Which one's better? PS3, 360 or Wii?

[MattKestrel]

Um, neither? I'm just glad they're making a profit, and felt what you said goes without saying since I was wrong in that respect. Of course that's true, I'm surprised I didn't think of that as a reason earlier. [/non-sarcasm]

[Ad]

I have to say that the Wii walks this. Great for parties, but also houses a good deal of decent single player titles. So what if there's a lot of crap in its catalogue? No-one's forcing you to buy it.
I think this is affirmed by the fact that the other two could be easily replaced with a PC. If graphics make you weak at the knees, it's certainly the wisest option. Although if I had to pick, it'd be the PS3; it's a more reliable, more powerful console, with better exclusives in my eyes.

[Drathmoore]

Although if I had to pick, it'd be the PS3; it's a more reliable, more powerful console, with better exclusives in my eyes.

Gran Turismo 5 ftw.

And anyone who wants further backing up that the Wii is greater than the Xbox 360 [cough]Matt[/cough], check out this: http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6172235.htm ... lt;title;4

Note: The article was published in 2007, so it was a while back.

[smartalco]

Gran Turismo 5 ftw.

Maybe when they actually release GT5, but GT5 prologue should have been 'GT5: the demo: that we are making you pay $60 for', it only has 6 tracks, doesn't have enough cars or anything else that GT3 (last version I have owned) had in abundance, and basically offers you roughly 1/10th the gameplay of GT3

[SlappyMcGee]

Gran Turismo 5 ftw.

Maybe when they actually release GT5, but GT5 prologue should have been 'GT5: the demo: that we are making you pay $60 for', it only has 6 tracks, doesn't have enough cars or anything else that GT3 (last version I have owned) had in abundance, and basically offers you roughly 1/10th the gameplay of GT3

I hate to hijack the thread, but just worth noting: Prologue was released to tide people over until the game, and the creators knew it was only like a demo. The fact that they charged 40$ or so for it was because they had to maintain online servers as well as support the game by releasing patches.

[Drathmoore]

I hate to hijack the thread, but just worth noting: Prologue was released to tide people over until the game, and the creators knew it was only like a demo. The fact that they charged 40$ or so for it was because they had to maintain online servers as well as support the game by releasing patches.

They have used the same tactic before to rake in cash (4 Prolouge), so why not do it again? (we were charged 25 GBP, which at the time worked out to be about $50. Damn expesnsive nature of the UK)

Although the main attraction I see for GT5 is the Top Gear test track. That should be good fun.


Bringing the topic back to where it should be, the GT series is one of the good things going for the PS3. Too bad it won't be out until late 2009/early 2010. As far as games go though, the PS3 really needs more than just Little Big Planet fighting for it. Remember it's got to fight Gears, Halo, and various other games on the Xbox, and in popularity terms I really don't think it can get a game to contend with the Wii; it's almost impossible to fight Mario and Zelda.

[isaacx]

Wii , im not allowed to play any game that's not E rated :(
and if it's not E rated, i have to play with adult supervision.
My parents keep my one and only T game locked away somewhere :((

[MattKestrel]

Damn, I thought this thread was lost forever... :/

Also, wow Isaacx. Nice :P

[a happy song]

The Wii is the best-selling console of all time. It's doing something right.

Yes, it's appealing to every non-gamer and selling family and party based products. Of course it's going to sell more appealing to a larger demographic.

360 has more going for it right now with xbox live and a greater catalogue. PS3 will no doubt overtake at some point, its hardware will offer more opportunity.

I don't think you can compare the Wii to 360 or the PS3: it's too lightweight, most of its appeal is directed at an entirely different market, and it's not a hardcore gaming machine like the other two.

There's no such thing as 'better' when really the choice comes down to two things:
What do you want your machine for? (party games = wii, online = 360, powerhouse gaming = PS3 - for example)
and
What exclusive titles you're interested in.

[SlappyMcGee]

The Wii is the best-selling console of all time. It's doing something right.

Yes, it's appealing to every non-gamer and selling family and party based products. Of course it's going to sell more appealing to a larger demographic.

360 has more going for it right now with xbox live and a greater catalogue. PS3 will no doubt overtake at some point, its hardware will offer more opportunity.

I don't think you can compare the Wii to 360 or the PS3: it's too lightweight, most of its appeal is directed at an entirely different market, and it's not a hardcore gaming machine like the other two.

There's no such thing as 'better' when really the choice comes down to two things:
What do you want your machine for? (party games = wii, online = 360, powerhouse gaming = PS3 - for example)
and
What exclusive titles you're interested in.

I still don't think it's fair to say online for the 360, considering Playstation owners get online free, not to mention it has a built-in wireless adapter, and our community isn't as big, but it's big enough that you never see the same guy twice unless you want to.

[a happy song]

I still don't think it's fair to say online for the 360, considering Playstation owners get online free, not to mention it has a built-in wireless adapter, and our community isn't as big, but it's big enough that you never see the same guy twice unless you want to.

True, and it works, it's just I (and most I know) find xbox live a much more refined and enjoyable experience. I've not played PS3 online for a while now though, so I can't really comment, all I know is that the general consensus still seems to be 360 > PS3 for online gaming.

If it's more comfortable for you, replace the 'online gaming' as the pro for 360 with 'larger catalogue of games', it was just meant as an example to separate the three.

[Pixon]

You cant play Super Smash Brothers Brawl on a 360 or a PS3.

Case closed.

You can't play Gears of War 2, Dead Rising, or Ace Combat 6 on a Wii.

Actually, Dead Rising is coming to Wii.

Personally, Wii is my favorite console, but I find that the online stuff on it is pretty limited. For playing online, Wii would probably lose.

[isaacx]

Wii , im not allowed to play any game that's not E rated :(
and if it's not E rated, i have to play with adult supervision.
My parents keep my one and only T game locked away somewhere :((

Wow. That's... extreme. How old are you?

Yeah im 13 years old it really sucks as i have an 8 year old brother who my parents dont want to "poison his mind" with all kinds of shit. Of course that doesnt stop me from doing whatever i want on a computer

[smartalco]

I still don't think it's fair to say online for the 360, considering Playstation owners get online free, not to mention it has a built-in wireless adapter, and our community isn't as big, but it's big enough that you never see the same guy twice unless you want to.

There is a reason it is free, and it is because Sony hasn't spent nearly as much time on it as MS has on Live. Live is just so well integrated into every major game and works so flawlessly (most of the time) that Sony can't really afford to make something that works that well without charging (using Live with games that have actually taken it into account works just as well as Steam, which is also awesome)

[SlappyMcGee]

I still don't think it's fair to say online for the 360, considering Playstation owners get online free, not to mention it has a built-in wireless adapter, and our community isn't as big, but it's big enough that you never see the same guy twice unless you want to.

There is a reason it is free, and it is because Sony hasn't spent nearly as much time on it as MS has on Live. Live is just so well integrated into every major game and works so flawlessly (most of the time) that Sony can't really afford to make something that works that well without charging (using Live with games that have actually taken it into account works just as well as Steam, which is also awesome)

Let me not get into Steam, which has all kinds of problems.

Can I know exactly what it is about XBOX Live exactly that makes it so "integrated". I've heard time and time again about a smoother experience and about the larger XBOX 360 community. I've never had an XBOX Live account, although I've used one plenty of times, and my Dad has one, which is what I used to play N+.

So, I want to hear exactly what makes it so flawless. Let me share my experiences with both:

Playstation 3:
I've bought things using my PS3 account. My credit card never works, because they have a ridiculous "has to be identical to your bill including caps and punctuation" policy, so I bought pre-paid cards, which was simple enough. Still, that was a con. The store was otherwise extremely efficient, and announced to me what was new and let me browse in various ways. The prices were pretty competitive to my experiences on the other two consoles. The Wii continues to be the cheapest, but the PS3 prices were good. I've bought several games as well as 300$ worth of Rock Band content.

Well playing online, I have -never-, ever experienced any lag. In fact, I've only ever had three problems:
1. Call of Duty 4 required me to open ports to play at some point. This wasn't a problem at all, because setting a static IP address with my PS3 is an extremely simple process, even for the non-tech savy. And it's all done wirelessly with my built-in adapter.
2. Occasionally, I have trouble finding opponents in NHL '09, but I've also seen this problem on the XBOX 360 version of the same game, so I fault EA for that one.
3. Playstation has some weird policies, where your screen-name can't have certain attributes, and it's actually kind of difficult to create a Playstation account. But you only have to do that once, and I got a nick I'm satisfied with.

Oh, and it serves to mention, adding friends and voice chat is perfectly functional.

Otherwise, online play has been stellar. And as I've mentioned before, our community may not be as large, but I would never know, because you can't have contact with that many people.

That said, my experience with the XBOX has been similarly good. I've had some problems playing GH3, but nothing to write about.

So, this is my complaint. Are you XBOXheads trying to justify that the Xbox Live service is better because you're paying for it and don't want to feel bad? Because knowing that the PS3 has free online, and IMO an extremely comparable experience, I don't see why you guys can constantly spout about a smoother experience. If anything, you have more games that take advantage of XBOX live, but that goes back to a game selection thing, which I admit the XBOX takes.

So, feedback? Is there something I'm missing, some illustrious feature on the 360 that I don't get? Because I look at both, and I think they are the same God-damn thing, but that you pay for one.

(Also, I feel like bringing up again, Microsoft won't let free content from developers into the shop on the XBOX. Which seems ridiculous to me.)

[scythe]

Yeah im 13 years old it really sucks as i have an 8 year old brother who my parents dont want to "poison his mind" with all kinds of shit. Of course that doesnt stop me from doing whatever i want on a computer

something awful dot com

the larger XBOX 360 community

I don't know who you've been talking to, but my experience along with that of everyone I know tells me that xbox live is most certainly not a community.

My experience with Xbox Live has been, with the exception of a third of the userbase, mostly positive. Playing Call of Duty 4 online on the PS3 has worked pretty well for me as well; however, I've only ever gone online with my friend's PS3 as I'm far too cheap to buy one. I'm not big on pretty graphics myself; I bought an Xbox 360 before the ps3 came out and I have to say I'm okay with my decision.

[Drathmoore]

Otherwise, online play has been stellar. And as I've mentioned before, our community may not be as large, but I would never know, because you can't have contact with that many people.

That said, my experience with the XBOX has been similarly good. I've had some problems playing GH3, but nothing to write about.

So, this is my complaint. Are you XBOXheads trying to justify that the Xbox Live service is better because you're paying for it and don't want to feel bad? Because knowing that the PS3 has free online, and IMO an extremely comparable experience, I don't see why you guys can constantly spout about a smoother experience. If anything, you have more games that take advantage of XBOX live, but that goes back to a game selection thing, which I admit the XBOX takes.

I think a lot of Xbox live users have not actually played on PS3 online. Come to think of it, a lot of people say the PS3 is much more expensive, while forking out about 35 GBP a year on Xbox live. So after a few years, PS3 kinda pays off for itself. I've had no problems with the store; it seems relatively quick and easy. I haven't played any games on it, however, so I can't comment on that.

It does have a built-in internet browser, and although the Wii also has this, PS3 owners don't have to pay for the browser (well, I downloaded the beta while it was free, so got the browser free anyway, but meh). The browser for PS3 is also much more up-to-date, carrying Flash 9 or 10. The Wii is supposed to be getting an internet update, but it's about 2 months late already...

the larger XBOX 360 community

I don't know who you've been talking to, but my experience along with that of everyone I know tells me that xbox live is most certainly not a community.

Too true; it's mainly people swaring all the time, being too cocky at a game for their own good, abusing glitches to cheat and beat the crap out of everyone else, and the freaking 12 year olds...

WE INVENTED THE DAMN LANGUAGE. LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH PROPERLY!

That's a message to any body that abuses English, not just the 12 year olds. Do not take this as an insult if you are learning the language, speak in a different accent (got to - gotta), etc. Its just people who deliberatly butcher the language.

Of course, I haven't played PS3 online, so I don't know whether it's better or not. However, if Home is anything to go by... its not.

[MattKestrel]

I think a lot of Xbox live users have not actually played on PS3 online. Come to think of it, a lot of people say the PS3 is much more expensive, while forking out about 35 GBP a year on Xbox live. So after a few years, PS3 kinda pays off for itself. I've had no problems with the store; it seems relatively quick and easy. I haven't played any games on it, however, so I can't comment on that.

Bwahahahaha. As I've said before about 40 posts ago, although PS3 does eventually recoup it's loses, it would take so long to do so that by then it would have become relatively obsolete. £300 for an Xbox 360 and five games is perfectly possible, whilst for £300 you'd be lucky to get a PS3 on it's own. You'd have to pay around £450 for the console and five games, if I'm being optimistic. And with Live at £40 a year, that means the PS3 only becomes cheaper circa 2013. :/

[Drathmoore]

I think a lot of Xbox live users have not actually played on PS3 online. Come to think of it, a lot of people say the PS3 is much more expensive, while forking out about 35 GBP a year on Xbox live. So after a few years, PS3 kinda pays off for itself. I've had no problems with the store; it seems relatively quick and easy. I haven't played any games on it, however, so I can't comment on that.

Bwahahahaha. As I've said before about 40 posts ago, although PS3 does eventually recoup it's loses, it would take so long to do so that by then it would have become relatively obsolete. £300 for an Xbox 360 and five games is perfectly possible, whilst for £300 you'd be lucky to get a PS3 on it's own. You'd have to pay around £450 for the console and five games, if I'm being optimistic. And with Live at £40 a year, that means the PS3 only becomes cheaper circa 2013. :/

You can get a bog-standard 40GB PS3 for 250 Pounds (my pound-sign button seems to be not working, so excuse me there), in fact and 80GB PS3 with Little Big Planet and GTA IV will only set you back 310 pounds at GAME.

Just because you can beat me doesn't make your maths flawless damnit (that's an inside joke, don't worry if you don't get it).

[ninja143]

To add my quip to this i feel that they all have their likes and dislikes. the Wii has its fun times when the game is interactive and interesting, however if you wernt able to hit the sensor bar then your remote wont move.
the PS3 isnt bad but its another PS product, just better graphics,
the 360 is fun, nice graphics and has a better design then the original XBOX, but it can be irritating when the manufacturing goes bad and you get a virus on Live.

so really they all have their own quirks to each of them. so no partialities

[behappyy]

If you have an HD TV, an ethernet cable the PS3 can have really good graphics an amazing quality. It could also have a pretty good internet connection with the ethernet cable. I'm not sure if if you can use those with the xbox though.

[Drathmoore]

If you have an HD TV, an ethernet cable the PS3 can have really good graphics an amazing quality. It could also have a pretty good internet connection with the ethernet cable. I'm not sure if if you can use those with the xbox though.

You can use an ethernet cable with the Xbox; for a while we had to. Which is a plus for the PS3 and Wii, as they have built in Wireless.

[gr_8]

all i have to say is really, SONY GUTS.

Microsoft are nothing compared to the high-techness of SONY. oh, and also, Blue-ray, that alone is worth the extra cash.
i'll admit that there are somethings i'd of preferred to have the Xbox for, i.e. some of the games (Fallout 3 operation anchorage being an example of this), however the games that are exclusive for the ps3 are, in many people's opinion, better than those exclusive for the xbox.
also, for those saying that the xbox is loads cheaper than the ps3, so it is the logical choice, well - im sorry it just isn't. If you buy a console, todays games basically require online to get out their full potential, so no matter what console you buy you should be looking to get online (i think you can see were this is going). Yes the ps3 is more expensive than the xbox to start with but the fact you have to pay for LIVE will mena that soon you will be paying more for the xbox, as ps3 online is free. And that still makes me laugh out loud. *Ha*.

[T3chno]

all i have to say is really, SONY GUTS.

Microsoft are nothing compared to the high-techness of SONY. oh, and also, Blue-ray, that alone is worth the extra cash.
i'll admit that there are somethings i'd of preferred to have the Xbox for, i.e. some of the games (Fallout 3 operation anchorage being an example of this), however the games that are exclusive for the ps3 are, in many people's opinion, better than those exclusive for the xbox.
also, for those saying that the xbox is loads cheaper than the ps3, so it is the logical choice, well - im sorry it just isn't. If you buy a console, todays games basically require online to get out their full potential, so no matter what console you buy you should be looking to get online (i think you can see were this is going). Yes the ps3 is more expensive than the xbox to start with but the fact you have to pay for LIVE will mena that soon you will be paying more for the xbox, as ps3 online is free. And that still makes me laugh out loud. *Ha*.

Please, Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em

[Drathmoore]

all i have to say is really, SONY GUTS.

Microsoft are nothing compared to the high-techness of SONY. oh, and also, Blue-ray, that alone is worth the extra cash.
i'll admit that there are somethings i'd of preferred to have the Xbox for, i.e. some of the games (Fallout 3 operation anchorage being an example of this), however the games that are exclusive for the ps3 are, in many people's opinion, better than those exclusive for the xbox.
also, for those saying that the xbox is loads cheaper than the ps3, so it is the logical choice, well - im sorry it just isn't. If you buy a console, todays games basically require online to get out their full potential, so no matter what console you buy you should be looking to get online (i think you can see were this is going). Yes the ps3 is more expensive than the xbox to start with but the fact you have to pay for LIVE will mena that soon you will be paying more for the xbox, as ps3 online is free. And that still makes me laugh out loud. *Ha*.

Choice of games: Completely opinion. Doesn't matter, depends on what you like
Online: As GTM had already pointed out, yes, the internet is free, but:

"although PS3 does eventually recoup it's loses, it would take so long to do so that by then it would have become relatively obsolete... And with Live at £40 a year, that means the PS3 only becomes cheaper circa 2013"