The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
One more thing......I was not saying Edge giving Halo 10/10 is wrong - It was their 'opinion'. I was just annoyed at the way the adverts, and so the fans lapped it up, meaning it WAS the best game ever (and no game has ever got 10/10 before have they?!)
Ahhhh.......but Savatt, I 'know lots of people' who bought it as a standalone (like me) because of its games! In my opinion Halo is not the best game ever. Zelda: OOT is!
:)
:)
Size dosen't matter? Sensitive spots? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........
I detect an inferiority complex being shown here......
;-)
I detect an inferiority complex being shown here......
;-)
Games are a different matter Cyclone. Mags give their opinions just like any other gamer. To me, Halo IS the best game I've ever played and I've played hundreds of games. Yes its an FPS, but it brings a new level of intelligence in its AI that makes it an amazing game.
Some may not like Halo, but some go out with the attitude that they WILL hate it no matter what because its not on their console. Using Ninties as an example, just watch them slate the games coming to PS2 and X-Box - and yet, MOH : Frontline is announced for GC and it goes from being just another FPS to one of the best games ever and its coming to GC !
Magazines views can just be seen like any other games player's. Thing is, the GC is selling well now while the hardcore Ninties all rush out for it, but what about the coming months ? An advantage the GC has is its price. A lot of people that already have a PS2 or X-Box have gone out and bought a GC as a console to have "as well as" rather than a stand alone choice. But if it came down to people choosing just one console from the 3, I think you'd find a big decline in the sales. I know 7 people who bought a GC and all of them bought it as a "backup" console because its cheap. One of them along with me got rid of it.
Some may not like Halo, but some go out with the attitude that they WILL hate it no matter what because its not on their console. Using Ninties as an example, just watch them slate the games coming to PS2 and X-Box - and yet, MOH : Frontline is announced for GC and it goes from being just another FPS to one of the best games ever and its coming to GC !
Magazines views can just be seen like any other games player's. Thing is, the GC is selling well now while the hardcore Ninties all rush out for it, but what about the coming months ? An advantage the GC has is its price. A lot of people that already have a PS2 or X-Box have gone out and bought a GC as a console to have "as well as" rather than a stand alone choice. But if it came down to people choosing just one console from the 3, I think you'd find a big decline in the sales. I know 7 people who bought a GC and all of them bought it as a "backup" console because its cheap. One of them along with me got rid of it.
Gar-J wrote:
>
> As for your comment on independent tests concerning Gamecube, it was a
> Canadian company that got one benchmark to be slightly higher on
> Gamecube than on Xbox, and the code was optimised to take advantage of
> Gamecube-specific hardware. If they had bothered to run Xbox-specific
> software then the results would have been different, and I don't say
> that because I am biased - I say it because of the maths - 733mhz
> Pentium 3 and an overclocked Geforce 3 = more than Gamecube's custom
> 450mhz and customised Radeon graphics accelerator.
Hmmmm...
You obviously don't UNDERSTAND your specs.
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.
Also, although the Xbox can do more polygons, the Gamecube textures are better, doing effects easily that would slow down the Xbox incredibly.
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.
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.
Nintendo is OBVIOUSLY one of the best in this catagory.
Sega are also very good and while they have favoured the Xbox slightly so far, they're also doing plenty for rival formats.
All the other top games devellopers are almost exclusively Japanese (a few exceptions like Rare), and Microsoft haven't exactly won many favours over there.
The Xbox is a very good console with some pretty decent games.
It's not the all dominating force that some fan-boys would hype it up to be though.
And anyway, if size doesn't really matter (which WE were OBVIOUSLY joking about), then why did it drive you to this huge rant...
Somebody's clearly hit your sensitive spot... :-D
>
> As for your comment on independent tests concerning Gamecube, it was a
> Canadian company that got one benchmark to be slightly higher on
> Gamecube than on Xbox, and the code was optimised to take advantage of
> Gamecube-specific hardware. If they had bothered to run Xbox-specific
> software then the results would have been different, and I don't say
> that because I am biased - I say it because of the maths - 733mhz
> Pentium 3 and an overclocked Geforce 3 = more than Gamecube's custom
> 450mhz and customised Radeon graphics accelerator.
Hmmmm...
You obviously don't UNDERSTAND your specs.
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.
Also, although the Xbox can do more polygons, the Gamecube textures are better, doing effects easily that would slow down the Xbox incredibly.
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.
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.
Nintendo is OBVIOUSLY one of the best in this catagory.
Sega are also very good and while they have favoured the Xbox slightly so far, they're also doing plenty for rival formats.
All the other top games devellopers are almost exclusively Japanese (a few exceptions like Rare), and Microsoft haven't exactly won many favours over there.
The Xbox is a very good console with some pretty decent games.
It's not the all dominating force that some fan-boys would hype it up to be though.
And anyway, if size doesn't really matter (which WE were OBVIOUSLY joking about), then why did it drive you to this huge rant...
Somebody's clearly hit your sensitive spot... :-D
davyboy wrote:
> Monkey_With_Attitude wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Like the old saying small is beautiful
>
> If that's your excuse...
>
> would you carry a 2kg case or a 10kg one?
LOL! He wasn't talking about excuses for a small GAMECUBE... ;-D
> Monkey_With_Attitude wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Like the old saying small is beautiful
>
> If that's your excuse...
>
> would you carry a 2kg case or a 10kg one?
LOL! He wasn't talking about excuses for a small GAMECUBE... ;-D
I'm not particualrly close minded (I hope!) Sure the XBox is good and has good games, but IN MY OPINION the Gamecube has better games coming out, and especialy with Nintendo, I know that I have bought a quality title and machine. I'm not saying the XBox is rubbish, its good, but I prefer my Gamecube.
Oh, and the fact that GC outsold XBox does not mean its better? In PURELY financial terms, that means it is (I know that means nothing but i am saying it anyway). Another thing, Halo got 10/10 from Edge (A rerversal of the above arguement - ie, Nintendo sell more, but are not neccessarily better, yet Halo gets a higher score and automaticly IS better?!). So? Does that mean everybody will like it? Zelda and Mario both got 10/10 but a lot of people did not like them.
*Hehe!*
:)
Oh, and the fact that GC outsold XBox does not mean its better? In PURELY financial terms, that means it is (I know that means nothing but i am saying it anyway). Another thing, Halo got 10/10 from Edge (A rerversal of the above arguement - ie, Nintendo sell more, but are not neccessarily better, yet Halo gets a higher score and automaticly IS better?!). So? Does that mean everybody will like it? Zelda and Mario both got 10/10 but a lot of people did not like them.
*Hehe!*
:)
davyboy wrote:
> The problem is with the Xbox is its made bye Microsoft and People hate
> and distrust Microsoft and can say I blame them either. They Charge
> rip off prices for there operating systems that simply dont cut the
> mustard but people are stuck cause theres no real aternative yet. Roll
> on Lindows i say.
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.
> The problem is with the Xbox is its made bye Microsoft and People hate
> and distrust Microsoft and can say I blame them either. They Charge
> rip off prices for there operating systems that simply dont cut the
> mustard but people are stuck cause theres no real aternative yet. Roll
> on Lindows i say.
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.
But as it is a Microsoft machine, PC gamers will take straight to it instantly - mainly because they're favoured people have made it, even though it's NOT a PC.
The problem is with the Xbox is its made bye Microsoft and People hate and distrust Microsoft and can say I blame them either. They Charge rip off prices for there operating systems that simply dont cut the mustard but people are stuck cause theres no real aternative yet. Roll on Lindows i say.
Page: