Let's just get this out of the way. DualShock 3 > 360 controller. Fact.

So basically this is a 18 page long thread in which the TC first states that he will state facts instead of opinions and then gives us dubious facts some of which sound like opinions.

I don't know if you've been corrected, convex vs concave triggers isn't subjective. As a matter of ergonomics, having the triggers flow with the curves of the body is better than having it flow against the body. It cups the finger and prevents the chance of the finger slipping. It's a fairly basic facet of product design.

It's a minor detail, but if you're going to compare 8-bit precision sticks to 10-bit precision sticks, I'd expect you to be just as thorough with the triggers.

Fact :lol:

The dualshock has better tech and analogs, but the 360 has better ergonomics and button/analog placement/design.

So basically this is a 18 page long thread in which the TC first states that he will state facts instead of opinions and then gives us dubious facts some of which sound like opinions.

glez13

So much butt hurt in this thread.

I'm not gonna lie, I just read all of the responses since I've been away, and I have yet to see 1 single person list 1 single valid advantage that the 360 controller has over the DualShock 3. The only 2 things I have seen are people saying they think the 360 controller is more comfortable, which is completely subjective and modified by individual bias, and the other being that people like the triggers more, which is also completely subjective modified by individual bias.

This far into the thread, no one has listed 1 single objective advantage that the 360 controller has over the DualShock 3.

The Dualshock 3 has all of the objective advantages.

• Better battery in the DualShock 3 (Lithium Ion) vs the 360 controller (Nickel Metal Hydride). The DualShock 3 battery also comes standard, not as a $20 add-on.
• Not only does the DualShock 3 come with a better battery as standard than the 360 controller aftermarket battery, but the DualShock 3 lithium ion battery also offers more playtime than the nickel metal hydride 360 controller's alternative.

arkephonic

Alright, now hold on....

I heavily disagree with the battery being an advantage. The DS3's battery is unswappable which seriously negates most of its positives. It needs to be hooked up to be charged after so many hours, then you are playing with a wired controller, kind of defeats the purpose of wireless, no? Not only that, in the future the controller will die. It will happen, you can count on it. Now, sure you can still play wired, but I'm still going to be playing on my 360 pad wireless swapping packs when one dies. And when my 360's recharge packs die they're extremely cheap, and EASY, to replace.

When(not if, when) the DS3 dies, guess what? I hope you either enjoy playing with a cord constantly connected, or have the technical prowess and patience required to disassemble, go to the trouble of buying a new battery, and then swapping them out. Do you know what it says on the back of the DS3 box? "How to dispose of wireless controller". I'm not kidding. Sony knows many people will just throw away their controller when it dies as they don't want to be bothered with taking it apart to change the batteries. That it's even conceivable that anyone would consider tossing away a perfectly functioning controller because of a design that is so inherently flawed speaks volumes on the competence of that design.

So how exactly is this objectively a better battery design than the 360's? If the DS3's battery were swappable, I would say they're equal. But as it stands now, the 360's battery design is far superior as it's exchangeable with the press of a button, not the turn of a screw. What sense is there in putting a battery that is inevitably going to lose its ability to retain a charge into a WIRELESS controller and removing the ability to easily swap it out? I'll tell you what kind of sense: business sense. Sony will sell a lot more controllers this way, as I said, many people can't be bothered to swap them out themselves yet wish to continue playing wireless. Sony's going to maintain a nice little revenue stream from controllers as long as people continue to play PS3s in the future. Pretty clever if I do say so myself.

So please. People only see the benefit of the DS3's battery because they don't look to the future. Objectively better? I don't think so, I'd say it's easily objectively worse.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

I'm not gonna lie, I just read all of the responses since I've been away, and I have yet to see 1 single person list 1 single valid advantage that the 360 controller has over the DualShock 3. The only 2 things I have seen are people saying they think the 360 controller is more comfortable, which is completely subjective and modified by individual bias, and the other being that people like the triggers more, which is also completely subjective modified by individual bias.

This far into the thread, no one has listed 1 single objective advantage that the 360 controller has over the DualShock 3.

The Dualshock 3 has all of the objective advantages.

• Better battery in the DualShock 3 (Lithium Ion) vs the 360 controller (Nickel Metal Hydride). The DualShock 3 battery also comes standard, not as a $20 add-on.
• Not only does the DualShock 3 come with a better battery as standard than the 360 controller aftermarket battery, but the DualShock 3 lithium ion battery also offers more playtime than the nickel metal hydride 360 controller's alternative.

MirkoS77

Alright, now hold on....

I heavily disagree with the battery being an advantage. The DS3's battery is unswappable which seriously negates most of its positives. It needs to be hooked up to be charged after so many hours, then you are playing with a wired controller, kind of defeats the purpose of wireless, no? Not only that, in the future the controller will die. It will happen, you can count on it. Now, sure you can still play wired, but I'm still going to be playing on my 360 pad wireless swapping packs when one dies. And when my 360's recharge packs die they're extremely cheap, and EASY, to replace.

When(not if, when) the DS3 dies, guess what? I hope you either enjoy playing with a cord constantly connected, or have the technical prowess and patience required to disassemble, go to the trouble of buying a new battery, and then swapping them out. Do you know what it says on the back of the DS3 box? "How to dispose of wireless controller". I'm not kidding. Sony knows many people will just throw away their controller when it dies as they don't want to be bothered with taking it apart to change the batteries. That it's even conceivable that anyone would consider tossing away a perfectly functioning controller because of a design that is so inherently flawed speaks volumes on the competence of that design.

So how exactly is this objectively a better battery design than the 360's? If the DS3's battery were swappable, I would say they're equal. But as it stands now, the 360's battery design is far superior as it's exchangeable with the press of a button, not the turn of a screw. What sense is there in putting a battery that is inevitably going to lose its ability to retain a charge into a WIRELESS controller and removing the ability to easily swap it out? I'll tell you what kind of sense: business sense. Sony will sell a lot more controllers this way, as I said, many people can't be bothered to swap them out themselves yet wish to continue playing wireless. Sony's going to maintain a nice little revenue stream from controllers as long as people continue to play PS3s in the future. Pretty clever if I do say so myself.

So please. People only see the benefit of the DS3's battery because they don't look to the future. Objectively better? I don't think so, I'd say it's easily objectively worse.

Hey, what's up Mirko. I like you, you're a cool guy, you are a fellow gamer that respects physical games and memorabilia, so I'm gonna take your post very seriously.

I understand where you're coming from about the battery swappage. However, there are instructions on how to swap the battery out for a new one. You can also youtube instructional videos for alternative instructions. Is it as easy to swap as the 360 battery? Of course not, but it is possible.

By law, you're required to put labels on anything that is harmful to the environment. Televisions, lithium ion batteries, computer monitors, those things are all harmful to the environment, so they're forced to put warning labels on them concerning how to dispose of them properly. I mean, I'm sure people aren't going to be going around throwing TV's away for no reason. Plus, like you said, the DualShock 3 still works with a cord if the battery died, so there's never a reason to throw one away. The option to replace the battery is always there, plus they last a really long time. I still have my SixAxis that came packaged with my 60gig console in 2006, and it still holds a long charge.

I'm actually going to chalk that up as an objective advantage that the 360 controller has over the DualShock 3. The ability to swap batteries out easier.

Mirko wins the thread.

I'm actually going to chalk that up as an objective advantage that the 360 controller has over the DualShock 3. The ability to swap batteries out easier.

Mirko wins the thread.

arkephonic

:lol:

Seriously though, sorry if I came off harsh. I tend to get passionate about things, it's nothing personal. You're a cool guy too, as anyone who prefers physical media is by default.:) I've just had terrible luck with two of my DS3's (I don't play my PS3 as much as my 360 so it can go months without use). Anyway, two of them died during this time, and I found the only way to again become wireless was to swap out the battery, which I tried but was a mess trying to reassemble. With my 360 I can just swap it right out in 2 seconds. If the DS3's batteries were swappable it'd be all good, but they make it very difficult and I'm frustrated by it. Probably why my post came off as angry, as I'm pissed at Sony.

Anyways, I can't much dispute your other points.

[QUOTE="igsmither"][QUOTE="Badosh"] Thank you, I agree.clone01

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Just so we're all clear here, if someone prefers a Geo Metro seat to a Lamborghini seat, that makes the Geo Metro the better vehicle, right?

jessejay420

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="igsmither"] quoting people then changing what they say is the kind of cheap tactic I expect from an xbox fanboy...PinnacleGamingP

Maybe they are trolling teh PS Triple? It's fans are always overly defensive.

I like both controllers so I really don't care. I didn't know this was the Controller Wars forum.

[QUOTE="jessejay420"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Just so we're all clear here, if someone prefers a Geo Metro seat to a Lamborghini seat, that makes the Geo Metro the better vehicle, right?

PinnacleGamingP

[QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"]

[QUOTE="jessejay420"] I dont understand..why is the ds3 a Lamborghini and the 360 controller have to be a geo metro? LoL In other words where did you get this idea that 360 controller is like a geo metro? delta3074

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"] one of the funniest things online in uncharted is moving in slow motion. This is due to the analog sticks being pressure sensitive. however, pushing up on a 360 analog stick might as well be pressing D pad to move because its useless cheap non recharchable retarded random analog placement piece of lemming dung ****.

PinnacleGamingP

[QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]wrong, when i play hitman blood money if i gently push the stick he walks if i push it harder he runs, the analogs in the 360 are pressure sensetive as well, if it isn't then why does every first person shooter allow you to change the analogs sensetivity ib the settings menu,duhdelta3074

DS3 prove that some games are not playerble on 360 because lack of sixaxis... and that is why MGS4 are exclusive for the PS3 for long period of time until today

[QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]wrong, when i play hitman blood money if i gently push the stick he walks if i push it harder he runs, the analogs in the 360 are pressure sensetive as well, if it isn't then why does every first person shooter allow you to change the analogs sensetivity ib the settings menu,duhdelta3074

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"] thats not pressure sensitivity, thats dual mode on the analog stick. push soft, goes soft, push hard, goes hard. sensivity option is speed of the movement not precision

garrett_duffman

No, you could also press X to move slow and Y to move fast. zZZZzzZz

PinnacleGamingP

Wow dude, all of that is opinoin based stuff. None is factual.

First of all, the 360 is more ernomatically designed to fit into the hands better. The PS3 controller has horrible triggers that just flat out feel uncomfortable. The stick and d pad need to be swapped, my thumbs always hit each other using a ps controller. The dpad is no longer a debate since MS started making the new dpad controllers, which has a dpad which doesn't tear your thumb up in a fighting game, and still has the extra percision. Also, the whole build in battery thing is a plus and a curse. When that battery stops holding a charge, you have to throw away the whole controller and buy a new one. I also hate how the battery hardly lasts and I'm stuck using that stupid 2 foot cord they include to charge it. I had to buy usb extendors just so I could still play after the controller went dead. So no, the PS3 controller is in no way better than the 360 controller.

And those are my opinions on why you are so wrong TC lol.

[QUOTE="garrett_duffman"][QUOTE="delta3074"]so there fore it is pressure sensetive even if it's only 2 speeds, bottom line, harder you push it, faster it goes, cheers for clearing that up mate.PinnacleGamingP

Seriously?

Xbox 360 is erganomically better

Visually more pleasing

Better designed

only thing I prefer are the buttons and dpad on PS3 DS3

Don't pass out your opinion as fact

fact is a fact

OP still hasnt posted actually any proof that the said "facts" make the control better.

or by his logic

xbox>>>>>>>gamecube>>>>>>dreamcast>>>>>>>ps2

n64>>>>>saturn>>>>>ps1

DS3>>>>>>KB/M

XBL>>>>>>PSN

fact is a fact

ProtossX

You know, I'm not gonna even read these posts. People have opinions, some people ejoy the weight and feel of the 360 controller, others prefer the duelshock3. It's not up to you to choose which one is better because it is a completely opinionated choice.

The Dualshock 3 has all of the objective advantages.

1. Better battery in the DualShock 3 (Lithium Ion) vs the 360 controller (Nickel Metal Hydride). The DualShock 3 battery also comes standard, not as a $20 add-on.

2. Not only does the DualShock 3 come with a better battery as standard than the 360 controller aftermarket battery, but the DualShock 3 lithium ion battery also offers more playtime than the nickel metal hydride 360 controller's alternative.

3. The charging cable for the DualShock 3 is a universal USB cable, whereas the 360 controller uses a proprietary cable.

4. Sixaxis technology is in the DualShock 3 and completely absent in the 360 controller. The 360 controller also offers no alternative.

5. All buttons on the DualShock 3 are analog/pressure sensitive. Triangle, Circle, Square, L1, R1, Select, Start, as well as the D-Pad are all analog/pressure sensitive. Every button on the 360 controller is digital, and lacks analog/pressure sensitivity, including the D-Pad.

6. The DualShock 3 features finer analog sensitivity than the 360 controller, increased to 10-bit precision from the 8-bit precision of the 360 controller. The DualShock 3 controller also uses both analog and digital signals simultaneously at all times during gameplay, while the 360 controller does not. 8-bit analog precision technology that the 360 controller uses is very dated, and was used in last generation controllers.

7. The Bluetooth wireless technology used in the DualShock 3 is newer, more expensive, and more advanced than the proprietary wireless 2.4GHz protocol used for the 360 controller. Bluetooth also eliminates interference which would otherwise be troublesome when using the 360's alternative.

8. The D-Pad on the DualShock 3 works, while the D-Pad on the 360 controller does not work.

arkephonic

First of all, the comfort is not subjective. It's been designed to fit the human hand better. That is fact. You can wear your shoes on the wrong foot, it doesn't make it subjective that it's more comfortable the right way round.

The shape isn't even designed by MS, PC gamers were using similar Logitech Wingman controllers long before.

And the triggers are really good on the 360 and from what I gather they need a little improvement on the PS3.

It's a pretty useless argument that you have yet win on anyother grounds than your own terms of specification, but specs are only part of what makes something good. That's what the car analogy was about. Objectively the Xbox owns the PS2 because it's specs are better, yet no one cares.

1. Fine, but no one cares.

2. Fine, but no one cares.

3. Fine, same as the first two answers. But surprising, Sony are often the ones who use proprietary everything. Although i'm not sure what the problem is.

4. Fine but redundant, barely used.

5. Fine but more or less redundant. Is this well used, does it make a difference, honestly, I don't know. Didn't seem a big deal on the PS2.

6. Fine, doesn't make a big impact though from what i've heard. And it's a little off set by the bad idea of having them side by side.

7. OMG Fine but dude absolutely no one cares.

8. Fine, true I use a SF4 pad for those things.

P.S. Sorry for editing your post dude, just easier to refer to numbers. :)

I think it just comes down to what you use more. I find DS3 better but i've used it far more.

It is the best controller, there's no problem with it unless you are fat.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

The Dualshock 3 has all of the objective advantages.

1. Better battery in the DualShock 3 (Lithium Ion) vs the 360 controller (Nickel Metal Hydride). The DualShock 3 battery also comes standard, not as a $20 add-on.

2. Not only does the DualShock 3 come with a better battery as standard than the 360 controller aftermarket battery, but the DualShock 3 lithium ion battery also offers more playtime than the nickel metal hydride 360 controller's alternative.

3. The charging cable for the DualShock 3 is a universal USB cable, whereas the 360 controller uses a proprietary cable.

4. Sixaxis technology is in the DualShock 3 and completely absent in the 360 controller. The 360 controller also offers no alternative.

5. All buttons on the DualShock 3 are analog/pressure sensitive. Triangle, Circle, Square, L1, R1, Select, Start, as well as the D-Pad are all analog/pressure sensitive. Every button on the 360 controller is digital, and lacks analog/pressure sensitivity, including the D-Pad.

6. The DualShock 3 features finer analog sensitivity than the 360 controller, increased to 10-bit precision from the 8-bit precision of the 360 controller. The DualShock 3 controller also uses both analog and digital signals simultaneously at all times during gameplay, while the 360 controller does not. 8-bit analog precision technology that the 360 controller uses is very dated, and was used in last generation controllers.

7. The Bluetooth wireless technology used in the DualShock 3 is newer, more expensive, and more advanced than the proprietary wireless 2.4GHz protocol used for the 360 controller. Bluetooth also eliminates interference which would otherwise be troublesome when using the 360's alternative.

8. The D-Pad on the DualShock 3 works, while the D-Pad on the 360 controller does not work.

HalcyonScarlet

First of all, the comfort is not subjective. It's been designed to fit the human hand better. That is fact. You can wear your shoes on the wrong foot, it doesn't make it subjective that it's more comfortable the right way round.

The shape isn't even designed by MS, PC gamers were using similar Logitech Wingman controllers long before.

And the triggers are really good on the 360 and from what I gather they need a little improvement on the PS3.

It's a pretty useless argument that you have yet win on anyother grounds than your own terms of specification, but specs are only part of what makes something good. That's what the car analogy was about. Objectively the Xbox owns the PS2 because it's specs are better, yet no one cares.

1. Fine, but no one cares.

2. Fine, but no one cares.

3. Fine, same as the first two answers. But surprising, Sony are often the ones who use proprietary everything. Although i'm not sure what the problem is.

4. Fine but redundant, barely used.

5. Fine but more or less redundant. Is this well used, does it make a difference, honestly, I don't know. Didn't seem a big deal on the PS2.

6. Fine, doesn't make a big impact though from what i've heard. And it's a little off set by the bad idea of having them side by side.

7. OMG Fine but dude absolutely no one cares.

8. Fine, true I use a SF4 pad for those things.

P.S. Sorry for editing your post dude, just easier to refer to numbers. :)

I would replace all of those with YOU don't care. A lot of these are valid reasons why people like it better. Don't hate on people just because their controller preferences aren't the same as yours.

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

The Dualshock 3 has all of the objective advantages.

1. Better battery in the DualShock 3 (Lithium Ion) vs the 360 controller (Nickel Metal Hydride). The DualShock 3 battery also comes standard, not as a $20 add-on.

2. Not only does the DualShock 3 come with a better battery as standard than the 360 controller aftermarket battery, but the DualShock 3 lithium ion battery also offers more playtime than the nickel metal hydride 360 controller's alternative.

3. The charging cable for the DualShock 3 is a universal USB cable, whereas the 360 controller uses a proprietary cable.

4. Sixaxis technology is in the DualShock 3 and completely absent in the 360 controller. The 360 controller also offers no alternative.

5. All buttons on the DualShock 3 are analog/pressure sensitive. Triangle, Circle, Square, L1, R1, Select, Start, as well as the D-Pad are all analog/pressure sensitive. Every button on the 360 controller is digital, and lacks analog/pressure sensitivity, including the D-Pad.

6. The DualShock 3 features finer analog sensitivity than the 360 controller, increased to 10-bit precision from the 8-bit precision of the 360 controller. The DualShock 3 controller also uses both analog and digital signals simultaneously at all times during gameplay, while the 360 controller does not. 8-bit analog precision technology that the 360 controller uses is very dated, and was used in last generation controllers.

7. The Bluetooth wireless technology used in the DualShock 3 is newer, more expensive, and more advanced than the proprietary wireless 2.4GHz protocol used for the 360 controller. Bluetooth also eliminates interference which would otherwise be troublesome when using the 360's alternative.

8. The D-Pad on the DualShock 3 works, while the D-Pad on the 360 controller does not work.

Flavorysoup

First of all, the comfort is not subjective. It's been designed to fit the human hand better. That is fact. You can wear your shoes on the wrong foot, it doesn't make it subjective that it's more comfortable the right way round.

The shape isn't even designed by MS, PC gamers were using similar Logitech Wingman controllers long before.

And the triggers are really good on the 360 and from what I gather they need a little improvement on the PS3.

It's a pretty useless argument that you have yet win on anyother grounds than your own terms of specification, but specs are only part of what makes something good. That's what the car analogy was about. Objectively the Xbox owns the PS2 because it's specs are better, yet no one cares.

1. Fine, but no one cares.

2. Fine, but no one cares.

3. Fine, same as the first two answers. But surprising, Sony are often the ones who use proprietary everything. Although i'm not sure what the problem is.

4. Fine but redundant, barely used.

5. Fine but more or less redundant. Is this well used, does it make a difference, honestly, I don't know. Didn't seem a big deal on the PS2.

6. Fine, doesn't make a big impact though from what i've heard. And it's a little off set by the bad idea of having them side by side.

7. OMG Fine but dude absolutely no one cares.

8. Fine, true I use a SF4 pad for those things.

P.S. Sorry for editing your post dude, just easier to refer to numbers. :)

I would replace all of those with YOU don't care. A lot of these are valid reasons why people like it better. Don't hate on people just because their controller preferences aren't the same as yours.

Ironic. Why is TCs list valid, but a challenge to that is an attack on people preferences.

Ok, the ones I said no one cares about is 1, 2, 3 and 7. No offense to people, but if those things actually bother you, you need fresh air like it's not even funny ya know, that's the point you need to go hang out with your friends or something.

Also, I never actually said the 360 pad was better, I just nulified the arguement by putting some things in context.

The 360 controller is by far the best handheld controller ever created. The dpad is its only flaw, but better the d-pad then the triggers, joysticks, and ergonomics like dualshock or sixaxis flaws.

The 360 controller is by far the best handheld controller ever created. The dpad is its only flaw, but better the d-pad then the triggers, joysticks, and ergonomics like dualshock or sixaxis flaws.

Phazevariance

There are arguments that are subjective, and arguments that are objective, based on facts.

The only arguments I ever hear concerning the supposed advantages of the 360 controller are subjective, take for example the notion that the controller is more comfortable than the DualShock 3. That's in the eye of the beholder, no facts to back it up.

Take me for example, I think the DualShock 3 controller is more comfortable to hold than the 360 controller. There's a common misconception that the DualShock 3 is designed for small hands. I have larger than average hands. I can grip an NBA sized basketball without issue using one hand, and the average male can't do that based on what I've seen at the gym. Despite having larger than average hands, I find the DualShock 3 to be the more comfortable controller to hold, but I realize that is a subjective argument, and it holds absolutely no weight. It's merely an opinion takingplace within the mind which is modified by individual bias.

Now that we have that factual part of the argument out of the way, lets focus on the objective differences between the controller, taking every component into consideration. These are the real differences that matter, the differences based on actual facts, undistorted by emotion or personal bias.

Battery:

The DualShock 3 comes standard with a Lithium Ion battery, which provides up to 30 hours of continuous gaming on a full charge. The charging cable is a standard universal USB cable, not proprietary.

The 360 controller does not come standard with a rechargable battery. You can purchase a nickel metal hydride Rechargable Battery Pack, which provides up to 25 hours of continuous gaming for the wireless controller. The charging cable is proprietary.

Sixaxis:

A major feature of the Sixaxis controller, and from where its name is derived, is the ability to sense both rotational orientation and translational acceleration along all three dimensional axes, providing six degrees of freedom.

This feature is absent in the 360 controller, and it doesn't offer any alternative.

Face Buttons:

There are 8 pressure sensitive buttons on the DualShock 3. Triangle, Circle, X, Square, L1, R1, Select and Start.

The Xbox 360 controller does not have pressure sensitive buttons.

Analog Sticks:

The DualShock 3 features finer analog sensitivity than the DualShock 2, increased to 10-bit precision from the 8-bit precision of the DualShock 2. The controller also uses both analog and digital signals simultaneously at all times during gameplay.

The Xbox 360 controller uses 8-bit precision, the same used in last generation controllers, such as the DualShock 2, Gamecube and original Xbox controllers.

Wireless Connectivity:

DualShock 3 uses Bluetooth connectivity.

The 360 controller uses a proprietary wireless 2.4GHz protocol for connectivity, which is of less quality than Bluetooth. The differences are minor, but I have about a 10 to 1 ratio in use of my PS3 over my 360, and I have experienced many more controller syncing problems on the 360 in a fraction of the time.

D-Pad:

I don't think this one really needs an explanation. The DualShock 3 has a fully functional D-Pad while the 360 controller doesn't.

Triggers:

The PS3 has 2 convex analog triggers, while the 360 has 2 concave analog triggers. They both have identical functionality, while preference of shape is purely subjective and comes down to personal bias.

So there you have it. Look, I know that Lemmings latch on to the controller debate with a sense of urgency like flies on horse ****. The Xbox 360 doesn't have a single hardware advantage over the PS3, so they grasp onto the controller debate in an attempt to try and 1 up the PS3 in some way, shape or form, regardless of how insignificant it may be. Well, the only argument I've ever heard from a Lemming concerning the 360 controller has been about comfort, which is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. That is influenced by personal bias, and there is nothing factual to back it up.

When it comes down to facts and funtionality, the PS3 DualShock 3 wipes the floor with the 360 controller in every department. How could a controller be considered so great when it lacks something as significant as a D-Pad? All things considered, the 360 controller is basically a last generation controller. Last generation analog stick precision, last generation digital face buttons that lack analog pressure sensitivity, disfunctional D-Pad which is the same design from last generation, old wireless technology, no Sixaxis support or anything even similar, AA batteries as the standard which is what the Wavebird used last generation....

You can argue comfort and go around in circles all day about it. It's an argument you can't win, because it's purely subjective. These things I just listed however, aren't subjective, they're objective, they're facts.

arkephonic

now this is the thread I couldnt do. see people, the DS3 is better. and dont forget the horrible 360 bumpers, there is literally no advantage with the bumpers, they are in no way superior to L1 and R1

The 360 controller is by far the best handheld controller ever created. The dpad is its only flaw, but better the d-pad then the triggers, joysticks, and ergonomics like dualshock or sixaxis flaws.

Phazevariance

definitely not a fact. its all up to personal preference. that being said, i prefer the ps3 controller. i like the d pad and the position of the joysticks

Not Facts. Opinion and Preference. Fact.

Not Facts. Opinion and Preference. Fact.

mwu_fraga

no its a fact. Dualshock has greater technology then the cheap 360 controller, they should sell that thing at the dollar store.

dualshock pressure sensative buttons, quality D-pad, rechargable batter, etc etc the list goes on and on.

so Dualshock > 360 controller.