Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: bucketshred on November 10, 2010, 01:02:39 PM
-
The missus wants to buy me one of the two for Xmas, whats the pros and cons of both?
GO!
Paddy
-
PS3: Has Blu-Ray player if you don't have one already.
Xbox360: Has better multi-player experience
Other than that, both consoles are pretty much identical from a performance point of view.
The one major difference is that for multi-platform games, companies tend to lead with the 360 version as the 360 is much easier to code for, that means occasionally the PS3 version is not quite as good (again, it's marginal though)
At the end of the day, it's down to which platform you prefer, and the console exclusives you like the look of most.. Although if you have mates you like to game with it's probably best to get the same as them so you can multiplayer with them.
FWIW, I have loads of mates who have both machines, but the huge majority of them spend most of their time on the 360 purely because of the decent, integrated multiplayer experience.
-
Another thing to consider is that the multi-player is free on the PS3 & there's a monthly charge for it on the Xbox 360.
Xbox tends to get quite a few 'timed' exclusives on download add-on content (basically DLC for a few months before PS3 gets it)
-
PS3 is an excellent Blu Ray player that also plays games.
Xbox is an excellent games machine.
I have both and not being a big gamer I use the PS3 a hell of a lot more. I would say that if online multiplayer is your thing, the Xbox rules. Even though it's free on the PS3, Xbox live is just much, much more slick. If just playing the odd game and watching movies is your thing, the PS3 is the weapon of choice.
-
Xbox for multiplayer
However, it's frequented by people like me and Shobet who frequently need to fight zombies in a post apocalyptic warzone rather than deal with real life.
-
Having played both extensively both single player & multiplayer
i would say PS3 for a few reasons
I have a friend who is on his 7th yes 7TH 360 each one failed due to the red ring of death
The ps3 multiplayer is free and i believe theres far less idiots on there and also theres less ability for people to cheat as its far harder to hack the games and use lag switches etc
and finally the ps3 looks far better under your TV and has far better exclusives like Heavy Rain,The uncharted series, little big planet, etc whilst the 360 has halo & gears of war both of which are dull in my opinion
-
oh yeah also i forgot metal gear solid 4 which is an epic game.
Also the graphics are better on certain multi platform games such as final fantasy 13 as the game doesnt have to be compressed as much as it all fits with ease on a single blu ray.
Theres also the new MUBI application which lets you watch movies for free and has a vast selection of indie films which are great.
-
Just in the interest of balance... One of my mates is on to his 4th PS3 after each getting the yellow light of death.
Both systems have some really good exclusive titles (I agree Halo & Gears look a bit dull). If you like RPG's Xbox has a few good exclusives (Mass Effect 1 & 2, Metro 2033 & Fable 2 & 3)
Something the PS3 can do that xbox can't is browse the 'net. The xbox is locked down to a few site apps (Facebook, Twitter, Last FM)
DISCLAIMER: I have an xbox, I may be bias
-
i have no idea what any of these people do that destroy consoles
im on my second but the first wasnt actually broken it was recalled due to a manufacturing defect
-
after an email i have another thing to add to the pro ps3 list
You can now get LoveFilm on your ps3
-
I just bought a PS3 two weeks ago... Here doen south the price of the games is the same, even Xbox being DVD and PS3 being Blu Ray AND I'd have to pay monthly to Microsoft to play on network... This last thing changed ALL the hell... I was almost paying the Xbox, then I said "$%&# off, give me the PS3"... :lol:
-
xBox ... cos it has Forza3
-
I have both. PS3 is more slick and has a MUCH better picture, obviously. I'm also preferential to the Dual Shock controller.
But the XBOX is very smooth, even tho the menus look like they were designed by a 12 year old. The colour resolution and shadow detail aren't as good as the PS3, and it only has 1080i output.
