The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
GBA, the future of handheld gaming...
Rotating sprites,
Mode 7 graphics,
32 bit games,
Hey???? Hold on a sec...
So you're trying to tell me that this pathetically small handheld device has the power of a PS1. Certainly some gamers seem to think it does, but this is simply NOT true!
Although the GBA may have a 32bit processor, it certainly doesn't have the PS1's graphics card, sound board, texture mapping etc, etc...
Which makes me wonder, how many other consoles have "lied" about their power...
Well, the earliest example is the Atari Jaguar... that "64 bit" console released in the early 90s. Sure, it had the right number of bits, but none of the technology to use it!
A bit on from that there was the Mega Drive... the 16 bit console that actually used duel 8bit processors that weren't as efficient as a proper 16bit processor...
Following that we had the Saturn that was so underpowered compared to the PSx (both sega and ninty didn't realise how important 3d gaming was until the psx came out!), that sega just stuck another processor in... in a completely random architecture! The result was a powerful console, but one that needed so much time and money to squeeze life out of that only Sega bothered!
Adn now we're stuck in a situation where all the consoles are 128 bits... a notation that is now meaningless! Instead it's all about the clock speed of the processor, and the architecture of all the componenets of the console. Add onto this the fact that in games other effects can be used, and this makes it impossible to judge the "more powerful" console. Suffice it to say, Xbox comes out on top, with GC following, and the PS2 not far behind (developers have had time to refine techniques on the Ps2).
But it's the games that count....
Sonic
Rotating sprites,
Mode 7 graphics,
32 bit games,
Hey???? Hold on a sec...
So you're trying to tell me that this pathetically small handheld device has the power of a PS1. Certainly some gamers seem to think it does, but this is simply NOT true!
Although the GBA may have a 32bit processor, it certainly doesn't have the PS1's graphics card, sound board, texture mapping etc, etc...
Which makes me wonder, how many other consoles have "lied" about their power...
Well, the earliest example is the Atari Jaguar... that "64 bit" console released in the early 90s. Sure, it had the right number of bits, but none of the technology to use it!
A bit on from that there was the Mega Drive... the 16 bit console that actually used duel 8bit processors that weren't as efficient as a proper 16bit processor...
Following that we had the Saturn that was so underpowered compared to the PSx (both sega and ninty didn't realise how important 3d gaming was until the psx came out!), that sega just stuck another processor in... in a completely random architecture! The result was a powerful console, but one that needed so much time and money to squeeze life out of that only Sega bothered!
Adn now we're stuck in a situation where all the consoles are 128 bits... a notation that is now meaningless! Instead it's all about the clock speed of the processor, and the architecture of all the componenets of the console. Add onto this the fact that in games other effects can be used, and this makes it impossible to judge the "more powerful" console. Suffice it to say, Xbox comes out on top, with GC following, and the PS2 not far behind (developers have had time to refine techniques on the Ps2).
But it's the games that count....
Sonic
Page:
The GBA can do better 2D graphics than a Playstation and the N64 was all designed around 3D hence the 3D stick.
AliBoy wrote:
Consoles are very powerful though, just because the processors may
> not seem as fast as todays PC's the fact is they don't have to process as much
> info as PC's so all of the processing time is used for the game unlike with a PC
> which is doing other things like processing OS instructions while you play a
> game. Also the architecture in most of the consoles is very advanced and makes
> them very complex and indeed powerful.
Exactly, and one of the many things console manufacturers have to think about it what to "specialise" the console in. After all, they have a finite sale cost, so they can either add a better texture mapper (say), or an extra mamory chip.
It is this that gives different consoles different feels. The N64 has the "soft and fluffy" anti-aliased graphics, whereas the PSX has hard edged polies.
Sonic
Consoles are very powerful though, just because the processors may
> not seem as fast as todays PC's the fact is they don't have to process as much
> info as PC's so all of the processing time is used for the game unlike with a PC
> which is doing other things like processing OS instructions while you play a
> game. Also the architecture in most of the consoles is very advanced and makes
> them very complex and indeed powerful.
Exactly, and one of the many things console manufacturers have to think about it what to "specialise" the console in. After all, they have a finite sale cost, so they can either add a better texture mapper (say), or an extra mamory chip.
It is this that gives different consoles different feels. The N64 has the "soft and fluffy" anti-aliased graphics, whereas the PSX has hard edged polies.
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
Adn now we're stuck in a situation where all the consoles are 128
> bits... a notation that is now meaningless! Instead it's all about the clock
> speed of the processor, and the architecture of all the componenets of the
> console. Add onto this the fact that in games other effects can be used, and
> this makes it impossible to judge the "more powerful" console. Suffice
> it to say, Xbox comes out on top, with GC following, and the PS2 not far behind
> (developers have had time to refine techniques on the Ps2).
But it's the
> games that count....
Sonic
This last bit here was the bit that got me thinking a little. Every console is different in some way. maybe a faster processor, better graphics or sound capabilities. This means comparing consoles is very tricky, not like PC's which have similar architectures and can be benchmarked to see which performs better. It is true that the X-Box does have the best specs, then the gamecube and then the PS2 which is no surprise seeing as the PS2 has been out for a year and the x-box is very similar to a PC. But each console has its onw pros and cons, i'll not bore you with these as your final sentence says it all it is the games that count. Making different consoles appeal to different people.
Consoles are very powerful though, just because the processors may not seem as fast as todays PC's the fact is they don't have to process as much info as PC's so all of the processing time is used for the game unlike with a PC which is doing other things like processing OS instructions while you play a game. Also the architecture in most of the consoles is very advanced and makes them very complex and indeed powerful.
Adn now we're stuck in a situation where all the consoles are 128
> bits... a notation that is now meaningless! Instead it's all about the clock
> speed of the processor, and the architecture of all the componenets of the
> console. Add onto this the fact that in games other effects can be used, and
> this makes it impossible to judge the "more powerful" console. Suffice
> it to say, Xbox comes out on top, with GC following, and the PS2 not far behind
> (developers have had time to refine techniques on the Ps2).
But it's the
> games that count....
Sonic
This last bit here was the bit that got me thinking a little. Every console is different in some way. maybe a faster processor, better graphics or sound capabilities. This means comparing consoles is very tricky, not like PC's which have similar architectures and can be benchmarked to see which performs better. It is true that the X-Box does have the best specs, then the gamecube and then the PS2 which is no surprise seeing as the PS2 has been out for a year and the x-box is very similar to a PC. But each console has its onw pros and cons, i'll not bore you with these as your final sentence says it all it is the games that count. Making different consoles appeal to different people.
Consoles are very powerful though, just because the processors may not seem as fast as todays PC's the fact is they don't have to process as much info as PC's so all of the processing time is used for the game unlike with a PC which is doing other things like processing OS instructions while you play a game. Also the architecture in most of the consoles is very advanced and makes them very complex and indeed powerful.
and 2d games like Castlevania COTM prove yet again that there are some games that should remain 2d. Fortunately, the new PS2 Castlevania game looks set to continue this trend, upset only by the strange 3Dness of the N64 versions.
GBA, the future of handheld gaming...
Rotating sprites,
Mode 7 graphics,
32 bit games,
Hey???? Hold on a sec...
So you're trying to tell me that this pathetically small handheld device has the power of a PS1. Certainly some gamers seem to think it does, but this is simply NOT true!
Although the GBA may have a 32bit processor, it certainly doesn't have the PS1's graphics card, sound board, texture mapping etc, etc...
Which makes me wonder, how many other consoles have "lied" about their power...
Well, the earliest example is the Atari Jaguar... that "64 bit" console released in the early 90s. Sure, it had the right number of bits, but none of the technology to use it!
A bit on from that there was the Mega Drive... the 16 bit console that actually used duel 8bit processors that weren't as efficient as a proper 16bit processor...
Following that we had the Saturn that was so underpowered compared to the PSx (both sega and ninty didn't realise how important 3d gaming was until the psx came out!), that sega just stuck another processor in... in a completely random architecture! The result was a powerful console, but one that needed so much time and money to squeeze life out of that only Sega bothered!
Adn now we're stuck in a situation where all the consoles are 128 bits... a notation that is now meaningless! Instead it's all about the clock speed of the processor, and the architecture of all the componenets of the console. Add onto this the fact that in games other effects can be used, and this makes it impossible to judge the "more powerful" console. Suffice it to say, Xbox comes out on top, with GC following, and the PS2 not far behind (developers have had time to refine techniques on the Ps2).
But it's the games that count....
Sonic
Rotating sprites,
Mode 7 graphics,
32 bit games,
Hey???? Hold on a sec...
So you're trying to tell me that this pathetically small handheld device has the power of a PS1. Certainly some gamers seem to think it does, but this is simply NOT true!
Although the GBA may have a 32bit processor, it certainly doesn't have the PS1's graphics card, sound board, texture mapping etc, etc...
Which makes me wonder, how many other consoles have "lied" about their power...
Well, the earliest example is the Atari Jaguar... that "64 bit" console released in the early 90s. Sure, it had the right number of bits, but none of the technology to use it!
A bit on from that there was the Mega Drive... the 16 bit console that actually used duel 8bit processors that weren't as efficient as a proper 16bit processor...
Following that we had the Saturn that was so underpowered compared to the PSx (both sega and ninty didn't realise how important 3d gaming was until the psx came out!), that sega just stuck another processor in... in a completely random architecture! The result was a powerful console, but one that needed so much time and money to squeeze life out of that only Sega bothered!
Adn now we're stuck in a situation where all the consoles are 128 bits... a notation that is now meaningless! Instead it's all about the clock speed of the processor, and the architecture of all the componenets of the console. Add onto this the fact that in games other effects can be used, and this makes it impossible to judge the "more powerful" console. Suffice it to say, Xbox comes out on top, with GC following, and the PS2 not far behind (developers have had time to refine techniques on the Ps2).
But it's the games that count....
Sonic
Page: