The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
BLD wrote:
> Pig dog hey?
>
> Good one, ill have to remember to say that the next time i climb off
> ur mum
LOL, resorting to that kind of insult has just confirmed that your IQ is less than the number of words in your post.
And I didn't even have to write to you 50 times as I had to with whitestripes.
Thanks!
> Pig dog hey?
>
> Good one, ill have to remember to say that the next time i climb off
> ur mum
LOL, resorting to that kind of insult has just confirmed that your IQ is less than the number of words in your post.
And I didn't even have to write to you 50 times as I had to with whitestripes.
Thanks!
Tyla wrote:
> BLD wrote:
> I havent seen seen any proof that xbox is better.
>
> now dont go throwing specs at me, cause they mean absolutly nothing.
> one uses powerpc technology, the other doesnt, so u cant compare
> them!!!!
>
> Graphically, They look exactly the same, but GC has oh so many
> better
> games out, and in the pipe line.
>
> So dont give us this x box is udesputedly better bull sh*t
>
> Well said... and finally you pointed out something of use... PowerPC
> is vas**tly different from Pentium Architecture!! Well done that man...
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 jus**t 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.
Never before have I found myself having to type in caps so much. I thought Americans were brain-dead, then I found Ninties.
> BLD wrote:
> I havent seen seen any proof that xbox is better.
>
> now dont go throwing specs at me, cause they mean absolutly nothing.
> one uses powerpc technology, the other doesnt, so u cant compare
> them!!!!
>
> Graphically, They look exactly the same, but GC has oh so many
> better
> games out, and in the pipe line.
>
> So dont give us this x box is udesputedly better bull sh*t
>
> Well said... and finally you pointed out something of use... PowerPC
> is vas**tly different from Pentium Architecture!! Well done that man...
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 jus**t 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.
Never before have I found myself having to type in caps so much. I thought Americans were brain-dead, then I found Ninties.
BLD wrote:
> I havent seen seen any proof that xbox is better.
>
> now dont go throwing specs at me, cause they mean absolutly nothing.
> one uses powerpc technology, the other doesnt, so u cant compare
> them!!!!
>
> Graphically, They look exactly the same, but GC has oh so many better
> games out, and in the pipe line.
>
> So dont give us this x box is udesputedly better bull sh*t
Village idiot, we already had people like you 100 pos**ts ago. To get the result of what people like you said, please go and look at the his**tory.
Unfortunately for you, the conversation has moved beyond this 'I don't unders**tand technology but Nintendo is my favourite cos it jus**t is' attitude and we are now on to needing PROOF of opinion.
Blind faith is EXACTLY what keeps Nintendo fans happy with a technically inferior machine.
Now be gone with you, pig-dog!
> I havent seen seen any proof that xbox is better.
>
> now dont go throwing specs at me, cause they mean absolutly nothing.
> one uses powerpc technology, the other doesnt, so u cant compare
> them!!!!
>
> Graphically, They look exactly the same, but GC has oh so many better
> games out, and in the pipe line.
>
> So dont give us this x box is udesputedly better bull sh*t
Village idiot, we already had people like you 100 pos**ts ago. To get the result of what people like you said, please go and look at the his**tory.
Unfortunately for you, the conversation has moved beyond this 'I don't unders**tand technology but Nintendo is my favourite cos it jus**t is' attitude and we are now on to needing PROOF of opinion.
Blind faith is EXACTLY what keeps Nintendo fans happy with a technically inferior machine.
Now be gone with you, pig-dog!
BLD wrote:
> I havent seen seen any proof that xbox is better.
>
> now dont go throwing specs at me, cause they mean absolutly nothing.
> one uses powerpc technology, the other doesnt, so u cant compare
> them!!!!
>
> Graphically, They look exactly the same, but GC has oh so many better
> games out, and in the pipe line.
>
> So dont give us this x box is udesputedly better bull sh*t
Well said... and finally you pointed out something of use... PowerPC is vas**tly different from Pentium Architecture!! Well done that man...
> I havent seen seen any proof that xbox is better.
>
> now dont go throwing specs at me, cause they mean absolutly nothing.
> one uses powerpc technology, the other doesnt, so u cant compare
> them!!!!
>
> Graphically, They look exactly the same, but GC has oh so many better
> games out, and in the pipe line.
>
> So dont give us this x box is udesputedly better bull sh*t
Well said... and finally you pointed out something of use... PowerPC is vas**tly different from Pentium Architecture!! Well done that man...
I havent seen seen any proof that xbox is better.
now dont go throwing specs at me, cause they mean absolutly nothing.
one uses powerpc technology, the other doesnt, so u cant compare them!!!!
Graphically, They look exactly the same, but GC has oh so many better games out, and in the pipe line.
So dont give us this x box is udesputedly better bull sh*t
now dont go throwing specs at me, cause they mean absolutly nothing.
one uses powerpc technology, the other doesnt, so u cant compare them!!!!
Graphically, They look exactly the same, but GC has oh so many better games out, and in the pipe line.
So dont give us this x box is udesputedly better bull sh*t
Whitestripes wrote:
> Yes your right, all those intelligent comments I've made, and all
> those things I've come to accept and understand because of others,
> clearly shows I am a newbie. Where as your blind ranting and
> stubboness to accept anything you didn't already beleive in, should
> make you a notable!
Where the f*f**k have you made intelligent comments? Where have you come to accept anything? You're still arguing about points that were cleared up about 5 posts ago. What a d*f**k you truly are.
However, I must admit that you are right - I must be stubborn. Sat here refusing to swallow your blind b*llshit and Nintendo propaganda is so stubborn of me. I should be greeting it with open arms and I should forget stuff like 'facts', 'proof' and 'specifications'.
> Okay so I haven't looked in the Sony forum (ever) and the Microsoft
> forum (recently), but why would I?
Exactly. Why would you when you are just a blind Ninty that doesn't know, understand or care what else is going on in the world?
> You've also, once again, avoided the point of my post! I now sincerly
> beleive that you are stupid and can't understand what I was saying, as
> you have failed to respond to it properly, instead focusing on
> something that was very small and I only mention briefly, such as how
> I, personally, haven't seen anyone say the GC is better because it's
> smaller.
Please end your life. You are a burden on those around you, and even those who are not.
> Yes your right, all those intelligent comments I've made, and all
> those things I've come to accept and understand because of others,
> clearly shows I am a newbie. Where as your blind ranting and
> stubboness to accept anything you didn't already beleive in, should
> make you a notable!
Where the f*f**k have you made intelligent comments? Where have you come to accept anything? You're still arguing about points that were cleared up about 5 posts ago. What a d*f**k you truly are.
However, I must admit that you are right - I must be stubborn. Sat here refusing to swallow your blind b*llshit and Nintendo propaganda is so stubborn of me. I should be greeting it with open arms and I should forget stuff like 'facts', 'proof' and 'specifications'.
> Okay so I haven't looked in the Sony forum (ever) and the Microsoft
> forum (recently), but why would I?
Exactly. Why would you when you are just a blind Ninty that doesn't know, understand or care what else is going on in the world?
> You've also, once again, avoided the point of my post! I now sincerly
> beleive that you are stupid and can't understand what I was saying, as
> you have failed to respond to it properly, instead focusing on
> something that was very small and I only mention briefly, such as how
> I, personally, haven't seen anyone say the GC is better because it's
> smaller.
Please end your life. You are a burden on those around you, and even those who are not.
Whitestripes wrote:
> Your a walking contridiction aren't you? Having just said that the
> gameplay is much more important than graphics, your now once again
> claiming the X-box is better because of it's oh so slightly better
> graphics.
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!!
It's 2-1 like that. PLEASE understand cos I am getting so f*cking bored of having to RE-TYPE THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND!!!
> Your a walking contridiction aren't you? Having just said that the
> gameplay is much more important than graphics, your now once again
> claiming the X-box is better because of it's oh so slightly better
> graphics.
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!!
It's 2-1 like that. PLEASE understand cos I am getting so f*cking bored of having to RE-TYPE THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND!!!
Gar-J wrote:
>
> Right so you've admited that gameplay is more important than
> graphics,
> which is a good start.
>
> If you had the intelligence/ability to look back through the posts you
> would see I've been stating this all along, about once every 5 posts.
> Sadly it takes inbreeds about 20 times before something sinks in, so I
> celebrate - the 15th time I stated this you understood.
> HALLELUJAH!!!!
>
I didn't say you'd only just admited it though did i? All I said was, that it is good you already beleive this, so I can make my actual point, which was:
> BUT, the X-box's superior power is so slight, that it isn't an
> important factor at all regarding this issue. There can, and will,
> be
> many games on the GC with better graphics than X-box games, and
> vice-versa.
