by Benoit » Sun May 02, 2004 12:55 pm
<blockquote>We argued its graphical processing ability. And as for quality, its got tons of great games that you never been bothered to try and play.</blockquote> <br>That's not all you argued to start with. Programming for it has been made hell. The only thing going for it is its popularity, because if it wasn't popular it would never have had good games.<br>Its graphical processing ability doesn't even compare to Dreamcast. Mind you, both the Dreamcast and GameCube have compression in their VRAM. With that, the Dreamcast reaches 28 MB of VRAM. GameCube reaches 32 MB. The PS2 has no compression. As you say, graphics will indeed take longer to show up, but it will be at the cost of processing power, draining the PS2 and making it inferior to the Dreamcast. Its badly designed.<br>And as of now, there are not that much games that interest me, and believe me, I do have an idea on what there is to offer. And I'm not interested in tons of little RPGs, endless sequels and many crap games, which is a fair part of what it has to offer. The other stuff doesn't really catch my attention. There's not much innovation either. I prefer gameplay and story over graphics/FMV.<br>Plus I would never get used to the pad which as names for the buttons has symbols, which is unhandy.<br>And then we're not even getting to the point of what the system and the games cost (much here in the EU), and that the system breaks down easily in many cases after 2/3 years of use.<p>[size=small][Edit by Benoit on [TIME]1083502617[/TIME]][/size]