sheograth

I've seen some 3D games at trade shows. When tastefully done and used in moderation, 3D can add a lot to a game. But yeah, lots of it is gimmick. It depends on how the developer uses the technology, but like I said I've seen some impressive stuff.

xDIRTYSOUTHx

Stereoscopic gaming is wicked cool. I've played Batman Arkham Asylum in 3D and it was a lot of fun.

It was a lot of fun but after 10 minutes or so it made me want to put newborn kittens in my oven.

ElectricGuy007

I like 3D gaming, but there was some really spectacular games that were in 2D.
I enjoy both. Heck I re-live old playstation one games from time to time.
After all most of them are pretty cheap if you find them.

Here's my playstation one game collection: Most of them are RPG's so most people on this site prob dont play them..
Wild Arms
Wild Arms 2
Star Ocean 2: The second Story (used to be rare, but since the PSP version is out it's not as hard to find now)
Xenogears** (highly sought after)
Grandia*
Twisted Metal 2**
Legend of Mana**(this game has gotten to be pretty rare and is one of the prettiest 2D games ever. used copies go for $60-125)
Final Fantasy Anthology**Final Fantasy 6 disc only
Final Fantasy Chronicals**Chrono Trigger disc only
Final Fantasy Origins**Re-make of Final Fantasy 1 and 2
Final Fantasy Tactics**
Saga Frontier*
Suikoden
Suikoden II (I have the disc only, not bad finding it at a rental store for $5, when this game sells on ebay for $150)
Arc the Lad Collection (one of the last games working designs made locolized in the us,
highly sought after. I have it complete with the analog button covers, mem card case and the hardcover instruction manual)
Tales of Destiny II (the tales games are alot of fun because they are real-time battle like star ocean)
**Tales of destiny II is the hardest to find game I own, people on ebay snatch them up all the time.


**Screen shot below is Final Fantasy Origins on my HDTV

I want a PLAYSTATION 3. But I wish they still played PLAYSTATION 2. The new systems will play PS1 but not PS2. =(
sONY did that so people have an excuse to buy a PS2.

ElectricGuy007

....

traxxaspede

This is sorta off topic, but i just got a new 23" 1080p monitor that has a VGA and DVI port. The new computer I'm getting on Monday () has both plus HDMI. I've tried researching to understand the difference, but I really couldn't figure out what the difference is. It seems like every play had different 'facts' about refresh rates, frames per seconds, etc. Anyway, since my monitor only supports VGA and DVI, does one or the other make any noticeable difference? The DVI cable that came with the monitor is DVI-I single link, but both the monitor and the computer support DVI-I dual link. Does that make any difference in quality? I'll probably try both, but I would like to know if one or the other actually makes a difference.

The_Shark

yep, sounds like a monitor to me.

ElectricGuy007

Not off topic to me, LCD/Plasma same thing. I have not seen any visual difference either. Plasma although is just
a better picture than LCD. LCD=Liquid Crystal Display. Plasma is basically HD.

I like that fact my HDTV had it's own built in speakers, my HDTV is loud. I have the volume on 8 most of the time.
I had it up to 50 but it goes all the way to 100. On 50 I could hear it half-way down the street....lol


I used to play games on a 17" computer monitor. It didnt look any different from the HDTV its on now.
But monitors are ancient these days. Everything is all LCD/Plasma.

xDIRTYSOUTHx

people don't read do they....based on the replies...

You can get great quality with either VGA or DVI. DVI will have a better looking image since it's digital. Most monitors should have the ability to accept either plug.

As far as i know it doesnt matter what DVI cable you use. You will still get the same digital image quality.

So to answer your question go for the digital inputs(DVI).

ElectricGuy007

MAGNAVOX has done it again.
first company to build a dvd player in the back of a HDTV. This is a TARGET AD I was reading.

I kinda see where the technology is going. But I remember Apple Mac was the first computer
company to build a Monitor with the computer components all in one, all built in to the screen.
I saw one of those and thought it was SICK back in the late 90's. But it also was super expensive like $4999

cumquat

they have been coming like that for a while now. i am waiting for the built-in bluray.

xDIRTYSOUTHx

it's been years since the first flat/dvd combo.

iexion

So my Girlfriend and I got up at 2:30am to engage in the Black Friday retail meltdowns. We ended up getting a 46" Apex LD4688 @ $528 (w/ Warranty) as a gift to her Mother.
Problem: She currently has "Dish" and after setting up the Television using the supplied HDMI cable... the picture kinda sucks. We switch back and forth to the channel to a "HD" channel(s) and see little improvement as the picture has a slight haze & fade. I went on to temporarily hook up my 360 and used the same HDMI cable. Picture was freakin GREAT!!!
Does anyone has a clue why the hell the "Dish" Picture sucks? I've switch the Dish to HD and its still not very impressive. We are currently looking at calling the Dish service back and having them correctly install the Television(s) again since they we're in a hurry when the first set everything up.[:@]

sheograth

You might not be paying for real HD service. Make sure the programming plan you're on actually includes HD.

iexion

This I would not doubt[:-]

buggyboy2010

Yes, What SHeo said, Same thing happened to My Mom, She didn't realize that She had to pay for a " HD theam pack".. I won't get it though, way to expensive around here for just a few channels.