As much trouble as there is with the PS3 right now, gotta go with the PS3. 

PS3. I recently switched my pre-order from a 360 version to a PS3 version when I heard about the disk swapping. I'm a lazy, lazy man and I'd rather not get off my ass to change disks. Also, learning that the PS3 was the lead platform sealed the deal. 

PS3 due to disc swap

@Rockdalf said:

So you'd rather interrupt game play twice to get up and switch discs than let your PS3 install the game once before you start playing.  That's not even taking into consideration that you SHOULD install your games on the Xbox 360 if you value it.  I agree that it is a minute point, but if we know no difference between the two other than one occupies three dvds and the other occupies one blu-ray, I as a neutral consumer will take the one that requires less work.

Besides, my point wasn't even a comparison of the pre-install time to disc swap time.  Besides, in which situation would you not install the game on your 360?   Maybe if you were renting it, I could see your point.  I was just trying to logically explain why some people don't like to manually load their game data, instead of playing seamlessly.  What is beyond my comprehension is why that seems unreasonable when I make my purchase decision.

Regardless, I won't be flopping my pre-order six times and rolling in bed at night worried I'd chosen wrongly.  If PS3's version turns out the inferior version (which no evidence suggests one way or the either), who cares, I'll still play and enjoy the experience as any sane person would.

So, I install disc one on the xbox, then I only have to change discs once. So, yes, I'd rather change discs than sit for a half hour for an install when I just want to play the game. Usually what I do is stick the game in and play, then when I'm done install it to the hard drive. I can't do that with the PS3 usually. I understand that this is a matter of preference, but there is always some amount of waiting involved, and the difference in time is negligible. Which is why I don't think the multiple discs are really a huge issue. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just giving my opinion. Calling disc-switching "work" is crazy. I timed it this morning playing ME2. Fifteen seconds. And I didn't even rush. It's not work, in my opinion. It's not even an inconvenience. Given that there are other differences between the two version and not just the multiple-disc issue, yes, I think it's silly to even consider it. That you think the difference is a "minute point" is actually the point I've been trying to make. Compared to the other differences ... it doesn't matter. Which is why I find it strange that people even bother considering it, which a lot of people do.What situation would you not install the game on the 360? When you're playing more than one game. The hard drive on my 360 isn't large enough for more than one install at a time, so at any given moment I'm playing three or four games, in two or three of those instances, I'm not playing from an installed copy. So, most of the time. I never said it was unreasonable, I just said that the difference between multiple discs and a single disc is not very much. If that miniscule amount of time means a lot to you, that's fine. I just think that it's too small to make a difference either way.

Xbox. Rather be on there in an Xbox live party than PS3.

Xbox. Rather be on there in an Xbox live party than PS3.

@AlisterCat said:

Xbox. Rather be on there in an Xbox live party than PS3.

i've never used a X360, but isnt an Xbox live party = online/multiplayer? LA Noire is singleplayer only

@Ahmad_Metallic said:

@AlisterCat said:

Xbox. Rather be on there in an Xbox live party than PS3.

i've never used a X360, but isnt an Xbox live party = online/multiplayer? LA Noire is singleplayer only

It's a chat lobby that exists at the dashboard level, so people can all chat together while playing different games.

Watched two 360 streams now and it looks hot as fuck. Identical to the PS3 media we've seen so far.

I went and switched my pre-order from 360 to PS3. Only for the fact that I want to build up my PS3 collection a little bit.

XBOX. I don't mind the disk swap too much.

Grabbing it for xbox. It's just more convenient for me as the PS3 is a shared family device. My only concern was the disk shit but then I heard that becuase of how the missions are it isn't a big deal.

PS3

@haggis said:

@Rockdalf said:

So you'd rather interrupt game play twice to get up and switch discs than let your PS3 install the game once before you start playing.  That's not even taking into consideration that you SHOULD install your games on the Xbox 360 if you value it.  I agree that it is a minute point, but if we know no difference between the two other than one occupies three dvds and the other occupies one blu-ray, I as a neutral consumer will take the one that requires less work.

Besides, my point wasn't even a comparison of the pre-install time to disc swap time.  Besides, in which situation would you not install the game on your 360?   Maybe if you were renting it, I could see your point.  I was just trying to logically explain why some people don't like to manually load their game data, instead of playing seamlessly.  What is beyond my comprehension is why that seems unreasonable when I make my purchase decision.

Regardless, I won't be flopping my pre-order six times and rolling in bed at night worried I'd chosen wrongly.  If PS3's version turns out the inferior version (which no evidence suggests one way or the either), who cares, I'll still play and enjoy the experience as any sane person would.

So, I install disc one on the xbox, then I only have to change discs once. So, yes, I'd rather change discs than sit for a half hour for an install when I just want to play the game. Usually what I do is stick the game in and play, then when I'm done install it to the hard drive. I can't do that with the PS3 usually. I understand that this is a matter of preference, but there is always some amount of waiting involved, and the difference in time is negligible. Which is why I don't think the multiple discs are really a huge issue. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just giving my opinion. Calling disc-switching "work" is crazy. I timed it this morning playing ME2. Fifteen seconds. And I didn't even rush. It's not work, in my opinion. It's not even an inconvenience. Given that there are other differences between the two version and not just the multiple-disc issue, yes, I think it's silly to even consider it. That you think the difference is a "minute point" is actually the point I've been trying to make. Compared to the other differences ... it doesn't matter. Which is why I find it strange that people even bother considering it, which a lot of people do.What situation would you not install the game on the 360? When you're playing more than one game. The hard drive on my 360 isn't large enough for more than one install at a time, so at any given moment I'm playing three or four games, in two or three of those instances, I'm not playing from an installed copy. So, most of the time. I never said it was unreasonable, I just said that the difference between multiple discs and a single disc is not very much. If that miniscule amount of time means a lot to you, that's fine. I just think that it's too small to make a difference either way.

Have I related disc-switching to work or are you putting those words in my mouth?  And a thirty minute install, really?  I find it ironic that you're giving a rant on people blowing disc-swap out of proportion yet are exaggerating your argument.

But enough of that, I am curious what your other differences are that you refer to.  Besides pure console preference, what "other" differences swing you in the way of the 360 version and justify disc swapping?

360

After seeing the screen comparisons, Xbox 360.

Xbox 360. Disc-swapping doesn't bother me and the PS3 in my house doesn't belong to me.

PS3, because my 360 is broken.

360, 'cause I don't got no PS3 to play on.

360 cause I just really love points.

360 for achievements :P

PS3, good to see that it's ahead in the poll.

After seeing the comparisons, 360. I can't get over how muddy the PS3 version looks. It almost has that same muddy, gross look that Bayonetta PS3 has. Like you're looking through a dirty window while playing or something.

@Rockdalf said:

@haggis said:

@Rockdalf said:

So you'd rather interrupt game play twice to get up and switch discs than let your PS3 install the game once before you start playing.  That's not even taking into consideration that you SHOULD install your games on the Xbox 360 if you value it.  I agree that it is a minute point, but if we know no difference between the two other than one occupies three dvds and the other occupies one blu-ray, I as a neutral consumer will take the one that requires less work.

Besides, my point wasn't even a comparison of the pre-install time to disc swap time.  Besides, in which situation would you not install the game on your 360?   Maybe if you were renting it, I could see your point.  I was just trying to logically explain why some people don't like to manually load their game data, instead of playing seamlessly.  What is beyond my comprehension is why that seems unreasonable when I make my purchase decision.

Regardless, I won't be flopping my pre-order six times and rolling in bed at night worried I'd chosen wrongly.  If PS3's version turns out the inferior version (which no evidence suggests one way or the either), who cares, I'll still play and enjoy the experience as any sane person would.

So, I install disc one on the xbox, then I only have to change discs once. So, yes, I'd rather change discs than sit for a half hour for an install when I just want to play the game. Usually what I do is stick the game in and play, then when I'm done install it to the hard drive. I can't do that with the PS3 usually. I understand that this is a matter of preference, but there is always some amount of waiting involved, and the difference in time is negligible. Which is why I don't think the multiple discs are really a huge issue. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just giving my opinion. Calling disc-switching "work" is crazy. I timed it this morning playing ME2. Fifteen seconds. And I didn't even rush. It's not work, in my opinion. It's not even an inconvenience. Given that there are other differences between the two version and not just the multiple-disc issue, yes, I think it's silly to even consider it. That you think the difference is a "minute point" is actually the point I've been trying to make. Compared to the other differences ... it doesn't matter. Which is why I find it strange that people even bother considering it, which a lot of people do.What situation would you not install the game on the 360? When you're playing more than one game. The hard drive on my 360 isn't large enough for more than one install at a time, so at any given moment I'm playing three or four games, in two or three of those instances, I'm not playing from an installed copy. So, most of the time. I never said it was unreasonable, I just said that the difference between multiple discs and a single disc is not very much. If that miniscule amount of time means a lot to you, that's fine. I just think that it's too small to make a difference either way.

Have I related disc-switching to work or are you putting those words in my mouth?  And a thirty minute install, really?  I find it ironic that you're giving a rant on people blowing disc-swap out of proportion yet are exaggerating your argument.

But enough of that, I am curious what your other differences are that you refer to.  Besides pure console preference, what "other" differences swing you in the way of the 360 version and justify disc swapping?

No, they're your words: "...I as a neutral consumer will take the one that requires less work." And I'm not ranting at all. I'm explaining my perspective, which you've said is somehow incomprehensible. And I'm not exaggerating at all. Several of my PS3 games have taken that long to install. I've heard that LA Noire's is to be shorter, but ... we don't know for sure yet. But even a ten minute install would still be longer than the time necessary to switch discs twice during a forty hour game.I've already said why I'm not not buying the PS3 version: I'm irritated with Sony over the PSN fiasco. And other reasons: friends are selling their PS3s lately, and buying 360s. We often share games, therefore I'm considering selling the PS3. I also have a buyer lined up that will pay a good price. That is, reasons that have nothing to do with the game itself. If I weren't considering selling the console, I'd probably be purchasing the PS3 version because of the extra content and the fact that it was developed first for the PS3 (I almost always buy games for the primary development console). I just don't think that the disc swapping on the 360 is important enough to figure in the decision. That is, I don't think that disc swapping needs "justification" because it's so innocuous. Which you'd know if you actually read what I wrote. But maybe that's asking too much.

@haggis said:

@Rockdalf said:

...

I'll probably end up with the PS3 but I'm just worried it's going to look like utter crap on it. (Remember Red Dead Redemption?)

PS3. I think Red Dead looked just a tiny bit better on 360, but I hate disk swapping. If it let me do an install like Forza, then maybe 360. In all honesty, judging by RDR and GTA4 on the PS3 and 360, I don't think it matters much.

@Rockdalf said:

@haggis said:

@Rockdalf said:

...

" ...I never said your point was incomprehensible."

Yes, you did: " What is beyond my comprehension is why that seems unreasonable..." Did you even read your own posts? Or think about what you were writing?

"I'm not sure what the PSN fiasco has to do with it seeing as you can play the game offline, but sure."

You didn't read my post, then, either. I said very specifically that my reasons for buying the game on the 360 had nothing to do with the game, LA Noire, but a series of other reasons unrelated even to the PSN outage. Clearly you didn't bother reading what I said.

"... but I don't think that is really relevant to comparison either."

And I don't think disc swapping is relevant to choice either. We clearly disagree. I'm fine with the disagreement. I'm not sure why you're not. Somehow I'm being unreasonable for not respecting your position on this (which I never said, I just think it's a silly complaint), but you're not being unreasonable for thinking my position is irrelevant? The world does not revolve around you, you know. Make whatever decision you like. It doesn't really bother me. I still think it's silly.

"... Besides that point, if I'd rather install the game instead of disc swapping is that unreasonable?"

I think it's silly, yes. If I had space on my 360 to install all three discs, I still likely wouldn't bother. Why? Swapping discs only takes a few seconds. Installs have only marginally increased load speeds (the best increase I've seen is on Dragon Age 2), and I've had no disc scratching issues. Clearly you disagree. Again, I have no problem with this. I think it's picking nits. In the grand scheme of things, I think it's not important. You apparently think it is very important.

"I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just saying that disc swap is a valid criticism to make and the majority of people in this thread..."

By saying that it's a valid criticism, you very clearly are saying I'm wrong, because I don't think it is a valid criticism. I don't have a problem with this disagreement at all. And I'm fine with you thinking (and even saying) that I'm wrong. I just think it's silly. I'm just explaining my perspective on it. I don't think there's really a right or wrong here, I just think that people who make a big deal of this one issue are making something out of nothing."... will prove it further when they buy the PS3 version over the 360 version."I doubt that if the disc swapping issue went away (say, that both versions fit on one disc) that the survey results would be any different, given the extra content available on the PS3 version and that most of us prefer buying games on the primary development platform. The disc swapping issue is an also-ran on the already long list of differences between the versions. I think that people list it not because it's a deal-breaker, but because it's just one more difference to list.

unnnncomfrtabllllleeeeee

Xbox, because I like the controller like, way better.

probably ps3 so i can share it with my friends...or possibly one of my friends will get it and let me borrow it :D

I don't mind switching discs if they're using the same engine as they did in GTA4 and RDR. The PS3 versions always seem to lag behind in the graphics and frameratedepartment on that engine.

I thought about responding.  I even typed a few responses out, but this grows dull and pointless.  If you think I'm ridiculous for preferring the PS3 version over the 360 because I'd rather install the game than swap discs, fine.  Go along your way, you'd sooner convince me that blue is a stupid favorite color than my opinion is wrong in this manner.

Xbox, because I like the controller like, way better.

Probably the 360, but the disc swapping issue does have me scratching my head.

360

I don't care at all about disc swapping but I do care more about achievements than stupid trophies.

i buy all my multiplatform games (that arent on PC) on my system that WON'T melt... it might be offline for aweeks, but it won't melt :P

PS3 because that's the console I own.

 Ok people, having to take a couple minutes of your time to swap discs is a non-issue.

On more important yet UNRELATED issues that may actually factor into one's decision, how about this? From Brad's review:
"Having spent a lot of time with both versions of L.A. Noire, the PlayStation 3 game is the clear-cut winner. Both versions of the game look fantastic, but there were a few instances of painful frame rate drops and objects drawing in too slowly on the Xbox that didn't exist on the PS3. Also, the shadows look a bit more jagged. This is splitting hairs since, both games look good enough that you should just get the one on the platform you prefer, though the PS3 also has the added benefit of being on a single disc to the Xbox's three, and includes an exclusive downloadable case (which I didn't get to try, and you probably won't be able to play either until the PlayStation Store is back online). "

However, I can't help but wonder if that smoother framerate and less pop-in comes as the result of a somewhat graphically dumbed-down version of the game on the PS3, as it has in the past with titles like RDR. That last mention of the shadows appearing more jagged on the 360 leads me further to believe that may be the case, because a sort of overall 'blurriness' was present in RDR to mask the lower resolution. I wound up selling my PS3 copy of that game and buying the 360 version because of that. (Call me picky, but I want the best version for my $60...not the "good enough" version)

There seems to be a distinct lack of reading comprehension present here, I'll dumb this down for people:
The point I'm making in the previous paragraph is that a faster framerate and less pop in on the PS3 version could be a result of other graphical features being cut, tweaked, or otherwise lessened.
Such as the age-old practice of cutting down the resolution of a game and applying a sort of Gaussian blur effect to mask jagged edges and muddy textures that would be present as a result. Something that has been the unfortunate case for many PS3 versions of multiplats since the console's release.

@Robo

I can't help but wonder if that smoother framerate and less pop-in comes as the result of a somewhat graphically dumbed-down version of the game on the PS3, as it has in the past with titles like RDR. That last mention of the shadows appearing more jagged on the 360 leads me further to believe that may be the case, because a sort of overall 'blurriness' was present in RDR to mask the lower resolution.

@benjaebe: 

@Robo: What? The quote says that the PS3 version is better, not the PS3 version is worse but has a higher framerate. By the sounds of things Team Bondi have learnt to use the Cell Processor a little bit and have implemented some AA, something console games lack, hence the less jaggy shadows. Considering AA uses up processing power yet the PS3 version has a higher framerate, it just shows it was coded well for PS3 instead of a knock-off port like normal.

the PSN store might still be down. but i just think in the long run getting the PS3 version is the better bet