PS3, XBox 360 or Nintendo Revolution

[thederekeffect1]

I've noticed that some of the members are interested in video games. Personally, I don't care for video games too much. I play them once every 3 months or so. However, I like to have a video game system for social events. So, I decided to post a poll. Which video game system would you buy?

To make things a little easier, I researched the three systems and posted their most interesting features below to help you make a decision without having to research it yourself.

Playstation 3:

- will use blue-ray disc's as it's media format. The disc's can hold six times more data than current DVD disc's.
- Also supports CR-ROM, CD-RW, DVD, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD+R formats.
- High Definition
- Plays PS2 and PS1 games.
- Uses "cell processor" making the whole system twice as fast.
- video chat, Internet access, digital photo viewing, and digital audio and video.
- Supports 7 WIRELESS controllers.
- 6 USB slots.
- Still uses memory cards for saving. (I personally hate memory cards)

More about the PS3

XBox 360:

- Two system packages. XBox 360(everything) and XBox 360: Core System (just the basics) - (I personally think that if I went out and bought the system without reading about it that it would get confusing and i'd go for whatever one had the prettier package. I'd end up with the Core system which pretty much just plays games).
- Plays XBox games. But it's LIMITED to certain games.
- High Definition.
- supports CDs, DVD, DVD-ROMs, DVD-R/RW, MP3s, JPEGs, and more.
- XBox Live Silver features extras such as messaging and downloads.
- 3 USB ports
- Supports 4 WIRELESS controllers. (controllers recharge while you play)

More about XBox 360 Even more about XBox 360

Nintendo DS: Revolution: (Not the final name of the system)

- Access to NES, SNES, and N64. There are rumors that it will also have access to old Sega games.
- Plays Gamecube games.
- Self-contained attachment for playing media content, including DVDs.
- Wireless controllers (unknown how many it will support).
- Will not support High Definition
- It will be the least expensive system of the three.
- "there will be no difference between the Revolution’s graphics and those produced by rival next-gen consoles Playstation 3 and Xbox 360."
- No confirmed launch date.
- For the most part, everything about the Revolution is a secret and will remain a secret until it launches. "While some of our competitors enjoy comparing specifications, it has little or nothing to do with how satisfied the consumers will be with the system and the games once they are released." - Jim Merrick (Nintendo Europe executive). What's so "Revolutionary" about it? No one knows.

To be honest, it sounds like they're hiding the fact that once again they failed to make a more powerful (less entertaining) system than their competition. Probably because it ruined them when they had the Game Cube.

More about the Nintendo Revolution Even more about the Nintendo Revolution

My vote:
I'll keep my old system.

 

[bbestar]

You forgot the ps3 can take in a keyboard and mouse and can support two hdtv's at the same time

Im hoping, really hoping the ps3 will support psp games too
little suprise

 

[HateOnMe]

Well one of the big secrets to The Revolution was the showing of the controllers. Nintendo would be crazy to try to go head to head with the Ps3 and the Xbox360, so they went a diffrent route with the gameplay.

 

[Eternal]

Depends what you want for a social setting. If you want sports/action games, get either the XBox or PS3. RPG's, Nintendo.

Nintendo has always been the leader in lesser graphics, but best with RPGs. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy to name a few.

PS has been great with sports/action. Madden, ESPN, Grand Theft Auto, Twisted Metal, Metal Gear Solid....The best RPG's have been the Gauntlet Legends series.

XBox is fairly new but seems to be trying to go in both directions. They got Madded, ESPN, and GTA, but they also have "Fable" which has been one of the best role playing games so far according to people.

Personally, I'd go with PS3. Nintendo has always been more about their games, which is great if you play a lot. XBox is still new (second system) and is trying to be a combination of both, but they still need to find their own identity.

Playstation has established itself before and has taken steps towards a good future for casual and hardcore gamers.

 

[Lost In Translation]

JC go sell some gamer tags

Killzone 2 for PS3 will rule

AND YOU KNOW THIS !


Lost In Translation

**AUSTRALIAN STREET PIMP**

" stop being insecure " i hate that saying. it's a cop out for not having enough balls to confront a woman about what she is doing THAT IS WRONG or potentially damaging to a long term relationship. – Lost In Translation

 

[MetalFortress]

Revolution. I could type it up again, but it's all said perfectly here. All of the trendwh0res who don't mind buying a system that has discs bugged to only allow you to play your game on one console (and has you pay extra for the new "feature" of more allowed consoles) can keep their PS3. Sony already got caught installing rootkits on people's computers with their music CDs. If you don't know about this already, google it.

XBox 360 is too expensive for a system that I'll never buy anything aside from Halo for. In fact, the only time I play console games at all, are SNES games, multiplayer games with friends over, or when I plug my Game Boy Advance titles into the Gamecube.

To be honest, it sounds like they're hiding the fact that once again they failed to make a more powerful (less entertaining) system than their competition.

More power = more entertainment? Explain, then, why my GameCube and PS2 collect dust while my SNES and Game Boy Advance get the most playtime.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

May have something to do with the fact we are the "video-game generation." We're the first generation to come up on video games of all varieties. Nintendo. Sega. Sega Genesis. SNES.

The beg. video game systems didn't evolve rapidly. It wasn't hard to fathom having 60+ games, and prices were only $30 tops. Systems back then ran @ $100. I believe it was SNES that hit $150. And then PS2 and XBOX that hit $299 or so.

The early technology wasn't complex and you could spend A LONG TIME acquiring all the games, or renting them. You could acquire pieces, like the controllers, or pads. Evolution was slow so we enjoyed what we had.

The gameplay is what mattered, not the graphics, because gameplay HAD to make up for the lack of graphics and control.

Mega Man
Ninja Gaiden
Final Fantasy

Believe me, I recall MANY memories as a child alternating levels during Rpg's and other games with my brother during games. Some of them, you couldn't even save! So I'd pause the game hoping it wouldn't freeze @ my return. How sad!

Thing is...tech. as it is, it evolves quick, and newer systems appeal to a wider market. They evolve quicker. They're becoming MORE disposable, though manufacturers are attempting to make them LESS.

Shyt, my nintendo lasted FOREVER, now I can't get a higher priced PS2 or XBOX to near half as long. Everybody I know had to replace them at least once. IT WAS UNHEARD OF TO REPLACE A NINTENDO, because parents just wouldn't do it. You could drop those suckas! Nuts!

Games weren't even really on TV. I don't recall such lavish commericals as Grand Theft Auto put out. You see commericals for video games DURING sporting matches. I watched cribs once and some athlete had ALL the systems, but few games.

It seems the game plan is to make each system unique from the other, float a couple of KILLER titles that entrance everyone to buy all systems, and let designers do what they can to innovate and write for their respective systems.

I'd LOVE to play some of the gamecube games, and to play other PS@ games that had broke...I'm tired of some XBOX games, because, the RPG's are nice, they aren't deep or tough like PS2 or NIN was.

Talking to any gaming junky @ the stores, they note that the Revolution provides the greatest leap in technology, while PS3 will have a great game-lineup for RPG's and action, and XBOX for first person and sports.

As I said, I'll attempt to acquire ALL of them OVER time. I saw prices on USED xbox games at fairly low prices, say 17.99. JUST wait til XBOX 360 rolls out. Around christmas, prices will drop again as the transition moves to XBOX 360 game play. Games will slow down for manufacture on XBOX, and ramp up for 360. Used games will drop off for XBOX.

It'll be a nice way to profit from the high prices that started out, the $50. Though XBOX 360 will push $60, and possibly $70 if they become feature laden or incredibly deep games.

Hey, at least we got options nowadays right guys?


A-Unit

 

[MetalFortress]

Back in the SNES days, games like Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy III were 85-95 dollars apiece. We have it good now compared to back then.

Playstation was 300 dollars, and the Sega Saturn was 350-400. Crazy to think that that seems so old now was so expensive back then.

If you want tough RPGs check out the Fire Emblem series on the Game Boy Advance. Never in my life have I played an RPG as tough as these, including my game nerd days as a kid.

 

[italostud]

Originally posted by MetalFortress
Back in the SNES days, games like Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy III were 85-95 dollars apiece. We have it good now compared to back then.

True! I remember when NES games were $50-80 at Toys R Us. The SNES games were around the same price. The games have become a lot cheaper.

Playstation was 300 dollars, and the Sega Saturn was 350-400. Crazy to think that that seems so old now was so expensive back then.

Man, you know what, playstation(PS1) STILL seems new to me. I have a Nintendo DS which I use to strictly play old NES games off of a flash cart. I play some GBA games too, however.

 

[Don Pablo]

I'm going to go with the 360. The Xbox is awesome, and their Live service is going to be even better.

 

[italostud]

Originally posted by Eternal
Depends what you want for a social setting. If you want sports/action games, get either the XBox or PS3. RPG's, Nintendo.

Nintendo has always been the leader in lesser graphics, but best with RPGs. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy to name a few.

PS has been great with sports/action. Madden, ESPN, Grand Theft Auto, Twisted Metal, Metal Gear Solid....The best RPG's have been the Gauntlet Legends series.

XBox is fairly new but seems to be trying to go in both directions. They got Madded, ESPN, and GTA, but they also have "Fable" which has been one of the best role playing games so far according to people.

Personally, I'd go with PS3. Nintendo has always been more about their games, which is great if you play a lot. XBox is still new (second system) and is trying to be a combination of both, but they still need to find their own identity.

Playstation has established itself before and has taken steps towards a good future for casual and hardcore gamers.

Okay, what you just said is exactly the OPPOSITE of reality.

Here's a little history lesson for you.

Way back, before PS1 came out, there was SNES and Genesis. (I know there were some others, but these were the main two)

Sony began working on a cd-rom attachment for the SNES. Nintendo decided that they didn't want any part of the new technology known as "CD's" lol.

Because of Nintendo's attitude, Sony decided that they would make their OWN system, using their cd-rom idea. Thus, the almighty Playstation was born.

With the vastly increased storage capacity of the PS1(thanks to it's use of cd-rom instead of cartridge), most of the RPG developers jumped over to Sony. Nintendo lost most of the good RPG developers. And if you look at N64, you'll see proof of this.

Cd's were also much cheaper to develop than cartridges, so many other game developers went with the Sony Playstation, rather than the N64.

Thus began the slow demise of Nintendo. They have been trying to catch up ever since.

I wish I could find a picture of that CD-ROM attachment they were making for the SNES. I have it in an old copy of Nintendo Power.

 

[MetalFortress]

Nintendo is in no danger. Their overall marketshare has gone unchallenged up until the PSP came around. The differences in business strategies also lead Nintendo to make more money off of each unit they sell, because it costs FAR less to build a GameCube than a PS2, or a DS than a PSP. Sony and Microsoft lose money with each system they sell (they make up for it in game sales), but Nintendo actually sells their systems for a profit, too (the Gamecube didn't sell at a loss until it hit the 99 dollar mark). The PSP is also sold at a loss, and despite Sony actually challenging Nintendo's marketshare, their profits are going down or stagnating while Nintendo's are flying through the roof.

This is also why Nintendo doesn't engage in the system-spec arms race with Sony and Microsoft. It generates hype, but the systems become so much more expensive to build that they would have to sell at a loss, and as they have shown with the GameCube, the difference in actual in-game graphics would be negligible at best.

 

[cinephile]

Agree with Metal Fortress

The Gamecube is hardly a failure as some have described it here. It's sales are higher internationally than the Xbox. Also, the PSP has failed to take away significant market share from the gameboy. While superior tech wise, it is really overpriced with no significant games to drive it. Hence the overall lack of interest.

The Revolution will do fine, mainly because Nintendo does not market just for the hardcore gamers who play 20 hours straight, but for a general audience who likes to play occasionally. While some will call it a kids system, there is no doubt Super Smash Brothers is a bad ass game that appeal to everybody. I would much rather play it than some new variation on Halo.

The overall power of any gaming system is irrelevant to the actual quality of the games provided. Nintendo beats the other two hands down for providing quality gameplay on a consistent basis.

 

[comic_relief]

screw video games

They are too expensive and a waste of time and energy

I used to be a hardcore gamer but then I went to sosuave and everything changed.

Now I rarely if ever play video games but the one game that I have been playing lately was "Secret of Mana" on the SNES. I only play that about once a week.

comic_relief

 

[MetalFortress]

Originally posted by comic_relief
"Secret of Mana" on the SNES.

Hell yes and a half. That is one of the only non-GBA games I play anymore

 

[TheRelic]

Revolution.

Nintendo have always been the only group focused on producing innovative, entertaining, and original games.

The other consoles are geared towards different demographics.

 

[MetalFortress]

Who the hell is rigging the X-box 360 vote? It was at 4 a few hours ago.

I played the 360 today at Target, and I'm not impressed anywhere near enough to make it worth 400 dollars. The only difference is in minor graphical details, and what I played was at 30 FPS.

 

[thederekeffect1]

That's interesting. There's a lot of people defending nintendo but yet there's only 4 votes for the revolution. while Sony and Microsoft are head to head with 10 and 11 votes. haha.

 

[Silquee Smoove]

Originally posted by Eternal
Personally, I'd go with PS3. Nintendo has always been more about their games, which is great if you play a lot. XBox is still new (second system) and is trying to be a combination of both, but they still need to find their own identity.

That's what I'm leaning toward as well, but with technology going the way it is toward mainstream convergence of most appliances (the high-tech ones, at least), this is where that vaunted, new, "Blu-ray" DVD technology should come into play in the form of new movie titles using that storage medium. (That's the big selling point for why I would consider buying one).

I find it amazing that the DVD has the power to make the CD obsolete before the end of this decade and new emerging technologies replace prior ones faster than that.

I was talking with a good friend about the "Next-Gen" console wars and he remarked that the production costs for most of the new games coming out on the PS3 and XBox 360 consoles are forcing the retail prices on these games to go back up to $60 to $70 a game like it was in the early 90's for the Nintendo and SNES consoles.

That's where he successfully argued that most people want graphic intensive games with lush environments, and huge built-in physics engines are now going to have to pay for all those extra "bells and whistles".

That's where I could see Nintendo as a company was taking a "one step back, two steps forward" with their business model and deciding not to go with a bigger rendering graphics engine in their new console, but rather, that controller that looks like a T.V. remote, and the ability to download all games for each prior console. That's a novel idea.

The only fault I have with Nintendo is that they have a tendency to produce a lot of "kiddie-games" and that isn't appealing to someone like me whose last game that was played on any console was PS2's "Manhunt" back in '03.

As an F.Y.I. did you know that Nintendo was originally a card game company at the turn of the century? (1899):crackup:

Originally posted by MetalFortress
If you want tough RPGs check out the Fire Emblem series on the Game Boy Advance. Never in my life have I played an RPG as tough as these, including my game nerd days as a kid.

Have you heard of Xenogears, M.F.? I would arguably say that I will never play a better RPG in my life. To this day, if anybody mentions a good RPG, I'll always recommend this one in return. It's for the PS1 (made by Squaresoft-"Enix") and it's real storyline driven.

As far as social settings go, Derek Effect, just get a PS2 and get "D.D.R." that way people can dance and everything stays chill.

You don't have to spend an outrageous sum to have a good time.

-As far as my choice for Next-Gen Console: PS3

 

[Brian20o2]

In all honesty I think the XB360 is gonna sell the most, I'm not saying it's better. The revolution sounds interesting and hopfully wont be ahead of it's time with the new controler. The PS3 is'nt gonna do as good as the PS2, reason: the PS2 sold so great because it was out for so long before the other 'new' systems and also could play PS1 games. The PS3 may be able to play 1, 2 and 3 games but its coming out at the same time. Plus the XB360 wil be able to play XB games which will help. And while the XB360 will be 400$ it comes with a 20 Gig HDD, that means full media experience and upgrading it to hold games, Also the 360 will most likely be a commonly modded system, more so than the orig.

But thats just my opinion on what I understand.
I'm gonna go with XB360 and NR (but not untill the prices drop. I still got a GC w/ RE4 and Legend of Zelda WW).