who the hell wants all that though?
Wii? Great graphics? haha. sure. upgraded gamecube thanks.FFLink13 wrote:
who the hell wants all that though?
ps3 = gamers who play games for graphics and not so much for gameplay.
360 = hardcore gamers who love the best games for gameplayer and not too bothered about graphics.
wii = fun games that everyone can enjoy with great graphics and even better gameplay.
winner = wii
First of all, for someone that gets off with spelling errors let me just point out that the word "Know" is not spelled "kno" and you need to replace the word "you" with the word "your" (3rd word second line). Also, I would like to know the source of your "2.5 times better" AI claim, because it looks like a number that some fan-boy bad up so he could look smarter. Lets also go back to your scenario of the "good" PS3 being the same price as the "good" 360. In this situation I would still choose the 360 because of the better on-line components and the fact that developers are praising the ease of development that they are experiencing with the system. Back to reality now; with the PS3 at $600 for the "good" version you are forced into a package you might not want. If you get the "good" 360 then you don't have to get the HD-DVD drive if you don't wish to and if you don't fill the standard HD then you don't' have to get the newer, larger HD drives for the system. So to sum up my message to you, the blind Sony fan-boy, the 360 offers custom-ability and flexibility while the PS3 is "what you see is what you get." Don't get me wrong though, the PS3 is a fantastic machine and I do plan on purchasing one when I get the chance just for the time being I have no incentive to as Final Fantasy bores me, Forza is a better racing game (why GT cant have car damage is beyond me) and Gears of War currently is the best looking game that I have ever seen and nothing from the PS3 has looked as good so far (yes even MGS 4 doesn't look as good as gears). So, basically you are a blind Sony fan-boy that knows nothing about consoles and has the foresight of a blind dog with rabies.buttered noodle wrote:
you need to do research, the PS3 has a core processor that delegates threads to 8 other processors on the die, so by you logic the PS3 AI will be over 2.5 times better, and then lets take a look at pricing, lets say you take away $200 from the PS3 so that makes the PS3 with the 60 gig and all its other integrated equipment the same as the less functional small capacity 20 gig 360, hmmm, you know, if u cant dish out at least and extra hundred bucks how the fuck do you expect to buy more than 1 or 2 of the $50 dollar games or multiple controllers and what not? So basically you dont kno anything about the consoles themselves and have the foresight of a blind dog.Pernicious544 wrote:
The main advantage of the 360 is the fact that it can be upgraded. Most people don't really look at this fact but here is what makes the 360 the better console...Don't have $400 for the premium? get a core and upgrade it later. With the PS3 you HAVE to spend $500 to get the gimped version with an internal, non-removable hard drive. The graphics are the same yet the AI will be better on the 360 because of its 3 cores in the processor. 360>PS3
P.S. amkes is spelled makes and removeable is spelled removable
Um, GoW is longer then 8 hours. Have you even played it? Because if you had you would know that the 8 player multiplayer games are some of the best on the planet. Why dont you play the game before you talk crap about itE7IX3R wrote:
Wii? Great graphics? haha. sure. upgraded gamecube thanks.FFLink13 wrote:
who the hell wants all that though?
ps3 = gamers who play games for graphics and not so much for gameplay.
360 = hardcore gamers who love the best games for gameplayer and not too bothered about graphics.
wii = fun games that everyone can enjoy with great graphics and even better gameplay.
winner = wii
"360 = hardcore gamers who love the best games for gameplayer and not too bothered about graphics."
Sure. Thats why so many people have been suckered into GeoW because of the graphics. 8 Hours in single player and only 8 players online. Not appealing at all. A year after release and only now have 360 players got their "killer app"
Where as Resistance: Fall of man, scored 9.1 on IGN, it's a release title and has up to 40 players online, Single player story that is 14+ hours and yet the graphics arent amazing (being a release title, but this is expected)
and not forgetting RR7 earning a 9+ on all reviews.
PS3 sold out in japan before it even went on sale, nobody is buying 360 in japan, They are buying PS3, Wii and FF12
And so why did Sony get scared and put motion-sensing technology in their controller? And now I guess you'll say it's a great piece of new technology. Weird, that (!) And please - you can't say that your 'old-gen' games were terrible. I think a fact that a lot of gamers (and mostly, sad to say, PlayStation fanatics) have forgotten is that graphics do not make a game. They can only improve it so far. And I guess quite a few of you will be coming from 'good times' with the PS2 - especially those of you who do not count the Wii as 'truly next-gen' because of it's lesser raw processing and graphical prowess. Yet, if I were to judge the 'old-gen' on your own terms the PS2 would not have truly been 'next-gen' at the time - know the reason? Out of the Xbox, GC and PS2 it had the least (yes, you read that correctly) power of the aforementioned three. I'm sure many of you will be dumbstruck - phrases I expect to be flung immediately are "What? The PS2 was better than the 'Baby-Cube'!" Well, I'm afraid (or am I?) that you are actually wrong. So, by your own admitted terms the PS2 wasn't truly 'next-gen' - so why did it sell the best? It just goes to show that the 'worst' console can actually be the best selling (while not neccessarily being ther most innovative). High definition take-up is only about 10-15% in the US and the UK (and most other countries - if not less), so standard definition is not neccessarily a bad move. It means that anyone can use it. Also, the graphics are roughly Xbox1.4 (and the Xbox had pretty good graphics when you get down to it). We all have good PC's here so there isn't any point in the Xbox360 or PlayStation3, the Wii takes the trade in a totally different direction that is innovative and FUN. If you learn anything from this, I hope you'll learn the lesson never to forget that games are solely about being fun. And nothing else compares.RedTwizzler wrote:
The only system that dares to go standard definition. After the novelty wears off, the system will be utterly useless.topthrill05 wrote:
Wii for the win. Why?
The ONLY system that dares too be different.
