth.

But yeah, had a 360 since release day, still waiting for a PS3 title to turn up that actually makes me want to buy one.

Stuff like the PSN is nice, but still not a reason for me to get one. Hell the only reason I might have got one also was ended a few months back when a family member got me a blu-ray player.

PS3 means nothing to me atm.

The thing about the PS3 though is that it can run other operating systems(I'm sure that the 360 may be able to do that too, but that's besides the point) so it can actually play PC games. Games like Halo or any other microsoft exclusive.

However, you can play halo on the PS3 even if you don't install another OS on the PS3.



Oh the delicious irony.

You do realize that's a collection of animated shorts, not a game...right?

halonachos wrote:The thing about the PS3 though is that it can run other operating systems(I'm sure that the 360 may be able to do that too, but that's besides the point) so it can actually play PC games. Games like Halo or any other microsoft exclusive.

However, you can play halo on the PS3 even if you don't install another OS on the PS3.



Oh the delicious irony.

You know you they took out the other OS capability out months ago, right?

Console Wars... FTL?

Seriously guys, enjoy what you enjoy.

And, did this link get posted yet?

http://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1116182p1.html

halonachos wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:

halonachos wrote:Microsoft supports Justin Bieber's "My World" tour.

I dont think many people would care about that. Whats microsoft gonna get more attention for?? Bieber or their Xbox?? I have to say Xbox wins hands down....

A company is going to support something that their demographic will enjoy and will also use it to try to get new members in as well.

Not true. They'll support something that will get the message out about their product, or a spokesperson who actively uses their product and doesn't feel "false".

As microsoft is supporting justin bieber their goals are one of two things: 1) Showing their demograpic that they support what they're into(little kids like Justin Bieber) 2) Micosoft is trying to get more little kids to support their products.

Uh, bull. It's tween girls who like Justin Bieber. They also like Twilight and American Idol. Does Microsoft sponsor them?

Its not what they'll get attention for johnscott, it shows microsoft marketing to younger kids.

No, it shows them trying to gauge a market share that they currently don't have: 10-15 year old girls.

The PSP has a kid as a spokesman, but they even say that the PSP "is for big boy games".

So, Sony encourages kids to break laws regarding sales of content to minors? Oh wow. Not cool Sony.

Alpharius wrote:Console Wars... FTL?

Seriously guys, enjoy what you enjoy.

And, did this link get posted yet?

http://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1116182p1.html

Some of that is wrong/outdated.

360's can use flash drives and hard drives.

Actually, big boy games varies person to person.

A 5 year old can buy a game with the ratings of ec, E, E 10+, or T. You have to 17 to buy M rated stuff, but then the parents usually buy it for their darling child anyways.

E10+ and T could be big boy games.

Also, Kanluwen you kind of agreed with me. Little girls are little kids, trying to get new members is the same as getting a message out or gauging the demographic. So you basically argued the specifics of my general statement, thank you for agreeing with me.

halonachos wrote:Actually, big boy games varies person to person.

A 5 year old can buy a game with the ratings of ec, E, E 10+, or T. You have to 17 to buy M rated stuff, but then the parents usually buy it for their darling child anyways.

E10+ and T could be big boy games.

Also, Kanluwen you kind of agreed with me. Little girls are little kids, trying to get new members is the same as getting a message out or gauging the demographic. So you basically argued the specifics of my general statement, thank you for agreeing with me.

The "in your base, ignoring your logic" bit of your profile is very apt. It's like reasoning with a monkey, except the monkey can grasp simple concepts like marketing and ages.

When Sony says "big boy games", they immediately point to their PSP having things like a full length Metal Gear, a Resistance game, etc.
Those are both 'M'. Marcus, their spokesperson, is too young to play such things. That's exposing a minor to "harmful influences and themes". I'm surprised they've not been blasted for it, quite frankly.

10-15 years old, also, isn't "little kids". That's listed under "preteen/teen" in most demographic charts. There's a very big difference in the categories. And let's face it, with Kinect and their move to a more "family friendly" system coming this holiday season...they're trying to build up as much interest as they can in households they've got no install base in. Girls under 17, for the most part, don't want to play games curbstomping little Johnny's face in the ground, or beating up hookers. They want something that Microsoft currently has no way to gauge...but by supporting Bieber, they can at least get an interest generated in their upcoming product.

Something Sony's trying to do by having a "chance to win the new Sony Move before it's even out!", or by constantly mentioning it in every single press conference they've had.

Actually, Marcus is 12 years old.

MGS Peacewalker is rated T for teen, and in all of the videos featuring him he is playing either a rated E or rated T game. Resistance was not at all featured in any of those commercials. In another where he says the best game under $10 is fireteam bravo 2, that game is also rated T for teen.

Also, the thing with game ratings is that they are guidelines set by the ESRB. A 12 year old playing a T game is not illegal and neither is a 12 year old buying one.

It appears to be that Raleigh also ignores logic.

To me tweens are little kids. Little kids is a relative term so you can argue about how businesses and corporations have different marketing terms, but I am neither a businessman nor am I a corporate executive so I will stick with my non-business lingo.

So by your logic, Sony's still trying to sell stuff to little kids.

How is that different from Microsoft...?

I'll tell you why, Sony is trying to sell games to kids through a kid spokesperson.

Microsoft is supporting some canadian kid.

So, you'd rather they pay some spokeskid to hawk their wares?

Interesting. Am kinda curious as to how you know Microsoft is supporting Justin Bieber's tour though. Wikipedia has no listing of sponsors for the tour, Microsoft doesn't have it anywhere that I'm seeing either.

I go to school in a city called Norfolk. In Norfolk there is a thing called the Norfolk Scope which advertises shows on a big electronic billboard. I drive by this billboard everytime I go home. On this billboard I saw an advertisement for the Justin Bieber concert that was going to occur there.

It said "Microsoft presents Justin Bieber 'My World' tour" on it. That's how I know.

The thing isn't that they hired some kid to hawke their wares, they hired some american kid to hawke their wares. Microsoft was outsourcing by sponsoring a canadian kid and as we all know, canadians are liars.

Sony's a Japanese company, punkin. So he's a corporate shill for a foreign company.

At least Canada is America's hat, man.

Sony is indeed a japanese company, but a japanese company that is hiring americans.

Canada may be our hat, but it lets the cold air reach our head most of the time. If canada was a good hat, New York wouldn't have winter.

So basically, it's okay for a Japanese company to be hiring American spokespeople for commercials(that will only air in America, mind you)...but an American company can't support a Canadian?

*sniffs the air*

I smell hypocrisy!

Yes, if Justin Bieber stayed in Canada I would have no issue with Microsoft supporting him.

Kanluwen wrote:At least Canada is America's hat, man.

As the Lord of Hats I can safely say Canada is not America's hat. Canada is America's funky but styling hair do. The Arctic is America's hat. (It's a beanie btw.)

Justin Bieber for some reason reminds me of Butters from South Park...

halonachos wrote:Yes, if Justin Bieber stayed in Canada I would have no issue with Microsoft supporting him.

You do realize that sponsoring a tour is not the same as a spokesperson, right?

*Stares into the distance*

Whats that i can see??

Hmm looks like a giant padlock heading towards this thread >.>

Kanluwen wrote:

halonachos wrote:Yes, if Justin Bieber stayed in Canada I would have no issue with Microsoft supporting him.

You do realize that sponsoring a tour is not the same as a spokesperson, right?

Yes I do, but do you realize that Microsoft is giving Justin Bieber the ability to come to our country by sponsoring him?

This thread sure went strange places...

halonachos wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

halonachos wrote:Yes, if Justin Bieber stayed in Canada I would have no issue with Microsoft supporting him.

You do realize that sponsoring a tour is not the same as a spokesperson, right?

Yes I do, but do you realize that Microsoft is giving Justin Bieber the ability to come to our country by sponsoring him?

You do know that Justin Bieber, like any Canadian citizen, has the ability to come to our country right?
He's not on any terrorist watchlists, he can get a passport. It doesn't take Microsoft sponsorship to come to America from Canada. Really, it doesn't.

I guess that last post of mine was too subtle.

Take the Justin Bieber talk to another thread, in the Off Topic Forum maybe?

Just lock the thread, it's been stupid since the get-go.

Hehe as said in my previous post.

Hmm looks like a giant padlock heading towards this thread >.>

Soladrin wrote:Xbox 360, cause ps3's exclusives don't interest me, except for killzone, but I ain't buyin for that.

Exactly how i feel about God of War 3, Awesome game but I'm not shelling out the cash for a system that has only one game I truly want. Point in case I can buy pretty much buy every game for the 360 I want so why change systems?

PS3 because 360 exclusives don't interest me, except for Left 4 Dead 2, but I can get that on my PC.

The pc has a lot of ports of 360 exclusives, so I think 360 exclusives isn't an applicable term, they should be called Microsoft Exclusives.

Also, you 360 owners may get a MGS game, but you will never get the MGS soul.

And Konami has forsaken Sony, so what's your point?

halonachos wrote:PS3 because 360 exclusives don't interest me, except for Left 4 Dead 2, but I can get that on my PC.

Umm yea its not a 360 exclusive if it on the PC.


Dont even know why im commenting, would rather let this thread die, but meh guess i love picking out flaws in peoples posts lol.

Jes' saying.

360 won't get MGS4 and PS3 won't get ME1, a fair trade I would say.

I hate the new focus though, lightning fast action does not a MGS make.

In the future I see each console having only one exclusive. 360 will have Halo and PS3 will have God of War I think. Also, exclusives are a big reason for deciding whih console you get.

I prefer LBP and Killzone. Killzone was more realistic in the FPS view, the sway when throwing a grenade, the sway when sprinting, etc made it more immersive than Halo to me. Another thing was the grittiness in Killzone compared to Halo's prettiness, Reach is more gritty and for that reason I give it more interest than the other Halo's.

LBP is really creative, and no other console has anything like it.

Other than that each console has their respective characters that mimic each other.

Samus~Master Chief~Nathan Hale

Mario~Sackboy~Banjo Kazooie

Dom/Marcus Phoenix~Kratos~ Wario

I think that the PS3 is trying to do everything; online service fee is optional, playstation move=wii, there may be a price drop soon due to the next to PS3's coming out this year, and it also has a 3rd party controller that looks like a 360 controller.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnscott10 wrote:

halonachos wrote:PS3 because 360 exclusives don't interest me, except for Left 4 Dead 2, but I can get that on my PC.

Umm yea its not a 360 exclusive if it on the PC.


Dont even know why im commenting, would rather let this thread die, but meh guess i love picking out flaws in peoples posts lol.

I guess you don't like reading whole posts though. I said that they should be called "microsoft exclusives" at the end.

halonachos wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:

halonachos wrote:PS3 because 360 exclusives don't interest me, except for Left 4 Dead 2, but I can get that on my PC.

Umm yea its not a 360 exclusive if it on the PC.


Dont even know why im commenting, would rather let this thread die, but meh guess i love picking out flaws in peoples posts lol.

I guess you don't like reading whole posts though. I said that they should be called "microsoft exclusives" at the end.

Actually i did read the whole post, i just decided to pick the flaw in that particular sentence because you said it was a 360 exclusive then said you can get it on PC, which makes it a non-exclusive game. Which in turn makes that sentence somewhat void...

You forgot to capitalize your I's.

Sorry, just had to say that.

Anywho, I put the PS3 ahead due to cost. The 360 has a lower start up, but ends up costing more simply by adding internet service for the comparable consoles ie) 250GB to 250GB.

Also, has anyone noted the reversal of external looks on the 360 and PS3? The PS3 went from shiny black to a matte black and the 360 went from a matte black to a shiny black.

People could get potentially confused.

And what? "accidently" buy the wrong console? Anyone that stupid needs a beating.

Personally, I've thought of doing that for fun.

Another trend to look at is exclusive content for multi-platform games. Batman Arkham Asylum, Red Dead Redemption, Dante's Inferno, Mafia 2, and MoH when it comes out.

The 360 has had limited exclusive DLC so far as I know, the whole GTA Lost and the Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony along with the timed exclusives for MW2 and maybe Black Ops.

Although, I think the 360 version of Singularity came with a free voucher for Prototype for a limited time. Oh well, the PS3 owners will have to make due with a remastered MoH Frontlines when they pick up the new MoH.

Also, Battlefield 3 woot!

If i owned a game store, and someone did that, I'd refuse to refund it, but I would remove said console from their posessions, out of fear that they might hurt themselves using anything electronic.

360 more variety of games that I like. Sorry ps3. I dislike your games....

I look at the Playstation 3 Vs the Xbox 360

I would have to say this.

PS3

+ Free Multi player and Online
+ Internet Browser Built in
+ Bluray Discs Hold more content and Stuff than the Xbox 360s DVD
+ PlayStation Network does not tolerate Hacking, Burnned games, etc. (Sense of Security)
+ Lots of games that are on the X360 are on the PS3 or coming to the PS3
+ You can put a Bigger hard drive in the PS3 (Standard Laptop Drive)
- Not all games have trophies/Achievements

Xbox 360

+ Large Library of games
- You can Modify your console to run Burned Games (Lack of Security)
- You pay for the Online Component of the component
- RROD was never addressed in the new version of the 360 just the light moved to the Power Brick
- The Price of Live is going up...
- Your Discs can be heavily Scratched just by moving the console

Those are my thoughts on the PS3 and the 360.

Benjamin385 wrote:I look at the Playstation 3 Vs the Xbox 360

I would have to say this.

PS3

+ Free Multi player and Online
+ Internet Browser Built in
+ Bluray Discs Hold more content and Stuff than the Xbox 360s DVD

Not really.

+ PlayStation Network does not tolerate Hacking, Burned games, etc. (Sense of Security)

Tell that to the team of 10 people in my Killzone 2 match today who were somehow able to have no less than 30 Combat Drones up, per person, at all times.

+ Lots of games that are on the X360 are on the PS3 or coming to the PS3
+ You can put a Bigger hard drive in the PS3 (Standard Laptop Drive)
- Not all games have trophies/Achievements

Xbox 360

+ Large Library of games
- You can Modify your console to run Burned Games (Lack of Security)

You can run them, but any modifications are invalidated whenever new updates come up--and they permaban your console.

- You pay for the Online Component of the component

Yeah, and? I also don't have to rely on having a host with a 100% amazing connection or someone pulling the good old stand-by crap. Unlike PS3 games...

- RROD was never addressed in the new version of the 360 just the light moved to the Power Brick

Actually, it was. If you're stupid enough to let it get close to overheating(we're talking to where the components on the inside are getting burnt out), it shuts the console down. I'd say that's "addressed" the issue.

Other than the issue of the stupidity of some owners.

- The Price of Live is going up...

As is the available content. All(read that right: ALL) ESPN games available via the Xbox Marketplace, no matter your location. I pay $5 with my satellite provider to get any games that aren't locally available.

- Your Discs can be heavily Scratched just by moving the console

...So don't move the console with a game in it while the console is on?
This isn't rocket surgery. The same thing happens when moving a PS3.

Benjamin385 wrote:+ PlayStation Network does not tolerate Hacking, Burnned games, etc. (Sense of Security)

You're joking right? It's easier to hack on the PS3 than the 360 because it uses Linux, and since the online is free, there is no incentive to ban cheaters. Microsoft has been accused of being TOO vigorous in banning people from Live. I have heard no such thing said about Playstation Online, I have in fact heard the opposite.

- RROD was never addressed in the new version of the 360 just the light moved to the Power Brick

Yes it was. As of the third wave of 360's RRoD has not been the problem it was.

- Your Discs can be heavily Scratched just by moving the console

And, other disk readers don't scratch disks when turned sidewise or upside down or shaken like a margarita?

I have just had bad experiences with Microsoft's Console ESPECIALLY in TF2 on the 360. Sorry if it seemed like i was trolling but that is just how i feel about there console. I just like the PS3 Better.

I have bought 3 consoles from Microsoft.

All have Red Ringed and i have received a new Console from Either Microsoft or Square Trade. It is just The disc scratching issue with the newest and "Greatest" Revision of the console aka Xbox 360 slim.

Tilt is up even slightly and it will damage any disc...

Because you're moving the console while it's operating.
I have moved my 360(360s, technically. My first one, which was one of the original launch consoles, finally died in January. It actually outlasted its friggin' warranty, but Microsoft replaced it with a Modern Warfare 2 console with the 250gb hard drive.) from room to room and back again, have yet to have a disc scratched.
Just don't do it while the console is running. It's a stupid thing to do, period, with any kind of disc reader.

If you move a CD player from its standard position to tilting it on its side, it'll scratch the CD.

Kanluwen wrote:Because you're moving the console while it's operating.
I have moved my 360(360s, technically. My first one, which was one of the original launch consoles, finally died in January. It actually outlasted its friggin' warranty, but Microsoft replaced it with a Modern Warfare 2 console with the 250gb hard drive.) from room to room and back again, have yet to have a disc scratched.
Just don't do it while the console is running. It's a stupid thing to do, period, with any kind of disc reader.

If you move a CD player from its standard position to tilting it on its side, it'll scratch the CD.

WOW your launch console lasted a very long time!

I will keep that in mind on the CD thing.

Benjamin385 wrote:WOW your launch console lasted a very long time!

I will keep that in mind on the CD thing.

Pfft. I got mine on launch day. Never had a problem She still runs, though that 11 gb HD is starting to hurt

Overheating was the primary problem, and honestly, any machine can overheat if you stack it somewhere with poor ventilation. I know a guy who melted his PC's mother board because he stuck the tower under his desk and it just recycled the same air in and out until the circuits turned to mush

Benjamin385 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Because you're moving the console while it's operating.
I have moved my 360(360s, technically. My first one, which was one of the original launch consoles, finally died in January. It actually outlasted its friggin' warranty, but Microsoft replaced it with a Modern Warfare 2 console with the 250gb hard drive.) from room to room and back again, have yet to have a disc scratched.
Just don't do it while the console is running. It's a stupid thing to do, period, with any kind of disc reader.

If you move a CD player from its standard position to tilting it on its side, it'll scratch the CD.

WOW your launch console lasted a very long time!

I will keep that in mind on the CD thing.

Wait wait wait... you were seriously moving your console with a disc in it... or better yet, with the console actually running? Why don't just throw it out the window while your at it?

Ps3....Rockband seems much better on it. I've played on both and the 360 version just seems weird.

Having said that, I only play expert drums, which is the extent of my console gaming..

Samus_aran115 wrote:Rockband

Must... Contain... Rage...

Soladrin wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Rockband

Must... Contain... Rage...

But your avatar looks so happy I could never see you raging about rock band

I hate any game who's entire premise of gameplay is... simon says.

Soladrin wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Rockband

Must... Contain... Rage...

Dare I ask why....I find rockband to be far better than guitar hero. Not to mention I love drumming, and the guitar hero foot pedal charts teach you nothing. Rokkband ftw.

Soladrin wrote:I hate any game who's entire premise of gameplay is... simon says.

Oh ok is it a Private RAGE party or a Public one?

I want to join

Anyone can join, but my rage isn't actually aimed at the game, but mostly at the people crazy enough ( I use the crazy so as not to be to insulting ) to actually buy into it.

Who the hell pays 100's of bucks for a game with hardly any production values apart from song licensing and fake plastic instruments who's buttons don't even make sense if you compare them to the actual instruments.

Rage is awesome

Just noticed the vote percentages are 63/38......

Soladrin wrote:Anyone can join, but my rage isn't actually aimed at the game, but mostly at the people crazy enough ( I use the crazy so as not to be to insulting ) to actually buy into it.

Who the hell pays 100's of bucks for a game with hardly any production values apart from song licensing and fake plastic instruments who's buttons don't even make sense if you compare them to the actual instruments.

Agreed. Would much rather learn to play a real instrument.

You should get both systems. They both have flaws and merits with lots of good games on both systems. A lot of the old debates are really no longer valid.

Sure in the beginning, the 360 had better games in comparison to the PS3. That is how it works when you are comparing 1st Generation (PS3) to 2nd Generation (Xbox 360) games. Mircrosoft had a head start by releasing their system a lot sooner. Remember they had better graphics for years. It took a little while to catch up to the 360, but eventually the PS3 did. I know everyone seems to think this is stupid, but imagine trying to race someone who has just a mile head start on you and they are as physical fit as you. In the graphics race, PS3 caught and passed the 360 last year. It isn't by much but the fact that they did has got to say something.

I enjoy both systems. I am a little grumpy when it comes to the 360 but that is mostly because I really hate these arguments. There is always a ton of people who let their fanboyism show to much favoritism. Hell I am probably showing some right now, but I wouldn't have to if people would just accept that both systems are really good, (I feel like I am beating a dead horse here...)

No games on PS3? Invalid. There are plenty of good games. 360 fanboys do not see these games because they refuse to buy a PS3 and play it in the first place. Seriously find me a game on the 360 that looks as good as God of War III or Metal Gear Solid 4. Hopefully when the 360 gets metal gear the fanboys will see it as a very good game. I am a little worried that the graphics might not be as good, (Which would not have been a problem if the HD DVD add on for the 360 would not have failed, you can thank the porn industry for that...). Personally I think mircosoft should start supporting the HDDVD add on again so they can get some more HD games.

Price? Well it was never an issue in the first place. I know hindsight is 20/20 but you have to look at the facts. Both systems had the same price people, (if you count the original Hard drives equal in value). The PS3 was $600.00. It had a built in Bluray player. The 360 was $400.00. Its HD DVD add on was $200.00. That is some pretty simple math but for some reason people couldn't see that $400 + $200 = $600.00

In hindsight (always 20/20 folks), the PS3 would have been a better purchase since Bluray beat the HD DVD in the end. HD DVD is no longer supported and now you wasted $200.00. In addition the hard drive on the PS3 was a lot bigger than the 360's five years ago, which pushes the PS3's original worth beyond the 360's. However even though the PS3 had this going for it and the eventual pay off of the bluray player, it wasn't enough to get people to buy the PS3 originally because bluray was still new and the PS3 didn't have worthy games.

If both systems would have came out on the same day with their original launch titles, the favoritism would have been much closer to 50/50 and would have fell in the PS3's favor when the bluray player won the HD battle.

Now that is a lot of PS3 fanboyism, but even after all that, I have to say Microsoft had a better game plan. They rushed their system and got the drop on the PS3. Their system was very prone to failure which was not fun back when those first gen systems started failing when the PS3 first came out. It sucked to be a microsoft owner that second year when you only had a 1 year warranty. However the better games were enough for most people to buy a second 360 instead of a PS3. Even though microsoft screwed them over and they had to shell out $300.00-$400.00 more dollars on another system, it was worth it because Halo 3 and Gears of War were coming out right? Heck I bought my second 360 for that very reason. The pitiful PS3 games were stacked against a second generation game, Gears of War. It was a nobrainer back then, even if you had to buy another system.

Now a year after all this, PS3 games started to pick up some steam. People really couldn't use the whole Madden 05 looks way better on the 360 anymore. The odds were going to fall in the PS3's favour at that rate. But wow, Mircosoft with their very good game plans found something that would hook people back to their side of the war. All they had to do was give people a 3 year warranty. They had to do this because they were having over a 50% failure rate and PS3 was getting better with the games. All of a sudden all complaints about the 360 were over. Microsoft cared about their owners again. They knew the better gaming race was equaling out so they had to show their care for us gamers. Who cares about the guys from the second year who had to buy a second xbox before the warranty increase, (which if you were crafty you could have submitted some receipts and got one of the 360's reimbursed). This worked really well for Microsoft. Gamers everywhere felt that microsoft cared for them and wanted to fix their problems. They just wanted to fix their sales people and I do not blame them. It worked pretty well for them until the PS3 picked up enough steam that it was starting to over take the 360 in the race. Personally I think it is "too little too late" for PS3, but that is what they get for letting the 360 get the drop on them.

Fast forward to now and many of the old debates are no longer valid. Price? Whatever... Games? They both have them even if a fanboy refuses to play Gears of War 2 or God of War 3. Reliability? The PS3 doesn't need the warrantly and the 360 does. The 360 is good for 3 years even if all they do is switch out the crappy burned out parts with the same parts that will fail just as easy. However Microsoft has changed their tactics though. They realize that the PS3 looks better and will continue to impress. They do not have the HD support so they are failing in the battle with the PS3. Their only choice is to further commit to their original strategy: Do it better than the competitor while you can.

Realizing that they have did all the can to Sony, microsoft has found their new enemy: the Wii. They have the same strategy as they did against sony. They are using the better graphics of the 360 to snuff out the wii in the family gaming scene. Seriously the avatars? The copycat games? Where are all those nice 360 games? They are disappearing. The 360 barely has enough good games coming out next year and a significant drop from what they gave us before. All of their effort is going to the kinect which isn't what they promised.

It will probably go like this for another year or so, before the next microsoft console comes out and thus the cycle will repeat itself. Hopefully sony has learned their lesson and will not let them get a year head start on them.

In the end, I have to say it, Microsoft had a very nice gameplan. They got the drop on sony, fixed their mistakes, secured their fan's loyalty, and made plenty of decent games. Sony has some nice games too but it is a sense of too little too late. I got both systems and I have enjoyed them for what they are year after year.

The 360 didn't get my vote due to games, graphics, or HD capabilities. It didn't get my vote for warranties, Halo, or Gears of War.

It got the vote, because Microsoft has a much better marketing department.

As I understand it, Sony is delaying the next step in the console cycle, since they feel that the PS3's capabilities are still underutilized. I think Microsoft is following suit w/ the 360.

Re the graphics - I have both a 360 and a PS3 running on HD inputs to the same TV (using the same cables) and can't actually tell all that much of a difference, even on games of the same type and same age. Some games on the 360 look better, some games on the PS3 look better.

@SilverMK2: That is pretty much the way of it for now. The PS3 has recently only just started having better graphics, most notably the cut scenes from Final Fantasy XIII. I hate that game with a passion but there it is.

But all is fair it love and war. The 360 had better graphics for what the first 4 years of the competition?! It had to happen eventually.

Neverending Pant-asy has always had good visuals though - no matter the platform. They spend a lot of time and effort to ensure that. I would imagine that if you had a 360 version and a PS3 version running side by side there would not be a lot of difference.

No Silver, a friend and I tried that (with FFXIII), the difference is actually very, very, big. But this is understandable considering they had to scale back the game for the 360 version in order to make it fit on a reasonable number of disks (and as such isn't a good assessment of the graphical limitations of the 360 so much as the storage limitations). Most multiplatform games you won't see very much difference between the consoles, usually the game is optimized better for one system or the other (usually the Xbox360 as its easier to develop for, and thus usually represents the main effort), where the differences become apparent is with the exclusive titles. Graphically, some of the more recent PS3 exclusives have had the edge over the 360 in this department (especially the uncharted series).

PS3 if this is the only blu-ray player you are going to have.

Gears of war and the xbox's controller end any of these things for me anyway

And I'm addicted to gamer points and can't quit now anyway! (busy right now getting every single DoW 2 achievement!) And I've almost finished Vanquish without dying now

The irony of me saying I've never had a problem with my 360 - I turn it on this morning and get a RRoD error :(

The question now is whether I send it in for repair, buy a new one, or steal my brothers next time I go to my parents house...

If it's out of warranty, consider whether you want to upgrade. Microsoft's repairs cost £80 last time I checked, which is why I'll be getting a new console (250gb slim for £195) instead of getting mine fixed.

You could of course get it repaired elsewhere for cheaper - I had mine repaired by a local company once for £50. Though it did start working again, that only lasted about four months. Don't know what the track record is for Microsoft repairs.

My brother has had a couple repaired by Microsoft and independent companies.

