[tremoloman2006]

Now that both consoles are within reasonable cost to me, I am considering getting one of these two systems.

I like the idea of the Wii being easy to use, making it alluring to typical non-gamers (aka everyone I know).
I like how the PS3 gives me a Blue-Ray player but prefer games that don't require internet connections.

Is the Wii close to being replaced by a sequel?

Which is best for classic gaming?

Thanks in advance,
Trem

[Shawn Sr.]

Spring 2011 is the earliest date I've heard for the Wii 2. I still prefer the Wii over both the 360 and PS3 but $249 for a PS3 is a hell of a deal. If I had a Wii and had to pick say a $199 360 or a $249 PS3, I'd go with the PS3 myself.

[Crazy Climber]

Is the PS3 down to $249 now? I thought it was still $299?

[shadow460]

Go find yourself a used 60GB PS3 for the same $249 and buy that. Heck, being used it will probably come with some extras.

[BydoEmpire]

It really depends what kind of games you're looking for. The Wii has a lot of quirky and nichey stuff that's fun, but the PS3 has way more traditional types of games. I've been a big fan of my Wii since Day 1, but I don't see myself buying (m)any more games for it. At this point I'd go with a PS3.

With an internet connection, you've got the Wii's array of Virtual Console and Wiiware titles. There are also a lot of "classic-style" games, pick up and play stuff. For those reasons I'd say the Wii is "better" for classic gaming. It's also been hacked to run emus for a while, although you have to fight a stream of system updates to keep it working. Not sure what the state of emulation on ps3 is.

There is no word on the next Nintendo console, so it's all speculation. Seems awfully likely it will arrive much sooner than the PS4, but again, no hard info.

This post has been edited by BydoEmpire: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:03 PM

[Gabriel]

From your mention of Blu-Ray, I'm assuming you are interested in HD visuals and have a HDTV. I'm also assuming you're interested in a console with multiple functionality.

I strongly recommend the PS3. If $250 is really a stretch, and you're interested in classic games, make your first purchase Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection (which should be $20 or lower by now). I normally don't believe in ever buying a disc based system used, but the suggestion of getting a 60G backwards compatible model is one you should definitely consider.

[4Ks]

For classic gaming Wii is the definitive system to get. However, PlayStation 3 has far superior hardware, meaning more advanced games. But it really boils down to whether you prefer games such as Super Mario Galaxy, or more like Infamous.

This post has been edited by 4Ks: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:23 PM

[ericwierson]

tremoloman2006, on Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:12 PM, said:

Now that both consoles are within reasonable cost to me, I am considering getting one of these two systems.

I like the idea of the Wii being easy to use, making it alluring to typical non-gamers (aka everyone I know).
I like how the PS3 gives me a Blue-Ray player but prefer games that don't require internet connections.

Is the Wii close to being replaced by a sequel?

Which is best for classic gaming?

Thanks in advance,
Trem

Where are PS3s $249? Is it used? I just bought mine and it was $299 at Best Buy. As far as comparing them, I can say without a doubt that the PS3 is the choice. My Wii ( rather my daughters Wii ) is pretty boring. Of course there are some fun titles, but I hate the controller or the MANY controllers this console offers. It honestly feels like a different controller for every game. I know I am exaggerating, but c'mon, she literally has over 4 different type controllers; standard, nunchuk, pad, some type of steering wheel, and a board (I think). As for the PS3 I have one single controller for my games and it works for all my games (few though they may be). It just seems to me that Nintendo is making a fortune on all the stupid add-ons for their games.

[StanJr]

Pretty much in line with everyone else. If you are big into gameplay and enjoy playing games, particularly unique ones, the Wii is the way to go. If flashy graphics and modern traditional gameplay are more your forte, then either of the other systems will fill your need.

Wii for substance
PS3 for spectacle

[Mord]

StanJr, on Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:41 PM, said:

Pretty much in line with everyone else. If you are big into gameplay and enjoy playing games, particularly unique ones, the Wii is the way to go. If flashy graphics and modern traditional gameplay are more your forte, then either of the other systems will fill your need.

Wii for substance
PS3 for spectacle

Or more to the point: Check out the library of both consoles first and make a checklist of which games on each console currently interest you. Buy whichever one ends up with more titles listed. Either way at that point it means you'll have a shopping list for games for the next year.

There's still not enough games on either console that interest me personally, so I can keep on the sidelines and wait for further price drops.

[Jess Ragan]

If you can get a PS3 for $249, do it. The Wii is all right, but I've been disappointed with the selection of third party software and only use mine when Nintendo's AAA titles are released. Super Mario Galaxy was fantastique, but there's so much crap in the library to parse through to get to the gems. Nintendo had a chance this generation to prove that great graphics aren't everything, but they only proved how little they care about quality control.

[RevEng]

If you don't care about the games, pick a console based on features.

If you do care about the games then spend some time on metacritic and see which console has the most games that appeal to you. Search by top rating and by genre.

Otherwise you'll just be making a decision based on other people's biases, which may or may not hold true for you.

[chrisbid]

if you can find a ps3 for 249, you are also likely to find a wii for 149, which is the deal i would hunt for first.

[godslabrat]

Jess Ragan, on Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:57 AM, said:

If you can get a PS3 for $249, do it. The Wii is all right, but I've been disappointed with the selection of third party software[...] Nintendo had a chance this generation to prove that great graphics aren't everything, but they only proved how little they care about quality control.

Exactly how did they prove that? Most/All of Nintendo's first-party titles are AAA material. How can we hold Nintendo accountable for the quality of software made by other companies?

[atarian63]

Just buy them both, then you have it all!

[Bilnick]

Jess Ragan, on Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:57 AM, said:

If you can get a PS3 for $249, do it. The Wii is all right, but I've been disappointed with the selection of third party software and only use mine when Nintendo's AAA titles are released. Super Mario Galaxy was fantastique, but there's so much crap in the library to parse through to get to the gems. Nintendo had a chance this generation to prove that great graphics aren't everything, but they only proved how little they care about quality control.

I agree with this.

The Wii is a great secondary system to play Nintendo's generally high quality titles, but the Ps3/360 is a system you will play everyday. The PS3 and 360 have better controllers, HD visuals, and a deeper lineup of software.

[DaytonaUSA]

I'd get the PS3. You'll be happier in the long run. Trust me..

[DaytonaUSA]

StanJr, on Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:41 PM, said:

Pretty much in line with everyone else. If you are big into gameplay and enjoy playing games, particularly unique ones, the Wii is the way to go. If flashy graphics and modern traditional gameplay are more your forte, then either of the other systems will fill your need.

Wii for substance
PS3 for spectacle

I heartily disagree with you. What substance does the Wii have that the PS3 doesn't? As far as I'm concerned, the Wii is a very shallow system. I can name tons of PS3 games with substance. I'm still waiting on a fair number of 3rd party Wii games to have the same attributes.

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand why people stick up for this system. Besides it being what amounts to a 1st party game/class game playing system, I don't see the appeal. I had one since day one at launch. I was SO excited about it, and had it for over 2 years. I bought over 45 games for it and to be honest, there were only a small handful I gave a dang about, and I had all the supposedly "top" games for it. Where are the games that Nintendo is known for besides Metroid and Mario? I have no clue. I waited for F-Zero, it never came. I waited for Starfox, it never came. I waited for many of the exciting games they showed like Project HAMMER, and they were canceled and exciting imports that for some reason unknown to me, never came over.

The PS3 has actually kept my attention and has provided AAA game after AAA game the Wii simply doesn't have. I'd be amiss if I wasn't able to play Batman AA, LBP, Motorstorm, Katamari, Demon's Souls, ect ect ect.

I don't mean to cause a fight on this thread or anything, and hey.. if you reallllly like the Wii, then so be it. I guess I just didn't get the system, which is odd for me as every Nintendo system since the NES has been my favorite system of the generation, even the N64 (at the time) and Gamecube.

This post has been edited by DaytonaUSA: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:14 AM

[vdub_bobby]

I'll agree with most of the other comments. At this point all the systems have 30+ high quality games; it's just which games you want to play. If you want to play Modern Warfare 2, GTA, BioShock, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Oblivion, Street Fighter IV, or Metal Gear Solid 4, then get a PS3. If you want to play Super Mario Galaxy, The Legend of Zelda, Metroid Prime 3, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, A Boy and His Blob, MadWorld, or No More Heroes then get a Wii.

[Jess Ragan]

godslabrat, on Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:19 AM, said:

Jess Ragan, on Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:57 AM, said:

If you can get a PS3 for $249, do it. The Wii is all right, but I've been disappointed with the selection of third party software[...] Nintendo had a chance this generation to prove that great graphics aren't everything, but they only proved how little they care about quality control.

Exactly how did they prove that? Most/All of Nintendo's first-party titles are AAA material. How can we hold Nintendo accountable for the quality of software made by other companies?

Because they license all the games released by third parties. If Nintendo doesn't want a game on their system, they can just refuse it, BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN REFUSING ANYTHING LATELY! You want to know how awful third party software is on the Wii? Zoo Digital is releasing a Cold Stone Creamery video game for the system. Yes, a game where you pretend to make ice cream, except you're paying Cold Stone to do it. There's something very, very wrong with the software on the Wii, and Nintendo has done nothing to stop the bleeding. The level of cynicism in most Wii releases could be measured in tons... there were several games released for the system that were identical in all respects but the graphics, and they were all completely terrible. Yet Nintendo doesn't object as long as they get a cut of the profits. I haven't seen a video game library this terrible since the Game Boy Color, also a victim of Nintendo's greed and shortsightedness.

I don't really care that the Wii's hardware is a little behind the curve next to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. What matters are the games, and the games suck. If the majority of releases for the Wii were at the quality of top-notch GameCube titles, that would be enough for me, but most Wii developers don't even go that far... not even close. Their games are ugly, lack production values, and aren't any fun to play, and yes, Nintendo deserves some of the blame as enablers. I am a Nintendo fan, but that loyalty won't stop me from recognizing the sad state that the Wii library is in right now. I'm not a Sony fan, but even when I want to snap a game like Demon's Souls in half and use the jagged pieces to cut my wrists, I have to acknowledge that the game, as idiotically hard, arbitrary, and rigid as it is, is a quality effort. There are all kinds of quality games on the Playstation 3, but you can count the number of truly good third party Wii games on two hands. This is not what I expect from Nintendo, and it's not what I'd accept from them either.

This post has been edited by Jess Ragan: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:44 PM

[RevEng]

Jess Ragan, on Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:43 PM, said:

Because they license all the games released by third parties. If Nintendo doesn't want a game on their system, they can just refuse it, BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN REFUSING ANYTHING LATELY!

I don't disagree with your premise that there is a lot of crapware on the Wii, no doubt. The same thing happens to the console with the biggest installed base every generation. There was a ton of crapware on the PS2 as well.

Frankly I'd prefer that the console manufacturers keep their hands off and let the market decide. I know how to sort of the wheat from the chaff myself, and I'd rather not take the chance of them killing off a would-be World of Goo or Crayon Physics because it doesn't meet some moron's idea of a polished game.

If you don't want to buy crapware, just research a little before you buy a game. It doesn't take much more than a couple of minutes to hit up metacritics Wii games sorted by score. There are a lot of games deserving of your time at the top of that list, without any crapware in sight.

[moycon]

RevEng, on Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:17 PM, said:

There are a lot of games deserving of your time at the top of that list, without any crapware in sight.

Too bad a lot of them don't sell. Almost 60 million Wii units in consumers hands and a GREAT game (A game that a lot of time and effort went into crafting mind you) can't even move 1 million? Is it any wonder these companies crap out titles like Cold Stone Creamery? Even if that drek only sells 1000 copies they show a 500000% profit.

[Atari Dogs]

Are you kidding? There is really a game based on the ice cream store? I guess it might be similar to my kids Cooking Mama on the DS, but can it really be a game on a real console?

[remowilliams]

DaytonaUSA, on Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:13 AM, said:

I heartily disagree with you. What substance does the Wii have that the PS3 doesn't?

By substance he meant horrific ports of nextgen games due to the totally inadequate hardware for the job.

[Seob]

i'd also say ps3. The trouble with the wii is that most software publishers don't know what to do with the wii controllers, so you end up with a game that isn't playable because of the controls they use.
Sure there great games for the wii from third party developers, like world of goo, swords and soldiers, lost winds. But most game that appeal to me are not released on the wii.
Pro for the ps3 would be, being able to play a demo of a game first. Only now nintendo has this option available, but only for very few games.

This post has been edited by Seob: Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:51 PM