Tweet
Originally posted by Color Me Badd Fan
View Post
Burn! I'm glad you're relying on games that came out in 2006 to bolster the XBox. Since the XBox has had a total of five exclusives rated above 85 on metacritic that have come out since 2008 and the PS3 has had 13, I guess you were kind of forced into that argument. (see below) Thanks for finally clearing up that the XBox 360 is a more capable machine than the PS2, I was a little confused about that. I'm going to go out on a limb and that the PS2 kicked the XBox's ass in 2000 and 2001. Unfortunately, it's totally irrelevant to the question in 2010 of which console to buy.
I noticed in your previous post that you didn't address my point about the XBox's shittier exclusive list. I hate to parrot DDD's line, but as usual when it comes to the actual games, there's not much to talk about. You're not going to get much of an argument from me that XBox Live is better than PSN and MS has established a foothold by having the superior interface and getting groups of friends that are all on the same system. I clearly understand that even though I poke fun at the added utility
But that doesn't mean the 360 is the superior gaming system.
Just consider the exclusives from 2008 on that have received a rating of 85 or higher on metacritic.com (and I'm only counting true exclusives, you can buy most of the XBox console exclusives on the PC, I also only included significant downloadable games, sorry Critter Crunch didn't make the list for the PS3 and Geometry Wars didn't make it for the XBox 360, and FTR, the PS3 had four I didn't include and the 360 had five):
XBox 360:
Gears of War 2 93
Forza Motorsport 3 92
Fable 2 89
Shadow Complex (down-loadable game) 88
Trials HD (another down-loadable game) 86
PS3:
Metal Gear Solid 4 94
Uncharted 2 96
Little Big Planet 95
God of War 3 93
Killzone 2 91
Demon's Souls 89
MLB the Show 09 & 10 (out of fairness, I'm only counting this once) 90
Wipeout HD Fury 89 (down-loadable game)
Heavy Rain 87
Resistance 2 87
Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time 87
Valkyrie Chronicles 86
InFAMOUS 85
Final tally: PS3 13, XBox 5. Sony was the publisher of all but two of its exclusives rated at 85 or above between 2008 and now.
I bought a PS2 in 2002 instead of an XBox. The reason why was the PS2 had more games, the XBox had Halo and that was about it. Fast forward to September 2009, I was faced with the same issue: do I buy an XBox 360 (with all of its accompanying hardware issues) or do I buy a PS3, I had no dog in the fight at this point although I do admit that having the blu-ray player made it easier to get my wife to sign off on it. Here's the criteria I looked at:
Price: The middle of the road 360 was still available at this point (MS should never have phased this model out) for $250, the PS3 was $300. But wait, to enable wifi, I had to buy the wireless unit from MS which ran about $100. The effective price for the MS was $350, there's no way in hell I'm dragging an ethernet cable from router to my living room, wifi was a must.
Features and capability: The PS3 has a blu-ray player. At the time, you could buy a player for $150. Personally, I didn't really care that much about having a blu-ray player. However, the blu-ray drive enables the PS3 to have more powerful games (that and a better processor). In the future, the PS3 can play both 3D movies and 3D games. While the 360 was long in tooth, the PS3, at worst, was in the middle of its cycle.
Games: I already addressed this above and it speaks for itself. Plain and simply put, the PS3 is now curb stomping the 360. This is in large measure due to the fact that Sony has incredible first party developers. A big portion of the games I played on the PS2 were published by Sony. In addition, a huge portion of the PS1 library is available for download.
I had heard multiple times that XBox Live was superior to PSN, I had even heard that some multiplatform games work better on the 360. However, there was no effing way I was going to pay more money for a console that was inferior both in hardware specs, future capability and amount of quality content. A better online interface simply wasn't enough to make up for these shortcomings. If I want to play a game online, the PSN still allows me to do that.
I noticed in your previous post that you didn't address my point about the XBox's shittier exclusive list. I hate to parrot DDD's line, but as usual when it comes to the actual games, there's not much to talk about. You're not going to get much of an argument from me that XBox Live is better than PSN and MS has established a foothold by having the superior interface and getting groups of friends that are all on the same system. I clearly understand that even though I poke fun at the added utility
But that doesn't mean the 360 is the superior gaming system.
Just consider the exclusives from 2008 on that have received a rating of 85 or higher on metacritic.com (and I'm only counting true exclusives, you can buy most of the XBox console exclusives on the PC, I also only included significant downloadable games, sorry Critter Crunch didn't make the list for the PS3 and Geometry Wars didn't make it for the XBox 360, and FTR, the PS3 had four I didn't include and the 360 had five):
XBox 360:
Gears of War 2 93
Forza Motorsport 3 92
Fable 2 89
Shadow Complex (down-loadable game) 88
Trials HD (another down-loadable game) 86
PS3:
Metal Gear Solid 4 94
Uncharted 2 96
Little Big Planet 95
God of War 3 93
Killzone 2 91
Demon's Souls 89
MLB the Show 09 & 10 (out of fairness, I'm only counting this once) 90
Wipeout HD Fury 89 (down-loadable game)
Heavy Rain 87
Resistance 2 87
Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time 87
Valkyrie Chronicles 86
InFAMOUS 85
Final tally: PS3 13, XBox 5. Sony was the publisher of all but two of its exclusives rated at 85 or above between 2008 and now.
I bought a PS2 in 2002 instead of an XBox. The reason why was the PS2 had more games, the XBox had Halo and that was about it. Fast forward to September 2009, I was faced with the same issue: do I buy an XBox 360 (with all of its accompanying hardware issues) or do I buy a PS3, I had no dog in the fight at this point although I do admit that having the blu-ray player made it easier to get my wife to sign off on it. Here's the criteria I looked at:
Price: The middle of the road 360 was still available at this point (MS should never have phased this model out) for $250, the PS3 was $300. But wait, to enable wifi, I had to buy the wireless unit from MS which ran about $100. The effective price for the MS was $350, there's no way in hell I'm dragging an ethernet cable from router to my living room, wifi was a must.
Features and capability: The PS3 has a blu-ray player. At the time, you could buy a player for $150. Personally, I didn't really care that much about having a blu-ray player. However, the blu-ray drive enables the PS3 to have more powerful games (that and a better processor). In the future, the PS3 can play both 3D movies and 3D games. While the 360 was long in tooth, the PS3, at worst, was in the middle of its cycle.
Games: I already addressed this above and it speaks for itself. Plain and simply put, the PS3 is now curb stomping the 360. This is in large measure due to the fact that Sony has incredible first party developers. A big portion of the games I played on the PS2 were published by Sony. In addition, a huge portion of the PS1 library is available for download.
I had heard multiple times that XBox Live was superior to PSN, I had even heard that some multiplatform games work better on the 360. However, there was no effing way I was going to pay more money for a console that was inferior both in hardware specs, future capability and amount of quality content. A better online interface simply wasn't enough to make up for these shortcomings. If I want to play a game online, the PSN still allows me to do that.
Comment