Game Cube or PS2?

I was disagreeing with you. "Like I said" referred to my earlier post. They are all in the same generation of consoles with graphics capabilities that are close enough for it not to really be a deciding factor.
 
I'm disagreeing with you?
It's a lot better
GPU
Xbox = 233MHz Geforce 3 Ti
GameCube = 202.5MHz
PS2 = 147.456MHz
Xbox also has FSAA :)
 
Altron said:
I'm disagreeing with you?
It's a lot better
GPU
Xbox = 233MHz Geforce 3 Ti
GameCube = 202.5MHz
PS2 = 147.456MHz
Xbox also has FSAA :)
Click to expand...


On Paper!
But without the Games and future support of PS2,then its nothing but a fancy paperweight.Whats the point of having a fast car ,but nothing to put in thw the gas tank and no roads to drive on.
 
future support?
And Xbox has more good games than PS2 and GameCube combined!
Need any other games than Halo? Nope...
 
google must know about "the mhz myth", especially as someone mentioned a risc processor there somewhere.

i got a ps2. it was delivered to the office. here's a picture.

that was the last time i played a computer game for more than 10 minutes... may 2001
 
nambit is right about the mhz myth, i don't have the link anymore (/me bashes head on table) but like any number associated with a product, 83.56% of it was invented/misconstrued by the marketing peeps.

i own a ps2 and love it, the fact that sony didn't change the controllers from ps1 is what really sold me over the xbox, despite the happy thought of screwing billy out of a linux box.

game availability is another sticking point (read: pain in the ass), like renegade mentioned, ps2 has GTA, xbox has splinter cell which is an incredible game, and gc has pokeyman, if thats your bag.
 
i only have a PS1 but would definately upgrade to PS2. i'm a BIG fan of car racing games. i think the puter is better for my hack and slash games.
 
Spot said:
i think the puter is better for my hack and slash games.
Click to expand...
pc is still the king of hack and slash as far as i'm concerned but my 3d hasn't worked worth a shit for quite some time (linux + radeon 8500 = :( ). i really dig timesplitters 2 on the ps2 though. gran turismo 3 is what i bought my ps2 for, once it dropped to $19.99 because i'm a cheap bastard
:headbang:
 
there is a GT3?!?

*digs spare change out of car and in sofa.....checks PS2 prices online*
 
i prefer the PC on general purpose but there are some ps1 games that i still play on my ps2 which is another advantage that its got.
 
Altron said:
future support?
And Xbox has more good games than PS2 and GameCube combined!
Need any other games than Halo? Nope...
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Check ign.com reviews you can sort by score. The PS2 has more games rated above 9(out of 10) then XBox and GameCube combined. If you add in the PSone games that rank over 9 then Sony completely slaughters the competition.

Future support? Yeah, that comes from having a gazillion more PS2s in homes than the other two systems combined. More systems equals more potential buyers for games equals more game companies willing to put out products for the system.

Lack of third party support will kill a console fast.

I'm disagreeing with you?
It's a lot better
GPU
Xbox = 233MHz Geforce 3 Ti
GameCube = 202.5MHz
PS2 = 147.456MHz
Click to expand...

You think that's a big difference? You can play the same game on all three systems in many cases. Sometimes it's reported that it looks better on one and sometimes it looks better on another. To me it's not a big difference Besides the PS2 has a RISC processor which is not reflected in your meaningless numbers.
 
The downside to the PS2 is that Sony made it so it can stand on its side as well as lay down, and in fact the design of the unit encourages users to stand it on its side. This is bad because having it that way eventually messes up the mechanism that holds the DVD to the spindle... which seems insignificant until the game freezes while you're playing it.
 
Altron said:
RISC isn't always better - there's a reason your PC has a CISC chip ;)
Click to expand...

yes - that's because risc hadn't been thought of back when intel first bought out the 8086 chip, and there's this pesky thing called backward compatibility they've been lumbered with since...

actually, these days there isn't such a clear line between "risc" and "cisc"; state of the art in each have sucked in so many of the best bits of the other that it starts to get a tad pointless arguing the relative merits.

i even googled for you... here's a pretty good article: http://www.igeek.com/?pathToFile=/articles/Hardware/Processors/&file=RISCorCISC.txt&article=1
The only thing I'd perhaps have issue with is the definition of "mainstream". ARM processors are in bucketloads of stuff, and sell more than intel, and they were always traditionally RISC. Your mobile phone has an ARM chip in it... hard to say that RISC has failed in the mainstream marketplace....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top