Tell me why the Wii U is a better buy than a 360 at this point of time?

#51The_Blue_StuffPosted 11/26/2012 9:42:20 PM
Newbie00 posted...
Darklight776 posted...
Pesmerga255 posted...
Newbie00 posted...
According to reggie, multiplats run better.


Yeah, it only took them 7 years to catch up.


And it only took MS and Sony 7 years to copycat Nintendo.


Childish response.

How old are you?


childish response toa childlike remark... seems justifiable.
---
This is what I do at work -http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1650/dragonu.png
GamefaqsCommunity-http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/image/535
#52PsienceWinsPosted 11/26/2012 9:43:31 PM
It's not. The 360 has a larger, more robust library with a better online component for cheaper. I already own a 360. I love it. I also love my Wii U. But if I had to choose one it would be the 360.
---
Reverse trolling. One of my many talents.
#53Council_of_RagePosted 11/26/2012 9:45:32 PM
From: Foofyhead | #036
You mean the ones that are on the PS3? The ones that you can play on a system that doesn't have a huge failure rate, better dashboard equivalent, better controller, better online service (I mean + compared to Live, not necessarily actual online play)? I'm sure there are other things out there I've forgotten to mention, but what does 360 have going for it? I actually think a new system (Wii U) has more going for it than the 360.


I've never had a 360 fail on me, and as far as I know the hardware issues have been solved for a while now. Aren't there a bunch of WiiU systems getting bricked??

360 controller is leagues better, dashboard doesn't matter IMO but at least the 360 has features like optional full game installs to reduce load times and the custom music player. I don't play online for either system, and I view PSN Plus as a waste of money since it's just an expensive rental service which throws a lot of content at you, but it's a lot of stuff I either don't want, don't have time to play, have played already, or would rather purchase on disc.

360 also has better graphics and performance than both the WiiU or PS3, go check Digital Foundry comparisons.

360 is the total package, it's less expensive, the game library is better, best graphics and performance (PS3 is crap in comparison for some games like Bayonetta, RE5, CoD titles, Rage, GTA IV and Red Dead Revolver, etc.).

And the game library is definitely better than PS3. We get The Witcher 2, Gears of War trilogy, Halo series, Lost Odyssey, Dead Rising, Alan Wake, and tons of XBLA stuff.
---
Sony's 10 Year Plan for PS3: YLOD, worse multiplats, remove features, crappy online, gimmicks, last gen ports, installs
Sony's Vita plan: There is no plan =(
#54Golden MavenPosted 11/26/2012 9:51:18 PM
Foofyhead posted...
More than just some people have had a 360 fail on them, and it wasn't just last night this started happening, it has been happening since '06.


Right... So you totally sidestepped my comment about being too early to measure the Wii-U's failure rate at this point.
#55FoofyheadPosted 11/26/2012 10:05:52 PM
360 controller is leagues better than what? The gamepad? I think both have their pros and cons. Also, the Wii U has a 360-like controller anyway, but you can't use it for anything! One of the many faults of the console.

The U is new, and the full game install thing will come along, I'm sure of it (for the U).

You'll have to specify if you meant the PS3-360 comparison with those two things, I'm not so sure now.

You view the PS+ as a waste of money? Haha, that's a real sad thing. The PS+ offers so many free games, I wouldn't have to buy any games at all every year, that's not even mentioning the Vita version (which is included). And don't even mention the games are crap, if they aren't minis, they're usually top-rated games (minis aren't bad either though). Sure, go head and tell me Saint's Row 2, InFamous 2, and Far Cry 2, etc, suck, that's subjective, but objective is how popular the games that Sony 'gives' me each month are. We can't measure subjectivity objectively, so why bother? I measure the value of a console and it's perks by how popular they are. Every person I've suggested get + (or who already has it) is blown away with the free things (and how awesome the games are) they get. Live has nothing even remotely similar to that subscription. What does 60 bucks a year get you? The same thing PSN gets you for free. And + is about 4 dollars a month, so I'm getting hundreds of dollars in value (about 600) for 50 bucks a year? Sign me up!

Nah, it actually doesn't, the DF has been proven to be false already, I really wouldn't quote that source.

360 isn't the total package at then really. and the package comes delivered with a time bomb in it anyway.

I can't comment on multiconsole differences, but the few games I've had multiple copies of run better on the PS3, and look better. And the controller is better as well.

Library quality is irrelevant, those games are great and everything, but I could spout off a bunch nonsense about they suck, and how PS3 exclusives are awesome. I won't though. Quality is in the eye of the beholder, obviously we all know that. So I'll stop here with bashing the 360. I'm just saying that as of this moment, the Wii U has not had as many problems as the 360, that's almost subjective as well though. Anyway, 6 years from now, when/if millions of U's are bricking, then we can say the 360 wasn't worse, at the very least.

Now, anyone who wants to can comment after this, and tell me I'm wrong, but why bother with wasting your time and mine? If it can be proven one thing is true that I don't believe, fine, try to convince me, otherwise, I'm done. Send me a PM or something, instead of continuing to beat this dead horse about which console is the best. Honestly, which ever console has the RPGs I want to play is the best.
---
Slow drivers should have their own roads to use, special roads for special drivers. Or, there should be a lane for these special people. Maybe the right lane.
#56RetroFanGirlPosted 11/26/2012 10:19:57 PM
Already has more exclusives worth playing than 360 within the first month of release.
---
I'm playing:
Shinobi(PS2) ~ Xenoblade ~ Kirby's Air Ride
#57AstralFrostPosted 11/26/2012 10:21:24 PM
6 pages of people failing at justifying why their new console is better than a 7 year old console. The simple answer is, it isn't. In fact its running the same games WORSE than said 7 year old console. Not sure what it can do thats worthwhile with that in mind.

"But the devs were lazy and didn't optimise it!" is a weak excuse at best. The fact of the matter is that the same games are WORSE on the Wii U than previous gen consoles. Next gen console? Don't make me laugh. How can it be a successful next gen console if its already surpassed by its previous gen? Thats how far behind the curve Nintendo is.

"But they made lots of sales!" Yeah IOS makes lots of sales too. Those IOS games are so hardcore right? The majority of people buying IOS, Wii and Wii U games are casuals, and thats why those systems end up with casual games and struggle to play anything actually worthwhile.
#58Council_of_RagePosted 11/27/2012 12:47:26 AM
From: Foofyhead | #055
360 controller is leagues better than what? The gamepad? I think both have their pros and cons. Also, the Wii U has a 360-like controller anyway, but you can't use it for anything! One of the many faults of the console.


I was talking about compared to PS3 controller, actually.

Game Pad is cool I guess, the touch interface can be useful. I don't care for the right stick & face buttons being swapped compared to... well, every controller that came before it. At least it's comfortable to hold and not cramped like DualShock. But I think 360 pad is still a little better.

The U is new, and the full game install thing will come along, I'm sure of it (for the U).


Not a chance. WiiU games take up too much disc space. And it doesn't seem like something Nintendo would patch in.

You view the PS+ as a waste of money? Haha, that's a real sad thing. The PS+ offers so many free games, I wouldn't have to buy any games at all every year, that's not even mentioning the Vita version (which is included). And don't even mention the games are crap, if they aren't minis, they're usually top-rated games (minis aren't bad either though). Sure, go head and tell me Saint's Row 2, InFamous 2, and Far Cry 2, etc, suck, that's subjective, but objective is how popular the games that Sony 'gives' me each month are. We can't measure subjectivity objectively, so why bother? I measure the value of a console and it's perks by how popular they are. Every person I've suggested get + (or who already has it) is blown away with the free things (and how awesome the games are) they get. Live has nothing even remotely similar to that subscription. What does 60 bucks a year get you? The same thing PSN gets you for free. And + is about 4 dollars a month, so I'm getting hundreds of dollars in value (about 600) for 50 bucks a year? Sign me up!


Do you have time to actually play all those games? Especially with all the slow PSN downloading speeds you have to deal with. How long does it take you to DL a full game? You also never know what games are coming to the service, and they rotate out. I'd rather choose what I want to play. There are just too many drawbacks. I haven't even played my PS3 in months because I'm too busy playing games for other platforms (yeah, I own all of them). That would be like wasted money if I had a PSN Plus membership. I'd feel compelled to spend my time playing stuff from PSN Plus instead of other (better) games that I have. And if I'm not using PSN Plus at the moment, I have to keep paying the money so that my downloads don't disappear. Yup... The games disappear when your membership ends. You're being locked into a cycle of paying to keep the downloads.

It's probably a cool deal if you're a more casual gamer who isn't picky about what they play and PS3 is the ONLY game system you have so you can just focus on playing your PSN Plus downloads, but it's just not worth it for me.

Nah, it actually doesn't, the DF has been proven to be false already, I really wouldn't quote that source.


I've always found them to be reliable, and I do sometimes have multiplats on both consoles and have compared myself.

I can't comment on multiconsole differences, but the few games I've had multiple copies of run better on the PS3, and look better. And the controller is better as well.


Which ones are those? And no, the DualShock is a relic that causes hand cramps and the L2/R2 triggers feel terrible.
---
Sony's 10 Year Plan for PS3: YLOD, worse multiplats, remove features, crappy online, gimmicks, last gen ports, installs
Sony's Vita plan: There is no plan =(
#59Council_of_RagePosted 11/27/2012 12:47:31 AM
Honestly, which ever console has the RPGs I want to play is the best.


So, Xbox 360 then?
---
Sony's 10 Year Plan for PS3: YLOD, worse multiplats, remove features, crappy online, gimmicks, last gen ports, installs
Sony's Vita plan: There is no plan =(
#60AXKSIONPosted 11/27/2012 12:50:05 AM
360 has no games and relies heavily on their Failo and Bears of Bore trash.
---
http://i1306.photobucket.com/albums/s574/akxsion/Nintendo.png http://i1306.photobucket.com/albums/s574/akxsion/SMRPG.jpg