By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - which console is better and 6 good games?

xman on 18 November 2008
sepisfu said:

simply I want to ask which console is better to buy

and let me know 6 good games for the console

THX

 

Your question is too vague, needa few question answeed first

1) Can you play M rated games

2) Do you like online play

3) What are some of your old favorite games if any

4) What type of games do you lke to play Shooter, RPG, action, adventure, racing ect.

That will help with game selection system for systems I have another set of questions

1) Do you have a HD TV?

2) What size is your TV

3) Are you interested in online play

4) Are you planning on buying a blu ray player in the next year

5) What is the price point you are willing to pay

 

With answers to those questions you will get answers otherwise you will get peopl e giving you there opion and why they love there console and there games.  I like my system cause it meets my crieteria which may be different than yours.

 

 

 



PS3, WII and 360 all great systems depends on what type of console player you are.

Currently playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Halo ODST and Dragon Age Origins is next game

Xbox live:mywiferocks

Around the Network
tuoyo on 18 November 2008
Kantor said:
tuoyo said:
Spankey said:
EaglesEye379 said:
Spankey said:
 

 

for my reply, I will quote tuoyo:

"If I said what I want to say in reply to this post I would get a ban so I would just say it in my head and leave you to imagine what I am saying and also leave you to continue to stew in your ignorance"

I am asking you a serious question. Are you saying you are incapable of replying an informative reply without insulting or calling people ignorant? Is it so hard to believe that there are people out there not interested in buying Blu-Rays or DVDs?

 

 

wow, so touchy!

I gave my reasoning, read it.

16.71 million people seem to be interested in it to date which should answer your question.

Or did I understand your post incorrectly?

It's pretty difficult to decode.

and as for "Is it so hard to believe that there are people out there not interested in buying Blu-Rays or DVDs?"

no it's not.

Worldwide there are billions of people obviously not interested in any gaming or home entertainment system.  there are millions of people not interested in anything except trying to stay alive right now. so...what's your point?

Ok I might sue you for quoting me in such a wrong fashion.  There may be 16.71 people that own PS3 but that does not mean all those people are interested in Blu Ray.  I would say if PS3 did not have a blu ray player then there would probably be about 25 to 35 million PS3s sold by now.  Many of those 16.71 people wanted to get the new Playstation but due to Sony's obsession with the format war they were not given a choice of whether they wanted blu ray or not.  Truth of the matter is most people are not interested in spending more on movies for slight improvement in quality.   

 

How can 0.71 of a person own a PS3? Lol.

I suppose all of the Sony divisions have to work together. Without the PS3, Blu-ray may not have won the format war. Without blu-ray, we wouldn't have MGS4. Everyone's happy, except the people who couldn't afford 600 bucks for a console (it's 400 now)

So you are one of those people that thinks the only people not interested in a PS3 are those that can't afford it?  Or are you one of those people that spent so much on a console that you need reassurance that it is the greatest console ever?

 



Biggest Pikmin Fan on VGChartz I was chosen by default due to voting irregularities

Super Smash Brawl Code 1762-4158-5677 Send me a message if you want to receive a beat down

 

Spankey on 18 November 2008
EaglesEye379 said:

I already agreed that if you are a Blu-Ray/movie enthusiast (meaning you are planning to start a collection) and want a console then the PS3 is the choice. My question goes beyond that and I dont mean to be 'touchy' as you say.

You did some math adding the cost of an Arcade with a Blu-Ray player, where I think this is not valid because if they wanted a Blu-Ray collection, they would have obviously buy a PS3, its the only choice anyway. But Im just pointing out that there are a huge section of the consumers that would find no use at all with a Blu-Ray feature and therefore, it would by far be more economical to not pay for it in the first place.

If you were using the word economical in terms of a Blu-Ray collectors perspective then Im not disagreeing with you at all, but I took your post as from a general perspective, which would then be wrong to say PS3 is the more economical choice in general.


'16.71 million people seem to be interested in it to date which should answer your question'

No Im not asking how many people are interested, and Im sure for everyone that is interested there is a much bigger percentage who are not.

'... there are millions of people not interested in anything except trying to stay alive right now.'

Who's touchy now?

 

 

touché

but as for your question consider this:

You buy a microwave oven but never use the convection feature. have you wasted your money?

You buy a car but never use the rear seats. have you wasted your money?

you buy a hi-fi but never use the radio feature. have you wasted your money?

you buy a Tuxedo, but never use the pockets. have you wasted your money?

you but a TV but never use the RF tuner. have you wasted your money?

you buy a laptop but never use the Bluetooth. have you wasted your money?

All these features add value, but it's up to the purchaser to decide whether or not to use them

If those features are removed, the product would not be the same without them. sure the item would probably be cheaper without them but would lose functionality that some people are willing to pay for.

Besides, to get back on topic the OP was looking for Blu-Ray player functionality, so for him it's the more economical solution.



Proud Sony Rear Admiral

Mr_Tee_ on 18 November 2008

Check my Games collection out

the order which i bought my consoles Wii then Ps3 then Xbox360

Im a JRPG/FPS/TPS fan.

I loved Resident Evil 4 for the wii. I completed it 2 times great controls, graphics are good for a wii.

Lost Odyssey is probably my fav Xbox 360 game.

MGS4 is my fav PS3 game, this game is pure quality, I dont really like MGS games in general.

Im playing my xbox360 the most right now because i bought CoD:WaW for it, i didnt get it for the PS3 because in general most multi-platform games either come out first for Xbox360 or they just are made better, and achievements are always there, trophies are not 100% in everygame and are sometimes patched later.

the games i would play and complete right now if i had infinite time, which i own currently in no particular order;

CoD:WaW(xbox360)
Lost Odyssey(Xbox360)
Infinite Undiscovery(Xbox360)
Gears of War 2(Xbox360)
Fable 2(Xbox360)
Mass Effect(Xbox360)
The Orange Box(Xbox360)
Blue Dragon(Xbox360)

CoD:MW(PS3)
Eternal Sonata(PS3)
The Eye of Judgement(PS3)
LittleBigPlanet(PS3)
GTA4(PS3)

Mario Galaxy(Wii)
Zelda Twilight PRincess(Wii)

Games ive already completed;

MGS4(PS3)
Uncharted(PS3)
Ratchet and Clank(PS3)
The Darkness(PS3)

Gears of War(xbox360)
Halo 3(xbox360)

At the moment i play my Xbox360 more. PS3 really lacks in RPGs to my taste compared with the xbox but thats just me. to be honest i havent really played my ps3 more than an hour since i got my 360 since ive got so much back catalogue of games that i really like on it, trying to catch up.

The xbox360 feels like a gaming console first a multimedia entertainment system second.
The PS3 feels the Opposite.

Im a Gamer first!, I will be buying FF XIII on my ps3 maybe, depends what the reviews and people opinions are but its nice to have the game on 1 disc and a statistically more reliable console. i havent had any trouble on my 360 touch wood but god forbid id get an error whilst halfway through a big rpg.





Owner of PS3, Wii, Xbox360, NDS, PSP - Feel Free to add me on PSN or XBL :)

tuoyo on 18 November 2008
Spankey said:
EaglesEye379 said:
 

I already agreed that if you are a Blu-Ray/movie enthusiast (meaning you are planning to start a collection) and want a console then the PS3 is the choice. My question goes beyond that and I dont mean to be 'touchy' as you say.

You did some math adding the cost of an Arcade with a Blu-Ray player, where I think this is not valid because if they wanted a Blu-Ray collection, they would have obviously buy a PS3, its the only choice anyway. But Im just pointing out that there are a huge section of the consumers that would find no use at all with a Blu-Ray feature and therefore, it would by far be more economical to not pay for it in the first place.

If you were using the word economical in terms of a Blu-Ray collectors perspective then Im not disagreeing with you at all, but I took your post as from a general perspective, which would then be wrong to say PS3 is the more economical choice in general.


'16.71 million people seem to be interested in it to date which should answer your question'

No Im not asking how many people are interested, and Im sure for everyone that is interested there is a much bigger percentage who are not.

'... there are millions of people not interested in anything except trying to stay alive right now.'

Who's touchy now?

 

 

touché

but as for your question consider this:

You buy a microwave oven but never use the convection feature. have you wasted your money? Don't know what the convection feature is but if you paid an extra $50 for it then yes you wasted your money

You buy a car but never use the rear seats. have you wasted your money? Obviously not because the point is to get you from A to B.  That it could have gotten three extra people is not your problem.  Anyway you would have also picked a car because of looks.  But if a 2 seater looked exactly the same as 5 seater, had the same engine and features and cost let's say$10,000 less then to some extent you would have wasted your money as you might as well have gone for the identical car which is cheaper

you buy a hi-fi but never use the radio feature. have you wasted your money? No because if the radio was taken out it wouldn't have really made any difference to the price

you buy a Tuxedo, but never use the pockets. have you wasted your money? No because you bought it to wear not as a storage device

you but a TV but never use the RF tuner. have you wasted your money? No because you use satellite to achieve the same thing (watching tv programming) while getting many more channels than through the RF tuner.  On top of that digital picture is clearer than RF picture.

you buy a laptop but never use the Bluetooth. have you wasted your money? only if there was exactly the same laptop save the absence of bluetooththat cost much less

All these features add value, but it's up to the purchaser to decide whether or not to use them

If those features are removed, the product would not be the same without them. sure the item would probably be cheaper without them but would lose functionality that some people are willing to pay for.

Besides, to get back on topic the OP was looking for Blu-Ray player functionality, so for him it's the more economical solution.

See my bolded responses and my statement I underlined.That's the problem to many they do not add value.   You are forcing the consumer to pay for something they do not want.  Let me ask you this.  There are two PS3 SKUS.

SKU 1 has 40gb hard drive and no blu ray drive.  It cost £150.

SKU 2 has a 40gb hard drive and blu ray drive.  It cost £280. 

Which would sell more?  Without a doubt SKU 1.  In fact if Sony had offered this alternative PS3 would have crushed 360 sales by now.  But they couldn't because they were obsessed with winning the HD format war and blu ray in every PS3 was the only way they could achieve this.

 



Biggest Pikmin Fan on VGChartz I was chosen by default due to voting irregularities

Super Smash Brawl Code 1762-4158-5677 Send me a message if you want to receive a beat down

 

Around the Network
EaglesEye379 on 18 November 2008

@Spankey

Although each of your examples have merit in their own right, there are 3 major reasons why I think it doesnt hold for the PS3.

Firstly, the Blu-Ray feature adds a significant amount to the overall price whereas the rest of your examples dont.

Secondly, you seem to think Blu-Ray is as standard as pockets, RF tuners and car rear seats? I dont want this to turn into a Blu-Ray is the standard argument, I had enough to last me a lifetime, but ~85% sell through on DVD currently does not lie. And its really not impossible that the standard would be that people digitally rent, stream or download movies/shows in the future.

Thirdly, all your examples add to the core functionality of the actual core product. People use cars to sit in and drive to a destination, people use a hi-fi to listen to music where radio is an avenue and people heat up food in microwaves whether its convection or waves etc. The core functionality of the PS3 as a video game console is to play games. Being able to play digital media film was never a standard feature of a video game console, look at the Wii and every other video game console in history pre-PS2. It was only pioneered by the PS2 and that is only recently.


If you buy a PS3 but never use the Blu-Ray to watch movies, have you wasted your money? I would say yes to this based on my points. You can play the same games for less than half the price.


In regards to the OP, he says that he is impressed with the picture quality of Blu-Ray and anybody would be, its the best picture quality, no one is denying that. But all too often I hear people say that, get a PS3 and end up getting a rental service and buying like 2-3 Blu-Rays a year. I think its hard enough keeping up with the games.



sepisfu on 18 November 2008

first of all thx for all responds
for clarifying my question
i want Blu ray player but i don't want buy a ps3 just because it has blu ray player and is economical
i want a gaming system that satisfy me for the games and online playing

i have ps2 and PC and that's it, but most of games that i have are on PC
the games i have are: ICO, FarCry 2, Fifa 08, Kingdom of hart, rainbow six,...

but i love mario and halo is fun online. i played those games with my friends
i'm open to any games

i have HDTV 40 inch (i'm not sure if this information helps u or not?)

i need to know what are good games for those 3 consoles(Wii, ps3, xbox360)
then i can read reviews for those games to see which ones i like more

also if u know what good games are coming for those consoles (2009) that would be great makes my decision easier



damkira on 18 November 2008

Wii is the most fun system...

Six good games

--------------------------

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

Super Mario Galaxy

Super Smash Brothers Brawl

Mario Kart Wii

Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World



jonager on 18 November 2008

psp

jeanne dark
syphon filter
final fantasy tactics remake
tomb raider
MoH
an Socom



FPSrules on 18 November 2008

PS3
1. MGS4 (not much to say, its metal gear solid)

2. Resistance 2 (best online/multiplayer game this gen)

3. Rachet and Clank (well known fun casual game)

4. Uncharted (new francise, with amazing graphics and fun addicting gameplay)

5. LittlebigPlanet (one of the most anticipated games for ps3)

6. Playstation Home (its a exclusive that has the potential to sell ps3's, its
software, not a game and its free, you should search this one up im sure you love it if your into myspace, facebook, etc)

7. MLB 08 The show (ESPN calls it the best baseball game ever)

8. Gran Turismo 5 (most sucessful racing francise ever)

there is more, here is a link to 150+ confirmed exclusives
http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=86124

i own both the 360 and ps3 just to let everyone know that im not being biased. and i try to pick up a wii on black friday or early next year cause i want the classic games like super mario world (one of my favorite games of all time)