Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


PS3 or XBOX 360....?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
65 replies to this topic

#21 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1718

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:21 PM

If I had to pick between a 360, PS3, and WiiU, I'd probably pick a WiiU. I'm a Nintendo fan. But if I'm waiting for the latest and greatest, then I wouldn't get a WiiU.


After the Wii, I think I'm done with Nintendo. What a disappointment that was.

Sponsor:

#22 DavidGArce1337   Members   -  Reputation: 119

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:48 AM

I'm personally waiting for info on the "720", hoping that its Backwards compatible all the way back to Xbox "1". If its not, I'll get a 360 when it goes down in price more.
Otherwise, I will wait for the "720". To me, Nintendo died after the N64, yet, I got the GameCube. After that, no more, ever. I'm not confident that the PS4 will be BC with PS3 games...so a PS3 might be in my future, when its at like $100 or so.

Get the one that has the games you want to play with.

#23 slicer4ever   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3288

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:44 AM

I'm personally waiting for info on the "720", hoping that its Backwards compatible all the way back to Xbox "1". If its not, I'll get a 360 when it goes down in price more.
Otherwise, I will wait for the "720". To me, Nintendo died after the N64, yet, I got the GameCube. After that, no more, ever. I'm not confident that the PS4 will be BC with PS3 games...so a PS3 might be in my future, when its at like $100 or so.

Get the one that has the games you want to play with.


i'd be more worried about it being backwards compatible with the 360, i'm sure with being two generations ahead, emulating the original xbox well probably be nothing for the
"720".

personally, I own both, and the ps3 collects dust, all my friends have 360's, and the online is by far leagues ahead of the PSN, 60$ a year is pretty much nothing(and as noted above, it's not hard to find some deals on them), and i've always felt like i get my money's worth.

at the end of the day, if you can do the online stuff, i'd recommend you should choose the console your friends are playing.

of course i'd also recommend waiting a year, and getting the next gen, but a year's a still a good bit of time, and anyone with a day job well tell you neither console is terrible expensive these days.

Edited by slicer4ever, 07 November 2012 - 08:45 AM.

Check out https://www.facebook.com/LiquidGames for some great games made by me on the Playstation Mobile market.

#24 DavidGArce1337   Members   -  Reputation: 119

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:37 PM

i'd be more worried about it being backwards compatible with the 360, i'm sure with being two generations ahead, emulating the original xbox well probably be nothing for the
"720".


Well, by rumors only, so take with a big grain of salt...the leaked 720 hardware paper of what MS wants or wanted the 720 to have stated that It would have the same CPU+GPU as the 360, among the new stuff. Only a rumor! Just saying that I can wait for confirmation. I'm actually spending my gaming time on old PS2 games atm, as I just bought a Slim. And PC/MMO.

#25 Heath   Members   -  Reputation: 344

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:04 PM


If I had to pick between a 360, PS3, and WiiU, I'd probably pick a WiiU. I'm a Nintendo fan. But if I'm waiting for the latest and greatest, then I wouldn't get a WiiU.


After the Wii, I think I'm done with Nintendo. What a disappointment that was.

They've gone with gimmicks the last few years to push game design rather than compete with tech specs. The Wii remote was just a working Power Glove in the form of a remote control, and as with the Power Glove, it gets irritating to play a game like that after a while. (I do not love the Power Glove... And Just Dance made me hate it.)

I won't knock the Wii for its store shelves game library, though. I thought the same for all three systems: The best game library for Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3 is downloadable from each respective online store. On Wii, it was awesome, because you had all these great games on Virtual Console that you either had or missed as a kid. There was also WiiWare, but I didn't really care. Basically, I could've done without Wii if it's just a console that downloads and plays old ROMs for me. On 360, it was awesome, because you had all these great games and it was really great for Indies as well as bigger names. On PS3, um... well there's Flower, that game is pretty cool for a while, and its Netflix app has that "play entire series" thing.... So Wii and Xbox 360, that combination seemed to be best for the last few years, I guess. Posted Image

#26 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 28405

Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:25 AM


i'd be more worried about it being backwards compatible with the 360, i'm sure with being two generations ahead, emulating the original xbox well probably be nothing for the "720".

Well, by rumors only, so take with a big grain of salt...the leaked 720 hardware paper of what MS wants or wanted the 720 to have stated that It would have the same CPU+GPU as the 360, among the new stuff. Only a rumor! Just saying that I can wait for confirmation. I'm actually spending my gaming time on old PS2 games atm, as I just bought a Slim. And PC/MMO.

Yes, the rumour is that the "720" will have new hardware, but also contain the CPU/GPU from the 'slim 360', which would make it pretty powerful (albeit confusing hybrid, like the PS3's PPU+SPUs+RSX) for native titles, and allow perfect emulation of 360 titles.

There's also another rumour that MS will soon launch an official 360 software emulator for Windows 8, which will allow any moderately powerful Win8 machine to play 360 games.

#27 Prinz Eugn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3551

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:02 PM



i'd be more worried about it being backwards compatible with the 360, i'm sure with being two generations ahead, emulating the original xbox well probably be nothing for the "720".

Well, by rumors only, so take with a big grain of salt...the leaked 720 hardware paper of what MS wants or wanted the 720 to have stated that It would have the same CPU+GPU as the 360, among the new stuff. Only a rumor! Just saying that I can wait for confirmation. I'm actually spending my gaming time on old PS2 games atm, as I just bought a Slim. And PC/MMO.

Yes, the rumour is that the "720" will have new hardware, but also contain the CPU/GPU from the 'slim 360', which would make it pretty powerful (albeit confusing hybrid, like the PS3's PPU+SPUs+RSX) for native titles, and allow perfect emulation of 360 titles.

There's also another rumour that MS will soon launch an official 360 software emulator for Windows 8, which will allow any moderately powerful Win8 machine to play 360 games.


Halo 4 with a mouse = zomg

-Mark the Artist

Digital Art and Technical Design
Developer Journal


#28 fastcall22   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4108

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:11 PM

Halo 4 with a mouse = zomg

A reason why FPS games on a console never made sense to me.
c3RhdGljIGNoYXIgeW91cl9tb21bMVVMTCA8PCA2NF07CnNwcmludGYoeW91cl9tb20sICJpcyBmYXQiKTs=

#29 slicer4ever   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3288

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:09 PM

Halo 4 with a mouse = zomg

A reason why FPS games on a console never made sense to me.

Really?, out of all the genre's, i think fps's probably fit the dual analog controller scheme best. This is not to say mouse/keyboard isn't superior, just that fps's work decently well with such a controller setup imo.
Check out https://www.facebook.com/LiquidGames for some great games made by me on the Playstation Mobile market.

#30 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 09 November 2012 - 11:05 PM

Really?, out of all the genre's, i think fps's probably fit the dual analog controller scheme best. This is not to say mouse/keyboard isn't superior, just that fps's work decently well with such a controller setup imo.

I think it depends on the focus of the FPS. Accuracy tends to struggle somewhat on dual analogue, but movement excels. Depends on what the game stresses I suppose. Counterstrike isn't that great on dual analogue, but Natural Selection 2 would probably be awesome on it.

#31 MrDaaark   Members   -  Reputation: 3551

Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:01 AM

People who think you can't aim with a dual shock just aren't experienced enough. After you practice, it becomes second nature. Moving a thumbstick is no different than dragging a mouse. And before someone brings it up, a lot of hardcore FPS players turn off auto-aim features. It actually tends to be a hindrance in competitive gameplay.

I think it's just that PC gamers don't use their thumbs like console gamers do, so when they try to aim, they lack the thumb control that a console gamer has built up over many years of practice. Also, I think many PC gamers don't realize the subtleties of the thumbsticks, and the huge range speed and force differences you can give as input. Because a lot of PC games have tended to treat sticks as digital 'all or nothing' inputs.

So when PC gamers try to use a thumbstick like a mouse, they get bad results. The mouse works like a pointer, even in an FPS. But a thumbstick controls both the speed and the direction of the aiming. So a PC gamer will push both thumbsticks all the way, and end up running at full speed, while doing a super fast aim in a random direction. Then they pass it off as clumbsy and inaccurate. :) Don't try to use a screw driver like a hammer.

On a sidenote, I remember back when WASD + Mouselook was just an unofficial user key mapping for the first full 3D FPS games, and most people found it awkward, but eventually stuck to it after practicing and getting used to it.

#32 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 28405

Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:39 AM

^^ That's true, but there is still one big difference between moving a thumbstick and dragging a mouse -- time.

A mouse is an absolute input with (practically) no range on the input that can be given per 'tick'. It's default state is at rest, and only generates inputs when it is moved to new locations. e.g. it can move from (100,234) to (23,2000) in one message.
A stick is a relative input with a normalized range. When it is moved to a location and held there, it continually generates messages with that position, and has a 'spring' to return it to zero.

When controlling a FPS camera the two necessarily have to behave pretty differently. Let's say the player is looking at one orientation, and wishes to turn to another orientation:
* with the mouse, there is always an input vector that will solve that wish in a single message. Assuming no mouse acceleration, a player's muscle memory allows them to know the exact distance that they should move the mouse in a single frame to achieve that wish. This is what allows you to be shooting someone in the back one frame, and have been 180 no-scoped by them on the next frame...
* with the stick, there is only an input vector that will solve that wish in a single frame if the difference in angle is less than 1.0 (max input) * maxRotationSpeed * deltaTime. There is almost certainly no way to indicate that you want to turn exactly 179.3 degrees in a single frame, from an idle starting position (because maxRotationPerFrame is usually much less than 180 degrees).

I'm of the opinion that FPS games where you can spin 180 in a single frame aren't very fun, so this doesn't bother me... but in a professional game of Counter-Strike, a pro game-pad player would be at a huge disadvantage compared to a pro mouse player.

#33 Krohm   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3011

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:27 AM

The WiiU to return nintendo to hardcore market? You must be jocking.
Without even knowing the hardware but simply "guess" it I can tell for sure this is just another Wii. And I've been extremely dissatisfied with my Wii. They're never going to see any money from me again.

Personally I like the Halo franchise. Most games I've seen for PS3 didn't impress me, besides a few notable exceptions. So I'd get a ... nothing! I'll get a new video card instead, my TV is like 12 years old!

#34 MrDaaark   Members   -  Reputation: 3551

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:28 AM

Some games have solved that by having a 180 turn button.

Counter Strike would be a case where the game was designed around the subtleties of the mouse, and not the subtleties of the gamepad. You can say the same in reverse. Games that take advantage of the gamepad's advantages suffer greatly on a WASD + Mouselook setup. Especially when it comes to controlling subtle character movements. Splinter Cell and GTA really suffer with all or nothing WASD. Splinter Cell used the mouse wheel to try and control movement speed. What a disaster.

Mouselook FPS games (especially earlier ones) tended to treat your cross hair like the hand of god. You didn't so much aim a gun as you just pointed at something and clicked. It's accurate pointing, but I don't find it to be an accurate experience or representation.

In GTA games, it's meant to be hard to ride on the back of someone else's motorcycle or getaway car, and win a gun battle with a bunch of other vehicles moving at high speed. On the PC ports, you just point the cursor at their heads and 1 shot kill them.

I find it really hard to drive cars in my PC versions of GTA. Both steering and gas are all or nothing, and I have to remember to keep pressing and releasing both to try and maintain control. On the gamepad, the buttons and the steering and analog and pressure based, so it's easy. My speed is controlled by how far down I press the button. (that's why this current gen moved the gas and brake to the triggers, because the face buttons are no longer analog like last gen!).

Unfortunately, playing with a gamepad on the PC versions is no better, because they treat it as a simple key remapping. Odd, because they had already been on PS2 and Xbox with very good gamepad handling. I guess because there are no standards for PC controllers they have to leave it completely generic.

#35 DavidGArce1337   Members   -  Reputation: 119

Posted 11 November 2012 - 03:51 AM

A mouse is an absolute input with (practically) no range on the input that can be given per 'tick'. It's default state is at rest, and only generates inputs when it is moved to new locations. e.g. it can move from (100,234) to (23,2000) in one message.


That does not make sense to me...at all. Isn't my pointer/aim position being tracked at all times? What's the point of those hardcore "gaming" mouses then?
To me, you made the mouse movement sound like a car going from 0 to 100MPH in an instant. While a gamepad movement(and any other input device?) not capable and behaving differently.

Maybe from a laser pointing device...or touch input. But a mouse?

#36 ChaosEngine   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2218

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:34 PM

Buy a gaming PC.

Not joking. You get almost all the games that are released on consoles (and even if you buy a ps3/xbox there will always be exclusives to either system), plus you get heaps of free games, steam sales, etc.

If you want to play FPS/RTS, you have a better control scheme*. For anything more actiony, just get a 360 controller. I sometimes use both (currently playing Sleeping Dogs and switch between controller for driving/fighting and mouse for shooting)

You can play at a desk or on a HDTV (see Steams Big Picture Mode).

The games you buy now will look better. Sleeping Dogs, for instance, looks way better on PC.

When the 720/ps4/whatever comes out in a year or two, your pc will be more than likely be able to run those games too.

Really the only thing you're missing out on is kinnect/move and I've yet to see wither offer a compelling gaming experience.

* sorry, but anyone who thinks playing an fps is better with a controller is deluded. Microsoft did some research a few years ago with a view to allowing xbox and pc gamers to play together. The pc players annihilated the people playing with controllers, even with a huge skill gap (i.e. pro xbox players vs average pc gamers). I'm not saying mouse is always better. IMO it sucks for driving and fighting games.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

#37 Prinz Eugn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3551

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:12 PM

I believe Halo popularized not treating grenades and melee attacks simply as different guns, because pure shooting gameplay would have been pretty bad with console controls. So I think it's interesting because I think FPS on console led to some good gameplay innovation that found its way into the entire market because aiming is harder.

-Mark the Artist

Digital Art and Technical Design
Developer Journal


#38 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 28405

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:12 PM


A mouse is an absolute input with (practically) no range on the input that can be given per 'tick'. It's default state is at rest, and only generates inputs when it is moved to new locations. e.g. it can move from (100,234) to (23,2000) in one message.

That does not make sense to me...at all. Isn't my pointer/aim position being tracked at all times? What's the point of those hardcore "gaming" mouses then?

Hardcore gaming mice have a very high polling rate, e.g. they sample the mouse's location at 1000Hz, or once per millisecond. However, the game still only samples this information usually once per frame, e.g. 60Hz, or once per 17 milliseconds.
The advantage of having your hardware polling faster than 60Hz is so that when the game does read the mouse location, it's got the most up-to-date information possible -- e.g. if the mouse hardware only sampled at the same rate as the game, e.g. 60Hz, and the game update happened to run 1ms ahead of the mouse hardware update, it could introduce 1 frame of input latency:
*1ms mouse hardware update - Send Message #1: no movement
*15ms user moves mouse 2 pixels left
*17ms game update - Recieve Message #1: no movement
*18ms mouse hardware update - Send Message #2: 2 pixels left
*19ms user moves mouse 5 pixels right
*33ms game update - Recieve Message #2: 2 pixels left
As a decent starting point, a good mouse should sample it's position at twice the game's framerate -- even though the game only samples the mouse position once per frame!

To me, you made the mouse movement sound like a car going from 0 to 100MPH in an instant. While a gamepad movement(and any other input device?) not capable and behaving differently.

Just in theory in the semantics of the messages.
e.g. Say I'm writing an aim-bot for a FPS, and as quickly as possible I want to send messages to the game to make the player turn to face another player's head.
If it's a mouse-based one, there is always a single message that can encode the command of "turn to face this exact angle" -- the mouse is basically setting the player's orientation.
If it's a game-pad based one, then the bot may have to send a message telling the game to start rotating (hold the stick at some precise angle), then wait several frames for the game to rotate the camera, then send a message telling it to stop (move the stick back to the center) -- the pad is basically setting the player's rotational velocity.
i.e. the former is angle += input, and the latter is angle += clamp(input,-1,1) * constant * deltaTime.
With the mouse, z = y + x can always be solved for x, so the aimbot can always aim perfectly every frame. With the pad z = y + x * c * dt; 1 >= x >= -1 can't necessarily be solved for x -- if 1*c*dt is smaller than the amount of turning you wish to perform next frame, then the aim-bot will have to perform the turning maneuver over several frames.

Edited by Hodgman, 12 November 2012 - 09:27 PM.


#39 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:23 PM

Buy a gaming PC.

If you can make a gaming PC for less than the price of an xbox 360 that performs better I will gladly accept this as an alternative.

Money not being an issue I'd agree, but ignoring money isn't a luxury everyone has.

* sorry, but anyone who thinks playing an fps is better with a controller is deluded. Microsoft did some research a few years ago with a view to allowing xbox and pc gamers to play together. The pc players annihilated the people playing with controllers, even with a huge skill gap (i.e. pro xbox players vs average pc gamers). I'm not saying mouse is always better. IMO it sucks for driving and fighting games.

I like controllers more. I know I don't do as well as competitive gamers on either control scheme, but I never enjoyed FPS's as much with a mouse and keyboard as I do with a controller. That said, this argument is like saying, "anybody who thinks olympic swimmers are faster than olympic runners is deluded." It avoids the important aspect that skill differential between players on similar platforms is more important than what you use to control your game; I have yet to see a convincing case in that regard that either is better.

#40 ChaosEngine   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2218

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:24 PM

If you can make a gaming PC for less than the price of an xbox 360 that performs better I will gladly accept this as an alternative.

Money not being an issue I'd agree, but ignoring money isn't a luxury everyone has.


If your budget is that tight, then yes, a console will be cheaper in the short term. Right now, though the current gen in nearing end of life, so buying an xbox/ps3 now means you won't be able to play new releases in 2 or 3 years without buying a whole new console. With a PC you could upgrade for much less than that, plus you're getting a lot more computer for your money. Factor in cheaper games (steam sales etc) and the difference really isn't that big.

I like controllers more. I know I don't do as well as competitive gamers on either control scheme, but I never enjoyed FPS's as much with a mouse and keyboard as I do with a controller. That said, this argument is like saying, "anybody who thinks olympic swimmers are faster than olympic runners is deluded." It avoids the important aspect that skill differential between players on similar platforms is more important than what you use to control your game; I have yet to see a convincing case in that regard that either is better.


There's nothing stopping you using a controller on a PC. A lot of games actually come with pretty decent x360 controller support out of the box.

As for your swimming analogy, it's more accurate than you realise. Except using a controller in a fps is like swimming on a track. Equally, using a mouse/kb for a fighting game is like trying to run in the pool.

I find aiming with a controller frustrating, like trying to type with mittens on. If you enjoy that fine, but one is clearly more optimal than the other.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS