The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Whitestripes wrote:
> savatt1668 wrote:
> As I've gone through the X-Box
> releases coming out, I've managed to come up with a list of around
> 60
> games that I want. Going through the GC releases, I came up with
> about 5 games.
>
> And I did the same thing, but the other way round, which is why the GC
> is better for me.
>
>
> I won't turn on Savatt either. We had an argument before. We settled
> it. I can now respect him, he argued very well and made some
> intelligent posts. You on the other hand, are just a buffoon.
Ahahahaha, but he's making the same points as me. If he has intelligent posts and 'argued very well', then surely as my points are the same then so have I?
Your sense of logic defies any laws I have ever heard of. Your behaviour is completely speratic and random, and you are making yourself seem very, very stupid.
> savatt1668 wrote:
> As I've gone through the X-Box
> releases coming out, I've managed to come up with a list of around
> 60
> games that I want. Going through the GC releases, I came up with
> about 5 games.
>
> And I did the same thing, but the other way round, which is why the GC
> is better for me.
>
>
> I won't turn on Savatt either. We had an argument before. We settled
> it. I can now respect him, he argued very well and made some
> intelligent posts. You on the other hand, are just a buffoon.
Ahahahaha, but he's making the same points as me. If he has intelligent posts and 'argued very well', then surely as my points are the same then so have I?
Your sense of logic defies any laws I have ever heard of. Your behaviour is completely speratic and random, and you are making yourself seem very, very stupid.
Gar-J wrote:
>
>
> No, I don't like you because you are a sad little village idiot.
> Strafex admits the Xbox is technically superior,
Are you illiterate? If you read my posts you'll see i have admited the X-box is technically superior many times.
while you try and
> tell me the GC can be overclocked etc. etc. that a 450mhz PowerPC is
> more powerful than a 733mhz Pentium etc. etc. which is a losing
> battle, and definately NOT a 'better argument'.
Actually I just said I found it, it isn't my argument, just something i found that was interesting. I posted the same thing back when this thread was started (I think) and I also said that I wasn't sure about this, it ws just something I'd heard.
>
> On one hand he is a realist - he seems the benefits of having a GC,
> but also admits the downfalls. You however don't, and try to twist
> each and every downfall into an advantage, which is hugely irritating.
Well I can easily say the same thing about you, you haven't admited a single downfall of the X-box in this entire thread! And I would admit to the GC downfalls if you were intelligent enough to point some out! I've admited the downfall that the GC isn't as advanced, but thats all you've managed to come up with!
>
>
> No, I don't like you because you are a sad little village idiot.
> Strafex admits the Xbox is technically superior,
Are you illiterate? If you read my posts you'll see i have admited the X-box is technically superior many times.
while you try and
> tell me the GC can be overclocked etc. etc. that a 450mhz PowerPC is
> more powerful than a 733mhz Pentium etc. etc. which is a losing
> battle, and definately NOT a 'better argument'.
Actually I just said I found it, it isn't my argument, just something i found that was interesting. I posted the same thing back when this thread was started (I think) and I also said that I wasn't sure about this, it ws just something I'd heard.
>
> On one hand he is a realist - he seems the benefits of having a GC,
> but also admits the downfalls. You however don't, and try to twist
> each and every downfall into an advantage, which is hugely irritating.
Well I can easily say the same thing about you, you haven't admited a single downfall of the X-box in this entire thread! And I would admit to the GC downfalls if you were intelligent enough to point some out! I've admited the downfall that the GC isn't as advanced, but thats all you've managed to come up with!
Whitestripes wrote:
> Well if it's so superior, and the games are just as good, surely it
> would have sold more than the GC? Thats where sales figures come into
> it. People have realised that while its more advanced, the games on
> other systems are better. Resulting in poor sales of the X-box. You
> obviously don't have the intelligence to see that from what I said,
> once again forcing me to say it in laymens terms, or what is soon to
> be known as "Gar-Jterms'.
As someone already went through yesterday (can't remember your name whoever it was - sorry!) Nintendo already has a huge fan-base, made up partly by f*cking idiots like you who do not understand simple things.
Sony already has a huge fan-base, and it is because of the sheer difficulty of having to crack these established fan-bases that the Dreamcast failed. Sega lost a lot of fans to the 'other side' after the Saturn mess, and was unable to win them back.
Imagine then, how difficult it would be for Microsoft to crack a fan-base from scratch? I think they've done a pretty good job. Nintendo could have released a SNES with more RAM and it would have sold, cos people like you are so far up their ring-piece that you just buy it simply because it has the big 'N' on it.
> Well how do you know that if the GC cost £300 as well, it still
> wouldn't have sold more?
Did Nintendo drop the price way under that of the Xbox (and therefore lose out on millions of pounds) out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they might have been afraid of Microsoft's opposition? Hmm. Of course it's impossible to say how well the GC would have done at 300 quid, but it obviously wouldn't have done as well.
> What? Slightly better graphics, a hard-drive and a DVD player?
> umm...no thanks.
No, much better graphics, a larger games library which will be coming together in the next few months, and games like Svatt(insert the rest of the name here cos I don't remember it sorry) mentioned in his post.
> It's spam because your posting a load of crap, repeatidly, this is not
> a disscusion neither is it an argument, just a pile of crap. Maybe if
> you could use your brain a bit, it would be an argument, which we
> could all learn something from.
Perhaps, as other people are now seeing my valid point and are agreeing with me, EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE OWNED A GC, then I do indeed have a point? Whereas for you... you're either going to have to throw your Ninty crap at us all, or just give it a rest.
Please go away, you idiot.
> Well if it's so superior, and the games are just as good, surely it
> would have sold more than the GC? Thats where sales figures come into
> it. People have realised that while its more advanced, the games on
> other systems are better. Resulting in poor sales of the X-box. You
> obviously don't have the intelligence to see that from what I said,
> once again forcing me to say it in laymens terms, or what is soon to
> be known as "Gar-Jterms'.
As someone already went through yesterday (can't remember your name whoever it was - sorry!) Nintendo already has a huge fan-base, made up partly by f*cking idiots like you who do not understand simple things.
Sony already has a huge fan-base, and it is because of the sheer difficulty of having to crack these established fan-bases that the Dreamcast failed. Sega lost a lot of fans to the 'other side' after the Saturn mess, and was unable to win them back.
Imagine then, how difficult it would be for Microsoft to crack a fan-base from scratch? I think they've done a pretty good job. Nintendo could have released a SNES with more RAM and it would have sold, cos people like you are so far up their ring-piece that you just buy it simply because it has the big 'N' on it.
> Well how do you know that if the GC cost £300 as well, it still
> wouldn't have sold more?
Did Nintendo drop the price way under that of the Xbox (and therefore lose out on millions of pounds) out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they might have been afraid of Microsoft's opposition? Hmm. Of course it's impossible to say how well the GC would have done at 300 quid, but it obviously wouldn't have done as well.
> What? Slightly better graphics, a hard-drive and a DVD player?
> umm...no thanks.
No, much better graphics, a larger games library which will be coming together in the next few months, and games like Svatt(insert the rest of the name here cos I don't remember it sorry) mentioned in his post.
> It's spam because your posting a load of crap, repeatidly, this is not
> a disscusion neither is it an argument, just a pile of crap. Maybe if
> you could use your brain a bit, it would be an argument, which we
> could all learn something from.
Perhaps, as other people are now seeing my valid point and are agreeing with me, EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE OWNED A GC, then I do indeed have a point? Whereas for you... you're either going to have to throw your Ninty crap at us all, or just give it a rest.
Please go away, you idiot.
savatt1668 wrote:
> While people are throwing fits at what has the better games I might as
> well add fuel to the fire. The lack of decent games coming to the GC
> is why I got rid of mine. ;-)
There's no lack of decent games.
The current GC games might not be to your taste, but I don't think much of most of the Xbox line up either. Each to their own I suppose.
As I've gone through the X-Box
> releases coming out, I've managed to come up with a list of around 60
> games that I want. Going through the GC releases, I came up with
> about 5 games.
I've a big look at Xbox releases, but Halo is the only one that's interested me (and even then, I didn't enjoy playing it because the controls - they weren't badly designed, but if you're used to looking around with the left analogue stick - like every single FPS before it - it'll throw your instincts and give you a head-ache. And there's no way of changing it either!).
> Games will be forever argued because thats really down to everyones
> personal taste. But as far as the graphical capabilities go, you'd
> have to be so far up Nintendo's ring piece that you can't see the
> screen if you seriously think the GC performs better or even really
> close for that matter to the X-Box, because even taking away all the
> specs what everyone has published, there is a clear difference between
> the machines, you only have to look.
Not really. If you REALLY nit-pick then you find slight graphical enhancements in Xbox versions, but that's only where devellopers bother to optimise it.
Gamecube games have to be optimised in a different way.
That's why some games look better on the Xbox and others on the Gamecube.
Optimisation makes such a difference that some PS2 titles have outdone their Xbox counterparts.
Nintendo are going through this phase where they shout to the world that game idea's are more important than graphics.
While they are right, this also means that they haven't stretched the Cubes capabilities as of yet.
However, other Gamecube exlcusives like Resident Evil and Starfox show what can be achieved if a develloper puts their all into it.
And they are just as good technically/graphically as any Xbox game.
And besides, there's more to using power than simply nice graphics.
Halo might LOOK slightly better than Pikmin, but Pikmin shows off impressive AI, better animations various other not-so-obvious features that utilise a console's power.
> While people are throwing fits at what has the better games I might as
> well add fuel to the fire. The lack of decent games coming to the GC
> is why I got rid of mine. ;-)
There's no lack of decent games.
The current GC games might not be to your taste, but I don't think much of most of the Xbox line up either. Each to their own I suppose.
As I've gone through the X-Box
> releases coming out, I've managed to come up with a list of around 60
> games that I want. Going through the GC releases, I came up with
> about 5 games.
I've a big look at Xbox releases, but Halo is the only one that's interested me (and even then, I didn't enjoy playing it because the controls - they weren't badly designed, but if you're used to looking around with the left analogue stick - like every single FPS before it - it'll throw your instincts and give you a head-ache. And there's no way of changing it either!).
> Games will be forever argued because thats really down to everyones
> personal taste. But as far as the graphical capabilities go, you'd
> have to be so far up Nintendo's ring piece that you can't see the
> screen if you seriously think the GC performs better or even really
> close for that matter to the X-Box, because even taking away all the
> specs what everyone has published, there is a clear difference between
> the machines, you only have to look.
Not really. If you REALLY nit-pick then you find slight graphical enhancements in Xbox versions, but that's only where devellopers bother to optimise it.
Gamecube games have to be optimised in a different way.
That's why some games look better on the Xbox and others on the Gamecube.
Optimisation makes such a difference that some PS2 titles have outdone their Xbox counterparts.
Nintendo are going through this phase where they shout to the world that game idea's are more important than graphics.
While they are right, this also means that they haven't stretched the Cubes capabilities as of yet.
However, other Gamecube exlcusives like Resident Evil and Starfox show what can be achieved if a develloper puts their all into it.
And they are just as good technically/graphically as any Xbox game.
And besides, there's more to using power than simply nice graphics.
Halo might LOOK slightly better than Pikmin, but Pikmin shows off impressive AI, better animations various other not-so-obvious features that utilise a console's power.
savatt1668 wrote:
> As I've gone through the X-Box
> releases coming out, I've managed to come up with a list of around 60
> games that I want. Going through the GC releases, I came up with
> about 5 games.
And I did the same thing, but the other way round, which is why the GC is better for me.
I won't turn on Savatt either. We had an argument before. We settled it. I can now respect him, he argued very well and made some intelligent posts. You on the other hand, are just a buffoon.
> As I've gone through the X-Box
> releases coming out, I've managed to come up with a list of around 60
> games that I want. Going through the GC releases, I came up with
> about 5 games.
And I did the same thing, but the other way round, which is why the GC is better for me.
I won't turn on Savatt either. We had an argument before. We settled it. I can now respect him, he argued very well and made some intelligent posts. You on the other hand, are just a buffoon.
Gar-J wrote:
> W
>
> Ok, for the 51,000th time, sales DO NOT make a better machine. I asked
> a few days ago what would it mean if I went into a shop and bought 10
> dogshits and 1 GC. Would that make a dogshit 10 times better than a
> GC? No, it would mean 9 more dogshits were sold than a GC, and that's
> all it would mean.
> The GC is a lot cheaper, so of COURSE it is going to sell more.
>
> Your complete lack of intelligence in failing to see this even though
> I have stated it time and time again really does astonish me.
>
> A chimp could understand.
>
> Theres your facts, and theres you proof that the GameCube is a
> better
> console than the X-box, and the PS2 is the best console out of them
> all.
>
> Oh dear, here we go again. So, the PS2 is 'better' than a GC cos it
> has sold more? That's officially your view? Could it be that the PS2
> has sold more simply because it has been out for longer?
>
>
> And the best part? No matter what you say, you cannot argue against
> this! The simple fact is, way, way more people prefer other consoles
> to the X-box.
>
> Maybe so, but that isn't my argument. So carry on with your sales
> figures until you die (which will be soon if God has any mercy),
> because it's irrelevant. The WHOLE point is that the Xbox is
> technically superior, has games that are just as good, and is
> therefore overall the better machine.
Well if it's so superior, and the games are just as good, surely it would have sold more than the GC? Thats where sales figures come into it. People have realised that while its more advanced, the games on other systems are better. Resulting in poor sales of the X-box. You obviously don't have the intelligence to see that from what I said, once again forcing me to say it in laymens terms, or what is soon to be known as "Gar-Jterms'.
Yes, the GC has sold more. So what? All that means is that there
> are more poeple in the country who would rather spend less on a
> console.
Well how do you know that if the GC cost £300 as well, it still wouldn't have sold more?
You pay for what you get though, which when you bear in mind
> the hardware that is featured inside Microsoft's machine, you (or at
> least people with half a brain) begin to understand why.
What? Slightly better graphics, a hard-drive and a DVD player? umm...no thanks.
>
> Well not going there at all, is better than going there and starting
> ioditic, newbie-ish spam topics like this one!
>
> How is this a spam topic? Simply because it attempts to burst the
> little bubble of blind imagination that you live in, where the sun
> shines out of Nintendo's back-side, I am starting a spam topic?
It's spam because your posting a load of crap, repeatidly, this is not a disscusion neither is it an argument, just a pile of crap. Maybe if you could use your brain a bit, it would be an argument, which we could all learn something from.
> W
>
> Ok, for the 51,000th time, sales DO NOT make a better machine. I asked
> a few days ago what would it mean if I went into a shop and bought 10
> dogshits and 1 GC. Would that make a dogshit 10 times better than a
> GC? No, it would mean 9 more dogshits were sold than a GC, and that's
> all it would mean.
> The GC is a lot cheaper, so of COURSE it is going to sell more.
>
> Your complete lack of intelligence in failing to see this even though
> I have stated it time and time again really does astonish me.
>
> A chimp could understand.
>
> Theres your facts, and theres you proof that the GameCube is a
> better
> console than the X-box, and the PS2 is the best console out of them
> all.
>
> Oh dear, here we go again. So, the PS2 is 'better' than a GC cos it
> has sold more? That's officially your view? Could it be that the PS2
> has sold more simply because it has been out for longer?
>
>
> And the best part? No matter what you say, you cannot argue against
> this! The simple fact is, way, way more people prefer other consoles
> to the X-box.
>
> Maybe so, but that isn't my argument. So carry on with your sales
> figures until you die (which will be soon if God has any mercy),
> because it's irrelevant. The WHOLE point is that the Xbox is
> technically superior, has games that are just as good, and is
> therefore overall the better machine.
Well if it's so superior, and the games are just as good, surely it would have sold more than the GC? Thats where sales figures come into it. People have realised that while its more advanced, the games on other systems are better. Resulting in poor sales of the X-box. You obviously don't have the intelligence to see that from what I said, once again forcing me to say it in laymens terms, or what is soon to be known as "Gar-Jterms'.
Yes, the GC has sold more. So what? All that means is that there
> are more poeple in the country who would rather spend less on a
> console.
Well how do you know that if the GC cost £300 as well, it still wouldn't have sold more?
You pay for what you get though, which when you bear in mind
> the hardware that is featured inside Microsoft's machine, you (or at
> least people with half a brain) begin to understand why.
What? Slightly better graphics, a hard-drive and a DVD player? umm...no thanks.
>
> Well not going there at all, is better than going there and starting
> ioditic, newbie-ish spam topics like this one!
>
> How is this a spam topic? Simply because it attempts to burst the
> little bubble of blind imagination that you live in, where the sun
> shines out of Nintendo's back-side, I am starting a spam topic?
It's spam because your posting a load of crap, repeatidly, this is not a disscusion neither is it an argument, just a pile of crap. Maybe if you could use your brain a bit, it would be an argument, which we could all learn something from.
Whitestripes wrote:
> Actually I think you'll find the PS2 is the least powerful console,
> heh, you don't even know basic facts! And if the GC was the most
> powerful, I would still rather talk about the games and game-play than
> scream "RAW POWER" at everyone who says the X-box has better
> power, but the GC has better games.
Although the PS2 does max out at a very low resolution and doesn't even have hardware anti-aliasing, it can pump out more polygons per second than the gamecube, which is a mathamatical feat considering the hardware is 2 years older.
So.... kiss it.
> Actually I think you'll find the PS2 is the least powerful console,
> heh, you don't even know basic facts! And if the GC was the most
> powerful, I would still rather talk about the games and game-play than
> scream "RAW POWER" at everyone who says the X-box has better
> power, but the GC has better games.
Although the PS2 does max out at a very low resolution and doesn't even have hardware anti-aliasing, it can pump out more polygons per second than the gamecube, which is a mathamatical feat considering the hardware is 2 years older.
So.... kiss it.
savatt1668 wrote:
> While people are throwing fits at what has the better games I might as
> well add fuel to the fire. The lack of decent games coming to the GC
> is why I got rid of mine. ;-) As I've gone through the X-Box
> releases coming out, I've managed to come up with a list of around 60
> games that I want. Going through the GC releases, I came up with
> about 5 games.
>
> Microsoft might not have so many exclusive developers, but there are
> plenty of exclusive titles on the way.
>
> And as for all this ranting about the systems performing the same - no
> way. As I said, I've owned both consoles and although the GC can put
> out some great graphics, there is still a very noticable difference
> and I don't need details on the console's specs to see it. Just look
> at games such as Tony Hawk 3 and SSX Tricky - these games are
> available on all 3 platforms, yet unless your wearing the most
> powerful fanboy tinted glasses ever, you have to admit that the X-Box
> versions have a more polished look to them. If I rememebr right, on
> Tony Hawk 3, the grass has been redone to look like actual grass
> instead of just a flat green area.
>
> X-Box has the best version of Max Payne too. From what I've heard
> though, Namco will keep all versions of Soul Caliber pretty much the
> same as they can't be bothered to change things for the different
> versions. When I look at a game such as Rogue Leader, it looks really
> good, the ship models are well done and the backgrounds look fine, but
> then I look at a game such as Halo and Rogue Leader just doesn't
> compare. In Halo you can tell the different textures on objects such
> as trees, rocks and vehicles. Look down and you can even see every
> individual blade of grass !
>
> Don't get me wrong, the GC can make games look great, but you'd have
> to be such a fanboy to try and compare them to the X-Box because
> although there will be some lazy conversions that won't use a lot of
> what the X-Box can do, the GC really can't compare to the machine in
> this area.
>
> Games will be forever argued because thats really down to everyones
> personal taste. But as far as the graphical capabilities go, you'd
> have to be so far up Nintendo's ring piece that you can't see the
> screen if you seriously think the GC performs better or even really
> close for that matter to the X-Box, because even taking away all the
> specs what everyone has published, there is a clear difference between
> the machines, you only have to look.
At LAST someone in the Nintendo forum that hasn't got his head up Nintendo's @rse!!!!!
WOOHOOO!!!!!!!!!
I love you!
Now, I'll just sit here laughing as I watch whitestripes turn on you, amigo. :o)
> While people are throwing fits at what has the better games I might as
> well add fuel to the fire. The lack of decent games coming to the GC
> is why I got rid of mine. ;-) As I've gone through the X-Box
> releases coming out, I've managed to come up with a list of around 60
> games that I want. Going through the GC releases, I came up with
> about 5 games.
>
> Microsoft might not have so many exclusive developers, but there are
> plenty of exclusive titles on the way.
>
> And as for all this ranting about the systems performing the same - no
> way. As I said, I've owned both consoles and although the GC can put
> out some great graphics, there is still a very noticable difference
> and I don't need details on the console's specs to see it. Just look
> at games such as Tony Hawk 3 and SSX Tricky - these games are
> available on all 3 platforms, yet unless your wearing the most
> powerful fanboy tinted glasses ever, you have to admit that the X-Box
> versions have a more polished look to them. If I rememebr right, on
> Tony Hawk 3, the grass has been redone to look like actual grass
> instead of just a flat green area.
>
> X-Box has the best version of Max Payne too. From what I've heard
> though, Namco will keep all versions of Soul Caliber pretty much the
> same as they can't be bothered to change things for the different
> versions. When I look at a game such as Rogue Leader, it looks really
> good, the ship models are well done and the backgrounds look fine, but
> then I look at a game such as Halo and Rogue Leader just doesn't
> compare. In Halo you can tell the different textures on objects such
> as trees, rocks and vehicles. Look down and you can even see every
> individual blade of grass !
>
> Don't get me wrong, the GC can make games look great, but you'd have
> to be such a fanboy to try and compare them to the X-Box because
> although there will be some lazy conversions that won't use a lot of
> what the X-Box can do, the GC really can't compare to the machine in
> this area.
>
> Games will be forever argued because thats really down to everyones
> personal taste. But as far as the graphical capabilities go, you'd
> have to be so far up Nintendo's ring piece that you can't see the
> screen if you seriously think the GC performs better or even really
> close for that matter to the X-Box, because even taking away all the
> specs what everyone has published, there is a clear difference between
> the machines, you only have to look.
At LAST someone in the Nintendo forum that hasn't got his head up Nintendo's @rse!!!!!
WOOHOOO!!!!!!!!!
I love you!
Now, I'll just sit here laughing as I watch whitestripes turn on you, amigo. :o)
Whitestripes wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
>
> d) Come here and tell me that all Nintendo games are original -
> they're not - they're updates of SNES and N64 games.
>
>
> Nope. Some are updates (in which case the N64 was original! :-P)
> while
> others, like Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion, are among the most original
> games in the world.
>
> Pikmin, especially, is fantastic. A little short but great while it
> lasts!
>
> Fair enough. Just so happens that those types of games aren't up my
> street... and a gaming idea doesn't make the host console the best
> either, Amigo. :oP
>
>
> Christ, you just have a problem. I said the same thing as Strafex
> earlier, and you just had a go at me with your lame insults. But now,
> suddenly, your accepting it from someone else? The reason? You don't
> like me because I have better arguments.
No, I don't like you because you are a sad little village idiot. Strafex admits the Xbox is technically superior, while you try and tell me the GC can be overclocked etc. etc. that a 450mhz PowerPC is more powerful than a 733mhz Pentium etc. etc. which is a losing battle, and definately NOT a 'better argument'.
On one hand he is a realist - he seems the benefits of having a GC, but also admits the downfalls. You however don't, and try to twist each and every downfall into an advantage, which is hugely irritating.
> Gar-J wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
>
> d) Come here and tell me that all Nintendo games are original -
> they're not - they're updates of SNES and N64 games.
>
>
> Nope. Some are updates (in which case the N64 was original! :-P)
> while
> others, like Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion, are among the most original
> games in the world.
>
> Pikmin, especially, is fantastic. A little short but great while it
> lasts!
>
> Fair enough. Just so happens that those types of games aren't up my
> street... and a gaming idea doesn't make the host console the best
> either, Amigo. :oP
>
>
> Christ, you just have a problem. I said the same thing as Strafex
> earlier, and you just had a go at me with your lame insults. But now,
> suddenly, your accepting it from someone else? The reason? You don't
> like me because I have better arguments.
No, I don't like you because you are a sad little village idiot. Strafex admits the Xbox is technically superior, while you try and tell me the GC can be overclocked etc. etc. that a 450mhz PowerPC is more powerful than a 733mhz Pentium etc. etc. which is a losing battle, and definately NOT a 'better argument'.
On one hand he is a realist - he seems the benefits of having a GC, but also admits the downfalls. You however don't, and try to twist each and every downfall into an advantage, which is hugely irritating.
While people are throwing fits at what has the better games I might as well add fuel to the fire. The lack of decent games coming to the GC is why I got rid of mine. ;-) As I've gone through the X-Box releases coming out, I've managed to come up with a list of around 60 games that I want. Going through the GC releases, I came up with about 5 games.
Microsoft might not have so many exclusive developers, but there are plenty of exclusive titles on the way.
And as for all this ranting about the systems performing the same - no way. As I said, I've owned both consoles and although the GC can put out some great graphics, there is still a very noticable difference and I don't need details on the console's specs to see it. Just look at games such as Tony Hawk 3 and SSX Tricky - these games are available on all 3 platforms, yet unless your wearing the most powerful fanboy tinted glasses ever, you have to admit that the X-Box versions have a more polished look to them. If I rememebr right, on Tony Hawk 3, the grass has been redone to look like actual grass instead of just a flat green area.
X-Box has the best version of Max Payne too. From what I've heard though, Namco will keep all versions of Soul Caliber pretty much the same as they can't be bothered to change things for the different versions. When I look at a game such as Rogue Leader, it looks really good, the ship models are well done and the backgrounds look fine, but then I look at a game such as Halo and Rogue Leader just doesn't compare. In Halo you can tell the different textures on objects such as trees, rocks and vehicles. Look down and you can even see every individual blade of grass !
Don't get me wrong, the GC can make games look great, but you'd have to be such a fanboy to try and compare them to the X-Box because although there will be some lazy conversions that won't use a lot of what the X-Box can do, the GC really can't compare to the machine in this area.
Games will be forever argued because thats really down to everyones personal taste. But as far as the graphical capabilities go, you'd have to be so far up Nintendo's ring piece that you can't see the screen if you seriously think the GC performs better or even really close for that matter to the X-Box, because even taking away all the specs what everyone has published, there is a clear difference between the machines, you only have to look.
Microsoft might not have so many exclusive developers, but there are plenty of exclusive titles on the way.
And as for all this ranting about the systems performing the same - no way. As I said, I've owned both consoles and although the GC can put out some great graphics, there is still a very noticable difference and I don't need details on the console's specs to see it. Just look at games such as Tony Hawk 3 and SSX Tricky - these games are available on all 3 platforms, yet unless your wearing the most powerful fanboy tinted glasses ever, you have to admit that the X-Box versions have a more polished look to them. If I rememebr right, on Tony Hawk 3, the grass has been redone to look like actual grass instead of just a flat green area.
X-Box has the best version of Max Payne too. From what I've heard though, Namco will keep all versions of Soul Caliber pretty much the same as they can't be bothered to change things for the different versions. When I look at a game such as Rogue Leader, it looks really good, the ship models are well done and the backgrounds look fine, but then I look at a game such as Halo and Rogue Leader just doesn't compare. In Halo you can tell the different textures on objects such as trees, rocks and vehicles. Look down and you can even see every individual blade of grass !
Don't get me wrong, the GC can make games look great, but you'd have to be such a fanboy to try and compare them to the X-Box because although there will be some lazy conversions that won't use a lot of what the X-Box can do, the GC really can't compare to the machine in this area.
Games will be forever argued because thats really down to everyones personal taste. But as far as the graphical capabilities go, you'd have to be so far up Nintendo's ring piece that you can't see the screen if you seriously think the GC performs better or even really close for that matter to the X-Box, because even taking away all the specs what everyone has published, there is a clear difference between the machines, you only have to look.
Page: