XBOX 360 or PS3? - Page 4

Scott MS · August 2nd, 2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamcastrocks

I DEFINITELY wouldn't.

Madden 08 with only run at 30FPS on the PS3. It will be running at a full 60FPS on the 360. It will make a HUGE graphics difference. Your eye can see the differences between 30FPS and 60FPS.

If I were to buy Madden 08 and had both the 360 and PS3, I would buy it on the 360 without question. This is a huge design flaw for the PS3.

What kind of display are you playing on?

Your information is correct, except that Madden is supposed to be 1080i resolution on the PS3, while the Xbox 360 version will be 720p.

I personally prefer the 1080i/p games of the PS3 over 720p 360 games on my 1080p display.

dreamcastrocks · August 2nd, 2007, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott MS

What kind of display are you playing on?

Your information is correct, except that Madden is supposed to be 1080i resolution on the PS3, while the Xbox 360 version will be 720p.

I personally prefer the 1080i/p games of the PS3 over 720p 360 games on my 1080p display.

The difference between 30fps/60fps is 1000x greater than the difference between 720p and 1080i.

Do you have Madden 07? Think of the spin move for example, it almost takes a full second from the time you hit the spin button for you to see the move. That will be the same on the PS3, while it will be instantaneous on the 360. That is just one of the many examples that you will see. 30fps/60fps not only affects graphics, but game play as well.

I have a 1080p Sony SXRD

Scott MS · August 2nd, 2007, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamcastrocks

The difference between 30fps/60fps is 1000x greater than the difference between 720p and 1080i.

I know you're a long timer on this forum, but that's a ridiculous comment. 1920x1080 has twice as many pixels as 1440x720. The resolution difference is extremely clear, especially through HDMI.

dreamcastrocks · August 2nd, 2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott MS

I know you're a long timer on this forum, but that's a ridiculous comment. 1920x1080 has twice as many pixels as 1440x720. The resolution difference is extremely clear, especially through HDMI.

Wrong. I believe that 1080i is better than 720p but it is far that a ridiculous statement. The difference can be subtle or great, depending on your display, and your display's native resolution. If you have a 720p native resolution display, and you decide that you want to use 1080i, it is going to upconvert the image to 1080i, and then back down to 720p again, how is the resolution difference going to matter here? The general rule of thumb is to match your display's native resolution, or come as close to that as possible. 1080i may have twice as many pixels, but 720p displays it's pixels twice as fast.

Some feel that faster moving images (like sports) benefit from using 720p vs 1080i, and some networks agree. Not every network displays its HD signal in 1080i for all of its shows.

We could debate this in another thread if you like, but it isn't appropriate here.

Oh, and Madden 08 on the 360 will support 1080i.

1080i60 360 >>>>> 1080p30 PS3.

puckhead · August 2nd, 2007, 12:56 PM

In case anyone cares what the critics say...

http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/winners.html

I haven't played any of these.

SteelDog · August 2nd, 2007, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott MS

1. Xbox 360 - huge library of games, Xbox live is great, poor product build quality (on my 3rd due to red blinking lights), graphics inferior to PS3.

I have a launch 360 and an elite and have never had 1 problem with either. So I guess this depends on your own experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott MS

2. PS3 - outstanding quality, super graphics to Xbox 360 (1080p), small library of games, HDMI output.

Not to be rude but this is complete bull. I can show you several magazine articles and comparison that prove that the 360 more often then not has the superior graphics when comparing the exact same game on the 360 versus the PS3.

Not to mention that Frame rate is king and the PS3 games are often locked at 30 FPS compared to the 360 standard of 60 FPS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott MS

If there is a new game out on both 360 and PS3, I will buy PS3 (for instance, Madden 2008).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamcastrocks

I DEFINITELY wouldn't.

Madden 08 with only run at 30FPS on the PS3. It will be running at a full 60FPS on the 360. It will make a HUGE graphics difference. Your eye can see the differences between 30FPS and 60FPS.

If I were to buy Madden 08 and had both the 360 and PS3, I would buy it on the 360 without question. This is a huge design flaw for the PS3.

I completely agree with dream here. The frame rate issues aside, the PS3 has been routinely shown to have same if not sub par graphics on similar games. I think there is a couple factors that play into that.

The cell processor by itself is superior to the 360 CPU. However, the 360 CPU was designed specifically with game play in mind. So it's proven to be very efficient for DEVS. The Cell CPU was actually designed to be used in multiple Sony products. It was a general purpose processor that was suppose to be powerful enough to run any Sony product. Sony decided to use it in the PS3. Because of that it's been more difficult to program for and no doubt has resulted in devs having a difficult time with the PS3.

The CPU in the 360 is nothing to scoff at but it's GPU design is where it shines. Despite coming out 1 year before the PS3 it has proven it stacks up just fine to anything the PS3 can spit out right now. That says alot about the design and integration of the GPU in a system that according to Sony wouldn't stack up against the PS3 at launch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott MS

What kind of display are you playing on?

Your information is correct, except that Madden is supposed to be 1080i resolution on the PS3, while the Xbox 360 version will be 720p.

I personally prefer the 1080i/p games of the PS3 over 720p 360 games on my 1080p display.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamcastrocks

Wrong. I believe that 1080i is better than 720p but it is far that a ridiculous statement. The difference can be subtle or great, depending on your display, and your display's native resolution. If you have a 720p native resolution display, and you decide that you want to use 1080i, it is going to upconvert the image to 1080i, and then back down to 720p again, how is the resolution difference going to matter here? The general rule of thumb is to match your display's native resolution, or come as close to that as possible. 1080i may have twice as many pixels, but 720p displays it's pixels twice as fast.

Some feel that faster moving images (like sports) benefit from using 720p vs 1080i, and some networks agree. Not every network displays its HD signal in 1080i for all of its shows.

We could debate this in another thread if you like, but it isn't appropriate here.

Oh, and Madden 08 on the 360 will support 1080i.

1080i60 360 >>>>> 1080p30 PS3.

That is 100% correct. First off the difference between 1080i and 1080p is not even noticeable by the majority. That's assuming all things are equal. Dream you hit it on the head. All things are not equal.

With a frame rate locked at 30 FPS, it would kill any chance of the game play being as smooth as the 360.

Red Hawk · August 2nd, 2007, 10:00 PM

[quote=SteelDog;1437546]

Not to be rude but this is complete bull. I can show you several magazine articles and comparison that prove that the 360 more often then not has the superior graphics when comparing the exact same game on the 360.

????????

SteelDog · August 2nd, 2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Hawk

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelDog

Not to be rude but this is complete bull. I can show you several magazine articles and comparison that prove that the 360 more often then not has the superior graphics when comparing the exact same game on the 360 vsersus the PS3.

????????

Here are a few:

"We found that the Xbox 360 actually had better graphics in the majority of the games we compared".

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/

"So what do we think? I think that, if anything, the Xbox 360’s models seem to be more detailed, with the lighting looking slightly more convincing with a more natural feel."

http://linuxgeekboy.wordpress.com/20...0-screenshots/

"Xbox 360 offered better antialiasing (cleaning up jagged lines) overall
"Xbox 360 offered better texture quality overall"

http://hlime.wordpress.com/2007/06/2...-ps3-graphics/

If my scanner was up and running I would scan at least 3 more for you. Not to mention I could post several reviews of the same games between systems. I could go on.

I think the PS3 will at some point pump out slightly better graphics then the 360 but will be hardly noticeable. Also, by then the next gen XBOX will be on it's way and nobody will care. The fact that the PS3 is out 1 year later and it will never be an Xbox 360 killer says allot about the design of the Xbox 360 versus the PS3.

I have played all 3 systems extensively. I also have owned all 3 systems in every generation so far. I play all the platforms because certain consoles get exclusives I hate missing out on. The Wii really is a different type of system but is fun in it's own right. I stand by the 360 being the superior system for now.

Red Hawk · August 3rd, 2007, 09:28 AM

Dog in that sentence you were saying the 360 was better than the 360.

SteelDog · August 3rd, 2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Hawk

Dog in that sentence you were saying the 360 was better than the 360.

What I meant was that the 360 is better when comparing the same game on the 360 (vs the PS3). I should have just typed that.

Fixed it.

Red Hawk · December 27th, 2007, 07:31 PM

P.S.

Had XBOX for just over 3 months and the disk drive fails!!!

WastedFate · December 27th, 2007, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Hawk

P.S.

Had XBOX for just over 3 months and the disk drive fails!!!

MS's crappy hardware strikes again. The 3 year warranty is only valid for the RROD problem, so hopefully your drive doesn't fail again 9 months from now.

I made the switch to the PS3 and like what it offers - but I wish MS would get their act together. The 360 is great aside from the awful hardware.

mojorizen7 · August 18th, 2008, 05:22 AM

The competition continues.......
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...microsoft.html
A crumbling tower: Sony lays siege to the 360's weak spots

Quote:

By Ben Kuchera | Published: August 17, 2008 - 09:00PM CT
It wouldn't be accurate to say that the sky is falling for Microsoft's one and only gaming console, the 360, but it may be time to look at what the company is doing right... and where it's going wrong. The Sony PlayStation 3 is beginning to chip away at the 360's lead in both software and hardware sales in the US, and that system only seems to be picking up steam. In contrast, the 360 doesn't seem to have much real momentum these days.
While it's hard to find ways for Microsoft to get its mojo back, we can easily identify a few problem areas that are becoming clear as the 360 ages. These are the weaknesses in Microsoft's strategy that have to be addressed before the system can hope to get its groove back. Let's take a look.
You have to find your voice

When the PS3 launched, the 360 was the system with more, better games, and the better online strategy. Microsoft also did a wonderful job in poaching some of gaming's largest franchises. Microsoft even brought this up at its press conference at E3: We have Grand Theft Auto, Devil May Cry, and now Final Fantasy! Look at how we've caught up to Sony!
The problem is, these games are still on the PlayStation 3, and Microsoft isn't offering much in the way of improvements to these titles. In fact, given that Microsoft bet on the wrong optical format, we don't know how many discs Final Fantasy XIII will take up when the title arrives on the 360. What else does Microsoft have in the way of exclusives? Halo is a system-seller, sure, but Metal Gear Solid IV is still a PS3 exclusive. Microsoft has many solid racing franchises, but nothing like the power that Gran Turismo brings to the system.
Xbox Live is a great service, but it's not clear that all of its features are needed. While the hardcore complain about Nintendo's friend codes, most mainstream gamers are more than willing to put up with them. And Microsoft's competitors aren't standing still; Home could be the silver bullet that finally gives Sony the edge in online play. The PS3 has one of the most anticipated casual games ever with LittleBigPlanet, and the branding of Sackboy is already amazingly strong.

Grabbing Final Fantasy was a coup, but the 360 needs more than parity
Add idiosyncratic games, such as Flower, that are coming to the PS3 and Nintendo's absolute dominance of the casual market, and you have a gaming world where cherry-picking old franchises is no longer enough. Gears of War 2 looks great, but Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 look just as good in terms of scale, graphics, and online play.
Microsoft needs to step up efforts to keep its brand strong. The new Viva Pinata game looks good, but that was a game that didn't set the world on fire with its first iteration. Lips looks okay, but with Rock Band 2 and Guitar Hero: World Tour coming up, a voice-only game might not find a home in the collection of most gamers.
Microsoft has spent so much time trying to match Sony's past glory in terms of game selection that it finds itself somewhat at a loss now that Sony has managed to keep some games as exclusives, at the same time it's developing all news ones. The new firmware update that will refresh the UI of the 360 looks strong, but the press gave it a scarily icy reception at E3; the full-scale plagiarism of the concept and design of the Nintendo Mii had many onlookers audibly laughing. It was not a comfortable moment.
Will Halo be enough in the future? With Bungie now independent, that's a very large, very open question. It's time for Microsoft to find its own voice and give itself a unique feel in the market. Its old tricks and the "first to launch" advantage isn't enough anymore.
Find a home in the world

We tend to focus on US sales, because we live in the US. But gaming is an international business, and Microsoft has seen almost all of its success in the US. Both Nintendo and Sony do very good business in Japan and Europe, while Microsoft has always struggled in those markets. Heck, in Japan, the big story is the sales of Sony's PSP.
Microsoft depends on US sales, and while the system sees spikes in other territories when there is a launch of specific, big-name titles, it tends to flounder otherwise. It's hard to think of a way for Microsoft to make in-roads in Japan, but Europe has to be seen as a major battleground. Both Nintendo and Sony have multiple systems that are doing bang-up business across the globe. Microsoft has one system that does well in one market. It might be too late for Microsoft to grab a piece of the portable business, and the Zune is hardly an opportunity in that area, so Redmond is left with one option: the 360 simply has to step it up outside of the US.
Take the PS3's advantages seriously

Whether or not Microsoft has fixed its Red Ring of Death problem, the fact remains that most gamers think the hardware is untrustworthy. You hear about it in the forums, in the game stores, from even casual gamers... everyone either has had systems go bad or they know someone who has. The PlayStation, on the other hand, is damn near rock-solid. Microsoft has to start getting the word out that it has fixed the reliability problems; pretending like this issue never happened is not the solution.
Microsoft also has to pay attention to the hard drive of the PS3. The drives are large, getting larger with the standard systems, and anyone can swap out their drive for a roomier one. Heck, Sony suggests it and gets the word out about DIY tutorials on the upgrade. Microsoft, on the other hand, is sticking with expensive, proprietary drives. It's a situation made more frustrating by the fact that, without large, standard drives, Microsoft can't begin to match Sony's efforts at releasing full games through its online portal.
There is also the fact that Sony's online offerings are free. Yes, Xbox Live is better. But how much better? There are large numbers of gamers out there who simply will not pay money for online play and are more than happy with Sony's offerings. So what if you can't send a voice message across games? Sony's newly-launched in-game XMB adds a ton of functionality, and the Trophies it brings seem to be gaining popularity; I know many people personally who are revisiting old games to tackle the new challenges. Frank and I argued about making Xbox Live free, but it may not matter; the more powerful Sony gets with the PS3, the less Microsoft can count on Live as a profit base.
There is also the fact that Sony has the Blu-ray drive, provides strong multimedia functions on its system in general, and its video rentals and sales work seamlessly with your PSP if you want to take your content on the road. The PSP-PS3 connection gives you so much cool functionality that it makes consumers want to own both for a great media experience. Microsoft has no competition for that at the moment.
We're not offering solutions, just problems

How should Microsoft fix these issues? That's a huge question, and it can be argued for days. Whatever your preferred answer, these problems are real, getting worse, and starting to show up in the sales numbers. Microsoft doesn't have the wiggle-room it did in the market even a year ago, and it's past time to step up to the competition.
Does the company have a viable plan to do that? We'll see as we move into the holiday season. What's clear is that the competition is now much stronger across the board, and that's a good thing for gamers.

Coke or Pepsi?
Ford or Chevy?
Republican or Democrat?
Sony or Microsoft?

dodie53 · August 18th, 2008, 07:20 AM

is the 3RL in the 360 still in effect?

SteelDog · August 18th, 2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dodie53

is the 3RL in the 360 still in effect?

Not on the ones being manufactu