The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Gamecube has a better chance of beating sony. "Why" you may ask. But the answers are simple:
Companies like Rare are going to stick to making Gamecube games and other companies will move to Gamecube
The games have unbeatable graphics, the best detail and the best playability meaning the best all round games
Sony games like Crash bandicoot will now belong to Nintendo
The Pokemon craze will continue because of the 3 dimentional versions of red, blue, yellow, Gold and silver
The console is going to be at an affordable price meaning more people will be able to get it
Pirate copies will be almost impossible because of the speical DVD's it will use
The controllers are top notch and the Wireless controllers make tangled up wires seem like last century
On top of all this, Rumors that Nintendo are going to buy sega means that Nintendo will own 2 3rds of the gaming market. Will microsoft and there console be a number one hit?
Companies like Rare are going to stick to making Gamecube games and other companies will move to Gamecube
The games have unbeatable graphics, the best detail and the best playability meaning the best all round games
Sony games like Crash bandicoot will now belong to Nintendo
The Pokemon craze will continue because of the 3 dimentional versions of red, blue, yellow, Gold and silver
The console is going to be at an affordable price meaning more people will be able to get it
Pirate copies will be almost impossible because of the speical DVD's it will use
The controllers are top notch and the Wireless controllers make tangled up wires seem like last century
On top of all this, Rumors that Nintendo are going to buy sega means that Nintendo will own 2 3rds of the gaming market. Will microsoft and there console be a number one hit?
Page:
A Cliche, it has a ' over the e, is something that has been done many, many times before.
What;s going on here?
Grix Thraves wrote:
> (CLICHÉ ALERT! CLICHÉ ALERT!)
>
> Oh that's ok, as I said, don't worry.
>
> : )
Grix Thraves wrote:
> (CLICHÉ ALERT! CLICHÉ ALERT!)
>
> Oh that's ok, as I said, don't worry.
>
> : )
(CLICHÉ ALERT! CLICHÉ ALERT!)
Oh that's ok, as I said, don't worry.
: )
Oh that's ok, as I said, don't worry.
: )
> You just came over as rude, in your first post. Don't worry.
Sorry, it wasn't intended that way.
Sorry, it wasn't intended that way.
You just came over as rude, in your first post. Don't worry.
Anyway, the point wasn't really slagging off the PS2, just showing why the Gamecube is EASY to program for, by comparing it to the PS2.
I took most of the info from an IGN special, and translated it into Earth speak.
Anyway, the point wasn't really slagging off the PS2, just showing why the Gamecube is EASY to program for, by comparing it to the PS2.
I took most of the info from an IGN special, and translated it into Earth speak.
> The facts are there Wook, don't extract the urine.
Moi? I wouldn't dream of it!
I just find it amusing that people cling vehemently to the stories of difficult programming, and choose to ignore more recent reports of companies having little or no problem.
I readily accept that PS2 will initially be a bit of a sod to code for because of its internal architecture. As one developer said, "it's fast but dumb". But as they get used to it, the problems disappear. And let's face it, the PS2 isn't the first multi-processor platform - even the Amiga had three distinct processors.
It's a bit like comparing BASIC with assembly language; BASIC is incredibly easy, and does a lot for you, but ultimately there's a lot going on behind the scenes, and it's pretty slow. With assembly language, you have to do it all yourself, but as a result, you get an incredible increase in speed.
Consequently, the more difficult route may take more time, but produces a significantly better end result.
It may or may not be the case, but you could say that the developers who want to produce the best game they can will endure initial problems and stick with the PS2, while those that want to churn out bucketfuls of games (i.e. just want the money) will possibly switch to other platforms.
Just something to ponder over.
Moi? I wouldn't dream of it!
I just find it amusing that people cling vehemently to the stories of difficult programming, and choose to ignore more recent reports of companies having little or no problem.
I readily accept that PS2 will initially be a bit of a sod to code for because of its internal architecture. As one developer said, "it's fast but dumb". But as they get used to it, the problems disappear. And let's face it, the PS2 isn't the first multi-processor platform - even the Amiga had three distinct processors.
It's a bit like comparing BASIC with assembly language; BASIC is incredibly easy, and does a lot for you, but ultimately there's a lot going on behind the scenes, and it's pretty slow. With assembly language, you have to do it all yourself, but as a result, you get an incredible increase in speed.
Consequently, the more difficult route may take more time, but produces a significantly better end result.
It may or may not be the case, but you could say that the developers who want to produce the best game they can will endure initial problems and stick with the PS2, while those that want to churn out bucketfuls of games (i.e. just want the money) will possibly switch to other platforms.
Just something to ponder over.
Never played Monkey Island then...
Does he mean those Watches?
Grix Thraves wrote:
> How appropriate. You fight like a cow.
I think he said swishBLADE, not swishTALE
> How appropriate. You fight like a cow.
I think he said swishBLADE, not swishTALE
Plop to the top.
Page: