[Cause]

So I have not owned a console since Sega. Maybe I aged before my time but I said to myself they want R6000 for a gaming console, R600 for a game? Back in my day kid you bought the game for a 100 and the console for 500 (Im 22). It seemed mad. I had to own a PC anyway and could use if for gaming. All that said consoles provide social gaming. You can have friends over and play toghether. And well soe games just dont make it to PC and my TV screen is bigger and well Im starting to think maybe I should get in on the game.

So 2 questions:

Do I want a console?

Xbox or PS3?

[Jusentantaka]

Those prices are beyond absurd. That's close enough to 1 grand US for a 3 year old console? hell no. Even a PS3 only runs about three hundred here now, and that's the more expensive of the two. If those prices are right, then no, you really don't want one, unless the money's no issue.

If you have to have one though, the 360 has the better 'social' games (exclusive to a 360 anyway- Gears of War, Dumblo, CoD... kinda. its identical to the PC version really) while I think the PS3 has better play-with-yourself games. (God of War, Infamous, and the other one someone else will probably mention whose name I forget)

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 01 December 2009 - 11:25 PM

[Cause]

Well currently a PS3 is 3600 for the new slim line model. It will come with 2 controllers and 2 older games. Its about 450 dollars at the current exhcnage rate I think. It only cost 6000 when it first came out but yeah it just seemed too much money back than. I got a bursary for honours and honours is now over and I never spen the money andI thought lets get a console maybe. I just worry if its worth it and which is better.

Though, and Im not kidding, unless FF 13 comes out on X box as well that in itself might mean the x box is out of the running. My friend had a ps2 and FFX and that was the greatest game I have ever seen. Period.

[Jusentantaka]

Cause, on 02 December 2009 - 12:37 AM, said:

Well currently a PS3 is 3600 for the new slim line model. It will come with 2 controllers and 2 older games. Its about 450 dollars at the current exhcnage rate I think. It only cost 6000 when it first came out but yeah it just seemed too much money back than. I got a bursary for honours and honours is now over and I never spen the money andI thought lets get a console maybe. I just worry if its worth it and which is better.

Though, and Im not kidding, unless FF 13 comes out on X box as well that in itself might mean the x box is out of the running. My friend had a ps2 and FFX and that was the greatest game I have ever seen. Period.

They said in a press release somewhere they would be releasing ff13 on 360 and ps3 (which really makes me wonder why they arent going to put out a PC port too, cause 360=windows, and if capcom can do it, anyone can) I'll probably be passing on it unless I suddenly become in the mood for that sort of thang, so I haven't checked up on it. if youre getting games and controllers, and its a new system, 450 isnt nearly as bad as I though. Unless the games suck. Also, FF13 isn't coming out for like 6? months I think, so the price will probably drop again before then.

Also, FFXII was better than X. It just was.

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 02 December 2009 - 12:52 AM

[Cause]

Never got to play 12. Im sure I would have loved it.

[bubba]

the only reason I bought a PS3 was for the blueray player. I wish I had the money to upgrade my PC.

[Jusentantaka]

Bubba, on 02 December 2009 - 01:11 AM, said:

the only reason I bought a PS3 was for the blueray player. I wish I had the money to upgrade my PC.

hold on. A PS3 runs close to twice the price of a bluray drive, how's that work?

Quote

Never got to play 12. Im sure I would have loved it.

That's another plus for the PS3, all older playstation games will work on it, rather than the 360s list of 'some' meaning Halo, and a bunch of games no one cares about. And the graphics. Bluray. superiority of controllers. better games...

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 02 December 2009 - 01:52 AM

[Silencer]

Consoles are good fun for social gaming, as you say. It depends though - we're talking maybe two sessions a month max, of more than two people playing together (which is where the real fun lies in Xbox, and for that you need 4 controllers, ofc, and if the screen isn't rather large, 37" being the sort-of-minimum, then it becomes a waste), and if that's worth it to you or not.

Games are quite well spread over the two consoles - PS3 has blu-ray capability which is ++, xbox tends to get more polish on its games (*cough*Fallout 3*cough*), meaning less bugs and *sometimes* superior graphical quality...depending on who you talk to. One could say, the question is whether you prefer Halo 3/Gears of War, or Resistance 2 (and God of War 3 for single-player).

Tbh, I could go either way, 'cept more of my friends have 360's, which means more easily obtained controllers and multiple consoles and games (lucky enough to have two large screens in close proximity, so the occasional 6 or 8 player 24 hour game fest is great fun...but you do need duplicate copies of each game).
Other thing is, PS3 games tend to cost slightly more...though with both the games cost more than PC anyway.

In brief: it's up to your taste in games, and your friends. PC will always be the best single-player, high-quality, intensive graphics king...if you can afford the upgrades, ofc. But multiplayer runs much better in a social setting, and finding friends with high-end PC's to LAN is harder than finding fellow console gamers.

Additional note: Xbox Live costs - that is to say, the online multiplayer component of the Xbox. PS Network doesn't, afaik. But that's only relevant if you're into online gaming. And have sufficient broadband for it.

[Jusentantaka]

Ah! Resistance, thats the one I was forgetting.

other than that, How do you play on a 37" tv? doesn't the blatant lack of MSAA turn your eyes all achey and sad?

[Sixty]

Jusentantaka, on 02 December 2009 - 01:49 AM, said:

Bubba, on 02 December 2009 - 01:11 AM, said:

the only reason I bought a PS3 was for the blueray player. I wish I had the money to upgrade my PC.

hold on. A PS3 runs close to twice the price of a bluray drive, how's that work?

Quote

Never got to play 12. Im sure I would have loved it.

That's another plus for the PS3, all older playstation games will work on it, rather than the 360s list of 'some' meaning Halo, and a bunch of games no one cares about. And the graphics. Bluray. superiority of controllers. better games...

It didn't always use to be that way. I think that when PS3's first came out they cost about as much as a bluray drive at the time.

Also, I find dualshock controllers extremely uncomfortable to use. Maybe they've improved the PS3 controllers over the PS2, but having both analog sticks on the bottom always felt very uncomfortable to play with.

[bubba]

Quote

hold on. A PS3 runs close to twice the price of a bluray drive, how's that work?

When I bought it, a decent blueray player was still running in the $400 range. You could buy a $250 non-upgradeable player then, but it wasn't worth it IMMUHO.

Quote

all older playstation games will work on it,

Not on mine afaik


And I should reword it. Blueray was the deciding factor over Xbox 360

[Silencer]

@Sixty, haven't you heard? The PS3 'sixaxis' controller is identical to the PS2 controller. Identical. Only new feature? You can tilt your controller and it will sometimes, in some games, do something useless.

And I used to be a PS2 player, preferred the dualshock over the chunky xbox controller. 360 changed that.

As for a 37"...dude, how big a screen can you need? 720p is basically equivalent to 1080p, in terms of resolution, as you can't get 1080p on anything smaller than a 50" (for the most part, in any case), so you're just getting more pixels spread over more area = no gain. As for MSAA, I can't say there is much effect on my gaming, tbh. Hell, does Assassin's Creed even use anti-aliasing? That game still looks damn good, despite the flaws of its graphics system.

[Jusentantaka]

Silencer, on 02 December 2009 - 04:14 AM, said:

@Sixty, haven't you heard? The PS3 'sixaxis' controller is identical to the PS2 controller. Identical. Only new feature? You can tilt your controller and it will sometimes, in some games, do something useless.

And I used to be a PS2 player, preferred the dualshock over the chunky xbox controller. 360 changed that.

As for a 37"...dude, how big a screen can you need? 720p is basically equivalent to 1080p, in terms of resolution, as you can't get 1080p on anything smaller than a 50" (for the most part, in any case), so you're just getting more pixels spread over more area = no gain. As for MSAA, I can't say there is much effect on my gaming, tbh. Hell, does Assassin's Creed even use anti-aliasing? That game still looks damn good, despite the flaws of its graphics system.

Guess it depends how far back you are from the screen. Or how close in this case. TVs are for sitting back. way back if possible imo. And divide the screen by 4 and you're hunched over squinting at the screen on anything less than the upper 40's, inchwise. No way are my gorgeous 20/10 eyes getting ruined because I have to sit 5 feet from a tv to play.

And 360 doesnt use any form of anti-aliasing at all. Dunno if the PS3 can, would almost expect it for the original pricetag they were demanding. I'd suspect the hardware on the 360 isn't capable of doing AA without ruining its frame rates so its coded off. Or something like that. Noticeable when you are used to 8xAA, 16xAF and ATIs very nice smoothing code on the PC. Never understood how people can't see the difference. *sigh*

But! If you're by yourself, no split screen or nothin, 37" might even be bigger than 'necessary' imo, since that's plenty of screen space.

360 controller is better, marginally, than the PS3's, And I can pull it out and stick it into mmmm... my PC without any fuss, buuuut... it is still functional and not hard to get used to once you start using it, so that's an awfully terrible reason to choose one over the other.

[Cause]

Jusentantaka, on 02 December 2009 - 01:49 AM, said:

Bubba, on 02 December 2009 - 01:11 AM, said:

the only reason I bought a PS3 was for the blueray player. I wish I had the money to upgrade my PC.

hold on. A PS3 runs close to twice the price of a bluray drive, how's that work?

Quote

Never got to play 12. Im sure I would have loved it.

That's another plus for the PS3, all older playstation games will work on it, rather than the 360s list of 'some' meaning Halo, and a bunch of games no one cares about. And the graphics. Bluray. superiority of controllers. better games...

I thought the thing was in fact not back compatible?

[Silencer]

Jusentantaka, on 02 December 2009 - 05:23 AM, said:

Silencer, on 02 December 2009 - 04:14 AM, said:

@Sixty, haven't you heard? The PS3 'sixaxis' controller is identical to the PS2 controller. Identical. Only new feature? You can tilt your controller and it will sometimes, in some games, do something useless.

And I used to be a PS2 player, preferred the dualshock over the chunky xbox controller. 360 changed that.

As for a 37"...dude, how big a screen can you need? 720p is basically equivalent to 1080p, in terms of resolution, as you can't get 1080p on anything smaller than a 50" (for the most part, in any case), so you're just getting more pixels spread over more area = no gain. As for MSAA, I can't say there is much effect on my gaming, tbh. Hell, does Assassin's Creed even use anti-aliasing? That game still looks damn good, despite the flaws of its graphics system.

Guess it depends how far back you are from the screen. Or how close in this case. TVs are for sitting back. way back if possible imo. And divide the screen by 4 and you're hunched over squinting at the screen on anything less than the upper 40's, inchwise. No way are my gorgeous 20/10 eyes getting ruined because I have to sit 5 feet from a tv to play.

And 360 doesnt use any form of anti-aliasing at all. Dunno if the PS3 can, would almost expect it for the original pricetag they were demanding. I'd suspect the hardware on the 360 isn't capable of doing AA without ruining its frame rates so its coded off. Or something like that. Noticeable when you are used to 8xAA, 16xAF and ATIs very nice smoothing code on the PC. Never understood how people can't see the difference. *sigh*

But! If you're by yourself, no split screen or nothin, 37" might even be bigger than 'necessary' imo, since that's plenty of screen space.

360 controller is better, marginally, than the PS3's, And I can pull it out and stick it into mmmm... my PC without any fuss, buuuut... it is still functional and not hard to get used to once you start using it, so that's an awfully terrible reason to choose one over the other.

Eh, I'm a PC gamer myself, but I'd argue that any time you're playing on a 17"+ screen that has a resolution of, say, 1280*800...if your card can handle it, it's going to look better on the PC than it is on the TV. It's basically a pixels per area thing. But the point is, the consoles manage fine as they are, considering they're outputting to a much larger screen.
I've got a 2.4GHz quad-core, 4GB RAM, and 8800GTX rig set up, which looks phenomenal with all the settings maxed out on a 20" screen with good resolution. It runs like a charm, too. Put that onto a 40" screen? The frame rate drops considerably, on some games (depending on code optimisation), you even have to reduce graphics quality to get a really decent fps. So, yeah, chances are the consoles mostly drop the higher-tier graphical effects. XD

And we certainly don't have to squint when we've got four-player split screen on a 37", and definitely not on the 42". But seriously, how big a TV would you suggest for four-player split, and how much does that cost? D:
(For reference, I sit 7' from the 37", even with split screen)

[Illuyankas]

See, my friend has a 11' projector, which is the superior gaming screen. All you need is a spare wall.

[Bonesaw85]

Get a PS3...... I used to be all about the Xbox until Blueray won the race and 3 shitboxes broke down on me. IMO The only thing better about xbox are the controllers and a couple of the exclusive games.

Free Blueray player and internet usage FTW!!!


And yes, you want a console

This post has been edited by Bonesaw85: 02 December 2009 - 08:04 AM

[drinksinbars]

Jusentantaka, on 02 December 2009 - 01:49 AM, said:

Bubba, on 02 December 2009 - 01:11 AM, said:

the only reason I bought a PS3 was for the blueray player. I wish I had the money to upgrade my PC.

hold on. A PS3 runs close to twice the price of a bluray drive, how's that work?

Quote

Never got to play 12. Im sure I would have loved it.

That's another plus for the PS3, all older playstation games will work on it, rather than the 360s list of 'some' meaning Halo, and a bunch of games no one cares about. And the graphics. Bluray. superiority of controllers. better games...

fraid thats just blatantly untrue the playstation 3 doesnt have backward compatability anymore. i have one and can verify that. it was only the early models that did. i have both consoles and it is really what you are looking for. the ps3 has some good exclusives (uncharted, killzone and mgs) but so does the xbox. also games which appear on both tend to be better on the xbox (ghostbusters and assassins creed 2 being the two recent entries which varied greatly).

ff13 is coming out for both on march 10th.

If i had neither, i would get the xbox. the online is much better, there are more games and any cross platform ones work better. the controller is also far superior.

@silencer - there is now talk that ps3 will rn a subscription to cover the cost of the psn, though they claimed current services wont be affected.

@cause - i dont tend to use the bluray in mine that often, but if its a factor then obviously its a big plus, rthe only problem is the cost of blurays is ridiculous over here, what are they like where you live?

This post has been edited by drinksinbars: 02 December 2009 - 08:56 AM

[alt146]

AFAIK the PS3 is not backwards compatible - I remember there was a bit of an uproar about that when the console was just released.

I would say PS3 partly for the Blu-Ray and partly because a lot of Xbox games do make it onto the PC now days anyway. And while you do need a decent screen, unless you're either looking for bragging rights or plan on having tons of people over to play games often a 37" 720p screen is fine (You can get decent ones from Makro for about R5000 last time I checked).

@Silencer - 1200x800 isn't a particularly high resolution - it's around the max that 17" monitors can handle (mine can only run up to 1280x1024) but a 40" will have a native resolution of 1920x1080 or 1680x720, which means your PC will have to work much harder and your framerate drops. Newer graphics cards are supposed to be able to handle gaming at resolutions up to ridiculous resolutions in the region of (2500x1500). At the end of the day though, the PS3 has the equivalent of a 7000 or 8000 series GPU, so you wont get the same graphical quality as you would on a PC. Suprisingly, that's one of the reasons PC's are losing market share to consoles - most casual gamers cant afford to stay on the bleeding edge of PC hardware.

@Illy - what's the max resolution on that projector?

@Cause - whether you should get a console really depends on what you want to use it for. Casual pick-up-and-play type gaming, with occasionally watching a movie of a Blu-Ray disc or flash drive, PS3 is perfect. If you want something that can function as a hardcore gaming machine that can also function as a powerful Home Theatre system, you're better off with an HDCP compatible setup with a newish GPU.

Personally I dont game nearly enough to justify a console, and I'd rather built a Blu-Ray capable HTPC than get a PS3 just for the blu-ray drive, but that is my opinion, which I know a lot of people dont really share.

And...

Spoiler

You can pirate XBox games, but you cant pirate PS3 games AFAIK. Dont know what your stance on piracy is, but that might just swing your decision one way or the other.

[Silencer]

@DiBs, to me, and probably for a lot of people, that would *completely* kill the allure of a PS3. The online gaming is already less enjoyable than on Xbox, but the redeeming feature is that it's free. D:

@Alt - exactly, the TV is running a much higher resolution, causing much more strain on the computer. However, the other thing is that a larger screen size negates a lot of the advantage of having a higher resolution, making it pointless to be gaming on that larger screen (given the performance trade-off). Hence why PC games have scalable graphics, the high-end of which is *always* better than what you get on a console. And yes, I think you're sitting at about the max for a 17" - they might go slightly higher, but if they do it'd be a damn expensive screen. Mine's only by 800 'cuz it's a strange physical dimension (laptop, just pointing out), otherwise it'd be *1024. And my other screen (on my gaming rig), is a higher resolution, but it's also larger.