-
and it only has 1080i output.
what games have you been playing? nearly all of my games run natively in 1080p.
granted there is quite a lot that only run in 720p or 1080i but they're mainly multi platform ones and the case is the same on the 360
-
xBox ... cos it has Forza3
The single only game I play on my xbox now is Forza 3. I had an Xbox first that did RROD twice, the second time I got pissed off with it and sold it thinking that GT5 would be out any time now for the PS3... In the meantime they released F3. So I bought the Xbox Elite with Forza 3 and it's the only game I have for it this time around :) Forza 3 is the only reason I keep the Xbox now. I prefer the PS3 as a console and can live with the smaller choice in games.
-
The only real way of playing shooters is with a mouse and keyboard :D
-
isnt gt5 out now?
or in the coming weeks?
-
The only real way of playing shooters is with a mouse and keyboard :D
thats if you live in the early 90s and dont like pressure sensitivity & motion control :P
-
The only real way of playing shooters is with a mouse and keyboard :D
thats if you live in the early 90s and dont like pressure sensitivity & motion control :P
I'm ex semi pro at shooters, keyboard and mouse as the guy said, FACT ;)
-
The only real way of playing shooters is with a mouse and keyboard :D
Very, very true.
Of pretty much every other type of game as well.
-
Here, decision assistance.
(http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/video_game_flowchart.jpg)
-
The only real way of playing shooters is with a mouse and keyboard :D
thats if you live in the early 90s and dont like pressure sensitivity & motion control :P
I'm ex semi pro at shooters, keyboard and mouse as the guy said, FACT ;)
i used to think that way until i actually tried all the newer touch sensitive stuff and its so much more accurate and more comfortable to play overall.
plus PC games are too much of a pain in the ass for me nowadays needing to constantly update hardware.
I like the sony approach by a system lasts 10 years buy a new one.
-
The whole hardware upgade thing has really slowed down I think, at least with graphics cards, I upgraded 18 month ago just before new cards came out and you didn't get any more for your money, now new one's have come out again and benchmark make them look like old cards rebranded.
I can play more or less anything on maximum settings apart from Crysis and the new cards are not exactly running that perfectly.
-
Just thought, their hasn't been a major new graphics engine since Crysis either
-
ahh snazzy i remember back when i used to play games exclusively on pc i was upgrading every 6 months or so.
Back in the geforce 2> 6600gt days
it was a complete con and i just gave up in the end plus the metal gear solid games stopped coming out on PC lol
the last pc game that i really enjoyed was probably unreal tournament 2004 or unreal 2
-
My PC is ... 3 or 4 years old.. an antique in any shape or form... and it still runs everything on high quality (though granted, i never played Crysis)
though it's a pain in the ass, when a game doesnt work and you have to patch it to oblivion and back..
-
and it only has 1080i output.
what games have you been playing? nearly all of my games run natively in 1080p.
XBOX, not PS3, ninny hammer! :)
-
and it only has 1080i output.
what games have you been playing? nearly all of my games run natively in 1080p.
XBOX, not PS3, ninny hammer! :)
ahh gonna say that really confused me.
Are you still using your XBOX now that you've finished SO?
-
The whole hardware upgade thing has really slowed down I think, at least with graphics cards, I upgraded 18 month ago just before new cards came out and you didn't get any more for your money, now new one's have come out again and benchmark make them look like old cards rebranded.
I can play more or less anything on maximum settings apart from Crysis and the new cards are not exactly running that perfectly.
True-ish.
The top end cards now are utter monsters, that can run crysis easily.
But what £200 got you 18 months ago, 150 gets you now, more or less, and thats pretty new in the graphics card industry.
Before I got my 4890 (I have 2 really, but in different computers, not crossfired) I was getting a new 150-200 card every couple of years and getting about double the power. Now I'd have to spend about £400, and I'm not going to!
besides, if games start looking any better I'm going to get comfused and start thinking that I'm playing films. Devs need to start kicking out good new games, not good new engines. Theres a difference.
The big reason I think that the PC hardware demands are, if anything, getting lower, or not much higher, is that everythings made to be cross platform, and poor little baby x-box and ps3 hardware just cant keep up with a modern PC, but they can make games look great, so theres no point (i.e. no money in) making a game that fully exploits current PC hardware, and therefore pushes the hardware on.
The last game to do that was crysis, and because crysis 2 is going to be released cross platform its hardware requirements are actually (well, reportedly) lower than those of crysis.
One game series I quite like is supreme commander, and that already happened there: Supcom and its expansion packs were PC. They look amazing (even now) and they're extremely complex games. Supcom 2 comes out cross platform and because of the limitations in hardware and interface of consoles it plays on PC like a cartoon tutorial for Supcom 1. Happened with a few other games too.
-
The reason for Crysis 2 being multi platform and lower requirements are not actually due to any hardware limitations.
The requirements are due to it being coded well as the first was a huge mess.
And the cross platform is due to the massive amount of money they lost on the original due to most pc users just getting a pirate version where as this isn't as easy to do on the consoles.
And the PC has still not done anything that is graphically superior to Heavy Rain in any way shape or form and develepors have all said that the PS3 hasnt even been used to 25% of its full potential yet as nobody knows how to code for it properly other than Sony as Sony are notorious for not helping develepors with code.
i think this is also the reason why every exclusive PS3 game always looks a million times better than multi platform ones.
-
Sorry, I dont buy it: the environments and effects in heavy rain look good, but they're nowhere near as demanding as the tropical sprawl in crysis let alone the tropical sprawl + epic battles in warhead (which ran faster than crysis as well). And I dont think they look any better than any modern PC game.
Maybe crysis 2 is coded better. It should be. But I still very much doubt that a PS3 could run crysis on max and why the new engine doesnt have any greater capabilities than the old one? Remember far cry? Shouldnt crysis 2 and cryengine 3 be as much more advanced than crysis and cryengine 2 were than far cry and cryengine? That was the trend for the previous decade, with the Unreal engines, id tech, lithitech and so one and so forth. Anyway, not out yet, we'll judge then, eh? (My prediction: as with the vast majority of cross-platform releases, the PC version will look the best).
However powerfull the PS3, its got nothing on a modern PC. I wish I could remember where I read it (just went looking for it, couldnt find it), but I read the CEO (either him or another senoir chap) at nvidia saying that the 8800GTX was ten times more powerfull than a PS3 and capable of far more advanced processing and effects. PC is rather a long way ahead of that now. PS3 is still the same.
Its not a surprise that something coded for the PS3 looks good on the PS3 either. If games could be coded especially for a moderately powerfull modern card, like the HD5xxx range then they would look better on that too. PC games have to be coded to work on a wide range of cards, though. Its never going to be utterly optimal (and still they manage to look better :D).
/PC Vs Console rant. I dont really care, I mainly just hate those bloody joypads :lol: Give a PS3 a mouse and keyboard and I'd probably like them :)
PDT_002
-
Just to add this in.
You can use a mouse a keyboard with the ps3 to control most shooter games.
thats what the usb connectors are there for :)
I think only logitech ones are licenced for it though
-
Well, thats fine, I use logitech mice and keyboards anyway.
But they're attached to computers that are more powerfull than consoles (E6600 HD4890 4Gb/Ram games and mucking about machine and i7920 HD4890 6Gb/Ram audio machine...which would be a better games machine, but its for audio, which is vastly more important :D).
-
Well, thats fine, I use logitech mice and keyboards anyway.
But they're attached to computers that are more powerfull than consoles (E6600 HD4890 4Gb/Ram games and mucking about machine and i7920 HD4890 6Gb/Ram audio machine...which would be a better games machine, but its for audio, which is vastly more important :D).
i agree on audio being vastly more important
-
and it only has 1080i output.
what games have you been playing? nearly all of my games run natively in 1080p.
XBOX, not PS3, ninny hammer! :)
ahh gonna say that really confused me.
Are you still using your XBOX now that you've finished SO?
I never finished Star Ocean; maybe after FF XIII.
Alex is playing Alan Wake now; otherwise, no -- we use the PS3 for everything.
-
Mutley nailed the answer in the first reply.
-
The only real way of playing shooters is with a mouse and keyboard :D
+1 :)
I'd go with the 360 mainly because of the controller really, playstation ones have never been that comfy to me, and the d-pad is useless. I already have a bluray player though, may be different if I didn't. I don't think the PS3 has any exclusive games I'd want to play. None of my mates have one either. Thinking about getting a 360 again now I have a bit of spare cash.
Oh and there's not a HUGE between 1080i and 1080p, imo. Slightly jagged edges/motion tear if you look for it and less of a "filmic look" I suppose. Just nitpicking really :P
-
Oh and there's not a HUGE between 1080i and 1080p, imo. Slightly jagged edges/motion tear if you look for it and less of a "filmic look" I suppose. Just nitpicking really :P
this all depends highly on your TV with cheaper displays it isnt too noticeable but with good ones with higher refresh rates its horrible
-
Oh and there's not a HUGE between 1080i and 1080p, imo. Slightly jagged edges/motion tear if you look for it and less of a "filmic look" I suppose. Just nitpicking really :P
That is PATENTLY FALSE.
-
which bit? the "not a huge difference" bit?
-
Im more of a PS3 guy. i'm not into the whole online gaming, which Xbox wins in for sure. :lol:
I prefer single player games or RPG's (Fallout New Vegas!!! :P)
And PS3 and 360 have the same graphics for multi platform games. Mabye sometimes 360 will look better because when game developers make games, they make it on 360 and then port it to PS3 since working with blu-ray takes more time (what i've heard). While PS3 exclusives will always look better than 360 exclusives since they can handle 25-50 (dual layered)GB of info per disc, while the 360 HD DVD disc can hold about 30GB, i think. Just thought i should get that out of the way so some debate doesnt start :lol:
-
this all depends highly on your TV with cheaper displays it isnt too noticeable but with good ones with higher refresh rates its horrible
That could be it then, I haven't seen 1080i on a good or large screen. Although whatever Sky HD is looks fine on our new telly, I think it's interlaced?
-
You know why it's called the Xbox 360?
Because when you see one you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away.
/oldjoke
-
But if you turn 360 degrees, you're still facing in the same direction...
-
this all depends highly on your TV with cheaper displays it isnt too noticeable but with good ones with higher refresh rates its horrible
That could be it then, I haven't seen 1080i on a good or large screen. Although whatever Sky HD is looks fine on our new telly, I think it's interlaced?
yeah skyhd is 1080i but if you compare it to a blu ray you will notice the difference.
90% of programs on skyhd arent even HD either which really let me down theyre just upscaled and cleaned up a bit.
Chennel4 HD is the only one that has a lot of HD content currently
-
House looks so good in HD :)
-
Sky HD and Channel 4 HD are both quite heavily compressed.
Channel 4 HD using grass valley encoder which is believe use H.264 as the video compression standard, or selection of standards from the MPEG4 framework. I'm not sure if they have started using Dolby 5.1 yet.
the BBC HD channels use the same technology, with BBC HD on dsat handling the 5.1 slightly different to HD terrestrial which uses a slightly different method of 5.1 encoding.
ITV HD is probably the worst out of the bunch. It's mostly upscaled and the 5.1 operation is a bit wacky.
I've seen uncompressed 1080i HD from a few different places, and its much better than what is transmitted. Transmission is still better looking than MPEG2 video at roughly 5Mbps. When it comes to Interlaced vs Progressive scanning, each has its own benefits in relation to the content you want to show... it's not a case of Interlaced scan is the worst at showing everything. I've also been to conferences where 720p, 1080i, 1080p sources where being compared by industry professionals on decent large flat panels (not domestic gear) and looking at the run right next to each other, you can see a difference depending on the source more than anything else. Its ok for blu ray and things like that but comparing that to your TV signals is a bit different. especially when it comes to transmitting 1080p, which is hard. wouldn't surprise if people move to 1080psf and call it 1080p.
-
aye i wasnt won over by skys HD services at all i found them to be terrible.
they did look better in 720p than 1080i though.