> Blind faith/stupidity is still rife though mate, but I'm sure a few
> months down the line and after shed-loads of inferior versions you
> will agree with me. When you do, kiss my @rse.
Your a walking contridiction aren't you? Having just said that the gameplay is much more important than graphics, your now once again claiming the X-box is better because of it's oh so slightly better graphics.
>
> Right so you've admited that gameplay is more important than
> graphics,
> which is a good start.
>
> If you had the intelligence/ability to look back through the posts you
> would see I've been stating this all along, about once every 5 posts.
> Sadly it takes inbreeds about 20 times before something sinks in, so I
> celebrate - the 15th time I stated this you understood.
> HALLELUJAH!!!!
>
I didn't say you'd only just admited it though did i? All I said was, that it is good you already beleive this, so I can make my actual point, which was:
> BUT, the X-box's superior power is so slight, that it isn't an
> important factor at all regarding this issue. There can, and will,
> be
> many games on the GC with better graphics than X-box games, and
> vice-versa.
> Blind faith/stupidity is still rife though mate, but I'm sure a few
> months down the line and after shed-loads of inferior versions you
> will agree with me. When you do, kiss my @rse.
Your a walking contridiction aren't you? Having just said that the gameplay is much more important than graphics, your now once again claiming the X-box is better because of it's oh so slightly better graphics.
Gar-J wrote:
> W
> So no, I wouldn't call myself a newbie. YOU are the newbie, and it
> shows.
>
Yes your right, all those intelligent comments I've made, and all those things I've come to accept and understand because of others, clearly shows I am a newbie. Where as your blind ranting and stubboness to accept anything you didn't already beleive in, should make you a notable!
> Yes but I used it to put emphasis on your stupidity, you just used
> it
> *repeatidly* as lame attempts to insult me.
>
> I don't need to insult you. You do it yourself every time you post.
>
So now you've resorted to stealing material from me?
> And once again you've missed the point of my post.. blah blah blah
>
> Look. Your stupidity angers me. I see now why guns were invented. You
> claim you haven't seen any Ninties w@nking about the size of the GC. I
> have already stated about 4 times, and other people have said so too,
> that ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO SEE THIS is go to a Sony or Microsoft
> forum. Now, do you u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d? Go there and L-O-O-K you
> I-D-I-O-T.
Okay so I haven't looked in the Sony forum (ever) and the Microsoft forum (recently), but why would I? I'm not interested in them! I'm interested in the GC because it's the console that appeals to me the most, so I stick to the Nintendo forum to talk about it. And your just as bad as the idiot Ninty fanboys that go to the S/M forums, because your coming into this forum with no intention of doing anything but annoying people with your spam!
You've also, once again, avoided the point of my post! I now sincerly beleive that you are stupid and can't understand what I was saying, as you have failed to respond to it properly, instead focusing on something that was very small and I only mention briefly, such as how I, personally, haven't seen anyone say the GC is better because it's smaller.
> W
> So no, I wouldn't call myself a newbie. YOU are the newbie, and it
> shows.
>
Yes your right, all those intelligent comments I've made, and all those things I've come to accept and understand because of others, clearly shows I am a newbie. Where as your blind ranting and stubboness to accept anything you didn't already beleive in, should make you a notable!
> Yes but I used it to put emphasis on your stupidity, you just used
> it
> *repeatidly* as lame attempts to insult me.
>
> I don't need to insult you. You do it yourself every time you post.
>
So now you've resorted to stealing material from me?
> And once again you've missed the point of my post.. blah blah blah
>
> Look. Your stupidity angers me. I see now why guns were invented. You
> claim you haven't seen any Ninties w@nking about the size of the GC. I
> have already stated about 4 times, and other people have said so too,
> that ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO SEE THIS is go to a Sony or Microsoft
> forum. Now, do you u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d? Go there and L-O-O-K you
> I-D-I-O-T.
Okay so I haven't looked in the Sony forum (ever) and the Microsoft forum (recently), but why would I? I'm not interested in them! I'm interested in the GC because it's the console that appeals to me the most, so I stick to the Nintendo forum to talk about it. And your just as bad as the idiot Ninty fanboys that go to the S/M forums, because your coming into this forum with no intention of doing anything but annoying people with your spam!
You've also, once again, avoided the point of my post! I now sincerly beleive that you are stupid and can't understand what I was saying, as you have failed to respond to it properly, instead focusing on something that was very small and I only mention briefly, such as how I, personally, haven't seen anyone say the GC is better because it's smaller.
Page: