Consoles or PCs?

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

What you think?

  • PC forever!! Consoles are just for those who don't even know how powerful PC's are.

    Votes: 22 45.8%
  • Consoles!! Specialized equipment is ALWAYS better.

    Votes: 6 12.5%
  • I don't care.

    Votes: 3 6.3%
  • Both! Specialization is for insects!

    Votes: 17 35.4%

  • Total voters
    48

DEFkon

Shhh
Dec 23, 1999
1,934
0
36
44
Visit site
what planetside? i wouldn't know but if it's on a console that would be 640-480.

As for myself, as long as it's 800X600 i wont complain. 1024X 768 is usually a luxury on a voodoo3 3000. :p
 
&

"Sp!ke"

Guest
Well it seems its not possible to have reasonable discussion on consoles with you Keech...

First of all, Planetside is a MMORPG, belive it or not... and iMO, the characters are WAYY more detailed and sharper then those of FFXi or whatever it is.

And almost all PS2 previews are made with Pcs anyway so previews arent really relevant....but comparing a driveing game with a FPS...:rolleyes:

The cd writer; mine is a pathetic 4x and it cost me 300kr. One of those memory cards that you talk about costs 129kr.
With 3x memory cards(was it 8mb?) = 387kr and 24mb
Disk writer with 40, 600mb discs (2,50kr for one) = 400kr and a pretty supreme 24000mb... I know its 13kr more but I think it might be worth it...

And AO wouldnt run on a PS2 thanks to those 32mb, Ao would need 64 or 128

The pre-rendered thing was only because they(PS2 previews) normally are, and i forgot I was surfing without graphcis so I didnt see your pics.



And a comparison with a very similar game on the PC and PS2, Fifa 2002: (Someone must remind me to never link pics from tothegame....)
PS2 first

http://www.tothegame.com/game.asp?ID=64

Now PC:

http://www.tothegame.com/game.asp?ID=285

Keech will obviously disagree or find some lame excuse for the simple fact: The PC edition looks better then the PS2 edition on basically the same game...
 

Keiichi

Old Timer
Mar 13, 2000
3,331
0
0
Well it seems its not possible to have reasonable discussion on consoles with you Keech...
Why's that? Because I keep pointing out the errors and hypocrisies in your arguments?

First of all, Planetside is a MMORPG, belive it or not...
Only if you consider Tribes 2 to be an MMORPG as well...

and iMO, the characters are WAYY more detailed and sharper then those of FFXi or whatever it is.
Well, that's you opinion and you're entitled to it. However, in my opinion, you've got to be on crack if you think that PlanetSide's stereotypical "Doom Trooper"...

<center>
planetside_screen017.jpg
</center>

...looks better than these...

<center>
ffxi02.jpg
ffxi18.jpg
</center>

but comparing a driveing game with a FPS... :rolleyes:
You said, and I quote, "NO games on the PS2 will ever have such a huge enviorment as for example Operation Flashpoint." You made no mention of FPS's specifically. You simply said that no game on the PS2 had landscapes like those seen in Operation Flashpoint. Obviously, you were mistaken.

The pre-rendered thing was only because they(PS2 previews) normally are
And what gives you that idea? I can assure you, most preview shots are in-game. If not, they'll clearly be marked otherwise.

Keech will obviously disagree or find some lame excuse for the simple fact: The PC edition looks better then the PS2 edition on basically the same game...
The only reason the PS2 shots look worse when compared to the PC shots is because To The Game sucks at taking screenshots. The PC shots are all action shots with nice close-ups while the PS2 shots are relatively sterile overhead shots. If you want an accurate comparison, go to the source: EA SPORTS.

The following shots were taken from EA's FIFA 2002 preview page; specifically from the PS2 and PC galleries.

660.jpg

670.jpg

684.jpg


792.JPG

790.jpg

779.jpg


The only discernable difference between the PS2 and PC versions is the fact that the PC version is in a higher resolution. Granted, the PC version looks slightly better, but is it worth the extra $1000 or so which it would take to run the game at a comparable framerate?

That's the ticket. PC developers could get PC games to look better than console games, but will those games run at an acceptable framerate on anything less than a P4 1.5GHz with a GeForce 3 and 512MB RAM? Probably not. Most developers choose lesser detail for the simple fact that lower system requirements directly translate into a broader market and increased sales.

Congratulations on finding one that beats the system but, before you get too happy, you'll notice that I said there are some exceptions to the rule but generally console games will look better than their PC alternatives. And, in any case, even if the PC version looks slightly better than the PS2 version, that still doesn't rule out the GameCube and Xbox.

-Keiichi
 
Last edited:
&

&quot;Sp!ke&quot;

Guest
I dont consider Tribes 2 a MMorpg, simply because it isnt...
Have you heard anything about Planetside?!?
A few facts: Consistent game world, character building(XP points), subscription fee... do I need more?(Ok there can only be a "few" hundred on the same server, but thats because its real time combat and anymore people = unplayable unless you were sitting inside the server )

What I ment is: You cant really see details in a driveing game, not to the same extend as in a FPS, and Smugglers Run 2 didnt even look any good(did you see that black "line" on the snowmobile) ... Have you really played Ofp?! :rolleyes:

Ok, if you didnt think that the Uber detailed pic I posted was any good: (stas fas)

starwarsgal004.jpg


And a truely revolusionary game(THE worst pun of the day..(The PS2 couldnt even load the AI)) :
http://www.elixir-studios.co.uk/htm/rep_synopsis.html

"Take it from the source" Yeah, then youll get really un-biased versions of the pics...:rolleyes: (I almost thought you were kidding...)

And in the screenies of FFxi you can easily see the blurriness in the pic as opposed to the "clear as crystal" pic of Planetside.

"AMD1.2GHz, 256MB RAM
DVD player, 30GB HD
GeForce2, with 17" "
IT IS STILL AROUND 550$ and should play games in years to come...and in a year you can upgrade to a GF 4(?) and still play games in 1024 and 32bit...

And I would like a counter argument on my 1000x larger backup capacity for 13kr more....

I looked at your prices on comp parts in the US, thats ****ing expensive if thats the real prices...
(in nok)
CPU (1ghz athlon) - 1,013,-
RAM(512mb) - 509,-
SB Live! - 370,-
MB (abit) - 1,105,-

got to go
 

RogueLeader

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"
Oct 19, 2000
5,314
0
0
Indiana. Kill me please.
For the sake of fairness we need to compare games of similar resolution, instead of a full sized picture to a small one that will naturally be smoothed to the eye. Look at Final Fantasy Online when you raise the resolution to the same as the Doom-like soldier pic.

planetside_screen017.jpg
 

JaFO

bugs are features too ...
Nov 5, 2000
8,408
0
0
:rolleyes: yeah that's a fair comparison :rolleyes:
enlarging a picture in this way never gives you a better resolution.
Especially if you're using a jpeg (compressed picture) at its source ...
Try the reducing the size of the pc-picture, and you'll see that all that 'extra' detail is invisible.
Even comparing the 640x480 screenshots on my pc vs those on the average console gives the advantage to the consoles thanks to the 'anti-aliasing'-effect of the tv itself.

As for 'anarchy on-line' running on PS2 : I think it would run.
You can't compare memory, simply because the OS in PC's eats memory for breakfast ... How many drivers, DLL's and other junk do you think that are in your pc's memory ?
Consoles don't even need half that stuff ...
The fact that consoles use standard hardware should make it easy to optimize that game.
You're comparing a system that can directly speak to the hardware to one that needs at least one layer of software just to make sure the stuff is compatible ...
Then there's the small detail that PC's use generic CPU's, while the console-variant can depend on specialized hardware to do the 'unimportant' stuff.

And as for the 'CD-R' is cheaper than those itty bitty memcards :
one is enough, two is necessary if you need a backup or if you're playing a lot of games.
GTA3 requires 500 kb on a 8 Megabyte card (= +/- 16 different games per card).
And try looking at the PC-equivalent of that same storage : Flashcards. Those are pretty expensive too ...
 

RogueLeader

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"
Oct 19, 2000
5,314
0
0
Indiana. Kill me please.
That's exactly the point. Not only is there less detail, but bland areas are also minimized. Smaller pictures actually tend to look more realistic because you can't notice as many problems. If you reduce the file size (which presumes that you play a PS2 and PC games at 275x225 resolution), the trooper still looks better. Any blur in the textures is sharpened completely. Any bland spots are too small to notice. No matter what you do the trooper looks better.

I should also note that the enlarged picture I have on there is just larger than 640x480, what your average television will get. Because of the blur on most televisions and the low resolution, that is what you will actually see unless you have HDTV.
 

Keiichi

Old Timer
Mar 13, 2000
3,331
0
0
Originally posted by "Sp!ke":
I dont consider Tribes 2 a MMorpg, simply because it isnt...
Have you heard anything about Planetside?!?
A few facts: Consistent game world, character building(XP points), subscription fee... do I need more?(Ok there can only be a "few" hundred on the same server, but thats because its real time combat and anymore people = unplayable unless you were sitting inside the server )
So, if Tribes 2 (or even Unreal Tournament, for that matter) was capable of 100-player matches, charged a monthly fee, and was set in a "persistent" world (persistent only in the fact that bases which have been won by one side remain as such until retaken), as far as you're concerned, they would be MMORPGs? Hardly. PlanetSide is not an MMORPG by virtue of the simple fact that it is not an RPG to begin with (like it or not, but experience points do not an RPG make). It may contain RPG-like elements, but it's still very much a First-Person Shooter.

What I ment is: You cant really see details in a driveing game, not to the same extend as in a FPS, and Smugglers Run 2 didnt even look any good(did you see that black "line" on the snowmobile)
Smuggler's Run 2 is every bit as detailed as Operation Flashpoint.

smugglersrun2_screen009.jpg

smugglersrun2_screen010.jpg

srun2_69.jpg


Ok, if you didnt think that the Uber detailed pic I posted was any good: (stas fas)
Am I supposed to be impressed? That landscape is nothing to write home about, and that character model is no more detailed than those found in FFX. The only noteworthy difference is the fact that it's in hi-res (and you'd probably need one monster of a PC to play it in that resolution).

In any case, this is a comparison between consoles and PCs, not the PS2 and PCs. Let's take it up a notch. I'd like to see a PC do this for less than $1500 USD and maintain a playable framerate:

Star Wars Rogue Leader: Rogue Squadron II (GameCube)
rogueleader_screen008.jpg

rogueleader_screen028.jpg


Project Ego (Xbox)
projectego_screen002.jpg

projectego_screen001.jpg


Dead or Alive 3 (Xbox)
deadoralive3_b2_screen005.jpg

deadoralive3_b2_screen011.jpg

deadoralive3_b2_screen016.jpg


It's also worth noting that the GameCube and Xbox are $200 and $300 USD, respectively.

And a truely revolusionary game(THE worst pun of the day..(The PS2 couldnt even load the AI)) :
http://www.elixir-studios.co.uk/htm/rep_synopsis.html
What is it with this "The PS2 couldn't even load Anarchy Online" and "The PS2 couldn't even load the AI" crap? Do you have facts to back this up or are you just pulling it straight out of your ass?

And in the screenies of FFxi you can easily see the blurriness in the pic as opposed to the "clear as crystal" pic of Planetside.
That blurriness is called "image compression", and considering that most of them are scanned from magazine articles, I'd say the quality is remarkably good.

"AMD1.2GHz, 256MB RAM
DVD player, 30GB HD
GeForce2, with 17" "
IT IS STILL AROUND 550$ and should play games in years to come...and in a year you can upgrade to a GF 4(?) and still play games in 1024 and 32bit...
Yes, but can it render games as detailed as I've shown at 60 fps? My guess would be no. And that GeForce 4 alone would run you about $500 here, which is $200 more than you'd spend buying a comparable console.

And I would like a counter argument on my 1000x larger backup capacity for 13kr more....
I'll concede that a CD/R would be a bargain at that price, but it's a trivial loss. My 8MB memory card cost me $9.99 USD. In the 10 months that I've owned my PS2, I've still filled less than 1/8th it's capacity. Using those figures, my $9.99 memory card will last me approximately 8 years before I'll need to buy another. Even with the price of the memory card added on to the price of a PS2, it'll still only run you about $315 USD total. Compared to a $1000+ gaming PC, I'd say that's a steal.

I looked at your prices on comp parts in the US, thats ****ing expensive if thats the real prices...
(in nok)
CPU (1ghz athlon) - 1,013,-
RAM(512mb) - 509,-
SB Live! - 370,-
MB (abit) - 1,105,-
Prices taken directly from PriceWatch.com (this is about as cheap as you'll find):

P4 Motherboard - $75 USD
P4 1.7GHz CPU - $175 USD
GeForce 3 - $250 USD
Case - $25 USD
Fan - $5 USD
Power Supply - $50 USD
Monitor - $150 USD
Memory (512MB) - $50 USD
Hard Disk Drive (10GB) - $100 USD
DVD-ROM (16X) - $50 USD
Floppy Drive - $5 USD
Cable Modem - $100 USD
Network Card - $50 USD
Sound Card - $10 USD
Keyboard - $10 USD
Mouse - $25 USD
Speakers - $25
OS (Win XP) - $100

Total - $1255 USD

And, if you buy a ready-made PC from a retail store, you're looking at at least $1500 USD. If you honestly expect me to believe that you can build a top-of-the-line gaming PC from the ground up in Norway for the equivalent of $400 USD, you've got to be insane. I know prices vary around the world, but that's a bit too much.

The simple fact is, pound for pound, polygon for polygon, a console is a far more cost effective gaming machine than a PC.
 
Last edited:

Keiichi

Old Timer
Mar 13, 2000
3,331
0
0
Originally posted by RogueLeader:
For the sake of fairness we need to compare games of similar resolution, instead of a full sized picture to a small one that will naturally be smoothed to the eye. Look at Final Fantasy Online when you raise the resolution to the same as the Doom-like soldier pic.
Rather than raise the resolution of one screenshot to almost triple it's original size, why don't we simply shrink the PlanetSide image down? That way, we don't have to deal with image compression...

<center>
ffxi18.jpg
PSshot.jpg
</center>

I should also note that the enlarged picture I have on there is just larger than 640x480, what your average television will get. Because of the blur on most televisions and the low resolution, that is what you will actually see unless you have HDTV.

<center>
ffxi_tgs_screen001.jpg

RLshot.jpg
</center>

One of those shots is a 598x446 direct-feed image. The other is a 275x225 image scanned from a magazine article, rife with image compression, which was then increased to 640x524. Notice a difference? It's hardly fair to call that an accurate representation of what you'll see on your television.

-Keiichi
 
&

&quot;Sp!ke&quot;

Guest
First ; look at the edges on the house roofs, not very good, and all of the terrain is also pretty grainy, nothing compared to Planetside... And how can you claim that it isnt a MMORPG?!
Reasons why PLanetside is a MMORPG:
1. The publisher says so.'
2. Everyone else says so.
3. IT IS!
4. Its not "unreal with 100 players"
5. The simple fact that the ones making it (Verant, known for a small game called "Everquest") said so, shuld be enough...

And MCM2 had almost the same graphics quality a year ago...

"What is it with this "The PS2 couldn't even load Anarchy Online" and "The PS2 couldn't even load the AI" crap? Do you have facts to back this up or are you just pulling it straight out of your ass?"

That is based upon that you need at the very least 128MB to play it, this would be a bit hard to load for a machine that has 32mb...
 

Keiichi

Old Timer
Mar 13, 2000
3,331
0
0
First ; look at the edges on the house roofs, not very good, and all of the terrain is also pretty grainy, nothing compared to Planetside... And how can you claim that it isnt a MMORPG?!
Reasons why PLanetside is a MMORPG:
1. The publisher says so.'
2. Everyone else says so.
3. IT IS!
4. Its not "unreal with 100 players"
5. The simple fact that the ones making it (Verant, known for a small game called "Everquest") said so, shuld be enough...
Then explain to me why GameSpot, IGN, and Verant Interactive all refer to it as a Massively Multiplayer First Person Shooter? :rolleyes:

That is based upon that you need at the very least 128MB to play it, this would be a bit hard to load for a machine that has 32mb...
Considering that the PS2 seems to have no problems whatsoever running Final Fantasy Online, which I've already established looks better than Anarchy Online, I don't see why you believe it would have trouble handling AO.

Give up, dude. You're just making a fool of yourself.

-Keiichi
 
&

&quot;Sp!ke&quot;

Guest
You made it sound like it was Unreal with really many players and that it had no similarities to FFXI at all, and it was just a normal FPS which could have really many players on the same server.
And as you might know; "Players have the freedom to fill any role that suits them - sniper, stealth, assault, etc.
Character progression and advancement through ranks, abilities and implants.
Work in a team, go alone, do whatever it takes to take control
of the world.
Thirteen huge 64 kilometer squared continents, massive indoor
areas.
Realistic and real-time weather and naturally changing environmental
conditions.
Missions created on the fly, to match war conditions.
Full vehicle and flight physics model.
Around 3000 players per server.
Persistant online world - the war continues even when you aren't
online.
Pay as you play - monthly subscription ala EverQuest."
Any "fool" would have thought" this sounds like a MMORPG"
And what is the EXACT definition on MMORPG?
I dont know what it is but it probably sounds like the description of Planetside....

"Only if you consider Tribes 2 to be an MMORPG as well."
Tribes is nothing like a MMOwhatever game, so YOU ARE THE RETARD, since you considerd Planetside to be like Tribes 3 or something...

The person calling me fool: Belives that someone thats is going to sell him a product will show him what it really looks like....:rolleyes: Also coming from a guy that presumes that all preview pictures of PS2 games are from someone sitting taking pictures really close to a tv screen(the game is developed on a PC, the creators will not put it on a disc until its final, it takes time and energy, and why not just make the program run from the PC...)
He also belive that my high res, billion times more processing power, 8x memory computer dosnt have what it takes to run the games...considering it was these comps that made his games in the first place dosnt make any sense in his confused little head...

Rogue Leader looks like Alliance with more ships on screen, nothing the computer hasnt seen already...xcept that the green lasers look like ****..:rolleyes:

Dead Or alive has some nice cut scenes but thats really the only strong point i can find for the consoles; The games look like ****, but the pre-rendered cut scenes look better then anything youll see on a PC, but I didnt even bother to see ANY of the cutscenes in RA2 so it dosnt really matter what the cut scenes look like...
Ive never heard about DOA so Im really not sure if it is pre renders, but anyway the "nature" demo in 3dmark looks better then that woody scene....

Never heard about "Ego" either but all I can say is, "see Nature demo" and "do they still use lens flares!?!"

And since you have a PS2 AND a PC, could you please put them next to eachother when GTA3 comes out for the PC, do a
comparison and then honestly tell me what looks the best...

And why are you so sure that the PS2 can load Republic? Youre not since you havent replied on it, yet... I can tell you with a 99% chance of being right; The PS2 cannot load Republic. Ill see if I can find something factual as well.
 
&

&quot;Sp!ke&quot;

Guest
"reaching"?:rolleyes:
I dont think so, so far Ive found out this:

1. Graphics are better on PCs.
2. There is more variety in games on PC.
3. The mouse/keyboard combo is the most "complete" control system there is(i know there exists a keyboard to the consoles, but nobody use them for gaming)
4. I have never bothered playing games with my PSX and Dreamcast, only because the games werent really any good.
And I tried quite a lot of games, especially for the Dreamcast.
(the graphics on the PSX was even awfull compared to my Voodoo 1 computer)
5. One of the best experiences you can have with a game is multiplayer, no console have ever had a game where you could play VS 16 friends, without lag...(And I know that the PS2 is prolly going to have a broadband connection, but it hasnt so it dosnt matter(dreamcast was also supposed to have "Lag free Gaming))

The first 5 reasons, soon to be more...
 

Keiichi

Old Timer
Mar 13, 2000
3,331
0
0
1. Graphics are better on PCs.
Wow. You must've been in a different thread than I was, because so far, you haven't provided anything that matches Rogue Squadron II, Dead or Alive 3, Project Ego, Outcast 2, or even FFX and Final Fantasy Online.

2. There is more variety in games on PC.
And you came to this conclusion how? 80% of all PC games fall into 3 categories: First-Person Shooter, Real-Time Strategy, or Flight Simulator.

3. The mouse/keyboard combo is the most "complete" control system there is(i know there exists a keyboard to the consoles, but nobody use them for gaming)
And, as I've already established, different games require different interfaces. Try playing Gran Turismo 3 or Devil May Cry with your mouse and keyboard and then tell me how "complete" it is.

4. I have never bothered playing games with my PSX and Dreamcast, only because the games werent really any good.
That's a matter of opinion. It hardly proves anything.

And I tried quite a lot of games, especially for the Dreamcast.
(the graphics on the PSX was even awfull compared to my Voodoo 1 computer)
Yeah. And I guess because the graphics on the 6-year-old PSX suck when compared to your Voodoo 1, that completely rules out the PS2, Xbox, and GameCube and renders all my arguments null and void. :rolleyes:

5. One of the best experiences you can have with a game is multiplayer, no console have ever had a game where you could play VS 16 friends, without lag...(And I know that the PS2 is prolly going to have a broadband connection, but it hasnt so it dosnt matter(dreamcast was also supposed to have "Lag free Gaming))
You can't have "lag free" multiplayer games over a PC modem either, so where exactly are you going with this?

-Keiichi
 
&

&quot;Sp!ke&quot;

Guest
1. YOU ignored the fact that those screens you showed me were PREVIEWS. Previews doesnt = Final product, it dosnt even prove that it is a console doing the rendering. I tried a comparison with a very similar game that existet on BOTH formats, but you ignored them and said; "uhh, well tothegame cant make screenies.." :rolleyes:

2. There is more variety on PC, when I come home then you can get the exact stats on what category this years 100 best pc games were.
PS2 variety: GEI ANIME, beat em up, racing and thats it...

3. Well the nice thing with a PC is that you can actually have more and better gadgets attached to it. I CAN have keyboard/mouse when I feel like it, you cant.
Youre restricted to gamepad, joystick and wheel. I wouldnt want to use any of those to play for ex: Homeworld...

4.Yes its a matter of opinion, but its a commonly shared one.
Console games tend to last shorter then Pc games.
I know it wasnt what I really said, but it was what I was thinking of.

5. Where did I write "modem"? i said Multiplayer, not modem(and was thinking of LANs since thats were I play MP). But still; you can have a Lag-less MP experience on a DSL connection and its becoming more and more common as well...
(before you make a comment like "I cant read you mind!", I know but I didnt have much time to write...)


"Yeah. And I guess because the graphics on the 6-year-old PSX suck when compared to your Voodoo 1, that completely rules out the PS2, Xbox, and GameCube and renders all my arguments null and void. "

Got to go to class...
 

DeadEyeNick

New Member
Dec 30, 2000
2,787
0
0
woa, slow down the two of you.
I'll never dream of playing Homeworld, Sacrifice or Baldur's Gate on the console, but neither can I imagine playing Tekken 4, Dead or Alive 3 or even DANCE DANCE revolution on my PC. :D
The thing is although you can hook up new gagets(Joystick?) for the PC to enhence the enjoyment of of games(FlightSimulator?) or keyboard for PS2 to play UT Q3 blah blah blah, certain genres will always stay loyal to the kind of platform it's develop for. Fighters will never see their days with in your PC, Homeworld:D will never be found with a PS2 stamp. Controls for fps will stay crappy on console but who cares:D

Graphics on the PS2 and PC are quite arguable. Firstly, Consoles have a fixed configation and thus it's easiler to develop games for, and is easiler to exploit more of the system graphical capablilities. PC however have a range of G-cards and technologies to develop for. Not forgeting windowOS actually further limited how good games can look(more reason to hate Microsoft, weee!). If your PC have a good configation, you can be assure to be treated to lotsa sweet stuff.

As for the Varieties of genres in each platform, i'm indeed a little dissappoint with the PC, most of the good games last year were mostly FPS or RTS. The other genres were done with little innovations and creativity(*COUGH*series*COUGH*).
oh boy whats next? UltimaXIV?

Multiplayer rulz! But try playing Baldurs'Gate 2 online(paitience paitience arggrrrh). :p Some games are better left as single player.
 

DamienW

I'm no stranger to sarcasm, sir
Feb 4, 2001
1,678
0
0
Bayonne, France
Railer, the infinite well of wisdom, said it.
Stop this stupid war, and recognize it : both consoles and PCs come with excellent titles in their category, and you can hve lots of gaming fun in both cases. Point.
(and for the Anarchy online thing : it couldn't run NOW on a PS2, but with work, FunCom could probably handle it. Do i have to remind you Deus Ex, which isn't exactly a low-machine-power game, is being adapted for PS2 ? )
Frankly, i don't see the whole point of this. "My" system is better than "yours". :rolleyes: