Quote:
You aren't speaking english very well sir. Perhaps you can teach a course on whatever contradictory value set you'd like to espouse at a public seminar. To say this is to hold a contradictory and totally incompatible set of aesthetic principles.
I think what you need to do actually, is look up the word "better" and understand why it is egregiously broad, as well as inaccurate, for the point you are trying to make.
Better wrote:
of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech.
It would seem you are the one who doesn't understand english very well. I am only talking about the facts, not opinions. If you're going to include which system has the games that you prefer, then you're bringing opinions into this. The PS3 is superior to the 360, as a system. But if the only type of games you like to play are FPS (opinion), then you sure as hell shouldn't be buying a PS3 over a 360.
Quote:
The potential for an excellent game was capped somewhere around the super nintendo, well, maybe ps1, considering the dual analog control. The only thing to improve aside from that is graphics, without radically altering the interface to the point of being unrecognizable (like VR or something.)
At this point I'm starting to think you're going delusional. Metal Gear Solid 1 has
nothing on Metal Gear Solid 4. Why? Because they were able to fit
so much more on a blu-ray than on 2 CDs. A better interface, a better enemy AI, better graphics(which actually do matter, because some games work infinitely better when they look realistic.), a longer story, etc. To say games can't potentially get any better after the PS1 stage is plain retarded.
Quote:
Furthermore, I don't know why you'd care to talk about technological potential at all if you're trying to distance it from prescribing a console to someone either. Once you do that anything you say is actually irrelevant, by your own admission, instead of simply misguided. If you don't want to use technological specifications to decide what console to buy, then what's the point in talking about them? You clearly want to say something right? Well it's not a prescription to buy something, and it's not a prescription on what console has better games... Facts are impotent if you don't do anything with them man.
You can't make a factual statement if you include game preference either, so what's your point? "Oh, the PS3 has an edge over the 360 in everything hardware and software, but I really like Halo so the 360 is the superior system." It's not a fact if it changes from person to person. From the standpoint of a developer, which system will result in the highest quality game? It's easy to see from the hardware differences alone that the answer is the PS3. That is the point I'm making.
Quote:
If by fanboyism you mean useful and specific advice, instead of pointless fanwanking, yes. Now I am totally up for some fanwanks, but there's no need to delude ourselves that they pertain to anything at all which is important.
So, if in my personal opinion all the 360 exlusives don't hold a candle to MGS4, it's now a fact that the PS3 is the superior system? And this fact applies to everybody, amirite? And if instead I think Halo is the best game ever, it means that 360 is miles ahead of PS3, and therefore I should tell everybody that it's a fact that the 360 is the best system to buy. I'm sorry, but you seem to think that opinions relating to game preference hold any meaning at all when it comes to comparing the technological differences between two systems.
If you want to talk about which is a better buy instead, then we can include game preference and split our decisions into groups depending on which types of games a person may like. So we can expect to have over a minimum of 200 different answers. Oh, and don't forget that we have to include that a PS3 will also be able to play blu-ray movies whereas with a 360 you'll have to buy a blu-ray player, so we can double the categories we're splitting our answers into to include "Wants to watch HD movies" and "Doesn't want to watch HD movies".
