PS3 vs 360: Decisions, Decisions

[chuckro]

Amazon.com helpfully sent me the new FF13 trailer this morning. Bastards.

Final Fantasy XIII (both, Mar 9, 2010)
It’s so pretty. I wants it, precious. And the summon monsters apparently transform into vehicles? I wants it!

Final Fantasy Versus XIII (PS3, no release date)
Square-Enix has been leaning more heavily towards the 360; I’m not sure I want to place odds that this will stay exclusive. Also I have no idea when it’ll actually be released. I’m still waiting with baited breath of Dragon Quest 6 and 9 for the DS, which will hopefully be due out this year.

Disgaea 3 (PS3)
Seems to be keeping everything I liked about the earlier Disgaea games, and I liked the improvements from Disgaea 1 to Disgaea 2, so I have high hopes for the new stuff.

Cross Edge (PS3)
The fact that Nippon Ichi has thrown its weight behind the PS3 is an argument in its favor. Last Rebellion is also going to be PS3-exclusive, due out in February.

Beautiful Katamari (360)
Katamari Forever (PS3)
Whichever system I buy, I’ll buy the Katamari game for it. I get the distinct impression that Katamari Forever is a better game, though, and focuses much less on making you buy DLC to get everything that comes with it.

Dynasty Warriors 6 (both)
It’s only real advantage over the rest of the series, as far as I can tell, is that it’s much prettier on the newer systems. Heck, there’s a PS2 version of this, too. Dynasty Warriors: Strikeforce also interests me, but that’s also coming for both systems.

Lost Odyssey (360)
Apparently this plays like a Final Fantasy game with some elements of Shadow Hearts thrown in. That seems like something I’d very much enjoy.

Blue Dragon (360)
Seems to be full of things I like, though noted for its difficulty.

The Last Remnant (360)
The battle system is apparently a cross between jrpg and battlefield strategy. I’m not sure how I’ll feel about that—I’d kinda like to see it firsthand. This is apparently also available for PC, though that would require a significant upgrade to my system.

Infinite Undiscovery (360)
Real-time combat and made by the Star Ocean guys. On one hand, the story promises to be interesting. On the other hand, my experience with actually playing games made by Tri-Ace has been less than stellar.

Dragon Age: Origins (both)
I’ve been told I should play KOTOR or the like before bothering to go for this.

Star Ocean: The Last Hope (both)
See Infinite Undiscovery.

So, PS3 will have a side-story Final Fantasy game, the Nippon Ichi releases, and a better Katamari game. 360 seems to have a better overall catalogue including several jrpgs that I’m very interested in. What am I forgetting, here?

(Also noteworthy: I’d really rather avoid dealing with DLC/patching; my TV is not cool enough to derive any particular benefit from HD or blu-ray; the Wii is out of the running based on my experiences playing it at parties; and I have some 40 games in my DS/PS2/Gamecube backlog. Oh, and work and classes.)

Comments

[hyouneko.livejournal.com]

OOh, ooh, I know a LOT about this. (Yay for friends in the gaming industry)

So here's the deal, right now, the 360 has about a pretty sizable lead over the ps3 worldwide. It's something in the 7-8 million worldwide range. In the states, it's even larger, somewhere in the 9 million range. This is greatly effecting the publishers, as they need to sell a crapton of games to make up for development costs. Generally, unless the outfit is owned by Sony itself, or it's a Japanese company, at worst, they are going to make the games cross platform.

The kicker is that a lot of the game engines are more closely built for the 360. This is mainly because with the exception of the byte code itself, it makes it REALLY easy to port stuff to the PC. (It's literally a compiler setting for the most part). The two big ones highly optimized for the 360 are the Half-Life 2 engine (Portal, Left for Dead, Half Life 2) and the Unreal Engine (Gears of War, FF13, a stupid number of other games). Mind you, MS is partnered with Epic, who makes unreal, so this isn't much of a shock.

What all of this means, is that, right now, the platform of choice for the developers is the 360. The only reason some of the Japanese companies are holding out is because if they concentrate on Japan, the PS3 has a 4-1 advantage. While this effects some of the smaller firms, the larger ones like Namco-Bandai, Capcom, Konami and Square-Enix are generally building for both if not 360 exclusive as to maximize their revenue streams.

As for the games you've listed:
A lot of those have been on the 360 for a while now, while they're PS3 counterparts are just seeing the light of day. I know that Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Beautiful Katamari, Last Remnant, Infinite Undiscovery and Star Ocean are all under 35 bucks at Amazon right now. (They were originally built for the 360 and later ported to the PS3)

So, you're not really going to be able to get around patching of games. Both systems are internet aware and generally will phone home when you insert a game to make sure it's up to date. The process on the 360 is pretty seamless and only delays playing the game for a minute when installing the patch. Some PS3 games require installing them to the system before playing. On the 360, you have the option to do this with all games , but it's not mandatory. (I often do it to reduce load times anyway)

Also, be prepared that games from Japanese companies can tend to look squished/shitty when played on SD tvs. I think Japan has a higher HD adoption rate, so they just don't bother checking them on SD tvs.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

Generally, unless the outfit is owned by Sony itself, or it's a Japanese company, at worst, they are going to make the games cross platform.

As you may have noticed from my playing habits, the Japanese companies are really what matter to me. I play jrpgs, beat-em-ups (primarily Dynasty Warriors), and genre outliers like Katamari. (On the DS, I play jrpgs, easy platformers, metroidvanias, and minigame collections.)

Also, be prepared that games from Japanese companies can tend to look squished/shitty when played on SD tvs.

That would be an argument against buying either system for another two years, until I'm likely to move and have space to put a new, larger/HD TV.

The other argument for delaying further is the fact that my internet connection is on the other side of the apartment from where I'd hook up a console (and out of wireless range) so I'd need to deal with [censored] Comcast if I wanted to actually play anything.

(Outside of my annoyance at the apparent inability of console game companies to produce a full, finished game by their release date; which was part of what kept me off of PC gaming for the last two decades. Patching and DLC are an excuse to ship before the game's done and make us pay extra to make it playable.)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

The internet issue is going to be a big one for either system, since that's where TEH FUTURE OF GAMING is going, apparently.

It would be worth pointing out here that if internet connectivity is an issue, you can also get a lot of games that are on the XBOX for PC. That might be a vote in favor of the PS3, too, seeing as you could have cake (a PC to play popular XBOX titles) and eat it (especially if you're one of those Final Fantasy monsters that turns people into food and eats it).

[ecmyers.livejournal.com]

However, the Wii is wireless :) But it doesn't need to be online as much as those other games through. Oh, the irony!

[hyouneko.livejournal.com]

Patching and DLC are not excuses to ship before a game is "done."

1. DLC != game fixes. It's extra content. Generally extra levels and other such things. Fixes to the games are what are in patches. They're free, and in the XBox they require no effort from you beyond hooking the console up to the internet. If games AREN'T playable, all the way through, without the patch, they won't get through the cert process. Sometimes fatal flaws which prevent you from finishing do get through cert, but they are few and far between.

DLC = Extra stuff to add onto the game. Want more levels and maps? More songs in your music games? That's what DLC is. DLC is a more generic way of saying expansion pack.

2. Do you know why console games have a hard time making their release date? It's because games are much more complex than they used to be. You bitch about "full, finished" games not coming out yet you want them to hit certain dates. I'm assuming you mean "full, finished" games to be "bug free," in which case, that software doesn't exist anywhere. Nor has it ever. The complexity of the software grew, and there are more bugs in the system. Part of the software release process is figuring out which bugs you can live with; and which ones can you easily patch in the future. And the process for fixing bugs usually introduces other ones. It's just how software goes. It's not an exact science, and scheduling for such is...well...damn near impossible.

And, no, video games didn't use to be bug free. Quite the contrary, they just didn't have a patching mechanism. It's why some versions of FF6 in the states had the Item exploint and later ones didn't. They would patch the software but only release it on later carts.

As annoying as you may find it, console games are as complex as all other software, which means you have to live with the all of the idiosyncrasies of being real software.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

DLC != game fixes. It's extra content. Generally extra levels and other such things.

DLC--particularly referring to "unlocking data already on the disk," as apparently is the case with Katamari--is a blatant cash-grab, and excuse to sell you half a game at full price and then charge you more for the rest.

Do you know why console games have a hard time making their release date? It's because games are much more complex than they used to be.

And yet, console games have always had release date problems. SNES games--hell, NES games--were regularly pushed back six months or a year. It's not the complexity. It's the industry practices.

You bitch about "full, finished" games not coming out yet you want them to hit certain dates.

You're right. If I'm told a finished game will be available on X day by the manufacturer, I expect it on that day. I'm not making up these days, or demanding they be sooner. My only demand is that manufacturers actually budget time appropriately and stick to the dates they announced. If I tell my boss, "it'll be done on Tuesday", I can't tell him he'll have to wait until Friday if he wants it to be "as perfect as I can make it." If I couldn't get it done well until Friday, then I should have told him I'd get it to him on Friday. If you can't accurately guess, then why not pad the schedule, and risk having it earlier? Then, as a certain Scottish engineer would note, you'll get a reputation as a miracle worker.

(And no, nothing is ever perfect and bug-free. Nothing is ever perfect, it's a consequence of being made by people. But it doesn't have to be, it just has to be playable for the greater majority of consumers.)

It's why some versions of FF6 in the states had the Item exploint and later ones didn't.

The Item expolit (or the Relm sketch glitch, or Psycho Cyan, or the Vanish/X-Zone trick) weren't game-breaking. Heck, the average player was exceedingly unlikely to notice them unless they were pointed out. It's not the same as shipping an Obvious Beta. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ObviousBeta)

[hyouneko.livejournal.com]

So your comment about time budgeting shows that you don't actually work in software. The problem with software budgeting is not in the "i got it done" on this day. Software slips largely in part because of bugs in the code. Bug finding/fixing and stabilizing code are where you tend to slip. Bug fixes cause ripples in the code which usually cause other bugs. As you test the product farther, you find out, "shit, we need to fix x and y, but in order to do that we have to rewrite a." Unfortunately, A effects parts e-h as well, and you have to go back and make sure that all works.

And people in software DO pad their schedule, the problem is you can only pad so much before the entire thing will get canned. If you always pad too much and always come in early, then your told to fix your estimates.

As for patches, you can't get through cert if the game isn't playable out of the box with no patches. You can't ship an obvious beta on a 360 because it won't pass the cert process. Console patches fix various bugs like the Item exploit, but it's not as if the game isn't playable at all.

I'll give you the bit about Katamari. Mind you that was the only game I've heard doing that, and people threw a shit fit about it. I believe MS's latest cert requirements for DLC you can't do that anymore.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

And I'll note that as far as patching goes, the XBox is a lot more pleasant than the PS3, which seems to patch its operating system with a 10-20 minute download every week or so, and has games with patches that can take a half hour to download. On the XBox, the longest I've ever waited was a few minutes for a major operating system patch.

The only "Obvious Beta" games I've played recently have been on PCs, most notably Empire: Total War. Nothing on the consoles that I've played has been like that; they'll just have the occasional weird glitch that got missed in beta. Or they'll use MMO-like mechanics without proper testing so that you end up with the unpleasant campaign multiplayer in EndWar.