Ushi No Tane Forum

Cassik wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Cassik wrote:

Kafei wrote:So then? The GC still PWNS the PS2.

Umm the Graphics engine on the gamecube is half that of the Ps2 I don't see how Gamecube is better than that? 64Mb to 128Mb? Hmmm I dunno. *Goes away for the night to play Socom 2 U.S. Navy Seals online on his friends borrowed Ps2*

Give me a nice example. The GC is still superior technologially in everything else really.

Why don't you try out all those fancy link Blackbow left huh? Those clearly state the graphic's engine of the Ps2 Thank you come again.

Because Blackbow just did. This isn't restate what has been said. This is restate until gotten.

which is better gamecube or nintendo D.C

You mean DS right? Well Gamecube is better in it's own ways while the DS has it's own perks such as Mobility. But if your looking for a solid system then the Gamecube is better than DS. *Grumbles, then goes back to playing Ps2*

sometimes i prefer old games than the newer

I like things other than graphics in my system. For example games. that's why I chose GameCube.

Cassik, you do realize the Playstation 2 stats are bull right? Sony's stats are figures when it's not really running a game. Gamecube's stats are based on when the hardware is pump to the max. For example, the PS2 claims to be capabale of 70 millions polygons per second, while the Gamecube only 12 million. It looks like the PS2 is more powerful right? Guess again. The PS2's 70 million polygon only if you displaying raw polygons. No texture mapping, no AI, no nothing. When you put in textures, AI, volumetic fogging and other effects, you have to cut the numbers in half. The numbers are based on when the machine is JUST DISPLAYING GRAPHICS. The best for PS2 so far is somewhere around 9-10 million polygons. The GC pumps 12 million WITH everything running.

Polygons isn't the only thing the PS2 lacks, it also lacks multilayer texture mapping. The Xbox can do 4 layers, the GC can do 8 layers. The PS2 cannot multilayer texure map at all.

Another thing you didn't know is the the PS2 has only 4MB of video RAM(only equal to that of the N64... without the RAM expansion). The Dreamcast has 8 MB, the GC has 16MB of video ram. So if we go by your logic, then the Dreamcast is more powerful than the PS2.

When you're comparing CPU speed, you're comparing apples and oranges. The GC runs at a 475mhz, PS2 at 300Mhz, Xbox over 700 Mhz. Have have no clue where you got the 1.2 Ghz bull for PS2 and Xbox, UNLESS you're talking about the External Bus Bandwidth. The Gc's External Bus Bandwidth is 1.6GB/sec. If you want Main Memory Bandwidth, it's 3.2GB/sec.

You want these stats? I can post a scan of my old EGM. These stats were from the first fully unveiled hardware. Later at E3, Nintendo increased the GC's clock speed to 475 Mhz, it was originally 405 Mhz when it was first revealed.

Finally someone who actually knows what he's talking about. How much VRAM does the XBox's graphics card have?

*Cough Cough* That's why cross platform games look better on Ps2 than Gamecube, yeah i'll believe you when you show me a game that looks way better on Gamecube than Ps2(Other than ToS), *Points to Prince Of Persia Warrior Within* (Game looked like « Puppy Doodoo » on Gamecube all gritty, While on Ps2 it looked Crisp). Hmmm Show me a Dreamcast game that goes beyond a Ps2 game Hmmm? As I remember Dreamcast died out because Ps2 was better. Even with the few great games on Dreamcast (Powerstone, Evolution, Grandia 2, Record of Lodoss War, Shenmue, Shenmue 2) All got overshadowed by the far Superior Playstation 2, Don't worry I saw a T.V. Show about why the dreamcast was a failure. It was on G4TechT.V. If Playstation 2 sucked so bad then Dreamcast would still be made to this day.

Why don't you take a look at Tales of Symphonia? It runs much better on Gamecube than PS2.

Here's Proof: http://psx2tech.com/talesofforum/viewtopic.php?t=81

even if nintendo's games were better, I would prefer ps2 because it has better stats. well, personally in my opinion it does seeing as how I like to play both.

makosmither wrote:only good thing about GC is its ability to make a birthday party for 5 year olds while playing super mario party 4.

That makes no sense.

Cassik wrote:*Cough Cough* That's why cross platform games look better on Ps2 than Gamecube, yeah i'll believe you when you show me a game that looks way better on Gamecube than Ps2(Other than ToS), *Points to Prince Of Persia Warrior Within* (Game looked like « Puppy Doodoo » on Gamecube all gritty, While on Ps2 it looked Crisp). Hmmm Show me a Dreamcast game that goes beyond a Ps2 game Hmmm? As I remember Dreamcast died out because Ps2 was better. Even with the few great games on Dreamcast (Powerstone, Evolution, Grandia 2, Record of Lodoss War, Shenmue, Shenmue 2) All got overshadowed by the far Superior Playstation 2, Don't worry I saw a T.V. Show about why the dreamcast was a failure. It was on G4TechT.V. If Playstation 2 sucked so bad then Dreamcast would still be made to this day.

You can argue with the results, but you can't argue with the hardware specs...and the Gamecube does have better specs than the PS2 - sorry.

makosmither wrote:even if nintendo's games were better, I would prefer ps2 because it has better stats. well, personally in my opinion it does seeing as how I like to play both.

*COUGH**COUGH*


Terra told you the real stats remember(also, Terra will probably be the only one to get the joke come to think of it...).

*Cough Cough* That's why cross platform games look better on Ps2 than Gamecube, yeah i'll believe you when you show me a game that looks way better on Gamecube than Ps2(Other than ToS), *Points to Prince Of Persia Warrior Within* (Game looked like « Puppy Doodoo » on Gamecube all gritty, While on Ps2 it looked Crisp). Hmmm Show me a Dreamcast game that goes beyond a Ps2 game Hmmm? As I remember Dreamcast died out because Ps2 was better. Even with the few great games on Dreamcast (Powerstone, Evolution, Grandia 2, Record of Lodoss War, Shenmue, Shenmue 2) All got overshadowed by the far Superior Playstation 2, Don't worry I saw a T.V. Show about why the dreamcast was a failure. It was on G4TechT.V. If Playstation 2 sucked so bad then Dreamcast would still be made to this day.

You're an idiot. Most cross platform games suck. Whether you're taking a game from a more powerful system and porting it to weaker system, or taking a weaker system and porting it to a more powerful system. Soul Calibur 2, the PS2 version hands down looked the worst. Splinter Cell, the PS2 version looked the worst. Sonic Heros, the PS2 version looked the worst. I can list plenty more examples too, but most of those aren't big name games. The ones I listed are big name games. I haven't seen POP so I don't know. Considering that you twisted the facts around to support your arguement that the GC is weaker makes me doubt what you're saying is true.

There's tons of cross platform games where to PS2 looked the worst due to it's lack of VRAM. Most cross platform games, the developers aren't going to put all their time and effort into each system. That's why exclusives are better.

Give a rest Cassik, it is a generally accepted fact that the Xbox is the most powerful and the PS2 is the least powerful. The GC can rival the Xbox is graphics, even though it's not as powerful. The GC can rival Xbox due to it's ability to texture map the ploygons. While GC can do more layers of texture mapping than Xbox, the Xbox renders textures faster than the GC.

BTW, the Xbox doesn't have an exact number as I recall. It's non-unified or something like that. It has 64MB of ram, and they can basically use as much as they want. It depends on the game. If a game requires 8MB, then they can take 8MB from it's 64MB of ram to use for VRAM. If the game requires 16MB, then they can take 16 MB out of the 64MB of RAM to use as VRAM.[/quote]

I frigging hate people who talk about « Puppy Doodoo » they know nothing about.