Battle of the consoles

[Deo]

Hey, I loved many of the games on the X-Box. Halo, Halo 2, Fable, Fable:TLC, Conker, Ultimate Spider-man (More on X-box then PS2), Jet Set Radio Future....I'd remember more, but I had to sell it for need of the money.

[Captain Silver]

Oh, forgot about Fable, and I was talking about exclusives for the record.

[Celipa]

I like the Wii. Halo 3 beta was fun. Pok?mon's entertaining me on the DS and I'm saving up for the Jump! game. And I really enjoy Armored Core 4 and a few other PS3 games.

[Super Buu]

Speaking of 360, I'll probably be getting one soon. I need to buy Conker, since I never got the original.

[Deo]

Conker is good, but it's still got that retarded twitchy camera. You'll probably spend most of your time on the multiplayer, but don't count on finding lots of friends to play with online.

I'm juggling between getting a friend's used 360 or a DS new and getting that chip installed to download games.

[Vegeta]

Originally posted by Captain Silver
They?re fairly the same spec, even though the PS3 went over board with the nine 3ghz processors, the 360 has three and runs just the same speed. I don?t know if it was a ?They have three? We?ll have NINE then?, kind of thing, but yeah. The hardrive and graphics are almost similar as well.

Nope. The HDD is not standard in the 360, while it is in the PS3. Therefore, developers can't expect there to be a HDD in a 360 and so they're pretty limited in what they can do with it. Every PS3 has a harddrive in it. Lair is going to preload levels onto the harddrive and then the game with read from both the disc and the harddrive, resulting in faster load times. The Cell processor actually contains 8 SPEs, 1 is inactive in the PS3, and 1 is reserved for the OS. That leaves 6 cores for games, and that is going to be a huge advantage in any PS3 exclusive. They have to tone it down if it's going to be ported to 360 as well. The Cell processor is a bitch to program for (Sony has a history of this, both the PS1 and PS2 were complicated for developers) but it has nearly limitless potetional. Each core of the processor can perform a seperate task. Be it physics, audio, graphical tasks.

In pure technical specs the PS3 crushes the 360. The only computer I can think of that outclasses the PS3 is IBM's BlueGene. Bascially IBM developed the cell processor to be their new server/supercomputer proc.

[Captain Silver]

Originally posted by Vegeta

Originally posted by Captain Silver
They?re fairly the same spec, even though the PS3 went over board with the nine 3ghz processors, the 360 has three and runs just the same speed. I don?t know if it was a ?They have three? We?ll have NINE then?, kind of thing, but yeah. The hardrive and graphics are almost similar as well.

Nope. The HDD is not standard in the 360, while it is in the PS3. Therefore, developers can't expect there to be a HDD in a 360 and so they're pretty limited in what they can do with it. Every PS3 has a harddrive in it. Lair is going to preload levels onto the harddrive and then the game with read from both the disc and the harddrive, resulting in faster load times. The Cell processor actually contains 8 SPEs, 1 is inactive in the PS3, and 1 is reserved for the OS. That leaves 6 cores for games, and that is going to be a huge advantage in any PS3 exclusive. They have to tone it down if it's going to be ported to 360 as well. The Cell processor is a bitch to program for (Sony has a history of this, both the PS1 and PS2 were complicated for developers) but it has nearly limitless potetional. Each core of the processor can perform a seperate task. Be it physics, audio, graphical tasks.

In pure technical specs the PS3 crushes the 360. The only computer I can think of that outclasses the PS3 is IBM's BlueGene. Bascially IBM developed the cell processor to be their new server/supercomputer proc.

They both still run virtually the same so I don't see a real need for nine. And sure technically the spec would crush the 360's but they both seem to perform the same to me atleast. The PS3 is a powerhouse, and it has more then it even needs.

[Raditzu]

Originally posted by Captain Silver
They both still run virtually the same

Gears of War is probably as good as the 360 is going to get, graphically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI4zKj7W-Ys

According to Hideo Kojima, in an interview he did for Game Informer, the graphics in the trailer I linked above represent the lower end of the real-time graphics in MGS4.

It took the 360 this long to get where it is with something like Gears of War. No one console hits its graphical peaks for years. The PS3 will be the same.

[Captain Silver]

Originally posted by Raditzu

Originally posted by Captain Silver
They both still run virtually the same

Gears of War is probably as good as the 360 is going to get, graphically.

I don't doubt you, but I'm not gonna give up hope. =P

and just so you guys don't think this: I do not hate the PS3 >_> I plan to get one sometime within this year.

[Deo]

Originally posted by Raditzu
[quote]Originally posted by Captain Silver
It took the 360 this long to get where it is with something like Gears of War. No one console hits its graphical peaks for years. The PS3 will be the same.

Isn't it more about the developers finding more and more ways to cram stuff into the software towards the end of the consoles life span as well?

[Aero]

I'm glad that the Wii cared more about game-play than graphics. =D

[Raditzu]

Originally posted by Kollifum
Isn't it more about the developers finding more and more ways to cram stuff into the software

That's exactly what it is, but it was faster to type it out the way I did. It takes the developers time. That's all.

However, that's completely independant from the end of a console's life span. One is not indicative of the other.

[Deo]

Originally posted by Gokua
I'm glad that the Wii cared more about game-play than graphics. =D

Except on almost anything mutli-platform.

[Raditzu]

That's not a fault of the console. Developers shouldn't be trying to shove horrible control schemes down the Wii's proverbial throat. Some things just don't work and they don't really care.

EDIT: Its actually probably more the fault of publishers than developers, now that I think about it.

[Saz]

Which console do I think is the best so far? Undoubtedly the 360. As well it should be, it's been out a year longer than the other next-gen consoles. The reasons I think this are simply, it has the best games, the best online experience, and I have one... =X

If you're asking who's gonna win the "console war", I really don't have a clue. It looks like the Wii is going to come out champ, atleast as far as profits go. Between the PS3 and 360, it's gonna be pretty hard to say, most games will come out on both consoles, I guess it'll be those rare exclusive titles such as Halo 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, that will tip the balance.

Personally, with my completely unbiased view, >.>, I think the 360 will "win" in the longterm, I just think things like Xbox live and games like Halo 3 will be the deciding factor.

[Zorn]

Where do you guys get all this information on consoles and where do you keep it?

I must say I'm very impressed with the input of this thread. I have learnt a lot. Thanx to all of you who gave their opinions and debates on this thread I realy appreciate it.

[Bojack]

Originally posted by Krillin
This thread isn't about whether or not you like the games on a specific system. It's whether or not that system is doing well (at least, that's what most of us are talking about). Simply put, quite a few people seem to disagree with you.

The fact that PS3 sales aren't great proves that people either a)don't feel the games are worthy of the price point, or b)the system is too expensive. If the price were to drop from 600 to 500, 500 is still a shitload of cash to fork over for a system that only has 'meh' games. That's why I'm saying the price cut won't be the big step, it will be the good games actually coming out, whether or not the system is still 600 dollars.

[Aero]

I think the PS3 will eventually win, but this victory won't be determined for a while. Nintendo is having great success now, but they have to keep the momentum, by releasing great games more often. And, as said before, 3rd part developers need to get on their side.

The 360 is a great machine, but I don't think it will beat the PS3. Once the PS3 gets on its feet, 3rd part developers will concentrate on them more so. Plus the japanese market is influenced by Sony than Microsoft. If they can defeat the PS3 in the west, over a long period of time, they'll do well.

[Kirano]

Originally posted by Bojack

Originally posted by Krillin
This thread isn't about whether or not you like the games on a specific system. It's whether or not that system is doing well (at least, that's what most of us are talking about). Simply put, quite a few people seem to disagree with you.

The fact that PS3 sales aren't great proves that people either a)don't feel the games are worthy of the price point, or b)the system is too expensive. If the price were to drop from 600 to 500, 500 is still a shitload of cash to fork over for a system that only has 'meh' games. That's why I'm saying the price cut won't be the big step, it will be the good games actually coming out, whether or not the system is still 600 dollars.

Is it me, or have you already stated this theory?

[Raditzu]

Originally posted by Gokua
I think the PS3 will eventually win, but this victory won't be determined for a while.

I don't think there will ever be a "victor" between the Wii, 360, and PS3.