The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
>
>
> He then goes on comparing some Xbox games like a prat.
I didn't say they were bad games or anything, jus**t not original. But seeing as an original game is so hard to do these days it's not hugely important.
> Where the F**K did I say Microsoft have original games? No, PLEASE
> point out the line where I said that. All I remember, you f**king
> w*nker, is saying that Nintendo don't have the mos**t original games
> out.
Yes, and by lis**ting some X-box games that are the mos**t popular, yet completely un-original, shows that Nintendo *do* have the mos**t original games out.
> Rogue Squadron - Starfox, Luigi's Mansion - ANY 3rd person game out
> there will do for that
Yes your right, the 3rd person wonders of Britney's Dance Beat is by far better than all three of those games put together. Get your act together you little oik, you've yet to make a half-decent pos**t. Seeing as your obviously s**tupid, as well as a little, immature boy who thinks he's big 'cause he can swear, I'll ignore it this time.
>
> Now, take your sh*t and give it to someone else you f**king muppet,
> and read my pos**ts properly next time before you decide to slate them.
Maybe if you had the intelligence to unders**tand the meaning of my pos**t you wouldn't have this problem? My pos**t wasn't there to slate the X-box, it was there to prove that Nintendo do have the mos**t original games out, which is exactly what you said in your pos**t, so I did read it properly.
Now why don't you run along and play, and come back when your a bit older and know what you talking about.
>
>
> He then goes on comparing some Xbox games like a prat.
I didn't say they were bad games or anything, jus**t not original. But seeing as an original game is so hard to do these days it's not hugely important.
> Where the F**K did I say Microsoft have original games? No, PLEASE
> point out the line where I said that. All I remember, you f**king
> w*nker, is saying that Nintendo don't have the mos**t original games
> out.
Yes, and by lis**ting some X-box games that are the mos**t popular, yet completely un-original, shows that Nintendo *do* have the mos**t original games out.
> Rogue Squadron - Starfox, Luigi's Mansion - ANY 3rd person game out
> there will do for that
Yes your right, the 3rd person wonders of Britney's Dance Beat is by far better than all three of those games put together. Get your act together you little oik, you've yet to make a half-decent pos**t. Seeing as your obviously s**tupid, as well as a little, immature boy who thinks he's big 'cause he can swear, I'll ignore it this time.
>
> Now, take your sh*t and give it to someone else you f**king muppet,
> and read my pos**ts properly next time before you decide to slate them.
Maybe if you had the intelligence to unders**tand the meaning of my pos**t you wouldn't have this problem? My pos**t wasn't there to slate the X-box, it was there to prove that Nintendo do have the mos**t original games out, which is exactly what you said in your pos**t, so I did read it properly.
Now why don't you run along and play, and come back when your a bit older and know what you talking about.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Gar-j, Nintendo are not the most original games maker... Sega are ;)
>
> Anyway, you could have done much better with your list. The first is a
> sequal and is not original in any way (it's not even made by
> Nintendo!). The second isn't made by Nintendo and is a sequal. The
> third is a pretty weak game!
>
> Better would have been to give examples like Mario 64, Zelda etc that
> really have been the most revolutionary games ever.
>
> Sonic
That's true, Amigo!
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. :o)
Cheers
> Gar-j, Nintendo are not the most original games maker... Sega are ;)
>
> Anyway, you could have done much better with your list. The first is a
> sequal and is not original in any way (it's not even made by
> Nintendo!). The second isn't made by Nintendo and is a sequal. The
> third is a pretty weak game!
>
> Better would have been to give examples like Mario 64, Zelda etc that
> really have been the most revolutionary games ever.
>
> Sonic
That's true, Amigo!
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. :o)
Cheers
I've seen some movie clips of the game - its looking pretty good. ;-)) It really is full of trailor park trash type characters that you'd expect to see on Jerry Springer. ;-))
I don't usually like golf games, but this is looking a right laugh. :-)
The volleyball is pretty much the same thing but obviously with a change of sport. Apparently you can beat up and dump a partner for a new one if you want. ;-))
I don't usually like golf games, but this is looking a right laugh. :-)
The volleyball is pretty much the same thing but obviously with a change of sport. Apparently you can beat up and dump a partner for a new one if you want. ;-))
Outlaws Golf's coming out on GC too, it's looking pretty sweet as well apparetly it's full of hillbilly's and $2 hoes and stuff, don't ask me I read it a while back.
Actually the X-Box has more than Blinx that offer something new.
Heres a few others.....
Project Ego (an RPG with some amazing new aspects such as battle wounds that leave scars, becoming good or evil as your character ages depending how you act, your character becoming tanned or pale if you are exposed to the sun (or not) a lot. Its looking more and more superb as more info becomes available.)
Steel Battalion (an excellent looking mech shooter that comes with its own controller and pedals to add to the effect of being in a cockpit of a giant mech.
Prisoner of War (basically like taking part in the great escape)
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.)
Outlaw Golf and Outlaw Volleyball (get to kick the crap outta your caddy or partner when you don't play well.)
Circus Maximus (not a massive award winning game, but a new type of racing game to try as you race roman chariots, while also using your passenger to beat the living daylights out of the other racers.)
I expect Sega to add new titles as like SonicRav said, they are the best in this field. I'm looking forward to Panzer Dragoon too. ;-)
Some of Sega's recent masterpieces will also be coming to X-Box. Jet Set Radio Future is already out, Shenmue is on the way along Phantasy Star Online (also coming to GC).
Heres a few others.....
Project Ego (an RPG with some amazing new aspects such as battle wounds that leave scars, becoming good or evil as your character ages depending how you act, your character becoming tanned or pale if you are exposed to the sun (or not) a lot. Its looking more and more superb as more info becomes available.)
Steel Battalion (an excellent looking mech shooter that comes with its own controller and pedals to add to the effect of being in a cockpit of a giant mech.
Prisoner of War (basically like taking part in the great escape)
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.)
Outlaw Golf and Outlaw Volleyball (get to kick the crap outta your caddy or partner when you don't play well.)
Circus Maximus (not a massive award winning game, but a new type of racing game to try as you race roman chariots, while also using your passenger to beat the living daylights out of the other racers.)
I expect Sega to add new titles as like SonicRav said, they are the best in this field. I'm looking forward to Panzer Dragoon too. ;-)
Some of Sega's recent masterpieces will also be coming to X-Box. Jet Set Radio Future is already out, Shenmue is on the way along Phantasy Star Online (also coming to GC).
Gar-j, Nintendo are not the most original games maker... Sega are ;)
Anyway, you could have done much better with your list. The first is a sequal and is not original in any way (it's not even made by Nintendo!). The second isn't made by Nintendo and is a sequal. The third is a pretty weak game!
Better would have been to give examples like Mario 64, Zelda etc that really have been the most revolutionary games ever.
Sonic
Anyway, you could have done much better with your list. The first is a sequal and is not original in any way (it's not even made by Nintendo!). The second isn't made by Nintendo and is a sequal. The third is a pretty weak game!
Better would have been to give examples like Mario 64, Zelda etc that really have been the most revolutionary games ever.
Sonic
Gar-J wrote:
> Nintendo are among the best game developers
> in the world. Their latest games are not very original,
Now whose talking out of their f**king a*se?
Lets take a look a the X-box games list:
Halo - FPS, okay it may have better enemy AI and better graphics but, it's nothing new
PGR - A 'realistic' racing game, nothing new here, just better graphics, handling etc.
DoA3 - Another 'realistic' fighting game, nothing new here.
*Insert about 30 'army' games here*
Some more 'realistic' racers (Grand Prix 4, Lotus Challenge etc.)
Tetris Worlds - Well seeing as tetris is about 10 years old....plus it's crap anyway.
Snooker games - Nope, no originality here.
FIFA - hmmm I'd like to see the day theres some originality in a FIFA game.
Amped - Snowboarding game, wow, never seen one of these before!
Oddworld - Kind of original, but it is the third (or fouth?) one, and theres going to be 10 so by the end it won't be original.
So that leaves...Blinx...
And now Nintendo...
Luigi's Mansion - First of it's kind
Pikmin - First of it's kind
Animal Crossing - First of it's kind
And those are just Nintendo games, they are also trying to put some originality into well known franchises:
Mario Sunshine - Still a platform game, but plays like no other yet.
Zelda - A nice, new look and feel to it.
Smash Bros - Fighitng game, but different rules, not just 'bash 'em till their health is gone'
You see?
> Nintendo are among the best game developers
> in the world. Their latest games are not very original,
Now whose talking out of their f**king a*se?
Lets take a look a the X-box games list:
Halo - FPS, okay it may have better enemy AI and better graphics but, it's nothing new
PGR - A 'realistic' racing game, nothing new here, just better graphics, handling etc.
DoA3 - Another 'realistic' fighting game, nothing new here.
*Insert about 30 'army' games here*
Some more 'realistic' racers (Grand Prix 4, Lotus Challenge etc.)
Tetris Worlds - Well seeing as tetris is about 10 years old....plus it's crap anyway.
Snooker games - Nope, no originality here.
FIFA - hmmm I'd like to see the day theres some originality in a FIFA game.
Amped - Snowboarding game, wow, never seen one of these before!
Oddworld - Kind of original, but it is the third (or fouth?) one, and theres going to be 10 so by the end it won't be original.
So that leaves...Blinx...
And now Nintendo...
Luigi's Mansion - First of it's kind
Pikmin - First of it's kind
Animal Crossing - First of it's kind
And those are just Nintendo games, they are also trying to put some originality into well known franchises:
Mario Sunshine - Still a platform game, but plays like no other yet.
Zelda - A nice, new look and feel to it.
Smash Bros - Fighitng game, but different rules, not just 'bash 'em till their health is gone'
You see?
Gar-J wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
> You obviously don't UNDERSTAND your specs.
>
> That's odd. To think I studied CPU architechture for 2 years...
>
> Sure, Microsoft have told everyone of the big numbers behind their
> machine but anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS the specs knows that the
> difference between is neglegible.
>
> For instance, the Gamecube's processor actually OUT PERFORMS the
> Xbox's because even though the Xbox processor runs at 733 million
> "ticks" per second, because it's RAM isn't so fast and has
> a
> slow connection to the processor, it doesn't use even a fraction of
> those ticks when it comes to a practical program.
>
> The Gamecube's Cache memory is VERY fast though and has a really
> short
> connection of a copper wire (better electrical conductor) so
> therefore, a greater amount of "ticks" are used.
> It doesn't use ALL of the 485 million, but more than the Xbox does.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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? Is
> it a conspiracy? Is everyone actually putting inferior versions on the
> GC just to make it LOOK like the Xbox has superior power? Oh my
> God!!!!! Or, could it be that the Xbox IS actually more powerful and
> you're just talking out of your @rse? I'll let you decide.
>
> In real terms, Specs aren't really worth worrying about.
> The graphics between the Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube are so similar in
> quality, it's game design and imagination that'll really stand out.
>
> 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.
>
> Nintendo is OBVIOUSLY one of the best in this catagory.
>
> NOTICE:
>
> As most of you lot seem to read the first line of my posts then reply
> to slate me, I am going to state here exactly what I think. Then, when
> I do get idiots replying to me and taking the post down the wrong
> street, I can point this out (daveboy read that 5 times please).
>
> The GC is a kewl console. Nintendo are among the best game developers
> in the world. Their latest games are not very original, but they're
> good anyway. The GC is no-where near as powerful as you lot make out,
> and I think deep down you know that. That's why you point out how
> small it is etc. etc. and how hardware specs don't count etc. etc.
>
> If the GC was the most powerful, you would all sing and dance about it
> all over every forum.
>
> But it's not, so you just post crap about how it's small and 'you can
> take it anywhere' (even though the only place for it is under your
> TV). You also go on about how it's the games that are important etc.
> etc. but you are so blind you cannot see that it's hardware that GIVES
> you the games. You want a huge realistic world where character
> interaction is completely unique and true-to-life? Well, you won't get
> that on a Spectrum. You need POWER, RAM and DATA STORAGE.
>
> Yea, I come on here and wind you up with metaphors of dogshits etc,
> but to be honest I'm not biased at all. It just annoys me when
> 'Ninties' try and distort the facts and claim that the GC has more
> power than it does.
>
> Yea, it's sold more than the Xbox. Does that make it a better console?
> Does that make the games better? No, it gives Nintendo a bigger sales
> figure than Microsoft.
>
> The GC is a decent console, and most of the reason behind its sales
> figures is the PRICE. It's the cheapest console around, or haven't you
> noticed? Although that is really another issue, a comment I could use
> there is 'You pay for what you get'.
>
> Although it's good to be a fan of something, you must always bear in
> mind the word 'realistic'. Just cos you bang on about the GC in every
> possible way, doesn't mean someone who knows what they're on about is
> going to believe you.
>
> And anyway, if size doesn't really matter (which WE were OBVIOUSLY
> joking about), then why did it drive you to this huge rant...
>
> You should ask yourself that question when you visit the PS and Xbox
> forums and see Ninties like you ranting on about how you can take your
> GC 'anywhere'. WHERE exactly would you want to take it? For a walk?
> Swimming?
>
> Somebody's clearly hit your sensitive spot... :-D
>
> Not really - I just get annoyed when people are lame. :o)
>
> Anyway, feel better now after all that. Back to work I guess. :oP
The point is that there is little difference between the GC and the Xbox but the first generation games on the Xbox have been underpar and maybe now they will be forsed to bring better games. Another fact is that Most games will be ported on both consoles except for the odd few games like pikmin. I was once thinking about an Xbox but I was so disappointed with the games coming and the early grafix it turned me off. Another point is other then say online games is there any point in having a hard drive which can fail although it is rare now days. Another problem with the Xbox is how long before the pirates start to copy the games being dvd format. The cubes games are almost inpossible to copy because of the special format.
A friend at work said to me today that the Gc grafix are the Dogs dinner he was so impressed he is getting one. I said what about the Xbox he just laughed.
Also remember that the two consoles run in totally different ways so its hard to compare the two.
> Strafex wrote:
> You obviously don't UNDERSTAND your specs.
>
> That's odd. To think I studied CPU architechture for 2 years...
>
> Sure, Microsoft have told everyone of the big numbers behind their
> machine but anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS the specs knows that the
> difference between is neglegible.
>
> For instance, the Gamecube's processor actually OUT PERFORMS the
> Xbox's because even though the Xbox processor runs at 733 million
> "ticks" per second, because it's RAM isn't so fast and has
> a
> slow connection to the processor, it doesn't use even a fraction of
> those ticks when it comes to a practical program.
>
> The Gamecube's Cache memory is VERY fast though and has a really
> short
> connection of a copper wire (better electrical conductor) so
> therefore, a greater amount of "ticks" are used.
> It doesn't use ALL of the 485 million, but more than the Xbox does.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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? Is
> it a conspiracy? Is everyone actually putting inferior versions on the
> GC just to make it LOOK like the Xbox has superior power? Oh my
> God!!!!! Or, could it be that the Xbox IS actually more powerful and
> you're just talking out of your @rse? I'll let you decide.
>
> In real terms, Specs aren't really worth worrying about.
> The graphics between the Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube are so similar in
> quality, it's game design and imagination that'll really stand out.
>
> 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.
>
> Nintendo is OBVIOUSLY one of the best in this catagory.
>
> NOTICE:
>
> As most of you lot seem to read the first line of my posts then reply
> to slate me, I am going to state here exactly what I think. Then, when
> I do get idiots replying to me and taking the post down the wrong
> street, I can point this out (daveboy read that 5 times please).
>
> The GC is a kewl console. Nintendo are among the best game developers
> in the world. Their latest games are not very original, but they're
> good anyway. The GC is no-where near as powerful as you lot make out,
> and I think deep down you know that. That's why you point out how
> small it is etc. etc. and how hardware specs don't count etc. etc.
>
> If the GC was the most powerful, you would all sing and dance about it
> all over every forum.
>
> But it's not, so you just post crap about how it's small and 'you can
> take it anywhere' (even though the only place for it is under your
> TV). You also go on about how it's the games that are important etc.
> etc. but you are so blind you cannot see that it's hardware that GIVES
> you the games. You want a huge realistic world where character
> interaction is completely unique and true-to-life? Well, you won't get
> that on a Spectrum. You need POWER, RAM and DATA STORAGE.
>
> Yea, I come on here and wind you up with metaphors of dogshits etc,
> but to be honest I'm not biased at all. It just annoys me when
> 'Ninties' try and distort the facts and claim that the GC has more
> power than it does.
>
> Yea, it's sold more than the Xbox. Does that make it a better console?
> Does that make the games better? No, it gives Nintendo a bigger sales
> figure than Microsoft.
>
> The GC is a decent console, and most of the reason behind its sales
> figures is the PRICE. It's the cheapest console around, or haven't you
> noticed? Although that is really another issue, a comment I could use
> there is 'You pay for what you get'.
>
> Although it's good to be a fan of something, you must always bear in
> mind the word 'realistic'. Just cos you bang on about the GC in every
> possible way, doesn't mean someone who knows what they're on about is
> going to believe you.
>
> And anyway, if size doesn't really matter (which WE were OBVIOUSLY
> joking about), then why did it drive you to this huge rant...
>
> You should ask yourself that question when you visit the PS and Xbox
> forums and see Ninties like you ranting on about how you can take your
> GC 'anywhere'. WHERE exactly would you want to take it? For a walk?
> Swimming?
>
> Somebody's clearly hit your sensitive spot... :-D
>
> Not really - I just get annoyed when people are lame. :o)
>
> Anyway, feel better now after all that. Back to work I guess. :oP
The point is that there is little difference between the GC and the Xbox but the first generation games on the Xbox have been underpar and maybe now they will be forsed to bring better games. Another fact is that Most games will be ported on both consoles except for the odd few games like pikmin. I was once thinking about an Xbox but I was so disappointed with the games coming and the early grafix it turned me off. Another point is other then say online games is there any point in having a hard drive which can fail although it is rare now days. Another problem with the Xbox is how long before the pirates start to copy the games being dvd format. The cubes games are almost inpossible to copy because of the special format.
A friend at work said to me today that the Gc grafix are the Dogs dinner he was so impressed he is getting one. I said what about the Xbox he just laughed.
Also remember that the two consoles run in totally different ways so its hard to compare the two.
Strafex wrote:
> You obviously don't UNDERSTAND your specs.
That's odd. To think I studied CPU architechture for 2 years...
> Sure, Microsoft have told everyone of the big numbers behind their
> machine but anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS the specs knows that the
> difference between is neglegible.
>
> For instance, the Gamecube's processor actually OUT PERFORMS the
> Xbox's because even though the Xbox processor runs at 733 million
> "ticks" per second, because it's RAM isn't so fast and has a
> slow connection to the processor, it doesn't use even a fraction of
> those ticks when it comes to a practical program.
>
> The Gamecube's Cache memory is VERY fast though and has a really short
> connection of a copper wire (better electrical conductor) so
> therefore, a greater amount of "ticks" are used.
> It doesn't use ALL of the 485 million, but more than the Xbox does.
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.
> 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?
> 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? Is it a conspiracy? Is everyone actually putting inferior versions on the GC just to make it LOOK like the Xbox has superior power? Oh my God!!!!! Or, could it be that the Xbox IS actually more powerful and you're just talking out of your @rse? I'll let you decide.
> In real terms, Specs aren't really worth worrying about.
> The graphics between the Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube are so similar in
> quality, it's game design and imagination that'll really stand out.
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.
> Nintendo is OBVIOUSLY one of the best in this catagory.
NOTICE:
As most of you lot seem to read the first line of my posts then reply to slate me, I am going to state here exactly what I think. Then, when I do get idiots replying to me and taking the post down the wrong street, I can point this out (daveboy read that 5 times please).
The GC is a kewl console. Nintendo are among the best game developers in the world. Their latest games are not very original, but they're good anyway. The GC is no-where near as powerful as you lot make out, and I think deep down you know that. That's why you point out how small it is etc. etc. and how hardware specs don't count etc. etc.
If the GC was the most powerful, you would all sing and dance about it all over every forum.
But it's not, so you just post crap about how it's small and 'you can take it anywhere' (even though the only place for it is under your TV). You also go on about how it's the games that are important etc. etc. but you are so blind you cannot see that it's hardware that GIVES you the games. You want a huge realistic world where character interaction is completely unique and true-to-life? Well, you won't get that on a Spectrum. You need POWER, RAM and DATA STORAGE.
Yea, I come on here and wind you up with metaphors of dogshits etc, but to be honest I'm not biased at all. It just annoys me when 'Ninties' try and distort the facts and claim that the GC has more power than it does.
Yea, it's sold more than the Xbox. Does that make it a better console? Does that make the games better? No, it gives Nintendo a bigger sales figure than Microsoft.
The GC is a decent console, and most of the reason behind its sales figures is the PRICE. It's the cheapest console around, or haven't you noticed? Although that is really another issue, a comment I could use there is 'You pay for what you get'.
Although it's good to be a fan of something, you must always bear in mind the word 'realistic'. Just cos you bang on about the GC in every possible way, doesn't mean someone who knows what they're on about is going to believe you.
> And anyway, if size doesn't really matter (which WE were OBVIOUSLY
> joking about), then why did it drive you to this huge rant...
You should ask yourself that question when you visit the PS and Xbox forums and see Ninties like you ranting on about how you can take your GC 'anywhere'. WHERE exactly would you want to take it? For a walk? Swimming?
> Somebody's clearly hit your sensitive spot... :-D
Not really - I just get annoyed when people are lame. :o)
Anyway, feel better now after all that. Back to work I guess. :oP
> You obviously don't UNDERSTAND your specs.
