XBOX 360, PS3 or Wii?

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: goldeneye13 the PS3 is the best system EVER MADE it has the best games, graphics, and its better, it's for hardcore gamers who like war games. The XBOX360 has TERRIBLE GRAPHICS and all those stupid fantasy games, not to mention the controllers, those things are fat and stupid. Dont even get me started on the Wii, that piece of crap is a waste of money in so many ways, the graphics are worst than the PS2 and that stupid motion sensing thing is so innacurate and bad on all games. The Wii's for families with 4 year olds who play Rock Band (which isn't as good as Guitar Hero) all day. So in short here's how it goes.

1.PS3

2.PS2

3. XBOX360

4.SUPERNINTENDO

5.XBOX

17,532. Wiiquote>

Remind me how those are terrible graphics?

Name ten good, exclusive Playstation 3 games.  Then I might believe you.

Originally posted by: zangle06 I personally think that the xbox 360 is the better 1 (im not just say cus i have one)

but it is much cheaper than the ps3 and the wii and is probley the cheapest console out for this generationquote>

Hate to burst your bubble, but until Microsoft dropped the "basic" 360 to $200 USD, the Wii has always been the cheapest.  And the 360's starting price was about $300 for the basic, and $400 or so for the one with all the extra features (feel free to correct me anyone ).

Come to think of it, until the PS3 came out, 360 was the most expensive. Still, it's worth the asking price, compared to $600 for a Blu-Ray and games that nobody really cares for.

[goldeneye13 0]

You do know that microsoft pays gaming develepors not to make games for the PS3 because they know the Ps3 would destroy the 360 right? (Halo 3 was supposed to be for ps3).

yoshiisland: ok i'll tell ya. the road is really pixely and the hill to the right is just a gray blur. if it was on ps3 you would be able to see it in detail. AND those are in high resoultion graphics. they barely match up to the ps3's low res graphics. (Low resolution is gameplay, High res is cut scenes).

[zangle06 0]

Hate to burst your bubble, but until Microsoft dropped the "basic" 360 to $200 USD, the Wii has always been the cheapest.  And the 360's starting price was about $300 for the basic, and $400 or so for the one with all the extra features (feel free to correct me anyone ).quote>

yh but im talking in england i saw a new 360 for £129 and a wii is about £149 and the ps3 is still 2 EXPENSIVE

[goldeneye13 0]

I'm not saying I don't like the 360, trust me I like it, and i openly admit XBOXlive is better than PSN. I have all 3 systems so I can make an educated opinion. I bet half the people saying 360 is better have never even played PS3 before.

[zangle06 0]

I have a 360 and my best mate has a ps3 and we contantly get in fight in which on is better but i think if microsoft had mad xbox live free like PSN then they would be in big money but if sony had made theres more cheaper but keeping the same features they would be in big money aswell if u gt me

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: goldeneye13 You do know that microsoft pays gaming develepors not to make games for the PS3 because they know the Ps3 would destroy the 360 right? (Halo 3 was supposed to be for ps3).quote>

Did you know: Bungie, the makers of Halo, were a subsidary of Microsoft until just after Halo 3 was released. I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to release the final part of their headline series on a competing system.

I don't quite know where you're getting you're information from.. developers are making games for PS3... lots of them. Lots of PS3 exclusives have incredible graphics, because they can make full use of the storage capacity of bluray discs. But most games that are on the PS3 are cross platform and are developed for the 360 then ported to the other consoles.

[Godzillaman 21]

Originally posted by: goldeneye13 You do know that microsoft pays gaming develepors not to make games for the PS3 because they know the Ps3 would destroy the 360 right? (Halo 3 was supposed to be for ps3).quote>

What reliable source is this from? Youtube?

Other than companies and pitiful fanboy groups, they are the exact same...Get over it. Compare GTA4 for both systems and they look the same...

[Haljackey 17,354]

I got a Wii when it first came out. I enjoyed it back then. Due to the high demand and popularity, my friends would always come over and play Wii sports and I played Zelda when by myself. Those were good times.

-Then after a bit it started to lose its edge and all the "childish" games being released didn't help. I grew tired of it, especially when I got a HDTV and the Wii does not have HD capability. The games, even Zelda, looked terrible!

So I started saving for a new console, debating between the 360 and the PS3. I finally decided to go 360 and get the Halo 3 Xbox.

-The thing is, that the Halo 3 Xbox did NOT come with Halo 3! What's the point in getting it then? I was not prepared to spend extra money for the game and left the store with disgust.

Then, then the PS3 came down in price to $399, I decided to get it, mainly because I wanted to get both a HD game system and a Blu-Ray player for my HDTV. Besides, the PS3 is the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market and is also a game system! I am not much of an online player, so I didn't mind that the PSN is not as good as Xbox live, plus its free unlike the Xbox.

Overall, I am quite happy with my purchase. I buy new games for the PS3 and use the Wii to download the virtual console games and play fun games like Mario Kart Wii and Super Smash when I have people over.

Just my perspective on the issue. So Wii, PS3 or 360? I'd have to say Wii, mainly because it was the only console to progress the market forward. Both the PS3 and Xbox 360 may have better graphics and have other abilities (such as PS3 playing Blu-Rays), but overall they are the same old thing compared to their previous versions. The Wii is the only one to offer anything new, and even though many of its games are "childish", the console itself (this thread is about the consoles, not the games), is, in my opinion, the best of the 3 systems.

Best,

-Haljackey

[goldeneye13 0]

Godzillaman: #1: GTAIV was an all around bad game anyway so the graphics can't be counted in this instance

                        #2: my"reliable source" was equinox. to prove here ya go..........................................

https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/tombstone.cfm?ProfileID=6502

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: goldeneye13 Godzillaman: #1: GTAIV was an all around bad game anyway so the graphics can't be counted in this instance

                        #2: my"reliable source" was equinox. to prove here ya go..........................................

https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/tombstone.cfm?ProfileID=6502quote>

While equinox is certainly a respectable and valued member of the community, there's no clear proof that a member who hasn't visited in almost a year knew that Microsoft did that.  And hate to break it to ya buddy, but the "inferior" part was obviously an opinion...

And as to GTA4 being a bad game, I've no idea what you have to back that up either.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: goldeneye13

#2: my"reliable source" was equinox. to prove here ya go..quote>

Equinox is a great guy, but what he says for his quote in his profile is not exactly a stunning source. If you want anyone to actually believe what you're saying, try giving us a legitimate source.

haljackey: I have to agree with you. While the Wii is not the most graphically stunning console, it's by far the most progressive. I'm sure we'll see the next gen consoles starting to add in similar motion based functions.

Any of the big three can upgrade the graphics, that's quite honestly relatively easy to do... Nintendo opted not to, so they could focus on and perfect the wiimote/nunchuk controllers. Finding a formula for great success, getting people of all ages to play something that is traditionally dominated by 13-30 year olds is not exactly easy to do. For that, I think the Wii wins hands down.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: Yoshiisland

Originally posted by: goldeneye13 Godzillaman: #1: GTAIV was an all around bad game anyway so the graphics can't be counted in this instance

                        #2: my"reliable source" was equinox. to prove here ya go..........................................

https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/tombstone.cfm?ProfileID=6502quote>

While equinox is certainly a respectable and valued member of the community, there's no clear proof that a member who hasn't visited in almost a year knew that Microsoft did that.  And hate to break it to ya buddy, but the "inferior" part was obviously an opinion...

And as to GTA4 being a bad game, I've no idea what you have to back that up either.  And even though that's a matter of opinion, how does that tie into graphics?  Good graphics does not equal good game play...whoever started that rule needs to get banned from every gaming mechanism out there.quote>

[Godzillaman 21]

Originally posted by: goldeneye13 Godzillaman: #1: GTAIV was an all around bad game anyway so the graphics can't be counted in this instance

                        #2: my"reliable source" was equinox. to prove here ya go..........................................

https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/tombstone.cfm?ProfileID=6502quote>

OOooo...so reliable...And where he got that, no one really knows......sounds really reliable...

And to say GTA4 was an all round bad game means you really didn't play it much...opinion doesn't mean that you can simply disregard things. Harsh...but that's life...

And if you want another comparison, take the burnout series, or the CoD series...

[Duke87 1,070]

One thing I will never understand is the obsession over graphics.

There are two TVs in my house. Both are old-fashioned tubes. And they suit us just fine, thank you very much. An HDTV is not worth shelling out the extra money for.

Really, the Wii (just like the Gamecube), is capable of rendering 3D models that don't look blocky. What more do you really want?

Besides, graphics aren't going to make or break a game. Hell, unless they're absolutely atrocious, they aren't going to affect how fun it is to play. The best selling game of all time remains to this day the first Super Mario Bros. from 1985. In 8 bits for the NES. Yeah, some amazing graphics that game has.

And Megaman 9, released less than six weeks ago, was made in 8 bits and it sold pretty damn well. And having played it, I'm not going to say it's anything short of awesome. Who needs fancy-schmancy graphics?

Originally posted by: goldeneye13 that stupid motion sensing thing is so innacurate and bad on all games.quote>

...the same "stupid motion sensing thing" your beloved PS3 has?

The Wii's for families with 4 year olds who play Rock Band (which isn't as good as Guitar Hero) all day.quote>

Meh. Rock Band and Guitar Hero both suck, but that's a debate for another thread.

Though, last I checked, I'm not a family with 4 year olds. I'm an adult who has a Wii and likes it. And I know I'm not the only one. My grandparents have a Wii and love it. So does my 13 year old cousin. And I know my 17 year old sister doesn't hate the thing, either. She just loses interest because I keep kicking her ass whenever we play against each other.

I've played several matches of Brawl against (sometimes sober, sometimes not) other people in my dorm and it never fails to disappoint them, either.

Might wanna reconsider your "It's just for little kids" stance there, buddy.

[Dragonsblade79 0]

I got the Wii first. I fell in love with it then and still love it now, even though I bought a 360 about a month ago. I only bought the 360 because I've been wanting to play Mass Effect and GTA4 (which I'll have to wait to get this Christmas). I've played PS3, my best bud's younger brother got one a while ago. So far, though, MGS4 is still the only reason for me to get one. I'm not hating the PS3, but I'm not loving it all that much, either. So far the better games, that have been released this generation, have come out on 360. PS3 shares many of those titles, but end up weaker than the 360 versions, which doesn't make much sense when PS3 boasts the better technology. There have been more games out on 360 that I care about and want to play than on PS3, and that's also why I bought one over PS3.

I hate that Sony and Microsoft still force you to shell out a ton of money to get the most out of their consoles' experience. I bought the $200 360, and I'm a bit upset that I should've payed the extra $50 to get the standard system w/HDD. Now I have to save up for one, which sucks. I'm glad to have a 360, but I would've packed the 20GB HDDs in the low-end console packages since you get a 60GB with the standard package and 120GB with the high-end one. At least Sony still gives you a HDD with their cheaper console, but it's stripped down as well. Plus, PS3s aren't backwards compatible anymore. That would've helped me choose it over 360. Now I still have to hold onto my PS2, either way.

The Wii has one price and comes with most of its features right out of the box. You don't have to pay extra cash for something that could've been saved for another console package even though you might need it to fully experience the Wii. I'm proud to say the Wii is the best for your money, and it's the most fun. The gaming variety is pretty good, though it could still improve. I'm a hardcore gamer and love the Wii, though I still wish the hardcore choices would improve in number, but I think they will eventually. However, since most console buyers are hardcore gamers, then I think they'll pass on the Wii, despite the fact that it has gone in the better direction. I think hardcore gamers'll wind up mostly deciding between the Xbox 360 or the PS3. The 360 is easier on one's wallet, but the PS3 is worth a look; if you can afford the 360 Elite, then you can afford a PS3, that's when the choice becomes that much more difficult. I still think I would've bought the 360 Elite (the package i really wanted to buy but couldn't save up enough for) over PS3 based on the bigger game choices.

[goldeneye13 0]

Ok look, Godzillaman, GTAIV was a bad game, I oughta know, I beat it, but that's an argument for another thread.

Duke87: you like the Wii because you're probly not a hardcore gamer.....and the Wii DOES have attrocious graphics, try playing Battle for the pacific or Medal of Honor Heroes 2 on it I mean REALLY??? The SNES had better graphics thant that piece of crap!!! And there's only one motion sensing game for PS3 that I have on that's Call of Duty 3. But it was good because you didn't have to move everything. And you just proved my point it's for old people and little kids. There's like 3 M games for the whole system

Dragonsblade79: The old PS3's are backwards compatible (I have the 976th PS3 EVER MADE!!!!!) The PS3 now has the biggest hardrive to, they're comin out with a 160GB one. The PS3 has better media too, now I know a lot of you are going to disagree with me already, but hear me out. It has BLUE- TOOTH which means you can upload movies and games onto it before they even come out in theaters. I have the new Harry Potter movie And the Dark Knight on mine (among others).

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: goldeneye13

you like the Wii because you're probly not a hardcore gamer. quote>

True, I'm not. Maybe that contributes somewhat to me liking the Wii.

Worth pointing out that of the three, the Wii has sold the best, though.

and the Wii DOES have attrocious graphics, try playing Battle for the pacific or Medal of Honor Heroes 2 on it I mean REALLY??? quote>

Never played either of those games.

The SNES had better graphics thant that piece of crap!!!quote>

Right, 16 bit sprites are better graphics than 128 bit 3D models. Yeah.

SNES:

(link to image)

Wii:

Sorry, what?

 

And you just proved my point it's for old people and little kids. There's like 3 M games for the whole systemquote>

Nintendo traditionally isn't too fond of M rated games. They like to have a "family-friendly" image.

Still, what difference does really that make? Some of the best games ever made are rated E.

The PS3 now has the biggest hardrive to, they're comin out with a 160GB one. quote>

"My hard drive's bigger than yours". Please, huge amounts of storage aren't necessary for a  console. All you need is enough that you don't have to worry about maxing it out (though I suppose the size of what you're putting on it makes a big differences at to what that is).

It has BLUE- TOOTH which means you can upload movies and games onto it before they even come out in theaters. quote>

Download, not upload.

But really, who cares? It's a gaming console, not a movie theater. I want it to be able to play games. Any extra bells and whistles on it are unnecessary... and are especially bothersome when they make the thing more expensive than it needs to be.

...and before they come out in theaters? I doubt that. I think you meant before they come out on DVD. And that's not really worth it, anyway. I'm sure they aren't free to download. Why buy them when you can just get them from Netflix, watch them, put them back in the mail, and be done with them?

[Godzillaman 21]

Ah...I see you are a PS3 boy who thinks they're greater than all...

Any system has their hardcore gamers, you're just to ignorant to know about them...

You seem to not notice that without the Blueray, the PS3 would basically be the same as the 360, disregarding companies...

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: goldeneye13And there's only one motion sensing game for PS3 that I have on that's Call of Duty 3. But it was good because you didn't have to move everything.quote>

You're really so lazy you can't move your arms about?

And you just proved my point it's for old people and little kids. There's like 3 M games for the whole systemquote>

I'm pretty sure the same knucklehead who started the idea you need good graphics to enjoy a game, was the one who started the idea that you need excessive amounts of blood and gore to enjoy yourself.  Even titles suitable for the whole family can prove to be tons of fun.

Dragonsblade79: The old PS3's are backwards compatible (I have the 976th PS3 EVER MADE!!!!!) The PS3 now has the biggest hardrive to, they're comin out with a 160GB one. The PS3 has better media too, now I know a lot of you are going to disagree with me already, but hear me out. It has BLUE- TOOTH which means you can upload movies and games onto it before they even come out in theaters. I have the new Harry Potter movie And the Dark Knight on mine (among others).

quote>

That would be download, not upload.  And you meant DVD, not theatres...or if I'm not mistaken, The Dark Knight came out during the summer, correct? 

If you wanna make a civil, factual argument, I'm all for it.  But if you wanna just bull-crap your arguments and make up stuff as you go, then there's a site called YouTube for that.

[Harken 0]

What gaming console would I be willing to spend my money on if I could only buy one of the consoles?

Drum-roll please: Brbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb (funky noise made with my mouth).

The Nintendo Wii! Why?

For one, I am a diehard Super Mario and Luigi fan.

Second: Nintendo has a very limited fanbase (therefore they have a very limited group to make money from); the fact that Nintendo can balance what they can produce for their system (therefore limiting how well they can compete technologically) while maintaining funding for creativity shows me how better off the business really is.

Third: remember the PS3's overheating and game availability problems, followed by XBox 360's "Red Ring of Death"? The Wii has not had major problems while using revolutionary game controls. I think sales were better for the Wii earlier on because of those issues with the other consoles.

Fourth: Nintendo tends to have less violent, more family oriented games...not to completely disregard terrible games like Grand Theft Auto 4.

Anyway, for myself as my first pick: the Wii is it. Although I am not an arrogant twit: the Wii doesn't have superb sound and graphics when it is compared to Microsoft and Sony.

...but I don't buy games for their bells and whistles, and their graphics and sound. Heck, I still play less than 8Bit games from time to time.

You guys have a great day.

[Dragonsblade79 0]

Dragonsblade79: The old PS3's are backwards compatible (I have the 976th PS3 EVER MADE!!!!!) The PS3 now has the biggest hardrive to, they're comin out with a 160GB one. The PS3 has better media too, now I know a lot of you are going to disagree with me already, but hear me out. It has BLUE- TOOTH which means you can upload movies and games onto it before they even come out in theaters. I have the new Harry Potter movie And the Dark Knight on mine (among others).quote>

I know the old PS3s are backwards compatible, but none of the new ones are. They took out the Emotion engines to help make them cheaper. The Wii and 360 are still backwards compatible, even the newly produced models, unlike PS3. Plus, HDD space isn't that much of a factor to me, unless we're talking PCs. Wii uses bluetooth technology as well. Bluetooth is wireless technology that makes things like wireless headsets on cellphones possible. You can upload movies to a 360 as well. I'm not saying PS3 is a bad machine, but its biggest advantage so far is the Blu-Ray technology, and that frankly is what makes the thing so blasted expensive. There's too much on the negative side for PS3 to make it a sound purchase for me.  Plus, those movies and films you're probably getting are probably illeagal.

[newyorkrunaway1 110]

i prefer playstation 3

i prefered nintendo before they went past the 64, that was my favorite console ever

[diablo_del_bano 3]

All of the consoles are too expensive for me to justify buying, because I personally would much rather spend that money upgrading my PC, a machine that does games AND just about everything else.

Also, I still can't decide between a PS3 and a 360. They both have the same number of games that I would like. The price of the 360 is tempting, but the fact that online play is free on a PS3 is equally tempting. Plus with a PS3 I can connect to my PSP and do other cool stuff. On the otherhand, I have heard that a PS3 pretty much sucks unless you have an HDTV, which I don't (unless you count my PC monitor) I know I want a Wii, but I'm waiting for the price to drop to at least $200, preferably lower (keep in mind that I bought my Gamecube when it was $99, and my Xbox when it was $150)

Alll in all, untill prices get lower, PSP, DS and PC ftw!

[goldeneye13 0]

Duke87: fair enough. The Wii sold the best because it's CHEAP. Almost every gamer I know has a Wii and never plays it and bought it just because. You don't want to play either of those games, I would rather have the Jumper video game than those. You have to admit the graphics for the SNES are still pretty good though. When I was first introduced to video games they didn't have any kiddy games. Heck, I was a six year old blowing people's head's off and stealing cars on GTA 3, and some of the best games ever are rated "M" to. Case and point......Call of Duty 4. Hard Drive space is everything the way I use my systems. I meant theaters, I've had Quantom of Solace since July. And it's free, you just have to know the right people.

Yoshiisland: Yes, I am that lazy . Yes, I do need blood and guts to enjoy myself on a video game (except for Sim City 4 of course). Download, Upload, same thing. It all has something to do with moving files right? And for the fourth time.................I MEANT THEATRES!!!!!!!! I'm a member of secret website that changes names every 2 days, and yes it is SO ILLEGAL.............SHHHHHHHHHHHH

Harken: The Wii has HECKA problems. Mine always frezzes and randomly turns off AND the light on the disc thingy keeps turning blue and flashing even when the systems off. My PS3 has never froze on me once in the two years I've had it. Every person I know that's had a 360 has turned it in due to the red rings so I don't know what they're doing at microsoft. They should have stuck to computers. Violent games like GTAIV is what makes the world go round...... just kidding!!

Dragonsblade79: The 360 ain't backwards compatible.

Newyorkrunaway1: tru dat man keep on rockin

diablo_del_bano: Whatevers

[diablo_del_bano 3]

Actually, my Uncle's 360 played my Halo and Forza discs just fine

[Mellowneos 0]

I have nothing against American video games so I'm definitely going with the 360 here because of the overall content. Halo 3+Gears of War 2+Bioshock+COD4+XBOX live=good times. I never owned the first Xbox, but I have a PS2 and all of the nintendo consoles. I must say those companies really let me down this time. Wii has my favorite games like Zelda and Metroid but the wi-fi and DLC is almost non-existent on most games The wi-fi play on Super Smash bros is just awful and I don't even bother to use it anymore. I don't see the point in buying a PS3 just for Metal gear Solid 4(I'll play that at my friends house). Even though live isn't free, you can definitely see the difference in quality. I'm not sure about PS3's online service because my friend won't use it(talk about a waste!). I'd rank this round Xbox 360>Wii>PS3 because of a lack of knowledge on PS3.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

yoshiisland: ok i'll tell ya. the road is really pixely and the hill to the right is just a gray blur. if it was on ps3 you would be able to see it in detail. AND those are in high resoultion graphics. they barely match up to the ps3's low res graphics. (Low resolution is gameplay, High res is cut scenes).quote>

Ever heard of something called "depth of field"? That's all the rage nowadays in creating "realistic" environments (read: blurry in background). Search on Wikipedia if you're not sure what it means.

Personally, I don't like the graphics of the new generation of games - it's a classic case of shader abuse (especially in games such as Mass Effect (I don't need to see every freaking skin imperfection, damnit), and don't get me started on Gears of War... brown, brown and more brown) - and I don't want to get any closer to the Uncanny Valley, thank you very much. SNES graphics - the high point of 2D graphics, IMO... there's nothing like a nice, clear, crisp picture, no matter what resolution it is...

Now, the weak point of the PS3 is... the graphics chip, believe it or not. This is what happens when you don't design a chip from scratch, instead modifying an (old) architecture designed for PCs (the PS3's RSX was derived from the GeForce 7800)... resulting in a chip that has half the bandwidth of the PS2's Graphics Synthesiser chip - meaning emulation problems. And Cell is very complex to develop for. Unfortunately, while the PS3 is a stellar piece of hardware... I have doubts the parts used are entirely suitable for a home console - after all, Cell is meant for number-crunching (only a small number of PS3s actually contribute to projects such as SETI@home and Folding@home... but they actually make up the bulk of processing power). And that's one big-ass heat-sink, too. Because the PS3's so heavy (heavier than the original Xbox, I believe), it really gives it that sense that Sony really put some effort in the construction of it... but the reason why it's so heavy is because of the steel frame required to support the weight of the heatsink.

Xbox 360 - I've always been wary of them due to their problems. I suppose that's what happens when you shove them out earlier than they should have been... so much for that headstart, it did nothing for them in the end. Now, its biggest flaw is most definitely the RRoD issue that's plagued them... closely followed by the need to pay extra for accessories that should have been included with the console in the first place (ie. hard drives)... loading times and noisy DVD drives have always been a bit of an issue. It's clear that Microsoft didn't think things through fully when designing this console. It's sadly just about at its maximum capability, due to its CPU. The GPU is quite a good one... but could be better. Shame that the 360's reputation has been ruined by its problems - it's a pretty good console in its own right. But Microsoft need to learn from their mistakes if they're to keep sales going consistently. The only way they've been able to sell it recently is through aggressive price-cutting.

Wii - what a money-maker. Nintendo's gamble did pay off handsomely (they made money right from the beginning), but at what cost? HD capabilities, storage capacity (particularly hard drives, but Nintendo have released an update that allows full proper use of SD cards, at last putting that slot to good use), the fact that developers develop games with atrocious graphics just to make a quick buck... the list goes on and on. Now, the Wii is a good console for bringing out once in a while and having fun with friends, but c'mon, at least put some effort into making decent games. The only problem is that there are too few good games.... but most of the games on Wii Ware look very promising. However... Nintendo's friend code thing is a pain in the butt and needs to be refined further.

All three consoles are aimed at different markets, believe it or not.

The PS3's aimed at the rich guy, someone who wants a high-quality multimedia centre to go with their shiny HDTV. Sony knows this, and they don't hesitate to flog this.

The 360 is aimed at the college guy, someone who loves to frag other people online. Their online service is nothing short of excellent... Microsoft have invested massive amounts of money in making sure that the online service works well... and they've done it. It's the definitive standard in online interaction.

The Wii is aimed at everybody else, but at the cost of the hard-core gamer crowd? There are a few games that are good on the Wii, but they are mainly from Nintendo.

I have a Wii, and I'm on the fence between a PS3 and 360, since they're really so similar. I will most likely end up going for a PS3 in the future, depending on what games are available on each system. Unfortunately, the majority of the blame lies with developers, since some are actually only in it for the money (EA, I'm looking at you) - this console generation has been nothing but a major farce when it comes to games.

Now, I'm gonna answer some comments, give explanations. All comments are in reverse chronological order.

It has BLUE- TOOTH which means you can upload movies and games onto it before they even come out in theaters.quote>

Er... Blue-tooth is not a practical standard for transferring large files. Believe me, you'd be much better off using standard wireless g or Ethernet.

And it is against the rules to talk about illegal file-sharing, implied or otherwise.

Heck, I was a six year old blowing people's head's off and stealing cars on GTA 3, and some of the best games ever are rated "M" to.quote>

And that makes it somehow acceptable?

The PS3 now has the biggest hardrive to, they're comin out with a 160GB one.quote>

"My hard drive's bigger than yours". Please, huge amounts of storage aren't necessary for a console. All you need is enough that you don't have to worry about maxing it out (though I suppose the size of what you're putting on it makes a big differences at to what that is).quote>

I agree with Duke. But for a different reason. If you're handy with a screwdriver, you can just shove in a new HD into the PS3. Or you could just use an external hard drive. People who buy the biggest capacity PS3 and know that there are alternative ways of getting space... are fooling themselves.

Originally posted by: goldeneye13 that stupid motion sensing thing is so innacurate and bad on all games.quote>

...the same "stupid motion sensing thing" your beloved PS3 has?quote>

Hah, I agree also with Duke... it'll be interesting for you to hear that your "beloved PS3" had it thrown in at the last minute as a gimmick because Nintendo had it on the Wii?

I've played several matches of Brawl against (sometimes sober, sometimes not) other people in my dorm and it never fails to disappoint them, either.quote>

Same here - Brawl's always fun. My friends regularly have Brawl days, where we just rock on up to a friend's place and play Brawl all day, complete with pizza and soft drink. A real blast!

But seriously, goldeneye, you should tone down your fanboyism and see each console for what it's really worth - each console has its strong and weak points... and that's what makes them unique from each other.

Cheers,

--SA

[Haljackey 17,354]

Shadow_Assassin:  Your post was very enjoyable to read.  Just remember that this thread is about the consoles themselves, not the games.

Besides, you never answered the question .  I would like to know from you: Wii, PS3 or 360?

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: goldeneye13Yoshiisland: Yes, I am that lazy . Yes, I do need blood and guts to enjoy myself on a video game (except for Sim City 4 of course). Download, Upload, same thing. It all has something to do with moving files right? And for the fourth time.................I MEANT THEATRES!!!!!!!! I'm a member of secret website that changes names every 2 days, and yes it is SO ILLEGAL.............SHHHHHHHHHHHHquote>

So what you're saying is, the pre-movie thing is from an illegal website?  Not sure it counts since Sony didn't build that into the PS3.  And no, uploading and downloading are basically the exact opposite of each other...

[Godzillaman 21]

Originally posted by: goldeneye13

Dragonsblade79: The 360 ain't backwards compatible.quote>

If not, then why can I play the first halo that was intended for the first Xbox?