The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It amazes me every time I see someone say how the Gamecube is kewl because it is 'small and portable', and that none of the other consoles are. What planet are you on?
Every console is portable. PCs with their monitors and cables are not portable, but consoles are. The fact that the Gamecube is marginally smaller than other consoles does not mean it's the only portable console - it means it is marginally smaller, and that's all. They are all still very portable.
You seem to class the smallest console as the only console that is portable.
It's like saying only cars that can go over 200mph can move.
What will you lot say when someone releases a console that is smaller than the Gamecube? Will the Gamecube all of a sudden not be portable, just like the Xbox and PS2 now? The Dreamcast was also very small, yet no-one claimed that as a selling point. Why not? Because it already had enough selling points that were much more valid - first 128-bit console, only console with working online games, first true next-gen console etc. etc.
The Dreamcast didn't need half-@rsed pointless and trivial selling points like 'it's so small you can take it anywhere!' because that is true of ALL consoles.
Perhaps the fact that Nintendo fans claim the size of the console makes it portable or not and then claim this as a selling point should not come as a surprise, as the majority of Nintendo fans are aged to suit the console? If Nintendo build a console to look like a dinky toy, and then make games to suit my little sisters, I suppose they can't complain when their fan-base is so young that they come up with lame positive points like the size of the console.
Step over the the Microsoft, Sony or Sega forums and you see things like 'specifications' and 'hardware' being talked about. This is because these are in fact adult consoles. No-one expects Nintendo fans to care about such things, as they are too obsessed with their cutesy little fluffy game characters to notice 'frame rate' or 'polygon count', but what they DO expect is that you appreciate that some people actually care about the POWER inside their console, and not just if it's small enough to fit down your Jap's eye or not.
At the end of the day if you lot want to sit there and get erections over your small consoles then you can do that, but don't try using it as a reason behind 'mine is better than yours' as it just makes you look stupid.
How many people have been unable to take their Xbox to another room because it was too big? None. Do you hang your Gamecubes on your eye-lashes to play on it, or do you stick it under your TV, exactly where you would stick an Xbox? How many people can take their Gamecube to places an Xbox cannot go? None. Why is this? Because SIZE DOESN'T MATTER.
Every console is portable. PCs with their monitors and cables are not portable, but consoles are. The fact that the Gamecube is marginally smaller than other consoles does not mean it's the only portable console - it means it is marginally smaller, and that's all. They are all still very portable.
You seem to class the smallest console as the only console that is portable.
It's like saying only cars that can go over 200mph can move.
What will you lot say when someone releases a console that is smaller than the Gamecube? Will the Gamecube all of a sudden not be portable, just like the Xbox and PS2 now? The Dreamcast was also very small, yet no-one claimed that as a selling point. Why not? Because it already had enough selling points that were much more valid - first 128-bit console, only console with working online games, first true next-gen console etc. etc.
The Dreamcast didn't need half-@rsed pointless and trivial selling points like 'it's so small you can take it anywhere!' because that is true of ALL consoles.
Perhaps the fact that Nintendo fans claim the size of the console makes it portable or not and then claim this as a selling point should not come as a surprise, as the majority of Nintendo fans are aged to suit the console? If Nintendo build a console to look like a dinky toy, and then make games to suit my little sisters, I suppose they can't complain when their fan-base is so young that they come up with lame positive points like the size of the console.
Step over the the Microsoft, Sony or Sega forums and you see things like 'specifications' and 'hardware' being talked about. This is because these are in fact adult consoles. No-one expects Nintendo fans to care about such things, as they are too obsessed with their cutesy little fluffy game characters to notice 'frame rate' or 'polygon count', but what they DO expect is that you appreciate that some people actually care about the POWER inside their console, and not just if it's small enough to fit down your Jap's eye or not.
At the end of the day if you lot want to sit there and get erections over your small consoles then you can do that, but don't try using it as a reason behind 'mine is better than yours' as it just makes you look stupid.
How many people have been unable to take their Xbox to another room because it was too big? None. Do you hang your Gamecubes on your eye-lashes to play on it, or do you stick it under your TV, exactly where you would stick an Xbox? How many people can take their Gamecube to places an Xbox cannot go? None. Why is this? Because SIZE DOESN'T MATTER.
Page:
Gar-J wrote:
> If you are referring to me there, I warn you that I do indeed
> understand my specifications, and the ins and outs of CPU
> architecture.
Don't worry. I've seen that you understand them, but we get a hell of a lot of illiterate chimps trying to quote them too! :-D
> If you are referring to me there, I warn you that I do indeed
> understand my specifications, and the ins and outs of CPU
> architecture.
Don't worry. I've seen that you understand them, but we get a hell of a lot of illiterate chimps trying to quote them too! :-D
Gar-J wrote:
> GC
> Plus points:
> Some unusual games, but I won't say original cos they are not -
> they're updates of older Nintendo games. Still unusual though, so
> that's kewl.
>
> And that's it there. It's marginally smaller than a PS2, but that
> makes f*f**k all difference in any way so that's not going under plus
> points.
>
> Negative points:
> Least powerful;
> Already games are dogged by slow-down which show the technical
> capabilities of the machine to be fairly low.
> Although it may have the capability in future, Nintendo say they're
> not going in for multiplayer games yet cos there are too many issues
> to be dealth with; :o/
>
> Now, with a completely UN-BIASED view, that is how it is.
>
> Based on that information, I think the Xbox has the edge.
Nope. Not unbiased. Your sources are obviously biased (MS magazines/sites?) as I've yet to play a GC game dogged with slowdown.
It has both original AND unsual games (besides, the Xbox games are mostly clones, conversions and updates - not a bad thing because they're generally of a very good quality but it does make Nintendo's originality a bigger plus), the technical capabilties aren't THE best but more or less keep up with the Xbox's (slight difference but most differences in current multiformat games are down to optimisation), and although Nintendo aren't rushing into going online, by the time the majority of gamers in the UK get cheap broadband access to play the Xbox through, Nintendo will also be ready with their own online strategy.
Also, you mentioned multiplayer.
When it comes to social parties, the Gamecube beats EVERYTHING hands down.
I know that the Xbox does have some very good split screen games (like Halo), but Halo is far too difficult for a newbie to control (I can play it but most of my friends hate it because of the controls).
The Gamecube's multiplayer games are simple enough for a complete beginner to pif**k up but have enough depth to make them games for hardcore masters as well.
I would go further into why the Gamecube rules at 4 player games but I'm going to make a stand-alone topic.
> GC
> Plus points:
> Some unusual games, but I won't say original cos they are not -
> they're updates of older Nintendo games. Still unusual though, so
> that's kewl.
>
> And that's it there. It's marginally smaller than a PS2, but that
> makes f*f**k all difference in any way so that's not going under plus
> points.
>
> Negative points:
> Least powerful;
> Already games are dogged by slow-down which show the technical
> capabilities of the machine to be fairly low.
> Although it may have the capability in future, Nintendo say they're
> not going in for multiplayer games yet cos there are too many issues
> to be dealth with; :o/
>
> Now, with a completely UN-BIASED view, that is how it is.
>
> Based on that information, I think the Xbox has the edge.
Nope. Not unbiased. Your sources are obviously biased (MS magazines/sites?) as I've yet to play a GC game dogged with slowdown.
It has both original AND unsual games (besides, the Xbox games are mostly clones, conversions and updates - not a bad thing because they're generally of a very good quality but it does make Nintendo's originality a bigger plus), the technical capabilties aren't THE best but more or less keep up with the Xbox's (slight difference but most differences in current multiformat games are down to optimisation), and although Nintendo aren't rushing into going online, by the time the majority of gamers in the UK get cheap broadband access to play the Xbox through, Nintendo will also be ready with their own online strategy.
Also, you mentioned multiplayer.
When it comes to social parties, the Gamecube beats EVERYTHING hands down.
I know that the Xbox does have some very good split screen games (like Halo), but Halo is far too difficult for a newbie to control (I can play it but most of my friends hate it because of the controls).
The Gamecube's multiplayer games are simple enough for a complete beginner to pif**k up but have enough depth to make them games for hardcore masters as well.
I would go further into why the Gamecube rules at 4 player games but I'm going to make a stand-alone topic.
Strafex wrote:
> Hey! It's unfair to say a fanbase is made of idiots.
> Every fanbase has their intelligent gamers and idiots (and
> Whitestripes isn't an idiot, you just seem to have gotten off on the
> wrong foot! :-D).
Hey Amigo, I said *party* made up of idiots. :oP Xbox and PS2 fan-base have their fair share, including a bloke from down south who *officially* renamed himself 'Playstation 2'.
I kid you not.
> Even the newly established Xbox fanbase has a huge amount of chimps.
Agreed, as said above.
> "the xbox rules bcos it does 129 million polygons and the
> gamecube only does 6 million so all proper gamers should get an xbox
> bcos the gamecube is for kiddies who dont no n e thin!"
> You know, the sort of chimps who quote figures and stereotypes without
> understanding them (you seem to have had the Nintendo equivilant in
> your forum with the: "xbox sucks bcos its too big and gamecube
> rules bcos its small and cool!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111")
If you are referring to me there, I warn you that I do indeed understand my specifications, and the ins and outs of CPU architecture.
If you're not referring to me, kewl. :oP
> Hey! It's unfair to say a fanbase is made of idiots.
> Every fanbase has their intelligent gamers and idiots (and
> Whitestripes isn't an idiot, you just seem to have gotten off on the
> wrong foot! :-D).
Hey Amigo, I said *party* made up of idiots. :oP Xbox and PS2 fan-base have their fair share, including a bloke from down south who *officially* renamed himself 'Playstation 2'.
I kid you not.
> Even the newly established Xbox fanbase has a huge amount of chimps.
Agreed, as said above.
> "the xbox rules bcos it does 129 million polygons and the
> gamecube only does 6 million so all proper gamers should get an xbox
> bcos the gamecube is for kiddies who dont no n e thin!"
> You know, the sort of chimps who quote figures and stereotypes without
> understanding them (you seem to have had the Nintendo equivilant in
> your forum with the: "xbox sucks bcos its too big and gamecube
> rules bcos its small and cool!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111")
If you are referring to me there, I warn you that I do indeed understand my specifications, and the ins and outs of CPU architecture.
If you're not referring to me, kewl. :oP
Whitestripes wrote:
> Over and over and over and over and over and over again! All your
> saying is "X-box has better graphics!" repeatidly! In every
> post you bring it up! And why? I know it does! I've admitted that! And
> still, it's the only point your making about why the X-box is better!
I make that point because you (until VERY recently) were denying the Xbox had any real advantage technically. You used the word 'marginal' a few times.
Graphics is the one area that shows capability. Gameplay is all down to the skill and methods used by the development team. Sound is the next best thing to measure capability, but any console worth its salt can produce decent sound. The Dreamcast could out-perform the PS2 in the sound department very easily.
However, graphics is a VERY GOOD way of measuring capability.
With you there ranting on about how the difference between Xbox and GC is 'marginal' how else would you like for me to point out the difference rather than using benchmarks, specifications, and also the fact that Xbox versions are superior?
Yes, games are important and yes so is gameplay, but those 2 things do NOT MAKE A CONSOLE. Those make a GAME. A console is defined by what is inside it and what it can do!!!
> Over and over and over and over and over and over again! All your
> saying is "X-box has better graphics!" repeatidly! In every
> post you bring it up! And why? I know it does! I've admitted that! And
> still, it's the only point your making about why the X-box is better!
I make that point because you (until VERY recently) were denying the Xbox had any real advantage technically. You used the word 'marginal' a few times.
Graphics is the one area that shows capability. Gameplay is all down to the skill and methods used by the development team. Sound is the next best thing to measure capability, but any console worth its salt can produce decent sound. The Dreamcast could out-perform the PS2 in the sound department very easily.
However, graphics is a VERY GOOD way of measuring capability.
With you there ranting on about how the difference between Xbox and GC is 'marginal' how else would you like for me to point out the difference rather than using benchmarks, specifications, and also the fact that Xbox versions are superior?
Yes, games are important and yes so is gameplay, but those 2 things do NOT MAKE A CONSOLE. Those make a GAME. A console is defined by what is inside it and what it can do!!!
Gar-J wrote:
> As someone already went through yesterday (can't remember your name
> whoever it was - sorry!) Nintendo already has a huge fan-base, made up
> partly by f*cking idiots like you who do not understand simple
> things.
Hey! It's unfair to say a fanbase is made of idiots.
Every fanbase has their intelligent gamers and idiots (and Whitestripes isn't an idiot, you just seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot! :-D).
Even the newly established Xbox fanbase has a huge amount of chimps.
"the xbox rules bcos it does 129 million polygons and the gamecube only does 6 million so all proper gamers should get an xbox bcos the gamecube is for kiddies who dont no n e thin!"
You know, the sort of chimps who quote figures and stereotypes without understanding them (you seem to have had the Nintendo equivilant in your forum with the: "xbox sucks bcos its too big and gamecube rules bcos its small and cool!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111")
Don't judge a fanbase by it's Monkeys!
> As someone already went through yesterday (can't remember your name
> whoever it was - sorry!) Nintendo already has a huge fan-base, made up
> partly by f*cking idiots like you who do not understand simple
> things.
Hey! It's unfair to say a fanbase is made of idiots.
Every fanbase has their intelligent gamers and idiots (and Whitestripes isn't an idiot, you just seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot! :-D).
Even the newly established Xbox fanbase has a huge amount of chimps.
"the xbox rules bcos it does 129 million polygons and the gamecube only does 6 million so all proper gamers should get an xbox bcos the gamecube is for kiddies who dont no n e thin!"
You know, the sort of chimps who quote figures and stereotypes without understanding them (you seem to have had the Nintendo equivilant in your forum with the: "xbox sucks bcos its too big and gamecube rules bcos its small and cool!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111")
Don't judge a fanbase by it's Monkeys!
Whitestripes wrote:
> Well I can easily say the same thing about you, you haven't admited a
> single downfall of the X-box in this entire thread! And I would admit
> to the GC downfalls if you were intelligent enough to point some out!
> I've admited the downfall that the GC isn't as advanced, but thats all
> you've managed to come up with!
No, that's the only one you have been able to understand. There's a difference.
Ok, I will write them out in PLAIN ENGLISH in the HOPE that dear God will work some miracle and give your ping-pong ball brain an extra little boost so that you may accommodate this information!!!!!
Xbox
Plus areas:
Most powerful, in simplest terms;
Greatest potential for ground-breaking games due to huge storage space which can be used for huge amounts of data that a real world environment would need;
Broadband connectivity - multiplayer games are the way of the future as this technology gets cheaper and more widespread;
It's getting some pretty good games, but this isn't a plus area as you would of course expect this from any console;
It laf**ks many original games, but that isn't a negative point either because just cos a game isn't original, doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.
Negative points:
Hasn't sold well due to difficulty in craf**king the market's fan-base and stupidly high price;
This means some Xbox developers are losing confidence in the machine and think it might 'do a Dreamcast', and so are putting some projects on hold, and others are being cancelled;
To be honest that's the only reason I haven't gone out and bought one.
GC
Plus points:
Some unusual games, but I won't say original cos they are not - they're updates of older Nintendo games. Still unusual though, so that's kewl.
And that's it there. It's marginally smaller than a PS2, but that makes f*f**k all difference in any way so that's not going under plus points.
Negative points:
Least powerful;
Already games are dogged by slow-down which show the technical capabilities of the machine to be fairly low.
Although it may have the capability in future, Nintendo say they're not going in for multiplayer games yet cos there are too many issues to be dealth with; :o/
Now, with a completely UN-BIASED view, that is how it is.
Based on that information, I think the Xbox has the edge.
> Well I can easily say the same thing about you, you haven't admited a
> single downfall of the X-box in this entire thread! And I would admit
> to the GC downfalls if you were intelligent enough to point some out!
> I've admited the downfall that the GC isn't as advanced, but thats all
> you've managed to come up with!
No, that's the only one you have been able to understand. There's a difference.
Ok, I will write them out in PLAIN ENGLISH in the HOPE that dear God will work some miracle and give your ping-pong ball brain an extra little boost so that you may accommodate this information!!!!!
Xbox
Plus areas:
Most powerful, in simplest terms;
Greatest potential for ground-breaking games due to huge storage space which can be used for huge amounts of data that a real world environment would need;
Broadband connectivity - multiplayer games are the way of the future as this technology gets cheaper and more widespread;
It's getting some pretty good games, but this isn't a plus area as you would of course expect this from any console;
It laf**ks many original games, but that isn't a negative point either because just cos a game isn't original, doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.
Negative points:
Hasn't sold well due to difficulty in craf**king the market's fan-base and stupidly high price;
This means some Xbox developers are losing confidence in the machine and think it might 'do a Dreamcast', and so are putting some projects on hold, and others are being cancelled;
To be honest that's the only reason I haven't gone out and bought one.
GC
Plus points:
Some unusual games, but I won't say original cos they are not - they're updates of older Nintendo games. Still unusual though, so that's kewl.
And that's it there. It's marginally smaller than a PS2, but that makes f*f**k all difference in any way so that's not going under plus points.
Negative points:
Least powerful;
Already games are dogged by slow-down which show the technical capabilities of the machine to be fairly low.
Although it may have the capability in future, Nintendo say they're not going in for multiplayer games yet cos there are too many issues to be dealth with; :o/
Now, with a completely UN-BIASED view, that is how it is.
Based on that information, I think the Xbox has the edge.
Gar-J please do me a favour, in a seperate post from your next rant, please write down, 10 games you love, and 10 games you hate. Please? From any console/system from any period in time.
Gar-J wrote:
>
>
> Ahahahaha, but he's making the same points as me.
*sigh* He's very long post back there was just about graphics, thats one point. It's also the ONLY DAMN POINT YOU MAKE!
Over and over and over and over and over and over again! All your saying is "X-box has better graphics!" repeatidly! In every post you bring it up! And why? I know it does! I've admitted that! And still, it's the only point your making about why the X-box is better!
>
>
> Ahahahaha, but he's making the same points as me.
*sigh* He's very long post back there was just about graphics, thats one point. It's also the ONLY DAMN POINT YOU MAKE!
Over and over and over and over and over and over again! All your saying is "X-box has better graphics!" repeatidly! In every post you bring it up! And why? I know it does! I've admitted that! And still, it's the only point your making about why the X-box is better!
Gar-J wrote:
> Although the PS2 does max out at a very low resolution and doesn't
> even have hardware anti-aliasing, it can pump out more polygons per
> second than the gamecube, which is a mathamatical feat considering the
> hardware is 2 years older.
>
> So.... kiss it.
No it doesn't. On a RAW level, the PS2 pushes out a MAXIMUM 79 million blank featureless polygons for technical demo's.
In a PRACTICAL level, the Gamecube is ESTIMATED to push out 12 million textured, coloured, useful and fully running polygons.
It's estimated based on what Nintendo think the average develloper can manage. Factor 5 apparently managed to push it to 15 million in Rogue Leader and say that when they learn to optimise it properly that they can push it further.
We haven't got a RAW count for the Gamecube but the average PS2 game tends to manage about 6-10 million polylons (and that's without the GC's impressive textures and special effects) and the average Xbox game isn't so far ahead of the Gamecube (possibly around 15 million - that'll increase as the code gets better optimised).
I've not read the technical notes for a long time, but although they stated the Xbox had a slight advantage overall, it was practically negligible.
> Although the PS2 does max out at a very low resolution and doesn't
> even have hardware anti-aliasing, it can pump out more polygons per
> second than the gamecube, which is a mathamatical feat considering the
> hardware is 2 years older.
>
> So.... kiss it.
No it doesn't. On a RAW level, the PS2 pushes out a MAXIMUM 79 million blank featureless polygons for technical demo's.
In a PRACTICAL level, the Gamecube is ESTIMATED to push out 12 million textured, coloured, useful and fully running polygons.
It's estimated based on what Nintendo think the average develloper can manage. Factor 5 apparently managed to push it to 15 million in Rogue Leader and say that when they learn to optimise it properly that they can push it further.
We haven't got a RAW count for the Gamecube but the average PS2 game tends to manage about 6-10 million polylons (and that's without the GC's impressive textures and special effects) and the average Xbox game isn't so far ahead of the Gamecube (possibly around 15 million - that'll increase as the code gets better optimised).
I've not read the technical notes for a long time, but although they stated the Xbox had a slight advantage overall, it was practically negligible.
Gar-J wrote:
>
>
>
> Imagine then, how difficult it would be for Microsoft to crack a
> fan-base from scratch?
Well Sony managed to crack a huge one right form the beggining, stealing millions from Ninty and Sega, if the X-box wa sso good it would have done this as well.
>
> Perhaps, as other people are now seeing my valid point and are
> agreeing with me, EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE OWNED A GC, then I do indeed
> have a point? Whereas for you... you're either going to have to throw
> your Ninty crap at us all, or just give it a rest.
You've made one valid point, the X-box is more advanced, I have agreed and accepted that, and i knew it already.
Care to point out the other points you've made?
> Please go away, you idiot.
Ditto (look it up)
>
>
>
> Imagine then, how difficult it would be for Microsoft to crack a
> fan-base from scratch?
Well Sony managed to crack a huge one right form the beggining, stealing millions from Ninty and Sega, if the X-box wa sso good it would have done this as well.
>
> Perhaps, as other people are now seeing my valid point and are
> agreeing with me, EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE OWNED A GC, then I do indeed
> have a point? Whereas for you... you're either going to have to throw
> your Ninty crap at us all, or just give it a rest.
You've made one valid point, the X-box is more advanced, I have agreed and accepted that, and i knew it already.
Care to point out the other points you've made?
> Please go away, you idiot.
Ditto (look it up)
Page: