# PS3 vs. Xbox 360



## Infexxion (Jun 29, 2009)

Which do you like better and why?

And please, try to refrain from any fanboy terms or comments (Xbot, ps3tard, etc)

I own both, and I love both for different reasons. For starters, Mass Effect (the first one) is my all-time favorite game and isn't available on PS3, which is a bummer seeing as they got the second one. 

I think the Xbox 360 definitely leads the PS3 in shooters. Halo and Gears Of War are two VERY popular sci-fi shooters, and they are both very fun to play IMO, which brings me to my next point...

Xbox Live.

I think Xbox Live has a much more clear & user friendly interface then PSN, but however you dice it, you're basically paying $50 a year for cross-game chat, PSN has basically caught up in all areas, except that one.

Now, on the other hand, PS3 has such diverse exclusives, and most are very good. For shooters, Killzone and Resistance. No, they aren't as popular as Halo, but Killzone brings a gritty, realistic approach to sci fi shooters, and Resistance has a very fun campaign. Uncharted, which I'm assuming is now the premiere game for PS3, has damn near overthrown Tomb Raider as the king (queen?) of action-adventure games. Uncharted is an amazing experience, I love the story, I love the online, and Uncharted 3 is looking to blow my mind this year.

I think the 360 controller kicks the Dualshock 3's *** as far as shooters go, but for any other game, PS3 controller is the way to go. I couldn't imagine playing Mortal Kombat with that 360 D-pad, and that new controller that actually fixes the D-pad costs more than a game.

Overall, both are great consoles. It seems with this slim console, Microsoft got their act together and fixed the RROD problems, and now they're pretty much evenly matched. For online, 360 takes the cake for me with the intuitive interface and ease-of-access, plus the 360 has my favorite game of all time. But if I had to just stick with one console, I'd go with PS3. The diversity of exclusives, plus free online, is just better in my opinion.

What do you guys think?


----------



## half jaw (Mar 25, 2011)

I'll always be an Xbox guy...and the only reason is that I'm a HUGE fan of the Halo series.

Outside of that I don't really see anything from either console that makes it so much better than the other(for me atleast)


----------



## ValiantThor (Dec 6, 2010)

didnt the entire ps3 network get hacked? hmmmm. LOL nuff said. Xbox for the win. Better games, better online service, more fun.


----------



## x Faceless x (Mar 13, 2011)

If you would have asked me a couple years ago I would have definitely said the Xbox 360 was better, but now I think I prefer the PS3. I think the PS3 has better quality exclusives. Not to mention it's nice to not have to worry about my PS3 overheating every time I turn it on.


----------



## Timeofallout (Jun 23, 2010)

After my 6th red-ring I said **** you Microsoft! Now I'm a PS3 man and couldn't be happier. Although I have to admit this "anonymous" group hacking the PSN has pissed me off. 

Outside of that I think the online service is the same as XBL (pertaining to online interactions) but free. I'd also have to say the exclusives are better, and the fact that Microsoft is loosing most of there prior exclusives makes it even better. 

Overall hardware for the PS3 seems to be of a higher quality; where as headsets, and external cameras seem to be sub-par for the 360. Not to mention the fact the PS3 had built in wifi and bluray on release. 

This may all sound a bit fan-boyish, but I assure you I used the 360 for many years after release before switching to PS3. 

The one thing I will give XBL is the dedicated voice chat. That is the one and only thing that I honestly miss.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

I bought a 360 about three months ago and I use it as a DVD player 90% more than I play any games on it. Not that I play my PS3 all that much either, but much more so (it's hard to compete with 50%+ discounts on PC games online).

I have a feeling that the PS3 is in a much better position with regards to technology to outlast the 360.


----------



## Cerz (Jan 18, 2010)

People who have the 360 and going to say the 360 is best, people who have the PS3 are going to say the PS3 is the best.

