Viewing Thread:
"Gamecube or PS2? What Do u Think?"

I think that PS2 rules above all over games consoles. Me, being a video game addict, know all the reviews, ratings, and ups or downs of consoles. How could you say no to a PS2 with games such as Enter The Matrix, Splinter Cell, and many more breathtaking games out there? And with its high Quality, life like Graphics it is a big bonus. One argument for gamecube was its Differentiation of having the famous Mario 'plumber man' hitting the screens of all Gamecube owners. Now to be frank with you, Mario is alright, i particulary enjoy mario on N64, but Mario Sunshine isnt really anything to be extra pleased about owning. Weapons wise Mario Sunshine goea about as far as a waterblaster. Whereas take for example splinter cell - as far as weapons are this game has everything, all the stereotypes of different weaponry as well as a few gadgets thrown in for the fun of it. PS2 is a must buy for anyone who appreciates a brilliant console, if you dont - go buy rubbish gamecube and sit playing never knowing that there will always be something better...

I know but weapons make games all the more exiting

Tomb Raider hasn't been released yet, and if it's anything like the first 5/6/whatever it'll be rubbish. Besides, Tomb Raider isn't PS2 exclusive.

Don't get me started on GT, and Primal?!

matt9 wrote:
> You nintendo fanboys turn a blind eye too the excellence of PS2. Maybe
> GC could be entertaining for a while, actually 5 mins, whereas i could
> sit and play on PS2 for hours apon end

So if you were playing Matrix on a GC, you'd switch off after 5 minutes.
But on a PS2 you'd keep playing.
Hmm .... knyes. Great logic.

To be honest with you it makes them 4 times as crap as PS2, with old posh boy, Bill gates

You nintendo fanboys turn a blind eye too the excellence of PS2. Maybe GC could be entertaining for a while, actually 5 mins, whereas i could sit and play on PS2 for hours apon end

'weapons wise'

That says it all.
You big hairy fool - not all games have to have mutilaling weapons in them.

Enter The Matrix and Splinter Cell are multi-format games, and both better on the XB as it has the best graphics - which is all that matters with multi-format games.
Neither of which can be called PS2 classics for this reason.

Try Ratchet and Clank, ICO, Ape Escape 2, FFX. Not that tosh.

ETM on GC has better graphics and controls.

NEXT PLEASE.

Anyone who has a brain between their ears will realise that firstly: money isn't everything. Quantity does not mean quality. Just because the PS2 has lots of games doesn't mean they're in any way good, and if you actually knew anything about the company you adore so much, Sony don't actually make any games in house. They're all second or thid party games.

Then, secondly, you'll see that the PS2 has very few actual selling points. Name the main reasons for buying a PS2 and I'm sure we'll all find they're familiar old franchises, the same thing you're accusing Nintendo of being bad for.

Tell me then what is so good about Enter The Matrix on GB than on PS2?

Anybody who knows the difference between Crap (Nintendo) and Brilliance (Playstation) will know that firstly, PS has much more money and has produced hundreds more games then NT, and secondly that anybody who argues about Gamecube being good only uses a few points of criteria - Mario, Minidisc Player, and well er... there er... well ther is nothing else actually better than what PS2 has..