oooh great not even this games are saving the ps3 xd

I know who don't have a Wii- Michael J. Foxx and Muhammad Ali
This is simply because Wii requires pinpoint control of your hand and arms for some things.
Hold two pens in one hand and put your arm directly out. If your arm or hand is shaking, don't buy a wii.

That maybe true. You do get Bang for your Buck and I think the PS3 is a good system [Based on bang for buck]

But I'd use the Wii for fun and I'd prefer the cheaper 360 ANYDAY

Think about it. You can have the HD Player [IF YOU WISH] and the Games won't cost asmuch because they're not BlueRay + the GFX are the same really


And if a PS3 can play Music while you play games then thats a good Idea [Whats that? Excite Trucks]

I'd hate to close down my Game to play Music =/ - If you can then thats a GOOD idea from sony and I'd stick by that..

Dude, just stop saying stupid stuff. My friend has freakin tremors in his hands and he's beaten Ultimate Alliance (which is better for the Wii because of the way it utilizes the controls) twice. Normal and Hard. You don't have to have perfect eye-hand coordination to play the Wii. All you PS3 fanboys are always complaining about how the Wii is for little kids...little kids don't have good eye-hand coordination; in fact most have terrible eye-hand coordination.

Ok this is bugging me. WHY would you want blue ray games? Because blue ray discs at the moment can hold up to 50Gigabytes. That means bigger and better games, better textures and more detail.

That was kind of dumb of you so ask that question.

As for the graphics, better graphics will ALWAYs enhance a game, never the opposite. Keep that in mind.

By the way, your missing the point of a multi-media device. The fact you can do a lot on one unit as compared to many smaller units. It is basically a PC, but as history has shown, not everyone is into computers. Its a shame really, i think the world would better off with only computers and no consoles. But for higher accessability, they exist and the more you can do with one, more usefulness you can get out of it. Think swiss army knife with media.

And to add to SSBB_Lovers Post...

The PS3 HAD to take the Rumble out because it messed up the Motion Sensor when it Rumbled (None of that It's not needed shite)

Sony just can't think of Ideas

And just because HOME is coming out before Nintendo wants a Mii chat doesn't make it theirs

DS's can use Chat if they're close enough (I dunno about far distances I aint tried it)

They just don't bring out Ideas!

What's all these for? I mean, why do you guys need to say this sucks and that's good? Just play what you like. You don't really need to cast a damper on it. Say you like what you like, and say you don't like what you don't like. Don't try to force other people to think exactly like you.

We are saying what we like and don't like...we're not forcing our opinions on each other. Sure we're cussing at each other, maybe saying some things that are fanboyish...but that's the fun of debating over the console wars.

Why you should get a PS3:

*inserts huge laundry list of all of the future PS3 games and calls them all 'killer apps'*

Actually, I think this question has been asked before (though maybe not on this website). Blu-ray disks hold more data. The downside is longer loading times, to which the developers get creative with their solutions. Some games copy some data from the Blu-ray disk and put it on the HDD to save on loading times. However, the initial loading time will still be there (just subsequent ones will be shorter) and also, it means that the HDD will get full relatively quickly (depending on how many games you get - but considering the PS3 is for hardcore gamers/Loyalists - mostly, chances are they will want to build up a fair selection of titles).

That's not neccessarily true. Look at Mario Bros 3 for the NES and the graphically enhanced version on the SNES (part of Mario all-stars). It added nothing but a graphics upgrade, yet the NES version is still more widely remembered and recognised.

Well... Yeah, you got the point, actually... But you know, I just can't find any fun here... But anyways I think you're right :P

On the forum or on this thread? I can refer you to some threads that you would probably enjoy.

You know:

"When Do You Think You'll Die?"

"Be Converted to Emoism and the Gothic Culture"

" 'I Hate Everyone But Myself' Club"

"How to Kill Your Neighbor"

"Pyrotechnics, How You Can Involve It In Your Personal Life"

This place is full of fun stuff for everyone!!! (the last one actually sounds fun).

Graphics - The ONLY game I can think of where graphics matter to me is Fifa. It's not so much Graphics than it is Licences. Imo if a game is trying to be realistic then it has to do WELL. Which is why I prefer Fifa over Pro Evolution, Fifa is more realistic in the kits etc.

Anyways what im trying to say is that Graphics sometimes do make a game more enjoyable [On FIFA I can tell who's scored without checking the back of the Shirt because it's realistic]

Though most of the time I'll go for Gameplay FIFA is an Exception. So GFX are still important [You can't bring out a game now with Pacman GFX - Were going into HD now]

I'm having enough fun here in Wiichat! I just can't find any fun here in this particular subject...War between consoles... lol Well.. Honestly, it's because I don't know a lot about consoles, so that's why I'm not enjoying this

thats SO relative =S if not remeber old nintendo days ?? super mario is one of the best games ever and need not much than a minimun of bytes to work and to entertain a lot of people

bigger doesnt mean better and vice versa

The nes version is widely remembered by us older gamers and as its considered a classic. Using that as a counter point to the graphics quote is moot as they cant be comparable. Of course we could always go back to 8bit graphics since they dont seem to matter right?

The history of remakes is a tricky thing, because people