Thinking of getting a 360 or PS3

[fen_boy]

And the PS3 does still suffer from the poorer version of multi-format games.

I'm not sure this is true any more.

 

[revol68]

I'm not sure this is true any more.

really, why do you say that? Resident Evil 5 was the last big cross platform title and it is still sharper on the 360.

 

[fen_boy]

really, why do you say that? Resident Evil 5 was the last big cross platform title and it is still sharper on the 360.

No it isn't.

 

[revol68]

No it isn't.

I'll think you'll find it is, as this in depth comparison from eurogamer shows.

Sure it's not a big difference but the fact is that the far cheaper console continues to provide slightly better visuals on cross platform titles.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

And the PS3 does still suffer from the poorer version of multi-format games, although it has got better.

not really it suffers from bad ports of games which are built for the 360. just as burnout which was ported to 360 from ps3 was a worse experince (frame rates etc).

it's a code implamentation issue though not a technical limitation.

as even revol's bulshit claim back up articule states very clearly...

None of these make the Sony platform look that much inferior in the heat of the action, but it's a clear indication that Capcom still has some work to do on the Framework engine to bring its performance up to the 360 counterpart. However, what is far more noticeable and with significance for the game's playability is the difference in the refresh rate.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

really, why do you say that? Resident Evil 5 was the last big cross platform title and it is still sharper on the 360.

a) resi 5 is the worst version of the game they've produced on all levels as is being shown by it's universally shit sales...
b) capcom dev'ed it for the 360 as per the 360 licencing agreements which give that console priority over others then ported to other consoles, as you own link states their code causes the graphics engine to be stressed or not not the machine which is running the code having a technical limitation.
c) bad ports from one platform to another are still bad ports even if they have the same release date.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

The online experience is superior from what I can tell.

not really...

xblive
ease of connection: not really ps3 is free plug it in allow the ports through your firewall or stick it on a dmz and you're away...xblive you have to pay for...
type of access or game play: both mahcines fair well xblive has greater oppertunities for multi player at home than psn currently has.
multi player sign on: is better in the xblive as it's not machine account locked as the ps3 is (ie any one can jump in at any time with their account on the xblive system guest sign in on the ps3 is still only a fucking guest account though firmware patch 3 should sort this out with the release of home to everone...)
who plays online: xblive has a lot of txt spkn brats who are only intrested in screaming at you lame bollocks and are frequently annoying enough to make you abandon a game, ps3 cost prohibitive console means there are considerably less of them
dlc: is mainly free on psn (game upgrades, charchters costumes, wall papers videos) and when it's not it's cheaper by some way than in the shops or online. psn doesn't have movie rental yet though xblive does.

psn uses money to pay for content so things cost an amount of cash which you can the see if it's an acceptable or similar price to else where. xblive uses a points based system which is arbitary and in consistant and valueless in terms of what things cost to what they represent in monitary terms.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I have one gamer name which works across all games. Paying for it works out to roughly 70 pence a week! Play with friends and you get less American teens althought tbh I find more Northern English types on there than anything...oh and you can mute any player in game so its no bother what they say!

It was the online experience and console price that tipped the balance for me.

 

[internetstalker]

Mainly so I can play Ghostbusters how it's meant to look, and probably legends of wrestlemania because i'm a sucker for old 80's early 90's style WWF.

Other than that I would probably hardly ever use it if I am honest.

My mates are telling me I should get a PS3 as it's better kit and less likely to break, blah blah blah, but it seems a lot more money to outlay for something I probably wouldn't bother that much with. I can get a 360 arcade for about £130. the lowest priced PS3 still seems over £100 more.

Would I miss having a hard drive in it? Or is it as simple as just plugging in a USB one should I need storage?

The other question is are these thing's easy to chip should I decide too? I assume there is no softmod like there is for the Wii.

I stopped playing my Wii for months until the softmod thing came out and now I play on it a hell of a lot more. Then again who wouldn't if you can 'try before you buy' and with me looking to move in with my gf probably within the next 6 months, I doubt I'll be able to afford games, but having something else to do when I can't afford to go out either would obviously be a bonus.

As you have said you are only gonna play a couple of games and then not use it too much you'd be mad getting a ps3.

The main plus point of that machine is the blu ray player so if your not interested in that spending an extra 100 quid on a machine you aint gonna use much is madness.

I'd suggest getting the arcade xbox. if it's only games your gonna use it for the the 512k memory card will suffice and as has been mentioned you can pick up the HD and xbox live for £20-bargain

I see this thread is going down the normal route of it's fan boi arguments. So heres my 2 penneth worth

but the truth is both machines are great!

there are the obvious good and bad points on both machines as have been said on this thread already.

the xbox is unreliable and is famous for breaking down. but has better and cheaper games.

the ps3 has blue ray and has better capabilities as a machine - although the argument is that these capabilities are not fulfilled as games get made on the xbox first IIRC

therefore

the xbox has better graphics (all this is just fan boy arguments tho coz the difference is minimal)

xbox live you have to pay for but is worth every penny

 

[bmd]

I never really use my PS3. I don't bother with Bluray films because I can't really see a big enough difference to want to get them and the exclusive games aren't great enough to make me want to get them.

So I stick to the 360, on the whole. There's a huge back catalog of decent games, really cheap second hand, Xbox Live is good and more people I know have a 360 than a PS3.

I might get rid of the PS3 whilst I can still get some money for it, as I think that Microsoft will have their next console out by the time it starts clearly beating the 360.

 

[fen_boy]

I'll think you'll find it is, as this in depth comparison from eurogamer shows.

Sure it's not a big difference but the fact is that the far cheaper console continues to provide slightly better visuals on cross platform titles.

OK, but the difference is very slight, I couldn't see the difference when I played them, but then they weren't side by side.
I didn't get an Xbox because the other people I know who've had them had problems with reliability and noise and because I was looking to replace my DVD player which had just broken.

 

[Structaural]

I got a PS3 because I wanted something that was quiet, that wouldn't red-ring, had blu-ray capabilities and wasn't made by Microsoft.
But it was a close-call based on price (I got the PS3 for about 260 euros from the UK, whereas in the shops here it's still €399). Essentially my loyalty to the PS1 and PS2 won over.

I'm not much of a FPSer on the consoles, preferring to use a bootcamped Mac so a lot of the Xbox exlusives were lost on me, though I do plan on having a crack at Killzone 2 if Play ever get a copy to me...