Favorite platform

[Aiyan]

I got a PC, the Wii, the 360, and the PS3.

I voted 360 probably. I cant remember now its been so long. lol I like all 3 console cuz they each bring something different to the table. EVERY exclusive for each system I try to get cuz each consoles exclusive is very nice. (the Wii can be more hit or miss than the other 2 tho)

On my PC....I tried some console type games and I just didnt like it. It was probably the screen size..lol I do play the Sims on their, but thats about it.
(yea, yea...shaddup)

I like having the Wii cuz every game I can let my kids play and dont have to worry about the content. Some games I dont play around them or let them play for the PS3 or 360....I think I lost some weight playing the Wii too...

I didnt like the controller for the Xbox at first, I was so used to the Playstation one. That changed after finally getting the orig Xbox. Now I have problems when I play one system for a long time and try to play another ...I always get the controls mixed up. lol Except for the Wii. That controller is too unique.

That is so my problem with MW2 on ps3/xbox. Takes me around 5-6 matches to go from x360 to ps3, but it takes me couple of days going from ps3 to x360 on that game.

But I have started to vary the games on each console so I don't get rusty like that anymore lol

 

[n0ct3m]

No NES love in here? Pfft.

 

[jroc]

^lol....on my Wii with emulators...I didnt know the Wii could do that until i got it.

I got NES, SNES, Nintendo 64, Sega, need to grab some Turbo Grapix 16 . I'm about to go all out and have all the old consoles on there...

 

[Member 182715]

As of right now.. Xbox. But I am also a big fan of Playstation, and it used to be my favorite. I am not really a fan of using the PC unless its for simulation or RTS games like Sim City or Command and Conquer type games.

 

[96accord]

PC or bust!

 

[Ninja Monkey]

360 user. My PS3 collect dust. 360 games, PS3 movies only.

This is exactly my situation.

 

[saps]

I prefer the PC myself but with two kids I have a wii and a 360 as well. Wii is a fun gimmick once in a while I will admit. 360 has some decent titles. But the meat and potatoes for me is my PC.

 

[Aiyan]

I prefer the PC myself but with two kids I have a wii and a 360 as well. Wii is a fun gimmick once in a while I will admit. 360 has some decent titles. But the meat and potatoes for me is my PC.

If it wasn't for my lazyness and me studying, I'd put up a computer for gaming myself. But I admit I don't have any problems with using consoles for my needs. So as long as console can make me happy, I will probably just stick with that.

 

[saps]

If it wasn't for my lazyness and me studying, I'd put up a computer for gaming myself. But I admit I don't have any problems with using consoles for my needs. So as long as console can make me happy, I will probably just stick with that.

And thats the bottom line whatever makes you happy

 

[RoseOds]

Like to play at PC but I prefer Xbox.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I voted for Mobile/DS
Sure PS3 is better
But there is no better gaming experience than playing GBA on your phone at the top of a mountain

 

[Seddy]

Xbox 360 with the help of Xbox Live ofcourse... Theres nothing like chilling with your feet propped up, wireless headset in the ear, wireless controller in the hands, shooting up zombies with a friend of family member from halfway across the USA. I dont know what i'd do without my Xbox. LOL.

 

[NYCHitman1]

Xbox 360 with the help of Xbox Live ofcourse... Theres nothing like chilling with your feet propped up, wireless headset in the ear, wireless controller in the hands, shooting up zombies with a friend of family member from halfway across the USA. I dont know what i'd do without my Xbox. LOL.

I'm a 360 user as well but seriously.. you could do the same exact thing you just described with a PS3

 

[Seddy]

I'm a 360 user as well but seriously.. you could do the same exact thing you just described with a PS3

So i've heard. But I also heard the PSN is really glitchy and not as stable as Xbox Live. Although I do like the fact that the PS3 has a web-browser. (What is MICROSOFT waiting on?!) but they dont have Left4Dead 2 on the PS3.

 

[NexusKing]

So i've heard. But I also heard the PSN is really glitchy and not as stable as Xbox Live. Although I do like the fact that the PS3 has a web-browser. (What is MICROSOFT waiting on?!) but they dont have Left4Dead 2 on the PS3.

Did Microsoft tell you that? I have both systems, and I find the PS3 faster and far more stable, with less downtime too.

I rarely get any lag on PSN gaming, but I seem to get lots on Xbox Live if I connect to the wrong game.

 

[Aiyan]

Did Microsoft tell you that? I have both systems, and I find the PS3 faster and far more stable, with less downtime too.

I rarely get any lag on PSN gaming, but I seem to get lots on Xbox Live if I connect to the wrong game.

Leave the fandom in your backyard mate. Though PS3 online ain't bad for being a free service, but can't be compared x360 live on experience of online play.

With that being said, I say like many other have said before us. You pick the the console(s)/computer with most appealing games for you as a player.

 

[NexusKing]

Leave the fandom in your backyard mate. Though PS3 online ain't bad for being a free service, but can't be compared x360 live on experience of online play.

With that being said, I say like many other have said before us. You pick the the console(s)/computer with most appealing games for you as a player.

It's not fanboyism, it's my personal opinion. Or when someone thinks differently to you, then it's automatically fandom?

I paid for Xbox Live for quite some time, and since I got my PS3, I wonder why I did that. PSN is just as good in most areas, better in others, and perhaps not quite as good in social areas (that I didn't really use much).

Everyone uses their consoles differently, I use mine to play games, I don't use it as a chatbox, so paying for dumb chatting features that interrupt my gameplay is not my idea of a great system.

 

[NYCHitman1]

It's not fanboyism, it's my personal opinion. Or when someone thinks differently to you, then it's automatically fandom?

I paid for Xbox Live for quite some time, and since I got my PS3, I wonder why I did that. PSN is just as good in most areas, better in others, and perhaps not quite as good in social areas (that I didn't really use much).

Everyone uses their consoles differently, I use mine to play games, I don't use it as a chatbox, so paying for dumb chatting features that interrupt my gameplay is not my idea of a great system.

I'm curious to what you see PSN does better than XBL. Keep in mind that I do own both consoles and thus I have the experience to debate with you. In my opinion, they both do everything the same. The advantage going to 360 because of it's social advancements. You say that the chatting features are 'dumb' but once again that's your opinion. You cannot push your opinion as fact. I for one find it very useful. Especially when I am playing a different game than my friends and we're still able to communicate without any hiccups.

 

[KingDong]

Xbox 360 here, my brother has a Playstation 3 and I've just never really got used to the controller layout.

 

[NexusKing]

I'm curious to what you see PSN does better than XBL. Keep in mind that I do own both consoles and thus I have the experience to debate with you. In my opinion, they both do everything the same. The advantage going to 360 because of it's social advancements. You say that the chatting features are 'dumb' but once again that's your opinion. You cannot push your opinion as fact. I for one find it very useful. Especially when I am playing a different game than my friends and we're still able to communicate without any hiccups.

OK, I'll be more specific. I find network speed MUCH better, especially PS3 exclusives that have dedicated servers. With Xbox Live it was hit an miss if the game would lag and it seems to slow to the slowest connected player.

I have no interest in talking to friends playing DIFFERENT games, and PS3 allows me to chat with friends in the same game which is fine (I can of course text chat anyone in any game, but again, I rarely do that besides invites to the current game).

Everthing on Xbox Live is tied into gold, you can't do jack without paying Microsoft, they have you by the balls, and they are now tightening the grip (the recent Xbox Live price increases are proof of this, along with the rumour of a Xbox Live Platinum thats even more expensive)

Everything on PSN is free, but just as good, and in some case better. Other examples of "better" (off the top of mu head):

The paid-for stuff. PS+ My 50Euro a year gets me 40 or so games for free, it gets me OS features early access betas, full game trials, themes avtars etc. On Xbox it just gets me Xbox Live Gold. (which as I have explained, equals to me, regular PSN).

The community. You simply don't get the idiotic American 12yr old kids screaming abuse into headsets on PSN. PSN is a more mature community (not entirely without idiots, but much less widespread).

The Trophies. WAY better than Xbox Live achievements. No Contest. Makes me want to play all but the best games to completion.

The Store. PSN is way better in terms of quality, it's hard to find bad games. XBLA may have more, but the quality is mostly abysmal, the good games are hidden amongst the rubbish. The PS3 Video store is FAR better stocked too, at least in my country, better stocked by a factor of 4x. It's also usually cheaper too (but not always).

Vidzone (not sure you get this in the US, but we have it here in Belgium). Nothing comes even close to this on Xbox Live, and even if it did, it would certainly be Xbox Live Gold only and likely incur an additional subscription too in true Microsoft style.

My feeling is that Microsoft are charging ALOT of money (and lets not kid ourselves with "coffee a day" misdirections, I have spent 150Euros before I canceled mine, had I not it would be 250Euros by now, nearly the price of a PS3 console) for something that is only really on-par with the standard and free PSN offering, bettering it in some ways, worse in others, but on the whole very similar in features.

 

[NYCHitman1]

OK, I'll be more specific. I find network speed MUCH better, especially PS3 exclusives that have dedicated servers. With Xbox Live it was hit an miss if the game would lag and it seems to slow to the slowest connected player.

I have no interest in talking to friends playing DIFFERENT games, and PS3 allows me to chat with friends in the same game which is fine (I can of course text chat anyone in any game, but again, I rarely do that besides invites to the current game).

Everthing on Xbox Live is tied into gold, you can't do jack without paying Microsoft, they have you by the balls, and they are now tightening the grip (the recent Xbox Live price increases are proof of this, along with the rumour of a Xbox Live Platinum thats even more expensive)

Everything on PSN is free, but just as good, and in some case better. Other examples of "better" (off the top of mu head):

The paid-for stuff. PS+ My 50Euro a year gets me 40 or so games for free, it gets me OS features early access betas, full game trials, themes avtars etc. On Xbox it just gets me Xbox Live Gold. (which as I have explained, equals to me, regular PSN).

The community. You simply don't get the idiotic American 12yr old kids screaming abuse into headsets on PSN. PSN is a more mature community (not entirely without idiots, but much less widespread).

The Trophies. WAY better than Xbox Live achievements. No Contest. Makes me want to play all but the best games to completion.

The Store. PSN is way better in terms of quality, it's hard to find bad games. XBLA may have more, but the quality is mostly abysmal, the good games are hidden amongst the rubbish. The PS3 Video store is FAR better stocked too, at least in my country, better stocked by a factor of 4x. It's also usually cheaper too (but not always).

Vidzone (not sure you get this in the US, but we have it here in Belgium). Nothing comes even close to this on Xbox Live, and even if it did, it would certainly be Xbox Live Gold only and likely incur an additional subscription too in true Microsoft style.

My feeling is that Microsoft are charging ALOT of money (and lets not kid ourselves with "coffee a day" misdirections, I have spent 150Euros before I canceled mine, had I not it would be 250Euros by now, nearly the price of a PS3 console) for something that is only really on-par with the standard and free PSN offering, bettering it in some ways, worse in others, but on the whole very similar in features.

Show me statistics that prove your opinion is fact, until then.. this is purely hearsay

I get ZERO disconnects or lag issues on 360 or PS3. The PSN+ service you mentioned costs all users that desire to upgrade some moolah ($). PSN+ offers 40 games a year that nobody will likely play. Your statement about trophies in comparison to achievements is also hearsay. It's practically the same thing. Those that complain about the 'community' are just nitpickers. You have the option to mute those that you don't wish to hear speak. In my experience, I haven't come across any "annoying 12 year old Americans" in quite a while (more than 5 months). You do realize that children in general can be be rather annoying and not just Americans, right?

 

[NexusKing]

You asked for MY experience, and MY experience is that Xbox Live is a lottery thanks to it's cheap and cheerful serverless peer to peer design. It has messaging features that offer ME no value and I am not prepared to pay for something that in MY opinion is only just as good, if not weaker in some areas than PSN.

Xbox Live is a cash-cow for Microsoft, they have managed to lock users in, make it very difficult to leave, and use tricks like price rises (but with introductory price freeze if you stay with us) tactics.

As for trophies vs achievements, they are not "practically the same thing". Trophies have the "Level" (which equates to Gamerscore), but it also shows a breakdown of trophies, Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum. On Xbox you can achieve a gamerscore of a certain value in two ways:

1/ be a hardcore gamer, play a few games and get every achievement the game has to offer.

2/ have lots of money and buy lots of games, get all the easy achievements.


There is no way to tell the difference between someone that's played games to their fullest (proper gamer), or someone that just plays lots of games casually (lots of money).

On Playstation3 you have the breakdown, you can straight away see that someone had either 1000 bronze trophies and few silver/gold/platinums or has gotten some high rated trophies including the platinums (which you get for completing every single trophy/achievement in the game).

The fact you don't get this rather significant point and call them "practically the same thing" suggest to me you don't actually own a PS3, you just wish you did, it also makes your other points rather null and void.

Perhaps the title of this thread needs to be renamed "Favorite platform? - As long as it's only Xbox", as clearly anyone that thinks otherwise is not welcome here.

 

[Aiyan]

You asked for MY experience, and MY experience is that Xbox Live is a lottery thanks to it's cheap and cheerful serverless peer to peer design. It has messaging features that offer ME no value and I am not prepared to pay for something that in MY opinion is only just as good, if not weaker in some areas than PSN.

Xbox Live is a cash-cow for Microsoft, they have managed to lock users in, make it very difficult to leave, and use tricks like price rises (but with introductory price freeze if you stay with us) tactics.

As for trophies vs achievements, they are not "practically the same thing". Trophies have the "Level" (which equates to Gamerscore), but it also shows a breakdown of trophies, Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum. On Xbox you can achieve a gamerscore of a certain value in two ways:

1/ be a hardcore gamer, play a few games and get every achievement the game has to offer.

2/ have lots of money and buy lots of games, get all the easy achievements.


There is no way to tell the difference between someone that's played games to their fullest (proper gamer), or someone that just plays lots of games casually (lots of money).

On Playstation3 you have the breakdown, you can straight away see that someone had either 1000 bronze trophies and few silver/gold/platinums or has gotten some high rated trophies including the platinums (which you get for completing every single trophy/achievement in the game).

The fact you don't get this rather significant point and call them "practically the same thing" suggest to me you don't actually own a PS3, you just wish you did, it also makes your other points rather null and void.

Perhaps the title of this thread needs to be renamed "Favorite platform? - As long as it's only Xbox", as clearly anyone that thinks otherwise is not welcome here.

Relax buddy, and I actually see trophy as same thing as gamerscore with bit worse layout. Why?

Gold - 50-100 gamerscore
Silver - 20-30 gamerscore
Bronze - 5-20 gamerscore

If you look closely on it, it's basically the same principle and same pattern. Where gamerscore gives you a higher gamerscore for heavier and harder achievement. PSN rewards you with a better trophy.

We can say, it's not the same - because trophies is thropies but in the end of the day, they are both same principle. Gamerscore shows the numbers, trophies shows the very same just by having 3 types of trophies that indicates it.

Now this example shows exactly how scores is right, since I'm gonna be completely honest. Game designers do like having score tabs on their game for the gamers use of seeing their achievements, but here is the clue - They don't like to make two separate systems of achievements, why do two different work when you can convert one system to the other by values.

Where gamerscore was first out and they already had their value out front, it's very easy to transition to trophies. Since bronze trophy have one value range, silver have another value range and gold have a third value range. By sharing the value, they can easily convert the GS/Trophy back and forth with minimum time and leaves them more time to design the achievement for us gamers.

"Almost as much fun as reveling in the awesomeness of your own trophy collection is seeing how far your friends are behind you. You can compare trophies with friends from both the PlayStation

 

[NexusKing]

Relax buddy, and I actually see trophy as same thing as gamerscore with bit worse layout. Why?

Gold - 50-100 gamerscore
Silver - 20-30 gamerscore
Bronze - 5-20 gamerscore

If you look closely on it, it's basically the same principle and same pattern. Where gamerscore gives you a higher gamerscore for heavier and harder achievement. PSN rewards you with a better trophy.

??? You missed the whole point of my post either intentionally or you simply didn't understand..

You can get a gamerscore of (for example) 1000 in 2 ways:

• lots of Bronze medals
• a few Gold medals

You can't see how good someone is from that. PS3 Tophies give you the same as Gamerscore (called Level, in the Level up approach, I am currently Level 12), but it also shows how many games I have fully completed (Platinums) how many hard trophies, the Golds, and how many Silver/Bronzes

You simply don't get anywhere near that granularity on Xbox. Sure you can delve into games an compare specific achievements, but it's not the same as a instant look at a PS3 Trophycard that shows someone is Level12, has 3 Platinums, 24 Golds, 66 Silvers and 200 Bronze trophies.

I realize it's pointless arguing, as it seems everyone here is a Xbox Fanboy thru and thru and will never accept someone else's opinion.

 

[Thefoodman52]

I just prefer PC now that I have a good rig.

Before, when I had tried playing games on an old hand-me-down factory PC, I had it set in my mind that PC gaming sucked eggs, because it was laggy, loading took forever, and graphics looked like crap. I was hooked on my PS2, then my 360 for a good little while up until my.. 17th-- might have been 16th... birthday when I got a good lump of cash. My friend then suggested I try playing games on his computer that night (chilled over at his house and uhh... 'drank water'). I... found it was REALLY a hell of a let better! Everything looked better on his computer than it did on my 360, and the mouse and keyboard felt much more natural for shooters. I had about $750 from birthday and job compiled together, and that was that.

I will say this about console vs. PC. Consoles have racing games down MUCH better. The controller is 100% almost designed for that type of game. I'd rather use a 360 controller over a steering wheel and pedals any day. However, with PC's, you can use your controllers now (360 only, granted) with most games. But most people that play PC don't have one, so multiplayer online with racing games is usually sparse and there's only an elite few usually that just dominate everything, unless the game's made from the ground up to be suited to the keyboard palyers (TrackMania is one of those, and it's an indie game, DAMN fun, look it up).
Flight simulators/ flying games, PC hands down. The MASS of joysticks out on the market targeted at those games is just ludicrous, and you really can't go wrong with any one.


To note though: in my conversion, I noted I spent $750 on my computer. A baseline 360 or PS3 (console and cables) costs you under $150, or under $200. Major price difference. However, with a computer, you can just add other parts in later when games get heavier graphics loads, and technology evolves onwards as it tends to. That and a computer can do a LOT more than a dedicated game console can ever hope to. You get what you pay for.

TL/DR
Read it, fool. I didn't type all that out for you to skim to the bottom and read the base topic of the post.