The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
savatt1668 wrote:
> BLD wrote:
> Yeah, ur right. an iq of 126 is rather sh*te aint it.
> what was i thinking.
>
> Do u sit here all day, jus**t to have ago a people who DARE to pos**t an
> item?
>
> But with us "ninties" being as think as sh*t, who the f*f**k
> cares about what goes on inside. As lng as results on the outside
> are
> the same, which they so blatently are.
>
> f*f**k sake.
>
>
> Not trying to s**tart a fight but you didn't really help yourself with
> that las**t paragraph. ;-) Read over it and find out why. ;-)
lol. I would point out his mis**take myself, but then my pos**t would be taken, warped, changed and then I'd get a reply telling me how Nintendo games are the mos**t original or something.
*sigh*
> BLD wrote:
> Yeah, ur right. an iq of 126 is rather sh*te aint it.
> what was i thinking.
>
> Do u sit here all day, jus**t to have ago a people who DARE to pos**t an
> item?
>
> But with us "ninties" being as think as sh*t, who the f*f**k
> cares about what goes on inside. As lng as results on the outside
> are
> the same, which they so blatently are.
>
> f*f**k sake.
>
>
> Not trying to s**tart a fight but you didn't really help yourself with
> that las**t paragraph. ;-) Read over it and find out why. ;-)
lol. I would point out his mis**take myself, but then my pos**t would be taken, warped, changed and then I'd get a reply telling me how Nintendo games are the mos**t original or something.
*sigh*
Whitestripes wrote:
> I got this from a topic in prime:
>
> "My brothers father in-law is currently benchmarking all three
> processors from PS2. GC and XBOX at Oxford University... will have the
> results soon (he's into odd stuff like that, in fact you'd probably
> get on well toghether in a geeky kind of way), But he has already
> assured me that though the GC's processor clocks at 450 odd, it is
> capable of running a twice the speed (900Mhz) without any
> modification... he did explain the ins and outs but basically the tiny
> little box can be pushed beyond the specs people have been told and
> that 450 was an early figure... I'll post his results when I get
> them..."
What is the point in that? Well done if the GC can be overclocked to 900mhz, but who is actually going to do that? Any chip can be overclocked, but how many people actually do it?
Secondly, if you were to overclock a GC you would see that UNLIKE with a PC, the game's frame-rate would not be smoother. You wouldn't get less slow-down. Instead, the game would play at TWICE the speed. It would be like playing a game that is on fast forward, which NO-ONE will want to do!
So, although your little bit of text there was interesting, it's completely irrelevant.
> Also what is your obsession with masturbation?
This stems from seeing every Ninty doing this over their GC.
> And another thing, how many bloody times am I going to have to tell
> you, "Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
You would of course say that since your console is the least powerful of all. If your console was the most powerful, power and graphics would mean a hell of a lot to you, 'you stupid little man'.
> I got this from a topic in prime:
>
> "My brothers father in-law is currently benchmarking all three
> processors from PS2. GC and XBOX at Oxford University... will have the
> results soon (he's into odd stuff like that, in fact you'd probably
> get on well toghether in a geeky kind of way), But he has already
> assured me that though the GC's processor clocks at 450 odd, it is
> capable of running a twice the speed (900Mhz) without any
> modification... he did explain the ins and outs but basically the tiny
> little box can be pushed beyond the specs people have been told and
> that 450 was an early figure... I'll post his results when I get
> them..."
What is the point in that? Well done if the GC can be overclocked to 900mhz, but who is actually going to do that? Any chip can be overclocked, but how many people actually do it?
Secondly, if you were to overclock a GC you would see that UNLIKE with a PC, the game's frame-rate would not be smoother. You wouldn't get less slow-down. Instead, the game would play at TWICE the speed. It would be like playing a game that is on fast forward, which NO-ONE will want to do!
So, although your little bit of text there was interesting, it's completely irrelevant.
> Also what is your obsession with masturbation?
This stems from seeing every Ninty doing this over their GC.
> And another thing, how many bloody times am I going to have to tell
> you, "Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
You would of course say that since your console is the least powerful of all. If your console was the most powerful, power and graphics would mean a hell of a lot to you, 'you stupid little man'.
BLD wrote:
> Yeah, ur right. an iq of 126 is rather sh*te aint it.
> what was i thinking.
>
> Do u sit here all day, jus**t to have ago a people who DARE to pos**t an
> item?
>
> But with us "ninties" being as think as sh*t, who the f*f**k
> cares about what goes on inside. As lng as results on the outside are
> the same, which they so blatently are.
>
> f*f**k sake.
Compared to 168, yes, 126 is rather poor. :o)
I don't have a go at jus**t anyone who pos**ts, no. I have a go at people who:
a) Take my pos**ts, twis**t them, ignore vital areas and then reply to what they have conjured up.
b) Decide I have said something which I have not, and then reply to that.
c) Come here telling me that power is not important, ONLY because their console is the leas**t powerful.
d) Come here and tell me that all Nintendo games are original - they're not - they're updates of SNES and N64 games.
e) Come here and tell me the GC is 'better' than anything else cos it's selling more - that has more to do with the low price of the console.
f) Slate me for criticising you on m@s**turbating about the small size of the GC, saying you don't care. A quif**k glance in the Sony/Microsoft forums says otherwise.
And that's it. If people came on here and actually talk out of their mouth and not their @rse (whites**tripes, you reading this?), then I'd be as pleasant as can be. :o)
> Yeah, ur right. an iq of 126 is rather sh*te aint it.
> what was i thinking.
>
> Do u sit here all day, jus**t to have ago a people who DARE to pos**t an
> item?
>
> But with us "ninties" being as think as sh*t, who the f*f**k
> cares about what goes on inside. As lng as results on the outside are
> the same, which they so blatently are.
>
> f*f**k sake.
Compared to 168, yes, 126 is rather poor. :o)
I don't have a go at jus**t anyone who pos**ts, no. I have a go at people who:
a) Take my pos**ts, twis**t them, ignore vital areas and then reply to what they have conjured up.
b) Decide I have said something which I have not, and then reply to that.
c) Come here telling me that power is not important, ONLY because their console is the leas**t powerful.
d) Come here and tell me that all Nintendo games are original - they're not - they're updates of SNES and N64 games.
e) Come here and tell me the GC is 'better' than anything else cos it's selling more - that has more to do with the low price of the console.
f) Slate me for criticising you on m@s**turbating about the small size of the GC, saying you don't care. A quif**k glance in the Sony/Microsoft forums says otherwise.
And that's it. If people came on here and actually talk out of their mouth and not their @rse (whites**tripes, you reading this?), then I'd be as pleasant as can be. :o)
Gar-J wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, PowerPC is different architecture. Hands up anyone who said it
> wasn't. Ah, no-one has their hands up, what a surprise.
>
> Does anyone actually want to go into the architecture? Do we really
> need to go into word-length, core architecture, bus speed, bus
> bandwidth and cycles? Or, as we are dealing with Nintendo fans shall
> we just keep it simple and look at the DIFFERENCE in games in areas
> that are PROCESSOR-INTENSIVE?
>
> You can all sit there and w@nk over PowerPC all you like, but if Xbox
> is receiving superior versions of games in like 95% of cases (and the
> 5% that it isn't are using GC optimised code rather than generic
> code), then surely even a NINTY can see why? It's because the Pentium
> chip, EVEN IF IT WORKS IN A DIFFERENT WAY (irrelevant) is giving
> BETTER RESULTS here.
I got this from a topic in prime:
"My brothers father in-law is currently benchmarking all three processors from PS2. GC and XBOX at Oxford University... will have the results soon (he's into odd stuff like that, in fact you'd probably get on well toghether in a geeky kind of way), But he has already assured me that though the GC's processor clocks at 450 odd, it is capable of running a twice the speed (900Mhz) without any modification... he did explain the ins and outs but basically the tiny little box can be pushed beyond the specs people have been told and that 450 was an early figure... I'll post his results when I get them..."
Also what is your obsession with masturbation?
And another thing, how many bloody times am I going to have to tell you, "Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
Have you got that yet? I've mentioned it a few times already, lets go over it again:
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
This is of course, when comparing a GC and X-box, because the graphical difference is so slight you probably won't notice it. The only thing that matters when comparing the GC and X-box is the game-play of the games, and here the GC wins hands down.
Ahhhh....I can already see your reply now....
>
>
>
> Yes, PowerPC is different architecture. Hands up anyone who said it
> wasn't. Ah, no-one has their hands up, what a surprise.
>
> Does anyone actually want to go into the architecture? Do we really
> need to go into word-length, core architecture, bus speed, bus
> bandwidth and cycles? Or, as we are dealing with Nintendo fans shall
> we just keep it simple and look at the DIFFERENCE in games in areas
> that are PROCESSOR-INTENSIVE?
>
> You can all sit there and w@nk over PowerPC all you like, but if Xbox
> is receiving superior versions of games in like 95% of cases (and the
> 5% that it isn't are using GC optimised code rather than generic
> code), then surely even a NINTY can see why? It's because the Pentium
> chip, EVEN IF IT WORKS IN A DIFFERENT WAY (irrelevant) is giving
> BETTER RESULTS here.
I got this from a topic in prime:
"My brothers father in-law is currently benchmarking all three processors from PS2. GC and XBOX at Oxford University... will have the results soon (he's into odd stuff like that, in fact you'd probably get on well toghether in a geeky kind of way), But he has already assured me that though the GC's processor clocks at 450 odd, it is capable of running a twice the speed (900Mhz) without any modification... he did explain the ins and outs but basically the tiny little box can be pushed beyond the specs people have been told and that 450 was an early figure... I'll post his results when I get them..."
Also what is your obsession with masturbation?
And another thing, how many bloody times am I going to have to tell you, "Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
Have you got that yet? I've mentioned it a few times already, lets go over it again:
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
"Graphics and raw power mean nothing!"
This is of course, when comparing a GC and X-box, because the graphical difference is so slight you probably won't notice it. The only thing that matters when comparing the GC and X-box is the game-play of the games, and here the GC wins hands down.
Ahhhh....I can already see your reply now....
BLD wrote:
> Yeah, ur right. an iq of 126 is rather sh*te aint it.
> what was i thinking.
>
> Do u sit here all day, jus**t to have ago a people who DARE to pos**t an
> item?
>
> But with us "ninties" being as think as sh*t, who the f*f**k
> cares about what goes on inside. As lng as results on the outside are
> the same, which they so blatently are.
>
> f*f**k sake.
Not trying to s**tart a fight but you didn't really help yourself with that las**t paragraph. ;-) Read over it and find out why. ;-)
> Yeah, ur right. an iq of 126 is rather sh*te aint it.
> what was i thinking.
>
> Do u sit here all day, jus**t to have ago a people who DARE to pos**t an
> item?
>
> But with us "ninties" being as think as sh*t, who the f*f**k
> cares about what goes on inside. As lng as results on the outside are
> the same, which they so blatently are.
>
> f*f**k sake.
Not trying to s**tart a fight but you didn't really help yourself with that las**t paragraph. ;-) Read over it and find out why. ;-)
I sit in the bath.......I get my Gamecube....I play that SH*T..............then.....I THROW IT IN THE WATER.
I couldn't do this with an X-box/PS2.
I couldn't do this with an X-box/PS2.
Wait, I've changed my mind. Just one more point: :-)
Gar-J wrote:
>
> LOOK, let's do it in somple maths terms for you to understand, shall
> we?
>
> GC's playability in games - 1 point.
> Xbox's playability in games - 1 point.
>
> So far, they're both equal. This is because they both have good games
> with good playability.
>
> Now, raw power - Xbox - 1 point.
>
> So, the conclusion is that Xbox IS INDEED the better machine, NOT
> simply because it is more powerful, but THIS IS AN ELEMENT of why it
> is so!!
But wait:
Exclusive devellopers:
Xbox:
Microsoft - Bungie - Halo is good but that's only 1 game. 1 point.
Nintendo - Rare - We've not seen anything yet but Kameo, DKR and Starfox look VERY promising - 1 point.
Nintendo - Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Smash Brothers and many others show why Nintendo are one of the greatest devellopers in the world - 2 points!
Count them up:
Looks like 4-3 to Nintendo! :-P
Gar-J wrote:
>
> LOOK, let's do it in somple maths terms for you to understand, shall
> we?
>
> GC's playability in games - 1 point.
> Xbox's playability in games - 1 point.
>
> So far, they're both equal. This is because they both have good games
> with good playability.
>
> Now, raw power - Xbox - 1 point.
>
> So, the conclusion is that Xbox IS INDEED the better machine, NOT
> simply because it is more powerful, but THIS IS AN ELEMENT of why it
> is so!!
But wait:
Exclusive devellopers:
Xbox:
Microsoft - Bungie - Halo is good but that's only 1 game. 1 point.
Nintendo - Rare - We've not seen anything yet but Kameo, DKR and Starfox look VERY promising - 1 point.
Nintendo - Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Smash Brothers and many others show why Nintendo are one of the greatest devellopers in the world - 2 points!
Count them up:
Looks like 4-3 to Nintendo! :-P
Gar-J wrote:
>
>
> GC's playability in games - 1 point.
> Xbox's playability in games - 1 point.
>
> So far, they're both equal. This is because they both have good games
> with good playability.
>
> Now, raw power - Xbox - 1 point.
>
But it depends on your point of view you stupid little man. In my opinion the X-box has only four decent games, but the GC has more than a dozen. So therefore
GC = 3 points
X-box = 1 point
Raw power = I don't care one tiny bit about raw power so thats a nought for both.
Therefore the GC is better, right?
Wrong. It's right in my opinion, and many others, your opinion will be different, and your entitled to it.
>
>
> GC's playability in games - 1 point.
> Xbox's playability in games - 1 point.
>
> So far, they're both equal. This is because they both have good games
> with good playability.
>
> Now, raw power - Xbox - 1 point.
>
But it depends on your point of view you stupid little man. In my opinion the X-box has only four decent games, but the GC has more than a dozen. So therefore
GC = 3 points
X-box = 1 point
Raw power = I don't care one tiny bit about raw power so thats a nought for both.
Therefore the GC is better, right?
Wrong. It's right in my opinion, and many others, your opinion will be different, and your entitled to it.
Yeah, ur right. an iq of 126 is rather sh*te aint it.
what was i thinking.
Do u sit here all day, jus**t to have ago a people who DARE to pos**t an item?
But with us "ninties" being as think as sh*t, who the f*f**k cares about what goes on inside. As lng as results on the outside are the same, which they so blatently are.
f*f**k sake.
what was i thinking.
Do u sit here all day, jus**t to have ago a people who DARE to pos**t an item?
But with us "ninties" being as think as sh*t, who the f*f**k cares about what goes on inside. As lng as results on the outside are the same, which they so blatently are.
f*f**k sake.
Gar-J wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
> Game design/play is much more important.
>
> Agreed, and that's something I've been saying since the very start
> (yes you can go and look if you want). What you fail to see is that
> although YES, GAME DESIGN/PLAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GRAPHICS, you
> STILL need power to produce the state of the art games that we are
> expecting today. And for the love of GOD, you CANNOT tell me the GC is
> the most powerful console out there, so the POTENTIAL for the most
> realistic/cutting edge game is greatest on the XBOX!
But the difference between the Gamecube's and Xbox's power is practically so small, whoever gets the best version depends on which style of architecture the develloper prefers.
Ofcourse, with the likes of Nintendo and Rare behind the Gamecube, I think that makes it worth purchasing alone.
This is where our argument left off...
I know that you carried on with Whitestripes, but that's the sort of cat fight I'd rather stay out of! ;-D
> Strafex wrote:
> Game design/play is much more important.
>
> Agreed, and that's something I've been saying since the very start
> (yes you can go and look if you want). What you fail to see is that
> although YES, GAME DESIGN/PLAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GRAPHICS, you
> STILL need power to produce the state of the art games that we are
> expecting today. And for the love of GOD, you CANNOT tell me the GC is
> the most powerful console out there, so the POTENTIAL for the most
> realistic/cutting edge game is greatest on the XBOX!
But the difference between the Gamecube's and Xbox's power is practically so small, whoever gets the best version depends on which style of architecture the develloper prefers.
Ofcourse, with the likes of Nintendo and Rare behind the Gamecube, I think that makes it worth purchasing alone.
This is where our argument left off...
I know that you carried on with Whitestripes, but that's the sort of cat fight I'd rather stay out of! ;-D
Page: