Ps3, Xbox 360, or Wii?

PC gaming lacks local multilayer, making it immediately inferior to consoles in my eyes.

Sureal wrote:PC gaming lacks local multilayer, making it immediately inferior to consoles in my eyes.

Umm... It's called LAN my friend... With laptops and netbooks becoming more popular, it's even easier to just have a party once in a while (I do every month ^-^).

PS3 fanboys haven't yelled at me for saying that the Xbox 360 has better graphics yet DreamWalker.

Yeah, LAN on PC is really easy and lots of fun.

However, the reason that PC Gaming is in fact the worst console is because it costs far too much to keep up with the latest technology.

ha, "dreamwalker"!

Firestarter is right though that is the biggest issue with PC gaming. The graphics are always getting better and updated for games, while on the consoles the game companies must fit the graphics to the system and not make them better.

Firestarter wrote:Yeah, LAN on PC is really easy and lots of fun.

However, the reason that PC Gaming is in fact the worst console is because it costs far too much to keep up with the latest technology.

DayDreams wrote:ha, "dreamwalker"!

Firestarter is right though that is the biggest issue with PC gaming. The graphics are always getting better and updated for games, while on the consoles the game companies must fit the graphics to the system and not make them better.

You can always turn the graphics down. It may look like it costs a lot, but it doesn't in the long run. For a console you need a TV, an actual console, three extra controllers, a few headsets (which are more expensive than PC headsets), a stand for your TV, and games are $60 bucks a pop. For an entry level PC (one that will play new releases on low graphics and older games on full) you will pay about $600 (add $50 if you do not want to put it together yourself) including mouse and keyboard, $100 for a 17' screen, $100 for a desk and a chair, and $20 for a headset. That means you can get up and running for $870. You can always upgrade your system with more RAM, better video cards and other things whenever you want.

As for games, you have a choice. You can go free to play, or you can look around on Steam for some good deals, or you can go by $50 retail games. All of these games are of equal fun and quality.

Don't forget, you can do whatever you want on a computer. Brows the web, IM to others, voice chat, blog, go on forums (hint hint), listen to music, watch videos, play games... the possibilities are literally endless.

Oh, the kicker? Chances are you are on a computer right now, and you own two gaming consoles and twenty or so games. And you tell us PC gamers that we waste money?

I'm on a three-year-old laptop; not exactly a good gaming set-up ...

But apart from your arbitrary totalling up, you've forgotten a few things. Firstly, pretty much everybody already owns a TV and a stand (and a stand isn't really needed necessarily). In terms of "the best console" I was talking about the ability to play new games as they're supposed to be played; I don't know about you, but whacking on COD:MW2 on low graphics isn't my idea of "the best." Sure you can downgrade games to make them playable, but it can sometimes ruin the gaming experience. Your points about doing things on a computer are not part of this discussion really at all.

I respect PC Gaming and do play old games and games with low graphic requirements still, and really enjoy it. But if we're talking in terms of the "the best console" the PC is simply far too expensive if you want to keep up. Whereas a new console will last three of four years, a top PC will need updating within two years.

The top games are easier to afford on a Xbox and PS3. No-one's doubting the versatility of a PC, but keyboard gaming has been going downhill for a while now.

If I had to pick the best, which is what you said;

infinite reality wrote:Which do you think is better?

Not favorite, best. It's the PS3. Games are one thing, but the PSN works well and has a lot of good demos and downloadable games, netflix on it in the US is pretty cool, connectivity with your computer and it's pictures, movies and sound, good online, a good blueray player, and (if you got it earlier like me) many usb slots and card slots that you can transfer whatever you need.
I use my PS3 as an entertainment device instead of just a game console. It does everything I want to do on my tv. I love the games, but the ps3 does so much more than that, which is why I beleive that it's better.

Ps3 > Xbox360 and Wii hands down.

Sure initially xbox360 had a 1 year head start and microsoft's pc based systems which were a big headstart for the company. The tech specs between the systems are close, but getting honest data is sometimes quite hard. Since the ps3 and xbox can mess with a lot of data by installing it and changing how it reads, it can out perform PCs in many aspects.

Simple list states, ps3 has 160+ exclusives, xbox 360 has 110. Sure xbox360 has what. 750ish games and ps3 has 558, but the painful fact is that almost all good games are shared between systems. And the ps3 is simply releasing more and more exclusives at a faster and higher rated pace.

Ps3 took about 2-3 years to catch up to xbox, as we all know. Now that xbox is at its peak, the lack of blu ray is starting to hit home. Ps3 still has a good 5+ years at this rate. Xbox360 is reaching its limit now. Not good for the future. :/

For most people it is personal choice at the moment, but for those of us who look 2 years down the road, xbox looks worse and worse every year.

Jianfre wrote:Ps3 > Xbox360 and Wii hands down.

Sure initially xbox360 had a 1 year head start and microsoft's pc based systems which were a big headstart for the company. The tech specs between the systems are close, but getting honest data is sometimes quite hard. Since the ps3 and xbox can mess with a lot of data by installing it and changing how it reads, it can out perform PCs in many aspects.

Simple list states, ps3 has 160+ exclusives, xbox 360 has 110. Sure xbox360 has what. 750ish games and ps3 has 558, but the painful fact is that almost all good games are shared between systems. And the ps3 is simply releasing more and more exclusives at a faster and higher rated pace.

Ps3 took about 2-3 years to catch up to xbox, as we all know. Now that xbox is at its peak, the lack of blu ray is starting to hit home. Ps3 still has a good 5+ years at this rate. Xbox360 is reaching its limit now. Not good for the future. :/

For most people it is personal choice at the moment, but for those of us who look 2 years down the road, xbox looks worse and worse every year.

You could say that it is peaking, but I would like to think it is just beginning another great two years. With Facebook, Zune, and Twitter all being released onto the consoles it gives the xbox another plus and if they can do those three plenty more are to come. Why does every PS3 fan have to mention blu-ray in their post its annoying *sigh*. Sure people like to watch movies and yes in the future I am sure more people will watch blu-ray and thus buy a PS3, but the xbox has just a much better community, console only games, and downloads. I say community because so many people have xbox live compared to PS3 currently, although they are catching up rapidly. The few console only games may be limited, but so many people play them. This is the biggest contributer for me the downloads. Xbox gets so much downloadable content varying from games on demand to indie games. Recently they released Facebook, Twitter, and the Zune network for free. Apart from this new download content is generally released for the 360 before the PS3. Why should I have to wait months? A good example is Fallout 3. Although I despise motion control it is necessary to say that the xbox's project natal looks much more promising than Sony's wand. I say this because the wand seems like a wii controller jacked up while natal is without using a controller. Now that is why the xbox360 is better!

I wouldn't push Facebook too hard, DayDreams, because the PS3 has had Facebook since launch.

I wouldn't limited exclusive games to 'console-only games', because if you do that, PS3 wins again, simply because a lot of the 360's big exclusives (Gears of War 1, Mass Effect, Left4Dead 1 and 2) are also on PC, whereas the PS3's aren't.


Jianfre is also incorrect, in that installing games means nothing. (All it does is improve load times a little bit - something all PC games do, and all 360 games can do too.)

The PS3 cannot outperform a gaming PC in any way at all. On a technical level, PC gaming is superior to console gaming, always.


Really, the two consoles are basically even. There's no point trying to claim one is superior to the other.

Quite true but I thought this was to debate, and I was having fun. =)

Suppose that's true enough. ^_^