So I switched my DSL service to Speakeasy, and for doing so, I get my choice of a Playstation, Xbox or GameCube. I've already got an Xbox, but I'm torn between the PS2 and GC. I'm not really interested in any of the online PS2 stuff, since I've got Xbox Live. But for every GTA: Vice City on PS2 that I'd love to have, there's a Metroid or Zelda for GC that I'd love as well. I'm equally torn between the two. So I throw the question out to the board:
If you were in this position, which would you get? I've also considered just getting a GBA SP and getting a bunch of games for that as well, but that would cause MAJOR productivity issues at work. More than this board already does.
"So you're Ben Affleck. You're sitting next to Jennifer Lopez, who's your fiancee, you're eating a eight-foot high sundae, and members of the Boston Red Sox are coming up to you and asking for autographs. If that's not heaven, what is?" - Tony Kornheiser, PTI
i would get a PS2, because if market trends continue, the Game cube will go from "Distant thrid" to "Out of the running, like Dreamcast dead" and then you can get all the Gamecube stuff at discount
(edited by rikidozan on 11.6.03 1828) "Grabbin your butt? That's not very lady-like." "I'm not a lady." "Oh. Whatever."
Unless someone comes up with a no mod chip piracy method for the GC, I doubt its going the way of the Dreamcast any time soon.
Besides, I play my DC more often than my PS2. I think it's much harder to choose between XBox and GameCube than GameCube and PS2. Keep the XBox for sports games and Metal Gear, and play everything else on the GC.
Of the 4 consoles I have hooked up right now, the PS2 is the only one I could part with and not feel terribly bad about it. Kingdom Hearts, Super Bust a Move 2, and a Monkey Island game are all that are keeping me from getting rid of it.
Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
I can't complain about the GC. At this point, I would only really get the PS2 for a few games (namely, any DDR one) but I have a PS1 for that. That, after some, ahem, tweaking, should suffice for my PS gaming needs. ^_^
Originally posted by SOKI'd go for the third choice: The Game Boy Advance...but get the original GBA, not the SP one. I picked up Tekken Advance and it is SWEEEET!
Maybe I'm just a sucker for a good marketing campaign, but why in the hell would anyone get the original GBA when they could have the SP? I understand the issuse with the size of the shoulder buttons, but everything else about the SP makes it far superior to the original Advance.
Back to the topic. I left my ps2 with a friend of mine and have my gamecube in my room. Needless to say, I'm not over at that friends house very often with the implicit purpose of video game playing. I suggest the Cube because it's all about fun. It doesn't try to be something it's not, and that's what makes it great. The PS2 is a mediocre dvd player at best, but yet they marketed it as a godsend for those of us without rca switchboxes. The xbox is a shitty desktop computer, but they marketed it as the second coming because you would no longer need memory cards. The Gamecube made the promise of having great flagship games, as well as the usual third party suspects. They came through. If I were you, I would get the Cube. But this is only my opinion.
"Behind that twinkle in your eye, I can see the bitch in you." - 50
Advice I heard when making a decision between two equally appealing choices:
Flip a coin. If you are unhappy with the result, that means you do have some preference, and that is the choice you should make. If you don't have a coin available... (facade.com)
As far as the systems go, I have them both (and an equal number of games for each), and I think the Gamecube gets more play (as of late), only because its smaller and much easier to lug back and forth between here and my girlfriend's house. I should think that there are certainly enough games available for both of them that you won't be bored with either system for the duration of its lifetime.
(Although part of me thinks you should get the Gamecube just to help out the underdog.)
Originally posted by BattlezoneBut for every GTA: Vice City on PS2 that I'd love to have, there's a Metroid or Zelda for GC that I'd love as well. I'm equally torn between the two. So I throw the question out to the board:
If you were in this position, which would you get?
If you're equally enthralled by both, the odds aren't bad that you might end up getting both somewhere down the line.
Therefore, which one makes more sense _now_, if you're getting one free?
* PS2 - $180 new, $150 used * GameCube - $150 new (with a game, let's say Metroid Prime), $90 used without one
Get the new PS2, knowing that you can pick up a GameCube much more cheaply later on.
(Everyone knows my bias, which is PS2 all the way. I have little interest in most major Nintendo franchises (the Mario family, the Zelda family, etc.), so apart from Eternal Darkness for my wife, I don't have a compelling reason to own a Cube yet.)
"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if I’m going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
I've been meaning to get a PS2 for about two years now, it just turns out that every time I have the money together something comes up and I can't buy it. That said, I got a Gamecube the day it came out, and I totally haven't regretted my purchase. Every game I've bought for the system has seen repeated play, and I think they're all top-shelf games. Zelda alone is worth the purchase in my opinion, but there are a lot of quality third party titles as well.
Originally posted by Tenken347Zelda alone is worth the purchase in my opinion, but there are a lot of quality third party titles as well.
And what are they?
(I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm legitimately curious. There's Eternal Darkness, there are the Monkey Ball games, there's Ikaruga -- what else is in the third-party lineup of note that isn't also available on PS2? I hear the third-party refrain now and then, and I'm curious as to what I'm overlooking.)
"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if I’m going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
Originally posted by vspIf you're equally enthralled by both, the odds aren't bad that you might end up getting both somewhere down the line.
Therefore, which one makes more sense _now_, if you're getting one free?
* PS2 - $180 new, $150 used * GameCube - $150 new (with a game, let's say Metroid Prime), $90 used without one
Get the new PS2, knowing that you can pick up a GameCube much more cheaply later on.
(Everyone knows my bias, which is PS2 all the way. I have little interest in most major Nintendo franchises (the Mario family, the Zelda family, etc.), so apart from Eternal Darkness for my wife, I don't have a compelling reason to own a Cube yet.)
I've got 200 bucks to play with over at the GameStop website. I'm leaning towards the GC, if only because I can get more bang for my buck (system, game, memory card) and still fit under 200 bucks. The only real options I've got on the PS2 side are a new system with a memory card for $225, or a used system with an extra used controller and a used GTA3 for about $179.
"So you're Ben Affleck. You're sitting next to Jennifer Lopez, who's your fiancee, you're eating a eight-foot high sundae, and members of the Boston Red Sox are coming up to you and asking for autographs. If that's not heaven, what is?" - Tony Kornheiser, PTI
Originally posted by Tenken347Zelda alone is worth the purchase in my opinion, but there are a lot of quality third party titles as well.
And what are they?
Capcom has some pretty good GCN-specific games coming out ... Resident Evil 4, Viewtiful Joe, PN.03, etc etc.
Personally, I hope Viewtiful Joe is going to be a big time "system seller" for the Cube when it launches; I played the first (?) level on the GameCube Demo Disc and instantly became hooked ...
If you've only got $200 to play with, you do get more for the Gamecube than you do for the PS2. However, bearing cost in mind, the PS2 will only be $179 until they clear out the current stock of PS2's, so if you aren't willing/able to pay $199 for a new PS2 down the line, then you might want to get that now. (This does somewhat assume you might want both systems at some point.)
Originally posted by SOKI'd go for the third choice: The Game Boy Advance...but get the original GBA, not the SP one. I picked up Tekken Advance and it is SWEEEET!
Maybe I'm just a sucker for a good marketing campaign, but why in the hell would anyone get the original GBA when they could have the SP? I understand the issuse with the size of the shoulder buttons, but everything else about the SP makes it far superior to the original Advance.
IMHO, the shoulder buttons were not a problem...it's the proximity of the d-pad to the top of the unit, where the screen flips out. I use inside of my thumb's knuckle to control the d-pad, and with the placement being where it is, it's way too close to the top of the system. In actuality, I find my hands are way too big for it. I could barely Street Fighter Alpha 3 on it!
My 15 year old neice, who stands at 5'5" also has some awkward moments with the system, after I lent it to her for a few hours.
The benefits of the GBA SP are many, but if one can barely use it, those benefits go out the window. Kinda like the benefits of owning a car yet lacking a drivers license, I suppose.
Skies of Arcadia is one hell of an RPG. They added some nice stuff to the Dreamcast version and cleaned it up a bit. Not really worth buying if you have the Dreamcast version, but otherwise a must-have for RPG fans. Also, there's the Resident Evil remake, which was pretty cool, and the titles you mentioned are all quality. There are also several titles that are available for multiple systems, like Robotech and Capcom vs. SNK.
I'd probably go with the PS2, but the GC has definitely been fun. Metroid was a blast, but a little too short, I thought. Zelda is fun. Same with Mario Sunshine. Like KidBrooklyn said, the GC doesn't pretend to be anything other than a game system.
That said, I think the PS2 has more on the ball. GTA Vice city, the wrestling games, EQ Online is a blast, and the Final Fantasy series, to name a few.
I think there's more crap to wade through, when it comes to the PS2. Nintendo always seems comitted to putting out quality games, as opposed to just flooding the market with titles.
(never thought I'd see Nintendo being referred to as an underdog in the video gaming world, especially considering where they were in the late 80s)
-- Asteroid Boy
Wiener of the day: 23.7.02
"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex "Was he no-selling?" - Me
What I would do is make a list of games that I would like to play, or think I would like to play. Then I would put what system(s) that those games are available for. Which ever system would provide the most gaming satisfaction would be the system I would pick. I think these type of decisions are highly individualistic. The games I like may do nothing for you, and the games you like may do nothing for me. So I'm not sure how anybody can say definitively what the best system is, that's really going to depend on your own individual tastes.
Everything that is wrong in this world can be blamed on Freddie Prinze Jr.
Also remember the controller. The GC controller is brilliant for first-party games and absolutely god-awful terrible on third-party games. They specifically designed GC controllers only for Luigi's Mansion, just like the N64 controller was designed as if SM64 would be the only game made for the system.
I don't agree with that at all. It's like the difference between the old style keyboards for computers that had the arrow layout in a diamond, and the modern layout of 3 keys on the bottow and one on top.
I like the bigger "A" button. It works for me. Most of the time there is a primary action in a game, so it makes sense. I doubt it's going to really get in the way on a fighter.
Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Originally posted by Guru ZimI don't agree with that at all. It's like the difference between the old style keyboards for computers that had the arrow layout in a diamond, and the modern layout of 3 keys on the bottow and one on top.
I like the bigger "A" button. It works for me. Most of the time there is a primary action in a game, so it makes sense. I doubt it's going to really get in the way on a fighter.
I don't know. If by fighter you mean a "Streets of Rage" or "Final Fight" clone, yeah one huge button makes sense. In Soul Calibur and Tekken, I use every button about equally and after playing a friend's GC for nearly 2 years, I STILL have to look down to try to find which one is X and which one is Y. The Z button requires a microscope and a safety pin to push it. The L and R triggers are ok in placement, but they could stand to be a bit more sensitive. I wouldn't want them keyed to anything that required split second timing (for example...blocking in Soul Calibur).
Tuesday PSN Store Update new video services - XOS Sports - SEC on Demand Both are on demand old/classic games. Thin selection for free, and you needed to sign up an account to do anything at all, it seemed. I didn't get that far.