Ranger12 46 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I own a regular X-Box. I do not play it that much...it is mostly for my son. I am one of those that wait until a system has been out awhile and I can afford it. The last football game I bought was NCAA 2003 on Gamecube and I got so addicted to it, Blonde Wasabi has prohibited me from ever buying the NCAA football games ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbo 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Don't know about some people, but I buy a console to have fun.. not to look at a pretty picture I need the pretty picture. Also, I forgot to add...xbox live marketplace DESTROYS all others. I agree Bg Im a big fan of the picture and sound, I just cant pay 600 for a ps3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Right now, there are no games that really drive the PS3. And honestly, Gears of War was worth the whole 360 purchase. And Halo fans have halo 3 coming out soon. I'm not a halo guy. But Gears, wow, that was incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saniflush 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Right now, there are no games that really drive the PS3. And honestly, Gears of War was worth the whole 360 purchase. And Halo fans have halo 3 coming out soon. I'm not a halo guy. But Gears, wow, that was incredible. I have even gone back and played Half Life 2. Agreed on Gears of War. Best game I have EVER played top to bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Another reason to get the 360 over the PS3. Madden and NCAA 08 run at a full 60 fps on the 360, while only running 30fps on the PS3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,538 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Another reason to get the 360 over the PS3. Madden and NCAA 08 run at a full 60 fps on the 360, while only running 30fps on the PS3. Actually I don't think that's been proven yet. But regardless, can the human eye really detect a difference in a football game running at either speed. I mean, yeah if it dropped down to 20 or so, but 30+? Regardless, if I had the money to waste right now I'd get the 360 simply because I can't tell a dime's worth of difference and it's a good bit cheaper. Unless I saw the PS3 as a game console and my BluRay player. Then it might make more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I read in an article this morning. I'll try to find it. And yes, there is a marked difference to the eye between 30fps and 60fps. Especially in games that have complex animations. Last year it was a big problem when the framerate dropped at the end of plays...like when players were jumping over players on the ground after the tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU alum 2 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 You are all geeks and need to get out more.Signed, CCTAU First time I've laughed all day. 2 points. BLASPHEMY!!! I would put Sony products up against pretty much anything. Having spent 6 years working with, selling, installing, and repairing consumer electronics...I can tell you that Sony products are some of the worst. Sony's stuff is built to the minimum standard and built for cheap mass production. Sony might be built for mass production, but cheap it's not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Sony might be built for mass production, but cheap it's not! The price may not be cheap, but the quality is. I'm not trying to slam anyone's TV or "home theater" equipment. But like I said, having worked for so long in the industry...and having seen things from sony products first hand, they make things very poorly...and use inferior electronics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,538 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I think it depends on what you're talking about. Sony stereo equipment: not so good or hit/miss at the best. Sony TVs and camcorders: very good. Both typically are at the top of the list in performance and reliability in Consumer Reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I think it depends on what you're talking about. Sony stereo equipment: not so good or hit/miss at the best. Sony TVs and camcorders: very good. Both typically are at the top of the list in performance and reliability in Consumer Reports. Sony Televisions, back when tube TVs were the dominant player in the market, were bar none the best out there. But now, their projection televisions (as they always have been) are not very good at all. And they are not very reliable. Their camcorders are pretty good though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autiger518 1 Posted July 2, 2007 Author Share Posted July 2, 2007 I think it depends on what you're talking about. Sony stereo equipment: not so good or hit/miss at the best. Sony TVs and camcorders: very good. Both typically are at the top of the list in performance and reliability in Consumer Reports. Sony Televisions, back when tube TVs were the dominant player in the market, were bar none the best out there. But now, their projection televisions (as they always have been) are not very good at all. And they are not very reliable. Their camcorders are pretty good though. agree to disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 agree to disagree Ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.