Xbox 360 Or PS3?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jackal**

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.

**halonachos**

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.

**Squig_herder**

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.

**smiling Assassin**

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

**LordofHats**

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.

**halonachos**

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.

**Soladrin**

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.

**The Night Lord**

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.

**Mr. Self Destruct**

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.

**mrwhoop**

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.

**kirsanth**

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.

**Bwar**

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.

**LordofHats**

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.

**CaragaraPDF**

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.

**Yak9UT**

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

**brandon noble**

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.

**LordofHats**

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

**HighProphetOfDestruction**

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.

**LordofHats**

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.

**typhus**

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

**halonachos**

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.

**Cryonicleech**

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.

**Chrysaor686**

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.

**Soladrin**

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.

**GoDz BuZzSaW**

Cryonicleech wrote:Who cares?

Well by the looks of it most people...

**LordofHats**

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.

**mrwhoop**

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.

**halonachos**

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.

**Chrysaor686**

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.

**The Dreadnote**

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.