How powerful is the Gamecube?

[dairugger]

while reading a old issue of Next Gen mag (lifecycle 2 vp;3 #12-12/01) I came upon a Gamecube launch special section where they go indepth into the system, and compare it to the Ps2 and Xbox. I always thought it was more powerful than the Ps2 but less than the Xbox, but they lead you to believe its the weaker of the 3.

under the breakdown of the 3 under hardware they say this about it:

"Although gamecube may lack raw horsepower, nintendo has created a cost-effective, efficiently designed piece of hardware. The games look great out of the gate, but developers may be stifled by the system's technical limitations later in its lifecycle."

oh yeah, and i forgot that alot of 1st gen Ps2 games werent anti-aliased..

[Cinder6]

The Gamecube was in the middle of the three. Much faster processor, more RAM, higher FLOPS, etc. Although, looking at it now, the PS2 apparently has 16 pixel pipelines, compared to the Gamecube's 4. I think what happened was that the PS2's GS (graphics card) had more raw power, but the Gamecube had more memory, and was thus able to do more and produce better-looking stuff.

[Fuyukaze]

If you go by the opinions of some, about as powerfull as a 2600. Others, more powerfull then X-Box. System specs put it at the bottem of the 4 between the x-box, PS2, and DC but the software for it often times showed the system to be superior in ways over its more popular competition.

[Cobra Commander]

A good example for me is Resident Evil 4. The GC version is superior in nearly every way to the PS2 verion.

[tom]

Mine uses 220 V that's pretty powerful

[Cambot]

Another good example is SoulCalibur 2. I always thought Gamecube looked best. Especially when compared to the hideous SoulCalibur 3 on PS2.

[izarate]

The Gamecube was in the middle of the three. Much faster processor, more RAM, higher FLOPS, etc. Although, looking at it now, the PS2 apparently has 16 pixel pipelines, compared to the Gamecube's 4. I think what happened was that the PS2's GS (graphics card) had more raw power, but the Gamecube had more memory, and was thus able to do more and produce better-looking stuff.

The Gamecube could apply 8 textures per pass, while the PS2 could apply only one, so, if the clock rate of both were the same, the Cube could apply two times as much textures as the PS2.

If there is one spec where the Gamecube (and Wii) is severely lacking, that would be pixel fillrate. The Gamecube just can't push as many pixels as the PS2 or Xbox (GC 648Mpixels/s, Wii 972, Xbox 932, PS2 2400).

In fact, I think that pixel fillrate constrains is one of the causes of the letterbox mode found in RE4. In a game with such rich textures and high color depth, pixel fillrate would be constrained, so they limited the visible area on the screen. It's supposed to be a 480p game, but taking out the black bars it's more like 400p or something.

In reality, where the Cube stands varies from game to game. Most of the time it sits just between the PS2 and Xbox, some times it comes out on top of the three and sometimes it's in the bottom.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

When God himself created the Gamecube, he made it so powerful that only a handful of titles would show what it was capable of. He saw that this was good, and the world was at peace.

And when the humans became restless for a "next-generation" console, God took a hard look at his masterpiece. Perfection was not something easily improved upon, so he saw it fit to make his next creation almost a full 2x as powerful as the Gamecube. The masses wept at his feet, and bought this divine gift in droves.

The world was once again at peace, as Nintendo was restored at it's mighty place atop all video game charts far and wide.

[Joe West]

the only gcube i like is the panasonic q with the LCD Screen........that blows everything away

[heybtbm]

Another good example is SoulCalibur 2. I always thought Gamecube looked best. Especially when compared to the hideous SoulCalibur 3 on PS2.

Agreed. It was a real kick in the nuts when Namco announced SC3 would be a PS2 exclusive. I had the Gamecube version of SC2 and was hoping SC3 would be on all three systems as well.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

It is as powerful as a grain of sand awash upon the winds of time.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Guy: "How strong is the Gamecube with me?"
Other Guy: "Err, It's as strong as a small pony."
Original Guy: "Mighty strong that is!"
2nd Guy again: "Yes, but your force skills could use some improvement."

[MarioMania]

Agreed. It was a real kick in the nuts when Namco announced SC3 would be a PS2 exclusive. I had the Gamecube version of SC2 and was hoping SC3 would be on all three systems as well.

Blame Sony for that..They gave Namco Money to keep it PS2 exclusive

[skaar]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/haymansbeard/RrFkGaI8arI/AAAAAAAAAI4/QdCbNRmw-ag/s512/Obi+Wan+Kenobi+01+Large.JPG

More powerful than you can possibly imagine.

But less than the PS2 and Xbox.

[LiquidPolicenaut]

I always thought the GC was more powerful than the PS2 in most cases (although I still love my PS2). As noted already, only a few games really showed what the GC could do in the right hands, whereas later games on the PS2 (MGS3, God of War, DQ 8 and even RE4...though not as much as the GC version) REALLY pushed the system where few thought it could go. Regardless, I love my Resident Evils, Rogue Leader, Metroid, etc.

[ProgrammingAce]

As has been stated above, the raw processing power between the gamecube and PS2 are relatively even, with the GC having a slight edge. The problem with the PS2 was the aforementioned rendering pipeline and fact it only had 16 MB of ram.

[Rob2600]

while reading a old issue of Next Gen mag (lifecycle 2 vp;3 #12-12/01) I came upon a Gamecube launch special section where they go indepth into the system, and compare it to the Ps2 and Xbox. I always thought it was more powerful than the Ps2 but less than the Xbox, but they lead you to believe its the weaker of the 3.

That might be because the specs of both the PS2 and Xbox were severely exaggerated in Sony and Microsoft's official documentation. (And don't forget the whole "PS2 can launch missiles" hype.) Nintendo, in a strange marketing move, published severely understated GameCube specs.

I remember Nintendo's official documentation stated the GameCube could push 6 to 12 million polygons per second, in-game...whereas Microsoft's documentation stated the Xbox could push over 70 million polygons per second (not in-game, of course).

Yet, top-notch developers, like Factor 5, were able to push 25 million polygons per second in their GameCube games, and that's with fancy lighting and other effects.


To me, some of the very best looking GameCube games are Star Fox Adventures, Star Wars Rogue Squadron III, F-Zero GX, Metroid Prime 2, Resident Evil 4, and Twilight Princess. How do those graphics compare to PS2 and Xbox games? Better? Worse? The same?


Some other fantastic-looking GC games:

Beach Spikers
Beyond Good & Evil
Burnout 2: Point of Impact
F-Zero GX
Fight Night Round 2
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker
Mario Golf
Metroid Prime
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
NBA Street V3
Pikmin 2
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Prince of Persia: The Warrior Within
Resident Evil (remake)
Resident Evil 4
Soulcalibur II
SSX 3
Star Fox Adventures
Star Wars Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader
Star Wars Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike
Super Mario Sunshine
Viewtiful Joe
Wave Race: Blue Storm


Again, how do they stack up against the graphics in PS2 and Xbox games?

[tomaitheous]

There are people out there that actually think the PS2 is more powerful than the GC? Can I get some of that crack, please?

[ProgrammingAce]

Because of it's design, the NV 25 was the most advanced GPU of it's time. It also happened to power the Xbox.

Real world, the Xbox could push 125 million pollys per second. Using a backbuffer at 60 FPS, that equates to about 2.1 million pollys per frame. Two vertex shaders and a per pixel shader were all built into the silicon, which means that you don't take any performance hit when you use them. Shadows are calculated live with no impact to the frame rate.

So while the 733 mhz CPU may as well have been stock (and yet, still twice as powerful as it's competitors), it was the GPU that made the Xbox shine.

[tomaitheous]

If there is one spec where the Gamecube (and Wii) is severely lacking, that would be pixel fillrate. The Gamecube just can't push as many pixels as the PS2 or Xbox (GC 648Mpixels/s, Wii 972, Xbox 932, PS2 2400).


The pixel fill rate is directly related to the frame buffer, not the performance. The GC only has a 640x480 frame buffer, so a higher fill rate is going to do anything. And yet, the PS2 could never seem to get rid of the jaggies. I always went with the GC version of a game if it came out for PS2/GC, to avoid those nasty jaggies. Some PS2 games even looked like the horizontal resolution was being upscaled to full screen. FFX was a good example of this. Then you also have the problem that the PS2 lacks any texture compression and only has 4mb texture work space. Probably why a lot of latter games look 'drab'. I really hated that washed out color look of later PS2 games.

[Rob2600]

Real world, the Xbox could push 125 million pollys per second.

So how come I've never seen an Xbox game that looks 5 times better than GameCube games (125 million polygons/second vs. 25 million polygons/second)? Actually, I've never even seen an Xbox game that looks 2 times better than GameCube games.

[makaar]

I love all three of last-gen's consoles, but Gamecube had a good line of stellar titles, which have been touched upon already in this post. Unfortunately, it really shows how good a game is when its developed by the right team. I remember countless rubbish third-party titles being released, many of which were multi-platform titles...which is what is once-again plaguing the Wii.

When all is said and done though, the first real thought is how fast load/save times were on the GC. Metroid Prime, for example, took literally a few seconds to load and save.

[Rob2600]

Real world, the Xbox could push 125 million pollys per second. Using a backbuffer at 60 FPS, that equates to about 2.1 million pollys per frame.

By the way, according to the information on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox#Technical_specifications), the Xbox could produce 485,416 triangles per frame at 60fps. 485,416 polygons/frame x 60 frames/second = roughly 30 million polygons/second (not 125 million). Am I missing something?


EDIT: Here you go:

"Xbox Geometry engine: 125 million particles/second (peak)"

That's particles, not polygons.


"Xbox Peak triangle performance: 29.1 million 32-pixel triangles/sec raw or with 2 textures and lit."

So, I was right...right? Roughly 30 million polygons/second, in-game (textured and lit).



Realistically, it seems like the Xbox could produce around 30 million polygons/second, in-game at 60 fps (in the hands of the best developers). That's slightly better than the GameCube, which could produce around 22-26 million polygons/second, in game at 60fps (again, in the hands of the best developers). Likewise, the PS2 can produce around 12-20 million polygons/second and the Dreamcast can produce around 5-6 million polygons/second.

In the end, some Xbox games look better than some GameCube games and vice versa. Again, I think Star Fox Adventures, Star Wars Rogue Squadron III, F-Zero GX, Metroid Prime 2, Resident Evil 4, Twilight Princess, and some others hold their own against anything on the Xbox.




the [Xbox's] 733 mhz CPU may as well have been stock (and yet, still twice as powerful as it's competitors)

In the world of computers, a 485 MHz PowerPC G3 CPU (similar to the GameCube's Gekko CPU) and a 733 MHz Pentium III (similar to the Xbox's CPU) have very close performance benchmarks. One isn't twice as powerful as the other. Don't fall for the megahertz myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth):

"The term came into widespread use (or was even originally coined) in the context of comparing PowerPC-based Apple Macintosh computers with Intel-based PCs."

[noname11]

Remember that leap second that killed all zunes?


yeah, the gamecube is that powerful...

[Zap!]

Wow, I was expecting several people to say "As powerful as the Wii" but to their credit, no one did. :monkey:

[walrusmonger]

There should be no questioning whether or not the GC is more powerful than the PS2, or that the Xbox is the most powerful of the 3.

The PS2 just had more developers making games for it so it ended up getting a lot of games that pushed it to the limits. Similar to how the Master System was more powerful than the NES, but there are bunches of NES games that blow away most of the stuff on the Master System.

And the Xbox had the best looking version of Soul Calibur 2- 720p (letterboxed though), crisp and clean. Very sexy.

[8bitCaged]

Remember that leap second that killed all zunes?


off topic it did not kill zunes it killed all zune 30's witch there less then I million of them.

[scooterb23]

The Gamecube is so powerful, it can keep 3 Netflix envelopes from blowing away in a stiff fan breeze!

It's so powerful, that if you attached a sturdy rope to it, and swung it around a few times, and hit someone in the skull...it may knock them out!

The Gamecube is so powerful, even Chuck Norris thinks twice before roundhouse kicking it!

So, to summarize... who cares how powerful it is? Shut up, and play all the great games released for the damn thing.

[bangtango]

Wow, I was expecting several people to say "As powerful as the Wii" but to their credit, no one did. :monkey:

Being the cheap opportunist I am, I was headed to that tried-and-true "well" (dead serious) but unfortunately you spoiled the surprise an hour or two before I arrive.

Just because people like me are so predictable and rely on tired old
"gameplans" for threads like these doesn't mean you have to give away my playbook, heh heh ;)

At least we managed to avoid the number of "bits" argument, like we used to have in the old days.

[CrimsonNugget]

I place the Gamecube between the PS2 and Xbox. The PS2 versions of multiplatform games always seemed like downgrades to me. Also, it seems like the Xbox had a very slight graphical edge over the GCN.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I place the Gamecube between the PS2 and Xbox. The PS2 versions of multiplatform games always seemed like downgrades to me. Also, it seems like the Xbox had a very slight graphical edge over the GCN.

Agrred 100%. After completing Resident Evil 4 I felt the cube was powerful enough, just not utilized by most game makers.......

[Rob2600]

After completing Resident Evil 4 I felt the cube was powerful enough, just not utilized by most game makers

In addition to RE4, I think...

Burnout 2: Point of Impact
F-Zero GX
Fight Night Round 2
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
Star Fox Adventures
Star Wars Rogue Squadron III
Wave Race: Blue Storm

...are a few more examples of amazing-looking GameCube games. They definitely hold their own against anything on the Xbox.



I place the Gamecube between the PS2 and Xbox.

Yes. Again, from what I've read, the best developers were able to push 12-20 million polygons/second on the PS2, 22-26 million on the GameCube, and around 30-35 million on the Xbox. (5-6 million on the Dreamcast)

The Xbox and GameCube outdo each other in different ways. For example, the Xbox has more RAM and a faster GPU, but the GameCube has faster RAM, double the on-die L2 cache (256 KB vs. 128 KB), and double the texture layers (8 vs. 4). In the hands of skilled developers, both consoles produced fantastic graphics.

[noname11]

The Gamecube is so powerful, even Chuck Norris thinks twice before roundhouse kicking it!



I heard that Chuck Norris mans the Gamecube that operates the Hadron Collider.

[esquire]

How powerful is the Gamecube?

According to the Nintendo mafia it's more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

[alxbly]

In addition to RE4, I think...

Burnout 2: Point of Impact
F-Zero GX
Fight Night Round 2
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
Star Fox Adventures
Star Wars Rogue Squadron III
Wave Race: Blue Storm

...are a few more examples of amazing-looking GameCube games. They definitely hold their own against anything on the Xbox.

Drop Harry Potter and add Resident Evil Zero to that list and I'd be in 100% agreement... with the list of best-looking cube games, anyway. I owned all four consoles from last gen and, truth be told, Xbox did outshine the Cube in a few games. Specifically; Chronicles of Riddick, Doom 3, Burnout 3, Jade Empire, Oddworld Strangers Wrath... there's others, but that'll do for now.

For games brought out on multiple platforms the differences obviously varied from game to game. Gamecube got a lot of bad ports but there were also some games that I thought were best on the cube. Often this boiled down to Xbox and Gamecube games looking virtually identical but the cube having quicker load times (I'm thinking of Beyond Good and Evil, Prince of Persia, etc). Timesplitters 2 looked identical on both platforms; as far as I could tell the only difference was that the Xbox version had more memory for the map editor. Most FPS I bought were for Xbox but that was mainly because it had a better controller for shooters than the Cube (IMO).

[The 1 2 P]

Despite appearing as a little purple lunch box, the Gamecube was indeed pretty damn powerful. This just goes to show that looks can be deceiving. As most have already said, the GC was the second most powerful machine of the last generation, behind the Xbox and ahead of the PS2. Although the PS2 received the majority of third party exclusives, it didn't have any games that the Gamecube wouldn't have been able to handle.....graphic wise. Now if we could only do something about that gimpy conrtroller.

[heybtbm]

Also don't forget while Gamecube ports looked as good as the Xbox versions, the Gamecube versions often had an extra level of annoyance...multiple discs. It was a remnant of the previous generation that I wish would've stayed there.

I always seem to put the wrong disc in when picking up an old game. Not a huge deal, but still ridiculously unnecessary.

[alxbly]

Also don't forget while Gamecube ports looked as good as the Xbox versions, the Gamecube versions often had an extra level of annoyance...multiple discs. It was a remnant of the previous generation that I wish would've stayed there.

I always seem to put the wrong disc in when picking up an old game. Not a huge deal, but still ridiculously unnecessary.
I never considered that to be a big deal; I'd take the quicker loading times over very occasional disc swapping. I can't think of any games where you needed to swap discs more than once... but that might just have faded from my memory.

Does anyone know if there were any Gamecube games that came on more than two discs? I can't think of any.

[Rob2600]

I find it interesting that Nintendo was able to create a game console that produced graphics nearly as good as the Xbox, but for almost half the cost. I remember reading that the Xbox cost Microsoft around $400 to produce at launch, while the GameCube cost Nintendo a little under $200 to produce at launch.

Yes, the Xbox contained a 10 GB hard drive. How much was Microsoft paying for that in bulk, in 2001? Let's say...I don't know...maybe $60 each. I'm just guessing. So $400 minus $60 equals $340 to manufacture the Xbox (sans hard drive) vs. let's say $195 to manufacture the GameCube - and both machines produce similar graphics.

I just wonder why one company needed to spend roughly $340 per console (again, sans hard drive), while another company spent roughly $195 per console, which was nearly as powerful.

[Greg2600]

There aren't a whole lot of graphics-intensive games released for all 3 platforms to compare. I'd put it in the middle of PS2 and Xbox, though the PS2 is the oldest system. There's not a huge difference, and technically if you had a PC version of the same game, it would have the best graphics.

The Xbox was overkill in hardware, so it costs a lot more, and Microsoft lost a ton on the consoles themselves. Rob, Xbox also had a DVD drive, the Gamecube did not. The DVD was a selling point, it was for me for sure. Xbox also had an internal network adapter, GC did not. One of the things Microsoft was trying was to differentiate from Sony and Nintendo as much as possible. Nintendo made a cost-effective system largely along all of the tried and true lines of console past. However, it was almost immediately seen as the kiddie console compared to the other two. The purple color did not help. I think that moniker is still present in people's minds who compare the graphical prowess.

By the way, in searching I came across this absurdity, which has problably been written about here before:
http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/article/xbox-ps2-gamecube-all-in-one-ultimate-gaming-mod-09280209/

[Rob2600]

The Xbox was overkill in hardware, so it costs a lot more, and Microsoft lost a ton on the consoles themselves. Rob, Xbox also had a DVD drive, the Gamecube did not. The DVD was a selling point, it was for me for sure. Xbox also had an internal network adapter, GC did not.

True, good points. The GameCube did have a DVD-like optical drive though. And wouldn't a standard, "off-the-shelf" DVD drive cost less than Nintendo's custom, proprietary optical drive?

Also, how much did a network adapter cost in 2001? Enough to account for the $145 difference in production costs (sans hard drive)? It still doesn't add up to me.


(Keep in mind, I had bought an ethernet card for my computer in 2000 for $15, retail. How much could it have cost Microsoft in 2001, in bulk? $5 each?)



By the way, in searching I came across this absurdity...
http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/article/xbox-ps2-gamecube-all-in-one-ultimate-gaming-mod-09280209/

What the...?

[Game Freak]

I always thought the gamecube was the weaker of the 3 (probably because of the press and whatnot) but I honestly think that there was a great library of games that could easily compare with what the PS2 had. I dont really judge consoles by the capabilities of the system, but by the quality of the library. The gamecube had some great titles such as:

Animal Crossing
Battalion Wars
Bomberman Generation
**Finding Nemo (honestly the best handled of the systems it was released on, i have both PS2 and GC versions)
**SSX Tricky (see above)
**SSX 3 (not sure about this, but i enjoyed it a lot more on the GC than the ps2)
Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life
Legend of Zelda: Collectors Edition
LoZ: Ocarina of Time Master Quest
LoZ: The Wind Waker
LoZ: Twilight Princess
**Lego Star Wars
Luigi's Mansion
Metroid Prime
**MLB Slugfest 20-03
Pokemon Channel (yes, hate me all you want, I enjoyed this game)
Pokemon Colosseum
Pokemon XD: Gale of Darkness
Resident Evil 0, 1, **4 and Code Veronica X (I'm missing 2 &3)
Star Fox Adventures
Super Mario Sunshine
Super Smash Bros. Melee
Tales of Symphonia

all these games were really good. The games marked with asterisks i believe or know were released on other systems, but i think they look much better on the Gamecube. Im not really tech savvy about the systems, I just like to play the games rather than criticize them. I grew up playing SNES and what not, so i personally dont care what the games look like, as long as they dont give me nausea (like Spyro: Year of the Dragon and Kingdom Hearts)

However, i also greatly enjoy the PS2, with games such as:

Ace Combat 4&5
Ape Escape 2
Burnout 3
Castle Shikigami 2
Dark Cloud
Devil May Cry
Gran Turismo 3
Ico
Jak and Daxter: the Precursor Legacy
Kingdom Hearts Series
Mad Maestro
MetropolisMania
Shadow of the Colossus
Shaun Palmer's Pro Snowboarder
Spy Hunter
Star Wars Battlefront II
Theme Park: Rollercoaster
Tiger Woods 06

i dont like to judge systems on their power, i judge them by the library. The GC and PS2 are pretty equal to me, and the games I play really only depend on my mood. I have a very ranged taste of genres. as i do in the music world -.-

[Greg2600]

True, good points. The GameCube did have a DVD-like optical drive though. And wouldn't a standard, "off-the-shelf" DVD drive cost less than Nintendo's custom, proprietary optical drive?

Also, how much did a network adapter cost in 2001? Enough to account for the $145 difference in production costs (sans hard drive)? It still doesn't add up to me.
Nintendo had a long history in producing consoles, thus were able to design it as small, light, and cheap as possible. Microsoft essentially took what amounted to off the shelve PC parts and used those. They might have been okay at $400, but when the console quickly went to $199, and then $149, they were taking a bath. They did little to nothing to reduce the material cost over the life of the unit. They went through 3 different DVD drives, due to reliability issues, that's about it. Again, it wasn't about that for MS, they wanted to have the most powerful thing out there, to make a dent on the market. I've compared some of the cross-plat games, mostly from EA, and Gamecube holds up well to XBox, PS2 does not.

[Bojay1997]

I find it interesting that Nintendo was able to create a game console that produced graphics nearly as good as the Xbox, but for almost half the cost. I remember reading that the Xbox cost Microsoft around $400 to produce at launch, while the GameCube cost Nintendo a little under $200 to produce at launch.

Yes, the Xbox contained a 10 GB hard drive. How much was Microsoft paying for that in bulk, in 2001? Let's say...I don't know...maybe $60 each. I'm just guessing. So $400 minus $60 equals $340 to manufacture the Xbox (sans hard drive) vs. let's say $195 to manufacture the GameCube - and both machines produce similar graphics.

I just wonder why one company needed to spend roughly $340 per console (again, sans hard drive), while another company spent roughly $195 per console, which was nearly as powerful.

I'm starting to see a trend in your posts. You appear to be a Nintendo fan boy who is intent on bashing the Xbox at any chance. The Gamecube has some great games and I think it was a great console. Having said that, it's not even close to the Xbox in graphics capability and it can't push the kind of detail or number of elements on screen that the Xbox can. It's not just the graphics on games like Halo that the Gamecube couldn't handle, it's also the multi-player both over a LAN and on-line that it didn't have leftover horsepower to handle. Tracking multiple human controlled players in real time is super processor intensive and that's why you never saw anything beyond four player games on the Cube.

Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube is great. Of course, like all Resident Evil games, your character moves relatively slowly and there aren't hundreds of enemies on screen at once. It's the perfect game for a capable but not necessarily technically spectacular console, which is why the Wii version holds up so well.

The Xbox hard drive allowed for game saves without investing in overpriced, low capacity memory cards. As you probably know, if you actually wanted to save anything on your GC, it cost a minimum of another $20 for a third party memory card and $30 for a Nintendo model at launch. The Xbox has a built-in networking adapater which allowed playing games with lots of people on-line at once whereas if you wanted to play one of the handful of on-line capable Gamecube games, you had to invest in an expensive and not widely available plug in adapter. In addition, the significantly faster processor (allowing for the kinds of multiplayer games that previously only PCs could handle) and higher end graphics card are what pushed the cost of the Xbox to $400 as opposed to $200.

[ReaXan]

my problem with the XBox is that it took forever to go down in price, I know it had a hardrive yet I can remember a brand new Gamecube was 99 dollars while the XBox was 150 used and discontinued. I know Memory Cards were expensive but i seem to remember getting a basic one for like 10-15 bucks. I would play one game,beat it,then erase over the old data except for sports rosters. I didn't need massive amount of storage space compared to some who used their XBox as a media center for music and what not. I am beginning to finally see why it didn't go down in price but I still contest it was too high for too long.
I think if you took the best aspects from

PS2-The Library and 3rd party support(Games/Periphials)
Gamecube-The cost effective cube design and controller(Graphics/Controller)
XBox-Online capability and the Hardrive(Online Multiplayer/Media)

You would have the perfect system

I would have that system look like the Panasonic Q or the PSX

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/16/psx-5100.jpg

http://www.gamecubicle.com/images/q-image-480.jpg

[ReaXan]

delete

[j_factor]

Most of the time, the reason Gamecube looks better than PS2 is due to superior textures, anti-aliasing, and other such things. While they are very significant to a game's visuals, do they fall under "power"? I'm not so sure.

[ReaXan]

I think everyone would have been more than content with the Gamecube's graphics last gen if it had a better library,DVD support and a hardrive.

The PS2's graphics initially didn't even look better than the Dreamcast's when it first came out. So mark that out

The XBox was expensive to make despite being well-equipped for First Person shooters.

I think the Gamecube was the perfect compromise for graphics for that generation.

I do however think the Cube gets a bad rep this generation because of people having to endure the Wii's graphics, which is basically a Gamecube that is 20 percent better.

[Greg2600]

my problem with the XBox is that it took forever to go down in price, I know it had a hardrive yet I can remember a brand new Gamecube was 99 dollars while the XBox was 150 used and discontinued. I know Memory Cards were expensive but i seem to remember getting a basic one for like 10-15 bucks. I would play one game, beat it, then erase over the old data except for sports rosters. I didn't need massive amount of storage space compared to some who used their XBox as a media center for music and what not. I am beginning to finally see why it didn't go down in price but I still contest it was too high for too long.
I think if you took the best aspects from

PS2-The Library and 3rd party support(Games/Periphials)
Gamecube-The cost effective cube design and controller(Graphics/Controller)
XBox-Online capability and the Hardrive(Online Multiplayer/Media)

You would have the perfect systemI think Xbox went down to $149.99 new after 2+ years? I know it was in Spring '04. You had to have the hard drive for XBOX Live, and yes, it was very handy for game saves, not having to worry about memory cards (which I loathe). Unless you were way into game mods or complex sims, the Xbox was the PC plus console experience all in one. The library and DVD-play and online play really outshown the Gamecube (PS2 did as well). Plus people want the next new thing. That was not the Gamecube.

PS: Bojay, Rob is just making the point that the Xbox was graphically superior because they it used much more advanced and expensive components. That Nintendo used a less powerful, less expensive architecture, and the result was pretty close to Microsoft's. Microsoft did what it knew best, it worked with PC-like components.

[Rob2600]

You appear to be a Nintendo fan boy who is intent on bashing the Xbox at any chance.

I didn't bash the Xbox at all. In a few posts in this thread, I wrote that in the hands of the best developers, the GameCube could produce around 22-26 million polygons/second (in-game), while the Xbox could produce around 30-35 million polygons/second (in-game). How is that bashing the Xbox?


The Gamecube has some great games and I think it was a great console. Having said that, it's not even close to the Xbox in graphics capability and it can't push the kind of detail or number of elements on screen that the Xbox can. ...

Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube is great. Of course, like all Resident Evil games, your character moves relatively slowly and there aren't hundreds of enemies on screen at once. It's the perfect game for a capable but not necessarily technically spectacular console

Julian Eggebrecht at Factor 5 would probably disagree with you. The two Star Wars Rogue Squadron games on the GameCube featured plenty of fast-moving, detailed elements, plus fancy lighting effects. F-Zero GX, too.

I'm not saying the GameCube out-performed the Xbox. I'm just saying the GameCube came pretty close in the hands of the right developers.


the significantly faster processor...and higher end graphics card are what pushed the cost of the Xbox to $400 as opposed to $200.

As I wrote in an earlier post:

A 485 MHz PowerPC G3 CPU (very similar to the GameCube's Gekko CPU) and a 733 MHz Pentium III (very similar to the Xbox's CPU) have very close performance benchmarks. One CPU isn't significantly more powerful than the other. Don't fall for the megahertz myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth).

Also, the Xbox had more RAM, but the GameCube had double the L2 cache (256 KB vs. 128 KB). So far, one console still isn't significantly more powerful than the other, but...

...The biggest difference between the Xbox and GameCube was the GPU. The Xbox's GPU was more powerful than the GameCube's in almost every way.


So overall, yes, the Xbox edged out the GC in terms of visuals, but the difference isn't quite as gigantic as you claim.



PS: Bojay, Rob is just making the point that the Xbox was graphically superior because it used much more advanced and expensive components. That Nintendo used a less powerful, less expensive architecture, and the result was pretty close to Microsoft's.

Exactly. I was just trying to figure out why the Xbox supposedly cost around $400 to manufacture, while the GameCube supposedly cost around $195. Questioning things and trying to figure something out isn't the same as bashing.

[The 1 2 P]

PS: Bojay, Rob is just making the point that the Xbox was graphically superior because they it used much more advanced and expensive components. That Nintendo used a less powerful, less expensive architecture, and the result was pretty close to Microsoft's. Microsoft did what it knew best, it worked with PC-like components.


Exactly. I was just trying to figure out why the Xbox supposedly cost around $400 to manufacture, while the GameCube supposedly cost around $195. Questioning things and trying to figure something out isn't the same as bashing.

Before I play mediator for everyone in here, answer this: are you two brothers? Surely you have to be related somehow with the "2600" in your screen names and the "New Jersey" state of residency. Coincidence? Thats what OJ said about his bloody footprints at the scene of the crime.

[Rob2600]

Before I play mediator for everyone in here, answer this: are you two brothers? Surely you have to be related somehow with the "2600" in your screen names and the "New Jersey" state of residency. Coincidence? Thats what OJ said about his bloody footprints at the scene of the crime.

We're friends, not brothers. We do a pop culture podcast called The Paunch Stevenson Show (http://www.paunchstevenson.com). You should check it out sometime.

[Bojay1997]

I didn't bash the Xbox at all. In a few posts in this thread, I wrote that in the hands of the best developers, the GameCube could produce around 22-26 million polygons/second (in-game), while the Xbox could produce around 30-35 million polygons/second (in-game). How is that bashing the Xbox?



Julian Eggebrecht at Factor 5 would probably disagree with you. The two Star Wars Rogue Squadron games on the GameCube featured plenty of fast-moving, detailed elements, plus fancy lighting effects. F-Zero GX, too.

I'm not saying the GameCube out-performed the Xbox. I'm just saying the GameCube came pretty close in the hands of the right developers.



As I wrote in an earlier post:

A 485 MHz PowerPC G3 CPU (very similar to the GameCube's Gekko CPU) and a 733 MHz Pentium III (very similar to the Xbox's CPU) have very close performance benchmarks. One CPU isn't significantly more powerful than the other. Don't fall for the megahertz myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth).

Also, the Xbox had more RAM, but the GameCube had double the L2 cache (256 KB vs. 128 KB). So far, one console still isn't significantly more powerful than the other, but...

...The biggest difference between the Xbox and GameCube was the GPU. The Xbox's GPU was more powerful than the GameCube's in almost every way.


So overall, yes, the Xbox edged out the GC in terms of visuals, but the difference isn't quite as gigantic as you claim.




Exactly. I was just trying to figure out why the Xbox supposedly cost around $400 to manufacture, while the GameCube supposedly cost around $195. Questioning things and trying to figure something out isn't the same as bashing.

No, no you weren't. If that had been your intention, you would have said something like, the Gamecube was a good deal for a system that offered better graphics performance than the PS2 for a 30% lower launch cost and looked pretty good for a system half the price of the Xbox. Instead, you claimed that a $200 system had indistinguishable performance from a $400 system which in the same sentence you admit had 50% better performance specs just in the graphics processor.

A G3 running at 450 is not even close to a Pentium III running at 733 on all of the important measures including floating point performance. You may be confusing a G3 with a G4 which would offer very similar or in some cases better performance on all the critical measures at 450 MHz or higher. Similarly, having a 256 KB cache is not going to overcome an advantage of 16 more megs of RAM, especially with some of the advances NVidia built into the GPU. I have spent many hours working on complex motion graphics and editing projects on both PCs and Macs over the years and I have a good handle on what a Power PC G3 and G4 can do versus a Pentium. The performance boost on the Pentium III over the G3 is something on the order of 50% better.

The GPU on the Xbox can theoretically perform at 80 Gigaflops while the Cubes is about a tenth of that. Heck, the Nividia in the Xbox runs at 233 Mhz while the ATI runs at about 162 MHz. I believe the Gamecube only offers 24 bit color while the Xbox offers full 32 bit. Similarly, the textured fillrate of the Xbox is about 1800 Megatexels/sec while the Cube is only a third of that. I realize this might be minutae, but you can see the difference in Xbox games pretty clearly when you compare them to the same game on the Cube which is a little hard to do because other than sports and some million selling games, there wasn't exactly a ton of cross-over on the two libraries

The Rogue Squadron games were good, but I don't think anyone would accuse them of having the most stunning visuals on the Gamecube. The games played lots of fog and distance tricks to make it look like a lot more was going on than actually was and I recall tons of pop-up which you wouldn't see in a game of the same type like Crimson Skies on the Xbox. Frankly, the fact that you couldn't play large-scale multiplayer was a huge disappointment in Rogue Squadron. I would pit the Xbox version of Battlefront against those games anyday. Don't even get me started on Fight Night or most of the EA sports titles which looked amazing on the Xbox and really flat and mediocre on both the GC and PS2.

You already know why the Xbox was more expensive based on the text of your earlier post. It had a hard drive, networking and a processor and graphics unit that were on the bleeding edge of technology at the time. If you want more info about the actual development and cost of the Xbox, I would suggest you pick up the book Opening the Xbox.

[ReaXan]

I think some of you are correct on saying that some people are underating the power of the XBox yet at the same time painting a picture that the Gamecube was seriously more weak than the XBox. I don't even think the true power of the XBox was ever realized to be honest.Microsoft got close but I don't even think they did. I believe the Cube's was however,Capcom I think proved that.

I remember playing games such as Resident Evil 1,0 and 4 on the Cube and thought they looked amazing at the time. I loved that I could get my Resident Evil cannon fix by investing in a cheap little machine like the Cube.I wanted to give the XBox a chance but I basically saw it as a glorified PC. I am a computer builder so I saw that I could upgrade my video card to the top of the line for the price of the XBox yet still blowing it out of the water graphically by a large margin. Look at Doom 3 on PC High and then on the XBox and get back to me.

If you already had a decent PC the XBox didnt look that attactive compared to a cheap Gamecube that had my favorite exclusive series Resident Evil. (Yes I know about Outbreak and the other ports on the PS2, they are shit).Some games are just better on a home console and the Gamecube was a nice option to have for Sports,Zelda,Mario and whatever.


I am from the NES generation so I look at the XBox as what the SNES was to me. The XBox was many people on this board's second system and was their main one for a majority of their childhood/teenage years. So their is natural nostalgia attached to that.

[Greg2600]

We're friends, not brothers. We do a pop culture podcast called The Paunch Stevenson Show (http://www.paunchstevenson.com). You should check it out sometime.
And when the Nintendo subject comes up, we often disagree.

[The 1 2 P]

We're friends, not brothers. We do a pop culture podcast called The Paunch Stevenson Show (http://www.paunchstevenson.com). You should check it out sometime.


And when the Nintendo subject comes up, we often disagree.

I'll have to check it out just so I can see you two cat fightingLOL

[Rob2600]

The answer to the original post is:

The GameCube was more powerful than the PlayStation 2, but not quite as powerful as the Xbox. Again, 12-20 million polygons/second (PS2) vs. 22-26 million polygons/second (GC) vs. roughly 35 million polygons/second (Xbox). Just for comparison, the Dreamcast produced 5-6 million polygons/second.

Additionally, the GameCube can handle up to 8 texture layers and features 6-to-1 texture compression, full scene anti-aliasing, bump mapping, reflection mapping, texture filtering, and a 24-bit z-buffer, all in the hardware. It was a well-designed, efficient, powerful machine, especially for $200.



I have spent many hours working on complex motion graphics

I thought you're a lawyer?


The GPU on the Xbox can theoretically perform at 80 Gigaflops while the Cubes is about a tenth of that. ... I believe the Gamecube only offers 24 bit color while the Xbox offers full 32 bit.

Then why don't Xbox games look 10 times better than GameCube games? Theoretical specs are useless. In-game specs are obviously what count. I'm not saying the best-looking Xbox games don't look better than the best-looking GameCube games. They do look a bit better, but not 10 times better...not even 2 times better.

And both the GameCube and Xbox are capable of 24-bit RGB and 32-bit RGB (which is basically 24-bit RGB plus 8 bits of alpha blending).

Even if the Xbox could display true 32-bit color depth, the vast majority of current TVs and computer monitors can't display more than 24-bit color anyway, which is already photo quality.


The Rogue Squadron games were good, but I don't think anyone would accuse them of having the most stunning visuals on the Gamecube. The games played lots of fog and distance tricks to make it look like a lot more was going on than actually was and I recall tons of pop-up

Hmmm, I don't recall any pop-up in the Gamecube Rogue Squadron games. And I do think they're two of the most impressive-looking GameCube games.

How about F-Zero GX? Complex backgrounds, plenty of cars on-screen, fancy lighting effects, and super-fast motion...all at 60 fps. That's one of the most impressive-looking GameCube games, too. What do you think?

[Bojay1997]

The answer to the original post is:

The GameCube was more powerful than the PlayStation 2, but not quite as powerful as the Xbox. Again, 12-20 million polygons/second (PS2) vs. 22-26 million polygons/second (GC) vs. roughly 35 million polygons/second (Xbox). Just for comparison, the Dreamcast produced 5-6 million polygons/second.

