Gaming consoles. Recommend me one.

[scorpionldr]

IMHO Wii is good ONLY if you have a good collection of gamecube games. Sure, I mean you can play the Wii games all the time, but I find myself often taking a break from mario kart, smash bros, or the godfather on wii to play DefJam: Fight for NY, Timesplitters FP, a mario game, or something.

I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish that Wii started making new games that utilized the gamecube controls more often. Lots less focus on the motion, more focus on graphics, gameplay, and mechanics that have been around for ages established by Xbox, PS, etc.

I wouldn't chase after a 360 hearing about the wonderful 30% failure rate, plus I am cheap and don't wanna pay for online.

I wouldn't go after a PS3 because I never really liked the playstation brand, the controller feels goofy in my hands, and the net I hear is unreliable.

 

[dinghy]

I've been following the consoles since they came out, and believe that 360 has pulled ahead. Wii gets old too fast, and hasn't had many good games recently, and PS3 doesn't have good multiplayer support and is still twice as much as the Wii and 360. MGS4 is an incredibly good game though.

(I own a Wii and a PS3, bought Wii before the 360 was a clear winner and PS3 isn't really mine I just use it)

 

[scorpionldr]

I've been following the consoles since they came out, and believe that 360 has pulled ahead. Wii gets old too fast, and hasn't had many good games recently, and PS3 doesn't have good multiplayer support and is still twice as much as the Wii and 360. MGS4 is an incredibly good game though.

(I own a Wii and a PS3, bought Wii before the 360 was a clear winner and PS3 isn't really mine I just use it)

wii's bread and butter is brawl, mario galaxy, and mario kart. only problem is: nothing new is really grabbing people. I think mushroom men should do well, i mean, it's got claypool hackin away on the soundtrack, how bad can that be? and i'm especially waiting for "the conduit", as it's supposed to be like goldeneye all over again.

 

[doctorjazz]

Another thing regarding the reliability of the two systems: I have the top model of both. My 360 has been going strong for a year now, but I had to have my PS3 replaced within 2 weeks of buying it. Just to show the stereotype of the PS3 as the more reliable of the two isn't always true.

 

[Andrew.Glose]

wii's bread and butter is brawl, mario galaxy, and mario kart. only problem is: nothing new is really grabbing people. I think mushroom men should do well, i mean, it's got claypool hackin away on the soundtrack, how bad can that be? and i'm especially waiting for "the conduit", as it's supposed to be like goldeneye all over again.

Zelda and Metroid Prime 3 are great. Prime 3 has managed to incorporate the best shooter controls I've ever used. Period. Revolutionary.

I think if some game makers took more time to make quality games for the Wii, instead of putting out whatever they can to make a buck, the platform's library would get a better rap. And don't forget that the Wii (w/ internet connection) can download lots of great old games (if you're into that).

As for the 'this or that' with the 360 or PS3, I like the PS3 for it's interface, multimedia capability, controller, Blu-ray player, and games. An Xbox controller never has felt right in my hands. Too clunky for my taste.

But that's a matter of personal feel.

 

[scorpionldr]

Zelda and Metroid Prime 3 are great. Prime 3 has managed to incorporate the best shooter controls I've ever used. Period. Revolutionary.

I think if some game makers took more time to make quality games for the Wii, instead of putting out whatever they can to make a buck, the platform's library would get a better rap. And don't forget that the Wii (w/ internet connection) can download lots of great old games (if you're into that).

As for the 'this or that' with the 360 or PS3, I like the PS3 for it's interface, multimedia capability, controller, Blu-ray player, and games. An Xbox controller never has felt right in my hands. Too clunky for my taste.

But that's a matter of personal feel.

The latest Zelda (twilight princess) sort of bored me with all the harping on "gotta do this, TO SAVE THE PRINCESS!! SHES DARK TOO!" sorta stuff.........and i did play the gamecube version and not the wii version.

As for virtual console.......mario brothers 3 brought me back.........it was extremely odd trying to remember how to hold down the "run" button while playing. a big change from the regular generation's adaptation of just pressing a stick and expecting things to "GO!"

 

[Baryonyx]

I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish that Wii started making new games that utilized the gamecube controls more often. Lots less focus on the motion, more focus on graphics, gameplay, and mechanics that have been around for ages established by Xbox, PS, etc.

A good point. A lot of Nintendo fans are now saddened and embarassed to see their console being used as a dumping ground for any crap that a developer can fit on a disc. Some of the random titles coming out now are ridiculous.

But Nintendo makes goof after goof pushing gamers away, including putting out the Wii with it's woefully low processing power.

As for the 360 vs PS3 pad debate, it no longer surprises me a great deal that Sony will put out such a flimsy, shoddy product. That's bassically the PS3 summed up as a whole! The 360 pad is a wonderful design. Much smaller than even the awesome Xbox pads were! Anyone with well formed, strong hands should have no problem with it. My girlfriend has tiny hands and she manages well with it.

 

[WickedPissah]

i dig the 360

 

[fenderhutz]

Get a Wii and a 360.

A Wii the entire family will enjoy. My wife loves Wii Bowling and Animal Crossing plus you can play all of the old Gamecube games and download a bunch of the older games. All kid friendly.

The 360 has some good games for everyone as well but not as many fun games for the wife and family as the Wii.

 

[Wilbyman]

Hey Wils!

A buddy left a Wii at my house right after I got a 42" 1080p TV for my base(bass)ment. As far as I can tell, it is really made for people who aren't into video games. My wife and mother-in-law really had fun with Wii tennis and some of the other sports games. However, trying to play "classic" console style games (shooters, etc) is kind of unsatisfying using the Wii-mote (although my buddy Jay has been playing COD5WOW on it and reports having fun, so maybe I just haven't gotten hip to the Wii's best FPS titles). I played Star Wars' Force Unleased and thought it was lame.

I gave back the Wii and still had the jones to do some console gaming. (My only other gaming bent is some WOW (Warcraft) on my old GMA950 Macbook). I went out and picked up a 360, 4 controllers, Halo 3 and X-Box Live. This was a great purchase. My buddies have been coming over for 4-player split screen Halo 3 every Friday night. We have a blast. Halo 3 is a state of the art FPS which, to me, alone makes the 360 awesome. It is a killer app. I have not heard of any equivalent on the PS3. The 4-player split does not slow down a bit and looks great.

We can do a 4-player split on my TV and take everybody on X-Box Live (through one account, which is like $40/year) to fight in 16 player deathmatches. It is awesome (although we get creamed by the 10-year olds on Live).

Anyway, for my purposes the 360 has worked really well...

 

[Kenbuntu]

Dont get the 360, it has no future. If you want a system that will be around for afew years, id go PS3. Sony still releases games for the PS2, which says a lot.
Next, Blu-Ray. Because of blu ray, the games that will come out for it, are going to be beast,and action packed. Imnot sure on the exact figures, but its something like 50 GB for a dual sided Blu ray disk, compared to the 25 GB for Xbox. They even shortened COD4 because they couldnt fit it on a 25GB disk.

Bottom line: PS3 for intense games, (lol) and 360 for viva pinata.

 

[heroincredible]

I have not heard of any equivalent on the PS3. The 4-player split does not slow down a bit and looks great.

We can do a 4-player split on my TV and take everybody on X-Box Live (through one account, which is like $40/year) to fight in 16 player deathmatches. It is awesome (although we get creamed by the 10-year olds on Live).

Anyway, for my purposes the 360 has worked really well...

...Resistance 2's 60 player online would REALLY like to have a word with you if you don't think there is an equivalent on PS3. Theres also 8-player online coop mode.

 

[MAJOR METAL]

1980's Nintendo , its the only one I have been able figure out how to use.

 

[Happynoj]

Hey Wils!

A buddy left a Wii at my house right after I got a 42" 1080p TV for my base(bass)ment. As far as I can tell, it is really made for people who aren't into video games. My wife and mother-in-law really had fun with Wii tennis and some of the other sports games. However, trying to play "classic" console style games (shooters, etc) is kind of unsatisfying using the Wii-mote (although my buddy Jay has been playing COD5WOW on it and reports having fun, so maybe I just haven't gotten hip to the Wii's best FPS titles). I played Star Wars' Force Unleased and thought it was lame.

I gave back the Wii and still had the jones to do some console gaming. (My only other gaming bent is some WOW (Warcraft) on my old GMA950 Macbook). I went out and picked up a 360, 4 controllers, Halo 3 and X-Box Live. This was a great purchase. My buddies have been coming over for 4-player split screen Halo 3 every Friday night. We have a blast. Halo 3 is a state of the art FPS which, to me, alone makes the 360 awesome. It is a killer app. I have not heard of any equivalent on the PS3. The 4-player split does not slow down a bit and looks great.

We can do a 4-player split on my TV and take everybody on X-Box Live (through one account, which is like $40/year) to fight in 16 player deathmatches. It is awesome (although we get creamed by the 10-year olds on Live).

Anyway, for my purposes the 360 has worked really well...

I never really understood all of the hype about Halo. I have played all 3 games, (not to completion as I don't own any of them, but I have racked up a good number of hours on Halo 3), and they didn't seem like anything special to me - just a run-of-the-mill FPS.

However, if I was in the market for a console, I would get a 360 without hesitation, purely on the strength of Army of Two. I've completed it twice with one of my mates - first time was on easy difficulty, bit by bit over a couple of weeks (a couple of hours at a time). The second time was Professional difficulty, all nighter. We started at about 9pm, and played through to 7am, with approx an hours break at about 11 to grab some food. It was intense, and great fun. Do it.

 

[Baryonyx]

yeah, I don't mind Halo in single player but the multiplayer has never set my world on fire.

Still though, the 360 is the way forward. I still cannot quite express in words my disappointment in Sony to see them insult their former fans with the PS3. I'd feel embarassed for them but then I remember that they're still trying to make money out of it so instead I just feel sorry for those who buy them thinking they're getting a good product!

And yeah, Army of Two is a great game. It's been a good year for EA pushing new IP. Army of Two and Dead Space have been my two favourite EA games this year and they're both new IP. I played through Army of Two with my brother, it was a real wheeze. Excellent game, it's good fun! Especially in Mogadishu! The only thing I'd like to see changed in the inevitable sequel is the hit-boxes/hit detection and weapon balancing.

The game operates on a strict cover protocol. That is, if you're "in cover" you're invincible to enemy fire from all angles unless it's coming from a parallel side or behind you. The same protocol applies to the enemies, which makes it's pretty irritating at times. You'll see an enemy with his head sticking up, you'll shoot him in the head and the hitwon't register because he's "in cover". Gears of War 2 does not have this same mechanic and the difference is tremendous. I think they implemented it in Army of Two to encourage true flanking via the "agro" system, but it just feels wrong. They need to improve the cover system and enemy AI to make for a smoother, more skillful seeming game!

And the weapon balancing needs to be addressed, particularly with regards to damage. Some weapons that are supposed to be powerful feel like pop guns (the shotguns and upgraded pistols especially). Also, the accuracy needs to be upgraded somewhat. A lot of the guns were very inaccurate. Again, this encourages flanking and close quarter combat but it could be vastly improved.

Still though, an excellent game with a nicely updated "two against all" concept!

 

[Happynoj]

yeah, I don't mind Halo in single player but the multiplayer has never set my world on fire.

Still though, the 360 is the way forward. I still cannot quite express in words my disappointment in Sony to see them insult their former fans with the PS3. I'd feel embarassed for them but then I remember that they're still trying to make money out of it so instead I just feel sorry for those who buy them thinking they're getting a good product!

And yeah, Army of Two is a great game. It's been a good year for EA pushing new IP. Army of Two and Dead Space have been my two favourite EA games this year and they're both new IP. I played through Army of Two with my brother, it was a real wheeze. Excellent game, it's good fun! Especially in Mogadishu! The only thing I'd like to see changed in the inevitable sequel is the hit-boxes/hit detection and weapon balancing.

The game operates on a strict cover protocol. That is, if you're "in cover" you're invincible to enemy fire from all angles unless it's coming from a parallel side or behind you. The same protocol applies to the enemies, which makes it's pretty irritating at times. You'll see an enemy with his head sticking up, you'll shoot him in the head and the hitwon't register because he's "in cover". Gears of War 2 does not have this same mechanic and the difference is tremendous. I think they implemented it in Army of Two to encourage true flanking via the "agro" system, but it just feels wrong. They need to improve the cover system and enemy AI to make for a smoother, more skillful seeming game!

And the weapon balancing needs to be addressed, particularly with regards to damage. Some weapons that are supposed to be powerful feel like pop guns (the shotguns and upgraded pistols especially). Also, the accuracy needs to be upgraded somewhat. A lot of the guns were very inaccurate. Again, this encourages flanking and close quarter combat but it could be vastly improved.

Still though, an excellent game with a nicely updated "two against all" concept!

I thought that the shotguns were more than powerful enough.

And I thought that the 2 player gameplay was amazing, because it actually forced you to play together - Halo and Gears multiplayer co-op were just like a hard FPS that required two people to play at the same time (and some vehicle sections that forced you to rely on each other). Ao2 had genuine 2 player sections - the riot shields, giving each other boosts, etc...

 

[heroincredible]

Still though, the 360 is the way forward. I still cannot quite express in words my disappointment in Sony to see them insult their former fans with the PS3. I'd feel embarassed for them but then I remember that they're still trying to make money out of it so instead I just feel sorry for those who buy them thinking they're getting a good product!

What the hell are you talking about? The PS3 hardware is far more reliable than the 360 hardware.

 

[Baryonyx]

What the hell are you talking about? The PS3 hardware is far more reliable than the 360 hardware.

Shame the games are pap then! And if there is a decent game there, the 360 is doing it better! I'm glad Microsoft has made good on their promises to look after 360 users. If there is a downside to having the best games console around today, its that the hardware can let it down. However, because I choose my console based on the games and how it supports them, Microsoft are the obvious choice. I'm not interested in Blu Ray players or whatever, I'm just after hardcore gaming, and the 360 continually delivers it in spades. I used to be a Sony fan, and had some good times with the PS1 and 2. However, since Xbox hit the scene with the Xbox they've been market leaders. Even if the competition hadn't bombed so spectacularly, they still would be.

I thought that the shotguns were more than powerful enough.

I never used the shotguns much, though my brother did (he struggled on for the achievement). With better accuracy, weight and balancing there is no reason why the weapons in the next game shouldn't be awesome. Some of them, especially when upgraded, look absolutely class. I never "pimped" any of the guns though, that just seemed cheesy. That was maybe the one time that I was reminded it was an EA, such a crass and cheesy move!

But I really dug the co-op side of things. I agree that it was real co-op. I'd like to see it refined somewhat into providing a more streamlined experience. Like the back to back shooting sections and such, they felt a tad "tacked on" for the sake of forcing co-op play. I'd like to be able to initiate them myself. But the co-op methods really are great. Stuff like one guy piloting a parachute, the other sniping, dragging fallen pals to cover and stuff-what a buzz! And the mask design, have cool was that? It's gonna be a good sequel!

If you like co-op gaming, give Left 4 Dead a spin. Thats another game where co-op is essential. Try it and see what I mean. This afternoon, me and my buddy fought our way from a roadway tunnel, through a train yard, through a church, into a town, out the other end and onto the riverfront and were rescued by boat from hordes of zombies. Teamwork got us there. I watched his back, he watched mine and we saved each others butts a couple of times!

 

[cassanova]

All Xbox 360s come with wireless controller(s), mine did.

But did you have to pay for the piece that sends the signal from the 360 to the controller, I know my friend Bryan had to pay $100 for the piece to be able to use the wireless controllers.

 

[azmati]

But did you have to pay for the piece that sends the signal from the 360 to the controller, I know my friend Bryan had to pay $100 for the piece to be able to use the wireless controllers.

Odd.

My controller worked right out of the box. No additional attachments.

My guess would be, his was one of the earliest ones. Back before they had HDMI ports. Could be wrong though..