The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
davyboy wrote:
> I agree whole heartedly with Tiltawhirl the point about the cube is
> its grafix power and its general power in and independant test its
> been proven to be more powerfull the the Xbox + there are those
> brillant games like rougue leader and the orginal pikmin Thats its
> selling point and i would also point out im way older then what the
> sujestion was.
You agree that it's graphics power and general power? That's what I have said in here too, so we agree on something at least. However, unfortunately we are now both 'sad' because we think a console's power is important, whereas it should be the 'quality of the games' that matters. You and I both know they're only saying that because the Gamecube is the least powerful of the new super consoles, but some people find it hard to face facts.
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.
> I agree whole heartedly with Tiltawhirl the point about the cube is
> its grafix power and its general power in and independant test its
> been proven to be more powerfull the the Xbox + there are those
> brillant games like rougue leader and the orginal pikmin Thats its
> selling point and i would also point out im way older then what the
> sujestion was.
You agree that it's graphics power and general power? That's what I have said in here too, so we agree on something at least. However, unfortunately we are now both 'sad' because we think a console's power is important, whereas it should be the 'quality of the games' that matters. You and I both know they're only saying that because the Gamecube is the least powerful of the new super consoles, but some people find it hard to face facts.
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.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
... I don't know what you've been reading but I haven't come
> across anyone saying the Gamecubes good because it's small.
Take a look in either of the following forums, my narrow-minded friend: Sega, Microsoft and Sony.
Also, can you please use more variety in your reply? You've already told me 'please come back when...' blah blah blah, and it's getting boring.
... I don't know what you've been reading but I haven't come
> across anyone saying the Gamecubes good because it's small.
Take a look in either of the following forums, my narrow-minded friend: Sega, Microsoft and Sony.
Also, can you please use more variety in your reply? You've already told me 'please come back when...' blah blah blah, and it's getting boring.
Protoss wrote:
> While the selling point of Gamecubes size is a very valid point, and
> is a bit stupid to rave about it being portable, your exaggeration of
> ''cutsey characters is very wrong in my opinion. But I won't rant and
> rave about Nintendo's new adult games.
>
> However, dicussing polygon count and framerate to sell a console is,
> frankly, sad.
> Who really gives a damn when the diffence in console performance is
> really negligable when it SHOULD be about the choice and quality of
> the games on that system. As well as the price and exclusive titles.
This would be a fair point if the difference in power was really negligible, but it isn't. The Gamecube is hammered into the ground technically. Look, if the Gamecube was the most powerful then you would all sing and dance about that. We all know which is the most powerful, but I'm not going to rave about that either because I'm not an Xbox fan. I'm a realist. And the Xbox is *really* much more powerful than the Gamecube. I'm not here for a 'mine is better than yours' fight, as I don't own either console and I'm waiting to see which console does best in the next few months before I bother getting one. Despite this, I appreciate that to run the latest and greatest software, you need power. I don't think you'd get the latest Zelda game on the SNES, precisely because it isn't powerful enough to run it. Likewise, there are games that the Gamecube will not be able to run, despite the faithfulness of its fans.
> While the selling point of Gamecubes size is a very valid point, and
> is a bit stupid to rave about it being portable, your exaggeration of
> ''cutsey characters is very wrong in my opinion. But I won't rant and
> rave about Nintendo's new adult games.
>
> However, dicussing polygon count and framerate to sell a console is,
> frankly, sad.
> Who really gives a damn when the diffence in console performance is
> really negligable when it SHOULD be about the choice and quality of
> the games on that system. As well as the price and exclusive titles.
This would be a fair point if the difference in power was really negligible, but it isn't. The Gamecube is hammered into the ground technically. Look, if the Gamecube was the most powerful then you would all sing and dance about that. We all know which is the most powerful, but I'm not going to rave about that either because I'm not an Xbox fan. I'm a realist. And the Xbox is *really* much more powerful than the Gamecube. I'm not here for a 'mine is better than yours' fight, as I don't own either console and I'm waiting to see which console does best in the next few months before I bother getting one. Despite this, I appreciate that to run the latest and greatest software, you need power. I don't think you'd get the latest Zelda game on the SNES, precisely because it isn't powerful enough to run it. Likewise, there are games that the Gamecube will not be able to run, despite the faithfulness of its fans.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Beleive me I have I try to ignore it, every console has it's own set
> of idiotic fanboys it just seems that Nintendo's is a bit larger. It's
> damn annoying when I see the sort of crap they post it makes anyone
> who likes Nintendo look stupid.
That's probably got something to do with the fact that Nintendo are the biggest games company in the market today. And because they've been around for over 100 years, and they've also managed to entertain people of all ages during that time. But I know what you mean!
> Beleive me I have I try to ignore it, every console has it's own set
> of idiotic fanboys it just seems that Nintendo's is a bit larger. It's
> damn annoying when I see the sort of crap they post it makes anyone
> who likes Nintendo look stupid.
That's probably got something to do with the fact that Nintendo are the biggest games company in the market today. And because they've been around for over 100 years, and they've also managed to entertain people of all ages during that time. But I know what you mean!
The obvious thing to do is to not bite when these types come into the forums, but when you see it everyday, week in, week out, it really becomes too much and you have to have a go at them in the end. These types of fanboys are so annoyingly thick that you just can't stop yourself from pointing it out.
savatt1668 wrote:
> You obviously don't read the crap Ninties post in the X-Box forum
> then. Even when they do mention games, it ends up being along the
> lines of "X-Box is crap cause its only got Halo while Cube has
> Mario and Zelda".
>
Beleive me I have I try to ignore it, every console has it's own set of idiotic fanboys it just seems that Nintendo's is a bit larger. It's damn annoying when I see the sort of crap they post it makes anyone who likes Nintendo look stupid.
> You obviously don't read the crap Ninties post in the X-Box forum
> then. Even when they do mention games, it ends up being along the
> lines of "X-Box is crap cause its only got Halo while Cube has
> Mario and Zelda".
>
Beleive me I have I try to ignore it, every console has it's own set of idiotic fanboys it just seems that Nintendo's is a bit larger. It's damn annoying when I see the sort of crap they post it makes anyone who likes Nintendo look stupid.
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 then wether its 2kg or 10kg, why would I want to carry it if its a games console ? Its not like I want to go on bike rides and walks with my X-Box, I want to play the games on it.
And as for the GC being 900mhz and better than X-Box in its capabilities, why haven't we seen anything on the GC that tops the graphics on X-Box games such as Halo and DOA3 ?
When you see multiplatform games, the X-Box ends up having the best version because of the consoles capabilities. Personally, I'm not the type to dwell on that though, as I like to look at the games over how many polygons a console can push out per second, etc.
But even when I look here, Microsoft are grabbing most of the best titles for the X-Box with a good number of them even being exclusive to the machine, just look at what Sega is releasing for the X-Box in comparison to the other consoles. I know thats just one company, but its still a good example that X-Box is getting a large number of high quality games while Nintendo seem to be relying on its tried and tested characters and whatever Rare can come up with again.
Of course X-Box is getting its share of old PS2 ports and PC ports, but you'll notice that they are the popular games that people still love to play now. I think the X-Box deserves a lot more credit than it gets from the fanboys around here. I'm sure if Nintendo's GC was the same size as the X-Box, you'd all be fine with it and you'd scream and stamp your feet at anyone who say otherwise. Not everyone is like that in here, but a good number of you Ninties are very picky and petty.
> 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 then wether its 2kg or 10kg, why would I want to carry it if its a games console ? Its not like I want to go on bike rides and walks with my X-Box, I want to play the games on it.
And as for the GC being 900mhz and better than X-Box in its capabilities, why haven't we seen anything on the GC that tops the graphics on X-Box games such as Halo and DOA3 ?
When you see multiplatform games, the X-Box ends up having the best version because of the consoles capabilities. Personally, I'm not the type to dwell on that though, as I like to look at the games over how many polygons a console can push out per second, etc.
But even when I look here, Microsoft are grabbing most of the best titles for the X-Box with a good number of them even being exclusive to the machine, just look at what Sega is releasing for the X-Box in comparison to the other consoles. I know thats just one company, but its still a good example that X-Box is getting a large number of high quality games while Nintendo seem to be relying on its tried and tested characters and whatever Rare can come up with again.
Of course X-Box is getting its share of old PS2 ports and PC ports, but you'll notice that they are the popular games that people still love to play now. I think the X-Box deserves a lot more credit than it gets from the fanboys around here. I'm sure if Nintendo's GC was the same size as the X-Box, you'd all be fine with it and you'd scream and stamp your feet at anyone who say otherwise. Not everyone is like that in here, but a good number of you Ninties are very picky and petty.
davyboy wrote:
> Like the old saying small is beautiful
If that's your excuse...
> Like the old saying small is beautiful
If that's your excuse...
Page: