Getting a PS3 -- how can I impress my 360 friends?

[mbopy22]

As a Xbox360 and PS3 owner I can say that there isn't much to impress honestly.

Both systems have their good and bad things, but so far I have found more or lets say less practical things on PS3 than on my 360

Yes, Blu ray is an awesome thing. Ok great for movies. But games??? most of PS3 games - exclusives and non exclusives - are 720p when 360's are almost all 1080p. Let me tell you that Bad Company looks much nicer, smoother and awesome on 360 than in PS3, and yes I have the game in both consoles. Also, in 360 you'll never find an empty match for games like Bad Co or COD, when in PS3 that's almost the rule.

Another limit that I found with my PS3 is that if you need to download somethin, e.g. update console or game, you're stuck with a very nice black brick in front of you, since you can't do anything meanwhile. OHH and you have to leave the console ON, when the 360 allows you to just download anything in backwards, with the console off, or if you just want to play you just do it, and the download pauses it, and continues afterwards from where it was.

They're both great... but none of them are out of space or from Jupiter, like some Fan boys praise... especially PS fanboys.

 

[Bennieboy©]

let em watch ya put a 500gig HD in there for all ya downloads and blu ray movies oh an play some little big planet, online too without the need for stupidly expensive wireless dongles and a yearly subscription bill on ya credit card

 

[MacMonster1985]

You won't have to do anything. They will be impressed automatically when it doesn't RROD and that you don't have to pay a subscription fee just to play online.

 

[ViViDboarder]

Tell em:

1. cod4's graphics are top notch on a ps3
2. Why in the world would you pay over $300 for a blu-ray player and a 360 when you could get even more bang for your buck with the ps3
Insult them by saying:
3. The only thing a 360 is useful for is playing dvds, and it overheats way too much and it is just way too loud; another mistake on microsoft's part

Oh, and excelent choice for going ps3!

Ok... Lots of fanboys!!!

I have a Wii and a 360. Love them both. I'm hoping to buy a PS3 Slim this winter as well.

Like stated before, yes they are compeditors but they are better at different things.

Since the Xbox is priced lower it has slightly weaker hardware. It has nearly the same quality graphics as the PS3. The fact that it's not a blueray player isn't that big of a deal to a lot of people. I don't really care to pay for an expensive blueray disk collection. Most movies I just stream to my Xbox in HD via Netflix.

PS3 network... Come on. It's cool and all but thank god it's free! XboxLive is a great interface to the network and it's affordable enough that plenty of people have it.

Biggest factor, I'm a social gamer. Whenever I play I'm usually online with someone so the fact that all my friends have 360's makes it a prime choice. Plus I can't stand the PS controller.

I'm getting a PS3 because I now have an HDTV and would like to be able to play some of the games that are available on it. Little Big Planet, Infamous, and Killzone are great (if I can get past the controller).

 

[MRU]

ISince the Xbox is priced lower it has slightly weaker hardware. It has nearly the same quality graphics as the PS3

What do you mean by that ? The way you phrased that it makes it sound like the graphics on the 360 are off a lesser quality than PS3 when it is actually the reverse. ?




PS3 has a technically better CPU (albeit brutal to program) and a weaker GPU (lack of anti-aliasing in most games, less memory for textures (256mb limit) etc..)

360 has a robust CPU (easier to program) and a better GPU (with better scaler, Anti-aliasing without CPU/GPU overhead, up-to 512mb shared ram etc..)


The 360 may not come with Wifi or Blu-Ray, however NEITHER of these elements have any impact on 'graphics' power.

In a lot of multi-platform games comparisons the 360 notches out the PS3 version via slightly better textures, anti-aliasing etc. There are also noticeable differences with some games on PS3 running at lower resolution than the 360 version of the same game, including recent titles Ghostbusters / Call of Juarez 2 etc.

However it is worth noting that the difference is being reduced and majority of time we get an almost identical experience, but with still minor things favoring the 360.

So I would love to know where all these people who say the PS3 has better graphics would care to explain HOW this is so, when three years into it's life-cycle all evidence proves the contrary (albeit very small difference).

You won't have to do anything. They will be impressed automatically when it doesn't RROD and that you don't have to pay a subscription fee just to play online.

Tell that to all the PS3 peeps suffering the YLOD!

 

[0098386]

Since the Xbox is priced lower it has slightly weaker hardware. It has nearly the same quality graphics as the PS3.

Good lord, where does this keep coming from?
The 360 has the better graphics chip people. The PS3 is the one with the better CPU.

360= Graphics, cheaper.
PS3= CPU, bluray drive.

Got it?

 

[xIGmanIx]

Are you serious? You must have not played any of the games then.

i game fly most EA sports games, and its just missing that "thing" that i remember felling when playing a PS2 game like NBA live or FIFA or Madden 05 or NHL, Rugby. I just don't get that feeling. I feel like i am as in control of the games now as i was before. sounds weird, just can't put my finger on it

 

[ziggyonice]

i game fly most EA sports games, and its just missing that "thing" that i remember felling when playing a PS2 game like NBA live or FIFA or Madden 05 or NHL, Rugby. I just don't get that feeling. I feel like i am as in control of the games now as i was before. sounds weird, just can't put my finger on it

Playing Madden '10 is pretty awesome, I've been playing it pretty constantly. As an EA title, I'm pretty impressed with what they've brought this year. In recent years I think they've struggled, but they really seem to have it it on the spot this time.

(Still waiting for CoD5, though!)

 

[2nyRiggz]

Yes, Blu ray is an awesome thing. Ok great for movies. But games??? most of PS3 games - exclusives and non exclusives - are 720p when 360's are almost all 1080p. Let me tell you that Bad Company looks much nicer, smoother and awesome on 360 than in PS3, and yes I have the game in both consoles. Also, in 360 you'll never find an empty match for games like Bad Co or COD, when in PS3 that's almost the rule.

Rubbish, mostly all games run native 720p or less on both consoles...360 scales to reach 1080p, theres no difference since the 360 doesn't run them natively...matter of fact the only games that achieve native 1080p to date is the Sony basketball game a couple years back. BluRay is a welcomed addition(not necessarily needed) to gaming because it gives the devs more space to work with without having to compress and compremise their finish product be it audio, textures and loading times.

I don't know where you're getting your information from but I play BFBC on PS3 on a regular and there are always games going on and don't even start on COD games. Games that are taunted as "inferior" such as The Orange Box still has an abundance of servers up, running AND FULL OF PLAYERS so the "nobody games online on PSN" is FUD.

Fanboy are fanboys(this is for everyone not directed towards the person I quote) and will always spin to favor their view...no matter the side...fanboys suck the life out of gaming.


Bless

 

[MaTUC]

I've played both and own a 360 , but I must say that this video says lots of things
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/ps3-vs-call-of-duty/27570

As some people said above.....

360 = Graphics
PS3 = Blu ray

 

[ViViDboarder]

What do you mean by that ? The way you phrased that it makes it sound like the graphics on the 360 are off a lesser quality than PS3 when it is actually the reverse. ?

<snip>
So I would love to know where all these people who say the PS3 has better graphics would care to explain HOW this is so, when three years into it's life-cycle all evidence proves the contrary (albeit very small difference).[/COLOR]



Tell that to all the PS3 peeps suffering the YLOD!

Ummm... I just said they are almost the same quality graphics. I didn't say PS3 is consitently better. Some games PS3 does show better graphics and some the Xbox does... Take a look. I've spent a lot of time on both systems.

Also, I'm entirely accurate saying that Xbox has slightly weaker hardware... It DOESN'T have as powerful hardware that the PS3 does. One of the reasons that it's cheaper. Your post even confirmed this. BD alone is expensive enough to make the difference. Also, the limits on the Cell are far from being reached.

I know enough about computer architechture and parallel programming to know that the PS3 does have better hardware. Does it mean it performs better? No. Not yet at least.

Good lord, where does this keep coming from?
The 360 has the better graphics chip people. The PS3 is the one with the better CPU.

360= Graphics, cheaper.
PS3= CPU, bluray drive.

Got it?

