Chopsticks Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Why is it some people feel the need to repeat over and over and over again that they think the ps3 is shite? It's fun, because you PS3 owning folks keep biting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 wii is better than both, nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 From hands on comparison. Graw2 is better on the 360 pes2008 is better on the ps3. Dirt is better on ps3. Stranglehold is better on ps3. The problem comes when you have to buy a online game that your mates are getting too. As you have to get on the console they have. im talking pes in particular. If I didnt have anyone to play i would get it on ps3 handsdown. But I have lots of pes live friends on 360 so its a tricky decision. I might end up having to get both which is a right pain in the a$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Oh yeah, Bioshock- Overated, over hyped run of the mill fps with excellent visuals. From what ive read online a fairly large % of people seem to agree! Ahh, what a pile of horeshit! If you think bioshock is run of the mill, you're dead inside. A fairly large percentage of people agrere? Reviews on gamerankins, Avg Ratio: 96% Based On 56 Media Outlets. Metacritic user vote is 9/10. IGN Reader vote is 9/10 (based on nearly 2,000 votes). You're talking about one of the best games ever, there's no way it's over hyped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Er, no. The fact that there aren't any great games at the moment doesn't make the console shite. I don't see how you can argue that it does or how you can write it off before there are any games worth playing that can be compared to the same game on the 360. Because it's a games console, and without games it's shiet. Sure it may have the potential to be good, but untill then, it's shite. I own both, therefore I'm open to persuasion, if a game appears to be better on the PS3, I'll have that version but if it appears to be better on the xbox or it's a game that I'll play loads online with my xbox owning friends, then I'll get it on the xbox. Don't you think it's rediculous that a game may be better on the 360 when it's half the cost? Assasins Creed, Stranglehold, PES7 are the ones that spring to mind. Who knows they could be better on the 360 than PS3 but on the strength of what I've seen and played so far of other games I own, I will buy those (maybe not PES7, not my thing) for the PS3. All cross platform, which you can buy on the 360 for less money. Is that all you've got? You can really justify your purchase on top of your 360 with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelslikeitshould Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Don't you think it's rediculous that a game may be better on the 360 when it's half the cost? Not particularly, I bought the PS3 as a package and because it does more than play games so to me it's worth having and you can slate that as much as you like but it's my hard earned cash and I'll spend it how I like, thanks. All cross platform, which you can buy on the 360 for less money. Is that all you've got? You can really justify your purchase on top of your 360 with that? We must be looking on different sites then mate because they're the same price on Play. "Is that all I've got?"...What does that mean? My purchase of what, the PS3 or the PS3 games...? I bought the 360 after the PS3, given the games that I mentioned and ones I want most are coming out on both platforms or just the PS3, surely I should be justifying purchasing the 360, no? It doesn't affect you either way though so why should I justify it? Are you going to ask me to justify spending £200 on a handbag when I could've picked one up in New Look for £15....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 From hands on comparison. Graw2 is better on the 360 pes2008 is better on the ps3. Dirt is better on ps3. Stranglehold is better on ps3. How are you defining better? I assume some of your hands on is from demo code? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 From hands on comparison. Graw2 is better on the 360 pes2008 is better on the ps3. Dirt is better on ps3. Stranglehold is better on ps3. How are you defining better? I assume some of your hands on is from demo code? Better to play, better graphics, better sound, better overall. Yes pes and stranglehold are on demo code. Interestingly the ps3 pes code is behind the 360 timewise but the ps3 version is still playing and looking better. Ominous. back on bioshock. Its another halo for me. Wierd sci fi stuff. not my cup of tea at all. Not saying its not a good game tho but people are allowed to not like it droid . Game of the year is going to be cod4. it is absolutely amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 back on bioshock. Its another halo for me. Wierd sci fi stuff. not my cup of tea at all. Not saying its not a good game tho but people are allowed to not like it droid .Game of the year is going to be cod4. it is absolutely amazing. You really are a dull motherfucker. Sequels, yawn, give me original IP like bioshock anyday! The 360 version of dirt runs faster because they downgraded the visuals. How can you say it looks better when it's got less geometary? http://gameplanets.blogspot.com/2007/08/di...comparison.html Look how sparce the vegitation is on the ps3 version vs the 360. This is on a supposedly more powerful machine that costs nearly double? Bunch of arse. Is there a ps3 demo of stranglehold or are you just making shit up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 The 360 version of dirt runs faster because they downgraded the visuals. Really? What do you mean by 'runs faster' because everything I read says PS3 runs faster with no frame rate dropping like the 360. Take the drop in frame-rate issue that reared its ugly head on some of the busier tracks - its been totally stripped away and the PS3 game runs at a solid 30 frames-per-second, even when there are half a dozen cars jostling to get ahead of one another. Some might say the 360 version should've been like that in the first place and they'd be right, but it's good to see Codies has at least used this time to make the best game possible for PS3. Naturally it runs off Blu-ray too, plus load times have been optimised so you're up and running on the next track in around 30 second, as opposed to the 45-second load times on 360. HDMI makes a difference too, with those oh-so-cool loading screens that display your driver facts appearing sharper and crisper than ever before. All in all then, the PlayStation 3 version of DiRT takes the solid foundation of the 360 game and improves on it. Not hugely, mind, but enough to make it one of the most exciting racers coming out on Sony's monster this Fall. Source IGN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Really? What do you mean by 'runs faster' because everything I read says PS3 runs faster with no frame rate dropping like the 360. Typo, meant the ps3 version runs faster because they simplified the visuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelslikeitshould Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Look how sparce the vegitation is on the ps3 version vs the 360. This is on a supposedly more powerful machine that costs nearly double? Bunch of arse. You keep banging on about the cost, are you living on the bread line or something, stop obsessing! People who have bought the PS3 have bought it because it offers good value for what you get as a package. The only 360 the PS3 costs nearly twice compared to is the core, and you don't even get one wireless controller or a HDD with that! Which is fair enough if that's what you want. If I wanted a Premium to do what my PS3 does, it'd cost me more than £375. I'd need to increase the size of the HDD, buy a wireless bridge and a HD-DVD drive, controllers cost more too, plus you need new batteries every week or fork out on a rechargeble battery pack. In the long term, I believe the PS3 to be a better investment than the 360 Premium. Of course, that is all my opinion, yours is different, which your entitled to but I appreciate that not everyone wants a console that can only play games, which is why I pad more for the PS3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 You keep banging on about the cost, are you living on the bread line or something, stop obsessing! People who have bought the PS3 have bought it because it offers good value for what you get as a package. The only 360 the PS3 costs nearly twice compared to is the core, and you don't even get one wireless controller or a HDD with that! Which is fair enough if that's what you want. If I wanted a Premium to do what my PS3 does, it'd cost me more than £375. I'd need to increase the size of the HDD, buy a wireless bridge and a HD-DVD drive, controllers cost more too, plus you need new batteries every week or fork out on a rechargeble battery pack. In the long term, I believe the PS3 to be a better investment than the 360 Premium. Of course, that is all my opinion, yours is different, which your entitled to but I appreciate that not everyone wants a console that can only play games, which is why I pad more for the PS3. The cost is a value thing for me, if the ps3 was miles ahead of the 360, it'd justify the extra cost. As it is, it's roughly the same and in now way justifies the cost. And yes, I am on the breadline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopsticks Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 plus you need new batteries every week or fork out on a rechargeble battery pack. I What sort of batteries are you using? They should be lasting longer than that. Also, I just use rechargeable Ni-mh AA batteries out of an old digital camera, so I never have to buy new batteries at all. That's one area of the PS3 that's very clunky IMO, not only do the controller's built-in batteries not last very long, but you have to connect the controller to the PS3 via a short cable to recharge it, which effectively puts the controller out of operation for hours, whereas with the 360 you can just whip the batteries out and pop some new ones in. http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/bigboys/battle.htm Quote - With the exception of a terrible d-pad, the 360's controller is a thing of beauty and wonder. Ergonomic and comfortable, it uses a pair of normal AA batteries and powers itself down after a few minutes of disuse in order to preserve their life - I've only had to replace the supplied batteries once in the best part of a year. The PS3's Sixaxis has an internal battery charged via a USB cable from the console, doesn't switch itself off when it's not being used, and runs down within a couple of days of heavy play. When it does, your only options are to wait for it to charge back up, or play while connected by the cable, which is inconveniently short at four feet or so. The Sixaxis has sacrificed the rumble feature of both the 360 and its own PS2 predecessor in favour of a tilt-sensitive mechanism that, as utilised to date, is rather imprecise and unreliable compared to the Wii's magical remote. It's a bad trade, and without either batteries or rumble the Sixaxis feels rather light and flimsy. The only other major change from the PS2's Dual Shock is that the L2 and R2 buttons are now analogue triggers, and their shape and the angle they've been placed at makes them horribly uncomfortable as the accelerator in racing games, which is presumably their main intended use. Tch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 If I wanted a Premium to do what my PS3 does, it'd cost me more than £375. I'd need to increase the size of the HDD, buy a wireless bridge and a HD-DVD drive, controllers cost more too, plus you need new batteries every week or fork out on a rechargeble battery pack. In the long term, I believe the PS3 to be a better investment than the 360 Premium. No way, I agree with choppo, propriatory batteries are the work of Satan. I always have a little 4 slot charger on the go with some batteries in, they power a bunch of kids toys, me daughters wii controllers and my 360 controllers. When the controllers run out (which is pretty infrequent, a couple of months at least and I play a fair old amount) I just swap the set over in the recharger, no downtime. Can't do that with propriatory batteries, like in the DS, the IPOD and presumably the PS3. Wireless bridge not required here, got powerline to a hub that networks both me xboxes. Don't want a hd-dvd, or Blu-ray, you'd have to be a nobend to spend 25+ on a movie in my opinion, so far prefer that it's optional on the 360. I stuck on a hd movie the other day, via the 360's media streaming, it worked flawlessly but the missus didn't notice any difference. Pretty hard to spot over a prog scan dvd on a 32" screen I recon. Prolly worth it at 40' + Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.