Civilization Wars: Battle of the Console's [Archive]

dojoboy

Mar 02, 2008, 03:13 PM

I'm sorry but the significant % of people that chose the WII, I have to ask what you are thinking. CIV REV is a serious game, and its quite well known that the WII is not a serious gamers platform. Its fun, don't get me wrong, I love exploiting the tennis serving flaw to my inlaws who start calling me cheap. But its not next gen, if you are going to play a serious turn piece stategy game for 5 hours (or like me, a lot longer using the 'keep on playing after victory' option) WII is not a platform that is built for this.

I have to agree w/ XL above. "Next Gen" is irrelevant here. Why would 5+ hours of gaming not work on a Wii? Because of the remote controls (wand & numchuk)? Do you think someone will get tired? On the off-chance they do, they can always use the wand as a traditional gamepad, which I think all my Wii games allow for.

And, as for serious strategy games, Advance Wars on the DS is... serious. Just give it a go on your console. Oh, I forgot, it's just on the DS. ;)

CivRev is a turn-based strategy game, not an ADHD first-person shooter.

warpstorm

Mar 02, 2008, 04:59 PM

According to Firaxis, the reason is not that the Wii is unsuited, just that they do not have the manpower in house to do another version simultaneously.

dojoboy

Mar 02, 2008, 05:34 PM

According to Firaxis, the reason is not that the Wii is unsuited, just that they do not have the manpower in house to do another version simultaneously.

We know. The above rancor has little to do with that, but more to do with shallow thinking.

Civ_43

Mar 03, 2008, 01:37 PM

I pick the Nintendo DS because I don't have any of the others except a PC.

WankIT

Mar 04, 2008, 08:05 AM

I don't own a Wii, so I don't have any dog in that fight, but your explanation doesn't even make any sense. By what standard is the Wii not a "serious gamers platform?" I have a Nintendo DS, which a lot of people would say is a kids' games platform, does that make it any less serious?

First off, Nintendo DS is a different beast, its marketed to everybody, including my parents (brain drain, or whatever game they play).

Most that know gaming consoles know that the Wii isn't a serious gamers platform. Just look at the types of games that are being issued for the Xbox 360 vs the Wii. The most popular games for the wii are for the ones that utilzie the wand, for all other games they play like normal console games, which are not up to code with either the 360 or the PS3.

Now from personal experiences, I know many people that have either both, or all 3. The Wii gets used for social settings, but when everybody leaves and its time for hardcore gaming, fighting, sports games, etc., the 360 is the platform. I have 2, and when my wife wants me to stop gaming to watch tv in my main room, I ask her to play Wii Sports, as she likes that. Wii is fun, in a limited sense, but not a platform you want if you want to play hardcore shooter, or sporting simulation games. Wii, very cutesy.

XxtraLarGe

Mar 04, 2008, 08:18 AM

Now from personal experiences, I know many people that have either both, or all 3. The Wii gets used for social settings, but when everybody leaves and its time for hardcore gaming, fighting, sports games, etc., the 360 is the platform. I have 2, and when my wife wants me to stop gaming to watch tv in my main room, I ask her to play Wii Sports, as she likes that. Wii is fun, in a limited sense, but not a platform you want if you want to play hardcore shooter, or sporting simulation games. Wii, very cutesy.

Your argument still doesn't carry any water. You're just stating a personal preference. There is no technical reason Civ Revolution couldn't be developed for the Wii. My personal feeling however is there's no reason Civ Revolution couldn't be developed for the PS2 as well. The graphics really aren't that great.

dojoboy

Mar 04, 2008, 08:25 AM

Now from personal experiences, I know many people that have either both, or all 3. The Wii gets used for social settings, but when everybody leaves and its time for hardcore gaming, fighting, sports games, etc., the 360 is the platform. I have 2, and when my wife wants me to stop gaming to watch tv in my main room, I ask her to play Wii Sports, as she likes that. Wii is fun, in a limited sense, but not a platform you want if you want to play hardcore shooter, or sporting simulation games. Wii, very cutesy.

You are correct in that more shooters are released on the 360/PS3. That's more to do with audience and their specific subcultures. However, it's difficult to get over your thought that the Wii isn't for serious gaming. Shooters are a niche that serious gamers choose to play, yet there are many other genres that serious gamers play.

As for sport games on the Wii, 2K8 Baseball is on sale beginning today. And, NCAA Football 2008 is set for release in August. There is a reason why these games are moving back to Nintendo.

WankIT

Mar 04, 2008, 09:41 AM

As for sport games on the Wii, 2K8 Baseball is on sale beginning today. And, NCAA Football 2008 is set for release in August. There is a reason why these games are moving back to Nintendo.

.. because the Wii is selling very well obviously. However, do you think that the Wii will outsell the 360 in these gaming categories? What do you think the average games sold per console is? There are many reasons for this. Hey, I'm not the only one with this view, its commonly held within console gaming. You'll see many other opinions like the one below.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2007/07/22/nintendo-wii-not-in-console-war-with-xbox-360-and-ps3/

WankIT

Mar 04, 2008, 09:45 AM

There is no technical reason Civ Revolution couldn't be developed for the Wii. My personal feeling however is there's no reason Civ Revolution couldn't be developed for the PS2 as well. The graphics really aren't that great.

Read: I never stated what you are claiming I did. I never stated that there wasn't a technical reason for it being developed for the Wii. I lashed out for those who selected 'Wii' for the original question, being what console would people want to play/see CivR on.

If you have just a Wii, then I understand why you want to see/play it on the Wii. But if you have a Wii and another console 360/PS3, or you are buying a console to play it on, the obvious clear choice would not be the Wii.

dojoboy

Mar 04, 2008, 10:30 AM

.. because the Wii is selling very well obviously. However, do you think that the Wii will outsell the 360 in these gaming categories? What do you think the average games sold per console is? There are many reasons for this. Hey, I'm not the only one with this view, its commonly held within console gaming. You'll see many other opinions like the one below.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2007/07/22/nintendo-wii-not-in-console-war-with-xbox-360-and-ps3/

So, it's not because serious gamers bought a Wii? I don't think it's children and women buying those sport games.

WankIT

Mar 04, 2008, 10:40 AM

Really. Yes there is a market for these no matter how small the sales number will relatively to be to the same games on the 360/PS3. But if your a serious gamer, you most likely are either buying a PS3/360, or a gaming PC, and not a Wii. Not to say that ALL serious gamers are buying non-wii/PCs, but seriously.

Why don't you do an internet search on the subject. I wonder what you will find. NOT

dojoboy

Mar 04, 2008, 11:12 AM

Not to say that ALL serious gamers are buying non-wii/PCs, but seriously.

:thanx:

I'm done. :hatsoff:

;)

WankIT

Mar 04, 2008, 12:26 PM

At the risk of being kicked out of htis forum, you are an idiot. Per capita, I'd say only 1 out of 100 forumers here are idiots. Under your logic, forumers here are idiots.

dojoboy

Mar 04, 2008, 12:32 PM

At the risk of being kicked out of htis forum, you are an idiot. Per capita, I'd say only 1 out of 100 forumers here are idiots. Under your logic, forumers here are idiots.

Ouch. :(

Don't be so thin-skinned.

I just disagree with your generalization.

WankIT

Mar 04, 2008, 12:36 PM

Ouch. :(

Don't be so thin-skinned.

I just disagree with your generalization.

Its either:

1) you are trying to hit my breaking point by purposely being obtuse
2) you actually have no clue about the console market and you either just have a WII and love it to death beyond reasoning, or just a PCer with no console knowledge either = and making resulting comments on it.

My generalization is correct, though not 100% appicable. But I am talking about the industry as a whole, which is very obvious, and not small immateral pockets who are die hard WII folks. IF you had both as well, you wouldn't be so 'thick' skulled.

dojoboy

Mar 04, 2008, 01:12 PM

Its either:

1) you are trying to hit my breaking point by purposely being obtuse
2) you actually have no clue about the console market and you either just have a WII and love it to death beyond reasoning, or just a PCer with no console knowledge either = and making resulting comments on it.

My generalization is correct, though not 100% appicable. But I am talking about the industry as a whole, which is very obvious, and not small immateral pockets who are die hard WII folks. IF you had both as well, you wouldn't be so 'thick' skulled.

I'm a serious gamer. Because I don't covet shooters, doesn't make me a non-serious gamer. Does "hardcore" equate shooters?

I only own a Wii, as well as a DS and a computer.

Therefore, serious gamers are attracted to the Wii. Perhaps I strayed from your point, but I thought it was that serious gamers only move toward the 360 and PS3 and that the Wii is not a serious gaming console. You also cited sport games as an indicator. In turn, I pointed out two sport titles, that are considered popular by serious sport gaming enthusiasts, that are already on the Wii or coming soon.

I've searched many links, and I see that the Wii and it's software are doing quite well compared to the 360 and PS3. I understand that there are folks who have a 360/Wii or PS3/Wii. I assume they do because of the multiple shooters available on the other two.

I can afford a 360 + a PS3. I don't dislike either of them.

What am I missing?

WankIT

Mar 04, 2008, 01:26 PM

Wow, 2 sports titles you mentioned are 'coming' or already on the WII.
I fail 2 see your point. 2 you see mine?

Another indicator, go look at how many games sold per 360 vs Wii console? Do many WIIers get past the couple of games that use the wand or the guitar?

seem to be not the only one - try to find a board or blogger saying the opposite

http://boards.ign.com/rayman/b6180/151214542/p1/

or per CNET, hardly sounding like the gamer's choice

Conclusion: ... If you've been clamoring for an all-purpose next-generation multimedia box with blinding HD graphics, the Wii will be a disappointment. But Nintendo didn't intend to compete in that arena anyway: the Wii is focused squarely on delivering fun and innovative gameplay, leaving Sony and Microsoft to battle it out at the high end....

http://reviews.cnet.com/consoles/nintendo-wii/4505-10109_7-31355104.html

XxtraLarGe

Mar 05, 2008, 11:14 AM

Conclusion: ... If you've been clamoring for an all-purpose next-generation multimedia box with blinding HD graphics, the Wii will be a disappointment.By that criteria, the Xbox 360 isn't serious either, unless you have a big backlog of unwatched HD DVD's :lol: But Nintendo didn't intend to compete in that arena anyway: the Wii is focused squarely on delivering fun and innovative gameplay, leaving Sony and Microsoft to battle it out at the high end....
Which makes the Wii a perfect target for Civ Revolution. Look at the leaders and advisors. They're all caricatures and the units are very cartoonish. Civ Revolution has been criticized by many as being too "kiddy" looking, which seems to match up with all you've said about the Wii.

For the record, I own a PS2, which I'll be replacing with a PS3 when I feel there's a good enough library of games to justify it, so don't try to make me out to be a Wii fanboy. All of this is academic though, since I just picked up my Nintendo DS so I can play Civ Rev on that :D

dojoboy

Mar 05, 2008, 11:24 AM

For the record, I own a PS2, which I'll be replacing with a PS3 when I feel there's a good enough library of games to justify it, so don't try to make me out to be a Wii fanboy. All of this is academic though, since I just picked up my Nintendo DS so I can play Civ Rev on that :D

Wii fanboy?

:mischief:

WankIT

Mar 05, 2008, 11:29 AM

FYI - Media reports are that they are coming out with a blu ray player for the xbox 360 by as early as may, and later, a blu ray internal drive.

Doesn't matter for me though, I bought a panny blu ray b4 xmas. Plus, I doubt the HD external drive had the proper DTS and Dolby HD decoders.

I actually never called the Wii kiddy (more female friendly as its the only console except for a few games of MarioKart or Mario Party, that my wife enjoys playing), though I posted other bloggers opinion that stated such. Though the more popular games are kinda kiddy. The WII sports reminds me of the old NES days.

But for playing a long game of CivR (i always keep a game going long after a victory in the old CIV editions), I definately prefer my xbox controller than the WII's. Holding a rectangular block vs a better shaped controller for your hand, its no contest.

WankIT

Mar 05, 2008, 11:42 AM

Wii fanboy?

:mischief:

There is nothing wrong with that.
I am a 'fan' of the Wii as it has its place in some circumstances.
Keeps guest busy.

Thrallia

Mar 05, 2008, 03:00 PM

wow...I won't even bother trying to quote all your silly generalizations, WankIT.

I think I'm about as hardcore a gamer as you can get...and I own a Wii, 360, DS, and PC(and if you want to get into older systems, I have a PS2, PS1, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GB, GBA, Sega Genesis, Sega Game Gear, and almost bought a Dreamcast just for Skies of Arcadia until it was released on the Gamecube)...I think that for pure gaming, I'd pick the Wii to buy CivRev for(if it were coming out at the same time still). However, I likely would have gotten it for the 360 simply because I'm addicted to achievement points.

But to say that,
1) Anyone that would pick it for the Wii over the 360/PS3 is stupid and not a serious gamer
2) The Wii is not a system for serious gamers
3) Serious gamers are only serious gamers if they like a) shooters, b) sports games, and c)fighters
is to be extremely obtuse and ridiculous.

My responses are as follows:
1) The Wii is closer to the PC in terms of control scheme, and the PC is generally felt to have the best control scheme of any gaming system
2) If it isn't for serious gamers, then what do you call Metroid Prime 3(shooter, 90 metacritic rating), Resident Evil 4(shooter, 91 metacritic), Zack & Wiki(adventure, 87 metacritic, and best adventure GotY), Fire Emblem(strategy, 77 metacritic), Madden(sports, 81 and 76 metacritic, 07 called sports GotY over 360 and PS3 versions) Legend of Zelda(action/adventure, 95 metacritic), Mario Galaxy(adventure, 97 metacritic), Super Smash Brothers(fighting, 98 metacritic), No More Heroes(mature, bloody fighting/action, 84 metacritic), Guitar Hero 3(85 metacritic)? If those aren't for serious gamers, what is?
3) So strategy gamers aren't serious gamers? adventure game lovers aren't serious? And even if shooters/sports/fighting are the only genres that matter for serious gamers...what do you say to Metroid Prime 3, considered to have the best control scheme of any console shooter ever? or Madden 07 winning Game of the Year for the Wii, beating out the 360 and PS3 versions? or Resident Evil 4, selling over 1M copies on the Wii, over 18 months after its original release, and not available on the 360 or PS3? or the fact that Madden, NCAA, Tiger Woods, FIFA, MLB, and NBA are all coming to the Wii after ignoring the Gamecube for the last 2-3 years? or Super Smash Brothers, possibly the best fighting game ever(certainly the highest reviewed thus far)?

I find it highly ignorant, cocky, and ridiculous to claim what you have, especially since the consensus in the US appears to be that the Wii is just as serious a gaming machine as the 360(considering it has outsold the 360 every single month since its release, and is currently entirely sold out for its record breaking 64rd week in a row).

Yes, more games have been bought per system sold for the 360 than the Wii since launch, but that's for a few reasons...1) the 360 has more games and many good games at reduced prices due to being out longer, and 2) the Wii comes bundled with a game, while the 360 only did during the holidays.

If I recall, the 360 currently has an average of 7 games per system, while the Wii is at around 3(4 if you count Wii Sports)...I beat out both those averages, with around 15 games on the 360 and 6 on the Wii. But considering the 360 has more than 2x more games out than the Wii does, and has been out twice as long, if it were truly a more 'serious' gaming machine, it should have more than just a 7:3 ratio of sold games compared to the Wii.

WankIT

Mar 06, 2008, 05:59 AM

WankIT

Mar 06, 2008, 06:18 AM

morpheus11

Mar 06, 2008, 02:51 PM

I wish it was coming on the Wii, b/c I have one and I don't have any other current gen consoles.

morpheus11

Mar 06, 2008, 03:05 PM

A game comes out that you like for both the Wii and 360, which one do you buy it for?

An honest answer would be that it depends on the style of game and how it uses the motion control or the Wii.

I will put it this way if I had a choice between Metroid 3 on the Wii or 360 I would pick the Wii hands down. The way it captured the motion control is amazing and it is a great game.

With that said I was a little disappointed with some of the sports games, but if Pro Evolution Soccer is anything like the previews suggest it will have set the benchmark for other sports games to reach.

I could see Civ:Rev for the Wii have some great aspects that the 360 could do.

Smidlee

Mar 06, 2008, 06:28 PM

If you are a serious gamer (i am not being sarcastic - am giving you the benefit of the doubt), I have one honest question for you,

A game comes out that you like for both the Wii and 360, which one do you buy it for?

As Morpheus has already pointed out it depends on the game. For party games like Wii sport Wii is the winner. As for shooters while Metroid is nice for a change I still prefer a mouse on PC or relaxing on my couch without having to aim my controler at a bar on my TV. I really enjoyed CoD4 on my PS3 (normally I play FPS on PC) with DD5.1 surround sound even with the ps3 controller.

Now for Revolution Ps3/360 to me is the clear winner:
1) higher resolution mean you get a wider and better view as well as more information on the screen at once. (don't know if this game has split screen yet HDTV split screen has the resolution of at least 2 SD TV)
2) I found wi-fi isn't that good for online gaming so another plus for PS3/360.
3) The wii controller can act as a mouse substitute which some would see as a plus. But do I really want to keep aiming at that bar above my TV for a 3 to 5 hours for a TBS game?
4) Ps3/360 graphics will probably look better.

The only reason I can see anyone wanting this game on the Wii is that the only system they have. Of course in that case ,this reason alone beats all the others as I doubt Revolution itself will be a system seller.

Thrallia

Mar 06, 2008, 10:59 PM

If you are a serious gamer (i am not being sarcastic - am giving you the benefit of the doubt), I have one honest question for you,

A game comes out that you like for both the Wii and 360, which one do you buy it for?

Regarding the games per console sales, you think this will change, even as more titles come out for Wii? What are your honest opinions. We know what has happened, but lets talk what you think will happen.

It depends. If I think it will benefit from the motion controls, I'll give it a go on the Wii(assuming it is given a good production job). An example are Star Wars games...I'll gladly get them on the Wii instead if LucasArts makes it well, because using the Wiimote as a lightsaber is every sci-fi geek's dream! Madden? definitely the Wii. Major League Baseball 2k8? if they did a good job on the Wii version, then Wii it is. CivRev? If it were coming out on both, I'd really want to get it for the Wii, but I don't know for sure I would because it sounds like only the 360 version will have GotW.

First of all, seeing how you can read and recall so well, I never said picking the WII over the 360/PS3 was stupid. I've maintained, and this is my third time for those that cannot READ properly is that based upon this poll, I lashed out at those who wanted to play CivR on the WII over the 360/PS3. I've always maintained the WII has its place (I have one).

This is the last time I will restate what I've being saying, so you should calm down and actually read first before you spew.

I remember what you said, and I was rebutting your point that the Wii is not for serious gamers, and that it was not worth getting CivRev for it.

Cmon, how old are you. IF you want to go tit for tat, my gaming has gone way before yours, to include my first machine, C64, then to the amiga before getting my PC, and my parents at the time were kind enough to get us the atari, and colecovision.

You bring up the control scheme. Yes, its very impressive, but it really is limited. When you play a lot of those games you mention, do you really use it, do you a throwing motion when you throw a touchdown in madden? No, you have to use it as a regular controller, and which of the 3 controllers would you rather use.

Ah, I had an atari once....gave it away to get an NES instead...never had a C64 or Amiga though.

actually, the first time I've enjoyed a football game since Tecmo Super Bowl 3 in 1993 was when I played Madden on the Wii. I love the motion controls on it.

If your a serious PC gamer, do you buy a computer with an integrated graphics chip with shared memory or do you buy one with a Radeon, or etc.? Now this is a similar idea. Fine, you can be like me and buy a Wii for your wife, and/or to have a decent game of bowling or tennis, but when you want to play for hours on end, what do you go with?

Obviously, I'd get a NVidia card(Radeon is nowhere near as good yet costs more), but that's actually a quite different idea. For PCs, you can't play a game at all if you don't have a good enough graphics card. A console can play any game made for it...the argument is whether better graphics= better game. And that answer to that is not always. Many of the best games ever have not had great graphics, and are still great even today(Starcraft, Chrono Trigger, WoW, Civilization, and many more).

I actually bought the Wii for myself, as I did for my 360. My wife plays a few Wii games(Wii Sports and Rayman mainly), along with a few 360 games, but does most of her gaming on the PC. As for what system I go to if I want to game for a few hours? For me it depends on what game I want to play. I've spent hours playing Legend of Zelda...I've spent hours playing Mario Galaxy, and I'm going to spend hours playing Smash Brothers, starting Saturday night.

WankIT

Mar 07, 2008, 05:58 AM

It depends. If I think it will benefit from the motion controls, I'll give it a go on the Wii(assuming it is given a good production job). An example are Star Wars games...I'll gladly get them on the Wii instead if LucasArts makes it well, because using the Wiimote as a lightsaber is every sci-fi geek's dream! Madden? definitely the Wii. Major League Baseball 2k8? if they did a good job on the Wii version, then Wii it is. CivRev? If it were coming out on both, I'd really want to get it for the Wii, but I don't know for sure I would because it sounds like only the 360 version will have GotW.
.

Ah ha. My first thoughts when the Wii came out was that the motion control was going to be more utilized. However, I will conceded that for the first generation for Nintendo for their control system is very good. And I will probably feel different when the next generation comes out with Wii2.

I remember what you said, and I was rebutting your point that the Wii is not for serious gamers, and that it was not worth getting CivRev for it.

.

I didn't say it wasn't worth getting CivR for it. I stated that if you already have a Wii and nothing else, then the answer is obvious. But, all things being equal, that I did lash out at those picking Wii.

For PCs, you can't play a game at all if you don't have a good enough graphics card. A console can play any game made for it...the argument is whether better graphics= better game. .

With a console, game development is physically limited to its hardware capabilities, which if you look at the specs comparison, it is really no comparison. But the big question is if game developers can make full use of a consoles' capabilities.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xbox360_ps3_wii.asp

azzaman333

Mar 07, 2008, 07:54 AM

If the controls are utilised properly, I always buy the Wii version over the 360 or PS3.

morpheus11

Mar 07, 2008, 07:58 AM

With a console, game development is physically limited to its hardware capabilities, which if you look at the specs comparison, it is really no comparison. But the big question is if game developers can make full use of a consoles' capabilities.

I hate to sounds like an ass, but it isn't always about the game maximizing the capabilities of the console. The reason why I don't like the PS3 or the 360 is b/c they require an HDTV in order to get better graphics than any other console on the market. A very close friend of mine purchased the 360 when it first game out and was extremely disappointed when he hooked it up to his older TV and the graphics looked worse than his original Xbox. However the Wii looks very good on a standard TV and looks even better on an HDTV.

I think it is like having a top of the line graphics card in your computer, but an old analog CRT monitor. The consoles are pushing the envelope faster than the TV market can handle. And, IMHO, it is hurting the sales of 360s and PS3s.

Smidlee

Mar 07, 2008, 09:23 AM

A very close friend of mine purchased the 360 when it first game out and was extremely disappointed when he hooked it up to his older TV and the graphics looked worse than his original Xbox. However the Wii looks very good on a standard TV and looks even better on an HDTV.

This sound like you getting a little carried away here. Downscaling works better in gaming than upscaling (except when it comes to text) unless you love those jagged edges. HDTV fixed pixels as well as it's sharpness in some ways makes a 480p image look worst than on a SD TV. A smaller HDTV does help makes flaws less noticeable though. A
So while Wii looks ok running on a 42" HDTV I can tell the image is upscaled especially with it comes to jagged edges as they are a lot more noticeable than on a SD TV.
There is nothing to keep any 480p image from looking dated especially to a PC gamer.

WankIT

Mar 07, 2008, 09:25 AM

I've only seen both (Wii & 360) on an HDTV, and both look good. I know of a person that does use his 360 on a 480P TV, but I've never seen it. Then again, HDTVs have come down in price a lot.

Thrallia

Mar 07, 2008, 02:12 PM

This sound like you getting a little carried away here. Downscaling works better in gaming than upscaling (except when it comes to text) unless you love those jagged edges. HDTV fixed pixels as well as it's sharpness in some ways makes a 480p image look worst than on a SD TV. A smaller HDTV does help makes flaws less noticeable though. A
So while Wii looks ok running on a 42" HDTV I can tell the image is upscaled especially with it comes to jagged edges as they are a lot more noticeable than on a SD TV.
There is nothing to keep any 480p image from looking dated especially to a PC gamer.

actually, if you look at any of the reviews for pretty much every single 360 launch game, they repeatedly said that the games that were available on both the XBox and 360 looked better on the XBox if it was an SD TV.

With a console, game development is physically limited to its hardware capabilities, which if you look at the specs comparison, it is really no comparison. But the big question is if game developers can make full use of a consoles' capabilities.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xbox360_ps3_wii.asp

I don't believe for a second that the hardware capabilities of a console define how good a game will be. By that logic, Chrono Trigger is innately a worse game than any 360/PS3 game(even crap like Monster Madness or Bomberman: Act Zero) just because the hardware capabilities of the SNES are so much lower than that of a 360.

The hardware capabilities of a console define the limits for a game, and it is then up to the games themselves to stretch or reach for those limits. Hitting those limits doesn't mean the game will be great though. Lair got close to the PS3s current graphics 'limit', but it was a piece of junk...because it wasn't fun. Fun is the defining aspect of any game...and while graphics can definitely help(or hurt), they are only one aspect of whether a game is good or not.

As for the person that made that list...I have trouble believing that the numbers he came up with for the Wii's RAM and CPU speed are accurate because Nintendo has never mentioned anywhere what it is, because I have issues believing that the amount of RAM he claims the Wii has could even generate 2D graphics, much less 3D, and because he erroneously claims the PS3 will support 7 controllers, when it has been known for 2 years that it will only support 4.

Such an obvious oversight casts doubt(IMO) on any figures he comes up with that have not been publicly announced.

Smidlee

Mar 08, 2008, 05:22 AM

...
As for the person that made that list...I have trouble believing that the numbers he came up with for the Wii's RAM and CPU speed are accurate because Nintendo has never mentioned anywhere what it is, because I have issues believing that the amount of RAM he claims the Wii has could even generate 2D graphics, much less 3D, and because he erroneously claims the PS3 will support 7 controllers, when it has been known for 2 years that it will only support 4.

Such an obvious oversight casts doubt(IMO) on any figures he comes up with that have not been publicly announced.
I've read the ram is known because in stamped on the chip set so that seems solid. Some of the other specs is questionable yet they probably nothing to brag about which is why Nintendo is so quiet over them. For Nintendo to give out the wii's specs would only help advertise for the PS3/360. It really doesn't matter as we already starting to see huge leaps with PS3/360 in graphics and sound quality over the wii. This will only increase with time. Still the wii does have a little more ram than the X-box (64 ram total) which clearly could do games in 3-D.

Also you are the first I've seen to claim PS3 doesn't support 7 controllers. While I doubt many have 7 controllers anyways I have seen a few games that claim to support up to 7 controllers. I do know for a fact I can set my controller number from 1 up to 7 so I don't see why PS3 can't support 7.

Thrallia

Mar 08, 2008, 01:41 PM

hm, I'm surprised by that because Sony originally claimed it would support 7, then backed off of that statement publicly, at the same time that they announced it would only have 1 HDMI port, not 2.

I would have thought they'd announce it was 7 again if they had decided to go with 7 controllers...oh well, Sony is not known for smooth PR the last couple years:rolleyes:

edit: I think I'll retract my previous statement of doubt too, I was at Barnes&Noble last night and found a book that was written entirely about the Wii and it had the same info exactly for the CPU speed and RAM...

I'm surprised such a low amount of RAM can produce 3D graphics so smoothly...I'm also surprised it can run the same engine that powered Halo, Civ4, Final Fantasy XIII, and I've heared Unreal Engine 3 may be getting customized for the Wii as well.

WankIT

Mar 10, 2008, 02:01 PM

I don't believe for a second that the hardware capabilities of a console define how good a game will be. .

Hey, I don't disagree. I agree that its 'the limit' as you stated. I believe though that 360/PS3 games will get better as developers have more time. Remember, most of us complained when we first got our xbox 360s that the graphics were hardly 'next generation' which is what they were advertising. The games coming out are getting much better in general.

But regardless, its already well known that PS3 has the most advanced hardware, followed by the 360, and then the Wii a distant third. I heard something like deveopers would not be able to make full use of the P3s capabailities for a long time.

warpstorm

Mar 10, 2008, 02:35 PM

Actually, Sony said that developers would never be able to make full use of the PS3.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061219-8455.html

Civfan333

Mar 10, 2008, 07:31 PM

wow.......that's harsh........and I bit cocky:mischief:

CivGeneral

Mar 11, 2008, 12:31 AM

The Computer! :D

Civfan333

Mar 11, 2008, 01:47 PM

hehehehe.......but at what the graphics look like now.....my computer won't be able to handle it.....:badcomp:

CivGeneral

Mar 11, 2008, 07:59 PM

hehehehe.......but at what the graphics look like now.....my computer won't be able to handle it.....:badcomp:
Wait a couple of years. It seems that Console games and Governments tend to get the best hardware :p.

Civfan333

Mar 11, 2008, 09:20 PM

yeah.....that's true.....

Kadazzle

Mar 11, 2008, 10:19 PM

Rev for the computer would be fun, but on the DS would be awesome. CivRev will be the 2nd DS game I'll own! Next to, of course...

POKEMON!!!

[KC]Bantams

Mar 12, 2008, 07:37 AM

360 mostly because of the xbox live features and the free Gamerpoints from pwning Noobs on there :D

Sid

Mar 12, 2008, 10:54 AM

I'm really undecided--whatever I pick means a new investment. Originally I thought the DS might be the go for use in my taxi, but the Playstation 3 with Blu-Ray is getting very attractive (no use in a cab 'tho).

I haven't been too inspired by the DS screenshots so far. However, I suspect the actual gameplay is much better.

So far the biggest hook--besides the great previews from DanQ and Padma--has been the line that this is the game Sid Meier always wanted to make. To quote Starcraft's Jim Raynor, "Sounds like fun."

XxtraLarGe

Mar 12, 2008, 01:32 PM

I'm really undecided--whatever I pick means a new investment. Originally I thought the DS might be the go for use in my taxi, but the Playstation 3 with Blu-Ray is getting very attractive (no use in a cab 'tho).

I haven't been too inspired by the DS screenshots so far. However, I suspect the actual gameplay is much better.

Think about it Dude: Nintendo DS = Civ Rev EVERYWHERE!
Plus, the DS version will prolly cost like $30 instead of the $60 for the PS3/360.
Still, you should probably buy both a DS AND PS3. It's the only way to be sure!

Thrallia

Mar 12, 2008, 02:00 PM

wow.......that's harsh........and I bit cocky:mischief:

lol have you seen anything Sony has said for the last 2 years? They say nothing that []isn't[/i] cocky!

Think about it Dude: Nintendo DS = Civ Rev EVERYWHERE!
Plus, the DS version will prolly cost like $30 instead of the $60 for the PS3/360.
Still, you should probably buy both a DS AND PS3. It's the only way to be sure!

or get a DS and a 360...since Microsoft is working on a blu-ray player for the 360, and I'd bet that they will be smart enough to make sure that a 360/Blu Ray player will be cheaper than a PS3.

Sid

Mar 12, 2008, 02:19 PM

Thanks XL--the truth is I'm a PS3 wannabee on a DS budget.

Smidlee

Mar 12, 2008, 02:33 PM

lol have you seen anything Sony has said for the last 2 years? They say nothing that []isn't[/i] cocky!

or get a DS and a 360...since Microsoft is working on a blu-ray player for the 360, and I'd bet that they will be smart enough to make sure that a 360/Blu Ray player will be cheaper than a PS3. You mean Microsoft is working on blu-ray for Windows. http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206903001

"Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said his company is working on Windows device driver support for Sony's Blu-ray high definition movie format. "

It's still up in the air if there will be a blu-ray player for the 360 as noted:
" Ballmer, however, made clear at Mix '08 that over the long term Microsoft sees the Internet, and not discs, as the primary vehicle for HD content access."

TyranusBonehead

Mar 17, 2008, 11:00 AM

well I'm definitely in a quandry now. I can get it for the XBox360, but will probably have to fight my son for time, or I can just get it for the DS, which has the added advantage of being portable

Sid

Mar 17, 2008, 11:21 AM

TB: I have a similar quandry--do I really want my addiction available everywhere I go via the DS? Also, I play Civ3 and IV on a very large screen and get a kick out of planning my next session mentally whilst away from my study (Not much studying done!), so will I cope with those two tiny DS screens? Another factor is I might be able to get my wife to play multiplayer with another DS ... maybe that's slightly beyond reality.

XxtraLarGe

Mar 18, 2008, 09:38 AM

or get a DS and a 360...since Microsoft is working on a blu-ray player for the 360, and I'd bet that they will be smart enough to make sure that a 360/Blu Ray player will be cheaper than a PS3.

I just read that MS will NOT be putting BluRay into the XBox 360, so PS3 is the way to go!

Thrallia

Mar 18, 2008, 03:53 PM

well certainly not into it, but I can't see any reason why they wouldn't work on an external drive like they had for HD DVD...they will lose market share against the PS3 which they really shouldn't lose(since the 360 is by far the better gaming machine right now) if they don't add an external player to it...and then they don't have to pay royalties to Sony for games, just for movies.

King.Bahamot

Mar 21, 2008, 04:55 AM

pfft, 360 just has more games right now. That doesnt make it a better gaming machine :P

Thrallia

Mar 21, 2008, 02:33 PM

when all the games that have come out on both systems have all been reviewed as being better for the 360, then it does :)

King.Bahamot

Mar 22, 2008, 05:15 AM

Capt Ajax

Mar 22, 2008, 08:11 AM

I just bought a DS last week and researved a copy of Civ Rev. It was the deciding factor between the DS and PSP. Now I can play Civ on the go :goodjob:

Thrallia

Mar 22, 2008, 02:45 PM

well, expect a change in that when more developers start creating games on ps3 and then port to 360...

Only reason they started creating for 360 before was because ps3 was not even released when they started with their games.

if you say so....most people continue to develop for the 360 then port to the PS3 because the 360 is easier and cheaper to develop on...I don't get why Sony refuses to improve the quality of their SDK/API...this time I've heard its even worse than the PS2's was.

[KC]Bantams

Mar 23, 2008, 05:30 AM

http://uk.gizmodo.com/2007/05/15/xbox_360_to_get_bluray_drive.html

I am 100% sure the 360 will have a add on blu ray player by Christmas 2008 if not before then

does the Ps3 allow for downloading Additional content and HD movies and is the ps3 capable of streaming content from a Pc?

360 wins i rest my case :p

King.Bahamot

Mar 23, 2008, 06:11 AM

warpstorm

Mar 23, 2008, 07:12 AM

ps3 is the gaming machine of the following 6-8 years :P

In 6-8 years MS will no doubt have the next gen XBox on the market.

Thrallia

Mar 23, 2008, 10:41 PM

even if 360 adds a bluray they can not start making games on blu ray discs. Since then everyone would have to get a new 360. And thats where ps3 is going to get stronger then xbox 360. And if they add a external player I would not get it because it's ugly. Why not get a real blu ray player instead.

ps3 can stream content from a pc and at better support then xbox 360. Since xbox cant even play divx movies.

Later this year ps3 will start with downloadable hd movies. And additional content had been possible since day one.

ps3 is the gaming machine of the following 6-8 years :P

I still don't see how blu-ray discs automatically make the ps3 stronger than the 360...1 blu-ray discs costs more than 20 DVDs, thus it is still cheaper to just make a multidisc game, if you really need that much space.

As for getting a real blu-ray player as opposed to a Blu-Ray add-on...a blu-ray player is over $400, while an add-on will be less than $200...I'll take ugliness over $200 more bucks any day.

The 360 had an update that allows divx movies, and I highly doubt the PS3 has better networking with windows than the 360 does :lol:

even if it does, it has worse networking with other PS3s than the 360 has with other 360s. There's not a single game for the PS3 that I would want to buy if it was also available for the 360, simply because of the better quality networking, multiplayer, and online store.

Sony's been claiming they'll have downloadable movies for a couple years now, I doubt any release dates they mention until it actually goes online...as for 6-8 years from now...there'll be a new Wii and a new 360 by then, so I doubt Sony has the edge then.

Civfan333

Mar 24, 2008, 02:02 AM

yeah, Sony has been bragging for the past few years and so far, they're SUPER far behind in sales and the PS3 is too expensive

King.Bahamot

Mar 24, 2008, 05:57 AM

I still don't see how blu-ray discs automatically make the ps3 stronger than the 360...1 blu-ray discs costs more than 20 DVDs, thus it is still cheaper to just make a multidisc game, if you really need that much space.

As for getting a real blu-ray player as opposed to a Blu-Ray add-on...a blu-ray player is over $400, while an add-on will be less than $200...I'll take ugliness over $200 more bucks any day.

The 360 had an update that allows divx movies, and I highly doubt the PS3 has better networking with windows than the 360 does :lol:

even if it does, it has worse networking with other PS3s than the 360 has with other 360s. There's not a single game for the PS3 that I would want to buy if it was also available for the 360, simply because of the better quality networking, multiplayer, and online store.

Sony's been claiming they'll have downloadable movies for a couple years now, I doubt any release dates they mention until it actually goes online...as for 6-8 years from now...there'll be a new Wii and a new 360 by then, so I doubt Sony has the edge then.

I bet Im a bit lazy to switch discs ;) Blu ray is making it easier for developers to output full hd. If you are going to say that xbox 360 is having 1080p on all their games I answer with most games really does upscale from 720p to 1080p. Look at halo3 for example, halo3 runs at 640p(not even real high definition) but is listing 1080p.

The quality of games are kinda the same. some framerate issues because the developers has been lazy with porting. But that is getting better now. I dont think there will be much different now.

I dont really care about networking with windows, I dont use my ps3 to write documents and I can already play most movies and music from the network. All games I played online had no problem with lag or anything. Which xbox doesnt have either from what I have seen.

But anyway, for civilization it does not matter if you have xbox or ps3. It will be the exactly same game.

yeah, Sony has been bragging for the past few years and so far, they're SUPER far behind in sales and the PS3 is too expensive

You are blind, in usa ps3 is not as popular, but 2007 ps3 sold more then xbox 360 did worldwide.

http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/index.php/2008/02/rothbarts-rant-80-microsoft-screwed-up.html

"Let’s talk about numbers, shall we? Not just any numbers mind you, but sales numbers. Sales numbers that show Microsoft sold 7.73m Xbox 360’s in calendar 2007. While Sony sold 8.83m PS3s during that same period. The sources of these numbers are Microsoft and Sony"

Still xbox had a year longer to sell, so ps3 does have less consoles on the market.

XxtraLarGe

Mar 26, 2008, 11:44 AM

Bantams;6635280']http://uk.gizmodo.com/2007/05/15/xbox_360_to_get_bluray_drive.html

I am 100% sure the 360 will have a add on blu ray player by Christmas 2008 if not before then

does the Ps3 allow for downloading Additional content and HD movies and is the ps3 capable of streaming content from a Pc?

360 wins i rest my case :p

I'm going to counter your rumor with a statement straight from M$:
Blu-ray for Xbox? No chance, says Microsoft (http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Blu-ray_for_Xbox_No_chance_says_Microsoft/551-87922-585.html)

Magwill

Mar 26, 2008, 11:52 AM

Bantams;6635280']http://uk.gizmodo.com/2007/05/15/xbox_360_to_get_bluray_drive.html

I am 100% sure the 360 will have a add on blu ray player by Christmas 2008 if not before then

does the Ps3 allow for downloading Additional content and HD movies and is the ps3 capable of streaming content from a Pc?

360 wins i rest my case :p

Actually you can stream from a PC to a PS3 using the right software :)

Sid

Mar 26, 2008, 12:05 PM

This is a very useful thread for those, like me, who are 'in-console-able/console-less' at this time. The long lead-in to CivRev's launch is giving me ample time to decide whether to get a PS3, XBox 360 or NDS. Very difficult 'tho. CivRev looks good for a large-screen display, but then there's the portable aspect and the giant user-base of the DS. I think that it will eventually come down to longevity and whether the chosen console easily downloads new content for single-player as wells as supporting people playing in the same room.

Thrallia

Mar 26, 2008, 02:03 PM

You are blind, in usa ps3 is not as popular, but 2007 ps3 sold more then xbox 360 did worldwide.

http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/index.php/2008/02/rothbarts-rant-80-microsoft-screwed-up.html

"Let’s talk about numbers, shall we? Not just any numbers mind you, but sales numbers. Sales numbers that show Microsoft sold 7.73m Xbox 360’s in calendar 2007. While Sony sold 8.83m PS3s during that same period. The sources of these numbers are Microsoft and Sony"

Still xbox had a year longer to sell, so ps3 does have less consoles on the market.

um...I don't think anything someone says in a 'MS is screwed up' rant is going to be accurate.

How about we try these numbers:
MS sold 8 million 360s before the Wii and PS3 launched.

The current numbers for each system are as follows:
Wii: 20.7 million
X360: 17.8 million
PS3: 8.8 million

those are worldwide numbers, and provided by this site (http://nexgenwars.com/). Since Sony always states their 'shipped' numbers as 'sold' numbers, I believe that my numbers are more accurate for actual sales. Because of this, I'd say it looks like Sony sold 7 million systems in 2007, while MS sold 9.8 million since Sony's launch(which would give them roughly 8 million in 2007, which is very close to what your person said, he's just comparing the wrong numbers) So in 2007, both systems were fairly close, but handily destroyed by the Wii(in fact, it looks like the Wii sold as much as both of them combined in 2007)

But in the end, it is not the number of systems sold that will determine a winner(per se, that is) but the amount of money the companies make in this generation. At this point, I'd almost say Nintendo is the winner by default, as it is the only company to make a overall profit this generation...MS has made one the last 6 months, but hasn't caught up to its loss from the first 18 months. Sony has made a small profit once, and then only because they sold their credit card division for 3 billion bucks.

I think Sony will start to make money soon(on games, they are still hemorraging money from their console itself), but MS already is making money...I'm not sure either one will catch Nintendo though...they've already make multibillions of dollars, and it looks to still be increasing in speed.

Capt Ajax

Mar 27, 2008, 08:19 AM

I'm a total 360 freak.....IMHO the system is better, the online experience is solid and it's all American baby! However, there is NOWAY that CIV will be as good on the 360 OR PS3 than it is on the PC.......actually I'm excited about this because it's coming to the Nintendo DS (Yes I own a DS.....but, hey Microsoft has not developed a handheald yet).

CIV on the go.......CIV at work.......CIV on vacation.......CIV at my mother-in-laws house! Even if it is a scaled down version....NO PROBLEM I'LL TAKE IT! :goodjob:

XxtraLarGe

Mar 27, 2008, 02:03 PM

Moff Jerjerrod

Mar 29, 2008, 04:57 PM

CivR will be good on all three systems. This is one game that will look great on whatever platform you own.

P.S. PS3 roxxors

Capt Ajax

Mar 30, 2008, 06:18 PM

My gaming clan might support this title. If we do, A centurian will be assigned the task of organizing a battleteam. If anyone is interested in playing this title competitively on the 360, follow the link below and check us out.

www.tooclan.com

TOO stands for "The Obsidian Order" - (A special part of Ancient Rome's famous Pratorian Guard) We have been around for approximately 3 years, have about 80 members:hammers::hammers:......and 26 Citizens:gold::gold:

Schuesseled

Mar 31, 2008, 09:32 AM

Thrallia

Mar 31, 2008, 01:53 PM

I prefer the playstation 3 over the xbox, for 3 main reasons:

1) Sony have provided quality console entertainment for longer.
2) The PS3 has so much more graphical potential than any other system.
3) The Xbox360 is as ugly as sin.

1) I don't consider the PS2 to be a 'quality' system, when nearly 1/4 of all systems lasted less than 3 years before dying
2) The PS3 has 7 cpu's and a great gpu...the 360 has 3 cpu's and a great gpu...the biggest difference though is the bandwidth available in both for the cpu and gpu to talk...the PS3 has 800MHz. That's not enough enough for run of the mill P4 desktop computers to talk to the gpu. The 360 wins because of its higher bandwidth allowing the cpu and gpu to work closer to their potential(instead of waiting around forever for the bandwidth to transmit their information to each other like the PS3)

3) since when did looks matter? the PS2 and PS1 were pretty ugly too. Since the only two pretty consoles ever are the Wii and PS3, I'd say that #3 doesn't matter at all

Magwill

Mar 31, 2008, 02:59 PM

I prefer the playstation 3 over the xbox, for 3 main reasons:

1) Sony have provided quality console entertainment for longer.
2) The PS3 has so much more graphical potential than any other system.
3) The Xbox360 is as ugly as sin.

I preferred ps3 over xbox due to all the japanese rpgs. Sadly today's consoles mostly bring FPSes as titles which imo are meant for mouse and keyboard really. Now the PS3 has functionallity for this and we can see it in UT3 which I own. However it seems the PS3 is giving a very limited share of the bus for reading mouse values as the mouse is lagging in UT3 and I really doubt they would let that pass if you could have a smooth mouse movement.

As of now there are actually more RPGs for the XBOX even though they are more western styled rpgs. Still if you look back at the PS1 and 2 there were so many great RPGs coming out exclusively for the PS systems. At least I get to play those with the backwards compatibility :P

I think the PS3 will bring more games that I like in the end anyway, many of the xbox exclusives (meaning not on PS3 or Wii) end up on PC and I've got a PC. But your three reasons on why the PS3 should be preferred are nothing that really matters for someone who should choose between the two consoles. But what does it matter? CivRev is coming on both now and they have said it will practically be the same game (except for video chat which isnt in PS3 due to GameSpy exclusive technology)

Schuesseled

Apr 01, 2008, 05:41 AM

1) I don't consider the PS2 to be a 'quality' system, when nearly 1/4 of all systems lasted less than 3 years before dying
2) The PS3 has 7 cpu's and a great gpu...the 360 has 3 cpu's and a great gpu...the biggest difference though is the bandwidth available in both for the cpu and gpu to talk...the PS3 has 800MHz. That's not enough enough for run of the mill P4 desktop computers to talk to the gpu. The 360 wins because of its higher bandwidth allowing the cpu and gpu to work closer to their potential(instead of waiting around forever for the bandwidth to transmit their information to each other like the PS3)

3) since when did looks matter? the PS2 and PS1 were pretty ugly too. Since the only two pretty consoles ever are the Wii and PS3, I'd say that #3 doesn't matter at all

1) I didn't say ps2 was perfect, i said that sony has provided consoles taht worked and had good game for much longer than microsoft, stick with the devil you know.

2) What was that gibberish, the PS3 can produce much better quality of games graphically, this is a fact.

3) The look of the console is very important, would you buy a console that took up half you living room, and had dangerous spikes on it that could kill your children (extreme but you wouldn't purchase it)

I preferred ps3 over xbox due to all the japanese rpgs. Sadly today's consoles mostly bring FPSes as titles which imo are meant for mouse and keyboard really. Now the PS3 has functionallity for this and we can see it in UT3 which I own. However it seems the PS3 is giving a very limited share of the bus for reading mouse values as the mouse is lagging in UT3 and I really doubt they would let that pass if you could have a smooth mouse movement.

As of now there are actually more RPGs for the XBOX even though they are more western styled rpgs. Still if you look back at the PS1 and 2 there were so many great RPGs coming out exclusively for the PS systems. At least I get to play those with the backwards compatibility :P

I think the PS3 will bring more games that I like in the end anyway, many of the xbox exclusives (meaning not on PS3 or Wii) end up on PC and I've got a PC. But your three reasons on why the PS3 should be preferred are nothing that really matters for someone who should choose between the two consoles. But what does it matter? CivRev is coming on both now and they have said it will practically be the same game (except for video chat which isnt in PS3 due to GameSpy exclusive technology)

My three reasons were for why i would buy a PS3, they weren't meant for you or anyone else.

Capt Ajax

Apr 01, 2008, 08:58 AM

Schuesseled

Apr 01, 2008, 11:32 AM

Magwill

Apr 01, 2008, 12:05 PM

Thrallia

Apr 01, 2008, 02:08 PM

2) What was that gibberish, the PS3 can produce much better quality of games graphically, this is a fact.

um...no it isn't. Seriously, if you look at any gaming site other than Playstation Magazine or Sony's website, you'll see screenshots and reviews that state explicitly, over and over again, that games that have come out on both systems look better and play better on the 360.

The PS3 has a more powerful GPU and more CPUs than the 360...THAT is a fact. The 360 has more bus speed and bandwidth, allowing its GPU and CPU to talk faster, thus improving performance to equal or better than the PS3..THAT is a fact.

Just because you dont' understand the workings of computer systems, doesn't mean it is gibberish you can discard in favor of your preferred 'facts'

Thrallia

Apr 01, 2008, 02:14 PM

Why The 360 is best for me?

- I'm a working guy with a family....I almost always log onto these forums while at work. I've got maybe 2 hours a day afterwork before the wife and kids get home.....So ASAP I want to immediatly start shooting things and blowing stuff up. For me It's all about First person shooters. I'm talkin, Halo, COD2,3,&4, Frontlines, Battlefront, Gears of War, Battlefield, Bioshock, and so on. Microsoft has the drop on that game type. I'm just not the type to come home and load up some kinda fairy-dust japanation Final Fantasy GAY Micky Mouse hupla:nono:. I want a man's game on an American system....and the 360 delivers all the testosterone flavored goodness I can handle.

and...that is the reason why the Xbox had such a sorry lack of RPGs. Sure, FPS games are great...and if you want a lot of FPS games, the 360 is where its at...especially for multiplayer. However...I don't think I've ever heard of Final Fantasy being compared to Mickey Mouse(since when did Mickey Mouse visit a slumlord/pimp to try to gain access to the entrance for a world-killing energy-sucking megacorp?)

Sure, there's Kingdom Hearts...but that's an entirely different type of game for an entirely different audience....if you want a 'man's game', then try Mass Effect, Oblivion, Lost Odyssey, Eternal Sonata(it is more animated, but the entire game is about death). None of those could be considered gay mickey mouse type games....and they can also provide plenty of adrenaline.

I like FPS games, but my bread and butter games are strategy games and RPGs...games with story and substance will win the battle for my play time hands down....no matter what genre they are.

Thrallia

Apr 01, 2008, 02:17 PM

The PS3 doesn't have one single title released in the western world with what you are using your pink text for. As for FPSes, the PS3 has about the same amount of them. You would be surprised.

in the Western World, I believe the 360 has nearly as many shooters as the PS3 has total games...The PS3 does have more shooters than the PS2 did, but that isn't helping it when the 360 has more RPGs than the PS3 does.

For the PS3 to succeed, it will need to somehow keep Final Fantasy XIII exclusivity. I'd say that despite continuing to deny it is multiplatform, that Square Enix is seriously toying with the idea of putting it on the 360 also. Why else would they have already optimized FFXIII's graphics engine for the 360? That's the most expensive part of porting a game.

Magwill

Apr 01, 2008, 03:12 PM

in the Western World, I believe the 360 has nearly as many shooters as the PS3 has total games...The PS3 does have more shooters than the PS2 did, but that isn't helping it when the 360 has more RPGs than the PS3 does.

For the PS3 to succeed, it will need to somehow keep Final Fantasy XIII exclusivity. I'd say that despite continuing to deny it is multiplatform, that Square Enix is seriously toying with the idea of putting it on the 360 also. Why else would they have already optimized FFXIII's graphics engine for the 360? That's the most expensive part of porting a game.

There are more than enough great FPSes for the PS3. There is no need for more seriously. And Square Enix has already warned Sony that they need to change their marketing if they would stay at Sony. And they did, with a new manager and PS3 sales are going really well :) I think they are happy. Their sales with FF after GTA is released will be enormous.

Civfan333

Apr 01, 2008, 09:02 PM

well......this argument pollutes every gaming site in the whole world.....

but if you look at the numbers: when your console is selling ON AVERAGE only 5,000 more a month than the old GBA, you gotta know it's not doing well

Magwill

Apr 02, 2008, 02:38 AM

Capt Ajax

Apr 02, 2008, 11:24 AM

Then why are you on the Civ forums, i'm sure civ would come under the more of an intellectual gamer's choice, as does rpg games. Where as first person shooters are mindless violence releasing games.

Personally i enjoy a bit of both, sometimes i play games that make me think and/or have a nice story to them. (that gay mickey mouse hupula) and sometimes i jsut like to go nuts and let my trigger finger blast away everything in sight.

As you can tell, I've been on the CIV forums for quite a while. Don't get me wrong I LOVE CIV. As a matter of fact if I could only have one game to play it would be CIV. I'm just saying that after a hard day at the office, dealing with one arse after another, it's nice to come home and destroy other gamers on XBOX LIVE....which brings me to another point.

If it were not for LIVE Play I probably would not bother with consols. It's the only thing that keeps me coming back. Microsoft got the drop on Sony as far as LIVE play goes and IMHO, XBOX LIVE continues to outclass Sony in that area.

First Person Shooters + XBOX LIVE = :goodjob:

Magwill

Apr 02, 2008, 11:53 AM

As you can tell, I've been on the CIV forums for quite a while. Don't get me wrong I LOVE CIV. As a matter of fact if I could only have one game to play it would be CIV. I'm just saying that after a hard day at the office, dealing with one arse after another, it's nice to come home and destroy other gamers on XBOX LIVE....which brings me to another point.

If it were not for LIVE Play I probably would not bother with consols. It's the only thing that keeps me coming back. Microsoft got the drop on Sony as far as LIVE play goes and IMHO, XBOX LIVE continues to outclass Sony in that area.

First Person Shooters + XBOX LIVE = :goodjob:

I keep hearing from XBOX users that Live is better than PSN but I never see any arguments.

Civfan333

Apr 02, 2008, 06:59 PM

And what does numbers matter to us people who are satisfied?

Nothing since you seem be diehard, but I just wanted to rub in....:p

XxtraLarGe

Apr 03, 2008, 07:18 AM

warpstorm

Apr 03, 2008, 07:36 AM

Third is the fact that I can still play my PS2 games when I upgrade.

You might want to check on that. Not all PS3s have the backward compatibility hardware. It depends what country you are in and the model you buy. Some have no backward compatibility (the 40 GB models), others have software emulation (most the current crop - this is a mixed bag a lot of games work others don't), and the early models had the full PS2 chipset for full compatibility (AFAIK, the current models do not).

Go to http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/CompatibleStatus if you want to know about a specific title.

Magwill

Apr 03, 2008, 08:02 AM

In a pi$$ing war, everybody gets wet, which I'm sure most will agree is undesirable. XBox 360 has some very cool games, as does the PS3 and the Wii. All 3 consoles have some cool games, but very few of them are exclusives. If I had the time & money, I'd buy all of them.

There are a couple of determining factors that tilt in the favor of the PS3 for me. One is BluRay. The second is the controllers. We have an XBox at home and I detest the controller. I like the controller on the PS2 much better. Third is the fact that I can still play my PS2 games when I upgrade.

All that being said, if a person likes one console over the other, there's no need to insult them just because they like something different than you do. It doesn't help anybody, and it doesn't change anybody's mind.

Yes as warpstorm says, they have dropped the ps1 and ps2 support on the newer version. Imo its a bad move but I got hold of one of the earlier models, the 60 gb version so I still have that support. They do not make these anymore though. One problem with the 60 gb is that it sounds more than the new ones and consumes a bit more power since there is a smaller chip in the new versions.

As for playing with old controllers, the PS3 has support for usb. I don't know the specifics of what controllers work but I have a Thrustmaster with both the old PS connector and usb, and it works perfectly as another controller on the PS3.

Schuesseled

Apr 03, 2008, 08:35 AM

Magwill

Apr 03, 2008, 12:35 PM

i think he was comparing ps controllers to xbox controllers, and i agree, the playstation controller is so much easier for me to use, plus i think it looks better. And then theres siraxis motion control, that could have some interesting possibilites.

My opinion is that the sixaxis function isn't very cool. The only game where it actually felt natural was Resistance where you have to shake it to get those alien bastards away from you. Otherwise it doesn't feel responsive enough. But maybe I'm spoiled after playing so much Wii.

Civfan333

Apr 03, 2008, 08:08 PM

yeah, the wii's motion-sensing is better, but there were two kinds of xbox controllers....I got the newer and better one......but if you got it in like the first two years it was out, you got this super huge controller......

warpstorm

Apr 04, 2008, 07:43 AM

Civfan333 brings up a good point, the current XBox 360 controller is a much better designed controller than the ones that came with the original XBoxes.

Swedishguy

Apr 04, 2008, 07:47 AM

Since when is a PC a console? :hmm:

Magwill

Apr 04, 2008, 09:24 AM

Since when is a PC a console? :hmm:

Since keyboard and a command line ;)

Thrallia

Apr 04, 2008, 02:19 PM

I keep hearing from XBOX users that Live is better than PSN but I never see any arguments.

XBL Pros:

huge amounts of downloadable movies in HD
tons of demos
tons of great XBL Arcade games: new and old
lag-free multiplayer gaming with 10 million other users
the ability to avoid annoying 10-yr old kids in multiplayer
free XNA programming language for indie programming for XBL Arcade
everything is free except for XBL multiplayer
good interface
offline for less than 96 hours since its launch

XBL Cons:
Costs $4/month for XBL Gold, which lets you play online multiplayer...everything else is available for XBL Silver membership

PSN Pros:

a few demos
some downloadable music videos...
free multiplayer gaming with perhaps 1 million other users
download PS1 games
download a handful of smaller games

PSN Cons:

online gaming isn't always lag-free
very few worthwhile downloadable games compared to 360
no downloadable movies
network of users is a fraction the size of XBL
offline for over 2 weeks since its launch

Since the only thing on XBL you 'have' to pay to do is do multiplayer gaming, and since it only costs $4/month, I find it immensely more worthwhile for my gaming time than the PSN, as I'm more likely to find a good multiplayer matchup on XBL than on PSN.

In a pi$$ing war, everybody gets wet, which I'm sure most will agree is undesirable. XBox 360 has some very cool games, as does the PS3 and the Wii. All 3 consoles have some cool games, but very few of them are exclusives. If I had the time & money, I'd buy all of them.

There are a couple of determining factors that tilt in the favor of the PS3 for me. One is BluRay. The second is the controllers. We have an XBox at home and I detest the controller. I like the controller on the PS2 much better. Third is the fact that I can still play my PS2 games when I upgrade.

I would also buy all 3 if I had the money(and the PS3 had more games I wanted than just Uncharted...), but the 360 controller is not the XBox controller...it is smaller, lighter, and more responsive..it also feels much more natural for shooters than the PS3/PS2 controllers did.

i think he was comparing ps controllers to xbox controllers, and i agree, the playstation controller is so much easier for me to use, plus i think it looks better. And then theres siraxis motion control, that could have some interesting possibilites.

Sixaxis is WAY overrated. It sucks, to be honest. The only game so far to actually use it as the primary method of control was Lair...and it was a disaster. Sixaxis is in no way something you should consider a positive for the PS3 over another console....as for the xbox/Ps2/3 comparison...look to my above post also

My opinion is that the sixaxis function isn't very cool. The only game where it actually felt natural was Resistance where you have to shake it to get those alien bastards away from you. Otherwise it doesn't feel responsive enough. But maybe I'm spoiled after playing so much Wii.

agreed...Sixaxis was 'supposed' to beat the Wii for Sony...instead it is a mere gimmick that developers hate to include in their game, but Sony keeps pushing.

Smidlee

Apr 04, 2008, 03:11 PM

I keep hearing from XBOX users that Live is better than PSN but I never see any arguments. I think some of the Live hype is the fact you got to pay for it. American's have been taught you get what you pay for but I found out this isn't always true. Americans will often pay top dollar for junk.

I've seldom had that any trouble playing online with my friends with the PC nor PSN (play PC online more than PSN though). Even then it's problems with the game and nothing to do with online. When it comes to online PC still has the most advantage over any console.

Magwill

Apr 04, 2008, 05:07 PM

I will not write a long post about why I feel like I feel but if we remove all the useless arguments that are very subjective, we are left with:

XBL Pros:
* tons of demos
* tons of great XBL Arcade games: new and old
* lag-free multiplayer gaming with 10 million other users
* free XNA programming language for indie programming for XBL Arcade

PSN Pros:

* a few demos
* free multiplayer gaming with perhaps 1 million other users
* download PS1 games
* download a handful of smaller games

Demos, more is better so I agree that the system that has more demos win here. However its not a big issue to me at least. Arcade games and the ability to make your own is a great thing which should be featured on PSN as well. About lag gameplay, I have never experienced any lag at all except for in Tekken which is a fighting game and thats when you play with people that are a long distance away. People define lag different, the usual description though is that you notice a delay in the game as your network packets are arriving with a noticable delay. Stuttering is not the only type of lag. I never see any Stuttering (except for Tekken) in PSN, the only thing that might happen is that things happen a bit after you do stuff when playing with people far away. This will of course happen on XBOX live as well if you do play with people far away. Now you live in America so I guess you have enough players to play with close to you. But all in all, there probably isnt any difference at all between the XBOX and the PS3.

The PS3 does offer some old games which is cool and good but as for old classics in xbox arcade its a minor detail.

The main thing with the online system is that you can play your games online and perhaps try new games with demos and you can do this in both.

Also the PS3 is newer so there is nothing strange with it having less demos and so on.

Civfan333

Apr 04, 2008, 07:05 PM

it's confusing on which you think is better overall.......

Magwill

Apr 05, 2008, 03:23 AM

it's confusing on which you think is better overall.......

Haha :D I'm trying to be as open minded as possible. I'm not really interested in being able to say "This is better than this". I just haven't used Xbox Live and wanted to hear some arguments about all the hype about it and why its worth a monthly fee and now I commented on what I think :) It's strange because I don't know anyone with a 360 so I can't really try it out. I only had one who owned one but he got RROD and never went back (think they fixed it and he sold it or something). My online buddies from various online PC games have bought PS3s.

Sgt Grimes

Apr 05, 2008, 05:38 AM

One obvious plus point that PSN does have over Live, is that as a free service, everyone is at least treated as an equal. With Live, silver account holders are actually penalized for not being prepared to shell out for their premium service.

M$ did themselves no favours at all with that one. A much wiser option, imo, would have been to offer additional rewards and bonuses to gold account holders. But hey, it is Microsoft when all's said and done!

Oh, and I am a silver account holder btw.

Schuesseled

Apr 05, 2008, 07:02 AM

you know, there's not really any difference between taking away priorities and adding priorities, for different member groups, the effect's the same.

Thrallia

Apr 07, 2008, 01:54 PM

how is silver penalized?
With the original Xbox, you either paid, or you got nothing...adding silver was a great move on their part.

Sgt Grimes

Apr 07, 2008, 07:05 PM

how is silver penalized?
With the original Xbox, you either paid, or you got nothing...adding silver was a great move on their part.

We're penalized by having to wait a week before we can download new demos, Thrallia. It's Microsoft's way of responding to the server overload problems that occured a few months ago, when the world and his wife decided to buy a 360! Consequently, (and with Live servers around the world bursting at the seams), Microsoft had to decide whether to invest in even more bandwidth, or economize on what they've got. Needless to say, they chose the latter!

http://www.unscripted360.com/2007/12/12/frontlines-demo-silver-members-wait/

Schuesseled

Apr 08, 2008, 07:20 AM

Another reason to not buy a 360.

Civfan333

Apr 08, 2008, 07:08 PM

not really, the only way you could actually think that's a reason to NOT buy a 360 is if you have absolutely NO patience AT ALL......

Thrallia

Apr 09, 2008, 02:08 PM

We're penalized by having to wait a week before we can download new demos, Thrallia. It's Microsoft's way of responding to the server overload problems that occured a few months ago, when the world and his wife decided to buy a 360! Consequently, (and with Live servers around the world bursting at the seams), Microsoft had to decide whether to invest in even more bandwidth, or economize on what they've got. Needless to say, they chose the latter!

http://www.unscripted360.com/2007/12/12/frontlines-demo-silver-members-wait/

ooooh...well, since they bought more bandwidth as well(since you know..economizing what they have won't work when they number of people subscribing is still growing), I still don't see how you are penalized.

The very fact that silver exists means you aren't getting penalized. They could have left things the way they were, where you had to pay to get ANY access to XBL. So anything they are willing to give you on silver is a bonus...XBL was growing quickly on its own without needing to have a free section.

However, even waiting a week to download demos...big deal. Demos either come out well before the game comes out(in which case a week really doesn't matter, you can't play the actual game for awhile anyway) or it comes out after the game itself is already out(in which case a week doesn't matter, because if you really wanted to try it out ASAP you could have rented it from Blockbuster)

Thrallia

Apr 09, 2008, 02:08 PM

not really, the only way you could actually think that's a reason to NOT buy a 360 is if you have absolutely NO patience AT ALL......

or if you are a Sony fanboy :rolleyes:

Civfan333

Apr 10, 2008, 12:14 AM

yeah, That too....

Sgt Grimes

Apr 10, 2008, 06:58 AM

ooooh...well, since they bought more bandwidth as well(since you know..economizing what they have won't work when they number of people subscribing is still growing), I still don't see how you are penalized.

The very fact that silver exists means you aren't getting penalized. They could have left things the way they were, where you had to pay to get ANY access to XBL. So anything they are willing to give you on silver is a bonus...XBL was growing quickly on its own without needing to have a free section.

However, even waiting a week to download demos...big deal. Demos either come out well before the game comes out(in which case a week really doesn't matter, you can't play the actual game for awhile anyway) or it comes out after the game itself is already out(in which case a week doesn't matter, because if you really wanted to try it out ASAP you could have rented it from Blockbuster)

You seem to be ignoring the basic principle that having any previously enjoyed privilege taken away from you, is, by definition, being penalized, Thallia. And Microsoft are all too aware that making people wait before they can get new demos, is a very good incentive to buy a gold account. Plus of course, it does come with the added bonus of easing the load on the servers when new demos do hit Live.

I tend to think that with Microsoft, what they don't say