Ok so here I go again with my unpopular opinions trying to get people to argue with me. Well, hopefully some people will take this seriously because, as always, I am really curious as to what people think.
Now, before I go into a huge rant explaining everything, can anyone tell me if they disagree? I guess that will determine how I gauge my response. I personally would not consider controller preference to be an issue, because it really just comes down to personal preferences and what you're more comfortable with. Considering how similar the controllers are, and that you can purchase 3rd party controllers for PS3 that are the same as 360, it's really not an issue. It isn't like preferring the Steel Battalion controller to Atari 2600, you know?
Does it have real time weapon change? Yes it does. Looks like a win for the PS3!
--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch
Did anyone here ever play a Jaguar? After playing that at a friend's house I can honestly say that no controller will ever manage to be more terrible than that.
--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch
From: TheRock1525 | #006 Controller preference is a pretty big deal.
If you had to control a game by smashing your hands into a brick wall, would you really enjoy the system as much?
Kinect vs. Move controllers are a legitimate claim. Xbox 360 vs. Dual Shock 3 or whatever it's called is not. They have the same amount of buttons. The only difference even worth mentioning is the flipping of the left side analog stick and D-pad. To claim one system as better than the other because of this is just ludicrous, doubly so considering you can buy controllers that change this.
Or you know, the actual body of the controller and how it fits in your hand. The original Xbox controller has the same amount of buttons as the current Xbox 360 controller. Are they the same?
And you can't argue third party because third party controllers are f***ing awful.
GuaiGaWarui posted... it really just comes down to personal preferences
Check it out, you already debunked your title.
--
If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person? [HERO'S PLUNGE] http://img.imgcake.com/finegifdy.gif
Beyond my preference for the Xbox 360 controller it is basically fact that the 360 controller is superior for shooters and basically anything requiring precise control. The thumbstick positioning on the 360 controller is one that is natural for the human body and does not require contortion.
Other than that, Xbox Live as an online system trumps PSN resoundingly. Party chat would probably be the primary difference for me as well as the superior and faster system for inviting friends into games. Oh and updates are FAR, FAR quicker on a 360 than a PS3 with regards to both game and system updates.
Anyways, it doesn't matter much to me because I enjoy both consoles but there is no denying that online play is superior on the 360 and it doesn't take freaking forever for achievements to pop or to compare game lists with friends.
--
http://www.gamerhandles.com/metro/sig/HAK%20Devil.jpg http://i51.tinypic.com/2zpi5w4.png <-- How I look as per Clogged_Artery (Thanks!)
From: The_Ps2_Devil | #018 Beyond my preference for the Xbox 360 controller it is basically fact that the 360 controller is superior for shooters and basically anything requiring precise control. The thumbstick positioning on the 360 controller is one that is natural for the human body and does not require contortion.
I'd say the Xbox 360 is better, in my opinion. Sony just hasn't been as good as it was. Now, if it was PS2 vs. Xbox? No contest, PS2 wins, excluding online. Although I never had online on my PS2, and I never cared. The 360 is what I play more games on, for a few reasons:
1: The controller. Again, if this was Dualshock 2 vs. original Xbox controller, even the smaller one, DS2 would be the winner. Now, Microsoft has their **** together, and the 360 controller is just a perfect fit for my hand. It feels better and MUCH more resilient, the bumpers and triggers feel more responsive, and I like the concave sticks more than the PS3's convex ones, which your thumbs can slide off of after long durations of gameplay.
2: My friends play 360. Not really a universal thing, but for me, and anyone else whose friends play 360, this is what really seals the deal. Even if the PS3 had some really amazing things the 360 didn't (it has a few, but not enough to make it your main system), those can be easily overlooked if you know your friends are going to be playing the 360. Same goes for PS3, but most people play 360, so it's less likely to be the case.
3: Xbox Live. I know, wahhhh, you have to pay for it. I wish I didn't, but it's good enough that I don't mind. I don't mind paying $60 for an alright game, why shouldn't I pay it for the best online gaming? And it really is the best; don't let anyone sway you. PSN looks like a free program compared to Live. You know what it reminds me of? A demo. A free demo of Xbox Live. You never have to buy the full version, but every once in a while it reminds you how much better the full version is. However, you can get PS1 games on it, and that's really cool. It really is. I wish Live had more Xbox and 360 games, and at better prices. I'll give PSN that, because that's definitely an advantage. On the other hand, Xbox Live Arcade beats PSN's other downloadable games by a landslide.
No, the 360 doesn't have a Blu-Ray player, but that argument only worked when Blu-Ray players cost more than a PS3. But, here's one more I'll give you:
Blu-Rays blow the 360's inferior discs out of the water. PS3 games can be way bigger than 360 games can.
I'm going to separate this into three main points. Maybe somebody will care. Hopefully this isn't all for nothing. I could be playing Creed right now.
First of all, let's talk about the games, because it's all about teh gaimz. Out the gate, 360 did have some nice stuff like Mass Effect, Oblivion, and Lost Odyssey. Of course, all of those [franchises] eventually went multiplatform. At this point, they are extremely dry on exclusives. This year, all they had is Gears 3 and Forza 4, along with an HD re-release of Halo. There are a number of lame ass Kinect games that by default are exclusives, but do any of us care about those?
[I mean, I really want to play Disneyland Adventures, but they ruined it by the simple act of making it a Kinect title. If I could just walk around the park and watch simulated versions of attractions, it would be a day one buy for me. Instead, they make it a collection of minigames where you wave your arms around your head. Worthless.]
So, you have those two new games which are big MEHs, along with a remake, or whatever you want to call it. It is identical to the original game, as evidenced by the feature of a single button press flopping to the original's graphics. Hence, this year's "killer app" for Xbox is a decade old game. Imagine if Ico HD was PS3's main exclusive.
PS3, meanwhile, continues to have an enormous list of exclusives. This year alone we've seen LittleBigPlanet 2, Uncharted 3, InFamous 2, Killzone 3, Resistance 3, Yakuza 4, Ratchet and Clank All 4 One, SOCOM 4, DC Universe Online, Back to the Future, and Disgaea 4, not to mention some smaller titles and some Move games that nobody cares about. And honestly, it's not even that much better than 2010. Last year, we had God of War 3, Heavy Rain, Gran Turismo 5, 3D Dot Game Heroes, Modnation Racers, White Knight Chronicles, Yakuza 3, and MAG. Seriously, there's stuff for everyone.
The same year, Xbox managed the great Alan Wake along with Halo Reach, Fable 3, and Crackdown 2. Certainly a stronger outing. Alan Wake is so good, and a Halo title is enough for a lot of casuals to claim superiority. I'm not here to talk about what mainstream kiddies are saying, though. It's clear that PS3 trumps Xbox 360 not only in quantity but in quality. To argue this is just getting into fanboyism.
--
Next is the hardware. I can't fault Microsoft for having inferior hardware because they knew they needed to get out the gate with whatever they had. It's a flip of situations from the previous console generation. MS rushed out their DVD console while Sony messed around with their more complicated "Core" processor and BluRay format.
Here's the thing that really sucks. Because 360 has established itself as the dominant console, multiplatform developers are forced to not push the PS3 hardware. In fact, most choose to develop on 360 and port it over to PS3. This can create enormous problems in more complicated games, such as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. The PS3 version is plagued with game-ruining bugs because of this situation. It ends up hurting us all as gamers, as PS3 is ready to move forward yet developers are stuck with this outdated system.
Finally is online, and what prompted me to start writing this. Microsoft charging to do everything on XBL is such a load of crap. Alright, it was one thing when the difference between free and paying was the ability to play online. Those servers cost money for upkeep. Fine. But since then, we have apps. Netflix. Last.fm. Facebook. Whatever. None of those can be used if you're not a paying member of XBL.
I have these people I hang out with from time to time and just added them all. They're all in party chat and someone invited me to join. So I click accept, and I get an error message saying that since I'm not a paying member, I cannot join a party chat. Seriously? In an era where we can make free phone calls from Google, I have to pay to talk over a microphone online? Why? How can they be so greedy?
PSN, meanwhile, gives me everything for free. I enjoy Netflix on there all the time without being bothered about joining a pay service or seeing any ads. It's just there. The store is so much more simple to navigate. So yeah, there are less people to play with online, but again that's not a fault of the system. That's just a fault of people being mainstream. You can go play with literally millions of people on Cod, but it's still a piece of garbage game. Bottom line is that there is nothing inherently better with premium Live service than there is with PSN, and it's just not even comparable with the free Live service... because you can't do anything with it but buy stuff.
I'd like to also mention, because somebody said that achievements > trophies, that trophies are so much better than achievements it's not even funny. Sony obviously had an advantage here because they were just copying, but it was their duty to make it better in some way, and they did. To say otherwise is proof that you're on some fanboy crack or something.
When you get to 1000 points on a 360 game, what happens? Well, nothing, because having 1000 points. If you do the same feat on a PS3 game, what happens? You get a Platinum trophy! As far as bragging about meaningless points on a video game console, having Platinums is the ultimate. I can go to anyone on my PSN friends list and with one click, see how many Platinums they have. To do the equivalent on 360, I would have to go to the compare games page and look through to see if they got full points on anything. It's not nearly the same. Also, having star levels makes it much more like a game within a game, like the classic Nintendo formula. Levels are much more interesting than a simple number with a G after it.
I would be remiss not to mention Life with PlayStation (Folding@Home), the web browser, and PlayStation Home. Not the most exciting features, not make-or-break stuff, but nice features that we really don't think about anymore but are very nice things to have. Xbox finally has this Bing browser or whatever, I don't know much about it but it's like yeah, they're finally catching up to what we've had all along.
--
Anyways, that's my rant. If I'm wrong about ANYTHING, feel free to school me and school me hard. I can take it. Don't think it's gonna happen though!
When you get to 1000 points on a 360 game, what happens? Well, nothing, because having 1000 points.
Actually you get a little icon of the game.
And then there are all the PS3 games from before trophies were implemented... It's a bummer to not get trophies on a multiplat title just because they hadn't been implemented yet.
--
Now playing: Super Mario 3D Land, Final Fantasy IV: The After Years (PSP), Final Fantasy V, Saints Row the Third
From: skull_bonek23 | #029 Bradoshado posted... None of this matters cause the Wii has the best exclusives and has the best local multiplayer hands down as well.
Boom.
Isn't it past your bed time?
I'm 22, kid.
And the Wii having the best local multiplayer is inarguable.
From: GuaiGaWarui | #024 I have these people I hang out with from time to time and just added them all. They're all in party chat and someone invited me to join. So I click accept, and I get an error message saying that since I'm not a paying member, I cannot join a party chat. Seriously? In an era where we can make free phone calls from Google, I have to pay to talk over a microphone online? Why? How can they be so greedy?
It's funny that you point out party chat as a feature that it's so insidious for them to charge for, when this is a feature that PSN doesn't even have. So you can choose to not pay for XBL and not have the feature, or you can use PSN for free and... still not have it. Victory?
Also XBL does still allow you to chat cross-game with one person at a time, so like if you're playing Skyrim and your buddy is playing Arkham City, you can talk all you want. I don't believe PSN offers that.
But most importantly, XBLA has Super Meat Boy. I just can't in all honesty consider a system that doesn't have Super Meat Boy to be the best.
Achievements >>> Trophies simply for the fact that Trophies are slow as hell to pop in games (massive delay from when you complete the required task) as well as the ridiculous long sync time to compare friends lists
--
http://www.gamerhandles.com/metro/sig/HAK%20Devil.jpg http://i51.tinypic.com/2zpi5w4.png <-- How I look as per Clogged_Artery (Thanks!)
Are we actually pretending the differences between the two are significant? Just go with whichever one has the (small) number of exclusives you actually prefer. In my case, I am apathetic to most of the exclusives (and the few I did care about roughly cancelled out) and I caught one on a surprisingly good sale and picked it up, and have never regretted it. And I don't think I've ever even revealed to B8 which one I have because it never matters.
-- The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion
It's clear that PS3 trumps Xbox 360 not only in quantity but in quality. To argue this is just getting into fanboyism.
Having recently looked through the exclusives and things on the major multi-plat games I care about in order to decide which system I wanted more, I can honestly say that for me the 360 has the better game library. With Tales of Vesperia being the trump card.
-- (Maniac64 at work) [Browncoat] ~Board 570901~ All the proteins, vitamins, and carbs of your grandma's best turkey dinner, plus 15% alcohol.
paperwarior posted... When you get to 1000 points on a 360 game, what happens? Well, nothing, because having 1000 points.
Actually you get a little icon of the game.
And then there are all the PS3 games from before trophies were implemented... It's a bummer to not get trophies on a multiplat title just because they hadn't been implemented yet.
Yeah, but that just makes you realize more how cool they really are. When they first came up with Achievements, we all talked about how pointless they are. Now, playing Assassin's Creed on PS3, which was made from the ground up for Achievements, the whole experience seems dead. There's absolutely no point to collecting all the flags. Nothing happens in game.
I never heard about getting an icon though. You mean like to use as your avatar? Is it just a logo of the game or what?
Dauntless Hunter posted... It's funny that you point out party chat as a feature that it's so insidious for them to charge for, when this is a feature that PSN doesn't even have. So you can choose to not pay for XBL and not have the feature, or you can use PSN for free and... still not have it. Victory?
Also XBL does still allow you to chat cross-game with one person at a time, so like if you're playing Skyrim and your buddy is playing Arkham City, you can talk all you want. I don't believe PSN offers that.
But most importantly, XBLA has Super Meat Boy. I just can't in all honesty consider a system that doesn't have Super Meat Boy to be the best.
Hmm. I figured PS3 must have party chat. If that's true, I guess I can't use it as a knock against 360. But yeah of course you don't have to be in the same games. Last night when I tried to join them, two were playing Shaun White, 1 was in Creed 2, and the other 2 on that yearly shooter update game, whatever it's called.
I tried to avoid talking about downloadable games, although I did kinda cheat by adding Back to the Future. Both sides have their exclusives though and it's just a whole 'nother bag of worms to deal with.
Are we actually pretending the differences between the two are significant? Just go with whichever one has the (small) number of exclusives you actually prefer. In my case, I am apathetic to most of the exclusives (and the few I did care about roughly cancelled out) and I caught one on a surprisingly good sale and picked it up, and have never regretted it. And I don't think I've ever even revealed to B8 which one I have because it never matters.
Unless you play Capcom fighting games, in which case the PS3 version is invariably going to be laggier. And it's not just fighting games. When you count that the consoles have mostly the same library and that the better version usually resides on 360, that seems to be the one to go with. Unless you hate paying money for online, or really like Ratchet & Clank or Uncharted I guess.