Splinter Cell Trilogy

[puuusianka]

I can bet 500$ they have thought of that....

OK. You bet your 500$ and I bet my pair flip-flops, we have got a deal right? ;D

[DreadStunLock]

I win instantly, everyone has thought of it, and they don't have to tell me they did not, because when they read my post about "If they thought of that idea of closing the forums" they automatically have thought of it.

So you lost.


Send your flip flops and the 500$ check to:


9 Dingle Lane, Liverpool
Merseyside
L8 9SJ
England

Thank you.

[puuusianka]

I didn't bet 500$. I bet my flip flops and I just got rid of them in this Beautiful way. They are already on teir way to you.

Hope it's your size!

[Spekkio]

I get the comfortableness comment on PC gaming compared to Console, but I never understand why people exaggerate the amount of money it takes to have a powerful computer. This isn't 1990, and I don't think anyone is dumb enough to pay for an Alienware computer. Course, I'm one of those people that paid no more than 600 dollars 3 years ago on my computer and have yet to upgrade it. It has played every game to this day without much (if any) problems at all. If anything, Windows 7 is a bigger problem than any of my hardware.

Plus, I'm no computer-only fanboy, but I think that saying a PS3 has more diverse uses than a PC is pretty subjective. I can't think of much my PS3 can do that my computer can't... other than work... (My PS3 died. Tack 150 dollars to that 400 dollars for me since it was out of warranty). Though I can think of a lot of things the PS3 does that the PC also does, but it's easier with the PS3. Such as playing on a TV, internet, and movies (again, on the TV). Guess it just depends on your perspective.

I'm not exaggerating anything.

I find it interesting that you and others on this forum make claims about how I would enjoy a gaming PC. I tend to like playing games at 60 fps, and current monitors demand that this occurs at a resolution higher than my TV. My experience with PC gaming is that this number is only achievable in the first 2 years of a gaming PC's life. After that, performance on new releases starts to rapidly degrade as developers push the envelope with the next big thing. You could downgrade the graphics settings, but due to inefficiencies in the program inherent in developing a piece of software for literally millions of system configurations, the game ends up looking worse than the console version and still not giving me the framerate I desire. What this translates to for me, as a consumer, is spending at least $400 every two years on a new graphics card. That is considerably more costly than console gaming.

When I say a PS3 is more diverse, I mean in terms of multi-media. Sure, my laptop can play DVD's, but I'm fairly sure that if my plan for a movie date was to curl up next to a laptop, then she won't be returning my phone call the next day. No, I can't do work on a PS3, but I don't use my laptop for work, either, since my job provides me with that tool. In fact, I don't even really need a PC at this point, since my $300 smartphone can do everything I use it for, it's smaller, and it's a phone.

The whole PC-diversity argument, while still valid in some respects, is disappearing as technology converges. With the exception of Nintendo, consoles are not just for video games anymore; they are general entertainment devices. But if your argument for buying a gaming PC is that it can do word processing, I've got an old PC with Windows 98 collecting dust that can accomplish that just fine, and for much less money. The only thing I'm really missing with a console is the keyboard+mouse input for FPS games. Perhaps one day console companies will fix that problem rather than developing gay movement input devices to copy Nintendo.