The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
THis whole gamecube vs x-box debate is pure speculation, I own a gamecube at present but I'm slowly starting to save up for the x-box. The x-box IS the more powerful console, if you go to anandtech.com they do a comparison and the x-box wins hands down.
GRAPHICS:the x-box has all the features that the gamecube offers but additional software effects can be written by the developer to suit the game.
Meanwhile the gamecube effects are encoded into the hardware so no extra effects can be implemented.
AUDIO: THe x-box can take a DS3D stream and encode it into a dolby digital stream, so to take advantage of this you could for example buy a system that cost £150 and it would sound very good.
The gamecube can utilise pro-logic II, now this will provide real time surround but at the moment it is impossible to find a budget system with this function, the only systems I've seen are mid-high end receivers which will set you back at least £200 pound and that does not include receivers.
GRAPHICS:the x-box has all the features that the gamecube offers but additional software effects can be written by the developer to suit the game.
Meanwhile the gamecube effects are encoded into the hardware so no extra effects can be implemented.
AUDIO: THe x-box can take a DS3D stream and encode it into a dolby digital stream, so to take advantage of this you could for example buy a system that cost £150 and it would sound very good.
The gamecube can utilise pro-logic II, now this will provide real time surround but at the moment it is impossible to find a budget system with this function, the only systems I've seen are mid-high end receivers which will set you back at least £200 pound and that does not include receivers.
Whitestripes wrote:
> I think the GC looks and is really stylish, all the little things like
> pressing the button thing to pop the discs out and stuff
> I don't like the big bright green X on the X-box.
>
> As you can tell these aren't exactly big problems or anything, just a
> matter of preference.
> The X-box controller is slightly too big for me.
That's fair enough mate - this opinion is of course subjective. Although much of the argument has been between Xbox and GC, I'm not what you would call an Xbox fanboy. I also think the Xbox could have been smaller to be more attractive, although this of course doesn't affect its power or even its portability.
Anyway, all is kewl.
> I think the GC looks and is really stylish, all the little things like
> pressing the button thing to pop the discs out and stuff
> I don't like the big bright green X on the X-box.
>
> As you can tell these aren't exactly big problems or anything, just a
> matter of preference.
> The X-box controller is slightly too big for me.
That's fair enough mate - this opinion is of course subjective. Although much of the argument has been between Xbox and GC, I'm not what you would call an Xbox fanboy. I also think the Xbox could have been smaller to be more attractive, although this of course doesn't affect its power or even its portability.
Anyway, all is kewl.
And heavy. Don't forget heavy.
Gar-J wrote:
>
>
> Erm no. The actual fact of the matter is that the Xbox runs at 733mhz
> on a KISC format, while the Gamecube runs at 450mhz on a RISC format.
> KISC has to change the code it runs into RISC format blocks before it
> can be run, which of course takes up processing time and resources.
> Gamecube doesn't have to do that because the processor just runs the
> RISC instructions it has been given. While this does mean that the
> Gamecube has more free processing time than the Xbox per second, in NO
> WAY whatsoever does this mean the Gamecube runs at 900mhz... and in NO
> WAY whatsoever does translating KISC into RISC take up 1/2 of the
> processing time... so your point here is not valid. The advantage of
> over 300mhz that the Xbox Pentium chip has is easily enough to absorb
> this extra processing, so in actual fact the Xbox's chip can perform
> more calculations relating to the actual game per second than the
> Gamecube.
>
> Hope this helps.
Oh I see, like I said, I wasn't sure about that as I'm not big on computers.
And Sonic we're not talking about difference between the GC and PS2, it's the GC and the X-box. And for the record I've never claimed the GC was better than the X-box in any way, shape or form when it comes to the size. In fact the only things I've mentioned to do with looks etc. is:
I think the GC looks and is really stylish, all the little things like pressing the button thing to pop the discs out and stuff
I don't like the big bright green X on the X-box.
As you can tell these aren't exactly big problems or anything, just a matter of preference.
The X-box controller is slightly too big for me.
>
>
> Erm no. The actual fact of the matter is that the Xbox runs at 733mhz
> on a KISC format, while the Gamecube runs at 450mhz on a RISC format.
> KISC has to change the code it runs into RISC format blocks before it
> can be run, which of course takes up processing time and resources.
> Gamecube doesn't have to do that because the processor just runs the
> RISC instructions it has been given. While this does mean that the
> Gamecube has more free processing time than the Xbox per second, in NO
> WAY whatsoever does this mean the Gamecube runs at 900mhz... and in NO
> WAY whatsoever does translating KISC into RISC take up 1/2 of the
> processing time... so your point here is not valid. The advantage of
> over 300mhz that the Xbox Pentium chip has is easily enough to absorb
> this extra processing, so in actual fact the Xbox's chip can perform
> more calculations relating to the actual game per second than the
> Gamecube.
>
> Hope this helps.
Oh I see, like I said, I wasn't sure about that as I'm not big on computers.
And Sonic we're not talking about difference between the GC and PS2, it's the GC and the X-box. And for the record I've never claimed the GC was better than the X-box in any way, shape or form when it comes to the size. In fact the only things I've mentioned to do with looks etc. is:
I think the GC looks and is really stylish, all the little things like pressing the button thing to pop the discs out and stuff
I don't like the big bright green X on the X-box.
As you can tell these aren't exactly big problems or anything, just a matter of preference.
The X-box controller is slightly too big for me.
Indeed, someone actually worked out the volumes of their consoles, and the difference between the GC and PS2 is only the size of a normal scientific calculator.
Sonic
Sonic
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? btw I dont need excuses
But it isn't 2kg - 10kg. The difference is no-where near 8kg you muppet. It's like 5oz. And who the hell is always carrying their consoles around with them anyway? You are exactly the type of person I was talking about in my initial post.
> 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? btw I dont need excuses
But it isn't 2kg - 10kg. The difference is no-where near 8kg you muppet. It's like 5oz. And who the hell is always carrying their consoles around with them anyway? You are exactly the type of person I was talking about in my initial post.
savatt1668 wrote:
> Reading Gar-J's post, any biased you saw in that is nothing to the
> utter crud that Ninties post in the X-Box forum. Most of them are
> usually newbies but occasionally even the odd regular has been known
> to say stuff thats not far off being laughable. This arguement Gar-J
> mentioned of some actually saying the GC is "da best" cause
> its small and has got a handle DOES actually happen. You might not
> have said it, but its certainly been used as an arguement.
Woohoo! :o)
> Reading Gar-J's post, any biased you saw in that is nothing to the
> utter crud that Ninties post in the X-Box forum. Most of them are
> usually newbies but occasionally even the odd regular has been known
> to say stuff thats not far off being laughable. This arguement Gar-J
> mentioned of some actually saying the GC is "da best" cause
> its small and has got a handle DOES actually happen. You might not
> have said it, but its certainly been used as an arguement.
Woohoo! :o)
Whitestripes wrote:
> Why would we want to talk about hardware and specifications? I think
> here in camp Ninty we all prefer to discuss the great games we play on
> our consoles, rather than what they could achieve. I know what my GC
> can achieve already by playing the games, like when your face to face
> with 200 tie fighters in Rogue Leader.
> And I'm not sure if this is true or not but didn't they prove the GC
> is actually 900mhz, which makes it faster than the X-box. something to
> do with the fact it processes in a different way which it means it
> does twice as much stuff as once, doubling it's clock speed of 450 to
> 900... Like how an Athlon (sp) 800 atually runs at 1Ghz and a 1Ghz
> pentium 4 actually runs about 850...
> Sorry if I got the units wrong by the way.
Erm no. The actual fact of the matter is that the Xbox runs at 733mhz on a KISC format, while the Gamecube runs at 450mhz on a RISC format. KISC has to change the code it runs into RISC format blocks before it can be run, which of course takes up processing time and resources. Gamecube doesn't have to do that because the processor just runs the RISC instructions it has been given. While this does mean that the Gamecube has more free processing time than the Xbox per second, in NO WAY whatsoever does this mean the Gamecube runs at 900mhz... and in NO WAY whatsoever does translating KISC into RISC take up 1/2 of the processing time... so your point here is not valid. The advantage of over 300mhz that the Xbox Pentium chip has is easily enough to absorb this extra processing, so in actual fact the Xbox's chip can perform more calculations relating to the actual game per second than the Gamecube.
Hope this helps.
> Why would we want to talk about hardware and specifications? I think
> here in camp Ninty we all prefer to discuss the great games we play on
> our consoles, rather than what they could achieve. I know what my GC
> can achieve already by playing the games, like when your face to face
> with 200 tie fighters in Rogue Leader.
> And I'm not sure if this is true or not but didn't they prove the GC
> is actually 900mhz, which makes it faster than the X-box. something to
> do with the fact it processes in a different way which it means it
> does twice as much stuff as once, doubling it's clock speed of 450 to
> 900... Like how an Athlon (sp) 800 atually runs at 1Ghz and a 1Ghz
> pentium 4 actually runs about 850...
> Sorry if I got the units wrong by the way.
Erm no. The actual fact of the matter is that the Xbox runs at 733mhz on a KISC format, while the Gamecube runs at 450mhz on a RISC format. KISC has to change the code it runs into RISC format blocks before it can be run, which of course takes up processing time and resources. Gamecube doesn't have to do that because the processor just runs the RISC instructions it has been given. While this does mean that the Gamecube has more free processing time than the Xbox per second, in NO WAY whatsoever does this mean the Gamecube runs at 900mhz... and in NO WAY whatsoever does translating KISC into RISC take up 1/2 of the processing time... so your point here is not valid. The advantage of over 300mhz that the Xbox Pentium chip has is easily enough to absorb this extra processing, so in actual fact the Xbox's chip can perform more calculations relating to the actual game per second than the Gamecube.
Hope this helps.
davyboy wrote:
> Like the old saying small is beautifull
I think you'll find it's actually 'big is beautiful'.
*SIGH*
> Like the old saying small is beautifull
I think you'll find it's actually 'big is beautiful'.
*SIGH*
Page: