PlayStation 3 or Nintendo Wii?

[Manny Cav]

How much does it cost to hire a game development team and everything needed to produce an "average" game as compared to a movie cast and everything to make an "average" movie? There are plenty of factors besides the ones landbeforetimelover is brining out, such as if more (or less...) games are being released than movies, if they need to charge more money off of games to overcome console production costs and other stuff, etc. Does anybody here remember the days when a SNES game was $80? $80!?

[landbeforetimelover]

I could see paying a lot for a cartrage game.  After all, it cost more to make all that plastic and metal than just a stupid flimsy breakable piece of thin plastic called a disk. :

[action9000]

Yep, Sure do, Manny.
The cost of developing a cartridge is somewhere in the realm of $10...compared to the cost of a CD or DVD, which is far less than $0.25 these days.  No wonder cartridge-based games were so expensive.  Most I ever spent on a cartridge game was for Super Mario RPG for the SNES...over $85, soon after its release.

[WeirdRaptor]

landbeforetimelover, they do have to make a profit. The cost of the disk, itself, is not the only factor. They spend a lot of money making the games, themselves, the cost of the disk just as a disk, itself, is not a notable factor. Its making back themoney they spent while in production of the game, itself, and it'd appreciate if you cut the attitude, landbeforetimelover. You constant coming down hard on games in every remark you make is getting old fast. Just so you know: No, movies are not more expensive than video games to make. Its more on a project to project basis.
Not to mention that DVDs can afford to be less expensive. They're the video release of something that was already displayed publically for a while. A lot of the time, the filmmakers get their money made back before the video release. Video games only have a video release. The store shelves are the only place they will make money.

[LBTFan13]

I chose the Wii for two main reasons.

1. The price for the PS3 was REDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!! There was no way I could spend $500 - $600 just to get that one system. Now, if it included games with a package or something for the same price, then I would have gotten it. However, the Wii was at the reasonable price of $250, so I leaned towards that.

2. I looked at the launch titles for both games, and I felt more excited for Zelda, Wii Sports, and Red Steel. Don't get me wrong though, Resistance Fall of Man is a great game, but that would have been the only reason why I would get the PS3. Also, I looked at future releases and found games like Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, and of course, Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was anticipating the Wii games more than the PS3 games.

[action9000]

To be fair, comparing a PS3 to a Wii is comparing apples and oranges.  They are for very different audiences, for very different purposes.  I own both and I enjoy both, for different reasons.  While my setup at home doesn't let me fully get the PS3 'experience' (that's more what the PS3 is gearing towards - the overall experience), I do see what it's trying to do.

For the most part, I'd say it's doing it quite well, though the PS3's serious downfall so far has been the lack of games produced for it.  The EB Games shelf in the store closest to me has only 2 shelves dedicated to PS3 games, off in a little corner.  The Wii takes up a good 1/4 of the right-hand wall.  Compared to the Wii though, is the *quantity* of variety of games much different?

Here's why I question it:  many people who are "anti-PS3" see these two aspects of it as deterrants:
1) It's too expensive (which is true, it is expensive).
2) There aren't any good games for it.

Compared to the PS3...does the Wii have that many "good" games?  Of course, that *entirely* depends on what you consider to be a "good" game.  But what are the most popular Wii games (in no particular order)?
1) Wii Sports
2) Wii Play?
3) Smash Bros. Brawl
4) maybe mario Galaxy?
5) Zelda (which is also on Gamecube)
6) Mario Kart, when it's released internationally

Okay, there are a few well-known Wii games.  Let's look at what are typically considered "good" PS3 games (aka. the most popular):

1) Dynasty Warriors 6
2) Gran Turismo 5: Prologue
3) Rock Band
4) Call of Duty 4
5) Devil May Cry 4
6) Assassin's Creed

There's 6 games for both systems for us to look at.  Now, let's look at what else is available on both systems:

Wii:  the majority of games are either
Mini-game/party games (and LOTS of them!)
sports games
(basically, games that promote casual fun among a group of players)

PS3: the majority of games are
Shooters
action/killing-things games
Racing games
(basically, games that can potentially look very pretty and be very immersive with a high-end home theatre system)

Bottom line:
The Wii is primarily geared towards good casual fun, typically in a group setting, though the potential is there for solo gamers.  To be fair though, not many Wii games have much longevity as solo games.

The PS3 is primarily focused on creating a gaming *experience* for one or two players, perhaps more over an online/LAN game.  The PS3 is for those people who prefer watching movies in the theatre because of the experience.  If you don't get that *feeling* from watching movies in a theatre or an amazing home-theatre system over a "normal" TV at home, you probably won't see the "intended" appeal of the PS3, either.  Again, to be fair, a number of PS3 games do suffer from lack of content (namely, many of the games are quite short).

As further proof of the fact that the PS3 is all about the immersive experience, here's a little "case study":
How many of you have ever played or seen Dynasty Warriors 6, Burnout Paradise, or other PS3 game with small text?  How many of you have tried to read this text on a standard-definition TV?  Yeah...it's almost impossible.
A PS3 almost Requires a high-def TV in order to be fully playable.  Some elements of the game (text, map details, etc.) are literally impossible to see on a standard TV. Sad but true.

A more complex discussion is PS3 vs. X-box 360 but we can leave that for another topic.
(btw, I don't have a 360 )

Any thoughts?

[Littlefoot1616]

Good points raised Action but again, I'd say it's all subjective. It's all down to personal taste. I know for sure that there are games for both consoles that I love playing. In terms of hard facts, apparently (according to Gamespot.com) the Wii outsold the PS3 by 4:1 at the end of the last calendar year. I've still heard people on street shunning the Wii as a "kiddie" console and I doubt this is a trait any Nintendo machine will ever shake off. But this is where I think Nintendo are smart by, not necessarily proving them right (coz there are a few adult orientated games out for Wii) but they are playing on the "kiddie" concept by making it more appealing to families. Hence, the key to its success.

Don't get me wrong, I've got a PS3 and I love the games I've got for it! I love the hi-def graphics and complexity of what you see on screen (not that I've gone for the whole hi-def experience...but maybe one day :^.^: ). The Wii is no match for the PS3's graphical processing power from a physical point of view and the results of what it can produce are stunning. And it's online play is great fun.

Still, as previously stated, it's all subjective I reckon. I personally pick out a console of the games that it promises rather than its graphical capabilities. I don't own a 360 but that doesn't mean I won't play one. The only thing that prevents me from getting one is that the games don't really appeal to me (bar a few exceptions, BioShock for one).

[mcr mad]

i have a wii and it bore's the hell out of me its just way to easy, and the ps3 is way to pricey so the only one left which for some reason an't here <_< :  is the 360, i got one and i play it all the time :^.^:

[action9000]

There is one distinct problem with the PS3 when you consider its true purpose.

The PS3 is considered basically, an entertainment center all-in-one.  It's advertised to be a DVD/Blu-ray player, as well as being able to network to a media server for movies/music/pictures, etc. and of course, play video games.

Two problems with this:
1) NOISE!

Anybody who has ever been around a PS3 after it's been running for more than a few minutes knows that this is a considerable issue.  A ps3, whether it's playing games, watching movies or just sitting there on the main menu, runs very loudly in order to keep itself cool.  The problem is, this excessive noise is a severe issue in an entertainment setup.  A quiet scene in a movie will potentially be drowned out by the PS3's fan.  If you're forced to keep the volume low when watching movies (as I am) it can be an issue for most of the movie.  The fan noise detracts from the movie being played, in short.

Of course, one option is to move the system into another room or in a cabinet, but the system generates so much heat that it needs ventilation.  A small or closed cabinet is out of the question.  The alternative?  Another room, which requires a lot of cables (which gets expensive and introduces EMI noise and signal degradation, not to mention the challenge of hiding wires).  It also makes operating the system more unwieldly, especially if the system is moved out of range of the wireless controller (which obviously can't be done or you're completely stuck ).

2) Wear and tear on the Blu-ray drive

Games don't typically leave the disc spinning and the drive working for long periods of time on-end.  Playing movies, however, is a constant stress on the blu-ray drive (this was also an issue with the PS2).  In short - playing movies on your PS3 will potentially shorten the system's lifespan due to increased chance of a drive failure.

The PS3 is best-suited to high-end entertainment systems which can perform at higher volumes.  The problem is, if you have a high-end entertainment system, you can probably afford (and would want) a dedicated blu-ray player, so....
(then again, you don't need a high-end system to get high volumes.  My makeshift home-theatre system in my mom's old house was dirt-cheap to set up and it performed pretty good. )

[Cyberlizard]

I don't even see any reason to get blu-ray anyway if you can't afford a HDTV.  I don't even care about whether my videos are HD or SD.  Sure, it all looks prettier in HD, but I still don't really care because it's price is way beyond my income.  

[action9000]

The joys of working at an electronics store: I get cheap cool stuff.
I don't have an HD TV yet but I may pick one up in the near future when I am able to apply my staff discount.