Did I say graphics chip?

You mentioned 2 hardware products that the PS3 has better than the Xbox and 1 and then "cheaper" which is not a hardware product for the Xbox...

So YES. it DOES have more powerful and more expensive hardware than the Xbox. And NO, I said NOTHING about the graphics performance or chip on either system. Thank you for using your reading skills to their maximum in this post.

 

[sikkinixx]

Ummm... I just said they are almost the same quality graphics. I didn't say PS3 is consitently better. Some games PS3 does show better graphics and some the Xbox does... Take a look. I've spent a lot of time on both systems.

Also, I'm entirely accurate saying that Xbox has slightly weaker hardware... It DOESN'T have as powerful hardware that the PS3 does. One of the reasons that it's cheaper. Your post even confirmed this. BD alone is expensive enough to make the difference. Also, the limits on the Cell are far from being reached.

I know enough about computer architechture and parallel programming to know that the PS3 does have better hardware. Does it mean it performs better? No. Not yet at least.

How does his post argue that the PS3 has better hardware? Because it has a Blu-ray drive? He stated that PS3 has a superior CPU while the 360 has a superior GPU. Now if you believe the CPU is more important than I suppose you can argue that overall the PS3 is better. Blu-Ray doesn't make for "better" hardware, it may have value added for the consumer but it doesn't create a tangible difference in the games.

And expense has nothing to do with the quality. Look at last gen. Xbox and Gamecube were superior to the PS2 hardware wise and BOTH were less expensive.

 

[2nyRiggz]

I've played both and own a 360 , but I must say that this video says lots of things
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/ps3-vs-call-of-duty/27570

As some people said above.....

360 = Graphics
PS3 = Blu ray

I don't get this pixel counting from gamers these days...The 360 looks darker so thats automatically a win right...I could understand if the PS3 version has frame rate problems and a lot of tearing...don't read too hard into these comparison videos when they've already been debunked on several occasions. Your conclusion is way off because PS3 exclusive trumps the 360 exclusive in the graphic department and there are multi platform titles that are on par(which has become the norm with slight difference) or better on the PS3.

PS3 = HD Gaming
360 = HD Gaming


Bless

 

[sikkinixx]

^

In most cases now, you are right. But there is a degree of personal preference to it. PS3 games look a bit sharper whereas the 360 outputs games a bit softer. They also do colours somewhat differently (see GTA IV, they look different).

 

[ViViDboarder]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)

Ummm... I just said they are almost the same quality graphics. I didn't say PS3 is consitently better. Some games PS3 does show better graphics and some the Xbox does... Take a look. I've spent a lot of time on both systems.

Also, I'm entirely accurate saying that Xbox has slightly weaker hardware... It DOESN'T have as powerful hardware that the PS3 does. One of the reasons that it's cheaper. Your post even confirmed this. BD alone is expensive enough to make the difference. Also, the limits on the Cell are far from being reached.

I know enough about computer architechture and parallel programming to know that the PS3 does have better hardware. Does it mean it performs better? No. Not yet at least.

How does his post argue that the PS3 has better hardware? Because it has a Blu-ray drive? He stated that PS3 has a superior CPU while the 360 has a superior GPU. Now if you believe the CPU is more important than I suppose you can argue that overall the PS3 is better. Blu-Ray doesn't make for "better" hardware, it may have value added for the consumer but it doesn't create a tangible difference in the games.

And expense has nothing to do with the quality. Look at last gen. Xbox and Gamecube were superior to the PS2 hardware wise and BOTH were less expensive.

*sigh* I'm not arguing which is a better system, but the PS3 has better/more progressive tech. From a software developer standpoint, the hardware in the PS3 has more POTENTIAL. That's my point. It's a fact and many developers say this. The 360 is awesome and easier to program for. This is why we see things running as goodnor better on the 360 most of the time.

These are the reasons I want both systems and not just my 360.

I'm obviously not hating on any system here.

 

[MRU]

From a software developer standpoint, the hardware in the PS3 has more POTENTIAL.

Not really..... as most developers will tell you, Sony's hardware choice in regards to memory addressing, severely constrains potential.

If it wasn't hampered by it's severe memory limit (256mb for each of the GPU/CPU). The factor that will curb how far PS3 tech can go. You can do many great things with a CPU but if your hitting a wall because of memory constraints you will never release it true potential.

Sony should have doubled, nay quadrupled the amount of memory in the PS3 from the outset. 512mb is too tight for something which is supposed to have a lifespan of 10 years. I think with God of War 3, and Uncharted 2 - we are reaching the pinnacle of how far the ps3 can be pushed because of this.

Whilst the 360 has 512mb too, the fact that the GPU or CPU can dynamically adjust how much is available to either, is far more developer friendly.

Often what get's my goat (not addressing you directly - but what a lot of people write) is when people instantly assume because of higher storage capacity of Blu-Ray that PS3 users are going to get better graphics because it can store bigger textures.

What they fail to realize is that no amount of clever programming can truly overcome a lack of memory in your hardware. Having nice blu-ray capacity storage to store higher textures, but have the inability to load those higher textures into memory due to it's limited size.

Add the fact that loading from Blu-Ray is slower, and higher textures would be even slower - meaning longer load times too.

360 / PS3 are pretty much level because of the hardware constraints.

I doubt we will see games surpassing God of War 3 or Uncharted 2 on PS3. We may see games that graphically rival them, but not surpassing by any great margin. This is not a bad thing now, but if we have 7 more years or more of PS3 to come, I can see the hardware constraint really hampering the 'potential' of developers.

 

[MacMonster1985]

At the end of the day, PS3 isn't made by M$. That will impress your M$ loving friends.

 

[0098386]

At the end of the day, PS3 isn't made by M$. That will impress your M$ loving friends.

Eh what.

 

[ViViDboarder]

Not really..... as most developers will tell you, Sony's hardware choice in regards to memory addressing, severely constrains potential.

If it wasn't hampered by it's severe memory limit (256mb for each of the GPU/CPU). The factor that will curb how far PS3 tech can go. You can do many great things with a CPU but if your hitting a wall because of memory constraints you will never release it true potential.

Sony should have doubled, nay quadrupled the amount of memory in the PS3 from the outset. 512mb is too tight for something which is supposed to have a lifespan of 10 years. I think with God of War 3, and Uncharted 2 - we are reaching the pinnacle of how far the ps3 can be pushed because of this.

Whilst the 360 has 512mb too, the fact that the GPU or CPU can dynamically adjust how much is available to either, is far more developer friendly.

Often what get's my goat (not addressing you directly - but what a lot of people write) is when people instantly assume because of higher storage capacity of Blu-Ray that PS3 users are going to get better graphics because it can store bigger textures.

What they fail to realize is that no amount of clever programming can truly overcome a lack of memory in your hardware. Having nice blu-ray capacity storage to store higher textures, but have the inability to load those higher textures into memory due to it's limited size.

Add the fact that loading from Blu-Ray is slower, and higher textures would be even slower - meaning longer load times too.

360 / PS3 are pretty much level because of the hardware constraints.

I doubt we will see games surpassing God of War 3 or Uncharted 2 on PS3. We may see games that graphically rival them, but not surpassing by any great margin. This is not a bad thing now, but if we have 7 more years or more of PS3 to come, I can see the hardware constraint really hampering the 'potential' of developers.

I think we're starting to get to an agreeing point now. I learned all about the memory issues that result with the PS3. But... Just like you said that creative programming can get around the lack of blueray for storage, the memory can be worked around and the additional processing power can be utilized.

I think we'll still see some more impressive things out of the PS3 yet.

 

[ReanimationLP]

I remember when it used to be just about the games.

Now you have random people on the internet coming out to throw themselves, making themselves look like morons in the process to defend one certain console while trashtalking the next.

Good god people, they're just machines.

Its the software that counts. Without the software, you just have a fancy looking box.

I will admit that Microsoft was smart in the way they handled the 360's RAM over the PS3s.

The PS3's GPU can access the main system RAM, but its really the CPU thats hurting for the RAM over the GPU.

Not to mention 32MB is reserved for the XMB.