I have both and can tell you that PS3 definitely has better games, online is free and it's a blu-ray player. Xbox 360 has pretty poor games and not to mention I'm on my second Xbox 360 (I don't even play it that much).

PS3 is definitely the better console. The Xbox 360 is still good.


----------



## Kennnie (Oct 21, 2010)

i have both console and i prefer my ps3


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

I have both. I prefer PS3 because I can play all my 360 games on my PC. I'm considering selling my 360. I almost sold my PS3, but I gotta play uncharted 3. I do prefer the 360 controller over the PS3's controller though.


----------



## Diacetylmorphine (Mar 9, 2011)

I prefer the PS3, my brother has a 360 I've played it a bit but i definitely prefer the PS3.

I prefer the controller since it hasn't changed much since the PS1 era, it's something i'm very comfortable with. BluRay movies are nice.

The subscription free online is a huge plus, seeing as i don't play online much on consoles it's great i can just pick up a game whenever, without having to worry about credit cards membership etc.

The PS3 exclusives are superior IMO Uncharted, Littlebigplanet, Heavy Rain, Yakuza just to name a few,most multi platform games i play on PC.

In the grand scheme of things they both have their positives and negatives, all a matter of preference.


----------



## successful (Mar 21, 2009)

I had both ps3 & xbox360. Traded in 360 towards a PS3 a few years back because every xbox replacement i had broke,had ring of death,or overheated. Anyway i like ps3 better because it have better games & better looking graphics.
The only thing i liked about the 360 was xbl. xbl sh1ts on psn..other then that ps3 is better in every other way.

xbox=better online experience.
PS3=Better games, better graphics, & better system.


----------



## angus (Dec 18, 2010)

PS3 is just better, I don't know why. It's like comparing Lambo's and Ferrari's, Lambo's are definetly better but I can't explain why.


----------



## tlgibson97 (Sep 24, 2009)

I've never owned an xbox so I will pick PS3. I'm not a fanboy, I just never saw the point in having multiple consoles. The exclusives were never enough to justify spending all the money on another console just to play a few games.

I've still got a 60GB ps3 from launch still running with no problems so there has never been a reason for sony to make me want to switch. I tend to stick with somethign until it gives me a reason not to. I've always had bad luck when it comes to switching companies hoping for somethign better. It always ends up worse.


----------



## Noll (Mar 29, 2011)

Who cares, PC will always be better.


----------



## Weird Fishes (Feb 2, 2011)

But they're more expensive and less user friendly ... apart from that PC games are definitely better unless they were designed for consoles and released for PC as an after-thought. With consoles I had PS2(s) for ages, then the Xbox 360 came out and I got one ... didn't use it much ... sold it, got given it back when it broke a few days later, and sold the replacement. Then I got another Xbox a few years later - when my PC stopped working properly - just because the PS3 was still stupidly expensive at the time.


----------



## sleepytime (Feb 18, 2011)

I've got an Xbox 360 i don't use too much anymore. Most of the games I play are available on both platforms so I'd prefer to have a PS3 simply because the online service is free and it comes with a bluray player.


----------



## Infexxion (Jun 29, 2009)

ObamaGoesPostal said:


> Who cares, PC will always be better.


I'm not so sure that is the case. Game developers seem to be getting almost completely biased towards consoles. Modern Warfare 2 lost dedicated servers, Crysis 2 was dumbed down for consoles, the PC is getting late ports of very popular games like Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto IV, and now Rockstar hasn't even released their two latest titles (Red Dead Redemption, L.A. Noire) on PC.

I mean, PC sales for modern shooters just aren't there anymore. Piracy has taken over. There just isn't a market for it anymore, the PC guys would rather pirate a game and leave it at that.

Now, I will say I own a gaming laptop and yes, PC gaming *is* better, for the most part. Fighting games on PC, ehhh, controller please. Same with sports games. But for FPS, mouse and keyboard is the way to go.

But probably the #1 reason I agree with you is mods. New skins, textures, levels, and even complete mods that transform a game into something else can add all but infinite re playability. Despite the fact that most PC guys do not purchase their games, the mods they make blow my mind. How someone can do some of the stuff I've seen is amazing, they are very talented. And even a simple skin change on an FPS game can spring a bit of life into it.

Whew, I rambled on there for a bit, sorry. Basically, I very much agree with you sir, but I fear the developers are leaning more towards consoles because PC sales have plummeted. I mean, the latest Sims game is doing horrible in sales. I can't blame developers, I just wish there was a way to keep development for PC going, I honestly can't see it lasting much past 5, 10 years from now.


----------



## successful (Mar 21, 2009)

ObamaGoesPostal said:


> Who cares, PC will always be better.


lol hell no


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

Infexxion said:


> I'm not so sure that is the case. Game developers seem to be getting almost completely biased towards consoles. Modern Warfare 2 lost dedicated servers, Crysis 2 was dumbed down for consoles, the PC is getting late ports of very popular games like Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto IV, and now Rockstar hasn't even released their two latest titles (Red Dead Redemption, L.A. Noire) on PC.


I hope no one gets insulted by this, but I feel that one of the main reasons for the crapification of games in the last 10-ish years is the rising popularity of consoles (and video games in general) and the ensuing dumbing down of products. As an example, 10 years ago Bioware brought us Baldur's Gate II, whereas now its Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Sure, ME and DA were fun, but nothing matching the complexity and depth of Baldur's Gate (and the "romances" were a goddamn joke, like they were written by a love-starved 15 year old). Shooters 10 years ago: Deus Ex, Half Life; now: Modern Warfare (i might also add that I played modern warfare about 2 years after it came out when I finally caved and picked it up. It's complete crap. Shiny, pretty crap, but crap nonetheless).

I'll be the first to admit that these are only two examples that I can think of off the top of my head and I'm sure there are lots of examples and arguments to the contrary, but usually when a product has to appeal to a huge audience, a lot of the "good" stuff gets lost because profit margins have to be maintained.

/curmudgeonly rant


----------



## Infexxion (Jun 29, 2009)

zookeeper said:


> I hope no one gets insulted by this, but I feel that one of the main reasons for the crapification of games in the last 10-ish years is the rising popularity of consoles (and video games in general) and the ensuing dumbing down of products. As an example, 10 years ago Bioware brought us Baldur's Gate II, whereas now its Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Sure, ME and DA were fun, but nothing matching the complexity and depth of Baldur's Gate (and the "romances" were a goddamn joke, like they were written by a love-starved 15 year old). Shooters 10 years ago: Deus Ex, Half Life; now: Modern Warfare (i might also add that I played modern warfare about 2 years after it came out when I finally caved and picked it up. It's complete crap. Shiny, pretty crap, but crap nonetheless).
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that these are only two examples that I can think of off the top of my head and I'm sure there are lots of examples and arguments to the contrary, but usually when a product has to appeal to a huge audience, a lot of the "good" stuff gets lost because profit margins have to be maintained.
> 
> /curmudgeonly rant


Yeah I see where you're coming from. Funny that you brought up Bioware, they've been getting a huge amount of backlash because of Dragon Age 2. Whereas the first one was aimed at 'hardcore' RPG fans (I use that term loosely, Dragon Age had some complexity regarding spells, but otherwise I don't see how it was such a hardcore RPG) and the second one plays much more like a hack 'n slash game.

But I find it really hard to blame the developers. Less complexity in the games means a wider audience of potential customers. A fan of God Of War may be turned onto Dragon Age 2 because of the now-similar fast-paced gameplay action.

In the end, I think it comes down to money. If company A can make x amount of money making a hardcore game, but double their profits if they cut the complexity in half and ease up on the learning curve, they probably aren't going to hesitate in which one to pick.

On a side note, I never did play Baldur's Gate. I should look into that.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

^
I don't necessarily place the blame on developers, because they're beholden to the publishers, who control most of the money and distribution. Unfortunately, games have become big business, which means that there are very few chances taken on anything. This isn't specifically the fault of consoles themselves, more of the millions of fratboys and angry pubescent boys that have bought them and pay $80 for release-day CoD knockoffs.

I'm hoping that digital distribution may be a great opportunity for this pattern to change somewhat, now that developers can essentially make the game they want and sell it themselves (perfect example - i don't think any major publisher would touch a "game" where it takes 10+ minutes just to start up the plane).

And for the love of god man, you need to change that! BG I & II, the Fallouts, and Planscape in all their cheap, modern OS compatible glory!! I hope you didn't have anything planned for the next few months. :b


----------



## Ununderstood (Jun 8, 2005)

I have always preferred the Playstation. After I sold my Nintendo 64 I bought the PS2 and was more than happy with it. After I sold the PS2 I knew I was going to get the PS3. It does have better graphics, great web browser, great games, great controllers, and blu-ray player. Oh, and let me not forget that the PSN is what's best for me because I am not an avid online player. I have the comfort of being able to pick up a game and go online whenever I want without having to worry bout paying.

I've used the xbox360 and played games on it many times and I can't get used to it, it doesn't feel like home.


----------



## xTKsaucex (Jun 23, 2010)

I was a PS person.... back in 2000 or somit. Now I'm definitely 360. Sorry, just games wise the PS has fallen short on. There was Fallout which looked good, first one decent then even my PS mad mate said the second was gash. There was HAZE - looked amazing but was a total failure. Warhawk was good but was a mess in terms of controls. You had to have played it for weeks to get a hand of everything. MAC - now that was the game I was eagerly and jealously looking forward to. Boasting a ridiculous amount of online combatants - over 100 or something, I couldn't wait but again my mate said it was 'meh'. 

As for 360, games like Halo come once in a while. Thing about Halo is that its one of the most balanced games around multiplayer wise and has a huge scope to keep it interesting after months of playing. Also graphics wise I dont see the hype PS gets. I can remember watching Battlefield Bad Company 1 review where they put both graphics of 360 and PS on at the same time and the PS fanboys were really having to talk themselves up. The majority of comments was 'looks the same' which infuriated the PS hardcores.

To be honest, I'd have more fun wipping out Crash Team Racing, Crash Bash and Ace Combat 2 from the PS glory days than the modern games for PS3.


----------



## x Faceless x (Mar 13, 2011)

xTKsaucex said:


> I was a PS person.... back in 2000 or somit. Now I'm definitely 360. Sorry, just games wise the PS has fallen short on. There was Fallout which looked good, first one decent then even my PS mad mate said the second was gash. There was HAZE - looked amazing but was a total failure. Warhawk was good but was a mess in terms of controls. You had to have played it for weeks to get a hand of everything. MAC - now that was the game I was eagerly and jealously looking forward to. Boasting a ridiculous amount of online combatants - over 100 or something, I couldn't wait but again my mate said it was 'meh'.
> 
> As for 360, games like Halo come once in a while. Thing about Halo is that its one of the most balanced games around multiplayer wise and has a huge scope to keep it interesting after months of playing. Also graphics wise I dont see the hype PS gets. I can remember watching Battlefield Bad Company 1 review where they put both graphics of 360 and PS on at the same time and the PS fanboys were really having to talk themselves up. The majority of comments was 'looks the same' which infuriated the PS hardcores.
> 
> To be honest, I'd have more fun wipping out Crash Team Racing, Crash Bash and Ace Combat 2 from the PS glory days than the modern games for PS3.


All the games you mentioned for the PS3 are from before the PS3 started getting good games. I agree with you that the first couple years PS3 games were a joke, but it has a lot of good exclusives now. You should try Uncharted, Infamous, Killzone, LittleBigPlanet, and Heavy Rain.


