PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii... some thoughts

Dark_Angel · 1 Sep 2006 at 18:16

Since everyone and their dog seems to be having oppions I just wondered, why do people really support their console of choice so much? it reminds me of back a year or so ago in the graphic card forum with the whole SM3.0 isnt needed "yes it is!" arguments.

First of all, a bit of info. I both PS1 and PS2, both xboxes, a dreamcast, a saturn, a gamecube, plus have purchased tons of other consoles dating back from the Atari 2600. I only mention this because I wanted to show that I am not a PS3 fan, or a 360 fan.

It amazes me, though even when talking to people in a normal conversation how "sore" people can get over something. 2 Friends of mine are great examples they constantly tell me "there are no outstanding games on the 360". I counter by simply saying that "most people are very happy with Graw, PGR3 and blah blah blah" somehow, they manage to believe that "most people aren't" ok, I continue.

Next up, talking of the wii, I mention that I think its silly that some developers arent going to make 480P and widescreen normals on the console, especially since the widescreen is at the least on all the other versions. I get a "people just love graphics to much, nothing to do with gameplay" me = getting angry. I mean fair enough, graphics mean nothing... but to not include widescreen mode to me that seems lazy.

But I will get back on topic.

The main argument at the moment is the 360's power vs PS3's. I see this as kind of an odd thing to argue about, sure it would be a LOT better for both consoles to be roughly the same, but lets say the PS3 (for arguments sake, I am not saying it IS) is 30 percent more powerful. Remember the xbox 1 was around 2 and a half times more powerful than the PS2, and the cube was about 50 - 60 percent stronger.

The other argument, is the Blu-ray. I admit, I personally like the idea of the larger discs than the DVD's. The price is the obvious bad point though, and maybe the "obvious" solution is to pile the game on 2 - 3 DVD's as we saw the PS1 do with Final Fantasy 7, or PS2 do with so many RPG's. I wont really comment on this argument, truthfully its to much up in the air for me with too much speculation between dev's.

The last point I am interested in, is that the 360 has a year (roughly) head start over the PS3, well remember the Dreamcast had over a year's head start on the PS2. I would argue though, that MS have a better line up of software, and especially with live they achieved a lot more in their years headstart than Sega did.

I wont mention the Wii much, mostly because I don't lnow enough about it to be fair, and secondly because there is a lot less arguments going on there.

Once again, its just a few random thoughts, and I dont want to appear on any companies side, I dont claim to work for any software dev, and I dont want fanboy comments in the thread.

DA

*randomly thought of edit*

If you are routing for a particular company, please give details as why (this means why do you like the company, not take this chance to rip on the rival companies.

Chrisss · 1 Sep 2006 at 18:29

I don't think you can just measure 2 systems against each other by saying 'x system is twice as powerful as y system' when they have totally different architectures.

I hear people saying that the PS3 can do twice as many Floating point calculations than the 360 per clock cycle, but stuff like that has very little impact on gaming.

Reasons I route for 360:

I've never been a Nintendo fan so that leaves me with PS3/360

360 is much cheaper, has most of the PS3 games, will be able to produce same level of graphics, has a great Live service, has loads of good exclsuves. Seeing as most games are cross platform anyway, I can't see Blu-Ray being put to much use.

DaveyD · 1 Sep 2006 at 18:30

Power wise, at the offset, the PS3 any Xbox 360 are most likely going to be very similar. On paper the PS3 could probably do some things a lot better than the 360, but that can also be turned around as the 360 can do things better than the PS3. Not going to use any examples as I don't know what they are, but there will be many, but only minor technical things that only techies will understand, and the vast vast vast majority of people/public are not going to understand what all the jargon means, they'll just see which console has the biggest mega-rom-disk or fastest laser-cartridge.

Blu-Ray, along with HD-DVD, is a bit of a wierd one at the moment. It's a brand new technology, an expensive technology also, but realisitically, games develers are still struggling to fill DVD9 disks up properly. The PS3 will probably have a lot more FMV style HD sequences that'll help fill their disks and make people by the console even more as they'll see these magical FMV sequences and think the graphics are going to be like that (ala Killzone 2). I personally don't care too much about swapping disks. Sure it's nice to have everything on one disk, but the kind of games that are going to require these disk swaps are likely to be big RPGs, which will take hours upon hours until you get round to the point where you actually will need to take a disk out and swap it to the next one. If it were a football game where you'd have to swap the disk at the end of a half, then it would be stupid, but I really don't see that happening, we'll see game makers putting a lot more thought into the compression of data onto DVD9 disks for the 360, and PS3 developers getting lazy and filling their Blu-Ray disks with crap.

The 360 has been well marketed over the past year, and I guess has done a lot better than the Dreamcast, and although I believe the PS3 will outsell the 360 by quite a bit, nomatter what the quality of the games are like, I think the 360 will stay steady, and a very very close competitor that many people will turn to instead of the PS3, a lot of them because of the price. If we see games coming out on both systems, and them running identical, which would you go for? The cheaper console of course (usually, unless you have some childish vendetta against MS).

What matters mostly, in my and many other people opinions, is that the games are enjoyable. It's disappointing that the Wii is going to be a little less powerful than the 360 and PS3, but it's not going to be in direct competition with the two, as it's going to appeal to different audiences, and hopefully have some incredibly innovative games with the new control system it is introducing.

Dark_Angel · 1 Sep 2006 at 18:32

DaveyD said:
Power wise, at the offset, the PS3 any Xbox 360 are most likely going to be very similar. On paper the PS3 could probably do some things a lot better than the 360, but that can also be turned around as the 360 can do things better than the PS3. Not going to use any examples as I don't know what they are, but there will be many, but only minor technical things that only techies will understand, and the vast vast vast majority of people/public are not going to understand what all the jargon means, they'll just see which console has the biggest mega-rom-disk or fastest laser-cartridge.

Blu-Ray, along with HD-DVD, is a bit of a wierd one at the moment. It's a brand new technology, an expensive technology also, but realisitically, games develers are still struggling to fill DVD9 disks up properly. The PS3 will probably have a lot more FMV style HD sequences that'll help fill their disks and make people by the console even more as they'll see these magical FMV sequences and think the graphics are going to be like that (ala Killzone 2). I personally don't care too much about swapping disks. Sure it's nice to have everything on one disk, but the kind of games that are going to require these disk swaps are likely to be big RPGs, which will take hours upon hours until you get round to the point where you actually will need to take a disk out and swap it to the next one. If it were a football game where you'd have to swap the disk at the end of a half, then it would be stupid, but I really don't see that happening, we'll see game makers putting a lot more thought into the compression of data onto DVD9 disks for the 360, and PS3 developers getting lazy and filling their Blu-Ray disks with crap.

The 360 has been well marketed over the past year, and I guess has done a lot better than the Dreamcast, and although I believe the PS3 will outsell the 360 by quite a bit, nomatter what the quality of the games are like, I think the 360 will stay steady, and a very very close competitor that many people will turn to instead of the PS3, a lot of them because of the price. If we see games coming out on both systems, and them running identical, which would you go for? The cheaper console of course (usually, unless you have some childish vendetta against MS).

What matters mostly, in my and many other people opinions, is that the games are enjoyable. It's disappointing that the Wii is going to be a little less powerful than the 360 and PS3, but it's not going to be in direct competition with the two, as it's going to appeal to different audiences, and hopefully have some incredibly innovative games with the new control system it is introducing.

I almost completely agree with that post

DaveyD · 1 Sep 2006 at 18:33

To add to the above:

I'm trying to be on the fence at the moment, but I'm always wanting to stick on the Microsoft and Nintendo side of it at the moment, as Sony really have not sold the PS3 to me other than a system that has a lot of future proofing. I've not seen a title that's due for release on launch that has made me want to fork out nearly £500, when I can play top quality games now on a 360, instead of waiting another 6 months after the PS3 release to get anything half decent.

Psyk · 1 Sep 2006 at 19:20

I'd like to get a Wii no matter what really. But I imagine a lot of people wouldn't think of getting a Wii instead of another console, they'd probably get it aswell as a 360 or PS3.

I'm not biased towards either console based on which company makes it, or what it has inside. I will get a PS3 at some point because I'm a fan of the Final Fantasy and Metal Gear series, but I hope that won't be for a few years. As for the 360, there aren't any games to draw me in right now. That might change when Halo 3 comes out but I'm not sure.

mark_t50 · 1 Sep 2006 at 21:27

I don't really support one console over another. I've bought everything from the snes and megadrive upwards and usually get one on launch day. For me it's about the games, as long as a console has a game available that I want then I get it. I'm really not that bothered about how powerful a console is, what drive type it has, or any of the other rubbish some people seem to get hung up about. For me it really is just about the games. I spend just as much time playing the Xox Live Arcade games as I do anything else and they don't need a HDMI connection, a blu-ray disk and a million terraflops to run, for me the're just as much fun as the latest retail game though.

With the current / next gen consoles I've already got a 360 from launch day and I'm definately getting a Wii, I'm currently not planning on getting a PS3 though. This is nothing about having anything against Sony, it is simply that I haven't seen the console up and running a real game yet and none of the alleged launch titles interest me. It looks as though the PS3 maybe the first console I haven't pre-ordered in a long time. There is also something about the price that bugs me. I'm lucky enough to have enough money to get one if I want and I will quite happily blow a couple of thousand every year on PC upgrades, yet for some reason the price of the PS3 seems to high for me. I've developed an attitude of not bothering about it till it comes down in price. Of course the moment a decent game is released I know I'll cave in and get one (most likely when a Gran Tourismo game is released for it).

The Darkness · 1 Sep 2006 at 22:54

I've owned consoles by microsoft, sony and nintendo. The only 'next gen' console I'll be buying is the Wii. Nintendo's sales pitch has me; the others arent even close.

dannyjo22 · 1 Sep 2006 at 23:01

The Darkness said:
I've owned consoles by microsoft, sony and nintendo. The only 'next gen' console I'll be buying is the Wii. Nintendo's sales pitch has me; the others arent even close.

Couldnt care less about the sales pitch or any other reason other than I was bored with PC gaming and its problems. 360 came out so I brought one as i liked PGR and a couple of others.

The others I will buy If I like the look of the games 3 months after they have been out.

The stats, figures, quotes and endless threads about stats and whose the most powerfull don't interest me.

I can and only will judge the here and now. Its all about the games.

JUMPURS · 1 Sep 2006 at 23:13

I've got my 360, got quite a fair few amount of games for it, and to tell you the truth not hugely insipred. I like it and all, but it is missing something, dont know what it is.
This time last year i couldnt wait for the 360. This year i can't wait for the PS3, can't wait for confirmation of launch date to book time off work, can't wait to take out a mortgage to buy the thing lol With the blu ray Movie line up for november starting to come out now aswell its looking like it might be on schedule.
Then when all the DX10 graphics cards etc start to come out, PC upgrade baby lol
The Wii i am still hit and miss with, I didnt buy many games for the gamecube i owned cos well the ninty games where always more expensive and just didnt do it for me, i dont like games like mario party etc and if it came to a choice of a game for the PS2 or xbox and the cube, i always went for the PS2/xbox version.
I still think i will end up getting one, but wait till the online service is running on it before i think about it

da_mic_1530 · 1 Sep 2006 at 23:29

whichever came 1st got my £££, though if the ps3 had came 1st i may have debated over the price

FrankJH · 1 Sep 2006 at 23:35

I have the 360 (core) and I was moderately impressed with it to start with (bought PGR and RR6) but to be honest while I have had time to use it, I really dont feel the urge

I am looking forward to the wii and the ps3 just to see what they can really do, I am a real fan of technology and thats the one plus point to the PS3 and yes I do like Sony as a company but I am not a fanboy, but I adore mario and waverace which is why wii is a must

gord · 2 Sep 2006 at 00:13

I admit that i bought a PS2.. a long time after release for just Gran Turismo MGS4 and Devil May Cry 3.. they are top games and really are the PS3s only strength..

Ive seen comparison videos of PS3 vs xbox 360 and theres no difference between titles.. so what is that £500~ getting me? I just cant justify it really.

Theres a lot of blind faith for the Playstation name, its a rather intangible aspect of the market, but i am sure that it will be damaged this round. Playstation will still sell the most consoles, im sure.. but PS4 vs Xbox 3rd Gen.. who knows..

dannyjo22 · 2 Sep 2006 at 00:30

Hmmm not so sure myself Gord . The 360 titles aren't getting better, they are worse if anything. Has any game used all the cores yet?

The first titles are still the slickest. Nothing comes close GFX wise to PGR imho. Or has the online interface that PGR had almost from the get go. COD and GRAW are great, although GRAW has many online problems.

Loads of others I didnt even bother playing, I just sold them on or returned them.

Frame rate issues and tearing seems to plague just about every game. Every release seems to have the same mutli player server gripes.

I think 360's quality releases to sell the console are in trouble. I'm not sure I could recommend one to buy right now with other consoles on the horizon.

I mean how often do you see your friends list full of people playing the latest game. A whole heap of threads on how great the game is for 4 or 5 days then nothing, people realise the game aint all that, the bugs get on their nerves and its not played any longer on multiplayer. When was the last time you saw anyone playing Top spin or fight night on Live, from you FL. COD, BF2?? I say this again like a stuck record but people big up the 360 for live yet from the 80 or so off here in my friends list few people actually use it. Lots of games get hammered til the gamer points are done. Then you dont see them online with the game again.

From mine its always the same people playing online games. 5 or 6 regulars. I dont mean that as an attack on anyone, I just find it weird that people use that to justify why the 360 is such a great purchase when most rarely use it.

The most ive ever seen people online was during last weeks poker frenzy, which has died a death when the 'we got something for free' wore off and we realised the holdem game was slow old pants

I think the gamer points are flawed to, they are actually ruining the games and the way people play. I reckon more would play online if they weren't chasing SP points. I admit getting caught up intially myself. I was neglecting good games to wade through some old pap for 1000 points. Also the biggest eye opener was the fact that the best player Ive played in my friends list also has the lowest gamerscore and has had his since release I think.

Sure that was a long winded rant, but it's why I would recommend anyone considering a 360 waits to see the options at this stage of the year.

Dev2 · 2 Sep 2006 at 00:55

I have a powerfull PC and am confident that PC gaming will always be my primary gaming platform. So how powerfull a confident is will not sway me. There needs to be something different that a PC game just can't compete with. This is why I stick with Nintendo. Very little beats four way Mario Kart after a night out or a Smash Bros tourine and a couple of joints. No matter how good a consoles graphics may be. The important question is "Does the game provide a lot of satisfaction?"

I'm not saying 360 or PS3 don't provide this, but they do it differently. Discussing and arguing is important as long as it's the right argument not PS3 has 10 Mhz more therefore PS3>360.

-Dev

rp2000 · 2 Sep 2006 at 13:59

dannyjo22 said:
Hmmm not so sure myself Gord . The 360 titles aren't getting better, they are worse if anything. Has any game used all the cores yet?

The first titles are still the slickest. Nothing comes close GFX wise to PGR imho. Or has the online interface that PGR had almost from the get go. COD and GRAW are great, although GRAW has many online problems.

Loads of others I didnt even bother playing, I just sold them on or returned them.

Frame rate issues and tearing seems to plague just about every game. Every release seems to have the same mutli player server gripes.

I think 360's quality releases to sell the console are in trouble. I'm not sure I could recommend one to buy right now with other consoles on the horizon.

I mean how often do you see your friends list full of people playing the latest game. A whole heap of threads on how great the game is for 4 or 5 days then nothing, people realise the game aint all that, the bugs get on their nerves and its not played any longer on multiplayer. When was the last time you saw anyone playing Top spin or fight night on Live, from you FL. COD, BF2?? I say this again like a stuck record but people big up the 360 for live yet from the 80 or so off here in my friends list few people actually use it. Lots of games get hammered til the gamer points are done. Then you dont see them online with the game again.

From mine its always the same people playing online games. 5 or 6 regulars. I dont mean that as an attack on anyone, I just find it weird that people use that to justify why the 360 is such a great purchase when most rarely use it.

The most ive ever seen people online was during last weeks poker frenzy, which has died a death when the 'we got something for free' wore off and we realised the holdem game was slow old pants

I think the gamer points are flawed to, they are actually ruining the games and the way people play. I reckon more would play online if they weren't chasing SP points. I admit getting caught up intially myself. I was neglecting good games to wade through some old pap for 1000 points. Also the biggest eye opener was the fact that the best player Ive played in my friends list also has the lowest gamerscore and has had his since release I think.

Sure that was a long winded rant, but it's why I would recommend anyone considering a 360 waits to see the options at this stage of the year.

I agree with all of the above:

I truely believe this time next week most of the people playing Saints Row to death (me included) will not be playing it anymore! Even though they are the same people saying it is better than San Andreas. SA wasn't even online and had me playing for months after the initial purchase.

So many people seem to pass of the Tearing and lack of AA as "wait for programmers to get used to the console" arguement but these people also say "Xbox is easy to code PS3 is hard to code for".

The online play is just niggling faults, yet they take ages to get rectified, if at all. I don't imagoine them fixing the Saints Row problems for at least 1 month, by then most 360 owners will have got bored of it.

rp2000

p.s. I am predicting the same problems for this "killer app" Gears Of War. Online issues, Tearing and/or no AA.

Edit: Oh yeah, one thing that annoys me when comparing 360 premium price with ps3 premium is this: The PS3 comes with 2 Wirelesss controllers (surely about 80% of people must have bought an additional controller for 360). Also no chage for equivalent of Gold Live membership. To me that is about 70 pounds. Surely a good portion of 360 owners have coughed up for this or at least one of these 2 items. Still doesn't make it cheaper but certainly adds value for your money.

I still think SONY will do something additional like for the £425 bundle you get a free game (1st party) or a mail order deal to get a free Blu Ray movie (1st party).sort of ala free Spiderman 2 UMD for PSP owners to help push a new movie format.