Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3

[Ayen]

All right, nerds. This is it, the final battle between good and evil. At least until I can think of another match up.


http://i57.:bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou:/348t5c7.jpg
VS
http://i62.:bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou:/whfw36.jpg

Which do you have, and which one do you prefer? There will be no "X because Final Fantasy" since you can get Final Fantasy on both. There will be no "Y because JRPGs" since you can get JRPGs on both, and both don't have that many to begin with, and there will be no "WII!" because Wii is not an option since we all know Wii is the superior console and this wouldn't be a fair race to include it, now make your choice!

You're all going to vote for the PS3, aren't you? Well, let me get you started.

My choice comes down to the PS3 because I feel it has better exclusives all around. The Last of Us, Beyond Two Souls, Metal Gear Solid 4, and the list goes on. I do enjoy both consoles okay though and am happy to have both. If it wasn't for Sony jacking us with the starting price I might have never gotten an Xbox to begin with, so it all turned out okay. Never got a red ring of death, either. Perks to buying a console after it's been out for five years.

Discuss.

[CimminyCricket]

I can't choose! I play them both pretty regularly! I have the PS3 for Battlefield games and the 360 for other games that I can play with my older brother! Don't make me choose!

[Scotty_ffgamer]

Both are excellent, but the PS3 ended up having more of what I wanted in the end. I liked being able to download PS1 and PS2 games, and it saw more support on the JRPG front than 360 did. That being said, Lost Odyssey was my favorite game between the two systems. I wish I still had a 360 just for that. Also, that generation was one of my least favorites overall in terms of new games, but the PS3 has given me the chance to go back to a lot of older games I missed.

[Shiny]

360 because that's what I still have and it's still serving it's purpose. I also prefer Xbox Live over the PSN. It's good as I am able to play mostly all the games I want on it. For any games I wanted to play that were PS3 exclusives, I just used my boyfriend's PS3.

[Spuuky]

The PS3 is physically prettier and has a blu-ray player.

[Freya]

I have both and I've used my 360 more but I prefer my ps3

[sharkythesharkdogg]

Free online gaming is free online gaming.

Plus I can play my library of ps1 and ps2 games. I don't have nearly as many original xbox games.

I saw too many red rings of death from my friends when the systems were still only 2-3 years after their release. One friend went through 4, one through 3, and one through 2. They all switched to PS3 and still have their first one, AFAIK. Just a bad coincidence? Maybe. But that's 9 xboxes across three people in 2 years. I didn't like those odds.

[Shorty]

I have to default to 360 because it is the console I have. I enjoy it very much, but I really wish Steam would work on it.

[Pike]

I don't console much but I like my 360. And I liked the original Xbox before it. Never had a problem with either.

Unlike 99.9% of this forum I've never been a big PlayStation person. Most Sony exclusives never appealed to me and I'm not super huge into JRPGs.

[Iceglow]

I have a 360, I prefer it to the PS3 as the control pad is physically superior in every way. I'm not just saying that, my brother, my brother-in-law and nephew all have PS3's as well as many friends, I think the PS2 Dual Shock 2 controller was one of the finest things Sony ever made. The Dual Shock 3 was one of the worst. It simply did not feel nice to use, underweight and overly spongy the controller felt like a vegan baby who is about to die of malnutrition because it's parents refuse to give it the proteins it needs to live.

The graphical difference is really not that extreme as some people make out. Yes, on paper the 360 has less processing power and less graphical output. Yes there are notably some very pretty games on the PS3 which were exclusive such as The Last of Us. However, comparing the graphically stunning The Last of Us to say Gears of War 3 is like comparing a Maserati Super Car to an F22A Raptor. Both vehicles are extremely pretty but the comparison ends there, one is a car designed to be light weight, to remain on the ground and go fast, the other is a lethal killing machine designed to win wars. Comparing titles which are unique to their format against one another is equally useless. We can only really draw a good conclusion from games readily available on both formats. Even here however, we have some extreme issues. For example: People regularly show how much better ME2 on PS3 looks to it's 360 counterpart. ME2 was released on PS3 with the graphics engine from ME3 not the old ME2 engine. They perhaps did this as a test of the ME3 engine and because they made you guys wait an entire year or more for the series to come and denied you the first game in the series, they did it simply because they could. You can decide for yourselves. However, if you compared ME3 on both it's not much different looking and that is without calling the objectivity of the person showing the "differences" in to question.

I think the PS3 had some exceptionally good exclusives however, games like Heavy Rain and The Last of Us were shining examples of just how far gaming has come, and could go from the previous generation. Unfortunately, the lure of a handful of games (even if you added in games like Uncharted 1 - 3 which weren't must own titles in my book) was never quite strong enough to convince me to spend several hundred pounds on a console and some of those must own titles weren't even out until the very end of the console's lifespan effectively. The 360 however, offered from before I brought it and still does offer some serious exclusives that I enjoy playing.

The Blu-ray player on the PS3 was clearly an advantage. Unfortunately, as is usually the way with consoles launching in the wake of a change of media format one was always going to back the wrong horse. In the 360's case I'm extremely grateful that the decision to back HDDVD instead of Blu-ray failed to prove fatal to the console. You have to ask yourself if Nintendo hadn't stuck stubbornly to cartridge based storage in the rising face of CD and DVD storage how different the market would be now? The 64's untimely death came because Nintendo failed to adopt to the right medium believing that they could fit everything required on to a cartridge, despite what the market was showing. Ironically, even when Nintendo did move towards the right direction with the Gamecube but for unknown reasons never went all the way choosing to go for smaller than standard discs with a smaller storage capacity. Of course, we're here talking about 360 and PS3 so Nintendo's failure to adopt is a topic for another thread. Bluray was clearly a winning technology format but then if Sony hadn't almost bankrupted itself to get the backing of both game developers and film studios in making it succeed we could have seen a very different outcome for the Bluray - HDDVD format battle and the subsequent console market.

Backwards compatibility without the need to buy your library again is a major feather in the 360's hat. I know not every feature worked well, some not at all (Halo 2 matchmaking for example) but the 360 played the predecessor generation titles without much complaint. Sony's decision to force gamers to re-purchase their PS1 titles (with no obvious lure to do so such as improved graphics) digitally was a pretty good idea financially speaking but it sucks for old PS1 gamers. The inability of the console to even begin playing PS2 titles is just inexcusable when you consider the "Inferior Xbox" could and does do it with the equivalent generation of games.

XBL is in every way the superior service to PSN and definitely in relation to stability and the speed at which it recovers from technical faults. Sure Sony gives an additional game free each month over XBL (3 not 2) but lets face it. That's only with their premium paid for services which work out more expensive than the XBL Gold membership, and they suffered one of the biggest security breaches in hacking history. Something based on the recent ease of which hackers have breached Sony's security again in relation to the movies industry I have to ask... did they learn nothing from this? How secure is the PSN now? Why should we trust Sony?

Over all I'd give my vote for better console and my preferred console to the 360. I just don't feel a Blu-ray drive, miniscule level of graphical detail improvement and a handful of awesome exclusives make up for a poor control pad, a lack of backwards compatibility and poor network management. That isn't to say I wouldn't like to have a PS3 of my own to play those titles on but it is to say given the choice, I'd go Microsoft every time in the previous generation.

[Psychotic]

I have both. 360 is streets ahead.

[Pumpkin]

I have a shelf full of PS3 games and 3 XBox 360 games

[Bolivar]

From a hardware standpoint, the PS3 was certainly the better box and not just because of Blu Ray and a hard drive in every machine; the 360 didn't even have WiFi or HDMI when it launched and had gamers replacing Double A batteries in controllers up to the end. Now that it's all said and done, I think most reasonable people would agree the library was much better as well, especially since we all admit Forza, Fable, and Halo aren't as good as we all pretended they were in 2007.

[Iceglow]

I have a shelf full of PS3 games and 3 XBox 360 games

How many of those titles are available on both consoles however?

In regards to Bolivar's point with the AA batteries on the 360 pad. The 360 controller was designed with the idea that people would use either the play and charge rechargeable batter pack, or by putting rechargeable batteries in to the provided battery case. It was never designed with the idea that someone would be dumb enough not to adopt to that practice. However, given the fact that rechargeable batteries even lithium ion ones like the one built in to the PS3 controller degrade, lose potency and ability to hold a charge over time and use. The decision to give the controller a replaceable external battery costing around £15 for 2 recharging packs is far more consumer friendly and cost saving than Sony's decision to enforce their customers to replace the entire control pad for £45 a pop. Case in point, I have 3 different control pads for the 360. 1 came with my original 20GB hard-drive console (original option for a hard-drive. Again, the option was there for me to choose the hard-drive not a cost forced on me by default) 1 was purchased so I could play split screen multiplayer with an exgirlfriend. The 3rd pad is the black one which came with my 250gb Xbox 360s model purchased after 6 years of service from my original 20GB model caused it to RROD when playing Gears 3. I've never had to purchase another pad. I have however, had to purchase 3 packs of rechargeable AA batteries for a grand cost of £10 in 8 years or so of gaming on Xbox 360. In 5 years of owning PS3 consoles, my sister's partner has gone through 3 consoles (2 yellow lights of death compared to 1 RROD in 8 years for me on the 360) and about 10 controllers either through breakage of buttons or the battery in them going.

As for comments about Forza, Fable and Halo not being as good as we pretended in 2007?

Forza is a fantastic racing game, it took what GT did well (high resolution beautiful cars with realistic handling and race tracks) and dumped what made GT confusing, difficult for many to master and boring for others (overly technical setups & the license tests) and made it more fun. Or rather they didn't dump it, that's all in there you can spend hours tinkering with the car settings, and career mode unlocking the events and cars. However, it made the hours of painstaking amendments to settings something optional. Forza Horizon and Forza Horizon 2 have only gone and improved the series more so.

Halo 1 - Reach were pretty much unimpeachable as the king of shooting games. They still probably are. Halo 4 was made by 343 and was pretty disappointing for a solo venture without Bungie holding their hands. Ironically Bungie it seems can't do an epic shooter as well without the members of 343 industries they lost in the break up too because I'd argue Halo is better than Destiny in every way. Halo 4 was still a fairly solid game and early hands on reports about Halo 5's multiplayer lead me to think that gameplay wise Halo 5 will be a stronger entry again even if the story is not up to the standards set originally.

Fable? Well that's a mixed bag of Molyneux really. Fable 1 and Fable 2 were both great games, they both performed admirably in their goals though as per usual their ability to live up to the expectations set by the Molyneux hype machine was always a Fable to begin with. Fable 3 and the other Fable entries since were pretty disappointing even compared to the usual expected level of disappointment set by gamers aware of Molyneux's tendency to over hype things so fair point on this title.

That being said, Uncharted hailed as one of the best games ever on PS3 is not that great at all. It's overly scripted with no variance. If an enemy can be avoided/killed one way in a set area of the game on one play through that will never change no matter how many times you replay the game or how you try to change your play style. Which is why Uncharted isn't as great as PS3 gamers all pretended it was in 2007 - 2012.

[Pumpkin]

60% are not available on Xbox 360

One of the Xbox games is available on PS3, the other two are not

[Mirage]

two terrible consoles

2/10 would not buy again

after over 5 years of controller use, I still don't have a problem with controllers needing to be recharged annoyingly often

using AA batteries is for plebs

and anyone worth talking to are capable of changing the rechargable batteries in a DS3 anyway

[Freya]

I do prefer how the 360 controller feels in my hands compared to the ps3. But I like the bluray player and PS3 exclusives! I've had a 360 longer so I will say it is a good system.

[Bolivar]

In regards to Bolivar's point with the AA batteries on the 360 pad. The 360 controller was designed with the idea that people would use either the play and charge rechargeable batter pack, or by putting rechargeable batteries in to the provided battery case. It was never designed with the idea that someone would be dumb enough not to adopt to that practice. However, given the fact that rechargeable batteries even lithium ion ones like the one built in to the PS3 controller degrade, lose potency and ability to hold a charge over time and use. The decision to give the controller a replaceable external battery costing around £15 for 2 recharging packs is far more consumer friendly and cost saving than Sony's decision to enforce their customers to replace the entire control pad for £45 a pop. Case in point, I have 3 different control pads for the 360. 1 came with my original 20GB hard-drive console (original option for a hard-drive. Again, the option was there for me to choose the hard-drive not a cost forced on me by default) 1 was purchased so I could play split screen multiplayer with an exgirlfriend. The 3rd pad is the black one which came with my 250gb Xbox 360s model purchased after 6 years of service from my original 20GB model caused it to RROD when playing Gears 3. I've never had to purchase another pad. I have however, had to purchase 3 packs of rechargeable AA batteries for a grand cost of £10 in 8 years or so of gaming on Xbox 360. In 5 years of owning PS3 consoles, my sister's partner has gone through 3 consoles (2 yellow lights of death compared to 1 RROD in 8 years for me on the 360) and about 10 controllers either through breakage of buttons or the battery in them going.

I honestly don't think it's too big of a deal but it is ironic that you call it more consumer friendly to expect people to go out and buy extra peripherals instead of being "dumb enough," as you put it, to use the controller as intended out of the box. It's actually very emblematic of the 360 era, charging customers extra to use products and services they already owned, such as the multiplayer segments of their full price games or the Netflix subscriptions they already paid for. I, too, owned 3 controllers for my system, one being a launch Sixaxis that came with my refurbished console. Maybe the lithium ion batteries truly have degraded as you say; I honestly haven't noticed.

As for the games, that's your opinion but you just can't say Halo 1 - Reach were the "unimpeachable" kings of shooters when Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike and now Call of Duty are/were each far and away more popular than Halo ever was. I can't say too much about Fable, so maybe I am trolling a bit there :p but the Forza hype really needs to stop. Once in the game library at PAX East, I played Forza 3 and GT 5 Prologue side by side using a racing wheel and I can tell you Forza is nowhere near being in the same galaxy as Gran Turismo.

[Ayen]

I get the issue with the PS3 controller when it's brand new, but once I broke it in it felt just as good as the last two controllers they had. I spent four months playing nothing but PS3 games which really smurfed with me when I went back to my Xbox.

[Pike]

I love Xbox 360 controllers. PlayStation controllers are good too but I feel like mine always break.

[CimminyCricket]

If we are going off of looks, I have to go 360. I have the R2D2 model and it's the ​beep whistle.

[Galuf]

i love xbox, halo 2 itself is my 2nd fav game ever. anyways. yeah xbox

ps3 is cool aswell but eh