----------



## Paragon (Apr 13, 2010)

Eh, PS3 has good games as well. Let's see, off the top of my head: Killzone 2 and 3, Infamous, Uncharted 1 and 2, Little Big Planet, Heavy Rain, God Of War 3, Demon's Souls, Gran Turismo 5, Metal Gear Solid 4, the Ratchet & Clank games... etc etc.

Anyway.. i'd say the hardware is nicer with the PS3, but the online component is better with Xbox Live. And theyre both beaten by a decent PC with Steam.. although, yeah, PC gaming is an expensive hobby.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

Paragon said:


> PC gaming is an expensive hobby.


The initial setup can be pricey, but PC games are so much cheaper than their console counterparts (especially online). I saw Metro 2033 yesterday, for 360, _used_, for $39.99. I paid $20 for it over a year ago on my computer.

And the expensive, constant upgrading that was common in the past for PCs isn't really the case anymore. Perhaps the only advantage of cross-platform releases is that developers aren't pushing the envelope anymore with regards to PC performance. Even a mid-range PC can run rings around the consoles for performance, but developers are limited by the constraints posed by the consoles. And I'm somewhat ok with this. I've never been one to care about extra shiny graphics over gameplay, so I'm ok with not replacing my vid card every year or two. However, being stuck with games where the gameplay is wrecked by deficiencies of console make me angry. :wife It's like being stuck at your aunt's house and not being allowed to play ball hockey with the real rules because your little cousin is there and you need to make sure it's fun for him too. By making everything dumber.


----------



## engima (Feb 3, 2009)

PCs seem to cost way more though, plus they have to handle OS requirements and windows 7/vista are generally performance hogs. I would guess that the reason PCs don't need the constant upgrading is because of consoles, so maybe that's a plus with that.

I've got both ps3/360 but play 360 more, so that would be my vote, and yes older generation consoles are better in general.


----------



## Infexxion (Jun 29, 2009)

Also, something I'd like to note. It seems both are pushing into each other's category (PC and Consoles) as well. Let me explain.

First, PC seems to be pushing into console territory with games like Portal 2 utilizing cross-platform play for PS3 owners. Steam is integrating into PS3 as well, and it seems bringing _the _premier service (debatable) for PC games to a console slowly may start the beginning of something much, _much _bigger.

Second, consoles seem to be pushing into PC territory with onlive. Cloud gaming. Games streamed over the internet to YOUR PC. Now, currently the only requirements are a PC that isn't ancient, and a 3.0 MB or more internet connection. It lets you play popular games like Assassin's Creed and Borderlands on your PC, and unless it's over 7 years old, you're gonna be fine. No high end graphics card, no game installs. It's basically Netflix for games. While that's a huge knock against the cost of having to upgrade your rig with a new video card, it does come at a price. Nothing's stored locally, so there are no mods, no new skins, no new levels. It's basically a PC game with console-game limitations.

I think this may be the start of something bigger. I mean, if Steam integrated entirely into PS3, allowing cross-platform play for games like Call Of Duty? And ported over popular PC games like Counter Strike and Left 4 Dead? I think that would be massive.

On the other end of the spectrum, if OnLive and cloud gaming catches on, a _lot _of people who dislike PC gaming for the cost are going to be turned onto it now, because everything's streamed. No messy game installs where you find out you can't run a game because your video card is missing a driver, no more stupid game crashes because _whatevergameyourplaying.exe has stopped responding. _Everything would be a lot simpler.

Just thought those would be worth pointing out.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

The new MK game is actually a lot nicer feeling with a 360 controller than you'd think. I was pulling off fatalities without much practice.

To me the decision between the two systems comes down to this:
PS3 gets more exclusive deals for great RPGs- with Team Ico and Square Enix especially. It can also act as a blu-ray player.
The 360 on the other hand, has xbox live. And you can say it boils down to cross-game chatting, but my experience is that it gets a _lot_ more support than PSN in terms of patching hacks and things like that.

Ultimately when I look at the sheer hours put into the devices... The 360 wins for me in a landslide fashion. I blame call of duty.


----------



## Infexxion (Jun 29, 2009)

Charizard said:


> The new MK game is actually a lot nicer feeling with a 360 controller than you'd think. I was pulling off fatalities without much practice.
> 
> To me the decision between the two systems comes down to this:
> PS3 gets more exclusive deals for great RPGs- with Team Ico and Square Enix especially. It can also act as a blu-ray player.
> ...


Oh yeah no doubt XBL gets more support. I mean, Xbox Live isn't the service getting hacked, that money pays for security, protection, and a ton of other stuff.

Are you using the new 360 controller? The one with the twisty d-pad?


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)




----------



## gr15 (Apr 29, 2011)

I always went with Playstation as to me Microsoft is loaded with FPS games which I'm not fond of. I'm an J/RPG fan, and the PS2 had a great range of RPGs, and games out of that genre such as racing, action etc. are generally multiplats. So I got a PS3 over 360, knowing I'd get some good JRPGs, (which do lack at this time, but seems to be getting more relases in the not to distant future)


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

I have both and I like both about the same, they are both better than each other in different aspects. For some reason I think Xbox live is better than PSN. The PS3 main menu also looks kinda boring compared to Xbox 360. I also like the achievements more than the trophies. I also think the Xbox controller is a little better. In terms of games exclusives I think the PS3 has the edge.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

Infexxion said:


> Also, something I'd like to note. It seems both are pushing into each other's category (PC and Consoles) as well. Let me explain...


They've been trying to get cross-platform play to work for a little bit now. The first one to my knowledge was shadowrun a few years ago, with PC/Xbox play. There were a number of reasons it failed, not the least of which is that by all accounts it was an absolutely terrible game which also had the honour of being the first to feature GFWL, an equally terrible (and unnecessary) online service. But they also ran into problems balancing the gameplay. They had to nerf the PC controls to make it even come close to being equal, because the pc controls are so much better for that type of game. I don't know if this is something they've managed to work out for portal 2 (though it shouldn't matter _as_ much, since portal isn't all about run&gun), but playing shooters on consoles is _painful_.

And really, for all intents and purposes, modern consoles are just single purpose, custom OS, locked down PCs contained in a fancy box.


----------



## Infexxion (Jun 29, 2009)

zookeeper said:


> They've been trying to get cross-platform play to work for a little bit now. The first one to my knowledge was shadowrun a few years ago, with PC/Xbox play. There were a number of reasons it failed, not the least of which is that by all accounts it was an absolutely terrible game which also had the honour of being the first to feature GFWL, an equally terrible (and unnecessary) online service. But they also ran into problems balancing the gameplay. They had to nerf the PC controls to make it even come close to being equal, because the pc controls are so much better for that type of game. I don't know if this is something they've managed to work out for portal 2 (though it shouldn't matter _as_ much, since portal isn't all about run&gun), but playing shooters on consoles is _painful_.
> 
> And really, for all intents and purposes, modern consoles are just single purpose, custom OS, locked down PCs contained in a fancy box.


True enough. I think one of the reasons it's worked for Portal 2 is nothing is competitive, it's cooperative.

I don't know if I would call playing a shooter on console painful. I mean, hell, with _third person shooters, _I'd say it's about on par, if not better. I, personally, am able to use a controller and a mouse comfortably, and do decent at shooting games. Mouse and keyboard is definitely more accurate, though.

But with things like FragFX for consoles that give those guy a mouse for more accuracy, it definitely seems like progress is being made. Unreal Tournament and LittleBigPlanet 2 even have full USB mouse/keyboard support for PS3, so progress is definitely being made.

And fortunately/unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, some people are always going to prefer one or the other. The hardcore console guys who play several hours every day, some of them just can't get used to mouse/keyboard. It's just not what they're used to.


----------



## Noll (Mar 29, 2011)

Infexxion said:


> But probably the #1 reason I agree with you is mods. New skins, textures, levels, and even complete mods that transform a game into something else can add all but infinite re playability. Despite the fact that most PC guys do not purchase their games, the mods they make blow my mind. How someone can do some of the stuff I've seen is amazing, they are very talented. And even a simple skin change on an FPS game can spring a bit of life into it.
> years from now.


That's what I meant mostly, a friend of mine has Fallout: New Vegas for Xbox 360 and I always tease him cause I've got cool mods and stuff.

Games like Minecraft, The Sims and Age Of Empires works best for PC. I really don't have anything against FPS-games for console. And while Crysis 2 was stripped down a little cause it was for console as well, it still looks best on the PC if you max it out. (Same with GTA IV) And in 5-10 years consoles may be to prefer over PC, but in the end I always think PC will be the best alternative.


----------



## mooseick (Aug 11, 2010)

I love my ps3 :boogie


----------



## SilentChaos (Apr 24, 2011)

mooseick said:


> I love my ps3 :boogie


This


----------



## LostProphet (Apr 4, 2010)

So do I. Too bad it's just been a giant paperweight for the past couple of weeks or so...


----------



## mrbojangles (Oct 8, 2009)

XBOX 360's in my opinion have the much better games and is the much better gaming system, but PS3's are much more reliable and break down less often. I have to buy a new 360 sometime in the future because once again it got the red ring of death. I have missed out on playing some games because of not having a PS3 though.


----------



## mindsanitizer (Dec 4, 2010)

i like the ps3 better because of the blue-ray, capabilities of 1080p (last time i checked, x-box did not have this) though i cannot really tell the difference from 720p and 1080p that well. and i have a 47 inch 1080p LCD. like killzone 3 is 720p and looks great in my flat screen. a little side note, have you tried playing killzone 3 (or anay other shooter game) from three feet away from screen? wow, it feels like you are in the game. i actually found out this by accident. i have a 47 inch in my living room and use to play my ps3 there. but i decided to buy an lcd for my bedroom too. i was going to be at least A 32 inch... but i found a good deal on a 42 inch. i connected my ps3 and sat on the edge of my bed closes to the tv for ease to change settings. when i played killzone till i passed the whole game that day due to the fact that it was a new experience than playing 10 feet away or so from tv screen. at any rate, i also have the ps3 move. killzone supports it. so it's a new experience for me that i really like. but that's just my thing because every time i would go to the arcades at the mall, i would always be playing shooter arcade games. so i just drool over the move bundle just for that reason. it is just a different experience for me than just using the hand controller. i played black ops using the aim cheat and i felt like meh! it automatically aims for me when i press and hold a button. you don't do that with a real gun. but when i played resident evil 5 with the move button, bow i was really in control of thinking i have actually have a real gun in my hand. from what i know about the xbox, it does not have this capabilities. i know it has the kenetic thing, but it is not the same for me. i also own the wii, but i just hate the graphics. and the move bundle is not like the wii's. i would rather play wii emulation though (just copy my games to .iso format and play at faster load times than a cd drive). in all, i like the ps3 because it is more than just a game console. too bad they took out linix support. i'm not really that much of a hard core player though. i just buy games to pass them and that is it. i don't like to try the hardest levels or play for points. in fact i just recently bought my ps3 and have bought marvel vs capcom 3 fate of two worlds, god of war 2 and 3, black ops, dead space, resident evil 5 gold edition, uncharted 2, prototype, mortal combat vs dc universe and killzone three. and i want to buy more... haven't decide yet. one of them at the top of my list is uncharted 3 though.


----------



## AlanJs (Dec 8, 2010)

Good to see it back online.

Alanjs1990

feel free to add.


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

I like them basically the same. I greatly prefer the 360's controller, but the PS3 is _so_ much more reliable (and you can by a 360-style controller for the PS3 anyway, though it ain't cheap). The 360 has a better online catalogue, but the PS3 gets some unique little Japanese games that never make it to Microsoft's console. The PS3 has Blu-ray and all, but I can't stress enough how much I love the 360 media player.

When it comes right down to it, I have both systems, but I'd probably be perfectly happy with either. And I'm not just saying that to be diplomatic.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

So, today I decide to sign up for the netflix trial. "This will be great," I think to myself, "I can watch it through PS3 on my large screen and the 360 in my bedroom!"

...

... ...

...

"What's that microsoft? You want me to pay _you_ so I can pay my ISP so I can pay netflix to watch tv shows on _my_ console? You can **** right off. Sure, Sony may have left my personal data unencrypted, unsecured, and open to anyone who happened to be interested, but at least they didn't ask for money first."


----------



## jonesy0039 (Jan 28, 2008)

i like my xbox more, i thought the ps3's online wasnt anywhere near as good, also i dont really care much for exclusives most of the time they arent games i enjoy (halo was crap, killzone not too bad but didnt hold my interest for long)


----------



## Visionary (Apr 13, 2010)

I own both too, but I rarely use them. I love my pc.


----------



## Ramon (May 24, 2011)

When I was trying to decide on getting a xbox360 or ps3 a few things put me off(360).

Having to pay for live, ring of death, no blu ray and the controller felt wierd lol.


----------



## Dan iel (Feb 13, 2011)

I own both and a Wii (Nintendo fan boy) and I think both are great but my xbox gets more play.

Xbox usually gets the higher quality port when games get released on all three formats.

PS3 has some amazing exclusives and without it I couldn't play metal gear solid 4


----------



## Angha (May 27, 2011)

Cerz said:


> People who have the 360 and going to say the 360 is best, people who have the PS3 are going to say the PS3 is the best.
> 
> I have both and can tell you that PS3 definitely has better games, online is free and it's a blu-ray player. Xbox 360 has pretty poor games and not to mention I'm on my second Xbox 360 (I don't even play it that much).
> 
> PS3 is definitely the better console. The Xbox 360 is still good.


Yeah... This is how I feel too. After my Xbox RROD'd, I'm actually afraid to play on my newer console. -_-; I've actually noticed that it's begun to have disk reading problems as well now, and whenever I want to play on my Xbox I have to get creative with ways to fix it (before turning it on I have to put it on its side or vice-versa, sometimes blowing through the cd-tray helps).

I also really don't like having to pay for EVERYTHING. At least on PS3 I can watch Netflix online without having a paid account. e_e;

So, I'd say that I prefer my ps3 at this point. I just wish I had more games for it.  Once I get a job, I'll be able to get some cheap ones for sure.


----------



## shymtealhead (Feb 16, 2010)

Ps3 for me. I like the multimedia capabilities and naturally I'm a Playstation user...plus my buddys 360 has had enough problems to steer my decision to the Ps3.


----------



## Ryoshima (Jun 8, 2011)

I have owned them both and really you can't go wrong with either one, They both have a really amazing library of games to choose from, But the console I would now pick after having them both would be the Playstation, For me there games just had a much bigger sense of community about it Thanks to games like LittleBigPlanet and Mod Nation.


----------



## ValiantThor (Dec 6, 2010)

Dint ps3 get shut down for a while cause they got hacked? thread /


----------



## JBolton (Aug 14, 2011)

ps3 vs xbox it has been a crazy match i am a die hard xbox fan but lately i have wanted to play my ps3 more. maybe because it seems like the ps3 is taargeting the hardcore games and the UI seems more advanced vs the xbox UI which seems elementry to older people. in the battle of online play xbox takes it hands down because of the ability to party chat other than that ps3 all the way because the online is free and the games are extremly high poly. heavy rain is the perfect example.


----------

