Both. Why limit yourself? They each have great exclusive games. For what it's worth, I lean towards the PS3 for a variety of personal reasons: I anticipated the PS3's exclusives more than the 360's, I wanted the PS2 backwards compatibility and Folding@Home, and I tend to think the PS3 versions of cross-platform games are a little better. (Madden '09 excepted, because EA Tiburon is staffed by idiots and/or are being paid off by Microsoft.)
Resistance supports up to 40 players at a time, Resistance 2 bumps it up to 60. And it's free. Killzone 2 will have online play as well. Then there's Haze, Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Unreal Tournament 3, Battlefield: Bad Company, Quake Wars, Call of Duty 4, and I'm sure FEAR 2 will have multiplayer.
Actually, I was thinking that CoD4 IS on the Wii also. I might have to research that one myself I think in the long run- the PS3 is probably a better investment, and hey, you get BluRay thrown in. I couldnt vote bro, as I support and love my Wii.
Well, I plan on getting a Wii next. But I cant see any reason to own a 360 and a ps3. Cant decide which to get. But yeah, the Wii is great. Smash Bros Brawl is out of this world. I'll **** you up with Kirby!
I gotta tell you, I bought the Wii mostly cause I already have like 50 Gamecube games (They play nicely on the Wii thank you), but I am quickly becoming addicted to the interactive play. Some of the games are a real workout like the Boxing. Of course not all the games are interactive and there will probably be times I wished I had a 360 or PS3...but I havent reached that yet
I have the 360 but have been thinking of switching to PS3 but purely for the blue-ray feature (theres plenty of games to suit all tastes) If blue-ray doesn't take off and the industry jumps straight to downloads then xbox live wil have a major head-start. I've also heard (just the messenger!) that the PS3 is harder for developers to write for so doesn't benefit for its superior power.
If you don't have any affiliation with either right now I'd get a PS3. Xbox is great, the games are great, but I've been screwed around by the repair center too much to give the system a recommendation or any more business.
Direct downloads are nice, but they won't replace Blu-Ray for quite a few years. This is largely an Internet myth that carries over from the previous generation, where the PS2 was surprisingly capable but was a pain in the rear to develop for while the Xbox was much easier to get games running on. In this case, the PS3 is actually easier to develop for than the PS2, but some developers had trouble early on wrapping their heads around the concept of the asymmetrical CPU architecture the Cell is built on. Most notable of these is EA Tiburon, which seems dead set on being as lazy as possible with their games. It's very difficult to call a system with MGS4, Uncharted, and 40-player multiplayer games "hard to program for." Also worth noting that the 360's triple-core PowerPC CPU isn't exactly a cakewalk to work with either. And in the end, does it really matter to us end gamers how hard the console is to work with? Didn't stop us from buying the PS2. Didn't stop developers from putting games out for it.
You and me both. You know what the best platform for JRPGs is right now? The DS. Dragon Quest IV comes out on the 16th, give it a look. The remakes of 5 and 6 are due next year, and 9 is coming out later this year in Japan.
Call of Duty 4 is only on the PS3, 360, and DS. I have both the 360 and PS3. I prefer the PS3. A lot of people say that 360 has better online but what is so different. The on difference is 360 software features and xbox.com. Sony is coming out with online features like the one seen n xbox.com.
I have them both too and I don't think PSN is even close to as easy to use or reliable as XBL. granted they're getting more of the features now with Trophies (I still have zero trophies) and in game XMB. But constant random disconnects from the network and random support between some games and not others make it too tacked on. XBLs auto updates and built in matchmaking (across any game) makes it way too friendly. I do like the PSN store (essentially a web page in the PS3 screen) over Xbox Live Marketplace's drab blade experience. The way I see it, is you get what you pay for. PSN is free, so I don't ever really complain about it. Same thing with Wii's non existant online platform.
i've had both. currently i have a ps3 and think it's not only "caught up" to the 360, but passed it. the hardware is a lot better and the number of games are about the same now (and the graphics on ps3 exclusives are much better). online is ok with ps3, but since it's free, makes the total cost the same as 360. i did both online and the only thing i really miss about 360 is more people wear the headset/camera.
i put in some time with Warhawk to try and get a trophy... I'm just not good enough lol. Warhawk is amazingly unforgiving. Infact, Warhawk made me appreciate XBL's matchmaking system. The lack of matchmaking forces the player to try and find a reliable server that is at or around their skill level. But even the noob servers are loaded with vets.
Just do the training "missions". Thats an EASY way to get a few Trophies. Speaking of Matchmaking, It doesn't work for me on Halo 3. I got my *** handed every time.
i didn't realize the training missions would give me trophies... THANKS! I'm gonna do it when I get home. As far as Halo3... The problem with Halo is that the people that play it are slaves to that damn game. They don't play anything but freaking Halo. So matchmaking tries to match you with people of similar skill levels... But there are none because no noobs play the game. Thus you (just like me when I dable in Halo3) get your *** handed to you
Thats the best part! You get thrown right into the fire! You're not gonna get any better playing a bunch of other noobs! You just gotta put in the time. I think everyone gets owned the first couple weeks you play Warhawk but then you get a feel for it, learn the maps/weapons, and you get better. We really need to set up a Phins match sometime. I know we have at least 6+ guys here that have it.
Agree with Mor, it's because people dedicate their lives to Halo and abuse the system. If you play only social games your rank will stop going up, so many losers have a second account where they can abuse low level people by never levelling up.
If you can't get both, you have to look at the exclusives and decide which one you prefer. I have all 3 consoles, but like my PS3 best. The bluray feature is freaking huge too. I love watching bluray. I would argue for the PS3 solely for ... Metal Gear Solid 4! But if you want halo 3, mass effect (or defect ... glitchy game) gears of war it's the 360. Also, there are more JRPGs on it, but they're all very uninspiring as of now. Gears 2 is coming out. Fable II as well. only on 360. PS3 has resistance, Socom is supposed to be a good online shooter, check out littlebigplanet. Lots of games for either platform.
I'll prolly pass on Resistance 2 and Socom (based on what King said about the beta). Little Big Planet and Home are the big PS3 wins for me. If Fable 2 is even half as awesome as Molyneaux makes it out to be (he's well known for over hyping his games), it'll be phenomenal. Gears 2 should be a blast. As far as I'm concerned, Gears 1 is still the standard to beat for a co-op action game. Too much fun. I'm not into the VS modes though. I expect Gears 2 to be just as awesome.
I dug Warkhawk. I gave it a legit shot (3 days of madness). But in the end it was too unforgiving for rookies like me. I'm not big on mp shooters already, so I'm not very good. Trying to get good in a hostile environment like Warhawk's is tough.
Missing out man. I can see where your both coming from though. It is kinda overwhelming at first and you have to take your lumps before you get good. They have a new training setup now thats supposed to help with that. Haven't tried it though, I learned the hard way. Well worth it though, replay value wise its still my favorite game for PS3.
