Which one should I get PS2 or Gamecube?

Well, I don't see GC coughing up any Starfighter or Knights of the old Republic (XBOX). The only good games out for GC are Rouge Leader and Luigi's Mansion. Plus later on this year, FF 11 will come out.

EDIT: FFXI will come out for ps2.

 

If we're talking this year:

-Res.Evil
-Res.Evil 0
-Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem
-Zelda (A bit iffy)
-Mario
-Starfox Adventures: Dinosaur Planet (Saviour in light of strange Zelda)
-Metroid Prime (?)
-Final Fantasy Unlimited (maybe)
-Unspecified Final Fantasy
-Kameo: Elements Of Power
-Turok: Evolution
-Soul Calibur II
-Die Hard: Vendetta
-Enter the Glass Rose (whatever that is.)
-Star Wars: Bounty Hunter
-Phantasy Star Online: Versions 1 and 2
-Others I can't think of right now.
-A few Nintendo inhouse project announcements coming up at E3.

Next year:
-Perfect Dark
-1080 2
-F Zero
-007: Die Another Day
-Resident Evil 4
-Too Human (PLEASE)


I think you'll find GC's release schedule's looking pretty rosey next to ps2's especially in light of Sega's recent announcements.

 

My advice pick up the X-box now, then once the good games come out of Gamecube pick that up (plus the price will probably be even lower) then a year or two later pick up the PS3 to get those few exclusive titles that didn't port since PS will play older games. (Sony's scrapping any hardware expansion plans for PS2 and working on the PS3 already)

 

Some of those are...........ok. Bounty Hunter is coming out to PS2 also. But, check out this link

 

When can we expect PS3

 

who knows, it's still in R&D but if I know Sony they're going to try hard to get a new system out within a few years. They can't afford to be and probably refuse to be the "obsolete system" out there for too long.

 

Too soon unfortunatlety.

No specific date but it's well under way as is xbox 2 so I hear.

In my opinion these rumours show Nintendo to be (probably for the first time ever) a gamers best bet if they want their moneys worth because Nintendo simply can't afford to abandon their systems when they are in danger of becoming obsolete. They'll stick by it come rain or shine.

"Some of those are...........ok"

-Res.Evil
-Res.Evil 0
-Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem
-Final Fantasy Unlimited (maybe)
-Unspecified Final Fantasy
-Metroid Prime
-Starfox Adventures: Dinosaur Planet
-Soul Calibur II

OK?!!!

*sigh* some people are never happy.

 

In response to Bounty Hunters link.

Some of those are....... ok (to be honest the names of most mean very little to me, therefore I daresay aren't all that special. Also, Timesplitters 2 is coming out on GC too aswell as xbox.

 

Well yeah but Nintendo is plauged by their choice of storage again. That's a real limitation to larger epic games. How they're going to fit a final fantasy game on GC without sacrificing graphics movies and length is puzzling me. I probably would have gone with the GC or made plans within the forseeable future to buy the GC if it wasn't for that fact.

 

Ok, I have all 3.

PS2 has by far the most games.

Gamecube won't really start to get some competitive games until June thru the end of the year.

both are great, but you are underestimating the xbox, halo and munch are seriously great games and it has a hard drive, no memory cards needed.

Believe me they are all great, but it'll take another year for anything to come close to the amount of great games that PS2 has, if you have to choose 1, go with sony.

 

I just broke down and bought an X-Box last night to go along with my Gamecube. There are just too damned many hot-looking titles coming out for both (and a number which are already out) to not take advantage of my current financially-solid bachelorhood and snag 'em both before my sitcheeation changes.

Now at least I can stick to buying the cream of the crop games for both systems rather than the best and the mediocre games for one. And as much as I love my Gamecube, no WAY is it gonna get anything like Morrowind any time soon... that thing just looks fascinating as hell!

Okay, now I've a question for you X-Box owning Star Wars freaks (as I've now joined your ranks)... is Obi Wan as god-awful as its reputation suggests? Bear in mind that I can still play my old n64 and enjoy it, so if the graphics are somewhat tatty I can still dig it.

 

Maybe so but the problem is that a new game takes more space than a 16 bit PS1 game. Aside from PC games; when you have multiple disks, each disk requires the basic game files for each. In a game like the Final Fantasy series for PS1 the entire games size for both games could have fit onto fewer disks but each one had to have a good chunk taken up by the base game files which meant less room for individual stories and movies on each. What this means is the developers are seriously limited in the scope of the base game files. While a programmer for the SNES wouldn't know what to do with 2 gig, today's programmers can easily fill up a DVD with epic sized games packed with goodies.


I just find it hard to believe that after the very expensive N64 cartidges, they still choose the smaller one. And it's not like they're saving any real money between the two. I'm doubtful about it being any more copy protected as well. If you show me an article I'll concede the point but I don't see how it becomes harder to burn because it's smaller.

 

The only games so far spanning 2 discs are Resident Evil and possibly Eternal Darkness both of which are huge games jam packed with FMV, especially Resident Evil. Even the pre-rendered backgrounds have been largely ditched in favour of FMV backdrops. FF would span 2 discs at most and I don't recall any PS owners complaining about the games being split across 4 cds. There is nothing wrong with the GC disc. If anything it is more beneficial than ordinary dvd.

 

I had complaints about the four disks. My roommate and I in college were both playing FF7 but at different points, so we were constatly switching disks. It's annoying. Plus it still limits how big the base game is. How is it more beneficial or better to have a smaller disk? It doesn't make it scratch proof, if anything, that's just another disk that can be scratched unless you're really anal and put everything properly away the second it's supposed to. I don't hear anyone complaining that games don't come on 5 1/4 disks anymore.

Unless you can come up with some sort of solid argument I'm assuming your blind support for Nintendo has hindered your ability to accuratly judge the pros and cons here. More space can allow for more game, more kick arse cut scenes and a well developed base game. Sorry but Nintendo picked a loser for it's storage space (again). I've always been a big fan of the big N but I don't have to like every decision they make.

 

Advantages:
-Pirate Proof (good for industry)
-Better compressing techniques (Not that much difference in memory size though it looks to be a big one)
-Slightly cheaper
-Quite simply they look better
-Very efficient loading times (in some cases loading times have been artificially induced because they were TOO good. e.g. Eternal Darkness.)

Disadvantages:
-Some games may be on 2 discs. BOOHOOHOO.

From a business view (for Nintendo) and a consumer view (me)the mini-dvd is an excellent storage medium.

And no I'm not blindly loyal to Nintendo. Loyal maybe but not blindly. I know when they mess up.

 

-Pirate Proof (good for industry)
I'll believe this when I see it. No wait it's not possible to be pirate proof. So it's slightly more difficult to copy. I'll sleep better tonight

-Better compressing techniques (Not that much difference in memory size though it looks to be a big one)
It's still significantly smaller than a DVD which is the point

-Slightly cheaper
Till you have a second disk which would make it slightly more expensive, but since they're both so cheap it's a moot point either way.

Quite simply they look better
Aside from being an opinionative point they look the same except ones smaller. Okay.....

Very efficient loading times (in some cases loading times have been artificially induced because they were TOO good. e.g. Eternal Darkness
It may have the PS2 beat but not the X-Box. The X-box's drive is faster, plus it utilizes the Hard drive for swap files. This is still not a benefit to a smaller disk.



So it's slightly harder to copy than a DVD, and it costs a dime less to make. Meanwhile you loose valuable space, which either restricts the overall gameplay or the length. This is why the average gameplay length for the N64 and most games for the gamecube like Zelda are 10-20 hours while a game for the X-box like Marrow Wind is 200+ hours or more. A game like Marrow Wind could never go to the Gamecube because the base game is too big for it's choice of storage.

"It looks better" doesn't fly with me. If I wanted to get a computer that looks good in exchange for functionality and purpose I'd be the proud brainwashed owner of a Mac.

 

I have both and trust me the loading time is better.

5 seconds is about the longest I've waited on a GC game loading.

 

Zelda OoT was 60 hours long.

SFA will be on average 120 hours long.

Let's wait until FF is released before we become all judgemental over GC's abilty to handle the game.

Also, How will gameplay be restricted in any way. The only thing I can think of is taking the time to read the "please insert disk 2" message and then doing it which is a very minor inconvenience.

Finally, did switching disks on your PSOne enrage you to the point where it detracted from the gameplay?

 

lol if it took you 60 hours to beat OoT, there's something horribly wrong.

And play the same game, to see the difference. Some X-box games have 0 seconds loading time. Check out WWF Raw for example.

 

I don't believe this. Just when I think I've won and bet off the slap head ewok along comes pavarotti.

It should take about 60 hours to beat OoT, if you do it correctly, 100% goals. If not you really haven't technically finished the game though I ubderstand some just don't like doing that.

Also, good for RAW but I have played some games with some pretty noticable loading times.

Project Gotham for one if I remember correctly.

In my opinion if you have to so much as look at a loading bar it aint fast enough.

Finally, "Plz" don't use terms like LOL. It screams out geek.

ROTFLMAO.

 

I finished OoT in about 12 hours BTW (no game guide either) A limited space takes away from gameplay because you have to limit the base game files because they go onto each disk. If you've got a 2 gig disk and the designer wants 2 gig for the base game, he's going to have to cut some things out to save room for the story lines on each disk. That is a limitation to gameplay. And it was quite infuriation when you load the game only to find you've got the wrong disk in there and then you have to go find the other one, load it. Just give me a DVD with lots of storage.

Edit: L L

 

The whole point of multiple discs is that you don't have to cut out chunks of the game and when you run out of space start on disk 2. I really don't understand your argument if infact it is a proper argumentive point.

Please enlighten me with your technical wisdom.

Also I realised that this thread is way off course and we should be discussing this in "xbox and gc. Which has a better future and current games?"

I suggest that it is locked.

 

It is so good to have someone agree with me for once. I thought only me and tenor still posted here. Thank the good lord!