I've always been a console gamer. I've owned SNES, PS2, gamecube, xbox, and xbox 360. I still own all these except the SNES. But I built my first gaming PC last week.

Specs:

Total cost for everything (inluding shipping and tax) = $1291. I shopped arround, and usually got decent/good deals.

Total Time Spent (researching, shopping, building, overclocking) ~ 50-100 hrs.

I overclocked the GPU to 800mz, and the CPU to 3.3ghz. My 3dMark06 score is 14800.

I spend the weekend playing Crysis on the highest settings.

Conclusion:

1. PC gaming requires a significant initial investment in either time, money or both. But I personally loved every minute of building this thing. Honestly building it was more fun than playing on it. However, I'm an engineer (geek), and I expect not everyone would enjoy this. Building/overclocking wasn't hard, but it wasn't "easy" either. Basically you have to be willing to search PC message boards, ask questions, and read a lot. It's about 95% researching and 5% doing.

2. PC Gaming is on a different level than Console gaming. A PC gamerankings score of 85 is probably worth ~90+ on a console.

3. Crysis is amazing. I mean Holy F***ing God Amazing.

4. In the end, if you already have a HDTV and sound system, consoles are the best gaming experience you'll probably have for their initial cost (~$400). I've seen a lot of low cost builds posted here, but no one would build those.

5. PC might be the best bang for the buck. The initial investment is alot, but the games are much cheaper. I got Crysis on Ebay for $25, Stalker for $13, and Company of Heros for $5. The PC has a HUGE game library, so if you calculate $/hr of fun, the PC will be a better value the more you play it. Also I will be able to radically upgrade this system in a few years for roughly the cost of a new console. Once you learn how to build and overclock, upgrading takes minutes.

6. Console gaming is "easier"

- Initial setup and investment is easier

- Controller is easier to learn than mouse+keyboard

- Games don't crash nearly as often

- Games don't install, have hardware requirements, etc. You just put it in and play.

In the end I'll keep playing both. I'll buy a Wii when I can find one for sale at retail price. I'll buy a PS3 when MGS4 comes out. But I think I'll buy Rainbow Six Vegas II for the PC and not the 360. The PC is in first place.

Final Fantasy

It hasn't come out yet, so it can't suck or be awesome. So far the graphics look good, but it takes a lot more than good graphics to make a good game.

I REALLY HOPE THE GAME IS FANTASTIC, but I have my doubts:

1.There's never been a AAA FPS on any Playstation platform (RFOM is 87% on Gamerankings). AA FPS's on the PC/Xbox platformsare so common, they're hardly worth playing.

2.Guerrilla Games has brought us Killzone 1 and Shellshock Nam 67 which both sucked. Now that GG is Sony owned...again, Sony has never produced a AAA FPS.

As a general rule, I look forward to games that are produced by delevopers that have a strong history of producing superb work. I'm not impressed with screenshots/videos of games that have not been released yet.

What do you guys prefer?

This thread is retarded.

1. Gears is already out. Gears looks fantastic, plays fantastic, and won many GOTY awards. Uncharted hasn't happened yet, and few expect it to even be AAA.

2. Halo 3 is already out. It looks great, the gameplay is perfect, and it has received universal critical acclaim on Metacritic, Gamerankings, etc. Halo and Halo 2 were also superb. Killzone 2 hasn't happened yet. Killzone 1 sucked.

I don't know anything about lemmings, but gamers would rather play awesome games that actually exist, then talk about ones that might be good. Please explain your fanboy logic to me.

When it comes to console MP, the xbox 360 is #1 with xbox live.

"As of August 2007, Xbox Live has over 7.1 million active users"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_live. By way of comparison, sony has sold

This is more a measure of the PS3's failure, than the 360's success.