What do you prefer? PS3 or Xbox 360?

I prefer the Xbox 360, actually. Sure, the PS3 has great graphics, but I only want like 3 games (Littlebigplanet, the ICO/SotC Bundle, and The Last Guardian) for it. That pales in comparison to the amount of games I want for the 360, actually.

 

If it were done directly, you wouldn't have 46 points lying around. You'd have 0. If you have excess points, you still paid for them, and whether you spend them or not is not Microsoft's concern. Chances are, you won't have enough to buy anything decent, and if you do buy something with so little points, it's a piece of crap that you didn't even want, or need. But more than likely, you'll buy MORE points and buy a game just to get rid of the excess. Microsoft wins again. You don't.
I'd rather just spend $6, instead of buying $10 in points, spending $6 worth, and then finding $4 of something I didn't even need. It's kind of like getting packs of 6 buns, and packs of 8 hotdogs, and the only way to have an equal amount is to buy x24 of buns and x24 hotdogs. I'm not going to buy 24 of each just so I can have an equal amount. I only wanted 6 of each, but I can't do that because I have two extra hotdogs. I'm not going to buy $70 in points just so I can get 2 games that are $35 each, when I really only wanted to buy just one game.

Kinect is the Wii's concept done right. I've never tried the Playstation Move, but I hate it solely for the fact that some idiot release group decided to make MOVE their dumb release name, and it's a 50/50 chance getting a Playstation Move game, or just a regular game with their stupid release name on it.

I've praised the Wii long enough, and the only reason being was that I could easily play backups on it. Now that I jailbroke my PS3, the Wii will most likely be put back in its box and in storage.

Really, motion games are novelty at best. I can't see CoD (or any stellar game) being on the Kinect or anything...
Kinect, as great as it is, just doesn't have the logistics for some big titles and will just stick with shallow games like it has now.
Microsoft has won with the Kinect, but really, looking at the bigger picture, that's a very small slice of the pie.

 

kinect is ok. but i wouldnt buy it. specially because the kinect is giving RROD to old xbox 360 for some reason

 

to play the kinect you must have a big room with no stuff in it. (Tables, chairs,etc) otherwise they might get into the game and that could be a problem when the kinect thinks the player is a chair.... Although playstation Move is a complete copy of wii it's more sensitive than it and has less lags than the wii and the kinect

 

It doesn't mean that it's function is very different.

That being said, I find it works better than the Wiimote. And it's integration with games is much better than the Kinect.

 

despite you saying this, people still keep saying kinect is completely original -___-

 

I like the PS3 because it's got a huge library of games. Sony does have more game developers on board than MS so there are more good PS3 only titles available.

 

Kinect is either a eyetoy 2 or a mocap lite. And it's function served in games is severely limited to the minigame type games and possibly a crap rail shooter (latency issues should be apparent at that point). Until I'm proven otherwise, that's its function.

 

kinect is more akin to the pseye which is an upgrade of the eyetoy. i wonder if playstation orbit would have sounded better... nah.

well, either way, i like my ps3 a lot. my favorite developer on the ps3 is thatgamecompany, and for some reason they are the only indie developers that have caught my complete interest when intertwining art and gaming. the ps3 has a lot of unique games + they are home to my favorite titles, disgaea being one
the other part would be the hardware of the ps3 and the developers that utilize it. naughty dog and guerilla showed some impressive stuff during the early years of the ps3 despite being tougher to code for.

tbh, i don't really want to have a preference because one has this and the other has that, and it's a pain in the ass to pick a side...

 

for me it is the 360. one is because there is halo and i love that game.

my brother has a ps3 but i dont like it.

1 you have to install games to play them
2 no one talks online so you end up siting in your room in silent
3 sony lie to us say that ps3 can play ps2 game. and you have to rebuy ps1 game in order to play them.

this is why i dont like the ps3

360 on the other hand.

1even tho you have to pay it is easy to find people to talk to.

2you can install the game to the hard drive if you want to.

3 you can play most xbox game on any verson of the 360

 

No they didn't. What are you smoking? Sony never lied, they just stopped putting PS2 hardware in the PS3 because it cost them too much money. They also stated that, that happened when it did happen when the PS3 launched. Also you're able to use to PS1 games on it, even if you have the original game.

No you can't, a lot of the games are either crippled by emulation related issues like frame rate problems or textures not appearing correctly. That and A LOT of games are missing. For I yearn to play Timesplitters 2 and 3.

 

I agree. This is what I was touching on, but you said it better.

1. I hate your line spacing. It bugs me.
2. I hate that you don't list your stuff right. If you're going to list something in a list format, at least make it the same for both lists...
3. Your lists are pretty much inaccurate. You DO NOT have to install every game to play them. Also, for those that have a mandatory install, you'll be glad you installed it to the HDD. Blu-Ray read speeds are pretty slow, but the extra capacity makes up for it. I'm not carrying around 3 discs for one game (FFXIII, I'm looking at you). Most games have an optional install, and many games just read from the disc. So your point is moot (actually, all of yours are, but that's beside the point). As for playing backups on the HDD, load times are essentially gone. I usually only have to wait about 1.5 seconds for the game to load FFXIII. Hell, half of the time it's done loading before the first few words of the synopsis comes up. So installing games onto your HDD for faster load times is a PLUS, not a negative. If you're bitching about HDD space, it's called GET A BIGGER HDD. I just installed a 500 GB 7200 rpm SATA in my PS3.
4. You're basing your 360 fanboyism on ONE game, at most ONE series of games? Really? And out of all of them, you picked Halo? Halo's good and everything, but it definitely isn't the one reason I'd go rush out and get myself a 360.

Don't even get me started on backwards compatibility. Microsoft has enough of a handicap in this department since they only have to go back ONE generation, and yet they can't even do that right. But a BC PS3 that is able to run both PS2 and PSX games, and run most of them without any issues is impressive. It's too bad they took that function out. They've had what, like a 20 year gap between the PSX and the PS3?

I've noticed this with both consoles, but there's been a big push into the "who has a bigger HDD" war between the two. If you're smart, you'd buy the lowest capacity (that still has full functionality) and replace the drive with the size that you want. They might mark up their product an extra $120 just because it has a slightly bigger drive in it. I haven't seen anything larger than 250 GB in the 360. Why do that when you can just buy your own drive and replace it? I bought that 500 GB SATA for $100, which is twice the capacity, and less than what their markup is. That, and I got the stock HDD in the second HDD slot for my laptop.

 

...

I was gonna rage but insane stole my lines and made them better

 

This is wrong, installation is always the option, not the requirement.

It depends on the game your playing, I guess. I've heard MW2 and Black Ops are pretty noisy.

I actually agree with this.
Having to rebuy a game you brought 15 years ago on a system two generations ago is BULLSHIT. Seriously, charging me NZ$9.50 to buy a game I pirated FOR FREE in 1997 (i still have the disc, even) is basically begging for money. If Sony released every PS1 game ever made onto the PS Store for FREE they would be slightly less evil.

Also, the Atari fucking Jaguar.

 

To be fair, Microsoft has to resort to software emulation instead of hardware emulation because of hardware changes. It's impossible for them to make all Xbox games compatible all in one go. Although I wish they didn't stop with the BC updates and pulled total support for the original Xbox games. Hell, there's no good Xbox emulator on the PC. Sony had to resort to the same thing after the removal of most of the PS2 hardware in the PS3 (it's second hardware iteration), it suffered because it didn't support all PS2 games.

I really don't know why Sony hasn't tried purely software emulation with the PS2 yet, maybe because it's either too late, or what.

lol

 

No one is forcing to REBUY a game. No one is forcing you to buy anything actually...except maybe insurance, but that is another matter... Why do you have to REBUY a game anyway? Did you lose your disc? Wait, you have the disc...so then why are you rebuying it again? How about playing it on the system you played with 15 years ago? If you think this is such a horrible act, then let's not even mention Nintendo that just re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-releases old games, and puts a Limited Edition label on it that supposedly justifies a high price tag.

*cough* *hack* SUPER MARIO ALL-STARS LIMITED EDITION! *cough* *cough*
Man, they didn't even bother to change the menu from the SNES version. Good luck figuring out which button actually selects the game...not to mention that you basically paid for a largely padded disc, and a few pamphlets.

 

I say a money grab...instead of maybe charging for a emulator for ps2 games, they resorted to HD remakes and charging for those...

 

lol
---
I believe each console has a near equal amount of fanbase, it's just the PS3 and 360 fanboys just like to rage more.

 

And an ost...dont forget the ost