I looked around for new consoles but unfortunately don't have the monies to buy a new console so had to spring for the repair bill (just over £80 :( ). Since it is a really old version of the console which I don't think they manufacture any more, I am hoping they just send me a new one

The good thing is that I understand you then get a new 1 year warranty, so if it goes again within the year it will be free.

Or you could finally get a PS3...

I finally talked my brother into getting one after he went through 5 xbox 360s. My 360 is still going pretty strong, but I only used it for Halo Reach, Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect 1 & 2. I would like to keep it that way.

My 360's been my faithful friend since 2006; I even remember his birthday - February 16. He's been on the brink twice now; he red-ringed on me twice (three rings mind you, not four). He's probably one of the oldest still working.

There isn't a day that goes by that I don't regret getting that Core set over the Pro.

I thought the three rings was the bad one...General Hardware failure. Four rings is the AV Cable Error. If you had the three rings twice then your system shouldn't be working.

Lord Scythican wrote:I thought the three rings was the bad one...General Hardware failure. Four rings is the AV Cable Error. If you had the three rings twice then your system shouldn't be working.

Yep, twice. The 4 rings pop up every time the power's loose a bit. He just refuses to die on me.

undivided wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:I thought the three rings was the bad one...General Hardware failure. Four rings is the AV Cable Error. If you had the three rings twice then your system shouldn't be working.

Yep, twice. The 4 rings pop up every time the power's loose a bit. He just refuses to die on me.

You know you are lucky don't you? I guess you actually got a system that works like it should. Remember the days when we had systems like the NES, sega, and SNES that worked and did their job for years? I really hate this crap that is breaking after a few years. Its not just the gaming systems either. I had a 42 inch LG TV that went out after 3 years. Makes me sick.

They have self destruction devices programmed to go off when your warranty runs out.

Better in terms of what? I bought a PS3 due to the exclusives it had like MGS4, Demons Souls, Yakuza, Uncharted, LBP, FFXIII Versus, Taiwan High Speed Rail etc; I bought a PS3 solely on MGS4 and I don't regret it. There aren't many exclusives on Xbox which I like, and the ones which I do are on/coming to PC or coming to PS3 (Mass Effect/2/3, Fable 3 etc). The only exclusive game which slightly interested me is Alan Wake, but I'm not going to buy another console just for one game.

And no I'm not biased, I think Resistance and Killzone are crap.

I don't know much (don't care) about the system specs, so I'll leave that out.

I think all the graphics comparing is stupid, its not like you're going to be simultaneously playing the same game on both consoles at the same time {facepalm} and the difference is incredibly minimal at the worst.

My playstation 2 had died on me like 3 times over the course of its long and illustrious career in service to me (it was probably one of the first PS2's in the united states, seeing as how I had it before the official/public release date). Thus far, my PS3 has been serving me faithfully with no issues (knock on wood) though I can't say the same for one of my friends consoles, poor thing died just the other day.

Point in case, it all comes down to what games you like

I nearly got a PS3 for the new armored core games, but then From Software blessed me by releasing them on xbox 360 too ^^

What are we arguing here? We ALL know that pc is better in every possible way that can and can't imagine.

Proof (not from pc):

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/multiplayer-gameplay-quake-arena/708597

I lolled. Pay attention especially at 1:30 (look at ammo amount)

Mouse will always beat a controller for fps, that's just a fact.

Soladrin wrote:Mouse will always beat a controller for fps, that's just a fact.

I feel like Kinect/Move will be the mouse for the fps... but I have nothing to support that argument, so we shall see. I have always wondered why they didn't try developing a controller with a trackball (IMO superior to the mouse for FPS gameplay).

chaos0xomega wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Mouse will always beat a controller for fps, that's just a fact.

I feel like Kinect/Move will be the mouse for the fps... but I have nothing to support that argument, so we shall see. I have always wondered why they didn't try developing a controller with a trackball (IMO superior to the mouse for FPS gameplay).

Nope, those systems just aren't as accurate as a mouse (yet anyway) and I have a personal grudge against the whole motion control craze anyway.

Same.

Well I always get a lot of pain in my wrists when I try to play PC computer games but I do not with a controller. I guess I would sacrifice accuracy for comfort.