PC's are always the "best" choice if graphics are what you seek. But consoles offer a very universal platform that offer graphics that "don't suck" and good game play. And consoles are a fraction of the cost of a PC. An "awesome" v-card and run $400-$550 - the cost of a console and all the goods needed to enjoy your experience. And "building" a PC is a labor of love; every year a new "must have" processor is made available, which can lead to a new board, then a new power supply (sometimes) and a new case (to fit said new board). Then there's the issue of memory and it's constantly getting faster bus speeds. Make no mistake, if you do it right the first time, you shouldn't have to upgrade every year. But to keep in that "budget" that was mentioned earlier, you have to sacrifice somewhere and upgrades are inevitable. It really doesn't matter which way you go, the point is that it has to fit in your lifestyle and budget. Luckily, most titles are available for the "elitist" as well as for the "economy-minded", so no one really loses here. And, is it just me, or does the PS3 shots seem really dark? I don't have one, but when I see them displayed at Best Buy, they always have a remarkable picture.

Hmm, has anyone ever thought,"Why aren't game machines like computers or DVD players?" Functionally, they would all be the same, but the hardware upgrades would offer you more of an experience - just like upper end PC's and DVD players. Game publishers could write ONE game to work on ANY machine. No longer would you need to own 3 machines to play everything. There would no longer be "bad ports" of games from machine to machine. Cats and dogs could "get along" and a bottle of Evian would power your H2 for a week. Ah, the power of wishful thinking.