• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • ✅ Time to vote for the top 3 models! The POLL for Hive's 6th HD Modeling Contest: Mechanical is now open! 📅 Poll close on July 16, 2024! 🔗 Cast your vote now!
  • ✅ The POLL for Hive's Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Vote for the TOP 3 SKINS! 🔗Click here to cast your vote!

Which one of these consoles are your favorite?

PS3. WII, or XBOX360?


  • Total voters
    116
Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 17
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,538
My friend's was quiet. But recently it has gotten ridiculously loud. As are many others I know of, at least compared to my PS3. They also seem to heat up much faster.
But it doesn't matter much to me because I have a box fan in my room so sound isn't much of a problem. It is usually louder and provides adequate cooling where clip-on cooling fans fall short.
 
Level 2
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
8
Xbox 360 i believe is the most dominant gaming console. Wii has mostly boring non-violent games and PS3 has barely any games adding the fact that PS3s are expensive.

However, i like the Playstation controllers much better than the Xbox 360s
 
Level 15
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
1,397
"I leave home for a few days and look what happens."

We got Silent Ninja Shits, Melting PS3's, Modded Xbox's, and a guy who thinks Wii has no good games...

1. Anyone who thinks the Xbox is loud never owned a high powered comp.

2. PS3's have been known to overheat to the point of burning, but thats if you put it somewhere with no airflow. It's User Error.

3. Why mod an Xbox, the only mod I've ever seen that I would try is the one were you put a 1.5 TB HDD on it.

4. Wii has good games, just not that many compared to Xbox or PS3.

5. Underpants -> ??? -> Profit

I think both's AD campaigns suck compared to N64's
 
Level 2
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
13
Why didnt you just make a poll?

Nintendo = Family/Kids (Not me)

Ps3 = Fail

Ps2 = (Used to be) Win

Xbox 360 = Win

There's already a poll like this.

Anyway, PS2 is an old system. It held a huge satisfaction rating and still provides it even to this day. I say it's a win all the time. Xbox 360 is not win!!!
 
Level 15
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
1,397
PS3 is no longer the cheapest blue-ray player. It's actually cheaper to buy a 360 Pro and a drive for your comp.

$80 Blueray at Newegg

Live is vastly superior to PSN, you get what you pay for.

If you have Netflix you can stream directly to Xbox for free.

Sliver accounts can still download things and talk to friends, for freeeeee.
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,538
Sliver accounts can still download things and talk to friends, for freeeeee.
But you can't play games online, which is the main point for most users of having internet on your gaming console. And I don't think they get netflix either.

PS3 is no longer the cheapest blue-ray player. It's actually cheaper to buy a 360 Pro and a drive for your comp.
No, because last time I checked, you would need a computer to put that drive in. And I'm pretty sure computers cost money

If you have Netflix you can stream directly to Xbox for free.
It is not free. Netflix is another tool for Microsoft to pitch their fee-based xbox live gold subscription to you.

Live is vastly superior to PSN, you get what you pay for.
And what do you pay for?
Personally, I don't consider Live to be vastly superior. I have easily logged more hours onto Live than PSN, and I don't have problems with either.
 
Level 15
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
1,664
Personally, I don't consider Live to be vastly superior. I have easily logged more hours onto Live than PSN, and I don't have problems with either.
I believe you (or someone here) said that PSN doesn't allow for microphones- only a "keyboard". Yeah. PSN is REAL superior to Live, I'll tell you that.
 
Level 15
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
1,397
If you don't have a computer then how are you here?
profilepic168901_1.gif
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,538
I believe you (or someone here) said that PSN doesn't allow for microphones- only a "keyboard". Yeah. PSN is REAL superior to Live, I'll tell you that.
lol nice. I never once said it was superior, and it does allow for headsets.
If you don't have a computer then how are you here?
I never said I didn't. But how many people have a monitor comparable to their HDTV? Or even SDTV? And if they do, how many have them within reaching distance of their PC?
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,538
I'm not talking about those little pansy monitors that you linked. I'm talking about "true" HDTV's. as in 42 inches and up. Find me a computer monitor that size that is widely owned. Show me a comparable plasma screen computer monitor. Are there any?
 
Level 15
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
1,397
No, that's the resolution, not size.

And why do you need a 42 inch?

A 18 inch monitor at 800x600 has better pixel/inch than a 42 inch 1080p.

Also, HDMI, Composite, and S-Video

And now you say, "But who has a comp with those ports?"
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,538
Dammit guy, the average user cares about size more often than pixel resolution.
Who cares about 100 pixels when your T.V. covers an entire wall.
And why do you keep listing those damn ports? And it is only better in pure pixel-to-size ratio. Who wants an 18-inch monitor set at the lowest resolution?
 
Level 15
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
1,397
Look on your TV, most of the ports I'm listing would be there, most likely on the front.

And as an example for why the p/i is important. Take a 100x100 picture and blow it up to the size of your screen. Would you rather have a smaller version where the detail is better, or would you rather have blocks.


And yes that is one of my favorites.
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,538
Even though I don't see how you are "humiliating" me.
I said computers cost money, and instead of saying anything logical, you asked how I was here if I did not have one.

First of all, how does that imply in any way that I don't have one?
Second:
-School
-Library
-Friend
-Family

And we are not talking about still pictures. We are talking about moving images. I have played on both large HDTV's and small monitors and HDTV wins anyday. You are only looking at pure specifications. Once you get a side-by-side comparison you care little for a slight difference in detail. Would you rather play on a giant, detailed T.V. where you can sit anywhere in the room and get a perfect view, or a tiny, cramped, slightly more detailed monitor where you must sit two feet in front of it to get the same sense of depth as found in a large T.V.?

The fact of the matter is, people will always go with HDTV over computer monitor. The average, uninformed user will care about size and popularity most often over specs.

A 18 inch monitor at 800x600 has better pixel/inch than a 42 inch 1080p.
Go around and ask, "Would you like to play Halo 3 on a 18 inch monitor at 800x600, or a 42 inch plasma T.V. at 1080p?" That is the arguement you are trying to make.

And 800x600 is a horrible resolution, so why would you want to play on it? Just because the TV is more stretched out does not mean it is so drastically reduced in detail. I'm sorry but it's just not as simple as that.
 
Level 15
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
1,397
For the computer part, this is what I was referencing: "No, because last time I checked, you would need a computer to put that drive in."

This implies that someone who buys a PS3/Xbox 360 doesn't have a computer. Think about it, if they have a 42 inch HD Plasma and a PS3/Xbox 360, I think they would have a computer.

Pixels are bigger on the 42, you can see more detail on the 800x600 18inch res.

Notice how I am not an uninformed average customer? I would, in fact, rather play on a smaller screen.

Btw, my screen is a 20 inch CRT capable of 1600x1200
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,538
Notice how I never said you were.

And, no it doesn't. 800x600 simply does not render as much detail as an 1080p, no matter the size. Just because the p/i is better does not mean it looks better, p/i has little affect . As said by somebody else, it is a moot point. It has nothing to do with detail. The 18 inch is rendering less clearly than the TV
 
Level 6
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
22
For the computer part, this is what I was referencing: "No, because last time I checked, you would need a computer to put that drive in."

This implies that someone who buys a PS3/Xbox 360 doesn't have a computer. Think about it, if they have a 42 inch HD Plasma and a PS3/Xbox 360, I think they would have a computer.

Pixels are bigger on the 42, you can see more detail on the 800x600 18inch res.

Notice how I am not an uninformed average customer? I would, in fact, rather play on a smaller screen.


This is an utter fallacy. You absolutely see less detail on an 800x600 18in screen vs. a 16:9 42in HDTV screen at 1920x1080. How can you see more detail in a screen with not only less viewing space, but less resolution? That's like saying you can see more detail in a photo taken with a 2 megapixel camera vs an 8 megapixel camera, it's all backwards.

Also, borrowing your own argument about the '100x100px' image, I'd much rather see it on a 42in. You want to know why? Because accordingly, the pixels will be bigger, the scalability will be higher and therefore I should expect to see the image far more clearly than on a dingy little 800x600 screen.

The physical size of the screen is also a pretty moot point when you're scaling everything else. Now to the crux of your argument - P/I or rather, PPI (Pixels per inch, for those of you playing at home). To prove how little of a difference the actual PPI makes, below is the PPI of the two examples we seem to be using.

PPI is calculated by the following:

Diagonal Resolution = Square root (Width2+ height2)
Pixels Per Inch = Diagonal Resolution / Diagonal Screen Size

The MATHS!

800x600 18inch
Diagonal Resolution gives us 1000 after resolving: SqR(800x800 + 600x600), which gives us 1000 / 18 for the PPI, or 55.555555 recurring ad infinitum.

1920x1080 42inch
Diagonal Resolution gives us 2202.90717 after resolving: SqR(1920x1920 + 1080x1080), which gives us 2202.90717 / 42 for the PPI, or 52.4501707.

Hmm. A difference of...wow...3 PPI? That is a drop in the ocean when you consider PPI of screens can range in the hundreds. Drop the 42in down to a 40in and the difference becomes .5 of a PPI. Seriously, consider what you're trading that measly amount for in terms of clarity, detail, visibility and screen real-estate.

I know which one I'd prefer.

[EDIT]
Btw, my screen is a 20 inch CRT capable of 1600x1200
Oh my goodness, I feel sorry for your eyes. CRTs are not only power-hungry monsters and have terrible ergonomics, but they'll absolutely trash your eyesight. Especially when playing games. I hope the only reason you're still holding onto that beast is because you are a serious artist/digital graphics person and need it for the colour reproduction.
[/EDIT]
 
Level 15
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
1,397
It's better for games, response time is under an millisecond.

It's one of the last Trinitron's, hooray for flatscreens.

Web Browsing I do on a 17-inch LCD.

Wellll I used to, main comp's board went kaput and took out the Processor and Ram and now I'm stuck on a Pentium 3. -.- Good thing my PSU has multi-rail, didn't get anything else.

Main: C2D E8400, 4gb DDR2 800 4-4-4-12, Radeon 4850 X2, Asus P5Q-E
Back-Up: P3 EB933, 512mb SDRAM 133, Radeon 9200, Asus P3V4X

Only reason I can still use my CRT is because it has DVI and VGA on the back. LCD is DVI only.
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,873
Samsung makes fantastic monitors, and mine has both. You could also just pick up an adapter for $5.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top