Additionally, the GameCube can handle up to 8 texture layers and features 6-to-1 texture compression, full scene anti-aliasing, bump mapping, reflection mapping, texture filtering, and a 24-bit z-buffer, all in the hardware. It was a well-designed, efficient, powerful machine, especially for $200.




I thought you're a lawyer?



Then why don't Xbox games look 10 times better than GameCube games? Theoretical specs are useless. In-game specs are obviously what count. I'm not saying the best-looking Xbox games don't look better than the best-looking GameCube games. They do look a bit better, but not 10 times better...not even 2 times better.

And both the GameCube and Xbox are capable of 24-bit RGB and 32-bit RGB (which is basically 24-bit RGB plus 8 bits of alpha blending).

Even if the Xbox could display true 32-bit color depth, the vast majority of current TVs and computer monitors can't display more than 24-bit color anyway, which is already photo quality.



Hmmm, I don't recall any pop-up in the Gamecube Rogue Squadron games. And I do think they're two of the most impressive-looking GameCube games.

How about F-Zero GX? Complex backgrounds, plenty of cars on-screen, fancy lighting effects, and super-fast motion...all at 60 fps. That's one of the most impressive-looking GameCube games, too. What do you think?

Yes, and a television producer as well, with a love for cutting edge post-production technology. As I have already stated, I think the Gamecube is a great system. It is not, however great for every application and it certainly could not touch the Xbox for multiplayer and on-line applications. The Gamecube also does not get anywhere close to the Xbox in a number of game genres like FPS or sports games simply because it can't push the same level of graphic detail while maintaining multiple player controlled and computer controlled characters. It's clear from your posts in this thread and in the previous Xbox thread that you have some type of irrational dislike for the Xbox. I think being being wed to any one platform is ridiculous and leads to missing out on some amazing games in every generation. It's unfortunate that you are not open minded enough to see beyond Nintendo.

I would encourage you to replay the Rogue Squadron games and see if things don't just pop-up, especially in parts of the game where massive waves of enemies are involved. It's not to the point where I felt cheated by the game or its AI, but it lead to a feeling that the game was a little more scripted than most similar space simulation action games. F-Zero is great on the Gamecube, but I don't think it had the same level of graphic detail or speed that games like Quantum Redshift had on the Xbox. I would say that in general, Nintendo first party games on the Cube have a lot more character and charm than their Xbox equivalents, but there are times when as a gamer you're looking for more than charm and that's where the need to own a PS2 and Xbox come in.

[makaar]

I think if games were developed for each console for 10 years you would see the limits pushed for development (obvious statement). Usually (not always) towards the end of a console's life, you see a lot of great games come out. Like Shadow of the Colossus, that was really ahead of its time graphically, and Perfect Dark/Conker's BFD were both high-end N64 titles.

I just wish they were still making games for some of these systems so we could see the limits the systems could go...oh well.

[Gentlegamer]

I would encourage you to replay the Rogue Squadron games and see if things don't just pop-up, especially in parts of the game where massive waves of enemies are involved.Have you seen RETURN OF THE JEDI? It's being true the source material. :)

[Mimi Nakamura]

A good example for me is Resident Evil 4. The GC version is superior in nearly every way to the PS2 verion.

Exactly.

[Rob2600]

A G3 running at 450 is not even close to a Pentium III running at 733

I guess Adobe Photoshop didn't get the memo. In benchmarks I've seen, they're just about equal. Then again, I don't work with 3D motion graphics, so I don't know about those benchmarks.


The Gamecube also does not get anywhere close to the Xbox in a number of game genres like FPS or sports games simply because it can't push the same level of graphic detail while maintaining multiple player controlled and computer controlled characters.

No...the GameCube didn't get as many sports games because those versions didn't sell as well as the PS2 and Xbox versions. Graphics had nothing to do with it. If they did, the PS2 would've had even fewer sports games than the GC.

And obviously the Gamecube could handle detailed graphics, fast action, and multiple players/characters. Have you ever played the Time Splitters series on the GameCube? How about 007: NightFire or 007: Everything or Nothing? F-Zero GX? Madden? Even the Pikmin series featured detailed graphics and lots of characters on-screen.

Also, what about Spartan: Total Warrior? The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King? The Chronicles of Narnia? King Kong? Those games look equally as great on both the GC and the Xbox. One version isn't 10 times (or even 1.5 times) better looking than the other.


you have some type of irrational dislike for the Xbox.

No, I'm just responding to the original post by stating how powerful the GameCube is.

My old roommate had an Xbox and I had a GameCube. Burnout 2 on the GC looked just as good as Project Gotham Racing on the Xbox. Resident Evil 4 looked just as good as The Chronicles of Riddick. Star Fox Adventures looked just as good as Halo. Beach Spikers looked just as good as Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball. etc.


F-Zero is great on the Gamecube, but I don't think it had the same level of graphic detail or speed that games like Quantum Redshift had on the Xbox.

F-Zero GX didn't have speed? It's one of the fastest games I've ever played and features plenty of detail. Plus, it runs at a constant 60 frames per second in 480p and widescreen.


Once again, the Xbox was more powerful than the GameCube. I'm not denying that. However, it wasn't 10 times more powerful like you seem to believe. Exaggerated theoretical hardware specs are one thing, but I'm talking about real-world, in-game graphics. Some Xbox games look slightly better than some GameCube games, but I've never seen the huge difference that you claim.

[Bojay1997]

I guess Adobe Photoshop didn't get the memo. In benchmarks I've seen, they're just about equal. Then again, I don't work with 3D motion graphics, so I don't know about those benchmarks.



No...the GameCube didn't get as many sports games because those versions didn't sell as well as the PS2 and Xbox versions. Graphics had nothing to do with it. If they did, then the PS2 would've had even fewer sports games as the GC.

And obviously the Gamecube could handle detailed graphics, fast action, and multiple players/characters. Have you ever played the Time Splitters series on the GameCube? How about 007: NightFire or 007: Everything or Nothing? F-Zero GX? Madden? Even the Pikmin series featured detailed graphics and lots of characters on-screen.

Also, what about Spartan: Total Warrior? The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King? The Chronicles of Narnia? King Kong? Those games look equally as great on both the GC and the Xbox. One version isn't 10 times (or even 1.5 times) better looking than the other.



No, I'm just responding to the original post by stating how powerful the GameCube is.

My old roommate had an Xbox and I had a GameCube. Burnout 2 on the GC looked just as good as Project Gotham Racing on the Xbox. Resident Evil 4 looked just as good as The Chronicles of Riddick. Star Fox Adventures looked just as good as Halo. Beach Spikers looked just as good as Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball. etc.



F-Zero GX didn't have speed? It's one of the fastest games I've ever played and features plenty of detail. Plus, it runs at a constant 60 frames per second in 480p and widescreen.


Once again, the Xbox was more powerful than the GameCube. I'm not denying that. However, it wasn't 10 times more powerful like you seem to believe. Exaggerated theoretical hardware specs are one thing, but I'm talking about real-world, in-game graphics. Some Xbox games look slightly better than some GameCube games, but I've never seen the huge difference that you claim.

I'm sorry, but I think the list of comparisons you made above are further proof that you don't know what you're talking about. The level of detail in environments and character models in games like Halo, PGR, and DoA Exteme Volleyball are several factors above the games you compared them to. Spend five minutes playing Halo next to Star Fox Adventures in a room full of neutral people and I guarantee 100% of them will agree that the speed and detail of the environments and graphics in Halo are several times that of SFA. That's not even mentioning the fact that you can play massive multiplayer games at the same level of detail on-line. Trying to do that on the Gamecube means splitting a single screen into tiny little lower detail boxes. Even bringing up crappy games like Nightfire and Chronicles of Narnia is absurd. I don't think any of the versions of those games are what I would consider to be good, so who cares if the Xbox version and the GC version both looked good to you. The developers didn't spend much time doing a good job on any version, so it's an invalid reference.

When I mentioned sports games, I was specifically comparing Madden and the 2K series which were released on both platforms. The player models in the Xbox versions were vastly superior to the GC versions. Plus, you can actually play the Xbox versions on-line with actual other people. Try doing that on the GC. It's not even close.

Seeing a game console owned by your former roommate is not the same as owning one and spending hours daily playing games on it and on the Gamecube. Your bias in this debate is obvious and it is easy to see when compared with your responses in other threads where other people noted your unapologetic pro-Nintendo arguments.

It's more than a slight detail and speed difference, if I had to put a number on it, I'd say it's more like 30% in multi-platform games and as much as 100% in games like Halo when compared to other FPS on other platforms from that generation. To me, that's worth owning the Xbox, particularly with its library of exclusives. I suppose you would claim in this generation that the PS3 and 360 aren't significantly better graphics and performance wise when compared to the Wii?

[hellfire]

Its pretty powerful, you could beat somebody over the head with it :smash:

[Rob2600]

bringing up crappy games like Nightfire and Chronicles of Narnia is absurd.

007: Nightfire received an 8.0/10 overall on the Xbox and GameCube. That's your definition of "crappy?"

Chronicles of Narnia received a 7.1/10 overall. Again, that's "crappy?"


I'm just saying.


It's more than a slight detail and speed difference, if I had to put a number on it, I'd say it's more like 30% in multi-platform games

How about Beyond Good and Evil? Is that a good enough example for you? The Xbox version doesn't look noticeably better than the GC version, let alone 30% better like you claim.

[scooterb23]

It's been 8 years since the systems came out. Seriously, let it go.

There isn't even a dead horse to beat anymore, it has decayed and has blown away in the wind.

[The 1 2 P]

But some people like to :deadhorse: until it looks like a persian rug.

[Rob2600]

It's been 8 years since the systems came out. Seriously, let it go.

There isn't even a dead horse to beat anymore, it has decayed and has blown away in the wind.


But some people like to :deadhorse: until it looks like a persian rug.

This discussion bothers you, yet you keep reading and replying. Interesting. :)

[The 1 2 P]

This discussion bothers you, yet you keep reading and replying. Interesting. :)

Who said it bothers me? I don't remember typing that.

[scooterb23]

This discussion bothers you, yet you keep reading and replying. Interesting. :)

It's one of those things I do to make me feel good about myself. :)

You know, the whole "Man, I did something dumb...but it wasn't THAT dumb" kind of thing.

By all means, keep it going...I've been sending highlights to my non-gaming friends so they can get a laugh as well.

[Rob2600]

By all means, keep it going

Okay.



The level of detail in environments and character models in games like Halo, PGR, and DoA Exteme Volleyball are several factors above the games you compared them to.

I honestly couldn't find any good in-game shots from DOA Volleyball, only renders. I think this is a decent comparison though. Again, the Xbox looks slightly better than the GameCube, but not several times better like you continue to claim.


Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball (Xbox) vs. Beach Spikers (Gamecube) (click for larger version):

http://www.paunchstevenson.com/doaxbvb-beach-spikers-sm.jpg (http://www.paunchstevenson.com/doaxbvb-beach-spikers.jpg)


Project Gotham Racing (Xbox) vs. Burnout 2 (GameCube) (click for larger version):

http://www.paunchstevenson.com/project-gotham-burnout-2-sm.jpg (http://www.paunchstevenson.com/project-gotham-burnout-2.jpg)




I think the list of comparisons you made above are further proof that you don't know what you're talking about. ... I was specifically comparing Madden and the 2K series which were released on both platforms. The player models in the Xbox versions were vastly superior to the GC versions.

Really? They look identical to me:


Madden NFL 07 (Xbox) vs. Madden NFL 07 (GameCube) (click for larger version):

http://www.paunchstevenson.com/madden-nfl-07-xbox-gc-sm.jpg (http://www.paunchstevenson.com/madden-nfl-07-xbox-gc.jpg)


Does anyone honestly think the Xbox version looks "vastly superior?"

[CelticJobber]

Does anyone honestly think the Xbox version looks "vastly superior?"

Only a certain XBox supporter who's been posting innaccurate claims in this thread to back up his favorite system, I would presume. ;)

[tom]

But the Dreamcast is most powerful of all

[Icarus Moonsight]

Wait I'm confused... Did the Gamecube or Xbox have the biggest penis? Judging by the mass of the big black and green box I'm thinking steroids. Beefy, but greatly diminished twigs and berries. Then again, the Gamecube is fucking PURPLE! LOL

*lightbulb* Now I get it, it's not really about the systems now is it? :D

[Greg2600]

If you line GC and XB up side by side, the Xbox would win, mainly thanks to the graphics card. It has much better lighting and shading, draw distance, etc. It's noticeable. But the Gamecube is no slouch. In fact, I always thought it was, never having played it for years. But several years ago, I looked at screenshots, and it's pretty close, and if you had a Gamecube, you weren't missing out on anything. The simple fact was that the Gamecube had Nintendo staples like Mario Sunshine, Kart DD, Zelda, Metroid, etc. The Xbox had 1st party games like Project Gotham and Halo, where the teams could make use of the Xbox's advantages. 3rd party are less likely to.

The moral of the story is the Xbox and Gamecube had better graphics than the PS2, and the GC was cheaper, yet the PS2 sold more units. What sense does that make?