Top 5 Graphics Cards?

[Punkster]

What do you think are the top 5 graphics cards?

They don't have to be the most expensive, or most powerful, but the ones you think are great value for their price. Also, could you please mention the average price for one of the cards mentioned.

I'm not sure what about ATI Radeon cards atm, but i know that the geforce 8800GT is one of the most popular cards atm for about £150

[Deverill]

Nvidia GeForce 9600 GT is what i want

It's mid-market priced, new and great!

I just have a crappy chipset in this laptop =[

[jpph]

hd 3850 has amazin performance for its price i think. all medium in crysis with great fps. very cheap as well.
oh btw i ordered my 8600gt im so so excited.

[Punkster]

i think the best card to get is 8800GT - it's still considered only a medium range card. To me it's like a high-end card coz i'm so used to playing PC games with low end cards.

I think 8600GT is not very good for gaming - sorry if i'm putting your hopes down, but I'm starting to not like my 8500GT and it's only a bit worse that the 8600GT. 8600GTS sounds better, but for a little bit more in price, I think 8800GT is good value.

[jpph]

What do you think are the top 5 graphics cards?

They don't have to be the most expensive, or most powerful, but the ones you think are great value for their price. Also, could you please mention the average price for one of the cards mentioned.

I'm not sure what about ATI Radeon cards atm, but i know that the geforce 8800GT is one of the most popular cards atm for about £150

is your pc a premade one?

[Punkster]

is your pc a premade one?

what do you mean? do you mean i use it for casual gaming, then yes sort of. I'm not too fussed about high-end graphics as long as a game is playable.

[jpph]

what do you mean? do you mean i use it for casual gaming, then yes sort of. I'm not too fussed about high-end graphics as long as a game is playable.
no sorry i meant is it from a like hp or dell or did you make it yourself. but now i remember you mentioning that you'd like to build one yourself so obviously not premade.
er.....how do i know if the gpu is going to fit the monitor cable??
thanks

[Punkster]

no sorry i meant is it from a like hp or dell or did you make it yourself. but now i remember you mentioning that you'd like to build one yourself so obviously not premade.
er.....how do i know if the gpu is going to fit the monitor cable??
thanks

i don't think u need to worry about the monitor cable. The graphics card should cater for the standard monitor plugs/sockets. You'll be able to tell where it goes straight away just from first glance.

and no, the PC I've got now was pre-built from Dell.

Would like to get an XPS 420 for £570:

no monitor or speakers, just the main box/tower:
GeForce 8800GT 512MB
XPS 420 Viiv E8400 Core 2 Duo Processor (3.00GHz, 6MB, 1333MHz)
2GB RAM 800MHz DDR2
500GB HDD (7200rpm)
375W PSU

The XPS 420 is supposed to be designed for multi-media functions, but this particular XPS 420 comes with a lovely 8800GT card which is brilliant imo.

[jpph]

i don't think u need to worry about the monitor cable. The graphics card should cater for the standard monitor plugs/sockets. You'll be able to tell where it goes straight away just from first glance.

and no, the PC I've got now was pre-built from Dell.

Would like to get an XPS 420 for £570:

no monitor or speakers, just the main box/tower:
GeForce 8800GT 512MB
XPS 420 Viiv E8400 Core 2 Duo Processor (3.00GHz, 6MB, 1333MHz)
2GB RAM 800MHz DDR2
500GB HDD (7200rpm)
375W PSU

The XPS 420 is supposed to be designed for multi-media functions, but this particular XPS 420 comes with a lovely 8800GT card which is brilliant imo.
u starting saving?:D
id just love to build my own on a big enought budget, not with an unliimited one, that would take out all the fun.

[Punkster]

well, hopefully this summer i can get a part-time job and get a bit of money, and then ask my parents for a little extra for my b'day in september. hopefully it should be enough for £570. I can re-use the current monitor and speakers - coz they're fine.

[Nintengod]

well, hopefully this summer i can get a part-time job and get a bit of money, and then ask my parents for a little extra for my b'day in september. hopefully it should be enough for £570. I can re-use the current monitor and speakers - coz they're fine.

What a hideous waste of money......what games are you DESPERATE to play on PC that you can't due to hardware issues? Also, remember you do have a Xbox 360 which is more than capable!

Christ, think of what you could buy with £570 in terms of.....well ANYTHING! All those games you could buy, a holiday, you could buy the PS3 AND Wii plus a few games as well!

Your PC now is surely more than adequate to play most games, and do all the other various things required that a PC does other than games.

[Punkster]

well, it's your opinion whether it's a waste of money or not. I think going on holiday is a waste of money - if it was up to me, I'd rather miss out on one year's holiday to get a nice PC.

A holiday lasts a few days, but a PC can last ages. Same goes for cars. Some people seem to love spending all their salary on a very nice car, but spend little on everything else.

I prefer PC over X360, although X360 would be very nice for some games like GTA4, but even that's depending on whether GTA4 will be good or not.

EDIT: also if you look at it this way - the high-end gaming Dell PC is £2,150, and that's only the standard setup, just the main box/tower on it's own. So if you inclu monitor, speakers, it'd be almost £3000! - £570 for a very decent system which allows for further upgrade in the future, doesn't seem too expensive for a pre-built PC.

[Nintengod]

well, it's your opinion whether it's a waste of money or not. I think going on holiday is a waste of money - if it was up to me, I'd rather miss out on one year's holiday to get a nice PC.

A holiday lasts a few days, but a PC can last ages. Same goes for cars. Some people seem to love spending all their salary on a very nice car, but spend little on everything else.

I prefer PC over X360, although X360 would be very nice for some games like GTA4, but even that's depending on whether GTA4 will be good or not.

EDIT: also if you look at it this way - the high-end gaming Dell PC is £2,150, and that's only the standard setup, just the main box/tower on it's own. So if you inclu monitor, speakers, it'd be almost £3000! - £570 for a very decent system which allows for further upgrade in the future, doesn't seem too expensive for a pre-built PC.

It's a waste of money, especially at your age. You'll only regret it, but I guess you learn from juvenile mistakes like this. £570 is a lot of money, and once you set the PC up, you'll play the same old games that you could have played on your existing PC, albeit at a slightly higher resolution.

Graphics have never made a game, and never will. It's money down the drain, especially as PC's are being effectively wiped out by the 360 and PS3 as gaming machines.

So you'll be spending £570 to surf the internet and use Microsoft word :p

[Punkster]

well, to a certain extent, the extra graphical power is a bit of a waste of money, but atm with my current set-up i'm not getting playable frame-rates with some of the more modern games even at lower settings and resolution.

I'm not definitely getting the XPS 420, i'm just going through another phase where i really want something, even though i know i won't ever get it! :)

[MurdersGalore]

Waste of money....hahahaa....that's funny.

Really....ANY gaming system is a "waste of money" if you wanna talk about all the other things you can buy with it, like food, clothes, pay bills...ect.
I see it like this...I use my PC every day. I use it for fun and for work. If you find yourself sitting in front of your PC more then your TV...then spend the money. WTF are you gonna do with 570 pounds anyway, start a ****ing business? :p
As for the 8600gt being only slightly better then the 8500gt...that's not really true...the 8600gt is in a whole other market range. It will perform almost twice an 8500gt. Tom's Hardware guide's VGA chart gives the overall FPS score of 504.1 to the 8500gt and 962.0 to the 8600gt. That is a significant performance difference.
As for the top 5 performing cards....The charts have'nt been updated to include the 9 series cards yet.....but before their release it was like this:
1. 8800ultra
2. 8800gtx
3. 8800gt
4. 8800gts
5. 7950gx2

Going by that..what I have read about the 9 series performance I would assume the 9600gt to be just under the 7950gx2 with an ATI hd3870 having slightly better performance bringing the 9600gt to 8th place on the list. 9800gx2 will no doubt take the #1 spot (or atleast it should) and a 9800gt between the 8800ultra and the 8800gtx. making it the new third. Something like this for the top 5:
1. 9800gx2
2. 8800ultra
3. 9800gt
4. 8800gtx
5. 8800gt

and it would go further like so:
6. 7950gx2
7. ATI HD3870
8. 9600gt
9. 8800gts
10. ATI HD2900XT

Ofcourse the placement of the 9 series in there are just my own ppersonal observation...but before them....the first top 5 list is fairly legit.
As for best bang for the buck....right now the champ has to be the 8800gt. The performance of a top teir card with the price of a mid-level card.....its currently the mainstream card to beat.

[MurdersGalore]

On another note...you might notice the lack of ATI cards in the top tier. I am not being a fanboy of nVidia.....as you go further down the list there are plenty of competative ATI cards. It just seems that ATI cant seem to take hold of the top tier well. Whether AMD's acquiring ATI has something to do with that....the time line does look suspicious.

[Punkster]

On another note...you might notice the lack of ATI cards in the top tier. I am not being a fanboy of nVidia.....as you go further down the list there are plenty of competative ATI cards. It just seems that ATI cant seem to take hold of the top tier well. Whether AMD's acquiring ATI has something to do with that....the time line does look suspicious.

i've also noticed that as well. Although there are some good mainstream ATI cards, there aren't any competitive high-end cards. AMD are making losses as well for the past year or so, so could we be saying bye-bye to ATI Radeon cards and the market will then be dominated by Nvidia chipsets?

[MurdersGalore]

I certainly hope not. Even though I own an nVidia card now and the majority of my past cards have been nVidia based, I would hate to see what the market would look like without ATI. Even worse if AMD went down and took ATI with it. That would mean that nVidia would have no competition, nor would Intel.....and without competition companies have no incentive to innovate and develop better technologies. That would create monopolies for both nVidia and Intel and the next step would be for the money hungry stock holders to pressure the members of the boards of these companies to cut back on R & D. R & D becomes a secondary expense when there is no competition. Up until the buyout, ATI and nVidia were neck and neck. I don't think we would have seen DX10 cards from nVidia this early if they had no other competition. They would probably still be stuck with 7 series with the 8800ultra for the extreme high end. The 8800gt would most likely not exist if it wasn't for ATI having alot of good cards in the mid market.

And any of us old timers can remember how Intel was back when AMD was still just a chip producer making licensed intel clones. Intel would jack the prices up big time. Likewise, The Core Duo would not exist if it wasn't for AMD and the fabulous A64 and FX chips. I mean...without AMD...who is there to encourage Intel to keep the technology moving and the prices down....****ing VIA/Cyrix? ewww. Intel may be in the lead now....just as nVidia is...but neither would be in that position without competition....obviously there would be no lead to gain....and no need to try to make better products.

[Nintengod]

Murdersgalore, you're a geek. You're obsessed with framerates and graphics, and for that you need to spend £600 to achieve all this......my point was that Punksters existing PC was good enough to do EVERYDAY things, and play many games. Plus he has a 360 to play games without having to worry about technical issues.

It's a waste of money. Best gone elsewhere.

[MurdersGalore]

oh well....go ahead and insult me...good luck finding Crysis for Xbox 360.

For one thing...you come to a PC section of a gamers forum and spout about how buying stuff to do better gaming on a PC is stupid? That's like going to a concert and telling the fans they are stupid for buying tickets when they could have bought the band's DVD.
It could be just as easily argued that buying ANYTHING for fun or leisure is stupid. You could say buying a Blu-ray movie is stupid because you can get the same movie on DVD.
These are all things that people who would use a pc for games would buy. To come and rag on someone for it is actually what's stupid.
If Punkster wants more performance...then rightly he should save up money and buy a video card. Who are you to tell someone that it's stupid to do? Do you not spend money on games for your console? It could be argued that buying a console is just as stupid based on your ideology. I mean, you are purchasing a machine that really has no other use. I have yet to meet anyone that uses a PS3 or an Xbox for work.
In a nutshell...none of this has to do with what people NEED.....its what we WANT...and if he wanted to spend $1000 on a polished door knob that's his thing. If I found that to be a waste of time, I would comment also. But I wouldn't go to the polished-door-knob section of the people-that-polish-things forum and tell him he was stupid.
And don't forget, Console games would not exist without PC's and high end graphics cards. Who makes the graphics chips for the 360?

[jpph]

It's a waste of money. Best gone elsewhere.

one could virtually say that about anything.

[Punkster]

it's a bit silly for Nin to call Murdersgalore a geek, when this whole forum is about games. Isn't already quite geeky that we're discussing games?

I think Murdersgalore had a good point about the potential monopoly of graphics cards chipsets from Nvidia if ADM don't get their act together with ATI.

It would be like Microsoft but with Operating systems and other applications software, where everything is overpriced but you're almost forced to buy it because it's the standard and M$ are so anti-competitive making a lot of their software incompatible with others deliberately and abusing their dominant position in the market.

So, go AMD and ATI! We as consumers need more healthy competition from the manufacturers of graphics card chipsets.

[Nintengod]

it's a bit silly for Nin to call Murdersgalore a geek, when this whole forum is about games. Isn't already quite geeky that we're discussing games?

.

Discussing games isn't geeky. But discussing graphics cards and getting tiny improvements of performance, frame rates, higher resolutions IS geeky.....and spending nearly £600 on these improvements is a waste.

Like I said, your PC is more than capable of doing ALL the non-gaming stuff, and most games related things. It's one of these "emotional" decisions, and I think the first PC i bought was about £600 when I was your age, and I really regretted it after a couple of weeks.

[MurdersGalore]

and I think the first PC i bought was about £600 when I was your age, and I really regretted it after a couple of weeks.

And that means He would regret it too? That was your experience and is completely anecdotal.

I kinda see your point if we were talking about those kinds of people who own, say, an 8800gtx and then go spring $500 or so for an 8800ultra only to get a performance increase that can mostly be only seen in benchmarks. But Punkster has an 8500gt. If he went from that to an 8800 anything would be a drastic improvement. If he likes PC games then that would be a worthwhile investment. I don't understand why you have to be so negative, hell, almost bitter about it. It's almost like that 600 pounds was the last time you ever had 600 pounds and you are bitter about loosing it like a jealous ex-boyfriend loosing an old girlfriend and fuming about it for the next ten years.
I don't care to be called a geek, but your tone in doing so made it insulting and in the end you just come off sounding like a bitter and cynical old man.
As for buying hardware being an emotional decision, What the hell does that mean anyway? Was it emotional for you? If so, maybe I'm not the only geek here. I never really had an emotional moment buying any type of hardware (except maybe a few pregnancy tests for the girlfriend which luckily turned out negative).

[Nintengod]

And that means He would regret it too? That was your experience and is completely anecdotal.

I kinda see your point if we were talking about those kinds of people who own, say, an 8800gtx and then go spring $500 or so for an 8800ultra only to get a performance increase that can mostly be only seen in benchmarks. But Punkster has an 8500gt. If he went from that to an 8800 anything would be a drastic improvement. If he likes PC games then that would be a worthwhile investment. I don't understand why you have to be so negative, hell, almost bitter about it. It's almost like that 600 pounds was the last time you ever had 600 pounds and you are bitter about loosing it like a jealous ex-boyfriend loosing an old girlfriend and fuming about it for the next ten years.
I don't care to be called a geek, but your tone in doing so made it insulting and in the end you just come off sounding like a bitter and cynical old man.
As for buying hardware being an emotional decision, What the hell does that mean anyway? Was it emotional for you? If so, maybe I'm not the only geek here. I never really had an emotional moment buying any type of hardware (except maybe a few pregnancy tests for the girlfriend which luckily turned out negative).

Heh, i really don't care about £600 these days, but I am prudent and wouldn't blow 600 quid on something as geeky and unneccessary as a more powerful PC than the perfectly decent one I already have (and Punkster already has). PC gaming is dying out in any case. Aside from the Sims and Champ Manager games (hardly top end PC hungry titles!), nobody is bothering with PC gaming anymore.

Sure £600 back then was a lot of money, and acquiring that money back then was hard, and really not worth it, as ultimately, I ended up playing on my PS1 and N64 more at the time!

My point is, spend the money on 360 games. If you are interested in gaming, then why deny yourself £600 worth of quality games on a console dedicated to games, not some overly expensive PC where you'll be worried about a lapse in frame rate and wonder which textures to switch off to compensate :p

You're a geek still. Spend your money on something more worthwhile.

[MurdersGalore]

PC gaming is dying? What news source did you get that from? As far as I can tell it's just as popular as it always was. There are exclusive PC titles just as there are exclusive console titles. Pc gaming has it's niche and always will. Ofcourse it's not as popular as the consoles but so long as there is money to be made it will not go away. I have heard that whole "PC gaming is dead" crap ever since the original NES, but it is still here. You will have consoles that come and go. Like people who wasted their money on the Saturn, Dreamcast, Sega32x, Atari Jaguar, or any other console that failed in the market, they have always had the PC to fall back on because a PC has more uses then just games and though not as popular it is very stable in the gaming market. You are never going to spend $200 on a video card or $40 on a game just to find that all the PC manufacturers are going to discontinue making PC's. You are obviously not a big PC gamer and that's your choice. It is also obvious you don't really understand the market. PC's will never go away....so PC gaming will never go away. It will always enjoy the same type of market it always has; slightly behind the consoles, less popular, but constant. And consistency is always good....especially when there is money to be made.

[Punkster]

perhaps times have changed since the PS1 and N64? there is now a long line of games available, ones that did and did not exist when the PS1 and N64 were around.

If i had £600 I would prefer to spend it on a new PC coz i admittedly do spend a lot of time on it. more than i should and not just gaming - work, etc. making videos for fun even if they're crap.

atm, since i've upgraded my PC to playable standards, I haven't really played on the 360 much. In any case, i do prefer playing on a PC more than a console. £570 for a better PC seems worth it partly coz i spend a significantly smaller amount of time on a game than i used to. e.g. there are quite a few games i don't bother to complete coz i get bored of them so quickly and move onto the next game. heck, i even get bored of some games so quickly that i can play through just the demo and feel that i've had enough.

so rather than wasting money on several expensive console games, getting bored of them, i feel that it is better for me to play a lot of freebie games, get access to loads of fun demos, borrow PC games off friends - hardly any of them have 360s, but they do have PC games. and although i know it's not strictly legal, i can get such easy access to older games for free or get a no-disc crack for borrowed games.

[Nintengod]

PC gaming is dying? What news source did you get that from? As far as I can tell it's just as popular as it always was. There are exclusive PC titles just as there are exclusive console titles. Pc gaming has it's niche and always will. Ofcourse it's not as popular as the consoles but so long as there is money to be made it will not go away. I have heard that whole "PC gaming is dead" crap ever since the original NES, but it is still here. You will have consoles that come and go. Like people who wasted their money on the Saturn, Dreamcast, Sega32x, Atari Jaguar, or any other console that failed in the market, they have always had the PC to fall back on because a PC has more uses then just games and though not as popular it is very stable in the gaming market. You are never going to spend $200 on a video card or $40 on a game just to find that all the PC manufacturers are going to discontinue making PC's. You are obviously not a big PC gamer and that's your choice. It is also obvious you don't really understand the market. PC's will never go away....so PC gaming will never go away. It will always enjoy the same type of market it always has; slightly behind the consoles, less popular, but constant. And consistency is always good....especially when there is money to be made.

A niche market, exactly....but its hardly worth forking out a lot of money for a high end PC, when a much cheaper console can deliver and consistently without further upgrades.

My point is that the daily things required with a PC, you can do on a Pentium 3 with half a gig of RAM! There is really no need for quad core processing, £300 video cards and 3 gigs of RAM to do that.

"Slightly" behind the consoles???.....oh come on, PC game sales are dire by comparison, despite a userbase that dwarfs ANY console ever made!

[Punkster]

but again there's the argument that you can't really compare PC with the entire console market coz there are several consoles which do not work together, and it's hard to determine how many PC owners use their PC as a games platform like with a games console, coz obviously PCs are used for so many things...

...which is a good thing about PCs. So even if i did spend, in your opinion, too much on a PC, i'd still be using it for other things and it will be faster and more efficient at doing those "everyday things". therefore, it's not a total loss.

If you choose one console, then you're stuck with only that platform's library of games, whereas on PC, the gaming library goes back decades, it's not just shooters, there are loads to choose from from each game genre and there is emulation software for older consoles such as N64 freely available although some are not strictly legal, but whose going to grass on you?

EDIT:

ok, i gota admit that my parents are extremely generous with me, i.e. i'm quite spoilt with the many games they've bought me :) , but with the PC, if they did buy it, it would be for the whole family to use, and it's nice to have a spare PC that actually works in my own room. I have an older one in my room atm, which is practically un-usable coz the hardware in it is sooo slow.

we have in the past spent as much as £1000 as on a PC and my sis's laptop and they weren't even that good, but that was partly coz my parents earned quite a lot of money to spend and thought that the more expensive it was the better and they probably didn't know as much as i do now about the hardware. if we compare how much we used to spend on a PC, £570 on a very decent PC that wouldn't require upgrading for quite a long time sounds like great value.

ok, i wouldn't ask for a £1000 PC just for gaming, coz i even i feel that is a waste of money, but £570 seems much more reasonable.

plus we can always sell the old PC which we don't even use any more and the current main-tower unit, as even that would probably end up redundant sooner or later, so imo, it wouldn't be a huge financial loss.

[Nintengod]

but again there's the argument that you can't really compare PC with the entire console market coz there are several consoles which do not work together, and it's hard to determine how many PC owners use their PC as a games platform like with a games console, coz obviously PCs are used for so many things...

...which is a good thing about PCs. So even if i did spend, in your opinion, too much on a PC, i'd still be using it for other things and it will be faster and more efficient at doing those "everyday things". therefore, it's not a total loss.

If you choose one console, then you're stuck with only that platform's library of games, whereas on PC, the gaming library goes back decades, it's not just shooters, there are loads to choose from from each game genre and there is emulation software for older consoles such as N64 freely available although some are not strictly legal, but whose going to grass on you?

EDIT:


Gaming consoles are becoming more backward compatible. Look at the Wii....you've got 100% backward compatibility with the Gamecube, as well as all the new Wii titles, as well as the huge vast amount of games on the Virtual Console.

PC's do have a massive back catalogue of games....but many are hard to find now, plus they will often be tricky to run on newer operating systems. It's not always that simple with PCs.

Oh, and I can do everyday things REALLY fast and efficiently on a Pentium 3 laptop, with 512MB RAM ;) Surfing the net seems quicker in fact on this laptop over my core duo work laptop for some reason. Which is another annoyance of PCs....in that you have to forever maintain them, and often have to re-install operating systems to make them run at their full potential.

[Punkster]

do you have to pay for virtual console games? i think they should be free. it's actually quite easy to get any older games for free as long as it wasn't made in the 1980s which is too old anyway imo and you're not some moral person who thinks that copyrighted games from decades should still be paid for. the incompatibility problems with PC games is exaggerated, i haven't had any problems with the dozens of games i've played on PC.

"it's not always simple with PCs" - 99% of the time games work fine for me. and i think i know enough about PCs to cope with any problems.

there's also a sense of greater satisfaction with a PC coz you know that not everybody's got the same looking hardware as you'd have with a console. Plus the XPS 420 i'd like looks very stylish compared to the current gen of consoles.

[Nintengod]

do you have to pay for virtual console games? i think they should be free. it's actually quite easy to get any older games for free as long as it wasn't made in the 1980s which is too old anyway imo and you're not some moral person who thinks that copyrighted games from decades should still be paid for. the incompatibility problems with PC games is exaggerated, i haven't had any problems with the dozens of games i've played on PC.

"it's not always simple with PCs" - 99% of the time games work fine for me. and i think i know enough about PCs to cope with any problems.

there's also a sense of greater satisfaction with a PC coz you know that not everybody's got the same looking hardware as you'd have with a console. Plus the XPS 420 i'd like looks very stylish compared to the current gen of consoles.

All about graphics again :rolleyes: Quality of a game is down to the gameplay.....and most of the best games have been made on consoles, and are exclusive to consoles.

As for Virtual Console games, yes, you have to pay for them, and yes, you can get them free and run them on emulators on PCs, PSPs, DS's or even on a Dreamcast! What you get for your money though is 100% accuracy of emulation, as well as better mapped controlling. I've been down emulation routes before, and its hit and miss. There is no quality control, where as with Nintendo, it HAS to hit the right standard.

As for games in the 1980s.....clearly you are wrong, as there is HUGE demand to play these games, which is why the Virtual Console has introduced NES games, and more recently Master System and Commodore 64 games to the selection. The Legend Of Zelda is 2 decades old, but beats most games released today.

[Cazze]

It’s all just personal preference and I really don’t see why you are making a big fuss about it.
Punkster, if you are sure that’s what you want then get it, it will be vary useful to you and I’m sure you will enjoy it.

Nintengod, sure you don’t like PC gaming and much prefer consoles, that fine so go say how **** PC gamers are in your own forum, I wouldn’t go to a Nintendo forum saying they where **** and pointless.

Punkster enjoys PC gaming so leave him to it.

Back to the subject I recon you should go for the 8800gt it’s a very nice card for a reasonable price.

[Nintengod]

It’s all just personal preference and I really don’t see why you are making a big fuss about it.
Punkster, if you are sure that’s what you want then get it, it will be vary useful to you and I’m sure you will enjoy it.

Nintengod, sure you don’t like PC gaming and much prefer consoles, that fine so go say how **** PC gamers are in your own forum, I wouldn’t go to a Nintendo forum saying they where **** and pointless.

Punkster enjoys PC gaming so leave him to it.

Back to the subject I recon you should go for the 8800gt it’s a very nice card for a reasonable price.

Just saying its overrated, which it is. PC gaming has been on the decline for years, as console gaming has basically mirrored it.

You don't need an 8800GT, 2GB RAM or a quad core to run Internet Explorer 7/Firefox, Microsoft Office or play video clips :p You can do that effectively on a machine worth less than £70, let alone £570!!

[Cazze]

Well it doesn’t matter if it is in decline or growing vastly, all games are there to be enjoyed no matter what platform they are on. Would you still play your wii even if it was in decline? I recon you would because you enjoy it, what more reason do you need?

[Punkster]

All about graphics again :rolleyes: Quality of a game is down to the gameplay.....and most of the best games have been made on consoles, and are exclusive to consoles.

As for Virtual Console games, yes, you have to pay for them, and yes, you can get them free and run them on emulators on PCs, PSPs, DS's or even on a Dreamcast! What you get for your money though is 100% accuracy of emulation, as well as better mapped controlling. I've been down emulation routes before, and its hit and miss. There is no quality control, where as with Nintendo, it HAS to hit the right standard.

As for games in the 1980s.....clearly you are wrong, as there is HUGE demand to play these games, which is why the Virtual Console has introduced NES games, and more recently Master System and Commodore 64 games to the selection. The Legend Of Zelda is 2 decades old, but beats most games released today.

well, i'm not totally just for the graphics, i think those games too old to the point that the hardware in those days limited the gameplay. there are only a few retro games that i like and i've already got them on my PC, such as Mario Kart 64, Bomberman 64, Diddy Kong Racing and Super Smash Bros. i'm not a huge fan of retro games, coz i, unlike you didn't really play them much as you must have when you were younger.

the 8800GT card is great value for money coz it's got almost high-end graphics capabilities but it's the cost of a medium-range GPU. I've thought about my options and think that it's not worth upgrading my current PC anymore. I don't know much about assembling the hardware myself and would most likely mess up even though it's supposed to be quite easy.

Firstly, I'd like to explain that i like Dell PCs coz i've had two of them and they worked perfectly fine and never had to take it to repair shop, whereas the older PC we had was a Tiny and it was really crap, and for some reason, it seemed more prone to viruses etc.

secondly, i've thought about going for the cheaper option of going for the Inspiron 531 PCs but they have low PSU and i have no idea how to fit one in myself, plus it would be a waste of money to buy a new one, and the graphics card options are quite rubbish to be frank, so again, i'd end up wasting my money on upgrading graphics card.

so i thought, hey, XPS 420 has got what i need straight away, with no need for upgrades in the near future, so why not get XPS 420 instead.

Although i'm not all for the graphics, games from the last year or so are unplayable on my current PC even if i lower the res and graphics effects. and as i've said upgrading is not worthwhile, so the XPS 420 with the lovely 8800GT and dual core processor seems brill imo.

[Nintengod]

Well it doesn’t matter if it is in decline or growing vastly, all games are there to be enjoyed no matter what platform they are on. Would you still play your wii even if it was in decline? I recon you would because you enjoy it, what more reason do you need?

I wouldn't pay extra to maintain it though if it was on the decline. Machines on the decline tend to also mean fewer games being released, so once you bought all the best games from the catalogue, then it would be time to move on.

well, i'm not totally just for the graphics, i think those games too old to the point that the hardware in those days limited the gameplay. there are only a few retro games that i like and i've already got them on my PC, such as Mario Kart 64, Bomberman 64, Diddy Kong Racing and Super Smash Bros. i'm not a huge fan of retro games, coz i, unlike you didn't really play them much as you must have when you were younger.

.

Exactly, you have terrible taste. Bomberman 64 is absolutely ****E, and Mario Kart 64 is the worst Mario Kart ever made, and that includes the Gameboy Advance version!

Plus again, playing N64 games on emulation on PC is ok, but its not perfect, especially as its UNLIKELY you will be using the natural analogue N64 pad for it, which does take an awful lot of the feel of it.

[Punkster]

Just saying its overrated, which it is. PC gaming has been on the decline for years, as console gaming has basically mirrored it.

You don't need an 8800GT, 2GB RAM or a quad core to run Internet Explorer 7/Firefox, Microsoft Office or play video clips :p You can do that effectively on a machine worth less than £70, let alone £570!!

well, to be precise, the XPS 420 i'd like to get has a dual-core processor, but a fast one at 3.20GHz and 6MB cache at 1333MHz. I know you can do regular things on a cheaper PC, but the XPS 420 is a huge performance boost when it comes to games compared to the PC i've got currently.

[Nintengod]

well, to be precise, the XPS 420 i'd like to get has a dual-core processor, but a fast one at 3.20GHz and 6MB cache at 1333MHz. I know you can do regular things on a cheaper PC, but the XPS 420 is a huge performance boost when it comes to games compared to the PC i've got currently.

Most of these games would run on the 360 without all this tiresome dull talk about cores, cache memory......and bear in mind you ALREADY own a 360.

[Punkster]

Exactly, you have terrible taste. Bomberman 64 is absolutely ****E, and Mario Kart 64 is the worst Mario Kart ever made, and that includes the Gameboy Advance version!

Plus again, playing N64 games on emulation on PC is ok, but its not perfect, especially as its UNLIKELY you will be using the natural analogue N64 pad for it, which does take an awful lot of the feel of it.

that's very nice of you to criticize my taste in games. :) although i know this will wind up with an endless argument, but.. hey what the heck, it's not like i'm in a rush to do anything else..

have you played bomberman 64? and what do u mean the GBA version? the GBA version of any game on the N64 would obviously be worse.

it's your opinion which Mario Kart is better. some like double dash better but i've played the n64 one so much that double dash felt rubbish. i enjoyed playing bomberman 64 very much when i was younger. it was a great multiplayer game and it wasn't very serious unlike the instense goldeneye shooter.

considering emulation on the PC is completely free, it's very good even if you have a few differences. the emulations of the games i've mentioned all work fine for me - look almost exactly the same to me. the keyboard controls are fine for most of them and i can plug in a USB controller for them.

[Punkster]

Most of these games would run on the 360 without all this tiresome dull talk about cores, cache memory......and bear in mind you ALREADY own a 360.

that's the problem, i don't really play much on the 360 atm, coz most of the games i've got on it are shooters, which are much better on a PC. and the way it is in my house is that if i play on the 360, i get moaned at by my parents and sis for playing games too much on it, but when i play on the PC, nobody seems to care as much - weird but i duno why.

and i actually spend less time playing games since i've started playing games more on PC which is a good thing.

[Nintengod]

have you played bomberman 64? and what do u mean the GBA version? the GBA version of any game on the N64 would obviously be worse.

it's your opinion which Mario Kart is better. some like double dash better but i've played the n64 one so much that double dash felt rubbish. i enjoyed playing bomberman 64 very much when i was younger. it was a great multiplayer game and it wasn't very serious unlike the instense goldeneye shooter.

considering emulation on the PC is completely free, it's very good even if you have a few differences. the emulations of the games i've mentioned all work fine for me - look almost exactly the same to me. the keyboard controls are fine for most of them and i can plug in a USB controller for them.

Yes, I have played Bomberman 64, and it was a pigging mess and the worst Bomberman ever created. Thankfully, the more recent DS versions of the game have redeemed the series slightly. The best Bombermen games were Super Bomberman 1 & 2 on the Super Nintendo - fact.

As for Mario Kart, the general consensus was the Mario Kart 64 was a bitter disappointment, particularly when it came to the 1 player mode. The GBA advance version of Mario Kart, called Mario Kart Super Circuit was far better than MK64. I own ALL of them incidentally, and on ALL the original systems.....I don't use emulation, with a crappy control set up to judge games, i use how nature intended.

N64 emulation on PC is still very much lagging behind what it should be, and what the Virtual Console offers......but you pay for what you get, and sticking in a crappy PC USB pad is no substitute for the incredible N64 control pad, which in many cases MADE the games as great as they were.



and i actually spend less time playing games since i've started playing games more on PC which is a good thing.

That's because gaming on PCs is tedious and not as good an experience. You spend more time analysing frame rates and changing resolutions :p

[Punkster]

The best Bombermen games were Super Bomberman 1 & 2 on the Super Nintendo - fact.

but the SNES is so past its time now that it's almost irrelevant to gaming discussion. "the best games are the old ones ... etc.. etc.." that's your own opinion. maybe some of don't care about the SNES games coz we haven't even played them coz it's so old!

N64 emulation on PC is still very much lagging behind what it should be, and what the Virtual Console offers......but you pay for what you get, and sticking in a crappy PC USB pad is no substitute for the incredible N64 control pad, which in many cases MADE the games as great as they were

i actually disliked the N64 controller coz the control stick was quite rough and gave my thumb peeling skin coz i have very thin skin on my hands. so it was a pain. the 360 controller which is use it by the far my favourite controller so far. ergonomics are spot on and the triggers are great and they're not featured on any other controllers i know of.

the n64 controller was brill for it's time coz no other controller before it had a control stick, but when you compare it now to other controllers, i think it is rubbish.

[Punkster]

That's because gaming on PCs is tedious and not as good an experience. You spend more time analysing frame rates and changing resolutions :p

oh and you reminded me you have the option of changing graphical options which can be great for other reasons such as getting rid of shadows in battlefield 2142 so you can see perfectly in areas that are supposed to be dark and hidden!! and you can tweak around with data files to completely change the game play to make it more fun in some cases such as in Crysis.

[Nintengod]

but the SNES is so past its time now that it's almost irrelevant to gaming discussion. "the best games are the old ones ... etc.. etc.." that's your own opinion. maybe some of don't care about the SNES games coz we haven't even played them coz it's so old!



i actually disliked the N64 controller coz the control stick was quite rough and gave my thumb peeling skin coz i have very thin skin on my hands. so it was a pain. the 360 controller which is use it by the far my favourite controller so far. ergonomics are spot on and the triggers are great and they're not featured on any other controllers i know of.

the n64 controller was brill for it's time coz no other controller before it had a control stick, but when you compare it now to other controllers, i think it is rubbish.

The SNES is so past its time? So irrelevant? What a load of bull**** you spout. You really have no clue about videogames, YOU are irrelevant. The SNES is widely viewed as the greatest console ever made, and one of the most important.

The N64 made a far less of an impact on gaming, bar Mario 64, Goldeneye and Ocarina of Time. The control stick is amongst the greatest ever made as well. Most PC usb pads are cheap, and poorly designed.

If you want to carry on with your narrow minded approach to older games, then thats your loss. The fact is though, that most of the best games ever made were made pre-2000. Gaming was more interesting, more accessible, and above all more fun then.

You have nil credibility now with your last post.

[Punkster]

to be fair. You don't hear many people go "i'm playing [game from ages ago] atm" very often. the SNES is irrelevant to this discussion about PC graphics cards to the point that not many people really cares about playing SNES games any more. Yes, they were good for their time, but now we're in the 7th gen of games. we're past the 4th gen consoles.

and please stop stating opinion's as facts, i find it annoying and i bet others do as well. e.g. "Super Mario Galaxy is the best game of this generation - fact" well it would be to you if you like the game but to others it isn't.

i use the 360 USB controller and it's fine. I've used it for driving in San Andreas and switch to mouse and keyboard for on foot shooting.

[Nintengod]

to be fair. You don't hear many people go "i'm playing [game from ages ago] atm" very often. the SNES is irrelevant to this discussion about PC graphics cards to the point that not many people really cares about playing SNES games any more. Yes, they were good for their time, but now we're in the 7th gen of games. we're past the 4th gen consoles.

and please stop stating opinion's as facts, i find it annoying and i bet others do as well. e.g. "Super Mario Galaxy is the best game of this generation - fact" well it would be to you if you like the game but to others it isn't.



Er "to be fair", you DO hear people playing older games all the time. The Virtual console speaks for itself. Every month, millions of games on the SNES, and prior to the SNES are downloaded and played. Great games don't age, they remain great, which is why when people talk about the best games of ALL time, its not just "7th gen" games, in fact on the contrary.

You have a very bizarre viewpoint. For the same reason, we should ONLY watch movies that have recently been made, and we should forget music from previous era's? No, it doesn't work like that, and the same applies in gaming. One of the reasons why the PSP sells pretty well is the retro gaming scene on it. Face facts, you're well out of touch on this one.

Super Mario Galaxy is the highest ranked, rated game of this generation, so thats a pretty good indication of its status ;)

[Punkster]

£7.50 for an N64 game? i think that's a rip off. should be no more than £3.00 and that's only if it's a good game like zelda or whatever you think is good on N64.

[Nintengod]

£7.50 for an N64 game? i think that's a rip off. should be no more than £3.00 and that's only if it's a good game like zelda or whatever you think is good on N64.

I'm not denying that the price could be seen as steep, especially as its not a physical purchase....but that doesn't take away from the fact that millions still love and PAY for older games.

When Super Mario Kart hits the Virtual Console, it will be massive. So regardless of price, older games have always and always will be highly rated and played.

[Punkster]

was there a poll on which Mario Kart game was people's favourite? I'm sure there was but i can't find it.

can you make an opinion poll? it'd be interesting or can you tell me every Mario Kart game that's been released?

[Nintengod]

was there a poll on which Mario Kart game was people's favourite? I'm sure there was but i can't find it.

can you make an opinion poll? it'd be interesting or can you tell me every Mario Kart game that's been released?

The key is to ask people who've played them ALL extensively.

Super Mario Kart on the SNES is the only MK which has literally no weaknesses as a game. All the others have either a few flaws, or a fair few flaws which take a lot away from the game.

[fusionx449]

i played them all and loved them all but the current gen is my fav.

pc gaming is rubbish and needs to die away. as to the old games SUCK TALK. nin is right emulated games are rubbish and play better when remade by pros. look at teh arcade games on the xbox 360 millions and millions of people buy them and play them...LOOK at N+ or Goldenaxe.

@crysis: ahahahaha i know something that you PC ****face dont know and trust me its coming home guys :P

[Nintengod]

i played them all and loved them all but the current gen is my fav.

pc gaming is rubbish and needs to die away. as to the old games SUCK TALK. nin is right emulated games are rubbish and play better when remade by pros. look at teh arcade games on the xbox 360 millions and millions of people buy them and play them...LOOK at N+ or Goldenaxe.

@crysis: ahahahaha i know something that you PC ****face dont know and trust me its coming home guys :P

MKWii has only been out a week.....give it time, and it will probably wear thin. Super Mario Kart is the only MK with infinite playability and lifespan.

Crysis is mean't to be a very average FPS....just looks good and requires a PC that virtually no one owns to run it to its full potential.

[MurdersGalore]

This leg of the discussion gets really silly. Tell me.....if N64 and SNES are making such a huge dent there.....why the **** did nintendo make a Wii? If this retro market is as lucrative as you say, Nintendo could say **** the 7th gen console and just retool new snes and n64 systems. Hell...While Microsoft and Sony are selling their consoles at almost loss leading prices.....Nintendo could rehash old consoles that would cost a few bucks to throw together by today's standards and destroy everything else on the market.
It's bull****. Virtual console isn't selling consoles...new games sell new consoles....the virtual console stuff is the kind of thing where people buy a console and go "wow...this new version of (insert name of 7th gen game) is ****ing sweet...oh...and I can play old **** too"
It's an afterthought. You must be old.
You also pine on about what a pain PC gaming is.....you also mention old systems like dreamcast, sega master system, commodore 64......WAIT!!! Comodore 64...hey....that wasnt a console..that was a computer. A brand of personal computer...wow....a PC!!!

[Nintengod]

This leg of the discussion gets really silly. Tell me.....if N64 and SNES are making such a huge dent there.....why the **** did nintendo make a Wii? If this retro market is as lucrative as you say, Nintendo could say **** the 7th gen console and just retool new snes and n64 systems. Hell...While Microsoft and Sony are selling their consoles at almost loss leading prices.....Nintendo could rehash old consoles that would cost a few bucks to throw together by today's standards and destroy everything else on the market.
It's bull****. Virtual console isn't selling consoles...new games sell new consoles....the virtual console stuff is the kind of thing where people buy a console and go "wow...this new version of (insert name of 7th gen game) is ****ing sweet...oh...and I can play old **** too"
It's an afterthought. You must be old.
You also pine on about what a pain PC gaming is.....you also mention old systems like dreamcast, sega master system, commodore 64......WAIT!!! Comodore 64...hey....that wasnt a console..that was a computer. A brand of personal computer...wow....a PC!!!

Jeez, what a bitter rant from you. :rolleyes:

I'm not old, i'm 26. I just happen to prefer the style, and workmanship in older games. They were more original, had obviously far lesser budgets, which mean't more risks could be taken. There is just a charm about the older generation of consoles, and I love playing on them as well as newer consoles.

As for your commodore 64 comment, oh dear, you really can't debate properly can you? I don't have any issue with PCs....what do you think I am using NOW, numbskull! ;)

In any case, Commodore 64, had a FAR higher emphasis on gaming than the IBM PC had. I think its great though that the VC now is rolling out C64 games, as it had some great stuff on it.

"Old ****" doesn't come into it. People have based decisions on buying consoles because of backward compatibility. One of my main gripes with the PS3 is lack of PS2 backward compatibility, and a lot of other people feel the same way.

[Punkster]

the way i see it is that games have got progressively better with each gen of console that is brought to us, so imo, there is no real need for compatibility. to me it's just a bonus. this is part of the beauty of PC gaming. old PC games can be played on any PC no matter how new it is. there aren't any generation barriers like with consoles.

most of the good retro games can be played on emulation software easily downloadable from the internet on PC and i think they're fine if you want to get a near enough experience for basically FREE!

[Nintengod]

the way i see it is that games have got progressively better with each gen of console that is brought to us, so imo, there is no real need for compatibility. to me it's just a bonus. this is part of the beauty of PC gaming. old PC games can be played on any PC no matter how new it is. there aren't any generation barriers like with consoles.

most of the good retro games can be played on emulation software easily downloadable from the internet on PC and i think they're fine if you want to get a near enough experience for basically FREE!

What a stupid and juvenile thing to say. Games haven't got progressively better with each gen.....they just LOOK better. The original Metal Gear Solid on PS1 is far better than MGS2 and 3 on the PS2. Just as Super Mario Kart on 4th gen hardware, is better than all its sequels since.

Yes, emulation is available, and I do use it, but its not perfect, and you get what you pay for, or what you DON'T pay for in this instance, which is often glitchy stuff. The brilliant SNES Super Mario RPG is hopeless on emulation on PC, as is Starfox and other Super FX games. I'd rather PAY for quality.

PC's are ultimately fiddly for gaming. Where as consoles you just put the disc/cartridge in, and you are away.

[MurdersGalore]

And Im 33...and owned 2 commodore machines.....a vic 20 and a c64 as well as an amiga....and the emphasis on gaming wasn't there to begin with. It came later..so no..these machines were not created with gaming in mind.
How can you say noone knows how to debate when nothing you have stated is a fact? It's only anecdotes and opinions. Saying such and such title on such and such machine is better then bleh is purely anecdotal and opinion. Opinions are neither right or wrong because like anecdotes they are not based on fact.
PC gaming is dying? Where's your facts? Because Pc gaming dies with you and perhaps your group doesn't make it fact.
Major realeases by microsoft for the xbox 360 have been released for PC. There is lots of money to be made there for them...so never a need to stop making these games available for both. It's common sense. Microsoft develops DirectX which is developed for the x86 architecture which is then used to power the Xbox 360 (hence the X in Xbox). Microsoft sales their consoles as loss leaders...meaning they make little if any money on the actual console itself. They make more of their money on the licensing of technology to development houses to produce directX based games. The game software developed at Microsofts own subsidiary dev houses are developed on x86 based workstations (aka PC for the technically Daft) then ported to their console. Most other devs follow this paradigm. Being that it costs Microsoft X amount of dollors in development time to then compile that software to run on Xbox hardware means that each game developed has development overhead being ported from their workstations to the Xbox. Being that the game is developed on x86 based workstations...the files created by the devs are native and need only be compiled from their source (usually C with bits of assembly thrown in) to x86 machine language..which costs them nothing. So that means Microsoft's and the studios that develop for them only have the overhead of packaging for the pc version. They make alot of money on the console version because it is the most common to be sold obviously, but they also make alot of money on the PC version because though it sells less....there is less development involved in bringing that version to the PC. So long as microsoft is in the game console market, so long as they have the lead in the Operating System market.....PC gaming will never die.
Everytime a new generation of console comes out.....the console zealots say the same thing...."OMG there's no need to own a pc for games now because console X is so much better"
PC gaming will never be as popular as consoles obviously because most people dont want to tinker with things.....but there is still a big PC gaming fanbase....its still lucrative....and microsoft for one would be completely stupid to ignore it...as would most other developers...especially when it cost much less to bring a title to PC.
These aren't opinions or anecdotes.
You wanted a geek? you got it.
It's too bad that even with name calling you still didn't get your point across...you aren't going to change our minds...just like I am not gonna change yours.

[Nintengod]

You wanted a geek? you got it.
It's too bad that even with name calling you still didn't get your point across...you aren't going to change our minds...just like I am not gonna change yours.

Your loss, as I didn't read above this. Sorry :p

[MurdersGalore]

Sure you didnt.
If you did...you would see that you just got owned.

[Nintengod]

Sure you didnt.
If you did...you would see that you just got owned.

No, it was my arrogance and the fact your post was another boring rant.

The fact you said "owned", really does frighten me. You're not 14.

[MurdersGalore]

which proves you read my post which makes this even more pathetic. Come on...give us another opinion...ahem...fact.

[Nintengod]

which proves you read my post which makes this even more pathetic. Come on...give us another opinion...ahem...fact.

Seriously, I didn't read it ;) I scanned the top paragraph, then realised it was going to be tiresome, so just finished with reading the last bit. I'm sure it would have been a rivetting read....so don't be too hurt :o

[Punkster]

What a stupid and juvenile thing to say. Games haven't got progressively better with each gen.....they just LOOK better. The original Metal Gear Solid on PS1 is far better than MGS2 and 3 on the PS2. Just as Super Mario Kart on 4th gen hardware, is better than all its sequels since.

again that's your opinion, it's not a fact. basing your "facts" on reviews, which are technically opinions as well anyway doesn't mean it's the best.

standards have changed since SNES if you haven't noticed. Some people may prefer SMK and some people may prefer Mario Kart Wii. But games have got progressively better. For instance, the hardware was so limited during the SNES time that you couldn't play a shooter game on it.

Look how shooters have gone from Doom to Crysis. RTS games from the first Command and Conquer to the latest one. Some old popular racing game ot Forza Motorsport.

Some of the genres have got to a point where the only thing that can be improved is the graphics. Graphics aren't the most important part of a game, but it would be outrageous for a developer to release a game with graphics quality of 1990's graphics quality and expect people to pay the full price for it.

[Nintengod]

again that's your opinion, it's not a fact. basing your "facts" on reviews, which are technically opinions as well anyway doesn't mean it's the best.

standards have changed since SNES if you haven't noticed. Some people may prefer SMK and some people may prefer Mario Kart Wii. But games have got progressively better. For instance, the hardware was so limited during the SNES time that you couldn't play a shooter game on it.

Look how shooters have gone from Doom to Crysis. RTS games from the first Command and Conquer to the latest one. Some old popular racing game ot Forza Motorsport.

Some of the genres have got to a point where the only thing that can be improved is the graphics. Graphics aren't the most important part of a game, but it would be outrageous for a developer to release a game with graphics quality of 1990's graphics quality and expect people to pay the full price for it.

But all I am hearing is graphics graphics graphics. Sure, some genres weren't feasible on certain hardware but your Doom comparison is just stupid. There are LOADS of superior first person shooters from the 1990s compared to Crysis. Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Quake and Half Life are ALL far better than Crysis.

The SNES did have Doom on, so it could achieve FPS, but it had side scrolling shooters instead, and games like Super Metroid and Contra III for example, which as shooters go, rank amongst some of the greatest EVER made. Sadly what has come with hardware advances is the repetitive nature of gaming.....we now only get FPS! *Yawn*.

Dungeon Keeper is a RTS.....made in 1997, it beats most modern day RTS into the ground, as does SNES/AMIGA classics like Populous and Worms, which are FAR FAR better than their more modern day sequels or counterparts.

Driving games are the same. Gran Turismo was great back in 1998.....the series since then has improved in looks, but the game HASN'T. Wipeout 2097 was easily the best Wipeout game of the series, and that came out over a decade ago, just as the best Mario Kart game came out 16 years ago, and the best Wave Race game came out 11 years ago.

Superman Returns (the movie, from 2006) ISN'T better than Superman 1 or 2 (from 1978-1980). Despite it looking MUCH better and having CGI effects etc, the original movies are FAR superior. I'm not saying all older stuff is better, but get a grip and face FACTS that newer stuff HASN'T got progressively better at all.

[fusionx449]

true graphics doesnt make a game, its the game play mainly. THIS IS FACT! where as saying oen game is better then the other is only opinion and not fact.

i enjoy newer games more because i like good graphics as well as good game play. im not naming any titles because it will just cause issues.

and by the way crysis might just move on to be on a greater platfrom, this is news that just flew into the office.

@ murdergalore sort it out you are noway near 33 of age.