That's odd. To think I studied CPU architechture for 2 years...
> Sure, Microsoft have told everyone of the big numbers behind their
> machine but anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS the specs knows that the
> difference between is neglegible.
>
> For instance, the Gamecube's processor actually OUT PERFORMS the
> Xbox's because even though the Xbox processor runs at 733 million
> "ticks" per second, because it's RAM isn't so fast and has a
> slow connection to the processor, it doesn't use even a fraction of
> those ticks when it comes to a practical program.
>
> The Gamecube's Cache memory is VERY fast though and has a really short
> connection of a copper wire (better electrical conductor) so
> therefore, a greater amount of "ticks" are used.
> It doesn't use ALL of the 485 million, but more than the Xbox does.
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.
> 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?
> 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? Is it a conspiracy? Is everyone actually putting inferior versions on the GC just to make it LOOK like the Xbox has superior power? Oh my God!!!!! Or, could it be that the Xbox IS actually more powerful and you're just talking out of your @rse? I'll let you decide.
> In real terms, Specs aren't really worth worrying about.
> The graphics between the Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube are so similar in
> quality, it's game design and imagination that'll really stand out.
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.
> Nintendo is OBVIOUSLY one of the best in this catagory.
NOTICE:
As most of you lot seem to read the first line of my posts then reply to slate me, I am going to state here exactly what I think. Then, when I do get idiots replying to me and taking the post down the wrong street, I can point this out (daveboy read that 5 times please).
The GC is a kewl console. Nintendo are among the best game developers in the world. Their latest games are not very original, but they're good anyway. The GC is no-where near as powerful as you lot make out, and I think deep down you know that. That's why you point out how small it is etc. etc. and how hardware specs don't count etc. etc.
If the GC was the most powerful, you would all sing and dance about it all over every forum.
But it's not, so you just post crap about how it's small and 'you can take it anywhere' (even though the only place for it is under your TV). You also go on about how it's the games that are important etc. etc. but you are so blind you cannot see that it's hardware that GIVES you the games. You want a huge realistic world where character interaction is completely unique and true-to-life? Well, you won't get that on a Spectrum. You need POWER, RAM and DATA STORAGE.
Yea, I come on here and wind you up with metaphors of dogshits etc, but to be honest I'm not biased at all. It just annoys me when 'Ninties' try and distort the facts and claim that the GC has more power than it does.
Yea, it's sold more than the Xbox. Does that make it a better console? Does that make the games better? No, it gives Nintendo a bigger sales figure than Microsoft.
The GC is a decent console, and most of the reason behind its sales figures is the PRICE. It's the cheapest console around, or haven't you noticed? Although that is really another issue, a comment I could use there is 'You pay for what you get'.
Although it's good to be a fan of something, you must always bear in mind the word 'realistic'. Just cos you bang on about the GC in every possible way, doesn't mean someone who knows what they're on about is going to believe you.
> And anyway, if size doesn't really matter (which WE were OBVIOUSLY
> joking about), then why did it drive you to this huge rant...
You should ask yourself that question when you visit the PS and Xbox forums and see Ninties like you ranting on about how you can take your GC 'anywhere'. WHERE exactly would you want to take it? For a walk? Swimming?
> Somebody's clearly hit your sensitive spot... :-D
Not really - I just get annoyed when people are lame. :o)
Anyway, feel better now after all that. Back to work I guess. :oP
savatt1668 wrote:
> So in the scenario that the X-Box had all the games you wanted, like
> say if Nintendo stopped their consoles and concentrated on software
> using platforms such as the X-Box, you would refuse flatly to buy one
> because of a PC operating sytem ?? ;-))
>
> Ooooooooooook.
Lol, daveboy makes a lot of stupid, unbelievable comments like this if you look through the threat. Not his fault, I'm sure, but the intensity of the 'Ninty fanboy' disease this kid is suffering from is epochal.
Comments like this show that beyond doubt.
> So in the scenario that the X-Box had all the games you wanted, like
> say if Nintendo stopped their consoles and concentrated on software
> using platforms such as the X-Box, you would refuse flatly to buy one
> because of a PC operating sytem ?? ;-))
>
> Ooooooooooook.
Lol, daveboy makes a lot of stupid, unbelievable comments like this if you look through the threat. Not his fault, I'm sure, but the intensity of the 'Ninty fanboy' disease this kid is suffering from is epochal.
Comments like this show that beyond doubt.
Page: