The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
After weeks of deciding i went for ps2
Reasons:
I couldn't be bothered to wait for GC
>>>>>>
There was only 1 game I wanted at launch for GC
>>>>>>
There were at least 5 decent titles I wanted for ps2 which were out all ready ( devil may cry, gta3, mgs2, GT3, agent under fire)
>>>>>
PS2 has a dvd player
but i would definately get a GC instead of xbox
it has good games, but ps2 only won with a narrow margin
cause GV has way better multiplayer games ( 4 ports too)
I wish Sony could learn to put 4 ports on the PS2 and make some decent multiplayer games though
cause with GC and N64 games, each game was either 1 player, or 1-4
Reasons:
I couldn't be bothered to wait for GC
>>>>>>
There was only 1 game I wanted at launch for GC
>>>>>>
There were at least 5 decent titles I wanted for ps2 which were out all ready ( devil may cry, gta3, mgs2, GT3, agent under fire)
>>>>>
PS2 has a dvd player
but i would definately get a GC instead of xbox
it has good games, but ps2 only won with a narrow margin
cause GV has way better multiplayer games ( 4 ports too)
I wish Sony could learn to put 4 ports on the PS2 and make some decent multiplayer games though
cause with GC and N64 games, each game was either 1 player, or 1-4
Page:
There are decent multi player games and i don't think it would be good for sony to put 4 ports in because all the other consoles have if they did it aswell they would be just labbeled asa copyers or soemthing like that
Too add to Wookie's post...
It could also be easily shown that, despite the polygon rate in PS2 games being "higher" that the GC has better quality graphics thanks to the anti-aliasing techniques and lack of interweaving issues...
Basically, the whole argument is poo. You can prove anything about specs... in the ends the games speak for themselves.
Sonic
It could also be easily shown that, despite the polygon rate in PS2 games being "higher" that the GC has better quality graphics thanks to the anti-aliasing techniques and lack of interweaving issues...
Basically, the whole argument is poo. You can prove anything about specs... in the ends the games speak for themselves.
Sonic
Cubic Anus wrote:
> Life's a game, so eat it and poo it out again.
hur hur
you said poo
hur hur
> Life's a game, so eat it and poo it out again.
hur hur
you said poo
hur hur
I live, breathe and poo Gamecube - hence the name(us).
There are only two consoles worth owning at the moment - PS2 and Gamecube. You need both cos' PS2 is getting the cream of the mainstream games, and Gamecube is getting the sepcial Nintendo treats.
Life's a game, so eat it and poo it out again.
There are only two consoles worth owning at the moment - PS2 and Gamecube. You need both cos' PS2 is getting the cream of the mainstream games, and Gamecube is getting the sepcial Nintendo treats.
Life's a game, so eat it and poo it out again.
I never said specs were all important - I was just putting accross that the GC is more powerful than most people think.
Of course games are important - Thats why I play on UFO, and Pirates GOld more than Mechcommander 2 or Battle Of Britain
Of course games are important - Thats why I play on UFO, and Pirates GOld more than Mechcommander 2 or Battle Of Britain
Cyclone wrote:
> PS2s polygon count drops below the GC when all the stuff is
> added
As Sonic says, specs aren't important, but I simply must correct this.
GT3 - last major article before release quoted (from the game's creator himself himself) 20 million polys/sec. I make that 8 million more than GC's quoted best effort.
Recent reports state that after running GT3 through Sony's PS2 version of the performance monitor (the PS1 version of which allowed them to create the original GT game), it "barely touches the sides" of what PS2 can do.
That last quote *could* be nonsense, but I haven't seen anyone publicly deny it since the claim was made. It would also make sense if you believe the comments about the "difficulty" of developing on PS2, as there is by definition far more scope for improvement than on the other platforms.
> PS2s polygon count drops below the GC when all the stuff is
> added
As Sonic says, specs aren't important, but I simply must correct this.
GT3 - last major article before release quoted (from the game's creator himself himself) 20 million polys/sec. I make that 8 million more than GC's quoted best effort.
Recent reports state that after running GT3 through Sony's PS2 version of the performance monitor (the PS1 version of which allowed them to create the original GT game), it "barely touches the sides" of what PS2 can do.
That last quote *could* be nonsense, but I haven't seen anyone publicly deny it since the claim was made. It would also make sense if you believe the comments about the "difficulty" of developing on PS2, as there is by definition far more scope for improvement than on the other platforms.
specs don't matter much if the same game is been ported from one format to another
Its great making your own money. I can afford both the Gamecube and the PS2 (which I already own), and I'll be getting my nintendo machine later this year which seems to be a good time for console gamers.
I have both so it gives me access to the widest range of titles. I decided the xbox was to close to the PS2 in the types of games avalible for it so thats been left in the shop....for now.
Page: