The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> On a different note, I think I should get a game from SR for starting
> the most popular string in the Nintendo forum. It's only a few days
> old and already has over 100 posts. I had something similar on the web
> design forum too but that was just full of people telling me they
> *were* actually web designers even though their work said otherwise.
Ohh! I missed that one... (Off to hunt through the Web forum to find and seek)
> On a different note, I think I should get a game from SR for starting
> the most popular string in the Nintendo forum. It's only a few days
> old and already has over 100 posts. I had something similar on the web
> design forum too but that was just full of people telling me they
> *were* actually web designers even though their work said otherwise.
Ohh! I missed that one... (Off to hunt through the Web forum to find and seek)
Whitestripes wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
>
>
> Whitestripes, if I was your father I would have beaten you black and
> blue for being so stupid.
>
> If thats the best reply you can come up with then you're insulting
> yourself more than I ever could, well done.
I've only just started, my brainless friend.
> Gar-J wrote:
>
>
> Whitestripes, if I was your father I would have beaten you black and
> blue for being so stupid.
>
> If thats the best reply you can come up with then you're insulting
> yourself more than I ever could, well done.
I've only just started, my brainless friend.
Gar-J wrote:
>
>
> Whitestripes, if I was your father I would have beaten you black and
> blue for being so stupid.
If thats the best reply you can come up with then you're insulting yourself more than I ever could, well done.
>
>
> Whitestripes, if I was your father I would have beaten you black and
> blue for being so stupid.
If thats the best reply you can come up with then you're insulting yourself more than I ever could, well done.
Whitestripes wrote:
> The only reason it's had so many
> posts it because there are so many Nintendo owners who have found a
> stupid X-box fanboy to slate
Although I no longer expect you to understand even the simplest English, I have already said about 50,000 times that I am not an Xbox fanboy. You don't need to be an Xbox fanboy to know that an Xbox has more raw power then the GC. The very fact that I have come here and said that has upset a lot of you, but whitestripes, you really are the saddest tw*t I've ever seen in a forum.
> And this isn't the most popular string either, the 'longest thread in
> the world' topic is.
I pointed out that my string was most popular because it had reached over 100 in SO VERY FEW DAYS. Not because of pure numbers of posts. Correct me if I'm wrong, you cretin, (if you are able to grasp the concept of time that is) that my string was started MUCH more recently than the longest string? And, in such a few number of days to have reached over 100 means that this string has had a higher concentration of posts within this very short time?
Thus, by deduction, if this was to carry on for a set time, this string would soon overtake the longest thread.
I know you won't understand, but unfortunately I am unable to upload a diagram to try and help you get it.
You pointed out that I swore at you earlier. You said that was to make me feel big. Unfortunately, your minute brain failed to recall that in the post I was replying to (from you) you swore at me...
Another thing that ping-pong ball on a piece of string inside your head that you call a brain forgot, was that I wasn't here claiming the Xbox has the most original games. I was here to claim that the Xbox is technically the superior machine. And it is. So I was right. So you are a tw*t.
> The only reason it's had so many
> posts it because there are so many Nintendo owners who have found a
> stupid X-box fanboy to slate
Although I no longer expect you to understand even the simplest English, I have already said about 50,000 times that I am not an Xbox fanboy. You don't need to be an Xbox fanboy to know that an Xbox has more raw power then the GC. The very fact that I have come here and said that has upset a lot of you, but whitestripes, you really are the saddest tw*t I've ever seen in a forum.
> And this isn't the most popular string either, the 'longest thread in
> the world' topic is.
I pointed out that my string was most popular because it had reached over 100 in SO VERY FEW DAYS. Not because of pure numbers of posts. Correct me if I'm wrong, you cretin, (if you are able to grasp the concept of time that is) that my string was started MUCH more recently than the longest string? And, in such a few number of days to have reached over 100 means that this string has had a higher concentration of posts within this very short time?
Thus, by deduction, if this was to carry on for a set time, this string would soon overtake the longest thread.
I know you won't understand, but unfortunately I am unable to upload a diagram to try and help you get it.
You pointed out that I swore at you earlier. You said that was to make me feel big. Unfortunately, your minute brain failed to recall that in the post I was replying to (from you) you swore at me...
Another thing that ping-pong ball on a piece of string inside your head that you call a brain forgot, was that I wasn't here claiming the Xbox has the most original games. I was here to claim that the Xbox is technically the superior machine. And it is. So I was right. So you are a tw*t.
Strafex wrote:
> Game design/play is much more important.
