The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Remember when the Gamecube's spec.s were announced?
The 12 million poly's compared to the PS2's 70 million?
This was followed with a quick note that the PS2's count was technical stats, while the Gamecube's 6-12 mil was based around estimated games performance.
So why wasn't the PS2's stats based around games performance?
And why wasn't the Gamecube's reading the technical stats?
That's because these values were impossible to judge.
The systems has been designed in completely different ways.
The Gamecube's stats were clearly of better use to the devellopers as it gave them a better performance estimation.
I.E.
In usual conditions (relatively basic AI, special effects, etc), it would throw around 12 million polygons.
If you put the AI, special technique, etc on full, then it went down to 6 million per second.
These calculations were vital as it made it easier for the develloper to know how much they could cram into a game before the performance suffers (I.E. no more slowdown! Wehey!).
Such calculations are much, much more complex on the PS2 and Xbox and involve a lot of guesswork.
The Gamecube's different hardware sections were designed to work together making it easier to calculate how much one factor affects another.
This is partly why for most devellopers, the Gamecube is a dream to work with.
It also means they can toy with it, knowing how far they can go in certain directions, and knowing what sacrifices they need to make as a result.
On other systems this takes complex caculations with a lot of trial and error.
Look at Perfect Dark on the N64.
Even the programming masters at Rare failed to optimise the multiplayer so that polygon+AI simulants could work through 4 player split screen.
With the Gamecube, they'll find it a piece of cake, dumbing down the visuals enough to keep things running at a smooth 60FPS.
And you can see that devellopers are enjoying pushing their games in certain directions.
Take Rogue Leader and Resident Evil.
Notice how these two are the best looking games on the cube right now?
Is it a coincidence that they're very cinematic?
These games focus on the sound and graphics to produce an effective atmosphere, trying to be as much like a film as possible.
The Gameplay hasn't suffered as a result, but you can tell that other area's of the processing has been dumbed down in favour of the graphics and lighting effects.
Pikmin on the other hand is based around AI, with 100 individual Pikmin to control and lots of enemies, hazards, operating at once.
The graphics are still very nice, but you can tell that this game is geared towards AI while Rogue Leader is based towards media.
There's Sega's Monkey Ball.
They used the Gamecube's maths capabilties for physics.
Smash Brothers Melee has clearly used most of the power for character.
The gameplay is 2D, the backgrounds are relatively sparse, the but the characters and moves are as detailed and well animated as anything.
This suits a game based on Nintendo characters.
Luigi's Mansion also put a lot into character as well.
What will be interesting is when a develloper uses all aspects to the best the Gamecube can manage.
Slick graphics with strong character, complex AI and anything else the little box can do.
Who knows what Shigsy has in mind with Mario and Zelda...
The 12 million poly's compared to the PS2's 70 million?
This was followed with a quick note that the PS2's count was technical stats, while the Gamecube's 6-12 mil was based around estimated games performance.
So why wasn't the PS2's stats based around games performance?
And why wasn't the Gamecube's reading the technical stats?
That's because these values were impossible to judge.
The systems has been designed in completely different ways.
The Gamecube's stats were clearly of better use to the devellopers as it gave them a better performance estimation.
I.E.
In usual conditions (relatively basic AI, special effects, etc), it would throw around 12 million polygons.
If you put the AI, special technique, etc on full, then it went down to 6 million per second.
These calculations were vital as it made it easier for the develloper to know how much they could cram into a game before the performance suffers (I.E. no more slowdown! Wehey!).
Such calculations are much, much more complex on the PS2 and Xbox and involve a lot of guesswork.
The Gamecube's different hardware sections were designed to work together making it easier to calculate how much one factor affects another.
This is partly why for most devellopers, the Gamecube is a dream to work with.
It also means they can toy with it, knowing how far they can go in certain directions, and knowing what sacrifices they need to make as a result.
On other systems this takes complex caculations with a lot of trial and error.
Look at Perfect Dark on the N64.
Even the programming masters at Rare failed to optimise the multiplayer so that polygon+AI simulants could work through 4 player split screen.
With the Gamecube, they'll find it a piece of cake, dumbing down the visuals enough to keep things running at a smooth 60FPS.
And you can see that devellopers are enjoying pushing their games in certain directions.
Take Rogue Leader and Resident Evil.
Notice how these two are the best looking games on the cube right now?
Is it a coincidence that they're very cinematic?
These games focus on the sound and graphics to produce an effective atmosphere, trying to be as much like a film as possible.
The Gameplay hasn't suffered as a result, but you can tell that other area's of the processing has been dumbed down in favour of the graphics and lighting effects.
Pikmin on the other hand is based around AI, with 100 individual Pikmin to control and lots of enemies, hazards, operating at once.
The graphics are still very nice, but you can tell that this game is geared towards AI while Rogue Leader is based towards media.
There's Sega's Monkey Ball.
They used the Gamecube's maths capabilties for physics.
Smash Brothers Melee has clearly used most of the power for character.
The gameplay is 2D, the backgrounds are relatively sparse, the but the characters and moves are as detailed and well animated as anything.
This suits a game based on Nintendo characters.
Luigi's Mansion also put a lot into character as well.
What will be interesting is when a develloper uses all aspects to the best the Gamecube can manage.
Slick graphics with strong character, complex AI and anything else the little box can do.
Who knows what Shigsy has in mind with Mario and Zelda...
Page:
A game designers lego kit, you could have won GAD for the title alone.
Yeah, I suppose it's down to preference, although I expect that Nintendo are proud of the fact that the three gods of game design (Miyamoto, Naka and Suzuki) like the Gamecube best, but enough down that road...
Which part of Sega is Smilebit?
There's AM2 (Suzuki)
Sonic Team (Naka)
Amusement Vision (Monkey Ball)
How many more devellopment factions are there?
Which part of Sega is Smilebit?
There's AM2 (Suzuki)
Sonic Team (Naka)
Amusement Vision (Monkey Ball)
How many more devellopment factions are there?
Strafex wrote:
Anyway, Mr
> Suzuki said the Gamecube was more impressive than both the Xbox and PS2 and if
> it doesn't out-power the Xbox, what was he refering to?
(If you want, I can
> dig up a quote from one of Game's topics in Prime. Taken straight from
> Cloudchaser.)
Ah, but it all depends on the developer!
Oddworld inhabitants, Bungie and Smilebit (Sega) all say they prefer the Xbox.
Sonic Team, etc. etc. say they prefer the GC.
The point I was making that both consoles have been made solely with the needs of the developer and user in mind.. otherwise, what's the point!
Sonic
Anyway, Mr
> Suzuki said the Gamecube was more impressive than both the Xbox and PS2 and if
> it doesn't out-power the Xbox, what was he refering to?
(If you want, I can
> dig up a quote from one of Game's topics in Prime. Taken straight from
> Cloudchaser.)
Ah, but it all depends on the developer!
Oddworld inhabitants, Bungie and Smilebit (Sega) all say they prefer the Xbox.
Sonic Team, etc. etc. say they prefer the GC.
The point I was making that both consoles have been made solely with the needs of the developer and user in mind.. otherwise, what's the point!
Sonic
i don't care for the delays as long as it is good beyond whatever and had mega graphics
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Great topic... a new slant on things...
But, I have to strongly disagree with
> you saying:
"Such calculations are much, much more complex on the PS2
> and Xbox and involve a lot of guesswork.
I think everythig you hae said about the GC is right... but
> don't forget, the DC and Xbox have been designed in exactly the same way... by
> giving developers the tools and systems they want.
Sonic
Not quite. The Xbox is fairly develloper friendly, being very PC based (like the Dreamcast was).
The Gamecube is said to be even easier and more friendly (I can't quote or put up a reference link, but as soon as I can find the evidence I will let everyone know).
It's something to do with how the polygons manage all the textures and lighting effects in one go or something...
Anyway, Mr Suzuki said the Gamecube was more impressive than both the Xbox and PS2 and if it doesn't out-power the Xbox, what was he refering to?
(If you want, I can dig up a quote from one of Game's topics in Prime. Taken straight from Cloudchaser.)
> Great topic... a new slant on things...
But, I have to strongly disagree with
> you saying:
"Such calculations are much, much more complex on the PS2
> and Xbox and involve a lot of guesswork.
I think everythig you hae said about the GC is right... but
> don't forget, the DC and Xbox have been designed in exactly the same way... by
> giving developers the tools and systems they want.
Sonic
Not quite. The Xbox is fairly develloper friendly, being very PC based (like the Dreamcast was).
The Gamecube is said to be even easier and more friendly (I can't quote or put up a reference link, but as soon as I can find the evidence I will let everyone know).
It's something to do with how the polygons manage all the textures and lighting effects in one go or something...
Anyway, Mr Suzuki said the Gamecube was more impressive than both the Xbox and PS2 and if it doesn't out-power the Xbox, what was he refering to?
(If you want, I can dig up a quote from one of Game's topics in Prime. Taken straight from Cloudchaser.)
Great topic... a new slant on things...
But, I have to strongly disagree with you saying:
"Such calculations are much, much more complex on the PS2 and Xbox and involve a lot of guesswork.
The Gamecube's different hardware sections were designed to work together making it easier to calculate how much one factor affects another. "
In fact, the Xbox has exceptionally easy to use, PC based architecture, in the same way as the DC and PSX.
Indeed, this is one of the big turn-ons for developers.
The Xbox, and indeed GC, were developed for ease of use... you don't think that MS want to make the job hard for developers???
Sony have gone for a different slant. They knew that whateve console they made, it would get great support, so they decided to be more brave, and go for a new style of architecture that, in the long run, may lead to better development cycles (thogugh it would need a lot of persiverence).
I think everythig you hae said about the GC is right... but don't forget, the DC and Xbox have been designed in exactly the same way... by giving developers the tools and systems they want.
Sonic
But, I have to strongly disagree with you saying:
"Such calculations are much, much more complex on the PS2 and Xbox and involve a lot of guesswork.
The Gamecube's different hardware sections were designed to work together making it easier to calculate how much one factor affects another. "
In fact, the Xbox has exceptionally easy to use, PC based architecture, in the same way as the DC and PSX.
Indeed, this is one of the big turn-ons for developers.
The Xbox, and indeed GC, were developed for ease of use... you don't think that MS want to make the job hard for developers???
Sony have gone for a different slant. They knew that whateve console they made, it would get great support, so they decided to be more brave, and go for a new style of architecture that, in the long run, may lead to better development cycles (thogugh it would need a lot of persiverence).
I think everythig you hae said about the GC is right... but don't forget, the DC and Xbox have been designed in exactly the same way... by giving developers the tools and systems they want.
Sonic
nice post. deserves the win.
Or†ega wrote:
> Reading a bit about Capcom and Mikami today.
Interesting to read that he
> believes the PS2's dominance will not last, and that he also dislikes the actual
> PS2 hardware. Fuelling rumours that capcom will completly jump ship to
> Nintendo.
It does look very likely.
Capcom making Gameboy Zelda's, Resident Evil games become GC exclusives, they publicly state that they love the Gamecube's hardware more than the PS2's...
I'm not sure what their plans on the Xbox are though.
I think Sonic Team also very close to Nintendo.
Sonic Team have also stated that they don't like the PS2, that they like the Gamecube and Yuji Naka (Sonic team leader) and Miyamoto have been singing each other's praises lately.
There's even rumours flying around about a joint game.
These devellopers, don't they just love to play with their "Lego Kit"! :-)
> Reading a bit about Capcom and Mikami today.
Interesting to read that he
> believes the PS2's dominance will not last, and that he also dislikes the actual
> PS2 hardware. Fuelling rumours that capcom will completly jump ship to
> Nintendo.
It does look very likely.
Capcom making Gameboy Zelda's, Resident Evil games become GC exclusives, they publicly state that they love the Gamecube's hardware more than the PS2's...
I'm not sure what their plans on the Xbox are though.
I think Sonic Team also very close to Nintendo.
Sonic Team have also stated that they don't like the PS2, that they like the Gamecube and Yuji Naka (Sonic team leader) and Miyamoto have been singing each other's praises lately.
There's even rumours flying around about a joint game.
These devellopers, don't they just love to play with their "Lego Kit"! :-)
It's supidly hard if you want to completely finish it.
I think that the learning curve will be enough to get the hang of it and then there's a load of levels which you may complete, should you so please.
To unlock the master levels, you have to beat the 50 hard levels without losing a life.
That will probably be VERY annoying.
Still, I think that there's enough early play for people to get their money's worth and then the stupidly hard stuff for those who want more.
I think that the learning curve will be enough to get the hang of it and then there's a load of levels which you may complete, should you so please.
To unlock the master levels, you have to beat the 50 hard levels without losing a life.
That will probably be VERY annoying.
Still, I think that there's enough early play for people to get their money's worth and then the stupidly hard stuff for those who want more.
Strafex wrote:
Sega (Monkey Ball is meant to
> be REALLY difficult)
I was reading the Cloudchaser Review of Super monkey ball and they say the hard setting on Super monkey ball is supposed to be stupidly hard, the type of hard that is just annoying.
Sega (Monkey Ball is meant to
> be REALLY difficult)
I was reading the Cloudchaser Review of Super monkey ball and they say the hard setting on Super monkey ball is supposed to be stupidly hard, the type of hard that is just annoying.
Page: