Viewing Thread:
"P.C. or PS2?"

Everytime in school me and a bunch of mates of mine come together and talk about which is better in gaming P.C or PS2...I always say P.C and my mates say PS2, ill like to know from you lot out here which you think is the best in gaming.

Thnx

Considering the PC is pretty much top spec, games should run very well.

how well with a 3.2ghz amd 64 with 1gb of ram and a 9800 pro run the enwest most demending games?

So what is the system specs then?

adrian wrote:
> But I bet newer games are starting to run slower unless you put them
> on low/medium detail and on a low resolution.

I have slight jittering, but it's barely noticeable. I can use the high setting for games like Far Cry and UT2004 and play the games fine, though in some instances the games freeze for a couple of seconds or takes longer to load. The games are far from unplayable; the effects are more of an inconvenience than anything else.

Though saying that, Far Cry at medium setting still looks better than any game I currently have.

cipro wrote:
> adrian wrote:
> Depends one what hardware it has in it, a P4EE 3.2Ghz comes in at
> £650 alone so put that in a PC and £1000 isnt leaving
> you
> with much to get the rest of the PC parts. You could get a PC for
> £400 if you put in low spec parts, but if you want a decent
> gaming machine £1000 is pretty much the minimum if you want
> decent parts.
>
> £700 for my PC, and it works as well today as it did when I
> first got it, though it is just the base unit, I didn't fork out for
> a new monitor I just used my previous monitor. Recycling my old PC
> basically.

But I bet newer games are starting to run slower unless you put them on low/medium detail and on a low resolution.

adrian wrote:
> Depends one what hardware it has in it, a P4EE 3.2Ghz comes in at
> £650 alone so put that in a PC and £1000 isnt leaving you
> with much to get the rest of the PC parts. You could get a PC for
> £400 if you put in low spec parts, but if you want a decent
> gaming machine £1000 is pretty much the minimum if you want
> decent parts.

£700 for my PC, and it works as well today as it did when I first got it, though it is just the base unit, I didn't fork out for a new monitor I just used my previous monitor. Recycling my old PC basically.

cipro wrote:
> If you buy a PC for £1000, you deserve to be ripped off. PCs
> are fast coming down in price these days, what was once an
> unaffordable luxury is now an affordable necessity, just like DVD
> players where a few years ago.

Depends one what hardware it has in it, a P4EE 3.2Ghz comes in at £650 alone so put that in a PC and £1000 isnt leaving you with much to get the rest of the PC parts. You could get a PC for £400 if you put in low spec parts, but if you want a decent gaming machine £1000 is pretty much the minimum if you want decent parts.

Stridman™ wrote:
> PC - Because of the price, why would you wanna pay 1000 quid on a PC
> which can just about take Far Cry's graphics,

If you buy a PC for £1000, you deserve to be ripped off. PCs are fast coming down in price these days, what was once an unaffordable luxury is now an affordable necessity, just like DVD players where a few years ago.

> despite the crashes and
> freezes it will have when playing game.

I've had no freezes, no crashes and no glitches, but then I know what I'm doing. Saying that though, you don't need a vast amount of knowledge to play PC games at their maximum settings, and even so it's a worthy sacrifice to add the little bit extra time and patients if pays off at the end with a far superior product than any console could care to muster.

> A PC cant be compared with
> consoles because it can only hack so many games, my dads PC (which if
> top-notch) can just hack Far Cry, The sims and two really old games
> but if you had a console you'd beable to have hundreds of games.

Hack so many games, my PC is a year old now and it still runs ever game I've put on it perfectly, bearing in mind that when my last two computers reached their first year birthday they could barely run the latest games. Besides which, there are thousands of much older games on the market, which are more than adequate for less equipped PCs.

In the end, this whole console vs. PC bollards is a no win thing, I have two consoles and A PC because frankly, I can't see how you can have one and not the other. Yes there are crap games on the PC, and it has more hardware problems, but then so do consoles. I've recently had to replace my PS2 because my previous console buggered up with a problem, which I later found, was all too common with other peoples PS2s. And that’s not even mentioning the other crashes I’ve had with my consoles, not as frequent as what I have on my PC, but they are still their non the less.

But in the end it's the quality of the games, not the hardware that decide where money goes, and over the last few months, all my dosh has been spent of PC gaming because honestly, there is nothing on the console that can match what’s on the PC right now, both in terms of entertainment and technology. That's my personally opinion though, feel free to argue with it, but I must inform you, it'll never change my mind, I'm a biased PC fanboy all the way.

Stridman™ wrote:
> Icaruss wrote:
> In terms of fanboyism:
>
> PC = PS2 = XBox = Gamecube
> GBA
> N-Gage
>
>
> Sorted.
>
> Almost sorted.
>
> PS2 + Gamecube = Xbox
> PC

Damn, knew there was something not quite right aobut it...

Stridman™ wrote:

> BUT!
> Tell me how many games (new ones eg. Far Cry) your PC can take until
> it starts to freeze and crash while playing the games.

Every one so far actually.