Viewing Thread:
"You blind Ninty monkeys"

You think you're so smart with your nice new GameCubes. Happy with them are you? I know you are, you've told us enough times. Especially "Oooh, this controller is fantastic, it's much better than all the other controllers I've used".

Bollards.

Why can't you see it's exactly the same as the DualShock 2 but with less features? Let's run through this:

· D-pad - check
· Two analog sticks - check
· Four main buttons - check
· Shoulder buttons - check
· Rumble - nope
· Full analog on ALL buttons - nope
· 4 shoulder buttons - nope
· Analog sticks as sensitive as the DualShock 2 - nope
· Ability to drop for storeys and still work perfectly - nope

Excuse me if I'm wrong but surely if it's the SAME shape with the SAME layout but with less functions, that makes it worse? Oh no, sorry, I'm missing out the facts that it's purple and made by Nintendo, that automatically makes it far superior, I'm terribly sorry.

I dare any of you to prove to me that the GameCube controller is better than the DualShock 2 - and saying that "it's more comfortable" is a cop-out.

Meaningful statistics? I don't think I've ever seen any of those before.

See Ya ;-)

PinkPig

MGS2 does start to grate after a while. Today, I was talking about MGS2 with a non-gaming mate and he was talking about how amazing the graphics are, but how crap they get towards the end. He pointed out how the bird crap just disappears, and that everything looks really dull except the characters. Compare this to SSBM, and you'll see a great difference. The fact is, while the MGS2 characters may look nice and all, only four or five characters need to be drawn at any one time, all of them the same. This may be the compensation for dire, dire oh so awefully dire scenery, but I don't think so. Destructable glass is nice and all, but look at the colours. "ooo ten different shades of grey". Nice one. Then look at SSBM - all characters are lavishly designed, all levels look brilliant unless purposefully simple, and of the 250 odd trophies, all are rendered brilliantly in 3D and look great. A lot more effort may have been put into MGS2, but due to some rough edges and limitations of the PS2, it doesn't look 100% brilliant when compared to other platform's efforts.

And don't go on about the PS2 being technologically superior - it isn't. What's more, all the processing power put into graphical effects by the PS2 are pulled of with ease by the GameCube. No theoretical polygon limit nonsense, just proper, good ol' meaningful statistics describing what CAN be done, not which might be done.

How do you mean? MGS2 is as smoothe as a clean baby's bottom, I doubt it could be smoother.

Turbonutter wrote:
> You have a point about monitors, but no games actually *look* as good.
> Yet stil, arguing PS2 vs. PC is pointless - different ethics, widly
> different hardware.


> SSB:M does *not* look better than MGS2 though. You need to play the
> came xtensively before it really hits you how amazing it is.

I think that last statement applies to both games.
I've not played much of MGS2 to make a proper comparison, Smash Brothers may or may not be quite so good looking, but it certainly plays a lot faster!

You have a point about monitors, but no games actually *look* as good. Yet stil, arguing PS2 vs. PC is pointless - different ethics, widly different hardware.

SSB:M does *not* look better than MGS2 though. You need to play the came xtensively before it really hits you how amazing it is.

Well, you must be blind because I have a P4 1.8 with a Ti 500 and on a resolution of 1600 x 1200 with trilinear texture filtering it looks the dog's - much better than MGS2. Remember, TV's have lower resolutions than PC monitors, so while PC games may not look as good, they are a lot better than on the PS2, PS2 games would look very bad on the PC monitors. And anyway, I think that Smash Bros Melee has much better graphics than MGS2.

No, I've seen RTCW running on an XP1800 with a Ti500, it's not as good as MGS2, or indeed, GT3.

I assume you know what MGS2 is, but RTCW is Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

Despite being a PC fan in gaming, as well as a GameCube and Game Boy fan, I have to agree with you there Turbonutter when it comes to consoles v PCs.

Instead of going through pointless technobabble that makes very little difference to the gamers (maybe to the developers, but the gamers no), you've gone straight to the facts.

PCs are less stable than consoles. A brand new PC may last you a good many years, possibly as long as a console, but many, many future releases will require more powerful computers to run on within a matter of months (if you're unlucky) - whereas consoles, despite not having all the same power, it's guaranteed all games bought for them will work (unless you go for the copied market when it's your fault if they don't work).

That is the main reason why consoles are better than PCs for gaming, as well as the fact that consoles are only a fraction of the price of a PC (apart from X-box's original price which was only £100 cheaper than some bargain PCs I've seen advertised in the past).

I don't recognise that acronym. Probably because my sleep ratio for the last 3 weeks has been approximately 1:6.