Your Garage Buy 2 kids' books and save Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Lindsey Stirling Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer PilotWave7B PilotWave7B PilotWave7B  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Shop Now STEM
Customer Discussions > Mass Effect 2 - Playstation 3 forum

own both PS3 and x360. which version to get?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 37 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 16, 2010 5:30:21 AM PST
I have both a PS3 and an xbox 360 (old version) and played ME1 on 360, and am curious as to what people think. Should I go ahead and hold out till ME2 releases on PS3 or just go ahead and get the 360 version? I prefer the PS3 to the 360, but I'm worried that I won't have the same character experience with the PS3 version. Thoughts?

Posted on Dec 16, 2010 7:35:55 AM PST
Meta4ical1 says:
If your a die-hard for ME and have a ME1 save on your 360 I'd say get it for 360. If your just a fan of ME and wanna chek ME2 ( I'd say your this cuz you dont have it yet) then def get the ps3 version. It'll have an interactive comic where you can make the major decisions from ME1 to shape your character for ME2 (and fill in backstory), also 6+ hrs of DLC and the other DLC they've released. Plus better graphics than the 360 version, they used the ME3 engine to make the port over to ps3.

Posted on Dec 16, 2010 11:48:57 AM PST
JWSpeed says:
The PS3 version is $60 were the PC and 360 version is only $20. Something to think about if you own both consoles and a PC.

Posted on Dec 16, 2010 12:15:42 PM PST
R. Volciak says:
If you haven't already played the game I would say the choice is obvious for the ps3 version. It has a comic that lets you make all the important decisions from the first game, all the dlc, and uses a better engine.

Posted on Dec 27, 2010 11:33:14 AM PST
I have the 360 version of ME2, but I would still go for the PS3 version instead. Bioware brought the assets over from the 360 ME2, but re-made everything else in the ME3 engine. So you'll get better resolution (1080p on the PS3, 720p on the 360), better texture maps, lighting and sound. PLUS you'll only have one disc to use, and not have to disc swap twice during the game. Yeah it costs more, but you get the DLC and a better version of it. I'm not a fanboy of either system, I just love great games.

Posted on Dec 27, 2010 7:40:50 PM PST
CookedXenon says:
not to mention I'm sure the PS3 version is one ps3 blu-ray disc. I sure hope so. A game like Mass Effect really benefits from being on one disc. Its not open world but its very exploratory with all the planets and systems. Having to switch discs for certain planets and missions. Just felt odd. Not a big deal but I'd love having the whole thing on one disc.

Posted on Dec 29, 2010 9:15:44 AM PST
Matt says:
PS3 version is on one blu-ray disc vs. the xbox's old last-gen DVD technology which means you need to fumble around with 2 discs. Also, BioWare said that ME2 on the PS3 is using their latest Mass Effect 3 game engine and will have crisper graphics and smoother gameplay on the PS3.

Posted on Dec 29, 2010 10:57:36 AM PST
M. Caesar says:
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I only remember changing discs once when playing ME2 on the 360. Well, twice since I did an Insanity playthrough after that. In any case, changing discs isn't annoying at all with this game - not like something like SO4. I'm still going to pick this up for yet another playthrough on my PS3 when it comes out because this game is that damn good.

FYI, all the DLC for the 360 version was ridiculously cheap recently, but I think that sale ended yesterday. Worth checking to see if it's still on sale.

Posted on Dec 29, 2010 11:49:45 AM PST
Matt says:
PS3 is also getting the 360 DLC for free. :) Also BD's scratch far less than DVD's.

Posted on Dec 30, 2010 1:22:29 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 30, 2010 1:34:34 AM PST
PC version. cheaper, superior. nothing more. hell, you can get the digital deluxe edition off Steam for $29.99. which includes the game (without the need of disc-swapping), 3 DLCs: collector armor, assault rifle, and incisor rifle; soundtrack, digital art book, digital comic, and documentary.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2010 12:45:27 PM PST
Brad Michael says:
If you have a PC that's capable. I just have a laptop to do basic browsing and work-related stuff. My computer won't even run ME1 at the best settings. To play ME2 at best settings I'd need a brand new PC, that's somewhat invested into vid card and processor. New computer just to play games on 500+ (being generous on price). PS3 299. Xbox 199. I think I'll stick to my console for gaming :o.

Posted on Dec 31, 2010 12:53:03 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 31, 2010 12:57:40 PM PST
PC gaming is rather cheap in the long run because a well build pc can outlast consoles. i've already had a failed 360, PS3, Wii. that's what, like $1200 gone to waste?. you just gotta know when and where to look for deals on hardware and compatability. i build my PC for $1500 which includes the retail OS of Win7 Ultimate, but excludes the monitor, which doesn't bother me, because i use my tv instead. $1200 for 3 dead consoles, vs. $1500 custom build PC. if i would have known then that they would have failed, i would waited to get consoles when they became cheaper.

Posted on Dec 31, 2010 10:02:28 PM PST
EpsilonX says:
I haven't played Mass Effect at all yet, but I kind of want to play all 3 on the same system, but I don't want the inferior version of ME2. sigh...

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 3, 2011 12:52:21 AM PST
Brad Michael says:
I've had consoles since Super Nintendo->N64->Sega Genesis->GameCube->PS2->Xbox->;Xbox360(brother)->Wii->PS3 (x2, mom has one as well, and a wii) and not a single one has died. Not one. I don't know what you could've done to have all 3 systems fail for you. Another point of the console vs PC for gaming is that with consoles nowadays, they're a "10 year" projected run. The PS2 was. The PS3 may even be longer with Sony coming out with a patent to add a processor onto the existing PS3 format. Computers built to the 1200-2000 dollar range can probably run games for 4-5 years and on the highest settings, if you get the right parts and ventilation and do it right. But a PS3, with a 10 year projection (possibly longer) and knowing that developers are making games especially for the exact spec of your machine (instead of having you custom fit settings due to every pc being a little different), that makes the games better made for the machine in my opinion. It's a standard that they can work on as a definite point of power for years to come, instead of changing things around due to computers being able to do more by the day.

Just my 2 cents. I'm not anti-pc gaming at all, please don't take it that way, love me some old school starcraft. But to say the PC version is automatically superior without taking in all the uncontrollables that are specs and what not is just silly to me.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 4, 2011 7:05:09 PM PST
R. Castro says:
I agree.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 4, 2011 10:37:50 PM PST
Chris Leon says:
I have many friends who own 2 out of 3 of the next gen systems and I have not actually heard of someone actually having a game console fail on them. I have owned an xbox 360 and wii since launch and they are still running without a hitch. I am aware that there are a problems with the next gen systems but for all three of them to fail on you seems very unlikely without you having mistreated them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 6, 2011 8:11:44 AM PST
That doesn't allot for the DLC which is tossed into the PS3 version.

Posted on Jan 10, 2011 11:31:51 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 10, 2011 11:38:33 AM PST
Wired Wrong says:
I think when it comes to failed systems the person either keeps them in a poorly ventilated area, or he did not buy the arcade version of the 360 and add a Hard-drive later. I had read that most of the 360 arcades, did not have the ROD, death rate that the rest of the systems made into the next generation system age had. I also heard even with the corrections made by Microsoft in recent times for the system that the ROD of the 360 is still running 10 to 20 percent from the box, but it should be noted that the PS3 also has a death rate from the box of around 10 percent. The only one I have not heard any form of complaints about in anyway is the Wii, thou it should be known that the PS3 is said to have 8 processors or something like that within it. And it was said that it was possible between 2 and 3 of these processors might be defective out of the box, but they had built the system around this and the reason they had used so many of them. It could also be pointed out that if a PS3 died out of the box chances are it had more then the 3 processors dead out of the box, it was said that the system can operate effectively with only 5 of them.

Or it could have very well been the fact the 1 PPE core and 7 SPE cores, that the 1 PPE Core was the one to fail, because the others are meant for other stuff well the PPE is meant to organize it all kinda. In the end thou the PS3 was built at a lose but it was a huge gain for everyone who owns one. The same can't be said for the 360, some suggest the 360 had been built with barely an upgraded over all from that of the xbox. It is one of the reason that it has been suggested the 360 can play Xbox games without needing an emulator is the fact they just re-engineered the Xbox, to make it a bit stronger but it was never honestly a next gen system, You could also say that the Wii was a downgrade in graphics and play control form that of the Gamecube, so depending on what or how you figure it. The only real next generation system on the market is the PS3. But to many people don't understand the values of this or that or how they relate to one and other.

The Xbox, came out 4 years before the 360. That means that clearly Microsoft had not had the experience or understanding to know how or when to release the systems, and a difference in 4 years of technology does not make as big a difference as 10 years like that between the PS2 and PS3, or the fact that Microsoft did not use a Blueray. We all clearly know that if Microsoft had used a Blueray, the capabilities of the disc alone would have loaned a huge upgraded to just the simple Xbox. So you can see when you break down the parts of the systems the only true visionary system of this generation of systems is the PS3.

That does not mean that the Xbox does not have good games or other stuff thou, heck some of my favorite games are Xbox games. Kotor and Kotor2, Jade empire, and the Fable games, but it does not happen to be enough of them for my to justify the cost. Plus I have Kotor and Kotor2 for PC. Since an 360 or an Xbox and most games that are exclusive to it often end up as PC games, the fact is the Xbox by it's very nature is not required but people bought it anyway. :)

On a side know I want to say that the current economic environment has halted the development of games and releases so greatly that as far as we are into the systems we have far less games then we should have had on any new generation system if it had happen 6 years ago vs in the last 4 to 5.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 10, 2011 1:00:45 PM PST
P. Aluise says:
I've had 2 different 360s ROD on me!!! I'm a regular gamer, I take care of my systems! Bought a ps3 after that and no problems, and FREE online! What took me so long...

Posted on Jan 13, 2011 6:54:26 AM PST
GarionOrb says:
Get the 360 version if for no other reason than to save yourself $40.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2011 4:47:30 PM PST
Brad Michael says:
GarionOrb, if you buy the 360 version then you have to buy all the DLC seperately. Which, I don't own an Xbox or anything, but I hear it's at least 20 dollars in the DLC alone. So you're looking at 40 bucks total already right there. Maybe the DLC total is more, I'm not sure, but since it's included I don't think the 60 dollar price tag is horrible.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2011 5:43:52 PM PST
M. Ives says:
I'd have to say get it for the PS3. While you won't be able to import your character from ME1, you get ALL of the DLC currently available. Also, the PS3 version runs on the ME3 engine which will make it run faster and look better (link below)

http://g4tv.com/videos/50512/Mass-Effect-2-PS3-vs-Xbox-360-Comparison-Video/

Posted on Jan 14, 2011 1:00:32 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2011 1:01:14 AM PST
@Wired Wrong.

I really don't want to start a stupid fanboy argument, but you should really try to be more informed, regarding most of the points you mention in your post, if not you will keep making people even more confused with your personal and mostly wrong statements.

1st) The PS3 has one(1) 3.2 Ghz processor which includes 8 processing cores, 6 of these are available to Game Developers, and the other 2 are reserve for OS requirements.

2nd) A 2009 study by SquareTrade, a warranty provider, found a two-year failure rate of 10% for PlayStation 3s. Which means that the PS3 is within the normal failure rates in the consumer electronics industry.

Personal Opinion: I agree that the PS3 was developed having in mind, that it would be in the market at least for 10 years, but that doesn't suggest that the 360 is a console which is not quite more advance than its predecessor. What I'm going to, is that how can you say that the only console worth of having the "next-gen" title is the PS3?. I'll explain this with the next point.

3rd) - 360 has a processor based on the same architecture of the one used in the PS3, the difference is that the 360 has less cores (3) and has some slight modifications. (The original Xbox used a 733 Mhz processor equivalent to Intel's Pentium 3)

- The original Xbox used a singular layer DVD, the 360 uses a dual layer DVD.

-The original Xbox had a 8GB Hard Drive, the 360: 20GB - 60GB - 120GB - 250GB.

- PS3 has clearly an advantage over the 360 on the storage aspect, however Microsoft made an effort along with Toshiba on the HD-DVD front, however Microsoft preferred to use Dual Layer DVDs for the 360 drive, because the HD-DVD format wasn't 100% complete for the 360s launch.

- It was impossible for Microsoft to include Blu-ray in the 360 since launch, for two reasons, first Sony developed and funded Blu-ray, second 360 was launched in Nov. 2005, Blu-ray wasn't finished at that time + Sony would have never aloud MS to use PS3's most important feature for the 360.

- 360 Launched on Nov. 2005, PS3 Launched on Nov 2006....so?

Personal Opinion: so please how can you say the PS3 is the only "visionary" truly next gen system?. The most important advantage of the PS3 over the 360 is the Blu-ray. Besides on the games front, if you don't think Gears of War graphic quality is worth calling a true next gen game....then you should really check your vision.

4th) Lack of experience managing the release dates between consoles?. Launch Dates: PS2: March, 2000. PS3: 2006. - Xbox: October, 2001. Xbox 360: November, 2005. So if the claims from Sony and MS are true, regarding that we're at the mid of this console generation, so if the next consoles will come until 2014-15 what would say? lack of market understanding...go figure.

5) You cannot be more mistaken regarding your last paragraph's claim. For the love of god! how can you say this:

" On a side know I want to say that the current economic environment has halted the development of games and releases so greatly that as far as we are into the systems we have far less games then we should have had on any new generation system if it had happen 6 years ago vs in the last 4 to 5. "

Is true that hard economic climate has affected console sales, but NOT GAME releases. We're are actually experiencing the most software saturated Game Industry in all its history. Actually in this starting year the PS3 & 360 will see the release of about 150+ games each console.

So please next time visit Wikipedia or something.

;)

Posted on Jan 14, 2011 2:09:10 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2011 4:21:20 AM PST
Robles says:
I just wanted to throw my own two cents in the mix. I have been gaming since the days of the original NES. I never had a problem with any of my consoles before the XBOX. Yes they did have design flaws. My first xbox died right before the release of Halo 2. So ovbiously I had to buy another one. I later fixed my first xbox on my own but not before the game came out. A few years later I got a X360 as a gift. That one, after a year and a half or two went RROD on me. So I replaced that one too. I also got a PS3 60 GB at launch which up to last month was working great. Unfortunately that one died on me too, after 4 years of use. So I sent my PS3 in for service and now have a 60 gb replacement PS3. So people that say that consoles dont fail are COMPLETELY wrong.
I have always taken care of my consoles. All of them. Sometimes there are design flaws, as I mentioned, or sometimes the system updates inadvertantly kill the system. This has nothing to do with not properly ventilating or caring for the console. Im not a fanboy of any console.
Yes, I own all the current consoles. I do prefer my PS3 though. I use it for most all of my media needs. NOt to mention its an excellent gaming machine. So I didnt pick up ME2 on the 360 even though I have ME1. I will definately get it for the PS3. Better graphics and DLC cant go wrong.

Posted on Jan 14, 2011 6:00:10 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2011 7:14:45 AM PST
(intended for the person who started the thread.) Like you, I have both systems and am a huge fan of Mass Effect. This is only my opinion, but threads like this only open up doors for.... what do they call them now a days?? Fanboys. Doesn't matter which type (360/PS3) of "fanboy". Honestly dude it wouldn't hurt to get it for both systems if your money suits you well. You can actually import you old save file, and you can have the ME 3 engine if it means that much to you. The way its looking, is this version is more for the people who only own PS3s and have NEVER played Mass Effect....SO this is a great opportunity for them to get their hands on a great game. I have ME 2 for the 360 and its a great game with a LOT of replay value. You have played the first one, you know that ME can be a completely different game the 2nd play through so technically if you swich your playstyle up its like having two different games anyway. I'm an achievement/Trophie junkie..I could only get 1 playthrough in for ME 2 for the 360, but the PS3 Version will give me a reason for another AND trophies. I know you should'nt really play games of this caliber ONLY for achievements/trophies, but when you really think about it, you should'nt play it for the graphics either. Ok, so the PS3 has the ME 3 engine (which will probably be much more upgraded by the time ME 3 actually comes out), but you also have to look at the fact that an "interactive comic" can not compare to the actual gameplay experiece of the first one. I know you have the first one, but do you really want all that work you put into ME 1 to be carried over by an "interactive comic"? I say get both versions, IF you HAVE to have better graphics and your wallet says its ok, but if you can't, then get the 360 to make it a more "original created experience". When you sit back and REALLY think about it, no matter which system you get it on...you will be playing the EXACT same game because anyone who knows anything about BIOWARE, its the story that matters.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  33
Total posts:  37
Initial post:  Dec 16, 2010
Latest post:  Jan 26, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Mass Effect 2 - Playstation 3
Mass Effect 2 - Playstation 3 by Electronic Arts (PlayStation 3)
4.6 out of 5 stars (354)