I keep seeingalot of peopleposting the PS3 will win because it's superior hardware/graphics.Then how come the SegaDreamcast orX-box didn't win the last generation? They both where capable of better graphics than the PS2. IMO> exclusive games are what made the PS2 the #1 seller last gen. Mostly from GTA III, VC, SA.I don't think thisgen isanydifferent than the last in this regard.So, what are your opinions?
DarthKalo
I personally would say the PS3 is the most powerful console, but only based on its inclusion of Blu-ray, cards readers and in built wi-fi. Take these away till your left with the bear console and then I'd say its not anymore powerful, and so far hasnt proved to be ( Blu-ray isnt even producing longer games at the minute).The 360 peripherals available can also make it as powerful as the PS3 (depending on how you view the HD format war)which brings its price inline with the PS3 (further evidence of equality,but still at a profit for MS), again making it equal in my eyes. If you further include its connectivity features with reguards to windows I'd say its a better package, but at the end of the day this means absolutley jack without the best SOFTWARE!
Software wise, both have pros and cons.PS3 hassuperior sound processing andmore onboardfeatures (web access, linux etc.) andis betterat playing HD content from disc. 360 on the other handhas a more economic and friendlier programming environment, uses less power for its OS which has more features (XBL)and is better able to utilise media connectivity (MSN, media player connection). As for games, thats down to devs and only the future has the answers.
I agree with the TC's sentiments.
Log in to comment