New to consoles! 360 or PS3

Inosishi I have never seen you try and strain so hard not to mention the 360 over the PS3. It's almost like the internet version of gritting your teeth right there.

I can't be bothered to put forward my own views on the console debate, because it's been done to death and everyone else is already speaking for me anyway, with a few exceptions (like above).
 
Well heres a few examples, Bioshock, Gears of War, Orange Box, Halo ... All out or due out on PC too.

Your Gran Turismos, Rachet and Clanks, Metal Gear Solids, Final Fantasy's are pretty much sure to not appear on the PC.
 
Inosishi I have never seen you try and strain so hard not to mention the 360 over the PS3. It's almost like the internet version of gritting your teeth right there.

I can't be bothered to put forward my own views on the console debate, because it's been done to death and everyone else is already speaking for me anyway, with a few exceptions (like above).

And i'm yet to see you post something non-negative about the PS3 :)
 
That's because you have a selective memory and are in bias of a certain console.

I'm just putting my opinion accross to the OP, not really sure what i've done wrong here? if the guy wants to play GT5/Final Fantasy/Metal Gear Solid, what is the point of him buying a 360?

Likewise if he wants to play Halo no point buying a PS3...
 
Hardware wise they are pretty much the same.
The only difference is Blu-Ray.


So they aren't the same - PS3 has a free inbuilt Blu-ray player and Wifi (coupled with a web browser and PVR to come)

PS3 is the better piece of kit - fact.

360 is the better option - fact.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't have a free built in Blu-ray player :p That is the reason its so damn expensive and Sony are now paying the price for including it in the first place.
 
have a look at the kind of games out and coming out then decide becasue thats what is all about. personally i couldnt go without MGS, FF, devil may cry and the ps controller
 
Cost wise they are the same now - 360 no longer has any cost advantage when considering like for like.

I do admit my wording was poor - but the fact remains that the PS3 comes with the ability to play blu ray dvd's, this is an added value feature. As is Wifi (£40 odd, minimum ,on 360) and the free online service.

Cost isnt the issue - Games Are.
 
Cost isnt the issue - Games Are.

Exactly and where is Sony hoping to regain their losses from selling the hardware at a loss? The games.

Hopefully this has taught them a valuable lesson, People arent just going to run out and buy a £425 console just because its "Sony Playstation" if it has no games for it.

And before anyone starts I'm not having a bash, it just gets on my nerves when they market a games console as PC/Media Equipment when infact its very limited in what it can actually do and as a result the games have to suffer.
 
I do think in the longer term the PS3 will be the logical choice - but that wont be for IMO around 2 years.

I've never understood anyone saying this. What makes you think that? I'm not having a dig, but I just see so many people say it and I have absolutely no idea why.
When the 2 consoles are so evenly balanced in terms of power it's bizarre that people would say it.
 
MGS 4 will be amazing but to be better than MGS, they are going to have to ignore what they did with MGS3 and go back to the more limited style of MGS1 and 2 which were

And they are :) They know their mistakes and they are putting all their experience and effort into creating the best MGS game ever. I hope you will be surprised when it finally comes out :D
 
Metal Gear Solid 2 was awful IMO. MGS(1) was a masterclass in gaming though.
However, Splinter Cell offers much more in terms of stealth and movement than Metal Gear Solid though MGS has a massive fanbase which sticks by it.
 
Well being new to Sony Consoles (even though some people on here take me for some kind of Sony Fanboy) I can honestly say i've never played a MGS game, but 4 does look rather special, I really hope it is.

Gonna have to pick up the other MGS's and give them a try.
 
I've never understood anyone saying this. What makes you think that? I'm not having a dig, but I just see so many people say it and I have absolutely no idea why.
When the 2 consoles are so evenly balanced in terms of power it's bizarre that people would say it.

I suppose one way of looking at it is that they are fairly evenly balanced but the ps3 has a hard-drive and high capacity media player (blu-ray) as standard in its lowest common denominator machine which developers could take advantage of without fear of cutting out a certain group of ps3 customers whereas someone developing for the 360 has to take into account certain people in their audience won't have a lot of hd storage.

^It's a weak argument because some of my favourite games (current & retro) can actually fit on very little storage (in relative terms) than some of the bigger games out there. I'd also point out that the current range of 360 games available now makes it quite an attractive console even in the future for playing 'last years games' and not just the up and coming.

I still prefer my ps3, exclusives being a part of that (basically, comes down partly to taste) but also the quality of the hardware - very little fan / blu-ray noise with a decent future line up counts more to me than the catelogue of the 360 with all its noisiness as I have to consider other people I live with, but if the 360 does get a quiet edition I'd pretty much love to play the old classics like Halo 3 and PGR4 ;) (<---- it's a smiley with a wink!!! :p :))
 
Metal Gear Solid 2 was awful IMO. MGS(1) was a masterclass in gaming though.
However, Splinter Cell offers much more in terms of stealth and movement than Metal Gear Solid though MGS has a massive fanbase which sticks by it.

Oh no not the splinter cell MGS arguement, MGS wins by a mile :D

People argue that there is no games on the PS3 and there is a vast amount more on 360. Once MGS4, GTA4, COD4, PES2008, Ratchet, Uncharted, Wipeout HD, Burnout and GT5 Prologue are out within the next 5-6 months it won't be as good an arguement, the prices won't have changed and the 360 will still be as unreliable. Also do you really get the time to play through all these games that aren't as good as Bioshock, Halo and Mass Effect?

In the long term the PS3 to me is far more capable and has showed that the AAA titles are in the works. The only ones I have seen so far on 360 are Ninja Gaiden 2, Mass Effect, Alan Wake (although coming to PC and we don't know much about it yet) and Too Human.

To be honest I'm more excited about MGS, FF13 and Versus, Killzone 2, UEDA's game, GT5 and God of War 3 but that's just my taste so buy what you want and be happy :)

I've never understood anyone saying this. What makes you think that? I'm not having a dig, but I just see so many people say it and I have absolutely no idea why.
When the 2 consoles are so evenly balanced in terms of power it's bizarre that people would say it.

Well for one the PS3 hasn't seperated their install base with the hard drives so potential titles in the future that need to use the hard drive won't be a problem on PS3. I also think people underestimate the space developers get on Blu-ray and the potential it has and like I said earlier I believe future games are more appealing in the long term.
 
Last edited:
Well being new to Sony Consoles (even though some people on here take me for some kind of Sony Fanboy) I can honestly say i've never played a MGS game, but 4 does look rather special, I really hope it is.

Gonna have to pick up the other MGS's and give them a try.

All of 1, 2, 3 are great in terms of gameplay (I have yet to play the portable PSP one that I bought but that is more of the same).

I would say the quality of cutscenes, story telling etc varies per game, but the core gameplay is what sets it apart from the inferior Splinter Cell series.


rp200
 
Xbox 360

PGR4 HALO 3, PES 2008, Assassins Creed, COD4, Half-Life 2: The Orange Box, Mass Effect all on the 360 and just released or soon to be released,
 
Back
Top Bottom