Agreed, and that's something I've been saying since the very start (yes you can go and look if you want). What you fail to see is that although YES, GAME DESIGN/PLAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GRAPHICS, you STILL need power to produce the state of the art games that we are expecting today. And for the love of GOD, you CANNOT tell me the GC is the most powerful console out there, so the POTENTIAL for the most realistic/cutting edge game is greatest on the XBOX!
I hope I've put it simply enough there so that even muppets like whitestripes can understand, though I won't hold my breath.
He's contradicted himself on more than one point and seems to want to FORGET most the things he said in his original post.
Whitestripes, if I was your father I would have beaten you black and blue for being so stupid.
> Game design/play is much more important.
Agreed, and that's something I've been saying since the very start (yes you can go and look if you want). What you fail to see is that although YES, GAME DESIGN/PLAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GRAPHICS, you STILL need power to produce the state of the art games that we are expecting today. And for the love of GOD, you CANNOT tell me the GC is the most powerful console out there, so the POTENTIAL for the most realistic/cutting edge game is greatest on the XBOX!
I hope I've put it simply enough there so that even muppets like whitestripes can understand, though I won't hold my breath.
He's contradicted himself on more than one point and seems to want to FORGET most the things he said in his original post.
Whitestripes, if I was your father I would have beaten you black and blue for being so stupid.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Gar-j, Nintendo are not the most original games maker... Sega are ;)
And with a name like that, you're REALLY impartial! ;-D
I'm going to argue with that!
Although Sega have toppled out a several interesting ideas with the Dreamcast (which all seem to be very short-but-sweet in a way - perhaps that's where Nintendo took their cue from), but it took them atleast 6 months after the DC launch to get the likes of Crazy Taxi and Chu-chu Rocket out and a further 6 months to get the likes of Jet Set Radio, Shenmue and Sambi Amigo etc...
Now if Nintendo can get out the likes of Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion out from day one, they deserve to be called "equals" atleast.
And while Smash Brothers might not be hugely changed from the N64 version (infinitely touched up and improved, but the basic game mechanics remain the same), the N64 Smash Brothers was INCREDIBLY original and that only leaves two games of that kind.
Besides, atleast 3 of Sega's devellopment teams are working very closely with Nintendo (Sonic Team, Amusement Vision and Visual Concepts) so perhaps the best of each company will rub off on each other.
> Gar-j, Nintendo are not the most original games maker... Sega are ;)
And with a name like that, you're REALLY impartial! ;-D
I'm going to argue with that!
Although Sega have toppled out a several interesting ideas with the Dreamcast (which all seem to be very short-but-sweet in a way - perhaps that's where Nintendo took their cue from), but it took them atleast 6 months after the DC launch to get the likes of Crazy Taxi and Chu-chu Rocket out and a further 6 months to get the likes of Jet Set Radio, Shenmue and Sambi Amigo etc...
Now if Nintendo can get out the likes of Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion out from day one, they deserve to be called "equals" atleast.
And while Smash Brothers might not be hugely changed from the N64 version (infinitely touched up and improved, but the basic game mechanics remain the same), the N64 Smash Brothers was INCREDIBLY original and that only leaves two games of that kind.
Besides, atleast 3 of Sega's devellopment teams are working very closely with Nintendo (Sonic Team, Amusement Vision and Visual Concepts) so perhaps the best of each company will rub off on each other.
Gar-J wrote:
> Blah, blah, blah. Why don't you just use the words 'bus' and
> 'bandwidth'? I'm not a Ninty - you can use technical terms with me and
> I will understand. :o) I don't need them put to me in kiddie form.
In past experience, people who claim that the Xbox is far superior down to polygon count and processor speed have just often copied figures out of magazines.
> Also, although the Xbox can do more polygons, the Gamecube textures
> are better, doing effects easily that would slow down the Xbox
> incredibly.
>
> You have proof of this I assume? No? Why does that not surprise me?
No proof with me, but most technical sites I've read have said something along those lines. The Gamecube's strength is in multi-layed textures but the Xbox makes up for this by pushing out more polygons which can more or less do the same thing only using a different method.
>
> It's easy to say "Xbox is better because of it's specs"
> but
> it's also wrong. Unbiased tests show that the Xbox does have a
> slight
> edge overall, but the edge is SO slight, you'd have to be real
> graphics/tech freak to spot a proper difference.
>
> If the difference is SO SLIGHT, why are all games that are being put
> on all 3 consoles (Xbox, PS2 and GC to you) superior on the Xbox?
They're not really THAT superior...
Infact, some Xbox games are supposedly outdone by PS2 versions.
It's all down to the develloper really and how they optimise the code.
If Nintendo made a top class game and Microsoft made a top class game, they wouldn't be technically far apart.
> To think I actually thought you might know what you were talking about
> here for a second. Then I read what you said about the PS2 and GC
> having the same quality graphics. Are you joking? The PS2 maxes out at
> like 640 x 480. Even the DREAMCAST boasted higher resolutions in its
> games! It also lacks hardware anti-aliasing. This means the graphics
> are rough. So, the GC hoses down the PS2 pretty easily. The Xbox does
> an even better job.
I know that the Gamecube and Xbox obviously out do the PS2, but although the graphics aren't quite so smooth, they do almost hold their own.
And while the difference it noticable, it's not THAT important compared to other elements of the game.
Game design/play is much more important.
> Blah, blah, blah. Why don't you just use the words 'bus' and
> 'bandwidth'? I'm not a Ninty - you can use technical terms with me and
> I will understand. :o) I don't need them put to me in kiddie form.
In past experience, people who claim that the Xbox is far superior down to polygon count and processor speed have just often copied figures out of magazines.
> Also, although the Xbox can do more polygons, the Gamecube textures
> are better, doing effects easily that would slow down the Xbox
> incredibly.
>
> You have proof of this I assume? No? Why does that not surprise me?
No proof with me, but most technical sites I've read have said something along those lines. The Gamecube's strength is in multi-layed textures but the Xbox makes up for this by pushing out more polygons which can more or less do the same thing only using a different method.
>
> It's easy to say "Xbox is better because of it's specs"
> but
> it's also wrong. Unbiased tests show that the Xbox does have a
> slight
> edge overall, but the edge is SO slight, you'd have to be real
> graphics/tech freak to spot a proper difference.
>
> If the difference is SO SLIGHT, why are all games that are being put
> on all 3 consoles (Xbox, PS2 and GC to you) superior on the Xbox?
They're not really THAT superior...
Infact, some Xbox games are supposedly outdone by PS2 versions.
It's all down to the develloper really and how they optimise the code.
If Nintendo made a top class game and Microsoft made a top class game, they wouldn't be technically far apart.
> To think I actually thought you might know what you were talking about
> here for a second. Then I read what you said about the PS2 and GC
> having the same quality graphics. Are you joking? The PS2 maxes out at
> like 640 x 480. Even the DREAMCAST boasted higher resolutions in its
> games! It also lacks hardware anti-aliasing. This means the graphics
> are rough. So, the GC hoses down the PS2 pretty easily. The Xbox does
> an even better job.
I know that the Gamecube and Xbox obviously out do the PS2, but although the graphics aren't quite so smooth, they do almost hold their own.
And while the difference it noticable, it's not THAT important compared to other elements of the game.
Game design/play is much more important.
You tell him boy!
Gar-J wrote:
>
>
> On a different note, I think I should get a game from SR for starting
> the most popular string in the Nintendo forum. It's only a few days
> old and already has over 100 posts.
I'm afraid not, GAD wins take intelligence and/or humour, you are lacking in both of these things. The only reason it's had so many posts it because there are so many Nintendo owners who have found a stupid X-box fanboy to slate, as his posts are complete crap.
I could easily get the same number number of replies by heading over to the X-box forum and starting a topic called 'X-box is crap because it's big', but would I deserve to win a free game for doing that? No.
And this isn't the most popular string either, the 'longest thread in the world' topic is.
>
>
> On a different note, I think I should get a game from SR for starting
> the most popular string in the Nintendo forum. It's only a few days
> old and already has over 100 posts.
I'm afraid not, GAD wins take intelligence and/or humour, you are lacking in both of these things. The only reason it's had so many posts it because there are so many Nintendo owners who have found a stupid X-box fanboy to slate, as his posts are complete crap.
I could easily get the same number number of replies by heading over to the X-box forum and starting a topic called 'X-box is crap because it's big', but would I deserve to win a free game for doing that? No.
And this isn't the most popular string either, the 'longest thread in the world' topic is.
savatt1668 wrote:
>
> Toejam & Earl 3 (although a sequel, it hasn't appeared since the
> days of the Megadrive/Genesis and looks to offer something new with
> the jump to a much more powerful console.)
>
I'm pretty certain I saw a Toejam and Earl game on the Dreamcast...near the end, I might be wrong though, I'll look it up.
>
> Toejam & Earl 3 (although a sequel, it hasn't appeared since the
> days of the Megadrive/Genesis and looks to offer something new with
> the jump to a much more powerful console.)
>
I'm pretty certain I saw a Toejam and Earl game on the Dreamcast...near the end, I might be wrong though, I'll look it up.
Page: