Game Console

[MoP]

Allright, I'm considering the purchase of a new gaming console. It won't be a gaming console only, it'll also have to function as media center and stream videos/music from my home network. Which one do you guys recommend, and what are pro's/cons of the different options? Available games could be a major influence on the decision, possibility to hack definitely is and multiplayer fun (on- and offline) too.

Fire away!

[Nagash]

I have owned all three, but I'd say definately the PS3. Plays Bluray movies, has solid amount of HDD space, as opposed to the Xbox which mostly has less HDD space and "merely" a DVD player. Of course the PS3 should be accompanied by a good TV screen (recommendations on request) and sound set to get the best of the quality out of it.

Lot of good games out already, a lot of them coming still. Dunno about hacking though.

Good multiplayer functionality and the new video streaming thingie is fun too (you can stream a fuckload of music videos and making ofs for free).

The Xbox never convinced me, and the Wii has dodgy controls. I just couldn't get used to the flailing around and pointing at the screen. Gimme a good controller and a comfy couch, and I'm a happy Naggie. I'll also make sure to miss out on the glowing dildo thingie they'll make for the PS3 and "Project Natal" for the Xbox. Also, the Wii graphics are rather horrible. Of course, I've never been much of a trend follower.

[MoP]

The TV screen will be a Samsung LE40B650. Bluray player isn't required, as I have a PC with a Bluray player.

Can a PS3 stream videos that are on the harddisk of my PC? Or on a shared folder in my network? I know the XBox can use Samba drives, not sure about the XBox360 (I'd guess so) or the PS3 (never seen one from closeby:p)

The 'hacking' would include inserting a lager HDD, as well as adding custom software.

[Nagash]

Streaming from your harddisk can be done, yeah. Larger HDD is possible too. Dunno about the custom software (probably can be done, as you can install another OS on it too).

[bvaughan]

definitly the 360, best games and better graphics than the ps3, if you really want blu-ray just go get a blu-ray player.

[Gili]

I can't comment on the ps3.

But i use the xbox for gaming, and also when i torrent/download movies ( divx, xvid and the like - all legit movies obviously ) on my pc, they are streamable over the network with no hassles. You get the odd movie where sound goes out of sync but this is the minority and i dont double check on the pc so the problem could be with the codecs itself.

Its so hassle free its my wish to get all my dvds ripped so i dont need to ever bother getting disks out at all...cos im a lazy bastage!

[BetaFlame]

Something nice about the PS3 is the HDD can be easily replaced for a larger one. They use laptop sized harddisks, plus built in WiFI instead of another $99.

[bvaughan]

thats's a good point about the wi-fi, but i really enjoy xbox live i consider it worth the extra scratch

[Nagash]

I disagree with bvaughan on the graphics. As the PS3 is younger than the 360, it has not yet been used to its full potential yet, but already a game like Uncharted 2 is far better looking than anything brought out on the 360.

Brings us to the better games part. Very normative, but I'd say all platforms have their pros and cons. I am quite fond of PS3 exclusives like Uncharted, Resistance Fall of Man and have high expectations of Heavy Rain. I also like 360 exclusives like Mass Effect quite a lot. Halo not so much (far inferior to RFOM and CoD in my opinion). I don't like the Wii much, so it doesn't surprise that I don't like the Nintendo games too. But there are many who like the Mario and Zelda games a lot still (I stopped liking them so much when I was about ten years old). Each to his own, I guess. Most good games appear on all platforms, except that the Wii usually has far uglier versions, or no versions at all (CoD 5 is a good example of the awful graphics, google a comparison if you want to see for yourself; Assassins Creed is too graphically advanced for the Wii, appeared on PS3 and 360).

[Dyvim Tvar]

There's really no easy answer here, not so long ago this was a no brainer because the PS3 was just a Blu-Ray player that only morons could actually champion as the best games console. However developers stopped doing piss poor and lazy ports, Sony kind of stopped behaving like massive cunts (kind of, not totally) and everything just quietly pulled itself together slowly but surely.
They finally got an exclusive worth shouting about (Uncharted 2) as well which is nice, and they'll be getting God of War 3 this year (is it this year? I forget) although that's really only a big deal because the PS3 port of Bayonetta is pretty dodgy, and Bayonetta is top dog in the realm of action games but God of War might be a worthwhile secondary.
I know you could get Linux onto a PS3, however as I understand the functionality might be pretty limited so I don't know worthwhile that is. It's also functionality that was removed (or at least made MUCH harder) with the release of the slim model I think. I also think it's still one of the better Blu-Ray players on the market as well (however this is entirely not my area of expertise). Increasing the HDD size is a piece of piss, and despite the 250gig PS3 being comfortably priced it might be necessary given the increase in mandatory game installs.
No idea about the stream functionality since the only person I know with a PS3 doesn't have a PC so it's meaningless to him.
Also you get the PSN store which gets points in its favour because it has exclusive content you'll never see on 360's Arcade in the PS1 (and maybe eventually PS2) titles that crop up on there. Also you can pay for stuff with real monies, rather than some kind of wierd monopoly money that you can only buy in set amounts (hi MS Points, go fuck yourself). Now there are rumours that Sony are giving consideration to charging monthly fees for the PSN, but rumours are usually bullshit anyway so I wouldn't believe anything until the charges actually happen.

The 360 still has more solid exclusives (Gears of War is, hands down, a better shooter than pretty much all of the PS3 exclusives such as Resistance or Haze), early next gen titles that are multi-platform tend to be stronger on the 360 than on the PS3 (Orange Box games and most Valve stuff frankly, they srping immediately to mind as an example) and it's online community is more extensive (however it's not free, which is a strike against it no matter what, although you do see increased performance for that money).
Hacking for the 360, as I understand it, is actually less involved than it was for the original xbox, although it's supposed to still be pretty easy to mod for nefarious gaming purposes. Not my area again though, but I could probably direct you to some resources where you could find out more.
I love the 360 for media, since I got it I pretty much never use my PC as anything more than the storage device (and don't even use it for that since I grabbed an external drive) for my media. Compatibility is pretty good, usually only ruined by the bizarre codec arms race that lots of scene groups seem to be waging all the time.
Microsoft pulled some irritating shit with the 360. £60-70 wireless adaptors if you want your 360 to be wireless. £40 for 12 months of fully functional online. The aforementioned MS Funbucks. These are all things that can grate on the nerves sometimes but they never amass to enough to make you resent the console when you weigh it up against the fact that you get to play Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect and Gears of War 2.
Arcade is fucking amazing, I love it beyond belief. I have grabbed a ridiculous number of arcade games despite my distaste for the MS Point system and the addition of the indy games is just icing on the cake frankly.
Oh and the hardware failure rate is entirely negligible with the latest batches of consoles, just make sure you buy new and you should be just fine. Also don't treat your console like you're a fucking savage, that always helps.

Nagash is pretty much the worst person in the world to take advice from on the Wii, however that's cool because I'm here to provide an actual neutral perspective;-p
The Wii really doesn't sound much like what you're after. It's very much hackable and there's a lot of fine homebrew out there (and once again there's a fine line in nefarious modding you can perform), but it's not anything in the way of a streaming centre so that goes right of the window.
As a games console it as actually pretty good, hell I can name you a number of titles from launch until now that are just as good if not better than the flagship titles of the "real gaming" consoles.
It's also got a great line in downloadable content, given that it has exclusive access to the Nintendo back catalogue. However they also use the horrible points system, and actual online play is pretty damn thin on the ground and also pretty mediocre (if not flat out terrible sometimes) when you can find it supported.

TL;DR
Personally I'd still champion the 360, however it's not the cut and dry discussion it used to be. Hell I have the 360 but as the PS3 gradually drops in price (still isn't cheap enough in comparison to the 360 yet for me) it becomes more and more tempting to me, espescially since Sega will never port Valkyria Chronicles over to the 360 because they're essentially my abusive husband.

Addition due to Nagash's last post:
Halo is very much better than Resistance from a pure mechanics stand point, it's really hard to even call RFoM close in that regard. However there IS potential for the series to continue to improve, but it's a little crazy to try and compare it to one of the leading console exclusive FPS runners;-p
Also stop graphics whoring. Good graphics =/= good game.

[Nagash]

*grin*


I already said that I don't like the Wii at all. That's just as neutral as your more positive standpoint, as I merely don't like flailing about.


RFOM 2 was a bit of a disappointment after the good first part, but I quite liked the first part. Killzone 2 was pretty good too btw. Halo just didn't do it for me (none of the parts). I have that with much-praised games sometimes.


And you are right that good graphics doesn't mean that a game is good, but I do think it is a fair part of the experience. Had Assassin's Creed not looked so pretty, it would not have offered the experience it does now. Gameplay wise AC (2) isn't too good. Still it was great to muck about in medieval Jerusalem and Acre, or Renaissance Firenze and Venezia. It really enjoyed those games, even if they were far, far too easy.
Similarly, I liked CoD5:WaW for its multiplayer. Couldn't get close to CoD4:MW, but that's beside the point. It was fun to play on the PS3/360. Not so much on the Wii, both for its shitty controls and its sheer uglyness (especially in comparison).
Good graphics don't make a game, but bad ones can muck up the experience and overall quality of an otherwise good game.

[Dyvim Tvar]

Man, both the Assassin's Creed games are pretty terrible. They're kind of poster children for the notion that developers care more about high def graphics (and aping GTA) than actually making an engaging game of their own.

Now don't get me wrong, I can't stand Halo much either. However it's still fundamentally a better shooter than either of the Resistance games. Funnily enough I actually enjoyed the World at War multiplayer more than CoD 4 or CoD 4.5 just because, from the little of WaW I played the perks system seemed a lot better implemented compared to the utter clusterfuck that Infinity Ward created.
Not to dispute that CoD 4 is a great shooter at it's core, I used to roll with a group of players who would only use the UAV killstreak and we had some really great games, still never quite on the level of a great game of Battlefield but great in their own right

Also if you flail around with the Wii then you're doing it wrong, and that would explain why you don't like it;-p
Seriously though, plenty of games on the Wii have either very well implemented motion controls or regular game controls. There's no denying that it's biggest market is the casual crowd who are happy playing flail-centric shovel ware bullshit, but that doesn't make it a bad console any more than it not having amazing graphics makes it bad, all the graphical limitations mean is that designers have to actually style there games.

Also I'm going to add this in at the end here since I'm all to aware of the tonal quality that I sometimes project, and a disclaimer is way easier than trying to change the way I am. I'm not trying to put across "You don't like the Wii because you're a moron and all your opinions suck", I just find the discussions here (graphical fidelity versus stylisation and the different perceptions of the Wii reality) really interesting to have.

[Nagash]

No need for a disclaimer, mate.


I think Assassins Creed gave you a good gaming experience (both 1 and 2). It was fun to play, had kinda cool storylines and the way they rebuilt the cities is simply marvellous. It was too easy, yes. But the success of games like the AC series, and a console like the Wii proves that if you aim for a broader public, you'll have to focus on gimmicks and make your games easy to play. I can't help it that I do like the historical, graphic based casual approach of AC and dislike the motion crap the Wii came up with, which MS and Sony are desperately trying to copy with the Magic Dildo and Natal. I don't like the minigames which rewards the person with the fastest wanking movement, or a racing game which makes me steer by twisting my wrist, but I do like renaissance Italy and medieval Jerusalem.

I disliked the fact that in many WaW maps there was substantial spawn killing with grenade launchers from the other side of the map. If that's the way someone wants to win a game, then fine. Let him revel in his silly 'victory'. The MW maps were better thought out and made for better matches.

Still, I miss my Legacy of Kain and Baldur's Gate fixes.

Btw, if you like Bayonetta so much, you might want to consider trying Viking: Battle for Asgard too. It's supposed to be comparable and pretty great. Gotta pick it up from the budget shelves some time soon.

[Gili]

I stop reading somewhere up there, but I just need to cherp in with my own "good graphics does not equal good game". I just wish most game dev houses would realise this. I'm kinda hoping that there isn't a next gen console for many years( which looks the case ) so that game devs can actually start making games to the limits of the consoles and not just more bloat and shite that they seem to churn out.

I'm on the look out for a PS3, but its gotta be cheaper than it currently is

[Teanos]

I have a PC for real gaming (MW2, WOW, etc.)

I have a Wii for family entertainment.
It has built in wifi, the graphics are not all that bad (but I don't have a flat screen TV either) and the games I buy for it are fun. Mario Kart, Smarty Pants, Sonic Olympics, etc.

I want to get a PS3 though.

[Dyvim Tvar]

Viking is pretty bad, I had it around launch and it's in no way comparable to games like Bayonetta or Devil May Cry, it's just too slow and the combat system lacks real depth. Comparative to it is something like the Conan game, in fact the Conan game tends to be a little bit cheaper and also more fun. Granted Viking wasn't more disappointing than Too Human, but at the same time literally nothing has disappointed me this generation more than Too Human did.

I wanted to like Assassin's Creed, I really did. However the combat was basically shallow and broken (counter, counter, counter, counter, win game) and there was just too much fluff in there as they desperately tried to follow the GTA sandbox model that lots of lesser developers with delusions of their own ability are obsessed with. Had it been a tighter, more focused game then it would've been really interesting and more of its faults would've been forgiveable. Too much fluff, not enough soul. It did look sublime though and that helped it be forgiven for a lot as I just bounded around the city like Josef Fritzl through the local Ikea's new dungeon furniture section. However then games like Mirror's Edge and Prince of Persia 2008 came out and I had games just as pretty (and with better stylistic direction) to indulge my ridiculous parkour fetish.

The spawn killing in WaW is really just a flaw inherent in the engine itself and the same thing showed up sometimes in CoD 4. It's even worse in CoD 4.5 though, espescially if people are rocking the insane combos available. Mind you some of the biggest "exploits" of those combos come from the fucking awful killstreak system, which occasionally feels like it wasn't fucking playtested in the slightest. Mind you a lot of CoD 4.5 feels like that, Predator missile I'm talking about you.

I didn't need to flail like a spaz to beat the fuck out of bitches in Punch Out, nor did I need to steer like a prick in Mario Kart (that game sucks for entirely different reasons) or even dick around to direct units in Fire Emblem (although, honestly, I kind of wish the option had been their dammit). then there's games that make genuinely good use of motion controls, like Pikmin or Little King's Story (or Samba De Amigo, fuck the haters). And on top of that you have games which have meh motion controls but are so mental they make up for it with their genius like Madworld and No More Heroes (which, admittedly, has some silly motion controls in it deliberately to poke fun of Wii games that have nothing but silly motion controls, it gets wierdly meta that game.)
Sure the Wii has it's primary market, and sure a lot of it's games aren't for people like us, however it doesn't take much effort at all to find those games that either make genuinely good use of motion controls, eschew motion controls entirely or at least gives you the option to play "classic" style (Punch Out does this quite will as an immediate example.)
The graphics are also fine, shovel ware may look like shit but what do you expect? At the end of the day you don't need photo-realism on Cooking Mama, Punch Out, Madworld, Okami or Samba De Amigo since the charm is in their art direction and how they manage to produce something visually engaging without immediately resorting to "increase POWAR!!!!". special mention goes to Conduit for trying to make something "ZOMG GRAFIX!" on the Wii, and failing fucking spectacularly. Like this game is shockingly ugly and they spent pretty much all their advertising time talking about how gorgeous it was going to be and how it was going to be comparable to Gears of War. Honestly I'd rather look at Goldeneye or Perfect Dark than look at Conduit, especially when you consider that they are using the same fucking hardware that produced Metroid 3.

[Nagash]

Viking is pretty bad, I had it around launch and it's in no way comparable to games like Bayonetta or Devil May Cry, it's just too slow and the combat system lacks real depth. Comparative to it is something like the Conan game, in fact the Conan game tends to be a little bit cheaper and also more fun. Granted Viking wasn't more disappointing than Too Human, but at the same time literally nothing has disappointed me this generation more than Too Human did.

Cheers for the warning

[BetaFlame]

Just for the record, Metroid on the Wii is awesome, but REALLY fucking hard to adapt to those kind of controls. The first couple of hours I played, I ended up twirling around like an acrobat whore on a stage.

[Gili]

Yeah Madworld the art/gfx are pretty nifty, the whole game has a nice feel to it. Didn't really keep the game longer than a weekend, as i use lovefilm for rental and go thru games quite quick :p may well buy it depending on how cheap i spot it somewhere

[Dyvim Tvar]

£9?
It's actually cheaper in store at Game (and I think Gamestation) where it's £8. House of the Dead:Overkill (£15) and Battalion Wars 2 (£8) are also good picks from that sale.