Smaller PS2s.

Actually no, hardware wise. the PC ownages all of them (Top of the line for both )

I dont give a fuck about PC owange. They are all awsome in there own fucking ways. All this talk about one system being better than the rest is bs.

Wrong, Tyrannicide. There is a way to objectively gauge the power and effectiveness of a console. You can't definitely say which system has a better game selection, because that's all up to personal opinion. You can, however, say with certainty that in terms of hardware, one system is obviously better than the other.

The PS2 is undoubtedly the weakest of the three in that regard. The hardware is flimsy, the processing power is far below that of it's competitors, the graphics are substandard in comparison, the load times are atrocious and the framerate stutters constantly even in AAA titles. The only genuine advantage it has over the Gamecube is that it provides true 5.1 surround sound as opposed to the Dolby Pro Logic II that Gamecube supports.

Of the three, the Gamecube uses the most of what it has to offer. It's about two thirds as powerful as the XBox, and it's capable of creating graphics that nearly match or sometimes exceed the XBox in that regard. The load times are much faster than the PS2 and the framerate rarely stutters with the vast majority of games (it never stutters in AAA titles). The one overwhelming flaw with the GCN is that it uses mini-DVDs to store the games. It was created this way in order to prevent piracy (which has worked, for the most part), but the trade-off is that there's less storage space for things like FMV. That and the DPLII support instead of true 5.1 surround sound.

The XBox is absolutely the most powerful of the three, but the one big drawback is that it doesn't effectively use it's massive amount of power. With all the hardware inside of that thing, it should be capable of graphics and sound that neither of the other two consoles could ever dream of attaining. Granted, it definitely produces the best-looking games 98% of the time, but the graphical differences between the XBox and Gamecube aren't nearly as big as the differences between the GCN and PS2. The XBox also supports full 5.1 sound, so that single advantage of the PS2's is null in this situation.

If you want a good analogy between the three, here it is:

The XBox is like the Hulk. Lots of power, lots of bulk, but very little finesse. It doesn't use the full extent of it's power because it doesn't know how to.

The Gamecube is like Batman. It uses every ounce of what it's given, and even with less power and ammo available to it than that of the XBox, it still nearly matches the console through it's resourcesfulness and craft. Certainly, it doesn't boast the advantages of actual super-powers (i.e. minimized FMV storage and no 5.1 audio), but it's got a brain capable of taking out Superman.

The PS2 is like Spider-Man. Easily accessible to the mainstream and certainly impressive in it's own right. However, beyond it's surface it doesn't really have much going for it in terms of power. Some nifty web-slingers and acrobatic abilities, but underneath the superpowers, it's an insecure and inexperienced teenager. And all the superpowers in the world won't save it's skin when the laser starts malfunctioning and it stops reading discs altogether.

Hey, if I asked for a rundown on the systems I would have called Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.

And who gives a fuck, PS2 outselles your GC, so in the end the PS2 wins.
I am someone that cares about Good Game play and story over graphics so your rambling on about specs just passes by like the wind.

All I was doing was responding to this claim of yours:

No system is better than the other... All this talk about one system being better than the rest is bs.

And that's bullshit. It's plainly obvious which consoles are more powerful than which. You claimed that the superiority of the hardware is subjective, while it's blatantly clear that it's anything but subjective.

I am someone that cares about Good Game play and story over graphics so your rambling on about specs just passes by like the wind.

Gameplay and story have nothing to do with what I was talking about. Those are subjective aspects of a videogame. You were stating that arguing over the superiority of hardware was bullshit, and you were wrong.

And who gives a fuck, PS2 outselles your GC, so in the end the PS2 wins.

I'm not arguing over who has sold more consoles, I'm proving your asinine statements wrong. You said that arguing over the potency of the hardware was entirely a matter of opinion, and it's most certainly not. We're not talking about sales numbers or who has the better games. We're talking about the quality of the hardware. So, unless you've got some actual counter-argument to throw my way, maybe you should just zip your overactive lips, hm?

I think that the only reason why some consoles sell better than others, is the range of games. I don't know what the games are like for the three consoles, so I'm not gonna comment. Battle it out against me if you must, it's just what I think.

Smaller PS2's. Sonce when did small stuff take over the market. What about SUV's? Will they become smaller too? Let us pray not. If it ever comes to that, then American culture as we know it will cease to be. I like my food, T.V., game systems, and homes to be as big as possible. YAY HUGE STUFF!

All I was doing was responding to this claim of yours: And that's bullshit. It's plainly obvious which consoles are more powerful than which. You claimed that the superiority of the hardware is subjective, while it's blatantly clear that it's anything but subjective.

Oh, thanks for putting words in my mouth or in this case, words in my post.
When I said that no system is better than the other, where the hell did you get the idea I was talking hardware wise?

I was talking about games wise, I never stated anything about graphics dipshit, so dont make assumptions. Thanks again for making yourself look like in ass.

Match point, Tyrannicide.

Because the system is the hardware, maybe?

The reason the Xbox is underused is because it only has 64mb of shared video memory.

Also, Raziel you are the king.

The solution to all this is a compacted PC with superior specs and multiple drives to satisfy the needs of each game producing company.

The reason the Xbox is underused is because it only has 64mb of shared video memory.

Like I said, it doesn't use the full extent of it's power. The console's RAM is poorly used, and it's DDRAM, which is (so I've been told) some of the slowest, clunkiest RAM there is.

The thing is built from off-the-shelf PC parts and runs like a PC laying on it's side. I'm not a huge computer guy, but I know enough to know that PCs and consoles don't operate alike, and trying to force them to do so only prohibits the full potential of the hardware's ability. Microsoft spent as little time developing the thing as possible, and they have paid for it in massive losses during production and lackluster sales numbers.

Just to reiterate my former point, I am not bashing the XBox or it's game library. I've actually been considering picking one up for a while, but I don't really want to spend nearly 200 bucks on a console with only two or three games that genuinely interest me. I'm simply stating what I've been told about the hardware, and it's not intended to be an attack, just an objective observation.

...however, should the day come that Rare finally decides to release another Banjo-Kazooie game on Microsoft's console, I'll gladly pick one up. That would be the last straw.

I vote that Raziel pwned you all like nubs.

Your vote doesn't count, goddamn hanging chad...