I will go with Xbox 360,Xbox 360 actually has better gaming hardware than PS3 and if you want to play online then it is best for that.Xbox has much more game to play than PS3.I personally think that Xbox 360 has better interface and it is more "resolution friendly" .
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Buy a PS3 or Xbox 360?
- Thread starter morgothaod
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The XBox 360 interface looks like a kids toy and I have no idea how it is more "resolution friendly". Please explain what "resolution friendly" is.
That whole post needs to be explained.
Everyone knows the ps3 has more raw power, so saying the 360 has "better gaming hardware" is just incorrect or pointed toward something else.
"Best" for online is very subjective. PSN is best for me because i dont play online a whole lot and i dont want to pay for a whole month of XBL just to play one game online for a week. I also dont give a crap about cross-game chat which seems to be the only major feature XBL has over PSN.
The interface is very subjective as well, but i find they both get you where you need to go fairly easily. The XMB is just very minimal and the NXE is very flashy and in-your-face.
Im pretty sure nobody knows what "resolution friendly" is.
Everyone knows the ps3 has more raw power, so saying the 360 has "better gaming hardware" is just incorrect or pointed toward something else.
"Best" for online is very subjective. PSN is best for me because i dont play online a whole lot and i dont want to pay for a whole month of XBL just to play one game online for a week. I also dont give a crap about cross-game chat which seems to be the only major feature XBL has over PSN.
The interface is very subjective as well, but i find they both get you where you need to go fairly easily. The XMB is just very minimal and the NXE is very flashy and in-your-face.
Im pretty sure nobody knows what "resolution friendly" is.
The biggest downside to the PS3 is playing cross-platform games that started in DirectX on the PC or XBox 360 first and then ported over to the PS3. The developers don't adjust the game well enough to run as good on the PS3 so we get worse graphics or crappy framerates. Games that are built on PS3 are usually more detailed and run very well.
If the PS3 is more powerful, we just need developers who know how to use that power to it's fullest and I don't think that's what the developers who port games do.
I own Skate and Skate 2 and they both run like crap on the PS3, but the XBox 360 runs them at a constant 60fps. I can't even run Skate or Skate 2 at 60fps on the PS3 because it slows down way too much and it's even choppy at 30fps. Then again, they're made by EA, so I should have expected it.
I don't know how it is on the Xbox since I don't play my consoles online (they're not modded before that gets brought up
) but it's a pretty valuable feature on Steam. Being able to send game invites cross game, or have group chats with friends in a different game is useful.
The Xbox has a CPU built of 3 General Purpose processors while the Cell has a mix of GP and Specialized processors. The easiest way to port things from either Xbox or PC is to just use the General Purpose units because it may be difficult to re-code the game to use all possible threads.
You also have to remember, developers are in it because they get paid. The incentive to develop a PS3 ONLY game is low, but that's the best way for the PS3 to be optimized. Sad, but true.
This is why I've been leaning more toward playing PS3 Exclusives. One cross-platform game that really runs amazingly well is Modern Warfare 2. They did an excellent job making it run smooth on the PS3. The only time it ever slows down is when you get on a really tall building or you're running through a smoke grenade.
I also bought Killzone 2, Silent Hill: Homecoming and Uncharted 2. All amazing games that totally smoke the X360 graphics (except Silent Hill).
I've also been thinking about getting Heavy Rain (really fun concept) but technical problems, glitches and complaints have kept me away from it for now. People are saying that it freezes a lot and I've also heard that it tears in some areas.
A lot of the freezing issues with Heavy Rain were taken care of with the last update. As for tearing, who cares... doesn't affect your ability to play the game. People are too damn nitpicky *cough MRU cough*
I care about tearing. It ruins the game experience for me. If I went to the movies and saw the screen splitting up, I would want my money back. If I buy a game and the screen splits up, I am not happy. Why do you need super smooth frames in a game like this anyway? Why can't they just make it run at 24fps (like a movie) and turn vsync on?
Me nitpicky!!! Never
In regards to Screen Tearing, that doesn't bother me.
However, Very jaggedy graphics or poor frame-rate then that puts me off or spoils the gaming experience.
As for picky, i just believe If I'm paying hard earned money for a game then I want the best version of that game on whichever system it's on. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
I think we have to be a certain picky otherwise we'd all end up with a shelf full of piss poor casual games and our brains would rott
We really don't need this discussion in the console section again.
We have covered this topic enough.
The screen tearing is minimal, in fact unless you blatantly look for it you will more than likely not see it. It's not like the "whole screen tears in two", now not only are you being nitpicky, but also over dramatic...
Me nitpicky!!! Never
We really don't need this discussion in the console section again.
We have covered this topic enough.
Yes, you, nitpicky. still love ya though
psst Sonic 4 soon
The screen tearing is minimal, in fact unless you blatantly look for it you will more than likely not see it. It's not like the "whole screen tears in two", now not only are you being nitpicky, but also over dramatic...
Yes, you, nitpicky. still love ya though
Arr sweet.. Big e-hug for ed
. Did you have to mention the S word you tease
The screen tearing is minimal, in fact unless you blatantly look for it you will more than likely not see it. It's not like the "whole screen tears in two", now not only are you being nitpicky, but also over dramatic...
I don't care how much it tears, if it's present, it bothers me. Simple as that. I know that I am not "everyone", but they won't be selling a copy of Heavy Rain to me unless the tearing is gone completely.
Yes, I'm being picky, but I'm also a customer and if I don't like the product, I don't buy it. Can you blame me? If developers want to make me happy, they must use vsync.
Then you will be missing out on a great game because you are over critical of something that is so minor that its not apparent unless you are specifically looking for it.
Arr sweet.. Big e-hug for ed
Did you have to mention the S word you tease
You know you love you some spiky haired blue mammals!
One can send invites across games on PSN, but no cross game voice chat. If i wanted to talk to my friend i would just pick up the phone or something. Im sure quite a few people use it, but for me its not worth $50 a year to have my 360 act like a phone.I don't know how it is on the Xbox since I don't play my consoles online (they're not modded before that gets brought up
I hate tearing more than most other glitches in a game, but i played ACII right before Heavy Rain so i barely even noticed in in HR. ACII's tearing is just an abomination.
Yeah that would totally play God of W... Heavy Ra... Ninja Gaide...
Hmmm...
I have a moderate gaming rig, but im not stupid enough to say its worth ditching my ps3 for. Sure, the games made for PC run better, but more often than not the AAA titles are exclusive to a console.
Not even always. Games released next year will run sluggish on your PC but next years PS3/Xbox games will run even better on the PS3/Xbox
Thats probably true. I've never liked that PC devs can be lazy and not optimize anything. They just expect everyone to go buy a new gfx card every 3 months.
It is nice playing all games at 1920x1080 though.
It is nice playing all games at 1920x1080 though.
^ But who does that though? All the major engines (Source, UE3) are all highly optimised. Both engines run on my 2006 iMac still (at lowest), yet at maximum settings they surpass their console ports. Even the Crytek Engine gets more and more optimised by each release.
That depends on what graphics card you buy. Engines haven't been pushed a lot in recent years, Crysis is still the benchmark and that was released in 2007. A mid-high end card could run it well at launch.
Besides which - the visual quality of your GPU wont drop as the years go buy. If your GPU is pumping out graphics on a certain level that will be sustained, it's just the ceiling gets raised.
Not even always. Games released next year will run sluggish on your PC but next years PS3/Xbox games will run even better on the PS3/Xbox
That depends on what graphics card you buy. Engines haven't been pushed a lot in recent years, Crysis is still the benchmark and that was released in 2007. A mid-high end card could run it well at launch.
Besides which - the visual quality of your GPU wont drop as the years go buy. If your GPU is pumping out graphics on a certain level that will be sustained, it's just the ceiling gets raised.
Thats probably true. I've never liked that PC devs can be lazy and not optimize anything. They just expect everyone to go buy a new gfx card every 3 months.
It is nice playing all games at 1920x1080 though.
Well PC is an open system. They can't really develop for every possible configuration. That's why they limit it and have as much scaling as is easily possible. Console developers have the luxury of knowing the exact components in the device and can code directly to that spec.
So that's why I ended up transitioning to console games. Mostly because I got tired of constantly updating my computer. I'll probably build a new i7 box soon though.
For pc v console engines please go and read the digital foundry article regarding Metro 2033 and the 4aEngine.
A developer can push a console to the limit. They can extract near 100% of gpu usage. That rarely happens on pc.
It's a great read and judging by the in game footage of the game it's certainly looking a damn site more interesting and graphically impressive than Crysis.
Also why is crysis the benchmark? It's engine Is badly optimised nd outside of cut scenes the game looks nothing special IMHO. I'm running on very high at 1920x1200 settings and totally underwhelmed by this game that everyone keeps touting as a pinicle.
I was more impresed by the original FarCry than Crysis in regards to graphics and more over gameplay.
To me it seems Crysis & Crysis warhead are so Badly optimised that the only reason they are used for benchmarks is that you need a **** load of power to get it looking anyway decent at all. Taking crysis in it's current state and running it on hardware similar to that of ps3 or 360 gpu's and you would have a choppy low peformance mess. That is not proof of great benchmark title, it's just emphasis's how poor the engine truly is.
Metro 2033 is looking spectacular on 360 and runs with all the bells & whistles of a modern game engine (post processing etc) and even manages to throw in it's own 4x AA technique and if ran without frame lock would jeep between 40-50 fps.
http://m.youtube.com/?dc=organic&source=mog&hl=en#/watch?v=ib09Cw9-k04&client=mv-google
http://m.youtube.com/?dc=organic&source=mog&hl=en#/watch?v=bT2BbruE9Ws&client=mv-google
A developer can push a console to the limit. They can extract near 100% of gpu usage. That rarely happens on pc.
It's a great read and judging by the in game footage of the game it's certainly looking a damn site more interesting and graphically impressive than Crysis.
Also why is crysis the benchmark? It's engine Is badly optimised nd outside of cut scenes the game looks nothing special IMHO. I'm running on very high at 1920x1200 settings and totally underwhelmed by this game that everyone keeps touting as a pinicle.
I was more impresed by the original FarCry than Crysis in regards to graphics and more over gameplay.
To me it seems Crysis & Crysis warhead are so Badly optimised that the only reason they are used for benchmarks is that you need a **** load of power to get it looking anyway decent at all. Taking crysis in it's current state and running it on hardware similar to that of ps3 or 360 gpu's and you would have a choppy low peformance mess. That is not proof of great benchmark title, it's just emphasis's how poor the engine truly is.
Metro 2033 is looking spectacular on 360 and runs with all the bells & whistles of a modern game engine (post processing etc) and even manages to throw in it's own 4x AA technique and if ran without frame lock would jeep between 40-50 fps.
http://m.youtube.com/?dc=organic&source=mog&hl=en#/watch?v=ib09Cw9-k04&client=mv-google
http://m.youtube.com/?dc=organic&source=mog&hl=en#/watch?v=bT2BbruE9Ws&client=mv-google
FarCry was amazing! The graphics were just incredible and way beyond it's time for draw distances and detail. Also it ran very well on many systems. +1 for bringing that one up!
I don't know how it is on the Xbox since I don't play my consoles online (they're not modded before that gets brought up
The PS3 can do all that, just only text chats, but it can still do it all.
Yes, because text chats are the same thing... In the middle of the game I love hitting my PS button and navigating to my friends, scanning for the one who sent the message hitting the read button then hitting reply and typing something out with the d pad... I'm sure the rest of my opponents in MAG would understand...
Also, how do you do crossgame invites on PS3? I haven't been able to figure that out, just got one a couple months ago.