Jump to content

They shouldn't be compared


Zurg
 Share

Recommended Posts

People at my school today got in a fist fight over a console war. Does anyone else think it's stupid to compare the two? They were made for different reasons and I think they both serve those reasons. The PS3 and Sony favors Single Player games. The Xbox360 and Microsoft favor multiplayer games and has 'Live' to support that claim. The argument "PS3 is better because you don't have to pay" is invalid because online games on the 360 that are also on the PS3, are so much better and lag free on the 360. Just look at Call of Duty: Black Ops.

 

Please discuss the idiocy.

 

Disclaimer:

I don't own an Xbox360, but I have previously had one (red ring of death of coarse).

To the PC players who think:

-The PC kicks console's ass in every way.

-Or, you make the claim "PC players have way more accuracy than Console players."

This is all I have to say to you:

Though you have a mouse and an i7, that does not make you a superior breed of human. I play PC, I should know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing consoles shouldn't be done, but games can be compared.

 

But with that, games can only compared under certain conditions.

 

Like:

 

Don't compare 2 total different genres. Ex: Platformers and FPS's.

Don't compare an older game to a new game in terms of graphics and power.

 

Etc,etc,etc.

 

But you have a point: Microsoft clearly owns the online district of gaming, and Sony dominates the single player market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.