This is one of my top-five favorite games ever, so my opinion might be a little biased :)

Is the combat still good?hillelslovak

In this era of increasing real-time combat in RPGs, CC shows some aging. It's not as fluid and timeless as its predecessor, Chrono Trigger (#1 on my favorite games list!), but it is fun, easy to learn, and deep enough to remain entertaining throughout the game. It's quite approachable - most spells can be used by any party member, you can run away from any battle with 100% success (really, even the final boss battle is escapeable), and the game will use available healing spells/potions after every battle to fix your guys up. Of course, the best part is the absence of random battles, the bane of my RPG existence.

How long is it on average?hillelslovak

If you've played the game many times before and rush through it, about 12-15 hours isn't out of the question. On your first playthrough, I dunno, maybe something over 25 hours? It's been a long time since I knew that. It's only on two discs, and the second is relatively short, so take that into account. I've more than gotten my money's worth out of the game, though, taking the divergent story paths and finding all the endings, so I'd say replayability is high.

Are the graphics still serviceable?hillelslovak

Yes. This is possibly the best-looking game for the PS1, and the tropical environment is still beautiful. If you can handle the graphics of any other Playstation game, this one will be just fine. In addition to the graphics, the music is absolutely kick-ass, Yasunori Mitsuda's second-best score, after Xenogears. That's right, Trigger only rates third on my list, which should let you know my opinion of Mitsuda's talent and growth.

Intel's processors are superior to those of AMD, usually by a large margin. One can see this in their prices; there are dual-core Intels that are more expensive than AMD's fastest quad-core. AMD has an advantage in chipsets, which are usually more feature-packed and energy-conscious, with a lower cost (e.g. the 780G and NVIDIA 8300). However, the G45 seems to be a good competitor in terms of power and energy consumption, able to make some low-energy systems (like 65W at load).

Unless you're creating an HTPC or budget system, Intel should be your first choice, especially for gaming. In fact, the only competitor for Intel is itself; it remains to be seen how the Core i7 processors will compare with current Core 2's in gaming performance.

[QUOTE="ajkalan"]

Now this is what a mainstream card should be! Good gaming performance, inexpensive, low power consumption, not even a PCI-E cable required... It looks like it should be the choice for people with low-wattage or mediocre quality power supplies, since it consumes about as much power as a 3650 with significantly better performance. Hell, I'd recommend this over a 3870, since it's almost as good at a lower cost (though the low-end enthusiast gamer should still go for at least the 8800GT).

EDIT: Plus, it's already on Newegg. Two of the three already have aftermarket coolers, strangely enough.

JP_Russell

Definitely going to need some rebates before one could recommend it to anyone other than those with weak PSU's. There's a 9600GT for $80 after MiR at Newegg right now, and others for not much more than that. They'd be a much better buy currently.

Oops, forgot all about the 9600GT. Yes, that might be the best budget buy right now. If you're the kind of person who doesn't like rebates, though (like me, since it's been hit-and-miss whether I ever see the rebate come back), this new card might be a little tempting. Plus, all those power misers/HTPC users out there should take a good look at this (though the 9600GT/3850 are pretty damn good themselves with power consumption, all things considered).

Then again, I get more excited by power consumption than raw power, so maybe I'm just a freak :P

Eep! If you'd waited one more day, you could have bought the HD 3670, which costs $70 on Newegg and performs about as well as the 9600GSO, according to newly-released benchmarks.

EDIT: 500W should be plenty for the 9600.

Now this is what a mainstream card should be! Good gaming performance, inexpensive, low power consumption, not even a PCI-E cable required... It looks like it should be the choice for people with low-wattage or mediocre quality power supplies, since it consumes about as much power as a 3650 with significantly better performance. Hell, I'd recommend this over a 3870, since it's almost as good at a lower cost (though the low-end enthusiast gamer should still go for at least the 8800GT).

EDIT: Plus, it's already on Newegg. Two of the three already have aftermarket coolers, strangely enough.

It's about 3-3.5" longer than the 8400GS. The 8400 is about 6.5" long, and the 8800 about 9.5-10".

Computer - $230
RAM - $36
8400GS - $30

Shipping - ~$25
--------
Subtotal - $320
Rebate - -$10
--------
Total - $310

Okay, it's a little above $300, but in my opinion, the extra performance the RAM would bring (in addition to the 8400) is worth it, especially because the system runs Vista, which is a huge memory hog. The computer will work without the extra RAM boost, but it certainly won't be optimal.