The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The X-Box was always going to be the foremost contender for Nintendo-basher of the year. What with Sony quietly slipping away, and Sega finally giving up the ghost, the battlefield has been left clear for the most intense console war that you may ever see. The thing is, Microsoft is not experienced in the console market, and it's already beginning to show. The control pad, as expected, is uninspiring, looking remarkably similar to a Dreamcast pad.
But that was expected, right? The word Microsoft isn't exactly synonymous with innovation - more like borrowing and improving, or to be more accurate, cunningly creating an exclusive mass market. Mr Gates has no idea what Nintendo are up to, and this has forced him to have a dig at Gamecube's specifications. On the X-Box official web-site, you can view the X-box's all-important numbers compared directly to Gamecube and PS2. Here is an example of the statistics for you to look at;
X-box
CPU – 733MHz
Graphics Processor – 250MHz
Total Memory – 64MB
Memory Bandwidth – 6.4GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 125M/sec
PS2
CPU – 294.912MHz
Graphics Processor – 147.465MHz
Total Memory – 32MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 66M/sec
Gamecube
CPU – 405 MHz Power PC
Graphics Processor – 202.5MHz
Total Memory – 40MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 6-12M/sec
As you can see, it doesn't look good for Nintendo, but it wouldn't if any of it was based on in-game comparisons. Every machine works differently, so the fact that one console has a larger number than the other means nothing. As it happens, the Gamecube's CPU is based on the Power PC architecture, which works in a totally different way to a standard PC CPU. Putting the two numbers next to each other is just plain ignorance. Maybe they think that nobody will notice? In actual fact, one major developer has said, that Gamecube's CPU is easily equivalent to a 733MHz CPU. One down, several other misleading facts to go!
X-box supposedly has 21MB more memory than Gamecube. This is actually true, but Gamecube uses highly advanced texture-compression techniques. It doesn't need all that memory, and if you take into account all that extra space available after compression, Gamecube has tons more virtual memory than X-Box.
The most misleading and downright stupid looking comparison of all is in the polygon performance. What's that? X-Box is 11 times more powerful than Gamecube? Nintendo doesn't stand a chance. On the contrary, Nintendo has learned a valuable lesson - this time round, it's being realistic with its figures. The N64 had some awe-inspiring, polygon-pushing numbers when it was first announced, but it never came close. According to this data, the PS2 can push 66 million polygons per. second. So why is it that Ridge Racer V never goes above three million/sec? The cold light of day is that these figures are only true if there are no effects. Once you have a bunch of light sources, textures, and a decent framerate, that number immediately goes down to under 1/10th! This puts Microsoft's machine at around 12 million/sec. With EA Canada announcing that in benchmark tests (on Gamecube) they were achieving in the region of 15 million/sec with multiple effects and light sources, everything suddenly looks rosy again. 125 million polygons/second indeed!
Ok, so I’ve pretty much proven that technically, the Gamecube can more than hold its own in the coming console wars, but that’s only part of the battle. The console market is now full of huge publishers, whose games will more than likely be of the multi-format variety. So what is to stop Joe Bloggs buying an X-Box instead of a Gamecube? That’s where the exclusive software comes in. Nintendo is without doubt home to some of the most talented designers and programmers in the world. Its two main in-house teams, EAD and HAL Laboratory are responsible for franchises such as Pokémon, Mario, Zelda and Metroid, and that’s only to mention a few. Rest assured, there won’t be a shortage of awesome titles available from Nintendo themselves.
Then there’s the 2nd Parties, the developers in which Nintendo has a financial stake. Due to the financial tie, these developers will develop only for Nintendo’s consoles. At the moment, the list includes Rare, Silicon Knights, Left Field, NSTC and Retro Studios.
Last of all are the 3rd-Party developers. Microsoft recently released a list of 150 3rd-Party developers who it claimed were developing for its console. Many of these are also developing for Gamecube, Activision, Infogrames, Namco, Acclaim, 3DO, Konami and Capcom to name just a few.
As you can see, there are more than enough quality development studios working on Gamecube software, but whereas Microsoft is actively showing off what its machine can do, Nintendo has slammed Non Disclosure Agreements on everyone so that they can’t say a word until May. Roll on E3!
But that was expected, right? The word Microsoft isn't exactly synonymous with innovation - more like borrowing and improving, or to be more accurate, cunningly creating an exclusive mass market. Mr Gates has no idea what Nintendo are up to, and this has forced him to have a dig at Gamecube's specifications. On the X-Box official web-site, you can view the X-box's all-important numbers compared directly to Gamecube and PS2. Here is an example of the statistics for you to look at;
X-box
CPU – 733MHz
Graphics Processor – 250MHz
Total Memory – 64MB
Memory Bandwidth – 6.4GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 125M/sec
PS2
CPU – 294.912MHz
Graphics Processor – 147.465MHz
Total Memory – 32MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 66M/sec
Gamecube
CPU – 405 MHz Power PC
Graphics Processor – 202.5MHz
Total Memory – 40MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 6-12M/sec
As you can see, it doesn't look good for Nintendo, but it wouldn't if any of it was based on in-game comparisons. Every machine works differently, so the fact that one console has a larger number than the other means nothing. As it happens, the Gamecube's CPU is based on the Power PC architecture, which works in a totally different way to a standard PC CPU. Putting the two numbers next to each other is just plain ignorance. Maybe they think that nobody will notice? In actual fact, one major developer has said, that Gamecube's CPU is easily equivalent to a 733MHz CPU. One down, several other misleading facts to go!
X-box supposedly has 21MB more memory than Gamecube. This is actually true, but Gamecube uses highly advanced texture-compression techniques. It doesn't need all that memory, and if you take into account all that extra space available after compression, Gamecube has tons more virtual memory than X-Box.
The most misleading and downright stupid looking comparison of all is in the polygon performance. What's that? X-Box is 11 times more powerful than Gamecube? Nintendo doesn't stand a chance. On the contrary, Nintendo has learned a valuable lesson - this time round, it's being realistic with its figures. The N64 had some awe-inspiring, polygon-pushing numbers when it was first announced, but it never came close. According to this data, the PS2 can push 66 million polygons per. second. So why is it that Ridge Racer V never goes above three million/sec? The cold light of day is that these figures are only true if there are no effects. Once you have a bunch of light sources, textures, and a decent framerate, that number immediately goes down to under 1/10th! This puts Microsoft's machine at around 12 million/sec. With EA Canada announcing that in benchmark tests (on Gamecube) they were achieving in the region of 15 million/sec with multiple effects and light sources, everything suddenly looks rosy again. 125 million polygons/second indeed!
Ok, so I’ve pretty much proven that technically, the Gamecube can more than hold its own in the coming console wars, but that’s only part of the battle. The console market is now full of huge publishers, whose games will more than likely be of the multi-format variety. So what is to stop Joe Bloggs buying an X-Box instead of a Gamecube? That’s where the exclusive software comes in. Nintendo is without doubt home to some of the most talented designers and programmers in the world. Its two main in-house teams, EAD and HAL Laboratory are responsible for franchises such as Pokémon, Mario, Zelda and Metroid, and that’s only to mention a few. Rest assured, there won’t be a shortage of awesome titles available from Nintendo themselves.
Then there’s the 2nd Parties, the developers in which Nintendo has a financial stake. Due to the financial tie, these developers will develop only for Nintendo’s consoles. At the moment, the list includes Rare, Silicon Knights, Left Field, NSTC and Retro Studios.
Last of all are the 3rd-Party developers. Microsoft recently released a list of 150 3rd-Party developers who it claimed were developing for its console. Many of these are also developing for Gamecube, Activision, Infogrames, Namco, Acclaim, 3DO, Konami and Capcom to name just a few.
As you can see, there are more than enough quality development studios working on Gamecube software, but whereas Microsoft is actively showing off what its machine can do, Nintendo has slammed Non Disclosure Agreements on everyone so that they can’t say a word until May. Roll on E3!
Page:
The X-Box was always going to be the foremost contender for Nintendo-basher of the year. What with Sony quietly slipping away, and Sega finally giving up the ghost, the battlefield has been left clear for the most intense console war that you may ever see. The thing is, Microsoft is not experienced in the console market, and it's already beginning to show. The control pad, as expected, is uninspiring, looking remarkably similar to a Dreamcast pad.
But that was expected, right? The word Microsoft isn't exactly synonymous with innovation - more like borrowing and improving, or to be more accurate, cunningly creating an exclusive mass market. Mr Gates has no idea what Nintendo are up to, and this has forced him to have a dig at Gamecube's specifications. On the X-Box official web-site, you can view the X-box's all-important numbers compared directly to Gamecube and PS2. Here is an example of the statistics for you to look at;
X-box
CPU – 733MHz
Graphics Processor – 250MHz
Total Memory – 64MB
Memory Bandwidth – 6.4GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 125M/sec
PS2
CPU – 294.912MHz
Graphics Processor – 147.465MHz
Total Memory – 32MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 66M/sec
Gamecube
CPU – 405 MHz Power PC
Graphics Processor – 202.5MHz
Total Memory – 40MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 6-12M/sec
As you can see, it doesn't look good for Nintendo, but it wouldn't if any of it was based on in-game comparisons. Every machine works differently, so the fact that one console has a larger number than the other means nothing. As it happens, the Gamecube's CPU is based on the Power PC architecture, which works in a totally different way to a standard PC CPU. Putting the two numbers next to each other is just plain ignorance. Maybe they think that nobody will notice? In actual fact, one major developer has said, that Gamecube's CPU is easily equivalent to a 733MHz CPU. One down, several other misleading facts to go!
X-box supposedly has 21MB more memory than Gamecube. This is actually true, but Gamecube uses highly advanced texture-compression techniques. It doesn't need all that memory, and if you take into account all that extra space available after compression, Gamecube has tons more virtual memory than X-Box.
The most misleading and downright stupid looking comparison of all is in the polygon performance. What's that? X-Box is 11 times more powerful than Gamecube? Nintendo doesn't stand a chance. On the contrary, Nintendo has learned a valuable lesson - this time round, it's being realistic with its figures. The N64 had some awe-inspiring, polygon-pushing numbers when it was first announced, but it never came close. According to this data, the PS2 can push 66 million polygons per. second. So why is it that Ridge Racer V never goes above three million/sec? The cold light of day is that these figures are only true if there are no effects. Once you have a bunch of light sources, textures, and a decent framerate, that number immediately goes down to under 1/10th! This puts Microsoft's machine at around 12 million/sec. With EA Canada announcing that in benchmark tests (on Gamecube) they were achieving in the region of 15 million/sec with multiple effects and light sources, everything suddenly looks rosy again. 125 million polygons/second indeed!
Ok, so I’ve pretty much proven that technically, the Gamecube can more than hold its own in the coming console wars, but that’s only part of the battle. The console market is now full of huge publishers, whose games will more than likely be of the multi-format variety. So what is to stop Joe Bloggs buying an X-Box instead of a Gamecube? That’s where the exclusive software comes in. Nintendo is without doubt home to some of the most talented designers and programmers in the world. Its two main in-house teams, EAD and HAL Laboratory are responsible for franchises such as Pokémon, Mario, Zelda and Metroid, and that’s only to mention a few. Rest assured, there won’t be a shortage of awesome titles available from Nintendo themselves.
Then there’s the 2nd Parties, the developers in which Nintendo has a financial stake. Due to the financial tie, these developers will develop only for Nintendo’s consoles. At the moment, the list includes Rare, Silicon Knights, Left Field, NSTC and Retro Studios.
Last of all are the 3rd-Party developers. Microsoft recently released a list of 150 3rd-Party developers who it claimed were developing for its console. Many of these are also developing for Gamecube, Activision, Infogrames, Namco, Acclaim, 3DO, Konami and Capcom to name just a few.
As you can see, there are more than enough quality development studios working on Gamecube software, but whereas Microsoft is actively showing off what its machine can do, Nintendo has slammed Non Disclosure Agreements on everyone so that they can’t say a word until May. Roll on E3!
But that was expected, right? The word Microsoft isn't exactly synonymous with innovation - more like borrowing and improving, or to be more accurate, cunningly creating an exclusive mass market. Mr Gates has no idea what Nintendo are up to, and this has forced him to have a dig at Gamecube's specifications. On the X-Box official web-site, you can view the X-box's all-important numbers compared directly to Gamecube and PS2. Here is an example of the statistics for you to look at;
X-box
CPU – 733MHz
Graphics Processor – 250MHz
Total Memory – 64MB
Memory Bandwidth – 6.4GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 125M/sec
PS2
CPU – 294.912MHz
Graphics Processor – 147.465MHz
Total Memory – 32MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 66M/sec
Gamecube
CPU – 405 MHz Power PC
Graphics Processor – 202.5MHz
Total Memory – 40MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 6-12M/sec
As you can see, it doesn't look good for Nintendo, but it wouldn't if any of it was based on in-game comparisons. Every machine works differently, so the fact that one console has a larger number than the other means nothing. As it happens, the Gamecube's CPU is based on the Power PC architecture, which works in a totally different way to a standard PC CPU. Putting the two numbers next to each other is just plain ignorance. Maybe they think that nobody will notice? In actual fact, one major developer has said, that Gamecube's CPU is easily equivalent to a 733MHz CPU. One down, several other misleading facts to go!
X-box supposedly has 21MB more memory than Gamecube. This is actually true, but Gamecube uses highly advanced texture-compression techniques. It doesn't need all that memory, and if you take into account all that extra space available after compression, Gamecube has tons more virtual memory than X-Box.
The most misleading and downright stupid looking comparison of all is in the polygon performance. What's that? X-Box is 11 times more powerful than Gamecube? Nintendo doesn't stand a chance. On the contrary, Nintendo has learned a valuable lesson - this time round, it's being realistic with its figures. The N64 had some awe-inspiring, polygon-pushing numbers when it was first announced, but it never came close. According to this data, the PS2 can push 66 million polygons per. second. So why is it that Ridge Racer V never goes above three million/sec? The cold light of day is that these figures are only true if there are no effects. Once you have a bunch of light sources, textures, and a decent framerate, that number immediately goes down to under 1/10th! This puts Microsoft's machine at around 12 million/sec. With EA Canada announcing that in benchmark tests (on Gamecube) they were achieving in the region of 15 million/sec with multiple effects and light sources, everything suddenly looks rosy again. 125 million polygons/second indeed!
Ok, so I’ve pretty much proven that technically, the Gamecube can more than hold its own in the coming console wars, but that’s only part of the battle. The console market is now full of huge publishers, whose games will more than likely be of the multi-format variety. So what is to stop Joe Bloggs buying an X-Box instead of a Gamecube? That’s where the exclusive software comes in. Nintendo is without doubt home to some of the most talented designers and programmers in the world. Its two main in-house teams, EAD and HAL Laboratory are responsible for franchises such as Pokémon, Mario, Zelda and Metroid, and that’s only to mention a few. Rest assured, there won’t be a shortage of awesome titles available from Nintendo themselves.
Then there’s the 2nd Parties, the developers in which Nintendo has a financial stake. Due to the financial tie, these developers will develop only for Nintendo’s consoles. At the moment, the list includes Rare, Silicon Knights, Left Field, NSTC and Retro Studios.
Last of all are the 3rd-Party developers. Microsoft recently released a list of 150 3rd-Party developers who it claimed were developing for its console. Many of these are also developing for Gamecube, Activision, Infogrames, Namco, Acclaim, 3DO, Konami and Capcom to name just a few.
As you can see, there are more than enough quality development studios working on Gamecube software, but whereas Microsoft is actively showing off what its machine can do, Nintendo has slammed Non Disclosure Agreements on everyone so that they can’t say a word until May. Roll on E3!
If gamecube can graphically compete with the X-Box then why hasnt it?
In all the multi platform games it seems to turn out like this...
Graphics: X-Box
Sound: X-Box or PS2
Controls: PS2
Special Features: X-Box or/and PS2
Overall Best: X-Box or/and PS2
eg.
1) SSX
Graphics: X-Box
Sound: X-Box
Controls: PS2
Special Features: X-Box and PS2
Overall Best: X-Box and PS2
Quote: 'Multi-console owners should definitely stay clear of the inferior, slimmed down GameCube version'
2) Tony Hawks 3
Graphics: X-Box
Sound: PS2
Controls: PS2
Special Features: X-Box
Overall Best: X-Box
Quote: 'I am starting to see a pattern on these head-to-heads and I don't know if I like it. But it is hard to ignore that Xbox is kicking ass.'
The gamecube may be capable of good graphics but they dont seem to be able to match up to that of the X-Box.
Their 1.5GB GCD is the reason for a lack of features compared to the other two consoles. PS2 uses 4.7GB DVDs which is over three times as much as the gamecube. X-Box uses 9GB DVDs which is over five times as much as the gamecube.
In all the multi platform games it seems to turn out like this...
Graphics: X-Box
Sound: X-Box or PS2
Controls: PS2
Special Features: X-Box or/and PS2
Overall Best: X-Box or/and PS2
eg.
1) SSX
Graphics: X-Box
Sound: X-Box
Controls: PS2
Special Features: X-Box and PS2
Overall Best: X-Box and PS2
Quote: 'Multi-console owners should definitely stay clear of the inferior, slimmed down GameCube version'
2) Tony Hawks 3
Graphics: X-Box
Sound: PS2
Controls: PS2
Special Features: X-Box
Overall Best: X-Box
Quote: 'I am starting to see a pattern on these head-to-heads and I don't know if I like it. But it is hard to ignore that Xbox is kicking ass.'
The gamecube may be capable of good graphics but they dont seem to be able to match up to that of the X-Box.
Their 1.5GB GCD is the reason for a lack of features compared to the other two consoles. PS2 uses 4.7GB DVDs which is over three times as much as the gamecube. X-Box uses 9GB DVDs which is over five times as much as the gamecube.
But all the games magazines use the same comparisons. Its not Bill Gates lying, its the whole industry. The specs for the PS2 are false. The Xbox has 64mb RAM which is correct. The GC has 16mb of Graphics RAM and 24mb of System RAM so that is 40Mb. The PS2 has 32mb of System RAM and 4mb of graphics RAM so thats 36mb of total RAM, yet magazines some how forget that.
The specs below are what appear in every, even a Nintendo magazine would quote the same specs. Non biased magazines quote the same specs.
The specs below are what appear in every, even a Nintendo magazine would quote the same specs. Non biased magazines quote the same specs.
I personally don't care about the figures of it.
The fact is that on the Xbox I can play the games I want to play.
Not only do I get all the major third party games, Tonty Hawks, FIFA, ISS, SSX, F1 2002, Soul Calibur 2 etc etc. But I also get Xbox exclusive games such as Halo, Amped, Rallisport, PGR.
And, because of the HDD, I can play PC type games such as Morrowind, Grand Prix 4, Champ Manager etc without having to worry about upgrading my PC all the time.
A GC is tempting, especially at the low price, but I really can't justify having two consoles as I don't play games that much. The only game that would *really* tempt me to get a GC is Mario Kart, but as that's not out yet, I'll stick with my Xbox thanks.
The fact is that on the Xbox I can play the games I want to play.
Not only do I get all the major third party games, Tonty Hawks, FIFA, ISS, SSX, F1 2002, Soul Calibur 2 etc etc. But I also get Xbox exclusive games such as Halo, Amped, Rallisport, PGR.
And, because of the HDD, I can play PC type games such as Morrowind, Grand Prix 4, Champ Manager etc without having to worry about upgrading my PC all the time.
A GC is tempting, especially at the low price, but I really can't justify having two consoles as I don't play games that much. The only game that would *really* tempt me to get a GC is Mario Kart, but as that's not out yet, I'll stick with my Xbox thanks.
I have both consoles and the GC is really good, but the eye candy areas just don't match upto X-Box. If I wanted a game that was on both machines, I would buy the X-Box version because the X-Box can give a title those extra details over the GC (and the PS2 of course).
The GC's graphics definatly look a lot more polished than the PS2, but then the PS2 is like 2 years old so they should be.
I was reading a topic recently and someone was saying how the graphics on Rogue Leader are a lot better than Halo's and I just couldn't help laughing cause thats just utter crap.
Don't get me wrong, the graphics on Rogue Leader are superb, but they don't match Halo. If you want to see the amazing detail in Halo, you only need to look at the ground and see each individual blade of grass. If your playing in Co-Op, you can see the level of detail on Master Chief. Notice little things like the torch light when your partner flicks it on and off. Not to mention the shine effects and worn look of the armour.
The GC isn't that far behind the X-Box in its performances with graphics and sound, but there is still a noticable difference. Unless your looking at the X-Box with Ninty tinted glasses.
The GC's graphics definatly look a lot more polished than the PS2, but then the PS2 is like 2 years old so they should be.
I was reading a topic recently and someone was saying how the graphics on Rogue Leader are a lot better than Halo's and I just couldn't help laughing cause thats just utter crap.
Don't get me wrong, the graphics on Rogue Leader are superb, but they don't match Halo. If you want to see the amazing detail in Halo, you only need to look at the ground and see each individual blade of grass. If your playing in Co-Op, you can see the level of detail on Master Chief. Notice little things like the torch light when your partner flicks it on and off. Not to mention the shine effects and worn look of the armour.
The GC isn't that far behind the X-Box in its performances with graphics and sound, but there is still a noticable difference. Unless your looking at the X-Box with Ninty tinted glasses.
People can be such muppets!!
Get a life, all consoles are different and in their own ways quality! Why don't we all just calm down, take a deep breath and play Halo, MGS2 or Super Monkey Ball?
There, better eh?!
*And could no one say that MGS2 may come out on X-Box, and SMB on PS2 - plz...
Get a life, all consoles are different and in their own ways quality! Why don't we all just calm down, take a deep breath and play Halo, MGS2 or Super Monkey Ball?
There, better eh?!
*And could no one say that MGS2 may come out on X-Box, and SMB on PS2 - plz...
0utlaw wrote:
> People can be such muppets!!
Especially Bill Gates...
> People can be such muppets!!
Especially Bill Gates...
blahpro wrote:
> 0utlaw wrote:
> People can be such muppets!!
>
> Especially Bill Gates...
----
Heh heh :-D
> 0utlaw wrote:
> People can be such muppets!!
>
> Especially Bill Gates...
----
Heh heh :-D
Page: