PS3 or Xbox 360, which is better overall?

[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"][QUOTE="donalbane"] Well, I just bought a recently released multiplat last night on PS3, and I'll give you one guess as to my impressions of it's overall vibrance. So I respectfully disagree... I think the 'washed out' multiplat issue still exists.donalbane

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't have Riddick, so I can't intelligently argue if this is the case. I commend you on being a reviewer for a small website, but that does not convince me to sway my opinion (I do so respectfully, and it is not meant to be a knock on you). Reviewers offer opinions, not really an exact science. I do use reviews for key notes on playability and frame rate issues, or horrible aliasing and such, but for the most part reviewers are just offering their opinion after playing through or comparing games. Just because an individual is a reviewer, it does not make that individual the authority on games, game graphics, game play, etc.

Just look at the console's exclusives and see which interest you more and go with that, in the end it's only about the games YOU want to play.

As for me, I would not have been able to play Demon's Souls without a PS3...and that would be bad.

[QUOTE="The_Brodeo"]

[QUOTE="obamanian"]

"The XBOX 360 just does not feel next level to me and anyone who owns a PS3 knows what I mean."

It is clear that you refer to my opinion there, so why do you imply that you know my opinion in the first place ?

obamanian

I know, it is just that your post implies that you know what every PS3 owner thinks about his PS3 and 360

Sorry, but i have not seen a single game that proves PS3 is any better in hardwarem, games like KZ2 and MGS4 have some nice graphics, but fall short in many things like scale, textures, etc so it is not that i like them better than the huge detailed worlds of games like say Banjo 3

So, as a PS3 owner i do not agree that it is better, in fact so far seems worst than 360 in visuals to me

If Killzone 2 had super detailed textures and vast open worlds to play in, then this would prove PS3 superiority, but for now only Fable 2 has huge world with dynamic volumetric lighting, not KZ2 and not MGS4 etc

I played Fable 2 on a 50' Panasonic Plasma the same TV I played KZ2 on and the difference is huge as far as graphic fidelity. Killzone 2 without question is the current console graphics king that has already been settled here and no one is really debating that any longer except you. I apreciate you do not want a PS3 but fact>opinion and the fact is right now PS3 is holding the graphics crown for consoles.

[QUOTE="obamanian"]

[QUOTE="The_Brodeo"]

I know, it is just that your post implies that you know what every PS3 owner thinks about his PS3 and 360

Sorry, but i have not seen a single game that proves PS3 is any better in hardwarem, games like KZ2 and MGS4 have some nice graphics, but fall short in many things like scale, textures, etc so it is not that i like them better than the huge detailed worlds of games like say Banjo 3

So, as a PS3 owner i do not agree that it is better, in fact so far seems worst than 360 in visuals to me

If Killzone 2 had super detailed textures and vast open worlds to play in, then this would prove PS3 superiority, but for now only Fable 2 has huge world with dynamic volumetric lighting, not KZ2 and not MGS4 etc

The_Brodeo

I played Fable 2 on a 50' Panasonic Plasma the same TV I played KZ2 on and the difference is huge as far as graphic fidelity. Killzone 2 without question is the current console graphics king that has already been settled here and no one is really debating that any longer except you. I apreciate you do not want a PS3 but fact>opinion and the fact is right now PS3 is holding the graphics crown for consoles.

But the opinion of many, is still an opinion, and does not make it better than mine, especially when most of those opinions are biased

Fable 2 has vast landscapes, forests and dynamic light beams, Killzone 2 does not even touch it graphically and that is fact, unless you can prove KZ2 has vast landscapes and dynamic light beams, which it does not

BTW in my 32'' tv i saw some terrible blurry textures in KZ2, i can't even imagine how those would look on a 50'' tv

The PS3 is more reliable. But I have had much more fun on the 360, and think its the overall better console.

I think the 360 is the better overall video game console, it has the larger library of games.

I have a feeling like every one of these threads, this has been no help to the TC at all. :D

I think the 360 is the better overall video game console, it has the larger library of games.

gago-gago

LOL very well spoken

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"] Your opinion. If you set up your ps3 for full rgb mode, you don't see whitewash. I don't see a difference in my games, so I respectfully disagree. In any recent reviews of multiplat games, I have not read a disclaimer on which system the game is the superior version, except for a handful in the beginning (Orange Box), and as of late a select few (Fallout 3). PS3Gamer_1

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't have Riddick, so I can't intelligently argue if this is the case. I commend you on being a reviewer for a small website, but that does not convince me to sway my opinion (I do so respectfully, and it is not meant to be a knock on you). Reviewers offer opinions, not really an exact science. I do use reviews for key notes on playability and frame rate issues, or horrible aliasing and such, but for the most part reviewers are just offering their opinion after playing through or comparing games. Just because an individual is a reviewer, it does not make that individual the authority on games, game graphics, game play, etc.

My point is that the only way to have the experiences required to generate an informed opinion is to play the two versions on the same hardware... something most of the people who discuss this matter rarely do. The fact that I review games is merely ancillary.

[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]

[QUOTE="donalbane"] I do use full RGB mode, and I still see the difference. As a reviewer of games for a small website, occassionally I actually play both versions, and I'm telling you, there's a noticable difference in saturation. It's not a huge deal, but it's there. Take Riddick, for example. Can't get more recent than that. donalbane

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't have Riddick, so I can't intelligently argue if this is the case. I commend you on being a reviewer for a small website, but that does not convince me to sway my opinion (I do so respectfully, and it is not meant to be a knock on you). Reviewers offer opinions, not really an exact science. I do use reviews for key notes on playability and frame rate issues, or horrible aliasing and such, but for the most part reviewers are just offering their opinion after playing through or comparing games. Just because an individual is a reviewer, it does not make that individual the authority on games, game graphics, game play, etc.

My point is that the only way to have the experiences required to generate an informed opinion is to play the two versions on the same hardware... something most of the people who discuss this matter rarely do. The fact that I review games is merely ancillary.

I completely understand where you are coming from. I wasn't trying to knock you. I also play the same games on both the 360 and the ps3. So I have first hand experience. I will include one example. Assasin's Creed. Both systems suffered from horrible frame rates, and at different points in the game. The graphics and framefrates, according to reveiwers, were much better for the 360 version. However, once I calibrated my hdtv, and options for my ps3, the graphics were alomst the same, with negligible differences. Where reviewers were claiming that 360 had superior details, while the ps3 was all whitewash background..this wasn't the case from my point of view at all. I beleive another review site revisited the same issue and came to the same conlcusions. Also the graphics for Bioshock and Dead Space. They are both different, and yet look great on each system....you can actually argue which one looks better, but that would be really based on which visuals you preferred. So we would disagree on many issues based on graphics.

I won't deny that early on in this gen some multiplats were better for the 360, both in terms of playability and graphics. But now they have become comparable and sometimes down right negligible. And I do agree, many people do base their opinion on beleifs, or bias. But also many people base their opinions on just there personal tastes. Point is that current multiplats aren't as bad as they were when ps3 launched. Developers aren't making poor ports, they are actually using ps3 as lead platforms in some games. There will be differences, but negligible. Some ppl state that the graphics are lightyears better on 360, when this is not the case. Same can be said with statements on ps3....but on this forum it usually goes for 360 fans who automatically assume that the 360 version is the better version.

I would say 360 easily. But if you're talking exclusives then take a look at the Wii its filled with really good 1st party exclusives and even some good 3rd party exclusives.

I'd have to argue with you on multiplats also, I have see both versions of plenty of games....and the only difference is usually just the darkness of the games...The only game I have really noticed the difference in is Fallout, and that wasn't even that big of a difference to me, but reviews said Resident evil 5 looked better on 360 but I think that was based on bias and opinion because I think they both look great and the same.

I think the PS3 is the best system for shooter because of the controller; it just feels suitable for shooters.

Personally, I prefer my PS3 than X360.

I think the PS3 is the best system for shooter because of the controller; it just feels suitable for shooters.

Personally, I prefer my PS3 than X360.

GaMeR_Willz

thats a first.....I prefer the playstation 3 controller for many things....But shooters are not one of them, not that its bad at shooters...but I prefer the 360

Wow I'm bad at this forum thing. Sorry if there's any confusion

If you own a HDTV but havent gotten a BluRay player then the PS3 will give you a nice added value there. PS3 also boasts free online play.

360 has a lower price entry point, so if you are on a severe budget, that might appeal. It also has a more polished online experience, though you have to pay for it.

After that I'd look at the games. Since so many games are on both systems, you'll have to decide which exclusives appeal to you more.

I would say 360 but ive had a 360 for only about two years and ive had one hardrive failure and am currently having more problems. It is a better system otherwise and if you arent worried about the money it costs to fix the problems then get the 360.

I rly don think the better hardware arguement is available anymore with X360 jasper chipsets on the market and the full free 3 yr warrantyshadow8585

I rly don think the better hardware arguement is available anymore with X360 jasper chipsets on the market and the full free 3 yr warrantyshadow8585

jasper doesn't affect the E74 Error on 2 of my 360's including a jasper but the extended warranty now includes e74 errors so now once they get back from repairs Ill have 2 working 360's

I'd say the PS3. In terms of FPS it's areound even, the 360 has Halo 3 and the PS3 has resistance/Killzone2, as for action games the PS3 is ahead with MGS4, heavenly sword and the upcoming GOW3.

SeanDiff

love ur avatar. it funny because it is the truth

this argument reminds me of... East side is da best! NO! West side is da best...