wii v.s x box 360 v.s ps3 v.s pc

i have to go with wii

 

Xbox 360 for my console gaming, and I also play some games on my PC.

 

since ps3 isnt officialy out yet, I'd have to go with X-Box 360

 

I'd have to go with the Wii because of the new innovative controller, or the PC because it's a more precise gaming machine (In my opinion), and most games eventually get ported to it. That, and it *can* have shinier graphics, at the expense of shelling out major cash for it, and the possibility of spyware/malware. Y'know what? Let's just go with the Wii.

 

PC will always be the best. Though the Wii is actually making a difference between the console and PC now. The PS and Xbox have nothing to offer over a gaming PC. The Wii on the other hand is unique.

 

ps3

hast more featuers than the wii and 360 combined and has more power than most of todays pc's

 

If all your worried about it power, then why be a console or even a game fan, why not just get a state of the art PC, and everytime something faster comes out, blow your dough on that, and get a boxed copy of 3DMark 2006...

Power isn't everything, or anything if it cannot be used to the full potential, the most simplistically graphical games, are still some of the best around!

And as for your Fony POS3, they`re trying to copy the Wii control solution, pity they can't get it right, you`d have a PeeeWiiiii on ya hands

 

i was at e3 and seen what the system can do and what the plans for it are. the systems power wont be used 100% untill summer of 2007.

i love computers and i know computers are all that. how ever playstion has some ps3 only games that i also love. the wii is a great system but just like the game cube its lacking power but nintendios has allways used there power 100% and they used it very well. but nintendo is a kids system meaning there market is mostly kid games.

theres no dought that the wii will be a good system and sell its from nintendo i dont think they ever made a junk system and if they did they have a huge loyal fallowing that would buy them anyways.

 

PC will always outrule, no questions asked - please.

 

yeah but in graphics that ps3 can put the hurt on some of todays computers. i wanna see someone put windows on it and run some benchmarks on it.

 

I say again...


To be fair...
Game machines are specially built for games and graphic manipulation without any compromises.
Also they have specific sound processors to handle the sound without heavy work from the main processor.
But the processing power of the modern computer in a benchmark would toast any game machine to dust because the makers have to keep the price of said game machines down.
You'll see no 2GHz game machines for years to come.
And... A video game machine runs at 640X480 resolution (or there about's and depending on your country of origan) to match the TV video standard.
Remember... computers run at least 800X600.
Most at 1024X768.
Run a game machine at those sizes and they would grind to a crawl.

If you want to equal the graphics of a game machine on a computer...
Turn the video resolution of the computer and (or) game down to 640X480...
Turn up the graphic 3D maping detail in the computer game properties...
Then run the computer VGA through a line out converter to a TV.

Just a side note...
I got my 1GHz Slot A Athlon computer in the year 2001.
I have not yet had to shell out cash for a new machine just so I can play a 2006 PC game.

 

ps3 will run at 1080P 640X480 is way in the past.

but im not trying to flame you but the ps3 is 3.2ghz and take a wild guess at how meny cores it has.

dispite wht you say the ps3 will distroy most of todays computers. even if the cpu lives upto half its hype it could put a hurt on the c2d. and yes theres plans to bring cell to desk top pc's .


go ahead and look over the specs of the ps3. i cn see you really dident or the xbox 360 for that matter. but your right we wont see any 2ghz game machines because were allready in the 3ghz + range

 

I stand corrected on the MHz. It's 3.2Ghz. (PowerPC chip from IBM)
Let's see... "16" cores? Or so rumored.
I can't seem to get a definitive answer on that one.
All it has to do is gain about .2 GHz and it will match a Intel P4.
Then the 2.4GHz Athlon will still kill the 3.4 Intel.
If you get what I mean with the GHz boasts.

By the way... you are trying to flame me.
But I figure that maybe it's been a bad day for you.
No harm... let's continue shall we?

Let's not forget the bus speed.
I think it's 700MHz on the PS3?
Can't really tell... that part seems to be hidden too. (An awful lot of hidden info about this PS3)
Your average PC bus speed would be anywhere between 533 and 2000GHz.

And I do wish there was a benchmark for the PS3...
Because I don't trust the figures they give.
I'm not the only one.
"Very high FLOPS figures are often quoted for inexpensive computer video cards and game consoles.

For example, the Xbox 360 has been announced as having CPU floating point performance of around one TFLOPS, while the PS3 has been announced as having a theoretical 2.18 TFLOPS. By comparison, a high-end general-purpose PC would have a FLOPS rating of around ten GFLOPS, if the performance of its CPU alone was considered. The 1 TFLOPS for the Xbox 360 or 2 TFLOPS for the Playstation 3 ratings that were sometimes mentioned regarding the consoles would even appear to class them as supercomputers. These FLOPS figures should be treated with caution, as they are often the product of marketing. The game console figures are often based on total system performance (CPU + GPU). In the extreme case, the TFLOPS figure is primarily derived from the function of the single-purpose texture filtering unit of the GPU. This piece of logic is tasked with doing a weighted average of sometimes hundreds of pixels in a texture during a look-up (particularly when performing a quadrilinear anisotropically filtered fetch from a 3D texture). However, single-purpose hardware can never be included in an honest FLOPS figure.

But that's not the only reason...
What Sony is trying to tell everyone.. is that their entire $399 game console costs less than either Intel's "$1060" or AMD's "$760" high end processors?
Even though Sony is underselling them for about $100 a pop and taking a total bath of a $1.8 billion loss still doesn't change the fact that the game machine could not be cheaper than a high end processor and out perform it within the real world.

But I will be keeping track to see if George Lucus turns in his AMD and Intel workstations for a load of PS3's anytime soon.

All and all though...
Even if what your saying was true...
That the PS3 is this odd fluke of science...
That it breaks all computing records and kills Crays best at $399...
I'd still get a PC...
Because after all that glory of the game consoles...
I can still go out and buy a brand new PC game and play it on my 5 year old PC without shelling out an extra dime

 

If someone would develop an operating system on the x86 platform, with the latest drivers and core engine advantages, the latest CPU/Videocard high end combo would out perform ANY console out there or in development!

The XBOX does not have an OS like XP to run, with resources for this and that, it is a STANDARD platform with no changing parts, so the drivers and core engine (DX persy) are written specifically for that platform, which again, will never change, everyone has the same CPU, same graphics engine, so the drivers are tweaked for max performance, my current system is a 3.0GHz with a GF6600GT, current its on par with say the XBOX 360/Gamecube, but alot better than a PS2, but... thats a BIG BUT! If I had the same bootup/engine of the XBOX in replacement of my Windows OS, then my system would ruin the XBOX reputation it had when it was released (In graphic performance presentation)....

So I guess what I am trying to say, is a PC will always out perform a console, heck look at the specifications of consoles these days, they are mimicking that of a computer! it's just that a windows machine is bogged down due to flexibility and universal compatibility with the next computer geek!

But like I originally said, why worry about graphics? it is not everything, yes, they look nice, but if thats what you play games for, then you have no damn right calling yourself a gamer, your a gfx guy, no more, no less!

Grab ZUMA DELUXE, Jets n Guns, Bejewelled Deluxe! they are just 3 games that instantly come to mind, which have medicore graphics, but excellent gameplay, GAME-play, not GAME-Graphics!

If it was all about graphics, the Gameboy would NEVER have sold a unit! it wouldn't be the most popular handheld system in history, it wouldn't be nintendo's driving force!

Sure it's nice to get a system that can do both, but to be honest, the market gets flooded with all these games boasting the best graphics seen on a platform, then after the hypes worn out, people are sitting there thinking, what the heck, its crap! I didn't ENJOY it!

These days, developers & publishers are waking up, look at Splinter Cell for example, it has some of the best graphics for each game that we saw when it came out, but after the hype, there was HAPPY people, LOVING the game, enjoying every aspect!

Or FEAR, another great graphics game, but is actually backed up with a very interesting and suspenseful story, while also having the replay valued needed for a general gamer to pick it up again, after his completed it once, which MOST games with these super graphics, fail to do!

If a game has lack luster graphics but a very great script/gameplay, then it will SELL, if it has nice graphics but a flat story, or core, then it WILL NOT SELL, if a game has great story, great graphics, then it will sell, just a few extra units!

Thats just my point of view and 2 cents!

 

http://www.thisiswaiting.com/

 

Don't reckon it will destroy most of todays computers to be honest, doesn't have as much storage for a start, not as much system memory, only a 500mhz GPU which isn't overly special (you can pick up a 1800XT ATI card with 625mhz GPU for £129 GBP).

The resolution isn't anything special, nor is the audio. Plust latest PC hardware is being released almost by the minute!

 

Although I do like Xbox 360, McAdam is right, no system can ever compare to a pc.

 

Everyone has also forgotten a VITAL peice of information, I wrote it in my previous post, but removed it before I posted...

These console games are being developed on PC hardware!

 

So? Doesnt mean they are better than pcs. And besides, the hardware on the PS3 is way lower in specs than a top-notch pc.

 

If you read my whole postings you would have gathered that I was praising the PC, not the PS3!

If a game is developed on a PC for the PS3, how can the PS3 be better? obviously the PC is the better side! that is what I was meaning cupcake!

 

I personally think it's going to go like this: PC>Wii>XboX 360

I seriously don't think the PS3 to even be a contender. After all, I can get more power out of my computer, better graphics.

The Wii has the Wiimote. It's not a mouse, but it's less... mystic than the XboX controller. The PC is simply too powerful a platform, to ever be matched, or even crushed by the consoles. The biggest advantage the consoles have had is that they could play on the much larger TV screens. Now with video cards that have S-Video Out, and TV's that have the input, the advantage is gone.

On the other hand you might have a less than game capable PC, and not want to output the money for upgrades, then a console is the way to go. But if you're not going to put the money into the PC, or already have, you're not going to put it out for the PS3, which according to Sony isn't even a game machine.

All this is pointless though. I know I'm going to buy a Wii. I don't need an XboX 360, because the only game I want to play is Halo 3, and it'll be on Vista.

 

I think it's kinda like vehicles if you ask me. Whatever you're partial to is what you think is best. I'm partial to pc's so obviously i think they're the best. Technology is getting so advanced anymore i think they're pretty much all gonna be running neck and neck before too much longer.

 

Oops sorry age is gettin to me

 

Consoles dont have to worry about running an OS or background programs and services. Thats they their specs are less that PCs. They can run anything that PCs can.

@ Luthius, of course they are developed on PCs; how the hell would u develop something on a console...?

 

That was my point numb nutz, Jesus, don't people read a thread from beginning to end in here, Oh and not all games are developed on a PC, some are developed on SGI Workstation systems, Some even on Macs, others even designated development platforms for that specific system, but most on a whole, are developed primarily on a PC or PC Hardware related system.

 

my bad

 

My daughter got me the 360 for father's day. I have to say that I love it. I am a big pc fan. So I was surprised how much I love the 360. And they have some very interesting games coming out for it. As for the Wii, I really like their new controller. Definately adds to the gaming experience, IMHO.

 

Nintendo Wii might be a great console...if they would start making actual games, instead of staying in the child era. It's also bad enough these fanboi's make the rivalry just plain dumb, all of what they do and say just shouts immaturity. As long as we're all waiting it's really pointless to start debating this topic.

I am a Sony PS 1-2 user, I never owned an XBOX, I never will, I hate Microsoft but, i'm no homer nor fanboi, cause I hate both. I will most likely buy a PS3 when it's released because of 3rd party gaming support Sony has. With that said I think the PC always has and always will be atop of the gaming platform world.

If a console breaks and it's out of warranty or it's void then your screwed, if something goes on a PC it can be re-placed easily enough and you can continue to play, FPS' on PC are especially a big upside with a PC because of the mouse and you can always buy a gamepad and Steering wheel if needed and cheeper than the consoles.

So overall my arrow points to PC either way, but I think the PS3 will be a pleasent surprise, regardless of the price.

 

Yet when was the last time they were assaulted by the anti-game lobbyists. Saying that Nintendo is still in the 'child era', is no more mature than anything the fanboys do. Last I heard, one of the best games on the GC was Resident Evil. Yes, Nintendo makes it's cash by appealing to a younger game audience than Sony, or Microsoft. Does that make the games instantly bad because there isn't enough gore to make a soldier vomit? Of course not.

How do you play games now on your PC? With a mouse and keyboard. Wouldn't you love to have a controller that looks and feels like a real gun? Point and shoot, with all the functions of a keyboard duplicated? Want to reload, hit a button with your thumb. Grenade? Pull on the launcher. Melee attack? Swing the butt of the gun. Shoot? Point and pull the trigger. Move is easy, just use the built in D-pad.

 

First of all, I never said there had to be tons of gore for me or anyone else for the Wii to be appealing, second...how is still making Sonic, Mario and Pokemon the forefront of the game base not being stuck in a childrens based era? That kind of stuff doesn't appeal to the older crowd such as my self...all that was fun back when it was new but they always release the same thing over and over again.

Ok let me make sure I understand you here, so you're saying that a controller has a better feel to gaming in FPS than a mouse? I guess your reffering to the Wii controller, no I'd rather use a mouse thank you, personally I think the motion sensing and a controller that seperates in 2 hands is a rather bonehead design if you ask me, too much innovation for their own good that and Sony is an idiot for trying to imitate it.

 

I disagree. I've been playing Pokemon since 1997, and it's still fun for me. Mario? When does an evolving game ever get tired. Sonic... well it's always been stupid. It's not, always the same thing. There's always a new trick to the pony.

I'm not saying that it has a better feel than a mouse. I'm saying it's just plain better. If I can point and shoot, instead of clicking and shooting, I'm going to. I'm not referring the to the Wii controller. I'm talking that the Wii's innovation could be adapted to the PC, with custom made controllers, either converted from airsoft, or regular toy guns. I'm talking a level of immersion you won't find from a mouse. Don't you ever feel like you're running down a hallway shooting things with a mouse? I'd much rather be able to run down the same hall, and feel like I'm actually the character, saving the world, instead of just the player controlling him. It all goes to immersion factor.

Why is two seperated hands a boneheaded design? And motion sensing? PC's have had that for years. The mouse senses motion from your hand, and the Keyboard is the resting place for your second hand. I don't think Sony's effort will help them, but good for them for trying to grab onto a good thing.

 

My wife and I love the Mario games. Including the new one. I think it appeals to young and old both. I think the other two consoles aren't paying enough attention to games like that.

 

Yea because Nintendo has been the only console ever to pay attention to crappy games like that

 

Yet they've survived since the crash. If the others were so much more dominant with their adult games, they'd have been sent packing long ago.

Mario perseveres because it's fun whether you're adult or not. Halo is a graphics fanboy's dream. It's not a game, but a graphics engine with guns.

 

Sorry, like I said Mario was good the first few years but...a decade or so later they're still trying to fit him into a game, I mean what are they on now Mario party 10? not trying to bash anyone who might still enjoy these games but frankly I'm one to get tired of the same thing, and yeah I know not every game is the same but the concept and the characters are.

Well no a mouse is physically moved, with either a Ball/Lazer/Optical Light to control the cursor, that's not exactly motion sensing. A mouse and Keyboard are only good for FPS to be honest, I'd take a controller on any other genre but, with a mouse you get free range of motion, not limitations and it's very accurate in it's movement. Analogs on a controller are very limited and it's hard to adjust to the sensitivity.

Why do I think the design is boneheaded...just because of personal experiences really, I don't like the idea of my hands being that far away controlling 2 things at once. I also saw how hard you have to jerk the controllers just to get them to work correctly, I...I just don't buy into the hype.

And for the record, I hate Halo, I'm more of a military shooter person myself so...SOCOM and America's Army are more of my cup of tea.

 

Mario Party is completely stupid. I agree with that. But the concept of the Mario games is only similar in basics. You're always saving Princess Peach. The execution is unique in each game though. Much like the Military shooters all have the same concept, 'kill enemies, complete objectives', but are unique in setting, weapons, and who you're killing. Nazi's, VC, or Terrorists. It's all the same.

I'll grant you this one. I hate games that force me to play with dual Analog's instead of buttons. I'd be perfectly happy with a half controller, six or eight buttons, and a mouse to look around. The N64 was nearly the perfect controller.

Where did you see it? I never saw it anywhere except those silly videos with the wierd looking Japanese actors.

I'm not bothered really with the 'reality' factor of a game, so long as it plays well. I really don't like SOCOM style third person shooters. I prefer third person to be RPGs with Melee, because it's very hard to aim weapons properly from a third person perspective.

 

yea i think that they made it that way in the commercials just to kinda overexaggurate and put an emphasis on the controller.

BTW, the more correct term is gyroscopic, just to clear up the "motion sensing" debate

 

Neither, but I'd probably get the Xbox 360 because I've had bad experiences with Sony.

 

It's a FONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, lame, but I got bored and thought I would attempt a funny!

Hey, it's gotta be better than Gaystation...

 

Right, everything I've read says it only requires small flicks of the wrist to do things. Though I'm willing to bet that casting a fishing line requires more than just a flick.

 

That was original.

 

But not very.