Viewing Thread:
"I dislike some PS2 users"

When i am talking to people about my dreamcast (the king of machines) they laugh and insult it.
but if you ask me the PS2 is no better then the Dreamcast.
the dreamcast is only 60-70 quid with good graphics and 2 controllers and maybe some games.
But the PS2 has the same graphics 2 controllers, 3 free game but costs £300.

U iver insult PS2 users back if they insult u, or u r not a true dreamcast user.

Jonman wrote:
> Dreamcast had some fantastic games on it. But then again, so did the
> SNES, so does the PS2, so did the Spectrum, and I'm sure that by the
> time the X-box and Gamecube fall by the wayside, they will have done
> too.
>
> Let's be honest with ourselves, Sega never excelled at hardware, it's
> their software that's stunning. Here's hoping they keep it up for some
> time to come.

True.
The SNES was technically superior to the Mega Drive (Donkey Kong, Starfox) but the Mega Drive still sold better here. The Saturn was more powerful than anyone will credit it for, and for proof just look at games like VF2, Quake, Duke Nukem etc., but since it was such a dog to program for no-one could be bothered. This did come down to hardware - using 3 32-bit RISC processors and 2 3D chips wasn't really a good idea... the PS had one of each and was therefore a lot easier to code.
Dreamcast on the other hand isn't a hardware failure. It was producing things that the PS2 can't do (high polygon counts at HIGH resolutions) even though it was older technology. It had hardware anti-aliasing, which the PS2 does not. The DC failed not cos of its hardware, not cos of its software, but because of poor markating and the competing brand name of 'Playstation'.

Dreamcast had some fantastic games on it. But then again, so did the SNES, so does the PS2, so did the Spectrum, and I'm sure that by the time the X-box and Gamecube fall by the wayside, they will have done too.

Let's be honest with ourselves, Sega never excelled at hardware, it's their software that's stunning. Here's hoping they keep it up for some time to come.

Robin wrote:
> When i am talking to people about my dreamcast (the king of machines)
> they laugh and insult it.
> but if you ask me the PS2 is no better then the Dreamcast.
> the dreamcast is only 60-70 quid with good graphics and 2 controllers
> and maybe some games.
> But the PS2 has the same graphics 2 controllers, 3 free game but costs
> £300.
>
> U iver insult PS2 users back if they insult u, or u r not a true
> dreamcast user.

Hey i'm a PS2 owner and a Dreamcast owner and I agree that Dreamcasts are good consoles but there is absolutely nothing wrong with PS2's, and whats all this about true dreamcast owner stuff.

I've been playing Rouge Leader for ages and the only time I've found slow-down was on the tatoonie level. No where else. Even on the battle of Endor!

I've been playing Rouge Leader for ages and the only time I've found slow-down was on the tatoonie level. No where else. Even on the battle of Endor!

Edgy wrote:
> But Goldeneye featured slowdown and that was on what was at the time
> the most powerful console.

There's a difference between slowdown cos a game hasn't been programmed properly (look at EA games for example) and slowdown because the machine just can't cope with the required amount of processing. Whichever is the reason for Rogue Squadron, doesn't inspire confidence in the Gamecube does it?

Having said that, games developers always learn how to get more out of a console as time goes by. I remember the hideous state of Datona USA on Saturn on release - HUGE borders, crap graphics and snail-pace frame-rate. Two years later Sega Rally comes out, full screen at a rock solid 30fps.

Same goes for the Mega Drive - look at Flashback and Sonic 3!

Same goes for every other console that's been since, so the Gamecube is no exception really. Graphics will get slicker, I'm sure, but since the Xbox has more room to grow graphically because of its extra raw power.

> The GameCube is better than the PS2 in some hardware aspects, and
> meant to be equivilent, if not better than the X-box (as the X-box is
> full of limitations due to it being based on PC hardware - See G-Force
> magazine).

I was with you on that one until you fall on your ar5e and said the Gamecube is supposed to be better than the Xbox in some way... maybe in the 'Which can you fit up your ar5e?' competition, but no-where else. Xbox has superior technology inside it whether it comes from a PC or not. I assume the said magazine is trying to refer to some buses or perhaps the fact that the processor isn't RISC? Although it's not RISC and the Gamecube chip is, I think an advantage of 300Mhz makes up for that... and I don't think the over-clocked nVidia Ge-force 3 that's inside it (also known as the X-chip) has limitations anywhere near as low as the Gamecube's watered down ATI-based card.

At the end of the day, Gamecube is the newest kid on the block, so you would expect it to be superior. It isn't. It falls miles behind the Xbox in the power category and even fails to beat the over-hyped PS2 in a few areas. Not all I know, and in some it even beats the PS2 but since this hardware is getting old now is that really something to be proud of?

Gar-J wrote:
> Webrhyno wrote:
> Sony are no where near as good as the like sof Sega when it comes to
> producing games, Sony mainly rely on 3rd party developers whereas
> Sega
> can actuall produce their own games and the majority are good and
> very
> playable. Sony had hundreds of games on the PS1 and on;y a hand full
> were really good and around a dozen were good the rest craap, now
> with
> the PS2 most of the games are sequels lacking originality.
> Sega-Yes
> Sony-No
> Xbox-Going to fail!
> Nintendo-Best by far.
>
> Sega- I agree here.
> Sony- Agree here also.
> Xbox- Erm, doesn't look too good at the moment. Hold on to your
> wallets.
> Nintendo- Sadly no. Gamecube is the LEAST powerful of all the
> consoles. As I feel you need power to run today's latest games, this
> is pretty vital. Lacking in power is not a good idea, and Rogue
> Squadron shows this with its blatant slow-down.

But Goldeneye featured slowdown and that was on what was at the time the most powerful console.

The GameCube is better than the PS2 in some hardware aspects, and meant to be equivilent, if not better than the X-box (as the X-box is full of limitations due to it being based on PC hardware - See G-Force magazine).

Webrhyno wrote:
> Sony are no where near as good as the like sof Sega when it comes to
> producing games, Sony mainly rely on 3rd party developers whereas Sega
> can actuall produce their own games and the majority are good and very
> playable. Sony had hundreds of games on the PS1 and on;y a hand full
> were really good and around a dozen were good the rest craap, now with
> the PS2 most of the games are sequels lacking originality.
> Sega-Yes
> Sony-No
> Xbox-Going to fail!
> Nintendo-Best by far.

Sega- I agree here.
Sony- Agree here also.
Xbox- Erm, doesn't look too good at the moment. Hold on to your wallets.
Nintendo- Sadly no. Gamecube is the LEAST powerful of all the consoles. As I feel you need power to run today's latest games, this is pretty vital. Lacking in power is not a good idea, and Rogue Squadron shows this with its blatant slow-down.

Sony are no where near as good as the like sof Sega when it comes to producing games, Sony mainly rely on 3rd party developers whereas Sega can actuall produce their own games and the majority are good and very playable. Sony had hundreds of games on the PS1 and on;y a hand full were really good and around a dozen were good the rest craap, now with the PS2 most of the games are sequels lacking originality.
Sega-Yes
Sony-No
Xbox-Going to fail!
Nintendo-Best by far.

will said!!!