No you could say xbox 360. People could switch those up easily. Wii definitely sucked. disappointing sequels (super paper mario, metroid, and brawl), and some awesome games (SMG, Zelda TP, Super Mario wii, Donkey Kong Country Returns)
I think it's safe to assume that Ps3 is the best console this gen
This topic is locked from further discussion.
More high scoring games? Sure, a few. Mostly due to PS2 ports. Also, it includes games that are on 360 and PS3 but GS only reviewed the 360 version.[QUOTE="Miketheman83"]360 has... More high scoring games More full fleshed online service Best multiplats Most online game and movie content Most exclusive DLC More hardware and software sales Somehow PS3 fans tend to ignore these facts. Only on system wars is the PS3 "winning", I swear you guys live in another world. ianuilliam
More full fleshed online service? Why, because of cross-game chat? PSNvs Live will always be subjective. They both have features the other doesn't. The biggest difference is that if all you want to do is play games or watch netflix, one chages you $60 a year, and the other doesn't.
Best multiplats? What is this, 2006? Almost all games look/perform identically, or so close that it can't be determined under normal play conditions and takes counting pixels in side-by-side comparisons one frame at a time. On the other hand, over th last year or two, a whole lot of multiplats have been including extra content at no extra cost on the PS3 version. I'll take games that are "better" because of extra content that I can actually play over "better" because a website tells me one version has three more pixels that I can't even see.
Please elaborate on most online game and movie content. And most exclusive dlc. Is that timed exclusive dlc? Or do you mean things like Knights of the Nine not being available for purchase on PSN, since it was included in the regular edition of Oblivion on PS3?
More hardware sales and software sales? Yes. 360 has a few more units sold. It's been on the market about 20% longer, but only has about 6% more sales. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that PS3 has higher annual sales? As for software sales, I still can't seem to find 360's worldwide units of software sales anywhere in their fiscal reports. Could you link to it?
I swear... Whatever happened to the days back in 2005-2008 where people just wanted to talk about high scoring exclusives? Oh wait... I think I know what happened...
According to the game media and most console gamers XBL IS superior to PSN, and this is not so subjective as you put it, XBL is by far a more robust service packed with quality vs PSN and everything remotely comparable between the two services works much better on XBL that is a fact. There is definitely clear difference's between the two especially where multi-plat games and multi-player are concerned.
What really bugs me about some people in SW and other sites like N4G, is the obvious denial over which on-line service is better. It's not like there is no clear distinguishable differences between the two because there is, and whether haters choose to acknowledge them or not they still exists.
The rest of your post i couldn't care less about.
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/LIVE?xr=shellnav
I have had my Xbox 360 since right around launch, got the PS3 in early 08. Having both systems for some time, I can say for certain, without a doubt, that the PS3 is FAR, FAR, FAR from the best console. There are WAY more things it does wrong then right. Sure, the 360 has its faults but much less than the PS3.
it's a system that combines both the quality of hardware and software...pitty8982
My PS3 (who's only flaw is to be a 60GB model) is dying while my Wii (who has suffered 2 falls) is still working great, so no, i'm sorry, but hardware quality as always and by far goes to Nintendo.
Nearly all of my gaming is on xbox 360, so how is PS3 the best console ?
Does PS3 have Lost Odyssey, Fable, Mass Effect 1, Skyrim with DLC, Gears, Halo, Forza, Witcher 2 etc ?
PS3 game library is much inferior to 360 imo
except hes correct, Microsoft has put together software packages that work far better then psn, P2p works better becasue of this developers have a standard robust code set to draw upon...Psn? they are left to their own mechanisms to get psn to work they either make dedicated servers or they do inferior p2p.The only one here that is in denial is youxX0LDSCH00LXx if you think that for paying $60 a year you're playing on superior servers or something. Sorry to break this to you but the Xbox and PS3 uses the exact same servers to play online games. If one game has lag on the PS3 then it has lag on the Xbox too even if you're paying or not not.
You talk about the "quality" packed in XBL but what "quality" is that anyway? Come on tell me, if you can... Cross-game Chat?
Gue1
Yet the 360 exclusives will score a 9 or higher while the ps3 exclusives average 8.5 or lower. hmm just because it's exclusive does not make it a perfect game!And what did the 360 get this year? Dirt3, Crysis 2 and Dead Space2 . Anything else...nope... oh wait, the PS3 got these too...and Killzone3, Infamous2 and Resistance3. Xbox360 gets 2 exclusives each year, of which one is a Halo...
zekere
More high scoring games? Sure, a few. Mostly due to PS2 ports. Also, it includes games that are on 360 and PS3 but GS only reviewed the 360 version.[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
[QUOTE="Miketheman83"]360 has... More high scoring games More full fleshed online service Best multiplats Most online game and movie content Most exclusive DLC More hardware and software sales Somehow PS3 fans tend to ignore these facts. Only on system wars is the PS3 "winning", I swear you guys live in another world. Miketheman83
More full fleshed online service? Why, because of cross-game chat? PSN vs Live will always be subjective. They both have features the other doesn't. The biggest difference is that if all you want to do is play games or watch netflix, one chages you $60 a year, and the other doesn't.
Best multiplats? What is this, 2006? Almost all games look/perform identically, or so close that it can't be determined under normal play conditions and takes counting pixels in side-by-side comparisons one frame at a time. On the other hand, over th last year or two, a whole lot of multiplats have been including extra content at no extra cost on the PS3 version. I'll take games that are "better" because of extra content that I can actually play over "better" because a website tells me one version has three more pixels that I can't even see.
Please elaborate on most online game and movie content. And most exclusive dlc. Is that timed exclusive dlc? Or do you mean things like Knights of the Nine not being available for purchase on PSN, since it was included in the regular edition of Oblivion on PS3?
More hardware sales and software sales? Yes. 360 has a few more units sold. It's been on the market about 20% longer, but only has about 6% more sales. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that PS3 has higher annual sales? As for software sales, I still can't seem to find 360's worldwide units of software sales anywhere in their fiscal reports. Could you link to it?
I swear... Whatever happened to the days back in 2005-2008 where people just wanted to talk about high scoring exclusives? Oh wait... I think I know what happened...
On Metacritic and Gamespot the 360 has more high scoring games. FACT. Lets not pretend that good games dont make a GAME console good.Live is better than PSN. More features, more integration, faster download speeds, more game content. FACT. Whether you think that is worth the price or not is up to you.
Most multiplats perform better on the 360 and this will never change. The 360 is the lead platform for multiplats because it has a larger install base and its easier to develop for and its nobodys fault but Sonys for making their console hard to develop for and getting ports of 360 games.
Live has more games and more movies on demand then PSN does. FACT. Microsoft pays for exclusive and timed exclusive content to make their customers happy. Sony rarely does this.
The fact that the 360 is still in the lead on the hardware and software side of things just shows you how bad sony messed up this gen based on their unbelievable following from the PS2. Keep telling yourself that the PS3 isnt a failure, it wasnt even competition for the 360 until a year ago...and this gen is almost over.
Just because the PS3 may have released more exclusive games so far this year doesnt mean the PS3 is all of a sudden winning, its been losing for four years on that front. People dont ONLY play exclusives. Can I play Splinter Cell, Left 4 Dead, Witcher 2 on the PS3? No. These games are a HUGE advantage for the 360.
You failed to address anything I said.Yes. 360 has more A+ scores on Gamespot. That is a fact. It's also a fact that some of those games are also on PS3, but they don't count for PS3 because GS didn't review the PS3 version. Let's not pretend that a good game that's on both systems doesn't add to BOTH systems libraries just because GS only reviewed it for 360. Go through and look at the games that comprise the 360's bigger A+ library. How many of them are ports of PS2 games that are only on 360 and not PS3 because PS3 wasn't out yet? PS3 gets more A+ games on average than 360 each year. 360 has more total because it was out a year longer. Are you seriously saying you prefer playing 5 year old ports of PS2 games over new games?
Live vs PSN. They both have features the other doesn't have, including many features on both that are only available in certain regions. I'd say it's pretty hard to definitively declare one to have more features than the other as any kind of absolute truth. More integration? That's not something that can in any way be objectively quantified. I find PSN to be more integrated. Online gameplay is automatically integrated into the core PS3 experience, and isn't included in a seperate $60 a year service.
Again. Most games are identical, or close enough so that people need to go to sites that compare them far more up close and side by side than could ever be done during actual gameplay. And even those sites don't agree all the time. If you need a website to tell you which looks better, then they probably are close enough that it doesn't matter in the slightest. But if it makes you feel better to make blanket statements like "98% of multiplats are better on 360", without offering any proof or anything that's fine. I still say having extra content for free (Dante's Inferno, Batman AA, Mortal Kombat, MoH, Dead Space 2, LA Noire, Portal 2, etc...) is a much more valid reason for calling a multiplat superior than "some website said if I pause both versions side by side in the same place and count the pixels, this version has a handful more."
I suppose, since it's a fact that Live has more, you know how many movies and shows are available on Marketplace/PSN, as well as all the various video services available to each (netflix, hulu, vudu, etc.), for each region (since both systems offer various video services that are region specific)? Go ahead and link those statistics for me.
I'm still waiting on someone--anyone--to support the claim that 360 sells more software with some links showing worldwide units of 360 software sales in MS's fiscal reports. Or to explain exactly why sales totals from 6 years vs 5 years is more meaningful than which one sells more each year, or which has sold at a faster rate over it's lifetime.
And it's not just this year PS3 had more exclusives.
2007 AAE+: 360, 4. PS3, 3. 360 had 1 more.
2008: 360, 6. PS3, 5. 360 had 1 more.
2009: 360, 2. PS3, 5. PS3 had 3 more.
2010: 360, 3. PS3, 7. PS3 had 4 more.
2011: 360, 0. PS3, 6. PS3 has had 6 more, so far.
To be fair, 360 had more in 2005, when PS3 wasn't out, and in 2006, when 360 was out the full year and PS3 was out for a month. But as far as when they were both out, PS3 has destroyed 360 in exclusives, which is why even including 360's full extra year, PS3 has 4 more.
On Metacritic and Gamespot the 360 has more high scoring games. FACT. Lets not pretend that good games dont make a GAME console good.[QUOTE="Miketheman83"]
[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]More high scoring games? Sure, a few. Mostly due to PS2 ports. Also, it includes games that are on 360 and PS3 but GS only reviewed the 360 version.
More full fleshed online service? Why, because of cross-game chat? PSN vs Live will always be subjective. They both have features the other doesn't. The biggest difference is that if all you want to do is play games or watch netflix, one chages you $60 a year, and the other doesn't.
Best multiplats? What is this, 2006? Almost all games look/perform identically, or so close that it can't be determined under normal play conditions and takes counting pixels in side-by-side comparisons one frame at a time. On the other hand, over th last year or two, a whole lot of multiplats have been including extra content at no extra cost on the PS3 version. I'll take games that are "better" because of extra content that I can actually play over "better" because a website tells me one version has three more pixels that I can't even see.
Please elaborate on most online game and movie content. And most exclusive dlc. Is that timed exclusive dlc? Or do you mean things like Knights of the Nine not being available for purchase on PSN, since it was included in the regular edition of Oblivion on PS3?
More hardware sales and software sales? Yes. 360 has a few more units sold. It's been on the market about 20% longer, but only has about 6% more sales. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that PS3 has higher annual sales? As for software sales, I still can't seem to find 360's worldwide units of software sales anywhere in their fiscal reports. Could you link to it?
I swear... Whatever happened to the days back in 2005-2008 where people just wanted to talk about high scoring exclusives? Oh wait... I think I know what happened...
ianuilliam
Live is better than PSN. More features, more integration, faster download speeds, more game content. FACT. Whether you think that is worth the price or not is up to you.
Most multiplats perform better on the 360 and this will never change. The 360 is the lead platform for multiplats because it has a larger install base and its easier to develop for and its nobodys fault but Sonys for making their console hard to develop for and getting ports of 360 games.
Live has more games and more movies on demand then PSN does. FACT. Microsoft pays for exclusive and timed exclusive content to make their customers happy. Sony rarely does this.
The fact that the 360 is still in the lead on the hardware and software side of things just shows you how bad sony messed up this gen based on their unbelievable following from the PS2. Keep telling yourself that the PS3 isnt a failure, it wasnt even competition for the 360 until a year ago...and this gen is almost over.
Just because the PS3 may have released more exclusive games so far this year doesnt mean the PS3 is all of a sudden winning, its been losing for four years on that front. People dont ONLY play exclusives. Can I play Splinter Cell, Left 4 Dead, Witcher 2 on the PS3? No. These games are a HUGE advantage for the 360.
You failed to address anything I said.Yes. 360 has more A+ scores on Gamespot. That is a fact. It's also a fact that some of those games are also on PS3, but they don't count for PS3 because GS didn't review the PS3 version. Let's not pretend that a good game that's on both systems doesn't add to BOTH systems libraries just because GS only reviewed it for 360. Go through and look at the games that comprise the 360's bigger A+ library. How many of them are ports of PS2 games that are only on 360 and not PS3 because PS3 wasn't out yet? PS3 gets more A+ games on average than 360 each year. 360 has more total because it was out a year longer. Are you seriously saying you prefer playing 5 year old ports of PS2 games over new games?
Live vs PSN. They both have features the other doesn't have, including many features on both that are only available in certain regions. I'd say it's pretty hard to definitively declare one to have more features than the other as any kind of absolute truth. More integration? That's not something that can in any way be objectively quantified. I find PSN to be more integrated. Online gameplay is automatically integrated into the core PS3 experience, and isn't included in a seperate $60 a year service.
Again. Most games are identical, or close enough so that people need to go to sites that compare them far more up close and side by side than could ever be done during actual gameplay. And even those sites don't agree all the time. If you need a website to tell you which looks better, then they probably are close enough that it doesn't matter in the slightest. But if it makes you feel better to make blanket statements like "98% of multiplats are better on 360", without offering any proof or anything that's fine. I still say having extra content for free (Dante's Inferno, Batman AA, Mortal Kombat, MoH, Dead Space 2, LA Noire, Portal 2, etc...) is a much more valid reason for calling a multiplat superior than "some website said if I pause both versions side by side in the same place and count the pixels, this version has a handful more."
I suppose, since it's a fact that Live has more, you know how many movies and shows are available on Marketplace/PSN, as well as all the various video services available to each (netflix, hulu, vudu, etc.), for each region (since both systems offer various video services that are region specific)? Go ahead and link those statistics for me.
I'm still waiting on someone--anyone--to support the claim that 360 sells more software with some links showing worldwide units of 360 software sales in MS's fiscal reports. Or to explain exactly why sales totals from 6 years vs 5 years is more meaningful than which one sells more each year, or which has sold at a faster rate over it's lifetime.
And it's not just this year PS3 had more exclusives.
2007 AAE+: 360, 4. PS3, 3. 360 had 1 more.
2008: 360, 6. PS3, 5. 360 had 1 more.
2009: 360, 2. PS3, 5. PS3 had 3 more.
2010: 360, 3. PS3, 7. PS3 had 4 more.
2011: 360, 0. PS3, 6. PS3 has had 6 more, so far.
To be fair, 360 had more in 2005, when PS3 wasn't out, and in 2006, when 360 was out the full year and PS3 was out for a month. But as far as when they were both out, PS3 has destroyed 360 in exclusives, which is why even including 360's full extra year, PS3 has 4 more.
Hmm, The Xbox has more console excusives to the Ps3 because the Xbox has more games IN TOTAL.360 has... More high scoring games More full fleshed online service Best multiplats Most online game and movie content Most exclusive DLC More hardware and software sales Somehow PS3 fans tend to ignore these facts. Only on system wars is the PS3 "winning", I swear you guys live in another world. Miketheman83
it's strange how hard cows try to make it seem like the ps3's actually winning at anything when in real life it's dead last in pretty much all fronts
It has been a long time since there has been a good system war on system wars! I think the xbox360 has done a great job of coming back graphically, although it is thanks to Microsoft buying off Crytek to make Crysis2 look better on the 360 than the PS3 :P . That being said, there are too little games on the 360. No, really, PS3 pumps out exclusives 6 a year and microsoft 2 or 3.
Except having alot more quality games :S ALOT more[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="MozartXVI"]
so having less sales and less quality games is cows' idea of winning? :lol:
MozartXVI
sorry bud, but saying that won't make it true. but hey, feel free to keep telling yourself that :)
So then I guess the 360 doesn't have higher sales and quality games cause you saying so doesn't make it true :? But then PS3 got more AAA games. So obviously PS3 got more quality games.What does Crysis 2 got to do with 360 coming back graphically?It has been a long time since there has been a good system war on system wars! I think the xbox360 has done a great job of coming back graphically, although it is thanks to Microsoft buying off Crytek to make Crysis2 look better on the 360 than the PS3 :P . That being said, there are too little games on the 360. No, really, PS3 pumps out exclusives 6 a year and microsoft 2 or 3.
zekere
This thread is so pathethic. Firstly, Xbox 360 has far better sales, much better online service, customizable, better quality exclusives. The only thing PS3 got over Xbox 360 is the blu ray player. All this is subjective but sadly the TC is making such a big deal out of this. Only thing PS3 has is blu ray player and more exclusives per year
Except having alot more quality games :S ALOT more[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="MozartXVI"]
so having less sales and less quality games is cows' idea of winning? :lol:
MozartXVI
sorry bud, but saying that won't make it true. but hey, feel free to keep telling yourself that :)
Quality is subjective. Why can't people understand that people have different opinions?
i do find that rather funny, because just a few years ago you were saying this:You failed to address anything I said.
Yes. 360 has more A+ scores on Gamespot. That is a fact. It's also a fact that some of those games are also on PS3, but they don't count for PS3 because GS didn't review the PS3 version. Let's not pretend that a good game that's on both systems doesn't add to BOTH systems libraries just because GS only reviewed it for 360. Go through and look at the games that comprise the 360's bigger A+ library. How many of them are ports of PS2 games that are only on 360 and not PS3 because PS3 wasn't out yet? PS3 gets more A+ games on average than 360 each year. 360 has more total because it was out a year longer. Are you seriously saying you prefer playing 5 year old ports of PS2 games over new games?
ianuilliam
"In the months right before and the almost 10 months since ps3 was launched, Sony has continued to release ps2 games. These games are playable on the PS3. Some of these games, although lacking in HD graphics are as good or better than many 360 or ps3 games. God of War 2 seemed to be well liked critically and commercialy, for instance. If I never had a ps2, but have a ps3, why shouldn't these games be considered part of ps3's lineup?"
ianuilliam
i had some other points regarding your obsession with comparing the consoles year-on-year just to make it seem like the PS3 was winning more often, rather than being last in games and sales as it was until this year, but i can't be bothered to engage you further.
the only real disappointment was the Wii, though, mainly because of its non-hd approach, which I still can't understand why they didn't equip a console with an at least decent graphics card, even if not as powerful as the 360's, but the Wii in HD would have made a whole difference and would probably have also effected the perception on the quality of the console itself and its exclusives.
pitty8982
Yes, all that matters in a game is resolution.
i do find that rather funny, because just a few years ago you were saying this:[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
You failed to address anything I said.
Yes. 360 has more A+ scores on Gamespot. That is a fact. It's also a fact that some of those games are also on PS3, but they don't count for PS3 because GS didn't review the PS3 version. Let's not pretend that a good game that's on both systems doesn't add to BOTH systems libraries just because GS only reviewed it for 360. Go through and look at the games that comprise the 360's bigger A+ library. How many of them are ports of PS2 games that are only on 360 and not PS3 because PS3 wasn't out yet? PS3 gets more A+ games on average than 360 each year. 360 has more total because it was out a year longer. Are you seriously saying you prefer playing 5 year old ports of PS2 games over new games?
marklarmer
"In the months right before and the almost 10 months since ps3 was launched, Sony has continued to release ps2 games. These games are playable on the PS3. Some of these games, although lacking in HD graphics are as good or better than many 360 or ps3 games. God of War 2 seemed to be well liked critically and commercialy, for instance. If I never had a ps2, but have a ps3, why shouldn't these games be considered part of ps3's lineup?"
ianuilliam
i had some other points regarding your obsession with comparing the consoles year-on-year just to make it seem like the PS3 was winning more often, rather than being last in games and sales as it was until this year, but i can't be bothered to engage you further.
And... when is that quote from? Mid-2007? When those games were new games. That quote isn't inconsistent with my current stance. New games are more important than old games. At the time, all PS3's played PS2 games. New PS2 games were being released that rivaled many of the next-gen games at the time. They were playable on PS3. PS3 was being ragged for having no games compared to a system that had been out over twice as long at that point, even though many of the extra games on 360 were also on PS2, and therefore playable on PS3.How does that conflict in any way with me saying now that a console getting new games every year is more important than which one has more total if the difference is made up of games that are 5 years old (and are playable on PS3s, or at least some PS3s, anyway)? Then, I was talking about new games. Now, I'm talking about new games. Seems like the people who have switched from caring about only new games and only AAAEs to caring about 5-year old games and anything playable on the system, regardless of score, is the lems. Makes sense, seeing as how they haven't gotten any AEs, let alone AAAEs in a year.
I still don't see how "my obsession" with comparing sales or games released over the same periods of time (year-on-year) is somehow more ridiculous than claiming 360 sells better because it's managed to sell more units in 6 years than PS3 has in 5. PS3 took ~53 months to sell 50 million units, while being the most expensive home console the entire time. 360 took ~62 months to sell the same amount, with 12 months of that being the ONLY next gen console on the market. Anyone with any business knowledge can tell you that in sales, getting more sales each year is better than having more total sales because you've been out longer. If you and me both have football teams, and my team wins more games every year, but your team still has a few more total wins than mine because it's been around longer, which team has the better winning record? Here's a hint. It's the one that wins more games every year. The one that has won more because its been around longer doesn't prove anything except that its been around longer.
the ps3 is the best console this gen if you love good games and love what gaming stands for. creativity and new experiences. sometihing xbox 360 owners do not know. anyone who denies that ps3 doesn't have better library than the xbox 360 needs to stop playing games because they have forgotten the essence of a good game.
and this is why i said i didn't want to discuss anything with you further :| you own posts prove your one of the people who have been constantly trying to ignore the rules then only use them when it best suits you argument, then you just try to generalize only lems doing it :roll:How does that conflict in any way with me saying now that a console getting new games every year is more important than which one has more total if the difference is made up of games that are 5 years old (and are playable on PS3s, or at least some PS3s, anyway)? Then, I was talking about new games. Now, I'm talking about new games. Seems like the people who have switched from caring about only new games and only AAAEs to caring about 5-year old games and anything playable on the system, regardless of score, is the lems. Makes sense, seeing as how they haven't gotten any AEs, let alone AAAEs in a year.
ianuilliam
which is exactly why i highlighted the irony of you accusing someone else of having a"I like my argument more than yours" attitude in another thread recently. because thats all you posts seem to consist of :|
and this is why i said i didn't want to discuss anything with you further :| you own posts prove your one of the people who have been constantly trying to ignore the rules then only use them when it best suits you argument, then you just try to generalize only lems doing it :roll:[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
How does that conflict in any way with me saying now that a console getting new games every year is more important than which one has more total if the difference is made up of games that are 5 years old (and are playable on PS3s, or at least some PS3s, anyway)? Then, I was talking about new games. Now, I'm talking about new games. Seems like the people who have switched from caring about only new games and only AAAEs to caring about 5-year old games and anything playable on the system, regardless of score, is the lems. Makes sense, seeing as how they haven't gotten any AEs, let alone AAAEs in a year.
marklarmer
which is exactly why i highlighted the irony of you accusing someone else of having a"I like my argument more than yours" attitude in another thread recently. because thats all you posts seem to consist of :|
U sir are a genius .xbox 360 doesn't have better online service. It if it did I wouldn't need to pay 60$ yearly for it. I don't care about cross game chat or skype. I never use those features. I basically am paying 60 $ for online gameplay and a better store os. I don't get any benefits, nothing for paying 60$. I feel ripped off and pissed off about this. POS that people tell me is good.
A console is only as good as its software. By that criteria, I'd have to say that the Wii is the best console this generation, followed by the 360 (which is better than the PS3 simply because it has several games which it shares with the PC and that aren't on the PS3) and then the PS3.
Do you know what's safe to say? That you think the PS3 is the best console this generation. :P
replace the ps3 with wii and the ps3 again with 360,now we have the truth.
i am sorry if it hurts.
[QUOTE="pitty8982"]
it's a system that combines both the quality of hardware and software, great exclusive titles and a fairly big library. the 360 has a bigger library, but it just won't come close to what the ps3 as a whole has to offer.
the only real disappointment was the Wii, though, mainly because of its non-hd approach, which I still can't understand why they didn't equip a console with an at least decent graphics card, even if not as powerful as the 360's, but the Wii in HD would have made a whole difference and would probably have also effected the perception on the quality of the console itself and its exclusives, which in my opinion are unmatched, but playing them in SD on a HD Tv really makes you scream "why??".
so this gen, for me it goes:
1. ps32. 360
3. wii
what says you?
Baxhand
Hi I'm xbox 360. I play 98% of all games better than my competition and have a way bigger library. I even have tons of Pc games.
Sony = number 1....?
LMFAO.
Bigger Library =/= better library. Also, exclusives are where it's at. I'd rather play my PC games.....on my PC, thank you. :P
(and yes, I do have a PC)
not a very original topic. but yeah. in terms of exclusives, the PS3 wins by far in my eyes. and actually I would put the 360 below the wii.
My favorite console is the DS, followed by the PS3, followed by the Wii, followed by the PSP.
As an addendum, handhelds are consoles, the term "handheld" is just a short-hand version of handheld-consoles, while what people call "consoles" are more properly called home-consoles.
Why do systems need HD? I still find that a puzzling thought. I still find the PS2 to be the best console ever and it does so without HD.
I have had both a 360 and a ps3 since launch, I have played my 360 100 times more, and I usually get my multiplaits on my pc or the 360. my ps3 gets very little play so no I dont agree, I prefer the 360. Both have great games but I just like the online and UI better on the 360, also prefer the 360 controller and the fact that every game on the 360 can be installed on the harddrive. Ps3 is not all its cracked up to be IMO.
and this is why i said i didn't want to discuss anything with you further :| you own posts prove your one of the people who have been constantly trying to ignore the rules then only use them when it best suits you argument, then you just try to generalize only lems doing it :roll:[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
How does that conflict in any way with me saying now that a console getting new games every year is more important than which one has more total if the difference is made up of games that are 5 years old (and are playable on PS3s, or at least some PS3s, anyway)? Then, I was talking about new games. Now, I'm talking about new games. Seems like the people who have switched from caring about only new games and only AAAEs to caring about 5-year old games and anything playable on the system, regardless of score, is the lems. Makes sense, seeing as how they haven't gotten any AEs, let alone AAAEs in a year.
marklarmer
which is exactly why i highlighted the irony of you accusing someone else of having a"I like my argument more than yours" attitude in another thread recently. because thats all you posts seem to consist of :|
Ignoring the rules? What rules? The metagame rules? That quote you posted for me from over 4 years ago (by the way, if you want irony, you accused me of being obsessive earlier, yet you're the one going through 4-5 year old posting history to cherry pick statements in order to try to discredit someone. That is a whole new level of SW obsessiveness...) wasn't to do with the metagame. I don't think I ever suggested that the scores for PS2 games be included in the SW metagame. It was just in response to the prevalent attitude of PS3 has no games, which, by the way, wasn't to do with the metagame either. When discussing the metagame, which as far as I know is the only time these "rules" you speak of apply, I don't think you'll find much to support that I've constantly ignored th rules and only used them when it suits my purpose.As for me accusing someone of having a "I like my argument more than yours" attitude, if you look closely at the post I was replying to when I said that, you'll find that I wasn't accusing them. That is what they said. Their argument, literally, was "I like my argument more than yours." At which point, I conceded the point to them, because it is impossible to debate with someone whose support for their argument is simply that they like their argument better. It's like trying to argue religion with someone whose sole proof that their religion is right is that the holy book for their religion says that their religion is right.
And yet it has the least amount of highly rated games... both on Gamerankings and Gamespot. The Wii and PC have more exclusives, the 360 has more overall totals and the PS3 is just last in everything. I don't see that as "best" I see that as "worst."foxhound_fox
This is silly conclusion
It has a bigger overall library than the Wii and more exclusives than the 360. So how does that make it last in everything? lmao.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment