This is just so I can rip on LeonBlade for being - and I really don't use this term without justification - a hopeless PS3 fanboy.
LeonBlade wrote:At a hardware standpoint, PS3 is better than the 360.
I assume you're referring to its oh-so-amazing processing power. Please tell me what it has been used for other than graphics (which you have also listed below, and trust me, I'll get to that). If nothing, then the extra power is useless, besides making it more expensive.
The only other thing this might refer to is the embarrassingly unintuitive sixaxis controller, which is akin to iPhone games using the tilt sensor to control a character - that is: fucking stupid. I guess it's fine if you really like that sort of thing, but simply stating that the hardware is better because you can tilt the controller that you're already using to control the game to control other parts of the game is a very unqualified statement.
LeonBlade wrote:At a multimedia standpoint, PS3 is better than the 360.
Another fanboy favourite: BLU RAY!!!!11 Or as I like to call it: proof that Sony rides the "we can't think of anything new so just pump steroids into current technology". If you don't have a 50+-inch 1080p television, 7.1 surround sound, and all the highest-end cabling to use with it, you don't need Blu-Ray. Hell, even then it's arguable. It's simply a glorified DVD, just with smaller tracks to pack more information on - making it less reliable (more prone to scratching), so that an extra protective coating was required, making it more costly to manufacture. Meanwhile actually useful technology like solid-state goes unused, presumably because they couldn't think of a cute name for it.
Oh yeah, and I guess we're completely ignoring things like Netflix integration here, which takes your monthly subscription to all the movies you want, and streams them at any time on your console, thus avoiding shipping of DVDs and wait times. Comparing it to the PS3, I'd have to say it must not count because A) actual thought was put into its design and implementation, and B) it's only DVD-QUALITY.
LeonBlade wrote:At a reliability standpoint, PS3 is better than the 360.
This is how predictable PS3 fanboys are. You can only be talking about the RROD, which is like a Christian winning the lottery and using it as proof God exists. I've never had this problem, and guess what, I work in a game studio of over 300 people, almost all of them have 360s, and I've never heard of one person this has happened to. So it can't be THAT common. The only person I know of at all who has had this problem got his 360 in the first couple of months they were out, so I'd be willing to bet it was largely an early problem that isn't half the plague that PS3 fanboys make it out to be. And you know what, plenty of people have problems with their PS3s, but you don't want to hear about it, so you just say that it's more reliable.
LeonBlade wrote:At a price standpoint, PS3 is better than the 360.
Okay, this one I don't get at all; the PS3 is more expensive than the 360, what exactly is your definition of "price standpoint"? Are you talking about value? If you are, then it's basically a summation of all of your other points, which I am chipping away at with little effort because you're either misguided, stupid, or willfully ignorant.
LeonBlade wrote:At a graphical standpoint, PS3 is better than the 360.
It's about time we got here. Is this the enormous difference between graphics you're talking about?:
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6201700/index.html
If that makes the difference between you buying one console or another, then you should probably dive under a tractor - and film it in 1080p.
Let's talk about the logistics here for a second. Most companies make games for at least 2 consoles.
They are not going to make all new assets for a game because one console can draw a few more pixels-per-inch. At best you're looking at the exact same character models rendered in ever-so-slightly higher resolution. I guess you deserve a medal and the ability to endlessly spout your nonsensical arguments all over the internet for that.
LeonBlade wrote:At an online standpoint, PS3 is better than the 360.
Another one I just don't get at all. Maybe you have to belong to several PS3 fanboy sites to make this untrue, but I know over 4 times as many people with 360s than PS3s, so it has a stronger community. Most of the people I know that do have a PS3 still use their 360 for online games. Sony made "Home" to compete with Xbox's NXE, but the only use for it I've seen is to make your avatar a hot girl to lure in creepy fat gamer nerds, only to instantly turn your avatar back into a creepy fat gamer nerd and gross the other creepy fat gamer nerds out. Thanks, I'll stick to NXE. The only thing left is downloadable content, which I've never seen in favour of PS3, unless you count the absurd number of LBP user-made levels - and even then, as I said before, all you're doing is running a beanie baby across a different arrangement of platforms, which hardly qualifies as extending gameplay.
And compare making a level in a physics game to creating a complete game with XNA that can actually be released to the public, and possibly even make you a few bucks. Sure you need a Creator's Club subscription, but at $100 for an entire year, you really can't complain. And that's only if you want to release your game; XNA Game Studio is free. Try buying a PS3 dev kit. Seriously, go try it.
LeonBlade wrote:At an "OMG I just spent so much money on this console and all these accessories for a load of crap which will quickly die out and become outdated in the very near future" standpoint, 360 wins there...
This was just an overtly stupid drooling fanboy rant with no possible justification whatsoever, so I'll just move on to my conclusion.
It's worth noting that none of your arguments were about
games. You quote specs and prices, make vague references to "multimedia" and "online standpoint", but never once did gameplay come up, and I find that very telling of you people. So let's just get one thing out in the open here: unless you're a hopeless tech spec nerd who needs to see everything in 1920 x 1080 anti-aliased progressive scan video before they can get it up, a higher resolution does not make a game more fun. If anything, all it does is distract you from the atrociously small time spent on things like controls, storyline, and actual gameplay because they were too busy making the graphics full HD for you whiny losers. Which may explain why PS3 fanboy rants come out like rabid dogs endlessly shouting the same shit over and over - they're never required to
think about their console. Just throw a shiny nicely-textured object at them and they're happy.
As a conclusion to my conclusion: I couldn't really give a shit about what console you prefer; they certainly all have their strengths and weaknesses. Just play your fucking console and be happy, don't try to justify your purchase with half-baked arguments and quoting numbers that have absolutely nothing to do with
playing video games. No, my console is not a web browser (I have a computer for that), it doesn't play Blu Ray movies (I have real life if I need to see things in higher-than-DVD definition). My refrigerator also doesn't do my dishes but you don't see me bitching. No, my console simply
plays fucking video games. That's what it's for, kids. And it's good at that. End of story.
