This is a general question for people with both consoles, but at this point in the consoles' lives, are there any real differences between games that are released on both platforms? I remember that Madden last year had the framerate difference, for instance, but are those issues gone now? I know that the 360 online capabilities are always smoother, but if you don't play online, does it really just come down to which controller you prefer? I was wondering since I just played the Fracture demo on PS3 and liked it - seems like I would just buy it for the PS3. How do you decide which platform?
Boba Fett
09-30-08, 12:26 AM
To my knowledge PS3 has read speed issues due to the limitations of Blu-Ray and thus mandatory installs are common.
thelwig14
09-30-08, 01:15 AM
Always 360. Better controller, achievements, Live, most games are developed for the 360, etc....
PS3 for Blu-rays and exclusives only (MGS, Motorstorm, Resistance, Uncharted, and The Show).
edstein
09-30-08, 01:22 AM
I have both and always go 360 over PS3. Mainly due to the controller but achievements and Live make it a no brainer.
PopcornTreeCt
09-30-08, 01:30 AM
The one that doesn't have 30 minute installs. I choose that one.
Giantrobo
09-30-08, 01:40 AM
I keep looking at the PS3 but as I've said before, I don't like the controller. Also, there are games that come out on the PS3 after the 360 with extra levels and slightly better graphics but to me, it's not huge a incentive to run out a get a PS3.
Decker
09-30-08, 01:41 AM
I gotta agree with the above posters -- I'm always going 360 for achievements and Live. The controller doesn't make a big difference to me; I find the Dual Shock 3 very comfortable, though I prefer the 360's analog triggers for driving games. Still, I'm thinking about getting Fallout 3 on the PS3 since my 360 is so damn noisy. It sounds like a 747 at takeoff now.
redcat
09-30-08, 07:51 AM
I gotta agree with the above posters -- I'm always going 360 for achievements and Live. The controller doesn't make a big difference to me; I find the Dual Shock 3 very comfortable, though I prefer the 360's analog triggers for driving games. Still, I'm thinking about getting Fallout 3 on the PS3 since my 360 is so damn noisy. It sounds like a 747 at takeoff now.
Yeah - I never have gotten used to the PS3 controller for driving games, although shooters are better with it than I would have thought. And like some other posters have said, I guess there is something strangely satisfying about achievement points on the 360.
Michael Corvin
09-30-08, 08:00 AM
Man, the dual shock haters are coming out of the woodwork these days. :lol: I've never liked that design, it's just dreadful. I've reverted back and I've actually come to enjoy the Sixaxis more than the DS3.
Like the others, I stick to exclusives and PSN titles for the PS3 and go with everything else on the 360. Reasons cited: controller, Live, achievements, etc. Not to mention all of my friends have 360s when only 2 have PS3s.
ytrez
09-30-08, 08:02 AM
PS3 for me. The controller (basically) has the same feel as the one that I've been used to since the days of PS1 and while I eventually got used to the XBox controller, I'll always prefer the Playstation version.
Also, achievements are meaningless to me and my online play is generally restricted to Call of Duty. All of my XBox online experiences (mostly sports games) were encounters with some of the biggest assholes on the planet. I saw no need to continue. Also, my PS3 never has any problems with online connectivity, while my 360 is very unreliable.
Giantrobo
09-30-08, 08:16 AM
Also, my PS3 never has any problems with online connectivity, while my 360 is very unreliable.
Soooo, what did you do wrong when you set up your 360? :p
But seriously, that's weird.
RichC2
09-30-08, 08:25 AM
360 is my default largely due to the controller and general setup (I find that the friends stuff works better on the 360). Graphically speaking, they're both about on par, but there are always exceptions, for example -- Dirt runs better on the PS3, where as the more recent Baja is a solid 360 title but absolute garbage on the PS3.
Edit: Oh and I get way less lag on Live. Faster Downloads too.
Michael Corvin
09-30-08, 08:41 AM
Soooo, what did you do wrong when you set up your 360? :p
:lol:
dvd182
09-30-08, 10:22 AM
Unless there is some type of exclusive bonus to one side, I've been going PS3 on multiplatform stuff. I'm not a big online guy and don't pay for live on the 360 side, so just being able to jump in and out of online for free on PS3 works well. Achievements are pointless so they don't factor in at all for me.
The games are the same, it should come down to what service your friends are online and what controller you like.
Krelyan
09-30-08, 10:37 AM
If it's a title that my buddies don't plan on picking up, I'll go for the PS3 version. I've never been a fan of the achievements/trophy setup and I don't really mind either controller (with the exception of 2d platformers/fighters, the DS3/Sixaxis is vastly easier).
bunkaroo
09-30-08, 11:09 AM
I had my PS3 before I was able to get a 360 I was reasonably sure wouldn't tank in 6 months, so all my cross platform titles get purchased on the PS3. Don't care much at all for achievements or Live, and I actually prefer the PS3 controller - go figure.
Only regret so far is getting GHIII for PS3 and not being able to play the old games with the controller. But at least they've already remedied compatibility between RB and GH instruments.
The Bus
09-30-08, 11:12 AM
360. Not only because of the superior controller, achievements, etc. but also because most people I know have a 360. Almost no one has a PS3 and, if they do, they're never online.
This includes DVD Talkers.
Michael Corvin
09-30-08, 12:04 PM
360. Not only because of the superior controller, achievements, etc. but also because most people I know have a 360. Almost no one has a PS3 and, if they do, they're never online.
This includes DVD Talkers.
That's the truth. I hop on every once in a while to play Eden and my friends list is a barren wasteland. By comparison I could hop on at 4am on a Tuesday on the 360 and someone will be on.
Shagrath
09-30-08, 12:32 PM
I haven't played a game on my PS3 since one day back in June. It gets tons of love in the house for playing Blu-Rays, but gaming is a completely different picture. There may be an exclusive title in the future that I pick up, but I just couldn't get in to MGS4. Anything that's multi-platform is going to get bought on the 360 for the achievements, better controller (in my opinion), and the fact that all my friend's have 360s and I'm the only one that has a PS3.
As far as actual game differences on multi-platform stuff on either system, you're probably going to see most of them have 360 as their "lead" development platform, which may mean that version runs a little better, or maybe is even out first. If the PS3 version comes out later, you can almost guarantee that it will get the first "map pack" or whatever other DLC has come out in the interim.
sracer
09-30-08, 02:03 PM
I've owned a 360 and currently a PS3. If games are your primary focus, then the 360 is the far better choice. But if access to your media collection is a non-trivial concern, then the PS3. I'm a light gamer and there aren't many PS3 game choices for me. I'm actually using my PSP more for gaming than the PS3.
The Bus
09-30-08, 03:40 PM
Access to media? In what way does the PS3 handle that better than the 360, aside from playing BDs?
sracer
09-30-08, 03:54 PM
Access to media? In what way does the PS3 handle that better than the 360, aside from playing BDs?
Picture Slideshow. The PS3 has more flexibility/options in displaying images. The PS3 has a few interesting themes/styles of display images as a slideshow... including making each image appear as an old photograph that drops onto the screen.
DVD upconverting. PS3 makes SD-DVDs look great. And being whisper quiet it is possible to watch movies without the distracting drone that is standard with the 360.
Memory card slots/ It's pretty handy to return from a trip or have friends/family over (who have their memory card with them) pop it into the PS3 and display the images.
Internal Harddrive. The PS3 allows me total control over the content of the internal harddrive... including upgrading the drive. I can put videos, music, pictures, etc. whereas the 360 only allows the user to rip audio CDs to the internal drive.
Native support for VOB files. I have 100's of TV show episodes copied from DVD to a harddrive attached to the PS3.
Better integration of USB harddrives. The PS3's XMB UI seamlessly integrates the management of files on external usb drives as it does the internal one. The only notable exception is the inability to create playlists of files stored on external drives.
YouTube. I can watch youtube videos on those occasions that prefer to do that rather than sit by a computer.
Remote Play. Using my PSP I can access nearly my entire video collection and my entire photo and music collection anywhere in the country where I have a wifi connection.
I have a Media Center notebook that I used with the 360. Not only did it require that the notebook be left on, but using the 360 as a media center extender shifted the focus back to the PC rather than keeping the 360 as a media hub.
I've put both through their paces as multimedia hubs... the PS3 is hands-down the better option. (and as I said before, the 360 is far superior as a gaming system)
xmiyux
09-30-08, 03:59 PM
Remote Play on the PSP seems like it would be an awesome perk if you own both devices.
I have been happy with the 360 as a media center once i started using TVersity or PlayON.
Now if PlayOn would just update so i can watch my shows on Hulu. :(
McHawkson
09-30-08, 04:06 PM
I have been wrestling with my decision wheither I should buy PS3 for very few games that are exclusive to PS3 and that it also have Blu-Ray and better DVD.
I really like my Logitech G25 racing wheel (that I have been using it for NR2003 and rFactor on PC), it wouldn't work on 360 - but will work on PS3. I really like my 360 for games only.
dvd182
10-01-08, 10:39 AM
The G25 with Gran Turismo 5 Prologue would be pretty fun. I have a blast with it and my Driving Force GT.
DJ_Longfellow
10-01-08, 11:13 AM
Is Mirror's Edge supposed to be "better" on the PS3? I believe they have some exclusive with it....correct?
nemein
10-01-08, 01:53 PM
I had my PS3 before I was able to get a 360 I was reasonably sure wouldn't tank in 6 months, so all my cross platform titles get purchased on the PS3. Don't care much at all for achievements or Live, and I actually prefer the PS3 controller - go figure.
That's pretty much my feeling on it. Since my first 360 pretty much died after a couple of months I'm always a little reluctant to even turn it on ;) When I do 1/2 the time the HD drive doesn't come up and I've had a couple of HD-DVDs that won't play or the machine craps out when it is playing them. I pretty much hold on to it just for the exclusive titles, but my primary platform is the PS3 now (which is the complete opposite from the last gen of consoles... usually bought stuff for the Xbox not the PS2).
Sonny Corinthos
10-02-08, 01:02 AM
My biggest gripe is my PS3 online features. Everytime I try to download something from the PS3, somehow it signs me out of the PSN Network and I can't finish the download. I've never had a problem downloading anything on my 360.
Decker
10-02-08, 03:00 AM
Honestly, I never got the hate for the DS3 controller. Maybe it's because I had a PS2 long before the Xbox, and maybe it's my freakishly small, soft girly-man hands, but I really find the PS3 controller comfortable. I know people say it sucks for FPS, but I just played Resistance for a few hours and it felt just fine to me. And the shaking of the pad to get off the attacking Chimera actually was a very intuitive feature for the largely useless motion sensing abilities.
SonOfAStu
10-02-08, 09:05 AM
Having owned both, I buy everything for PS3. The 360 was great to kill time waiting for the better console. The technology geek in me is way more impressed with the PS3. Does the 360 have better games? I don't know. I'm not into first-person-shooters, and don't have time to delve into on-line gaming. Those seem to be the only aspects that the 360 still leads in.
As an added bonus, I also got the best Blu-Ray player on the market and can have video conferences with my parents and my brother's family over the PSN.
dvdsteve2000
10-02-08, 09:19 AM
I own both, and my PS3 is a BluRay/DVD player, and the 360 is for gaming, period. For those that say achievements are pointless--it gives you more game to play. For example, on the PS3, you could run through games in no time, but with achievement hunting, you actually 'play more of the game'. It's like having sub-games inside the game. It gives you a feeling of actually accomplishing things. Let's say you're playing Rock Band 2 and you get through the impossible challenge-on the PS3, so what, move on, but the 360 gives you a reward for kicking some ass. Games like Bully, Bioshock, Dead Rising, Oblivion, & Assassin's Creed would've been played alot less if I wasn't being so involved in the game trying to get achievements. They make a good game better.
...also, why debate? They are cheap enough now to own both. Hell, if you own a Wii, well it off and buy either a 360 or PS3.
bunkaroo
10-02-08, 09:29 AM
I own both, and my PS3 is a BluRay/DVD player, and the 360 is for gaming, period. For those that say achievements are pointless--it gives you more game to play. For example, on the PS3, you could run through games in no time, but with achievement hunting, you actually 'play more of the game'. It's like having sub-games inside the game. It gives you a feeling of actually accomplishing things. Let's say you're playing Rock Band 2 and you get through the impossible challenge-on the PS3, so what, move on, but the 360 gives you a reward for kicking some ass. Games like Bully, Bioshock, Dead Rising, Oblivion, & Assassin's Creed would've been played alot less if I wasn't being so involved in the game trying to get achievements. They make a good game better.
...also, why debate? They are cheap enough now to own both. Hell, if you own a Wii, well it off and buy either a 360 or PS3.
Some of the Bully achievements were lame though. I mean, kick 25 pumpkins? Kiss a boy x amount of times? They're kind of amusing, but I wouldn't look at that as added value personally.
But I agree with you that both are worth owning. This is just a preference thread IMO.
dvdsteve2000
10-02-08, 09:35 AM
Some of the Bully achievements were lame though. I mean, kick 25 pumpkins? Kiss a boy x amount of times? They're kind of amusing, but I wouldn't look at that as added value personally.
But I agree with you that both are worth owning. This is just a preference thread IMO.
Yeah, some were lame, but at least it gives ya something for doing things in the game. If you do something in the game anyhow, why not get rewarded? They make the game with the option of say, egging cars. How many people on the PS3 gave a shit if they egged a car or not? Imagine how much of a game, like Bully, was never explored by PS3 users because they had no real reason to do so.
Decker
10-02-08, 10:03 AM
Yeah, some were lame, but at least it gives ya something for doing things in the game. If you do something in the game anyhow, why not get rewarded? They make the game with the option of say, egging cars. How many people on the PS3 gave a shit if they egged a car or not? Imagine how much of a game, like Bully, was never explored by PS3 users because they had no real reason to do so.
... and because it was never released for that system.
xmiyux
10-02-08, 10:06 AM
... and because it was never released for that system.
I assume he was referring to the fact it was originally on the PS2 so most PS3s could play it.
But who knows. :shrug:
dvdsteve2000
10-02-08, 10:10 AM
I didn't know Bully wasn't released on the PS3, but it was just a generic example. I don't even look to see what games the PS3 has, or is getting. My point was achievements let you delve deeper into a game, which IMO makes it a better experience.
Decker
10-02-08, 10:29 AM
Yeah, I knew it was just an example. Just being a wiseass.
And remember, now the PS3 has Trophies, so that is less of a difference than before. The one "advantage" trophies have over Achievements is that they're stratified so a really hard to achieve one awards a rare Platnum trophy, which may confer better bragging rights than just 25 or 50 more points. I kind of like achivements and they can help extend a game or get you to try something you wouldn't otherwise (the one for climbing to giant tower in Crackdown being a good example), but games like Avatar or some kiddie games really devalue the worth of achievement points unless you're a legend like Flay who can rack up tens of thousands of points.
sracer
10-02-08, 10:36 AM
I didn't know Bully wasn't released on the PS3, but it was just a generic example. I don't even look to see what games the PS3 has, or is getting. My point was achievements let you delve deeper into a game, which IMO makes it a better experience.
Ummm, no. That makes for a more superficial experience. Playing the game longer to score achievement points isn't delving deeper, it is simply trying to rack up points. Taking a game with only a few hours worth of quality gameplay and stretching that out into 3-5x to score achievements doesn't make it a better game or more fun to play. If a game needs the "carrot" of achievements to keep you playing then one could argue that those elements of the game are simply filler. A game should entice to you play it fully based on its own merits, not some bragging-rights points system.
Giantrobo
10-02-08, 10:42 AM
Ummm, no. That makes for a more superficial experience. Playing the game longer to score achievement points isn't delving deeper, it is simply trying to rack up points. Taking a game with only a few hours worth of quality gameplay and stretching that out into 3-5x to score achievements doesn't make it a better game or more fun to play. If a game needs the "carrot" of achievements to keep you playing then one could argue that those elements of the game are simply filler. A game should entice to you play it fully based on its own merits, not some bragging-rights points system.
Ummm no. It's not superficial and in most cases it's not simply a 'carrot'. This is particularly true when the achievements are cleverly done and especially if they're fun to chase.
RichC2
10-02-08, 10:42 AM
Ummm, no. That makes for a more superficial experience. Playing the game longer to score achievement points isn't delving deeper, it is simply trying to rack up points. Taking a game with only a few hours worth of quality gameplay and stretching that out into 3-5x to score achievements doesn't make it a better game or more fun to play. If a game needs the "carrot" of achievements to keep you playing then one could argue that those elements of the game are simply filler. A game should entice to you play it fully based on its own merits, not some bragging-rights points system.
I bet you were a blast in the arcades.
I don't go after achievement points for bragging rights, but enjoy them if they're properly implemented -- ie: some crazy task (90 second overdrive like in Rock Band 2), or Geometry Wars 2-style where it was a mini-game in and of itself. If they add to the game itself, it's well worth it. Others (which is sadly most of them), not so much. But theres no problem in getting rewarded for going after a perfect score or something of the sort, adds an extra challenge and extends the fun. In a way it more or less notifies you that something can be done, or that a goal is there... No different for a lot of people that max out their characters and find obscure items or beat the game and inverted castle at maximum %... they're just getting a pat on the back for doing it.
Anywho, most of the games for the two systems are about the same save for exclusives. The 360 has better RPGs and action titles at this point, the PS3 has better action-adventure titles, the multiconsole games are about even (except for a few titles here and there). I just wish Sony would hurry up and fix their damned network :( (I actually purchase TV shows off the 360 from time to time, as you can pretty much stream it in real time... the PS3 is still like pulling teeth when it comes to downloads).
Michael Corvin
10-02-08, 10:44 AM
Ummm, no. That makes for a more superficial experience. Playing the game longer to score achievement points isn't delving deeper, it is simply trying to rack up points.
I have to disagree. Is searching for every Piece of Heart container in Zelda a superficial experience? No, it takes you deeper into the game and forces you to explore more of the game than rushing from A to Z. That's all achievements do, except now they have a numerical value attached to them.
dvdsteve2000
10-02-08, 10:49 AM
Ummm, no. That makes for a more superficial experience. Playing the game longer to score achievement points isn't delving deeper, it is simply trying to rack up points. Taking a game with only a few hours worth of quality gameplay and stretching that out into 3-5x to score achievements doesn't make it a better game or more fun to play. If a game needs the "carrot" of achievements to keep you playing then one could argue that those elements of the game are simply filler. A game should entice to you play it fully based on its own merits, not some bragging-rights points system.
I agree if you aren't really into a game, but for a game you love, I feel it does add to the experience. I really enjoyed going back through games like Dead Rising, Oblivion, Crackdown, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Rock Band & Guitar Hero 1-2-Aerosmith, etc... because I wanted to do as much as humanly possible in these games. I couldn't get enough, and searching for achievements gave me more. There are plenty of games that I play that I just take the achievements that come along through casual gameplay, but when you want to really crawl into a game, achievement whoring gives you that opportunty.
bunkaroo
10-02-08, 10:58 AM
I assume he was referring to the fact it was originally on the PS2 so most PS3s could play it.
But who knows. :shrug:
Speaking for myself, I played the 360 version.
I think one of the reasons achievements don't do anything for me is because I am not an everyday gamer. I barely have enough time to play all the games I own let alone finish them, so spending and extra hour in-game egging cars isn't very enticing to me.
SonOfAStu
10-02-08, 11:31 AM
Absolutely bunkaroo. I don't know where people find the time to chase "achievements" or "trophies", but playing a game for what it is is more than enough for me as well.
Goldblum
10-02-08, 11:58 AM
In response to the OP, you said you aren't into online, so I would go with the version whose controller you like better.
Mordred
10-02-08, 01:15 PM
360. Not only because of the superior controller, achievements, etc. but also because most people I know have a 360. Almost no one has a PS3 and, if they do, they're never online.
This includes DVD Talkers.
That's the truth. I hop on every once in a while to play Eden and my friends list is a barren wasteland. By comparison I could hop on at 4am on a Tuesday on the 360 and someone will be on.
I'm online a lot during the evenings. About the only dvdtalker I see regularly is Rouge588 though. My PSN name is MordredKLB.
Tarantino
10-02-08, 01:58 PM
Every game that is released for both systems I pick up for the 360 for the reasons already listed...all of my friends play on Live.
Achievements are fun. I don't play to get all of them, but it's cool when you're playing a game and one suddenly pops up and you wonder, "Hey, what'd I do?".
Just adds something more to the game. I've owned exactly two games for my PS3 (The Show and MGS4), but I do use it as my primary DVD player.
Buy: