The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Now, armed with a copy of Edge my knowledge gained from you lot for months, I can finally write my analysis of Nintendoís GameCube. Warning, this post contains material that may shock you, namely me saying good things about Nintendo.
The games:
I have to say, although they may sound good (although not to my taste), I feel let down by Nintendo, especially after all the hype. The best game on the GameCube appears to be Super Monkey Ball, but thatís coming to the PS2 as well so it doesnít really count. Next then is Luigiís Mansion. Iíll deal with graphical standard later, but apart from that this game doesnít seem to be of Nintendo quality. Edge only gave it 8/10, same as they gave to SSX and TimeSplitters. That means itís a very good game but somehow, worse than expected. I agree itís a very novel idea and its come along in leaps and bounds since its E3 incarnation, but it still seems very repetitive, even with differences between rooms aside. Waverace likewise, good but expected more. Now, Zelda. Zelda Zelda Zelda. What can I say about Zelda? Ooh, well. Of course Iíd heard about its cel-shaded makeover and ěcartoonyî look. However, the only screenshots Iíd seen were Upwireís less than clear offerings. They could never prepare me for what I saw in Edge. I thought Fur Fighters was cartoony; this is an interactive loony tune! Donít get me wrong, Iím sure its an excellent game, its just Iím not sure how sensible the new look it is. I know for certain if I had a choice between a 128bit OOT and its current look, Iíd choose the former. I canít see any benefits to this at all; it must only succeed in putting off some gamers, mainly older gamers and particularly PlayStation defectors.
The graphics:
Screen shots on a monitor always look better than print, Iíve always known this. Seeing as Iíve only ever seen GC screenshots from the Internet and PS2 shots from magazines, I thought that currently the graphical standard of the GC was higher than the PS2, for now. Of course, graphics donít make games, but what I say in Edge was quote surprising. I can now honestly make a comparison between GC and PS2 graphics: Theyíre the same. Iíve seen absolutely nothing that hasnít already been equalled on the PS2, and that includes Resident Evil. Think about it: This latest incarnation features the same pre-rendered backgrounds of the original. Theyíve obviously got some sort of shadow map on them but nevertheless theyíre still static. Therefore, the GCís capacity of 6-12 million polys minus lighting is being focused almost entirely on character models so naturally it looks stunning. Although it is without a doubt the best looking game Iíve ever seen itís not technically brilliant and nothing that the PS2 or Xbox are incapable of. Other games Iíve seen are Luigiís Mansion and Pikmin, which both feature decent character models and nice textures, but not fantastic lighting effects. Monkey Ball likewise, SMB:M I havenít seen and Waverace I have to see in action.
My reaction:
As you know Iíve been a bit sceptical of the GameCube. Iíve always been unimpressed and Iím still unimpressed. Nothingís changed really. Iím not saying itís not good, it just doesnít hold the same wow factor the PS2 has for me. Iíve never liked (most of) Nintendoís games and from future prospects I doubt I ever will. I can see how it will appeal to some but not to me. In my eyes, Nintendo have completely the wrong attitude, but then people have said the same of the PS2. I guess, as always, itís down to personal preference. If a Ninty and a Sonyphile both said "My console's better than yours" they'd both be right because from both their points of view, both their consoles are better.
And with that, Iíll finish.
The games:
I have to say, although they may sound good (although not to my taste), I feel let down by Nintendo, especially after all the hype. The best game on the GameCube appears to be Super Monkey Ball, but thatís coming to the PS2 as well so it doesnít really count. Next then is Luigiís Mansion. Iíll deal with graphical standard later, but apart from that this game doesnít seem to be of Nintendo quality. Edge only gave it 8/10, same as they gave to SSX and TimeSplitters. That means itís a very good game but somehow, worse than expected. I agree itís a very novel idea and its come along in leaps and bounds since its E3 incarnation, but it still seems very repetitive, even with differences between rooms aside. Waverace likewise, good but expected more. Now, Zelda. Zelda Zelda Zelda. What can I say about Zelda? Ooh, well. Of course Iíd heard about its cel-shaded makeover and ěcartoonyî look. However, the only screenshots Iíd seen were Upwireís less than clear offerings. They could never prepare me for what I saw in Edge. I thought Fur Fighters was cartoony; this is an interactive loony tune! Donít get me wrong, Iím sure its an excellent game, its just Iím not sure how sensible the new look it is. I know for certain if I had a choice between a 128bit OOT and its current look, Iíd choose the former. I canít see any benefits to this at all; it must only succeed in putting off some gamers, mainly older gamers and particularly PlayStation defectors.
The graphics:
Screen shots on a monitor always look better than print, Iíve always known this. Seeing as Iíve only ever seen GC screenshots from the Internet and PS2 shots from magazines, I thought that currently the graphical standard of the GC was higher than the PS2, for now. Of course, graphics donít make games, but what I say in Edge was quote surprising. I can now honestly make a comparison between GC and PS2 graphics: Theyíre the same. Iíve seen absolutely nothing that hasnít already been equalled on the PS2, and that includes Resident Evil. Think about it: This latest incarnation features the same pre-rendered backgrounds of the original. Theyíve obviously got some sort of shadow map on them but nevertheless theyíre still static. Therefore, the GCís capacity of 6-12 million polys minus lighting is being focused almost entirely on character models so naturally it looks stunning. Although it is without a doubt the best looking game Iíve ever seen itís not technically brilliant and nothing that the PS2 or Xbox are incapable of. Other games Iíve seen are Luigiís Mansion and Pikmin, which both feature decent character models and nice textures, but not fantastic lighting effects. Monkey Ball likewise, SMB:M I havenít seen and Waverace I have to see in action.
My reaction:
As you know Iíve been a bit sceptical of the GameCube. Iíve always been unimpressed and Iím still unimpressed. Nothingís changed really. Iím not saying itís not good, it just doesnít hold the same wow factor the PS2 has for me. Iíve never liked (most of) Nintendoís games and from future prospects I doubt I ever will. I can see how it will appeal to some but not to me. In my eyes, Nintendo have completely the wrong attitude, but then people have said the same of the PS2. I guess, as always, itís down to personal preference. If a Ninty and a Sonyphile both said "My console's better than yours" they'd both be right because from both their points of view, both their consoles are better.
And with that, Iíll finish.
Page:
SR clearly base their rewards on effort.
Well done Turbo, for atleast TRYING to be unbiased.
It's a pity you didn't see any Wave Race as it is much more your style of game than Monkey Ball or Luigi's Mansion.
Well done Turbo, for atleast TRYING to be unbiased.
It's a pity you didn't see any Wave Race as it is much more your style of game than Monkey Ball or Luigi's Mansion.
Gronti_v wrote:
> I thought the Gamecube had more processing power than the PS2
The Gamecube has a faster CPU and some better graphical hardware effects, but has significantly fewer polygons per second and (apparently) slightly less graphics memory.
However, the way in which they operate internally (the architecture) is vastly different.
The Gamecubes capabilities have been more or less set in stone, and it will do a lot of the hard work for you, so that developers know exactly how much they can squeeze from one area of the machine before it starts to have an impact in other areas.
The PS2 is different in that it has been designed to be very powerful, but essentially 'stupid' - it will do very little for you, and you must code everything yourself. In short, PS2 should be more flexible.
So by definition, the first games will start at a 'higher level' on the Gamecube than they did on the PS2, but as the limits are already known, there is - it would seem - less scope for improvement over time.
At the end of the day though, it's the games you want to play that matter. Nintendo have more 'mature' games than ever before, which will certainly attract a slightly older audience than Nintendo are used to, myself included.
However, as Meka says, they will still be the 'machine of choice' for those looking for a 'family' machine. In the same way, I think PS2 will pick up where PSone leaves off as the machine for 'older' gamers.
There is (or will be) a much larger cross-over area in the middle than there was previously, but I think both machines will still remain largely true to their traditional audiences.
> I thought the Gamecube had more processing power than the PS2
The Gamecube has a faster CPU and some better graphical hardware effects, but has significantly fewer polygons per second and (apparently) slightly less graphics memory.
However, the way in which they operate internally (the architecture) is vastly different.
The Gamecubes capabilities have been more or less set in stone, and it will do a lot of the hard work for you, so that developers know exactly how much they can squeeze from one area of the machine before it starts to have an impact in other areas.
The PS2 is different in that it has been designed to be very powerful, but essentially 'stupid' - it will do very little for you, and you must code everything yourself. In short, PS2 should be more flexible.
So by definition, the first games will start at a 'higher level' on the Gamecube than they did on the PS2, but as the limits are already known, there is - it would seem - less scope for improvement over time.
At the end of the day though, it's the games you want to play that matter. Nintendo have more 'mature' games than ever before, which will certainly attract a slightly older audience than Nintendo are used to, myself included.
However, as Meka says, they will still be the 'machine of choice' for those looking for a 'family' machine. In the same way, I think PS2 will pick up where PSone leaves off as the machine for 'older' gamers.
There is (or will be) a much larger cross-over area in the middle than there was previously, but I think both machines will still remain largely true to their traditional audiences.
>I thought the Gamecube had more processing power than the PS2
Imposible to say - it's like comparing apples with bananas. You could compare processor speeds if you wished - but a Mac with a 500MHz processor will wipe the floor with a PC with a 1.2MHz Pentium, just to exemplify that processor speeds means next to nothing. That's probably the closest you could come to defining "power" - you could run benchmark tests, but again, the hardware is so different it would be very hard to find something comparible. There's also a different split between sound, graphics in the consoles i.e. A has three "weak" processors, one for CPU, one for graphics and one for sound. B has one moderate processor, but for all three - how do you compare that lot?
Anyway - games that matter really and all that.
Imposible to say - it's like comparing apples with bananas. You could compare processor speeds if you wished - but a Mac with a 500MHz processor will wipe the floor with a PC with a 1.2MHz Pentium, just to exemplify that processor speeds means next to nothing. That's probably the closest you could come to defining "power" - you could run benchmark tests, but again, the hardware is so different it would be very hard to find something comparible. There's also a different split between sound, graphics in the consoles i.e. A has three "weak" processors, one for CPU, one for graphics and one for sound. B has one moderate processor, but for all three - how do you compare that lot?
Anyway - games that matter really and all that.
I thought the Gamecube had more processing power than the PS2, so arent it's development capabilities better? Anyway I'd like to wait and see what the Gamecube will have to offer us Brits by the time it gets here, which is some time off. Of course by the time the Gamecube is out I'm sure the PS2 will have some more games so it's only to be expected that you can get more from a PS2 immediately on the release of the GC. Of course the PS2 will probably be replaced by the PS3 eventually and it will no doubt suffer the same problem as the GC and X-Box will, ie. starting from scratch. I wonder if the fact that the other two will have had a chance to develop by then will be such a factor in your decision to buy a PS3. Of course maybe Sony will keep doing their backwards compatible thing but I wonder if that wont cause problems in the long run. Anyway, personally I'm going to wait till the Gamecube appears before judging it. I hope it will be good, I'll certainly consider it. I am a little concerned about how the games are going but maybe it'll all work out.
Anyway, I have a PC, and PCs are immortal (well not individual ones). Now where can I go to complain about the PS2s leeching off of PC games and saying that PS2 is better than PC?
Anyway, I have a PC, and PCs are immortal (well not individual ones). Now where can I go to complain about the PS2s leeching off of PC games and saying that PS2 is better than PC?
Er, what?
HAVING A PLAYSTATION 2 DOES NOT MAKE YOU COOL...
...HAVING A GAMECUBE MAKES YOU SENSIBLE.
...HAVING A GAMECUBE MAKES YOU SENSIBLE.
But don't forget, the graphics won't get much better than they are now, at least not as much as the PS2 is going to get. Put it this way: The GamCube's graphics may get, say, 15% better. However, the PS2 will get maybe 60% better as developers learn how to unlock its full potential. However, at any given moment in time for a long time to come, the standard will be just about level I reckon. Anyway, enough of that. This isn't a console wars post.
i think that this generation of consoles will last longer than most others because of all the add-ons coming out to make it better.
gamecube was a lot smaller than i thought it would be.
gamecube was a lot smaller than i thought it would be.
When the PS2 came out everyone said the graphics were barely better than dreamcast level but look at it now, Give the gamecube time to find it's feet although if Nintendo do release it here in september thats almost TWO years after the PS2 launch and no doubt the xbox will be out by then.
They've got some catching up to do ;-)
They've got some catching up to do ;-)
Unbiased, my @ss, Rob. You are the anthroppmorhic personification of Sony. Good review though. I'll go and prod you some more on IRC about this. I find it funny. Bout as funny as me writing a bad review of Dogma. 's never gonna happen.
Page: