|
Post by tailbest on Apr 13, 2012 11:02:58 GMT -5
Someone else has PS3!
What makes Xbox online so good versus PS3?
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blonde on Apr 13, 2012 17:08:54 GMT -5
Couldn't tell you. I've never played each. People just say that PS3's online is complete balls whereas everyone swears by Xbox Live.
|
|
|
Post by tailbest on Apr 13, 2012 18:33:27 GMT -5
Ive heard that too. I should watch a Blu Ray film on my PS3 and debate.
|
|
|
Post by onamirrorsedge on Apr 13, 2012 18:35:39 GMT -5
Good idea, and I should visit the vast online community of xbox, perhaps download one of the vast number of additional add ons and engage in the largely glitch free, hack free system.
What bluray are you planning on watching.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyvinylpusher on Apr 13, 2012 20:49:33 GMT -5
Just a natural progression really. Started with PSX then PS2 and now PS3. We've got the PlayTV box for it and it's really handy for recording TV shows. Also use it as dvd/BLUray player and have a 2TB HDD hooked up to it and watch movies off that as well. So it's like a media centre I suppose. Gaming is probably the thing we use it for the least to be honest....
|
|
|
Post by tailbest on Apr 14, 2012 22:46:06 GMT -5
I honestly bought it for the Blu Ray player and to get Ghostbusters The Video Game. Hey, made sense at the time.
Flashes, I popped in The Shawshank Redemption. I was debating between that and Heat. I had just watched Heat last week though.
And ouch. I felt the thorny, biting wrath of being a non-Xbox-er...
|
|
|
Post by driftin on Jul 17, 2012 2:39:11 GMT -5
But now it seems a lot of games have gone away from that and they all seem to be trying to outdo eachother with freeroaming, clever AI, amazing graphics and all these "credits" to collect. Trophies and scoreboards seems to me more important than creating a challenging game. RE5 was a prime example of this. While it was a good game, it wasn't Resident Evil. And I felt the same with Silent Hill Homecoming. Anyone feel the same? I think I know what you mean DVP, but I don't agree entirely. A lot of games nowadays are crap, but not all of them are. In fact I think a few of them are some of the best that have ever been. Free-roaming isn't a bad thing and it's a signature of sandbox games which are very popular nowadays. Also, back in the golden age of video games, exploration was one of the most rewarding things so surely free-roaming can't be criticised badly? Skyrim is probably the antithesis to everything you've mentioned - it is VAST, probably the biggest game I've ever played, challenging (depending on the difficulty setting), hugely varied, very immersive and deeply rewarding. You can spend hours on a single mission. As for clever AI, how in the world is that bad? Isn't that what helps make a game challenging? The episodic nature of gameplay and puzzle solving that you described in Dino Crisis can still be found today in great games like Portal and its sequel or even indie games like Limbo although that's very short. Basically what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter WHAT is in a game, it's HOW it is put into the game. As for trophies, it's true that every game has them (and I mean that literally), but they're superfluous and not really a part of the games at all. They're there because the developers have to put them in for Playstation / Sony and as a challenge for gamers. You can complete a game, but can get you a platinum trophy? Oh and multiplayer rules. It's a completely different beast to single player campaigns so I see no point in comparing them but there's nothing quite like having a great squad in Battlefield 3 and doing well with them by communicating and coordinating as well as having a good time and joking. Modern social and competitive gaming and is a good thing, even if you have to block the 12 year olds who swear at you and claim they've done things to your mother.
|
|
|
Post by driftin on Jul 17, 2012 2:41:30 GMT -5
And yes, I have a PS3 and yes, I play on it a lot, online and offline.
|
|
|
Post by driftin on Jul 17, 2012 2:45:01 GMT -5
I get that same kind of feeling, too, that games don't last as long. Well to be honest I'd rather play a two hour game that's near perfect and wanting more than spend 40 hours feeling disappointed. Portal, Limbo, Bastion, Braid - short but sweet modern games. But yes, I can understand wanting both quality and quantity. That's why I'm glad there are a few titles that do both, such as Red Dead Redemption and Skyrim. Or if I can't find those, then I go online with friends. Every experience is different, especially if the game is dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyvinylpusher on Jul 17, 2012 5:10:20 GMT -5
Hey now I never said any of those things were bad, or that a lot of the games are crap.
I just said that I miss the old style sometimes.
That said - beck in the day of the old style games I mentioned, the one thing you (well, I anyway) wished was that you could roam around as you pleased.....
Maybe the grass is always greener and too much of a good thing is never good.....
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blonde on Jul 17, 2012 8:20:35 GMT -5
[quote author=driftin board=atvg thread=49 post=2306 time=1342511101Well to be honest I'd rather play a two hour game that's near perfect and wanting more than spend 40 hours feeling disappointed.
Portal, Limbo, Bastion, Braid - short but sweet modern games.
But yes, I can understand wanting both quality and quantity. That's why I'm glad there are a few titles that do both, such as Red Dead Redemption and Skyrim. Or if I can't find those, then I go online with friends. Every experience is different, especially if the game is dynamic. [/quote]
It really depends on what I'm playing on, for what game I want to play. On the 360, I like third person shooters or sandbox action games. On PS2, I like sports games and third person shooters. On the computer, I don't really know because I can't play many games on it but I liked Modern Warfare (original), CS:S and Sim City 3000.
|
|