Other reasons to own a Gamecube

[Blight]

Just to add up? What do you count as the strongest by how? Processing Power? Graphics chip numbers? Or how they are designed and made with specific cpu extensions and graphics extensions to make programming and games better.. Well let me set this straight the Xbox falls flat on its face in this one. because there is none at all.. the PS2 is a custom 128bit graphics chip specifically designed for gaming. You can really see that if you go into how the PS2 works with its bus bandwidth and everything.. its FAR excedes what a computer can do for pumping graphics data through but it does have its shortfals with points.

I guess I was referring to graphics rendering power. I'm not totally sure what is in any of the systems but I know that X-Box is considered the best based just on the games that are on it and that the it is widely considered by all game magazines and the media in general to be the most powerful.

[Schultz]

But the problem.. just because its powerful don't mean anything..I could make one of the shittiest games there is.. Each has there own strength and what makes teh system are teh games not what it can do.. Shit i still love more 16bit games on Genesis and SNES then i do the current generation.

and Blight most of my post was towards geo talking about the memory of the gamecube.. since he claims it has so much lower..

[Ryujin]

Well the X-box has the most RAM, Fastest CPU and most advanced graphics chip of this generation that can throw around the most polygons, so it pretty much out performs the other consoles by a noticable amount. Granted there are many different apsects to be taken into account and its not the best at EVERYTHING but these are the main factors to take into account as to why its the most powerfull. That doesn't mean that all its games are good or look better than other consoles, but it means that when companies want to they can make games look good enough to easily smoke the comptetion (Ninja Gaiden, Dead or Alive Ultimate, Halo2, Panzer Dragoon Orta). I'm saying that overall the X-box is the most powerfull console overall, which is a fact. Butanyway...enough off topicness.

If you have a GC get Viewtiful Joe as its one of the best games I've ever played, and IMO is the best game on the cube to date. So buy it.

[Black Howling]

To answer the topic creator. Try getting Metroid Prime 2. It's not fantastic but it is one of the better games on the Gamecube. As Schultz said the Gamecube has great lighting affects and MP2 shows it.

And Ryo maybe the reason why you don't like Voldo is because he is an SM freak.

[Ryujin]

BH, that's "S&M", not SM.

[Black Howling]

BH, that's "S&M", not SM.

I know but it didn't sound right.

[Schultz]

I am sorry but i am goign to argue this further. Why you say this just because the numbers are higher? This may be true if everything was the same architecture. The Xbox uses a PIII Celeron process.. nothing changed in it. Which isn't a very good process at all especially in PC's. Second the graphics card isn't all that special.. its rought to about a NVidia geforce 2.5 since nvidia used some of there stuff they learned from making that chip to build the geforce 3.

But what i am saying anymore you can't compare the numbers like you could back in the day. Especially since the ps2 is one of the furthest away from pc like archtechture for the programming aspect. It has alot of power that no one can truely fully tap because of the difficultly programming for it. the Ps2 hands down is the most difficult to program for.. Especially since the Xbox only uses DirectX same as computers do and its really easy if you know progamming to create something in it using the XDX. and apoologies for going way off topic.. I just don't like when people compare numbers straight up when there is many other factors.

[Black Howling]

I am sorry but i am goign to argue this further. Why you say this just because the numbers are higher? This may be true if everything was the same architecture. The Xbox uses a PIII Celeron process.. nothing changed in it. Which isn't a very good process at all especially in PC's. Second the graphics card isn't all that special.. its rought to about a NVidia geforce 2.5 since nvidia used some of there stuff they learned from making that chip to build the geforce 3.

But what i am saying anymore you can't compare the numbers like you could back in the day. Especially since the ps2 is one of the furthest away from pc like archtechture for the programming aspect. It has alot of power that no one can truely fully tap because of the difficultly programming for it. the Ps2 hands down is the most difficult to program for.. Especially since the Xbox only uses DirectX same as computers do and its really easy if you know progamming to create something in it using the XDX. and apoologies for going way off topic.. I just don't like when people compare numbers straight up when there is many other factors.

Are you talking to geo85?

[Ryujin]

There are many factors to consider, but firstly X-box has a custom built GeForce3, and a unified 64MB RAM Architecture. Its polygon pusihng power, texture rendering etc... far surpass the PS2. Also, although the Xbox CPU may be "outdated" by PC standards, as console standards go it is quite impressive and seriously out-perfoms the PS2's CPU.

