I own both. 360 wins out in my eyes.
PS3 isn't bad, but it has a less robust (though free and decent) online service. However, due to it being free, there's a significant degree of dodgy shit going on in most online games, since being account banned isn't an issue. Also no parties or free microphone.
360 has a better controller. Worse D-Pad, but everything else is better.
PS3 has a smaller failure rate, though I've been through 8 PS3s as opposed to 11 360s, including 1 Slim PS3 and 1 Slim 360. Generally though, the PS3 dies less.
Both have a bunch of good games (previously wasn't the case). Multiplatform games tend to perform better on 360 (if at all). Either console is suitable for that.
Whoa, fanboy alert!
Ieyke said:
Uh... There's actually just about an equal amount of content PS3 gets BEFORE 360.
No, there isn't. There are some, but not as many. Microsoft pays through the nose for that kind of thing.
Ieyke said:
Because it's simply shouldn't be optional..... It's how they manage to store games like RAGE on one disc so you don't have to uninstall the first half and then install the second half.
And just generally they don't have to worry about running out of space for huge games like Skyrim (which they sadly decided to keep cut down so it would fit on a single 360 disc) or Metal Gear Solid 4.
While Blu-Ray is decent, half of the PS3 games require an install, which is ludicrous. Besides, which seems more reasonable - Cheaper hardware and identical, cheaper games on multiple disks, or a more expensive block of hardware and more expensive software for the sake of not having to swap a disk once in a blue moon (if at all).
More space is lovely, but the point still stands. If you're going to go on that argument, then any PC gamer can rail off that all titles are chopped down to accommodate consoles. Also, Skyrim wasn't cut down.
Ieyke said:
......L2 and R2 are triggers.....
No they aren't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. They
act as triggers, but are far from it. They're closer to the Z button on the N64 controllers.
Ieyke said:
So really you just have a problem with developers doing stupid button-mapping, and maybe not giving you the proper option to remap the way you want it?
It's more to do with consistency. Some PS3 games have entirely controls that make no sense and are out of left-field. Full button mapping is lacking across all consoles, but at least the others have common consistency.
Ieyke said:
The 360 controller is so awkwardly shaped and the inane d-pad/analog stick flip is just retarded. Maybe if you have tiny midget hands or something it might be comfortable, but my huge mitts can't stand it. It's almost as bad as the Dreamcast controller.
Aside from the flawed d-pad, the 360 controller is a very ergonomic controller. The positioning of the d-pad is fine, just the style of it ruins it's purpose. The rest of the controller is great, both from a personal and ergonomic standpoint. Also, your statement doesn't make much sense - The 360 controller is larger than the PS3 controller. Better suited for large hands.
Aside from shape, the 360 controllers are a much more pleasant thing to use. The Dualshock thumbsticks are awful, and the controller itself feels very cheap and plastic-y. Thankfully controller adapters exist so I can use my Onza TE on the PS3!