Discussion in 'Games' started by Handmaiden Yané, Oct 17, 2006.
Hasn't the 360 been portrayed almost exclusively in the vertical orientation, though?
Yes, but it's better horizontal. I recall my old 360 scratching a game while vertical and gamestop told me to play horizontally.
I believe that, as long as your Xbox has an HDMI port, it's 3D-capable.
As far as the safety of it being vertical, it depends on how sturdy the system itself is. Movement on the actual console is what will cause the disc to be scratched.
If you own(ed) a launch 360, though, keeping it vertical kept it well-ventilated, and mitigated the chances of red-ringing your system. The newer models don't really have this problem. Ours is a launch console (never RROD-ed, thank goodness), but one which had its original chipset replaced gratis by Microsoft with the Jasper set about three years back, when we sent it in for a completely-unrelated issue (a faulty internal HDMI connector).
We've kept it vertical mostly out of habit, but we've never had so much as a single scratched disc, either, fortunately.
The launch 360 didn't have HDMI?
I don't think so
I know it didn't, that's why the comment about having a HDMI connector repaired on a launch 360 confuses me.
I should've clarified that a bit -- back around 2007/2008, after the release of the 360 Premium series, Microsoft offered a program for launch console owners where, for a fee, you could send your system to a service center, and they'd upgrade/install HDMI 1.3 output (changing out the rear panel, etc.), allowing full HD connectivity and letting you do away with your component cables.
It was this procedure which ultimately required an additional bit of tweaking for us -- the HDMI interface stopped transmitting signal after a period of time, and it was when we sent our system in again that they also ended up replacing the motherboard chipset for free, et al.
Yeah, it's an early system I have- says 10-24-2006.
Since I only have the one game for now, and it's already used anyways (something that can be replaced relatively inexpensively), I think I'll stick with the vertical orientation unless i see additional scratches from doing so, as I'd rather have the ventilation benefit (plus, it fits in the corner of the shelf that way perfectly, without me having to out a PS2 on top of it).
Get on that Mass Effect-thing soon, 2nd -- you can actually beat the main storyline in a pretty reasonable amount of time, and you'll be all set up for the Yvonne Strahovski Simulato...um...I mean, Mass Effect 2.
It's high on my list- but after months of Zelda games and Zelda-inspired games, I'm ready for some lighter fare. I think after Mario Galaxy/NSMBW I may tackle it- though I may get it started inbetween.
The Lego games are great for something lighter. Costume Quest is also great fun, as is the add on 'Grubbins on Ice'. Check out Gotham City Imposters too, it's not out yet but the demo is fun and a light-ish take on multiplayer shooters.
Definitely pre-order Mass Effect 3 though, even if it just sits on a shelf for a while it'll be worth it for the any bonuses and/or the special edition.
One if my friends, an offline 360 gamer, just recently got a ps3. He has since been talking about how much better the ps3 is because psn is free and because ps3 games are "true" 1080p.
Is he right with his assessment? I believe 360 games are also in 1080p, and that live is superior to psn.
So, which one is really better?
Not in my experience. Many multiplatform games run at lower resolutions than the 360. First party games hardly run at 1080p either, most run at 720p and below, same as 360.
So, you're saying that ps3 games run at lower resolutions than their 360 counterparts?
How does psn compare to live? Are the features identical? What is the difference with psn+?
I just read a cnet and ign comparison between these consoles and each article declared the ps3 as the victor due to superior hardware components...
Well if you want to play PS3 exclusives and free online play, then get a PS3. There really isn't much worth debating any more, pretty much every game looks and runs the same on both platforms (except Skyrim).
What's up with Skyrim?
PS3 version has a performance crippling bug. It'll probably be fixed though.
[link=http://news.softpedia.com/news/Skyrim-s-PlayStation-3-Save-Game-Lag-Issues-Explained-by-Fallout-New-Vegas-Developer-238735.shtml]The Skyrim issue explained, kinda[/link]. I tried finding the original page but this'll do as it has the key points.
As for PSN vs XBL, I can't really say which is best as I don't have a PS3. I am pleased with the XBL service though and don't mind paying for it. I have tried looking for a feature comparison list but I couldn't seem to find a recent one.
One thing I will mention is that the 360 has Mass Effect 1 whereas the PS3 doesn't. Also, if you plan to play a lot of old PS2/XBox titles then a 360 would be best as the newer PS3s don't support PS2 games but the 360 does support a lot of XBox games.
So I have one of the old white Pro 360's, and just upgraded from a 32" television to a 60". I used to not be able to detect much of a difference between component cables and the HDMI cable on my PS3, but now the difference is vast. My 360 games just do not look that good anymore now that I can see all the flaws component cables have. Is there an HDMI option on my 360, or do I need to upgrade to a Slim in order to be able to use one? I've heard there are converters but I'm not sure if they're still in production.
I'm not well-versed in how good imitation HDMI-solutions (ie. converters, etc) are, but in my personal (and perhaps not so educated) opinion, true HD requires an HDMI cable. I've never played on a 360 without and HDMI cable, but I can tell you that my Slim looks gorgeous (AC3 and ME3 in particular).
Yeah that's what I hear. I'll probably just suck it up (aka buy all my games on the PC or PS3) until the next Xbox releases.
I doubt it's the cable, most games aren't running at 1080p anyway and component can do 720....
Huh. So what would be the reason for his ps3 looking better than his 360?