even within console-generations there are bound to be up to years of technological improvements between each console. so no, still not a fair comparison..
you can't rate a "best" of all console on hardware, as that generally means the newest one will win, no contest.. that must mean the NES is one of the crappiest consoles ever, right? i mean 8-bits?! C'MON!! in the end, the only fair comparison you can make between consoles are their games.
IMO the critical sence of reviewers may have been numbed a tad by the eye candy.. gears is a AAA game for sure, but if you ask me it should have been closer to a 9.0 than 9.6..
the tc's rig may not be more alot more expensive than consoles in itself, but let's not forget how short the life-span of this "supercomputer" really is. if you buy a console you are guaranteed to be able to play the games released for it at their best for the entire lifespan of the console (say, 5 years).in those 5 years, you would have to upgrade your computer, probably more than once, and most likely would end up buying a whole new rig within those 5 years, in peticular if you don't know pc's and their hardware all that much, which oddly enough, alot of people don't.. you would not have the bestest of times playing your newest eye-candy behemoth of a game on the original 5 year old computer.. since you want to make the price comparison, imo you need to compare the price of playing the games at their best, and in that comparison pc's will always come out as the most expensive option. the pc will (as always) end up with the greatest graphical output, but as pc's (contrary to consoles) aren't uniform nor a single system (due to the upgrades they usually get), that really is moot. by the way, seeing as pc games can't be made fully to spec of the system they must play on, and all the other cooky stuff that goes on while you play those games, a pc must have a substantial numerical lead in specs over consoles in order to actually perform better. So the tc needs to upgrade some of those listed items before a reality based comparison can take place,,
[QUOTE="xuimod"][QUOTE="shadow_lord_11"]how does a "hermit" translate to "hobbit" ?
your attempt at funny r fail. shadow_lord_11
'Hermit' is the old term. 'Hobbit' is the new term for 2007. Didn't you get the memo? If not, then you have just been served notice. Don't use the term Hermit, its bad Internet etiquette. And if you do, your mother will be ashamed of you and your father will beat you. 'Hobbit' is the new accepted term. Don't fight it, just go with the flow.bovine and marsuples corresponds perfectly with cows and lemmings.
however, hobbit (a short human) has no correlation with a hermit (crustacean) :| yeah.. except afaik lemmings are rodents and not marsupials... unless a marsuple is some sort of supermutant hybrid of the two. also a hermit could also be that old weird guy who lives alone down the street in the run-down house you warn your children about, and who's usual pasttime activity is standing outside the schoolyard, hands in pocket, looking all excited yet strangely, focused..
Log in to comment