Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Playstation vs PC games

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2001 10:16:12 AM

My new friend ( yaaahoooo, :-o) ) likes video games & I have previously have not had a gaming system.

Games on my existing system without a 3D card are not what I see on 3D gaming systems.

I going to upgrade my OCed Celeron 300A to a OCed 566 Celeron.. abit BX rev 2 MB, 128 meg ram (I use voice recognition for work is why I have this much system!)

The cost of a decient video card alone is more than the cost of a Playstation 1 console.

Question
PC games vs Playstation games?
Game availability?

I know this is a PC forum, but if I could keep my PC privite, by adding a Playstation to the TV, that would be another advantage!!!

More about : playstation games

February 9, 2001 1:36:48 PM

this really comes to a matter of personal taste, not something we can tell you. This probably isn't the best place to be asking. If you want to know more you should probably research more. Alot of it comes down to what you use your PC for and how much you are willing to spend.
Personally I would go for a PC, but then again you are on a PC-geek forum, so...
BTW if you really like the PSX games, the computer does have bleem which emulates many of the games very well, and is legal, too.
Some PC advantages to consider are...
More uses than just games (video editing, 3D rendering, word processing, MP3s, cd burning, programming, the list goes on), No memory card worries, Lots of periphals to choose from, Games that simply cannot be done well on a console, and often PC games have a lot more to them than console games. Console games you will get a lot of simple action games whereas on PC you get such games as Deus Ex, Longest Journey, Baldurs Gate II, etc... PCs have the best internet play and are upgradeable.
Then again consoles are cheaper and rarely freeze alot and you can take them with you to other ppls houses.
Like I said its your choice do some research and decide whats important to you and how much you want to spend.
February 9, 2001 2:00:48 PM

Heck ! A decent video it´s even more expensive than a Playstaion 2!

But hey , if you buy the P2 and the card you´ll have the best from both worlds!

And i think its worth every cent!

Better burn in Hell with some company than freeze in Heaven all alone
Related resources
February 9, 2001 4:48:43 PM

The graphics on the computer alone are worth the more money. If anyone says that Playstation beats PC gaming they are high or close to death.

----------------------
I don't hate Intel............ Do I?
February 9, 2001 7:08:34 PM

It depends on what you mean by a "decent" card. I think GF2MX cards are considered at least "decent" and you can get them now for under $100. A GF2MX will certainly be a lot better than what you have now if you don't have a 3d card.

Just my 2 cents...

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks"
February 9, 2001 7:46:28 PM

Better yet you can get a Radeon LE for under $90 which has 32mb of DDR ram. Overclocks better than alot of Radeon 32's. Just add a small fan to the Radeon chip. Geforce Mx doesn't come close to it in High resolution 32 bit gaming. Plus the Radeon boards have significantly better visual quality, compare these two images side by side, one is from the GeForce Ultra, the other is from a Radeon 32:

GTS 2 Ultra
<A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/ati/radeon/q3gf..." target="_new">http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/ati/radeon/q3gf...;/A>

Radeon 32
<A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/ati/radeon/q3ra..." target="_new">http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/ati/radeon/q3ra...;/A>

The radeon quality is vivid, clear and striking while the Ultra is not. I thought my friends GTS 2 card had something wrong with it the first time I played on it. Games just wasn't striking at all compared to my Radeon, dull, blurry at high res, now I believe it is the chipset and drivers. ATI does everything for quality while it seems Nvidia is compromising visual quality for Frames per Second just for bragging rights. Playing a game on the Radeon in intensive, you usually taken by surprise with all the details like Alice In Wonderland and get consumed and lost in a new world. Sometimes alien, time dissappears and you finally realize you just woke up to reality and it is morning. My friends computer monitor is not the problem since prior to this he had a VooDoo 3000 which was sharp compared to the GTS II. Unfortunately those who have a Geforce card and above may not even notice the difference in the two images above. If you have a Matrox, ATI or Voodoo card on a decent monitor then you will know what I am talking about. Now imagine rendering that visual image 60FPS on the Radeon and then 90FPS on the Geforce Ultra - which one would you want to play on?
February 9, 2001 7:49:27 PM

I can tell you're lying about playing on your friend's computer with a GTS. I have a GTS, and I have played on many a systems with a Radeon and cannot tell the difference in visual quality. If you can tell a difference between the two pictures you posted you have genetically enhanced vision. Why do you think all the gaming systems have Gf2s in them? CAUSE THEY;RE BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------------------
I don't hate Intel............ Do I?
February 9, 2001 8:20:11 PM

I think Loko should change is monitor , which must be crap!
I have a Sony G-200 and a Geforce 2 GTS and can say the images are perfect!

Better burn in Hell with some company than freeze in Heaven all alone
February 9, 2001 10:34:04 PM

Just as I thought, you can't tell the difference :lol:  lol. I have a 20" trinitron monitor and I can tell a big difference. Hopefully you can too with the equipement you have. Why would a reviewer compare something like that in the first place unless there was a difference? Well if your monitor is fuzzy or video card then looking at those two pictures whould be meaningless and probably pointless. Yes, a GTS 2 from Dell in a 800mh PentiumIII with an 19" HP monitor he was unfornate to obtain. When I cranked up the resolution to 1600x1200 I could see some ghosting on the text. This doesn't happen with the Radeon. Now all Nvidia cards are not the same so don't get me wrong. Supposenly the Hercules brand cards have decent 2d compared to the rest. As for WordKaos it is not your sony G-200 that is preventing you to from seeing the difference in those two sample pictures. Anybody out there with a Matrox card and a high quality monitor? A Voodoo? Care to comment and compare.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 02/09/01 07:41 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 9, 2001 10:51:26 PM

Neither my Hercules 3D Prophet II GTS w/ 64 Mb (with heatsinks on the memory banks!)


Ohh! I just love the way that sounds! :-D

Better burn in Hell with some company than freeze in Heaven all alone
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 10, 2001 3:03:07 PM

hey griezly,

I think i should call 911. I think my cousin is close too death. hehe

mark

"I thought i would never see a resonance cascade, let alone create one."
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 10, 2001 7:55:41 PM

"Anybody out there with a Matrox card and a high quality monitor? A Voodoo? Care to comment and compare."

I have a Matrox G400 and a Sony Trinitron 19", and I can see a difference in the two pics. The only real problem with comparing them is that they both are somewhat compressed .jpgs. If you look at the Radeon pic at:

http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/ati/radeon/q3ra...

you can see rainbow-ish (red and green, mostly) compression errors along the upper left side of the large red circle. It is rather unfair to make comparisions of visual quality when what we are looking at is _not_ the real output of the cards being compared.

That said, I can certainly see a difference between the two. The GeForce's textures are much more blurry than the Radeon. It is especially apparent (to me) in the texture on the red circle, the cracks are much sharper and more defined in the Radeon's pic. Still, it would be nice to see pics that were saved without lossy compression... :) 

WickedGrey
February 10, 2001 7:58:39 PM

The difference, though, is so small that you won't even be able to tell the difference when you're fragging someone with a chaingun. this arguement is as legit as arguing over 3 fps.

-----------------
Satan Clara...... 'Nuff said.
February 10, 2001 9:57:06 PM

Going , going , gone!!!
Home run for the Griz !

Damn , those Radeon guys don´t quit!
They seem like that Duracell bunny ! (It keeps going, and going , and going, and going.............and going!)

Better burn in Hell with some company than freeze in Heaven all alone
February 11, 2001 12:27:42 AM

Thought it was energizer? :wink:

-----------------
Satan Clara...... 'Nuff said.
February 11, 2001 1:55:07 AM

It is the energizer bunny! I think lordy and wusy were both watching the same duracell bunny comercials when they were nine years old, hehe.

- "That's no moon, it's Rambus!"
February 11, 2001 4:32:30 PM

lol

that must mean Kaos Kid is 13!

-----------------
Satan Clara...... 'Nuff said.
February 11, 2001 11:25:32 PM

No, it´s not the energizer bunny!
In Europe it was the Duracell bunny!



Better burn in Hell with some company than freeze in Heaven all alone
February 11, 2001 11:27:19 PM

If you double that , you won´t be far off!

Better burn in Hell with some company than freeze in Heaven all alone
February 11, 2001 11:45:11 PM

was just a joke, my friend.

-----------------
Satan Clara...... 'Nuff said.
February 12, 2001 10:22:22 AM

I agree go for the lot.

SSX and Timesplitters on the P2 Rock (especially with a few mates round for beers).

Unreal Tournament is probably the second most played game I've owned (Elite on my CPC 464 probably clocked up the most time ever!). UT is responsible for no one being able to phone me for long periods - good visuals excellent game play and I'm running an o/ced PII and a TNT2.

Hmmmm... Donuts
February 12, 2001 5:23:34 PM

Well the difference is very apparent when your video card or monitor doesn't blur the image. Obviously our two Nvidia chipset guys are having a hard time noticing any difference. I see a striking difference in quality and this is after jpeg compression. What whould it look like in real life? Here is a Sharkey review comparing 2d quality, well it now looks like 3d rendering quality of the Nvidia chipset cards are now being questioned as well.

<A HREF="http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/articles/super_he..." target="_new">http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/articles/super_he...;/A>
February 12, 2001 5:28:35 PM

I guess it's easy to get massive increases in FPS if you blur everything and don't have to render all the details. ATI = Stunning striking quality, Nvidia = Fast moving crapola. :lol: 
February 12, 2001 5:35:03 PM

You guys never quit, do you?

Don´t you have anything better to do?

I think the Lenses on your glasses are so strong that only you can see the difference! Or maybe you stick your nose on the screen in hope to spot something different!

Better burn in Hell with some company than freeze in Heaven all alone
February 12, 2001 5:38:46 PM

And who´s this sharkyextreme ?
Does he have any reputation to uphold? Like TOM´s hardware has?

I saw a review from this sharkyextreme and what i saw was The Radeon getting its silicone hard little ass being dragged all over the floor in all but 2 times!

Better burn in Hell with some company than freeze in Heaven all alone
February 12, 2001 6:12:00 PM

Quote:
I think Loko should change is monitor , which must be crap!
I have a Sony G-200 and a Geforce 2 GTS and can say the images are perfect!

Quote:
Don´t you have anything better to do?

Don't you? The point is there is a quality issue between the two cards. All you are doing is proving that point by saying you don't see any difference in the above two mentioned comparisons. Since being a GTS 2 owner and having a Quality Sony G200 monitor and not being able to even see any difference shows that your GTS 2 is lacking in visual accuracy. Once again thanks for proving that the reviewer was right. For those that can see the significant difference and can imagine it being animating at 60FPS would probably prefer it more than the GeForce Ultra at 200FPS. Sacrificing quality for speed should be left to the gamer, all I have to do is lower the quality settings in Quake on my Radeon to match what the GTS looks like when at high quality and now who do you think would be faster? But speed is not the point. Basically Nvidia is cheating quality for FPS.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 02/12/01 03:26 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 12, 2001 7:27:59 PM

<font color=blue><b>
Quote:
I have a Matrox G400 and a Sony Trinitron 19".........
..............I can certainly see a difference between the two. The GeForce's textures are much more blurry than the Radeon. It is especially apparent (to me) in the texture on the red circle, the cracks are much sharper and more defined in the Radeon's pic. Still, it would be nice to see pics that were saved without lossy compression... :) 

</b></font color=blue>

Thanks WickedGrey for giving an objective evaluation. Anyone else what to compare with there Matrox?
February 12, 2001 7:41:24 PM

Nokola, before making assumptions, please go out and try nVidia. You won't be disappointed. (Why the hell do you think so many people have nVidia stuff?)

-----------------
Satan Clara...... 'Nuff said.
February 12, 2001 8:42:36 PM

Why must everyone here be an extremist?!

I think you are taking this way too far. By looking at those TWO screenshots, I would agree that the Radeon looks better (more detailed). But the plain truth to the matter is that I'm not using my computer as a $2k fish bowl. Beauty is nice, but speed is essential (the exact opposite of what you said). Now, if we're arguing between 200 fps and 100 fps, then it's fine to worry about the image quality (for no better reason then it's there). BUT, when we're talking 60 fps vs 40, well then the fact remains that most hardcore gamers aren't lollygagging in Quake3, lollygagging in Counterstrike and lollygagging in Sacrifice ("'What aren't they?' 'Lollygaggers!'"). They need fast refreshes: a pretty slideshow is just a slideshow. Those kind of details are very nice, but they are more like the candy numbers or dots on the cake, not even as important as the icing.

So, ALL that being said, it would SEEM that the Radeon is a (very?) good choice for lower end cards but they are still far short of the Ultra if you are blowing the bankroll. You can "reduce the quality" of your Radeon until you're practically playing Wolf3d again but the Ultra is still going to be faster. Speak in future tenses about HSF and whatnot and how the Radeon could romp all you'd like but mixing and matching your current comparisons from GTS to GTS2 to Ultra seems awfully disingenuous. (on par w/ those stupid car ads saying that they beat the Suburban in gas mileage, the Yugo in reliability and space, and a 68' Eldorado in 0-60.)
a b U Graphics card
February 12, 2001 11:41:54 PM

my two cents worth
i have a geforce ,tnt and a banshee in three different computers and all on 17" trinitron monitors and yes i was a little put off by the visual quality of geforce, i was use to the banshee and now i get better frame rates for games,but i suffer poorer visual quality in everything
February 13, 2001 9:48:42 AM

Im looking at them both on a sis 620 which has pretty fair quality and absolutly no speed, so I think I am probably the most impartial voice here and I cant beleive none of you noticed the different magnification level of the readeon . The radeon seems zoomed approx 25% more than the other so obviously when you are closer the details are clearer. This is second grade science. I dont know if this difference is due to screen resolution or the way the card interprets the code but after comparing high resolution images day after day at work I can say there is no way to truley compare these images due to this difference alone. If I were to be buying a card and I will be in the next month I would get the gts because I would rather see more of the world instead of the tunnel like view Im seeing here.

You Dont Want To Be The Last to Know Anything.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 13, 2001 3:27:15 PM

Well I am currently running with a VooDoo 3500 and using a Viewsonic PF790 19" monitor. I looked at the pics and indeed there is a difference. However from what I saw I think is truely a matter of opinion which is better. The GeForce one is a bit blurry but hey if you get more FPS then more power to ya.

Just thought a VooDoo user should say somethin. Although I will be getting a new card soon. But not NVida anything. Screw them. They aren't helping to support any VooDoo product. Goto the 3500 support page and you get a review on the card basicly telling you that it is a piece of shiat. On thier driver support page all the driver links are down. I am sorry. Just venting my anger at VooDoo going under and the buyer not supporting the stuff with at least old drivers.
February 13, 2001 8:04:30 PM

Quote:
<font color=purple>Nokola, before making assumptions, please go out and try nVidia. You won't be disappointed. (Why the hell do you think so many people have nVidia stuff?)

</font color=purple>
I've have Grizwal, I have. That is why I bought a Radeon. My ATI Rage Fury was much sharper in 2d and DVD quality. Some factors which I considered overall besides the more advance technology of the Radeon. I don't understand your augument about so many people having nVidia stuff, fact is more people have ATI stuff than nVidia, does that make ATI better?

I will discuss the FPS debate, facts not fiction (to the best of my ability). That is after I install my new motherboard IWILL KK266, with Thunderbird 650 overclocked to 933, installing 256mb of pc133 CL2 and the powerful Radeon 64 VIVO Retail. If you don't see me around for awhile either I blew up my setup up or I will be in QuakeIII paradise (or hell) however you may look at it. Bye bye.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 02/13/01 05:15 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 13, 2001 8:25:13 PM

First I meant in gaming systems, i should have been more specific.

2nd, no you have not tried nVidia and thats what I was saying. Not other ATi crap.

-----------------
Satan Clara...... 'Nuff said.
February 16, 2001 5:24:12 PM

Getting back to track... ^_^
IMHO, if you can afford it, I'd go for the PC. Games tend to be a lot deeper and, in my mind, funnier. Graphics are universally better (except for ports), and in a lot of games you can't beat a keyboard with any controller. (Mouse-keyboard quake anybody)?.
To me, the only advantage a console has is price. But if you have a choice, go for the PC.
February 16, 2001 8:34:49 PM

I gotta tell you, I bought a PS2 and I am really irritated with it right now. There are FAR too few good games out there for it. I LOVE NHL2001, Madden 2001, and SSX (and Tekken is pretty cool if you like that kind of game) but there have been so few games come out for it at this point that I don't think its worth it yet. I think there are a bunch of games scheduled for release in March so April would be a better time to evaluate buying a PS2.
February 17, 2001 12:38:46 AM

buying a PS2 will always be a waste of money. All you're paying for is a cheap DVD player, some RAMBUS memory, and a stinking 300MHz processor!

-----------------
Satan Clara...... 'Nuff said.
February 17, 2001 1:19:46 PM

Well soon you will be able to upgrade to a X-Box! Weeeeeeeeeeeeee! I think actually a NV20 card would be more fun overall.
February 17, 2001 3:03:04 PM

All this arguing between loyalists is nice and all, but what about the real issue: the new technology. What happens when we get ahold of the GF3, et.al.?

---
Want to get a 100% interest rate on your computer investment?...Stick your money in the bank!
February 18, 2001 11:48:29 AM

We will be a real happy lot! :-D

Better burn in Hell with some company than freeze in Heaven all alone
February 18, 2001 11:58:51 AM

So who is planning to buy the GF3? When?
February 18, 2001 3:43:00 PM

If i have the money and can sell my Geforce 2 GTS i will!

Better burn in Hell with some company than freeze in Heaven all alone
February 18, 2001 6:22:16 PM

Me too. Probably right before or during the start of summer.

-----------------
Satan Clara...... 'Nuff said.
February 19, 2001 4:28:30 AM

When I was 10 years old my parents let me make a desision. I could get my very own computer or I could get a nintendo. I remember having to think about it. In the end though it was pretty clear that a computer was a far better choice.

As the years have passed, there have been many systems from the N64 to Dreamcast to Playstation. None of them even come close to the value of a computer.

Sure, Grand Turismo makes a playstation worth it to some degree, but even that game couldn't convince me to buy a gaming system. So all the years have gone by and I have yet to jump into the loop.

Now we have the X-box and PS2. Whoopie...it still isn't anything though. Just get yourself a good videocard, a nice monitor, a hub, and a couple of friends and a lan party will blow any gaming system away. I don't care if it plays dvd's or makes coffee, a game system just doesn't compare.

If you still aren't sure, then you really haven't played the new games. Get a hold of Sacrifice, Mech Warrior 4, Giants, Alice, etc...if you still need convincing.

Oh, and try to surf the net, write papers, balance your checkbook, and edit pictures with a playstation.
February 19, 2001 11:42:44 AM

Whatever you say, I like having both. SSX and Timesplitters are cracking games on the PS2. UT (PC version - PS2 version is pants) is the best game I've ever played closely followed by Deus Ex, Delta Force etc.

I find there are times when I feel more relaxed in front of the TV with the PS2 then going to my office an playing with the PC. I wanted to buy a DVD player anyway so I opted to go for the jack of all trades PS2, some of the games are pretty good, DVD playback is good, I'm happy. BTW some of the next gen of PS2 games such as MGS2 and starwars starfighter are corking games. Still doesn't the accounts or run Bryce though.


Hmmmm... Donuts
February 19, 2001 12:53:09 PM

I'm with you on this one. One thing that the consoles do very well and PCs piss poorly is allow a bunch of friends to come over, hang out, and play some Madden or NHL together. Gathering around the tv with the multitap set up to play some sports games is just head and shoulders above LANs or even internet play. Don't get me wrong, I'm a diehard PC fan going back to my VIC20 but it's a different "tool" so to speak. PCs, for instance, do FPS and strategy games infinitely better, especially in multiplayer since you need your whole setup -- actually, they do just about everything but sports better.
February 19, 2001 1:24:25 PM

No joke. Consoles rock in that respect.

dhlucke: I don't know what year your parents made you that deal, but we got one of the original Nintendos about a year after they came out and that was probably the best investment ever. We got a dang lot of playing time out of that thing and ALL computer games sucked until about 1992-3. But I will say that I prefer computer games over consoles now. Every single console game in the last few years has been a variation of either Street Fighter or that stupid gyro the dragon or whatever its called.

---
Want to get a 100% interest rate on your computer investment?...Stick your money in the bank!
!