Now granted there are many differences to the architecture and how they handle certain things, but no matter how good your architecture is it can't quite beat out raw power, no matter what. But the X-box actually has a pretty good architecture, that was made easy to access all of its power, its Sony's fault for creating something that was difficult to use, or could be considered a bad architecture. Plus even if someone was to be able to use 100% of the PS2 and its architecture, it is still not able to carry out as many insturctions, polygons, lighting effects, geometry and floating point numbers as the X-box can, plus with less RAM it can't store as many instructions and resources for later use as the X-box can.

The Xbox is more powerfull than any other console, its simply a fact that is showcased by games that could not possibly be done on PS2 or GC.

[Elcoholic]

Schultz, I'd love to agree with you (xbox only console I don't have) but all numbers aside, if you just use your eyes anyone can see that the xbox has the most beautiful graphics. GC might beat it with loading times but visualy the difference is noticable. Especially when throwing ps2 in the mix (which is old, I know but if we compare we compare it all). Still, having a ps2 and GC makes that I don't need an xbox. Everything I need/want is on those two consoles and graphics mean shit to me.

Plus, I've been hearing the difficult programming part of the ps2 for years now. I don't buy it anymore. The ps2 didn't come falling out of space. Someone created it and your telling me that he can't explain how to opperate it, even after all those years? I think the max. has been reached for the ps2. Any prettier and it'll drop to few frames per second which happens to to many new ps2 games already.

Anyway, what are you saying besides confussing us. Do you say the GC is the one with most graphical power??? Say what you mean damnit :p

[Schultz]

Plus, I've been hearing the difficult programming part of the ps2 for years now. I don't buy it anymore. The ps2 didn't come falling out of space. Someone created it and your telling me that he can't explain how to opperate it, even after all those years? I think the max. has been reached for the ps2. Any prettier and it'll drop to few frames per second which happens to to many new ps2 games already.

No i am not saying the GC is more powerful. I am saying don't compare power just because of the numbers when they don't really mean anything anymore.. Compare game quailty and what you like in the games not the machines themselves. Also i think its a little unfair to say Ninja Gaiden and Halo and all those are on the Xbox just because of the power of the xbox. really when they don't have a chance when Microsoft pays the companys to get exclusive deals on there platform. like when they purchased RareSoft to make games for just there system. And most of you probably already know Halo was originally going to be a game for the PC but microsoft paid Bungie to make it exclusive launch title for the xbox. (hate to say it but smart choice there for Microsoft as its the most known title for the xbox)


Also the hard programming part. Is because the PS2 used a totally different method of processing the games.. Programmers that had been programming games for ages had to rethink and rework how they been doing things. the ps2 has major bandwith channels on the board and has enough power to process it on the fly.. While conventional programming is not like this.. they normal buffer stuff in memory and edit it there and such. I will try to find a link that will explain how much more difficult it is to program with..

I also think the funny thing is that the Xbox 2 will be using the same Processor arch that the gamecube used. ;o) PowerPC chips.. or more so G5 chips. Though i still wanna see what Sony's Cell ship does..

And don't you all think its strange? IBM is devloping or working with all of them Microsoft, Nindento, and Sony for there next gen processors.. Along with ATI is with Microsoft and Nintendo while sony is now going to use NVidia graphics chip.

P.S. wow man when i type i have no coherence in my thought process.. i bounce everywhere after reading my post again.. So short version.

1.) No GC is not powerful. Don't compare #'s compare games created on the systems if anything.

2.) Will attempt to find link about the programming architecture. And just a statement its so complex to emulate the PS2 right now you only get 3-5 fps on a 3ghz processor. Which again like you said is Sony's fault.

3.) Ryujin its not a custom built GeForce 3. its more GeForce 2.5 even the numbers on the core chip state it.. (Will get them when i get home its like NV25) They built the GeForce 3 *after* they developed the Xbox's graphics chip which they used some of the stuff they put into the chip.

[Ryujin]

Hold on Shultz, I'm not saying that the X-box is the best thing ever and all its games are great or anything. What I meant by talking about games like Halo2 and Ninja Gaiden, is that by just looking at them its obvious that they could never have been done on PS2 or GC. Now obviously if the companies wanted they could probably make Versions for PS2 and GC, but they would be soooooo different that they would cease to be the same games that we know. Hence, they couldn't be done like that on PS2 or GC.

Again I'm just stating that although the X-box may have certain shortcommings in certain areas and other consoles don't that overall it is still more powerfull both technically and graphically, I was not really talking about the quality of games such as how good or bad I think they were, I was just talking about the power of the console.

And again I still have to disagree because numbers DO mean alot, granted the architecture is equally important, but there is no point in having the greatest architecture ever with 2mb or RAM and 12mhz processor.

I knew that GeForce 3 came later, but I read somewhere that it was a suped up 2.5 that was basically a GeForce 3, how true it is I have no idea, but that's what I read.

[Schultz]

Just a small question then.. this is a trend that i see is pretty funny..

Back in the day what was the speed of the NES, Genisis and SNES? or how many bits where they? they concentrated on the bits back in the day.. Now can you tell me what bits each of the systems are? but you probably know there speeds. The consoles are at the point where they have plateo'ed (sp?) and really can't get too much better just refine things for graphics. We are not doing leaps and bounds with graphics like there was in the early gaming consoles.. Thats why i say not to look at numbers its what people are doing with them now. And i am positive that Ninja Gaiden or halo could be put on either the Ps2 or GC and looked pretty much just as good as it does on the Xbox.

And i am pretty sure that what that article menant was it was a suped up GeForce 2 which they then used thing from the xbox one for the GeForce 3 hence why people call it a 2.5.

[morgorath]

Well my 2 cents are as such...

You want to compare graphic power do this take RE:0 and compare it to either Halo or NG... I think you will see the differnce someone who really works at it can make. Now more upto date compare you ask... ok RE:4 to Halo 2 oh and sorry didn't see a big jump in graphics from Halo to Halo 2.

Oh and if you want to compare the systems lets do it fare and square. Take a game that had a lot of Hype and came out on all 3 systems. Say Soul Calibur II... here is a link that has link for reviews of all 3 versions.
http://gamepro.com/nintendo/gamecube/gam...0871.shtml

in the short... GC 4.9, xbox 4.4, and PS2 4.4
Why mostly due to the fact that GC had Link. (goes to show what a house hold name will do oh and the fact that link hasn't had a sub par game since zelda 2 on the NES) HEy someone have the link that shows how the PS2 and xbox have more in home units but people bought SC2 for the gamecube because of Link.

Look my point is simple Games make the console not the specs... if it was the other way around 3DO would have kicked the crap out of the PS1.

[Ryujin]

And i am positive that Ninja Gaiden or halo could be put on either the Ps2 or GC and looked pretty much just as good as it does on the Xbox.

No, it just wouldn't. I hate when people think there is a magical knob that you can turn that tones a game down ever so slightly "jag up the edges a bit, that'll do!". Its just not that simple. As you have said the consoles run on totally different architecture. And if you were to try and make these games on PS2 or GC, you would have to lessen the AI, shrink the area's, lessen the number of enemies on screen, lessen the speed, lessen the effects, totally rework the physics, have much less happening at once etc... not to mention try to program it from the ground up. Hence it would no longer be the same game, thus a feasable port is not possible.

You want to compare graphic power do this take RE:0 and compare it to either Halo or NG... I think you will see the differnce someone who really works at it can make. Now more upto date compare you ask... ok RE:4 to Halo 2 oh and sorry didn't see a big jump in graphics from Halo to Halo 2.

Well RE4 looks good, but it uses pre-rendered backrounds, thus most of the polygon power of the GC can go into the character models etc.. But I would still say that NG or Halo2 do look better than it. But I suppose thats all down to personal opinion. Oh and there is a very big jump from Halo to Halo2, seriously the jump is very noticable.

As for SC2 morg, yes each version is pretty much identical (They are based on PS2 arcade hardware afterall). But I own the X-box version and what I noticed is that when it gets effects heavy the PS2 and GC versions slow down but the X-box version does not, which to be honest I was a little but surprised at the slowdown but anyway, thats not really important, just pointing it out. As for my opinions on Link and SC2 then you can look back to page 2.