Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

GameCube Hardware In Depth on Anandtech 183

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
plootid submitted linkage to a fairly technical look at the GameCube running over at AnandTech. You can learn about the hardware that makes the new Smash Bros. possible. Something about seeing Samus doing battle with Pikachu makes me want to know more about the PowerPC chip that powers the system ;)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GameCube Hardware In Depth on Anandtech More

GameCube Hardware In Depth on Anandtech

Comments Filter:
  • Since the Gekko is a native RISC processor it does not suffer the same fate as its Xbox counterpart in that it doesn't have to spend much time in the fetch/decoding stages of the pipeline. Immediately upon fetching the RISC instructions to be executed, they are dispatched and one clock cycle later, they are ready to be sent to the execution units.

    Doesn't that simply mean that the PowerPC processor (Gekko) doesn't utilize microcode, rather than being an inherent advantage of the RISC architecture. I mean, couldn't there be a RISC processor with several state machines which depend on each other's instruction sets?
    • I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, but you're right the RISC CPUs do kinda chunk the microcode overboard. If you want more details I suggest you check out the Black Papers on ArsTechnica [arstechnica.com]. They have a great article on CISC vs. RISC [arstechnica.com].

      JOhn
      • What I meant was, usually what's referred to as microcode is implemented by having a FSM which fetches the instructions and translates them (or part of them) to run on another FSM, as opposed to directly manipulating the CPU modules, such as an ALU, etc. Obviously this would make your decode phase more complicated.

        So, my question is, does RISC imply that you only should only have one-level state machine in your CPU, or what? I'll read this article and hopefully that'll answer my question, thanks for the link.

  • Get it on one page (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DarkNova ( 4131 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @01:30PM (#2671774)
    Get the whole thing on one page [anandtech.com], much less annoying.
  • Put a mini screen to play it in your car.

    Cool little screen [ign.com]

    The kids may be getting a GC instead of XBOX now.

  • Mac on GC? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by KurdtX ( 207196 )
    Now that we've covered stories about the effort to put linux on the Dreamcast and Playstation 2, how long will it be before the Mac OS runs on the GameCube - it's just an enhanced G3 that I'm running right now.

    If anyone is forming a project, let me know by responding to this comment.
    • I think it would be an absolute coup for Apple to take the (cheap) graphics chip from the flipper and plop it inside their next-generation iMac. Add a GameCube-USB controller adapter, and you've finally got an answer to the eternal complaint that there aren't any good games on the Mac.

      But back to the original idea, exactly how hard would it be to get Darwin working on one of these things? Storage media aside (hopefully there will be some sort of hard drive available soon enough), all that would need to be written would be drivers for the Flipper chip and the controllers. And once you've got a working Darwin PPC platform, how hard would it be to get Quartz / Aqua working on top of that?

      Great, now I've got two things to dream about..

      ___
      Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.

      • I think it would be an absolute coup for Apple to take the (cheap) graphics chip from the flipper and plop it inside their next-generation iMac.

        No way. The Flipper chip was not designed for all-out performance. The entire design of the Gamecube was to maximize performance out of a little box. Furthermore, ATI didn't have much input into the design of the Flipper, even though their logo is stamped on every Gamecube case. Current ATI graphics cards will provide much better performance using the current DDR memory designs.

        This would have been a great machine to run Linux off of if they would have provided a better I/O system. Would it have been so hard to throw in a firewire card? Geez.
        • what good would a firewire card do? The cube is supposed to be a pure GAMING machine, not another attempt at PC/console convergence. A firewire card would have added to the bulk and cost of the machine, which is very much against Nintendo's wishes for this system.

          And regardless of whether or not adding firewire would have been easy for nintendo, it would be an attempt at catering to the hacker set - which Nintendo is NOT about to do anytime soon. Nintendo enjoys the fact that its machines are practically unhackable and its games are very well protected against copying (PC emulation excluded). And i can't say that i blame them.

  • A new domain for Nintendo? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gogl ( 125883 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @01:35PM (#2671811) Journal
    It seems to me like the Gamecube is an attempt by Nintendo to get at a new domain of customers that they traditionally don't aim at.

    Nintendo has been a console of the children. I would say ballpark 6 to 15 years of age is Nintendo time. After that, Playstation and the now-defunct Sega take over for the most part. N64 was still a very much "little kiddy" console, compared with the Playstation and Dreamcast. X-Box I'm not even going to factor in at this point, as I don't expect them to meet with tremendous success this go-around. Likely Microsoft wouldn't mind having the whole console gaming market, but that's not the issue.

    Essentially it seems to me like Gamecube not only aims at the kids who are now 6-15 years old, but at those who were 6-15 years old and played on NES or SNES. Nintendo seems to be broadening their market.

    This will play out pretty interestingly. I'd like to see a nice comparison of the Gamecube and the PS2. Sony is no lightweight and will not let go of their market easily.

    In fact, I just had a revelation, albeit an obvious one. This is capitalism at work. Three strong companies duking it out. And since for once the sides are relatively balanced this might actually be at the benefit of the consumer. Who'd of thunk it?

    • Re:A new domain for Nintendo? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Friday December 07, 2001 @01:42PM (#2671854) Homepage
      When I was down at E3, the differences were pretty evident, and as time goes on, I expect those differences to tone down a bit, but never really change.

      Sony's main market is 16-25 year olds, which is the same as Microsoft's. Nintendo's is a little odder - they hit 9-16, and 25 and older. Aka, more of a "family" demographic. Granted, there is bleed over from one to the other (Nintendo's getting the Resident Evil remakes, while Sony's getting Kingdom Hearts from Square, a Disney/Square collaboration).

      What's going to be interesting is to watch how all 3 use their powers. Sony's got shares into some very powerful game making company (Square, Enix, Verant (who has the Star Wars Galaxies game under their belt), as well as quite a bit of cash. Microsoft has cash, and the ability to swing PC game makers to the Xbox (since the Xbox uses DirectX 8, and it's easier to design a game for one system than for the 40 billion different kind of PC's out there).

      Nintendo has two ace in the holes. First, they just make some great, fun games. Super Smash Brothers Melee, more Pokemon games (and I don't care what folks say - I enjoy it), and other licenses that aren't going away. And they're GameBoy Advance has no practical challengers out there, which gives them the ability to look at developers who want to make a GameBoy Advance game and say "Sure, you can make a game for the GBA - if you promise to make a game for the GameCube".

      Either way, I don't see any of the three vanishing for some time. Nintendo will hold their position as a provider of fun games, Sony will probably stay on top (and the upcoming 40 Gig hard drive addition to the PS2 won't hurt), and the Xbox will continue to fight with Sony for whatever they can get, and push the other two guys to keep innovating.

      Either way, the consumer wins from competition, and I'm eager to see what happens.
    • I disagree. While the most recent N64 games (Pokecrap, etc.) were obviously aimed at children, when it was first released, the N64 had a wide variety of games to appeal to people of all ages. I was a freshman in college when the N64 came out (1997) and we had a blast in my dorm with Mario Kart, Goldeneye, and Madden 64. Granted, N64 had its share of 'kiddie' games at that time as well, but Nintendo continued to release games that appealed to all ages (Zelda, among others.) 18-20 year olds don't fit your demographic of 6-15.

      I really think the idea of Nintendo as a 'kiddie games' company isn't very valid. It's only perceived this way because a) a larger set of actual 'kiddie' games are released (and become popular) for Nintendo consoles and b) Nintendo releases games that appeal to all ages, and most of the time these titles avoid gratiuitous violence and sexual content, at least compared to Sony or Sega console games.
      • While the most recent N64 games (Pokecrap, etc.) were obviously aimed at children

        etc = Conker's Bad Fur Day

        If I had a kid I'd lock that game in the closet next to the home defense mechanism I wouldn't have.
    • Did you get yours yet?

      You are supposed to spam the religion and astrology newsgroups with that link. I don't think that there is a moron who reads Slashdot that will give you a click-thru.
    • Ehh... I disagree. The n64 seemed to kind of dominate my collage campus for a few years. Everyone bought a playstation at first, but then games like Golden Eye, 1080 SnowBoarding, and Zelda game out... so everyone ran out to buy a 64. he only thing I found my Ps 1 good for (after Resident Evil) was Tony Hawk (which later came out on the 64 and looked 10 times better).

      For some reason Nintendo has been getting a bad wrap because of Miyamoto's games. People think they are kiddy games or something. However, Miyamoto makes the coolest stuff. Miyamoto's the reaons I bought a cube. Games like Mario Cart, Super Smash Bros, and even Pokemon on the game boy were actually very very good games.... I advise playing them.

    • Re:A new domain for Nintendo? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mystery_bowler ( 472698 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @02:02PM (#2671954) Homepage
      IMHO, I think it's good that Nintendo has an almost fluffy, cartoon feeling to their current crop of games (Super Monkey Ball, Smash Bros., and Luigi's Castle in particular). It carries forth the stylings of other hit games of theirs, such as great SNES games like Zelda: A Link To The Past and Super Mario World and the Mario game for the N64. I've seen so many dark, grim, gloomy, "edgy" games that I'm sick of them. Give me vivid colors, bouncy music, and a huge dose of good ol' arcade fun.

      Don't get me wrong, I've played plenty of dark, thoughtful and grim games. I enjoy many of them. But my game time is limited (what, with work, family, blah blah blah), so give me an ejoyable, light-hearted game where I can sit down, game on and let my brain go into "smile and drool" mode.

      These are games, for cryin' out loud. Maybe they were targeted for little kids, maybe they weren't. Maybe we can all just hush up, quit worrying about the targeted market and enjoy them. ;)

      • Well said! I actually had a PS2 and sold it to get a GameCube, precisely for the "smile and drool" mode that you mention. When you play games in short burts (i.e., maybe a half-hour at a time) you can't really get into the extended backstory type of games too well. Super Monkey Ball is a game, Final Fantasy is work!

      • Re:A new domain for Nintendo? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ZaMoose ( 24734 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @03:32PM (#2672484)
        Then you'll enjoy Jak & Daxter [ign.com] for the PS2. Give it a go, it's a hoot.

        Also, Rayman Revolution for the oh-so-cheap DC should be a goodly entertaining platformer.

        Oooh, and Bomberman Online just came out for the DC! Now there's some colorful, mindless fun!

    • Re:A new domain for Nintendo? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @02:28PM (#2672122)
      I would say ballpark 6 to 15 years of age is Nintendo time. After that, Playstation and the now-defunct Sega take over for the most part.

      This is the popular myth, but it isn't true. Nintendo does own the 6-13 market. After that, there's the usual teenage rebellion when kids think that Nintendo games are too kiddie and want dark and gritty instead. Think of the difference between the old live-action Batman TV show and Batman Beyond. But then after ten years or so that phase ends and 25 year old players think "Hey, that Nintendo stuff really was pretty good after all."

      Bottom line: Nintendo isn't just for kids; it's simply not for people in the 14-25 age range.
      • I think you're absolutely right. I had a Nintendo in Jr. High and loved it. Later, I switched to Sega Genesis, PS1, then the Dreamcast--and I berated Nintendo for being so childish. I'm 27 now, and while IMing a friend just half an hour ago, I told him that I didn't understand why, but the new Nintendo was strangely appealing.

        I think you're onto something, man!

        --SC

      • I'd have to toss my "me too" in there as well. I am 27 and grew up on Atari 2600, then NES in highschool and SNES into university.

        I owned a PSX after that, and I am just coming up to buying a new console. Which one am I buying? A Gamecube.

        For me (at my age anyways), I use a console for "party" games when my friends are over. An looking at the current/coming titles for the different consoles, it seems to me that the Gamecube will once again have the best games in that category.

  • comparisons (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @01:52PM (#2671904) Homepage
    The Xbox looks like it can crunch any other console, but you know, so many of the developers they grabbed will be porting to the PC. I wonder if they havn't underestimated the overlap of PC gamers and potential Xbox owner demographics.

    I got my Gamecube 3 days ago, and holy crap, it's amazing. The Xbox might look good, but I'll take a the Cube anyday. Better controllers, best 1st party games (Halo might be coming out for PC, isn't that right?), seriously WIKED ASS form factor .. and no harddrive (thank god). It's a console. The Xbox is a PC, to the extent the MS is trying VERY hard to keep developers from wanting to port their MS-sponsered Xbox titles back to the PC (where many of them probably started, in terms of development). I have a PC. :)

    I think the one arena Nintendo may have screwed up is with going with no onboard ethernet card. They are dirt cheap, why didn't they just throw one on?
    • If Halo comes out for the PC does that mean they'll have to remove the "XBox Only" logos from the comercials and boxes?

      Hmmm...
      • Read here [gameplanet.co.nz] about what Xbox Only means. Or wait, I'll spoil it for you:

        "Only on Xbox means not on any other console. It does not mean never coming to Mac or PC. Halo will be coming to Mac and PC." He continued, "We still plan to do a Mac and PC version of Halo, but there are a lot of questions that must be answered before we can make the Mac/PC versions happen."

        Hehe. Yes, it's coming to the PC ...
    • I think the one arena Nintendo may have screwed up is with going with no onboard ethernet card. They are dirt cheap, why didn't they just throw one on?

      Probably because they know they can sell it to you as a separate item later on, for more money?

      Cost is a big factor for consoles. We all know they are loss leaders. Why add on ANY costs now to the main system, when they can sell it to those that want it for profit later on? Cable/ADSL is relatively popular, but the vast majority of their customers will not need it.

      • Re:comparisons (Score:2, Informative)

        by Ardax ( 46430 )
        Perhaps, but the tech is really cheap and the software is redaily available. If Nintendo wanted to get into the online game market, they blew it. A conscious decision to make sure to provide an on-board modem or ethernet port early in the design might have made $20 difference.

        Let's face it: The add-on market for consoles blows goats. Most people will get extra controllers, but that's about it. Many don't get "fancy" controllers either (rapid fire excluded).

        Game developers will make sure that the game works as much as possible on the lowest common denominator system, which means no connectivity. The only system add-ons I've ever seen sell well are mod chips and Game[Genie, Shark, etc.] units.

        Maybe the online game market isn't one that Nintendo every really intended to dig into. By explicitly not providing that option to developers at launch, few of them will want to get into it.
      • Nintendo has always been somewhat enigmatic. Consider that the Gamecube is the first Nintendo console to abandon cartridges. I remember people suggesting that the N64 would die because of the limits cartridges imposed. Maybe Nintendo just understands the demographics better than Sony or Microsoft (or most of us) do, and in particular understands what makes things fun.

        Mario Cart with four people in the same room has got to be way more fun than Mario Cart would be online. I know that Quake is way more fun when the room temp has soared to 85F (despite the window and box fans you've set up), you're bumping elbows with your opponents, and people answer when you shout "did you see how far my head flew?" (followed by someone using the toaster or microwave, blowing a fuse deep in the basement of your ancient house, thereby knocking all the computers and lights out).

        -Paul Komarek
    • Halo isn't the only game. For example "Project Gotham Racing" lets you use some of that 10 gig hard drive to store music that you can substitute in the game. You simply bootup your xbox, pop in an audio cd, rip the tracks, and then load PGR, choose audio and select the tracks you ripped. Now your playing games with the music you like.

      Halo, no matter if it comes out for the PC is a great game on the Xbox. The controller is superb for halo controls, i don't know why people despise the controller so much. It (the xbox controller) is MUCH more confortable with games requiring the dual analog sticks then "thumbing" the PS2 type controllers or monkeying with the Nintendo controllers.

      DVD Support is great in the Xbox as well support all digital audio outputs other then the costly THX output.

      The Xbox isn't meant for PC porting, i don't know whose ass your pulling that out of. I can play EA's games, Tony Hawk and all the other hottest sellers (Including Grand Theft auto) on my PC if you really want to be a wise ass and get precise.

      Don't get me wrong, the Gamecube is a great system if your into the mario stuff.

      Xbox is far from a PC.. And even if it is a "PC", wasn't that what another console maker was trying to do with LInux?

      What makes the Xbox so powerfull and affordable is its pc "roots", hence keeping the cost of ownership for amount of processing power VERY low.

      You will get alot more out of an XBox then you will even the Fastest pc right now for the simple fact there is one VERY high powered video card, one sound card, one network card and a single interface. There is no os overhead, no different drivers, no crashes because someone has a cheap video card, no overhead of background processes.

      The Xbox is a green, lean and mean machine. Your just missing out on some of the action if you limit your consoles to one vendor.

      No, Microsoft isn't lobying pc developers. If you see the latest releases and schedules, most games coming out on the Xbox that are out on PC are coming out for Gamecube and PS2 as well (Max Payne, Unreal Championship, Grand Theft Auto, EA Sports games...) Xbox has its own games though, just like any other console.
      • Why does every x-box fan say that the best feature of the thing is the ability to rip your own music?

        Is that saying that
        A. X-Box games have crappy music.
        or
        B. X-Box owners are not able to shut off the music of other games?

        I agree that it's a cool feature, but you X-heads say it like it's the reason to buy one! Is PGR a good game or not? That's the question I want answered, not a debate over what boy-band is singing during the race.

        All the reviews I've read of X-box games really glow too much. Almost like they were scripted. Sony did the same thing with the PS2, but a lot of negative press got in there too. For now, I think I'll just play some Phantasy Star 2 on my DC and wait too see if some really good RPGs come out. Or if they announce a non MMRPG Final Fantasy or Phantasy Star for the system.

        Sega, bring back the story of Phantasy Star. It is too good to die.
        • It is just a feature of the xbox to rip your own tracks. People wonder what the disk is for and that is one of the features.

          The 10 gig disk has room for 50,000 game saves and when you fill that up, it alots room for another 50,000 more (not sure how many it really holds).

          The Disk also caches for better load times, and will act as a storage device for the Gaming network so you can download game demos and try before you buy.

          Project gotham in its own has killer music. I love driving through NYC listening to Hot 97 fm, hitting england hearing the chemical brothers, hitting san francisco listening to surf music and finally racing in japan with jap pop playing. Physics, Gameply and graphics are superb, smash your ferrari into a lit up sign and you see the reflections against the car as well as the damage, braze the guardraul and see guardrail damage, get bumbed by another car and see fender damage as well as headlights/tailights bust out. Hell you can even see your driver looking around and changing gears!

          The games are far from scripted, Munch's Odysee is a beautifull game. I don't even know what you mean by "glow to much" other then the fact if you play Munch's Odysee you just fall lin love with the characters because they're fun, loveable and personable. Even though they're ugly they react to you, they're funny and fit very well into the game that Munch's Odysee is.

          Phantasy star is on the Dreamcast and is coming to Gamecube as well as the Xbox.

          PGR is a F**KIN awesome game. 300 levels, beatiful graphics, killer soundtrack, EXCELLENT controls and challenging. You won't beat it in 3-5 days, you will get pissed off and try and try again until you actually get the skills to win. Many different challenges from street racing to "kudo" point scoring pending your abilities to slam a ferrari around a corse and not hit the walls and make the best time.

          Excellent game, excellent console and the freedoms of music choice are just a small reason to choose the xbox.

    • Re:comparisons (Score:4, Funny)

      by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @05:22PM (#2673121) Homepage Journal
      The Xbox looks like it can crunch any other console

      Yeh, maybe if you dropped it on one...
  • I have read several of these hardware comparisons, and while they are certainly interesting for what they are (hardware comparisons) I cannot help but continue to feel that they are missing the point: the games.

    In this article, it seemed the games were not even mentioned until the very final paragraph. While I do understand that was not the point of the article, I would care for Slashdot link to more game reviews and comparisons.

    To be quite honest, I do not care which console has the absolutely greater graphics. Even the aging PS2 is still comparable to the latest two consoles, and while there is always room for improvement, all three are bassically "good enough."

    I have been playing Super Smash Brothers Melee since its release perhaps three weeks ago here. It is a wonderful game, better than the Nintendo 64 original, and most enjoyable. While it is always interesting to see the consoles compared in terms of their hardware, I would also like to see more links to a comparison of Xbox games (since I cannot yet buy it ^_^).

    Thank you.

    R. Suzuka
    • You won't see many comparaisons of X-Box games because they are all crap. There is not an original game on the system yet. Halo, and Munch for all their touting as great, revolutionarity games, turned out to be just more of the same. Munch the classic 3-D platformer and Halo just another FPS.

      In my opinion, the only companies that have delivered real innovation to the game industry in the last 5 years are Nintendo and Sega. A few PC developers may have thought of an idea first, but Nintendo has taken that idea and fully realized it. Just look at Zelda, it was not an original idea, the 3-d adventure game. However, the execution was flawless, taking the genre to a whole new level.

  • Article is wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mhatle ( 54607 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @02:01PM (#2671950) Homepage
    I stopped reading the article on the second page. The Gecko CPU is based on the Book E standard and IBM's (not yet released) PPC 440 processor. The only thing common between the "Book E" standard PPC and regular PowerPC's like the 750 are the usermode instructions are the same. Supervisory mode such as memory management, page tables, etc are all changed.

    --Mark

  • Gameboy Advance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by addaon ( 41825 ) <addaon+slashdot@nOsPAM.gmail.com> on Friday December 07, 2001 @02:04PM (#2671962)
    I remember when first reading about the gameboy advance, I saw something about being able to use it as a controller for the GameCube. The example of when this would be a 'good thing' was a football game. Gameplay goes on on the main screen, but you can make your play selection, privately, on your own little screen.

    Although the cost is currently prohibitive (to me, at least), this seemed like an absurdly cool idea. I haven't heard anything about it since. What happened?

    • On my neverending quest for "official" nintendo controllers for my cube, I wandered into Funcoland. They had a gamecube on display with a couple of GBA's attached to it as controllers. Was pretty cool. I personally found the GBA's to be sort of sub-par controllers however, the normal ones were easier to use.

    • Re:Gameboy Advance (Score:5, Informative)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @02:27PM (#2672115) Homepage
      Its still happening. They demoed this functionality recently with a new Kirby game, although I dont remember if the game is going to make it to the production state. Basically, you plug the GBA into a controller port for the gamecube, and if the game is GBA-aware, the developers can choose to do whatever they want with it. One VERY cool thing is that the Kirby demo included an empty 'gamepak' in the GBA that was en empty cartridge with a Tilt-Sensor in it. So you could use the GBA as a controller which could tell the Cube what angle it was being held at. Imagine the possibilities.

      But to answer your original question, the functionality is there; the only question is, can Game Cube developers find the 'killer app' for this configuration? I think the most useful implementation will be to share saved game data between GBA and Gamecube versions of the same game, but thats my limited imagination talking (and I dont know what typical savegame sizes are on GBA titles.) The football example you provided was good .. also consider that you could have one friend control the gun of a ship and use the GBA screen as a radar, and you control the flying of that ship. I don't know, there are lost of possible cool ways to use the GBA link, but we'll have to see if anyone stumbles across the aforementionned 'killer app'. Then again, who knows, maybe it'll just be Pokeman again. :)

      Check cube.ign.com and gamespot.com, and do searches for "Game Boy Advance Link Game Cube" or something similar.

      • Re:Gameboy Advance (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Wumpus ( 9548 )
        But to answer your original question, the functionality is there; the only question is, can Game Cube developers find the 'killer app' for this configuration? I think the most useful implementation will be to share saved game data between GBA and Gamecube versions of the same game, but thats my limited imagination talking

        How about this: A multiplayer, party based RPG, where you can take your character and go play elsewhere. You build your character's stats over time, and keep it on your GBA.

        • You've just inspired another thought for how to use a GBA linked to a Gamecube. How about something like a murder mystery. Without private displays, this type of game would be practically impossible.

          -Paul

    • Re:Gameboy Advance (Score:3, Informative)

      by dR.fuZZo ( 187666 )
      Dammit, man, your post just reminds me how nice the VMUs are when playing NFL2k on the Dreamcast. It works like you suggest: lets you select your play privately. But, it's much more convenient because it actually is a part of the regular controller. (On the GC, I'd think you'd either have to switch between the GC controller and the GBA, or you'd have to use the more limited GBA to play all the time...) And, of course, it costs a lot less for a VMU.

      I wouldn't look for too many games for the GC/GBA hookup, (at least from anyone other than Nintendo) since if a developer makes a game that works really well when a GBA is used, he'd risk losing the business of GC-owners that don't have a GBA.
    • I'd link directly to the page on Nintendo's GC site (http://www.nintendogamecube.com/launch.html [nintendogamecube.com]) but their whole site is a big flash animation. It's item #10 on the flash thing. Definitely looks cool, but $100 for a controller...
    • Well... if they weren't doing anything with it, then this [4videogamers.com] would be kind of useless :)


      -Cruz

    • Just wait for Sonic 2 [ign.com].
  • In terms of raw performance, the Celeron 733 (4-way set associative L2) will outperform the PowerPC 750 running at 500MHz in any of the synthetic benchmarks we've seen. We can only assume that a 733MHz CPU with a 133MHz FSB and 8-way set associative L2 cache would only be faster than the Gekko giving the Xbox the CPU performance advantage.
    Am I missing something? Why would you care which CPU is faster? As long as the CPU is fast enough to play the game, I don't give a rat's ass if it's a Cray. It's not like I'm folding@home on my Game Cube.
    • Am I missing something? Why would you care which CPU is faster? As long as the CPU is fast enough to play the game, I don't give a rat's ass if it's a Cray. It's not like I'm folding@home on my Game Cube.

      Two reasons:

      1) If there is one thing console makers have learned, it's that game developers will always find a need for that extra bit of performance. Maybe if the N64 had a little more power, it wouldn't have had those annoying, albeit infrequent, slowdowns in Mario64. Maybe they could eliminated that annoying pop-up effect by not drawing objects in the distance. It really sucked not being able to see things like coins until you got really close to it, especially on the conveyor-type scene.

      2) Who says it's just a gaming console? I mean, yeah, that's Nintendo's attitude. However, Microsoft and Sony are looking beyond the gaming world. The X-Box has everything you'd need to turn it into a Windows PC. What about the Slashdot article about getting Linux running on a PS2? Nintendo (and you) are not thinking outside the "box".
    • Something about seeing Samus doing battle with Pikachu makes me
      want to know more about the PowerPC chip that powers the system ;)
    the brunt power of the system doesn't lie in the IBM chip. It's in the ATI chip...
    though not a valid argument, but a good indication, just compare the chip sizes:
    the ATI chip is quite a bit larger

  • Third and Fourth Gen Games (Score:4, Interesting)

    by commander salamander ( 256114 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @02:15PM (#2672047) Homepage

    I am curious to see how the later games will play out on both systems. They may be about equivalent graphically now (maybe xbox has a slight edge) but all gamers have seen how much good developers can improve a system. Look at the original PlayStation - with some of the later games, you couldn't even tell you were playing on the same system!

    With simple to program hardware, the GameCube devs will be able to write low-level code to really eke performance out of the system. I wonder if xbox programmers will be able to do the same, or if they will be restricted by the (godawful IMHO) directx apis.
    • I agree. For the most dramatic example, look at the original NES games, compared to the last few produced NES games. It was a completely different console. Nintendo still seems to be using the KISS principle here, leaving a wide-open space for programmers to work in.

      The only issue is wether or not these new consoles will be around for the 10-15 years that the NES was.
      • Here's where your argument falls apart: the later NES carts actually had very, VERY different internal electronics. Many of the later games actually employed the NES as simply an I/O controller and did a lot of calculations/etc. on onboard chips.

        Look at the SNES, as well, and its "SuperFX" titles. The added polygon-"crunching" chip/engine onboard enabled games like StarFox to be produced.

        Methinks the Big N will have a bit more trouble fitting integrated circuits onto the mini-DVDs they're using...

        Currently digging for some good info on this, I'll check back in when/if I find it.
        • And here's a bit of the promised info:

          "2.2 SOFTWARE

          NES Software consists of a PRG-ROM (Program ROM) which is the code area and a CHR-RAM (Character RAM) which is the pattern table.

          Most games load themselves into the Lower PRG-ROM ($8000), using 32kb of
          PRG-ROM space. The first game to use the entire PRG-ROM space is Super Mario
          Brothers. However, all games with more than one (1) 16K bank of PRG-ROM load
          themselves into $8000 as well. These games use MMCs (see section 2.5) to
          address PRG-ROM past the 32K boundary, and to access more than 8K of CHR-RAM
          simultaneously.

          2.3 UNROM GAMES

          Unrom games come with a built-in PRG ROM chip as well as a RAM chip for
          memory storage. Such things as background and moving object characters for
          the current area are stored in the RAM chip until needed. The Unrom also
          was the first chip to expand the memory size of the NES games and were the
          first to carry a feature known as bank switching for the games.

          This effect allowed for many pages of information and to have serveral
          programs on one chip. Back switching allowed for automatic switching between
          multiple programs on one chip. Also, the maximum game page size was 8x16kb,
          just like the MMC1 chip.

          2.4 MEMORY MANAGEMENT CHIPS

          MMC1 - The first and most used chip of all five. Many games like the Legend
          of Zelda and Metroid use this chip because otherwise they would not
          be possible. The MMC1 allows NES games to have the ability to scroll
          vertically and horizontally at the same time on teh screen. The chip
          also expanded the NES memory to allow for more, and larger game
          worlds. The maximum game page size is 8x16kb.

          MMC2 - This chip is only found in the US and European Mike Tyson's Punch-Out,
          the Japanese version used a MMC4 chip. It was entirely used for the
          purpose af allowing large characters to move on the screen. The chip
          also allowed for you to see expression on an oponents face. This could
          be a dropped jaw, blinking, shock, a wince, twitching, as well as hand
          and feet movements. The game, because of all its different variations,
          required a big memory boost which this chip allowed for. The maximum
          game page size of this chip is 32x16kb. But why were they able to use
          a MMC4 for the Japanese version then?, I dont know.

          MMC3 - Second most used chip for NES carts allowed for many new game
          innovations. The additions are; expanded memory and the use of split
          screen scrolling in games. Games like Super Mario Bros 3 use this
          chip. In SMB3 its used as a split screen between the playing field and
          the status screen at the bottom of the screen. These games also has a
          maximum game page size of 32x16kb, just as the MMC2.

          MMC4 - ?

          MMC5 - The newest of the MMC chips for the NES. The first game it was used
          for was Castlevania 3: Draculas Curse. This chip has many nw and
          expanded features that accompanied it. The MMC5 improved the battery
          backup feature so you wouldent have to push reset when you turn off
          the NES to prevent data loss. The chip also allows greater color
          deffinition and partial screen scrolling (not locked like SMB3). It
          is also a customized mathematics module that took much strain off the
          CPU and took care of many tasks like the internal clock, and other
          repetitive functions.

          The MMC5 also aloowed a vertical split screen scroll which means you
          can have a side bar of information while the scrolling action of
          the game continues. The chip has a memory capacity of 8 Megs
          (1,048,576 bits). Another MMC5 game, and probably the only one, is
          Kirby's Adventure. A few games which this chip had a maximum game
          page size of 64x16kb."

          Grabbed this from http://www.gamersgraveyard.com/repository/nes/nesf aq3a.txt [gamersgraveyard.com].
      • I agree. For the most dramatic example, look at the original NES games, compared to the last few produced NES games. It was a completely different console

        That's because it *WAS* a completely different console! NES carts had several generations of 'enhancer' chips embedded in them, especially memory map chips. The original NES had an insanely small amount of ram (like half a k or something, IIRC) and the new carts increased that to reasonable levels. I don't know all the details but it's similar to what happened with the SuperFX and FXII chips that came in some SNES games ... but more prevalent.

        Thats one of the advantages of using carts over disks. There isn't going to be any way to increase the CPU power with a DVD :P
    • So what it all comes down to is...(cue monkey boy)
      DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!

      Seriously, Sony won because it had more games. It got that by having more developers. What's the current status on the number of PS2/X-Box/GameCube developers? I hope Nintendo realizes that they can't succeed by their in-house games alone.
    • restricted by the (godawful IMHO) directx apis

      Excuse my ignorance, but what is so godawful about DirectX? I've toyed with it a bit, and thought it was pretty nifty. Granted I haven't used much ELSE, so I probably don't know what I'm missing out on...
      • There really isn't anything horribly wrong with DirectX (well, at least with versions 7 and 8). Well, unless you count you count the fact that it was designed by MS, which is apparently frowned upon in these parts.

        Ultimately though, it's not the fact that the easy to use API on the XBox is DirectX, but the fact that MS won't let you go lower than that. DirectX is the only way to program the XBox per the MS developer stuff, and quite frankly, the prospect of engineering a lower level library for the Nvidia GPU doesn't sound like fun.

        That's why the Gamecube and the PS2 have a lot more growth potential IMHO. The XBox may ahe a slight edge right now, but what you're seeing right now is a lot closer to topping out than what you're seeing on the Gamecube.

        JubeiX
    • I agree with your assesment. The Gamecube strategy makes more sense when you look at it as a very powerful piece of "embedded" hardware designed to run (soft) real-time applications. It provides predictable, mostly on-time behavior, where the predictability comes from the simplicity. Thinking of the Gamecube as a weak general purpose computer is probably a mistake, or at least useless.

      I think there's another point to be made here: Nintendo understands that fun games and "high-performance" are orthogonal. Think of how many fun games require a piece of cardboard with an array of alternatingly-colored squares. That cardboard has *really bad computational performance*, but that doesn't hurt it any. And besides, that cardboard is probably the most stable and lowest-power gaming platform around.

      -Paul Komarek

  • Wow (Score:4, Interesting)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @02:26PM (#2672109) Homepage
    You can really tell who's more experienced at this, can't you? The difference is startling.

    size comparison [anandtech.com]

    XBox motherboard [hardocp.com]
    GameCube motherboard [anandtech.com]

    • Does the Gamecube have the power supply contained internally? It looks from the mobo pictures like the Xbox does, but I could see no indication of it in the Cube. If the Cube uses an external power "brick", then that would account for some of the size difference. Besides, I don't think MS was trying to make the box small by any means. They likely didn't want to spend the bucks to fit the standard PC-style parts into a smaller box, which would have made the cost go up.

      All that said, I do like the Gamecube's style better than the Xbox's, and it is definitely the smallest "modern" console.
      • Half of the power supply is in a wall-brick, and half of it is within the gamecube (located above the motherboard, and thus not in the picture I posted).

        It doesn't make much of a difference though, the XBox motherboard proper is still much bigger and more complex.

        • I don't know if it's any more complex electrically, but certainly it is mechanically. The Xbox motherboard reminds me of the circuitboards I found as a kid when disassembling broken appliances from the scrapyard. Looking at it makes me want to get the soldering gun out and pull those valuable capacitors to put in my own projects!

          -Paul Komarek
  • With the Xbox there are a number of supported DTV and HDTV resolutions including two of the more interesting ones - 720p and 1080i. The GameCube offers basic support for 480i and 480p, but that is all.

    I own a widescreen HDTV and I'll be buying a GameCube soon. The N64 output in 320x240 I believe. (The highest resolution a regular TV can support -- 240 lines of horizontal resolution.)

    High quality DVD output is normally done at 480p, same as the GameCube. This is the part that confuses me though -- if DVD outputs at 480p (using a progressive scan DVD player), how is it able to fill my 16:9 TV with a perfect, widescreen picture? Does this mean that GameCube games could also output in a 16:9 mode, even though they are limited to 480p?

    And although it sounds like the XBox will be able to output HDTV quality pictures at 1080i, does the console have enough power to draw full frames at that resolution?? We're talking about 1920x1080 screen resolution!

    I wish someone would cover the HDTV capabilities of these new console systems for those of us with widescreen HDTV's.
    • I rented the XBox for five days from blockbuster and bought the hdtv adapter from Compusa using the takeback special(they deserve it for screwing me over so many times, like that time they held onto $200 of my money for two months without sending me the product I ordered and lied about receiving the money, but I digress). Anyway, one thing I can say is that composite output does not do the Xbox justice, you definitely need to use the high-definition component adapter to get an idea of the real power. None of the games currently support 1080i, however the startup screen does, and it is awesome. As far as the games that don't support hd, well, they still run at 480p (640x480x60hz for the hdtv illiterate). However, it's not widescreen 480p, widescreen at 480p is actually 720x480x60hz, if I remember correctly. I would say that the geforce 3 should easily support hd resolutions, unless the fillrate is being chewed up elsewhere, think about it, I run quake III at 1600x1200x32 at 90 + fps on my pc, so this card should be able to do 1920x1080ix16bits at the required framerate. I am in serious doubt of this artx chip that the gamecube is using however, there is a reason that nvidia is at the top of their game, and that is because their chips have an extreme amount of fillrate and performance. If you are looking for hdtv support, I would stick with the XBox, it has the kind of hardware that should be able to handle those kinds of resolutions.

      P.S. If I were you I would rent the consoles before buying, for the XBox I would highly recommend checking out halo, and for pure graphics quality, Dead or Alive 3.
      • None of the games currently support 1080i

        And none of them ever will.

        The second to highest output resolution is the best yer gunna get... (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561&p=10 )
        • Wrong, outputting in 1024x768 is trivial, and allowing the convexant chip to scale it to 1920x1080i is also trivial. 1024x768 is by no means out of the reach of the geforce 3. Yes, it won't be as high a detail as it would if the convexant hd encoder could take 1920x1080i as input but it's still a hell of alot better than 640x480p. Probably any game that outputs 1024x768 will allow either 720p or 1080i support. Remember, the choice of hd resolution support is in the XBox setting menu, not in the game itself. So, any game that outputs a resolution higher than 640x480 will be scaled to 1080i or 720p by the XBox. Since most hdtv's support only 1080i and not 720p the output resolution will be optimized for 1080i, which means outputting 1024x768 to the hd encoder, and allowing it to scale it to 1920x1080i.
    • Widescreen pictures from DVDs come from anamorphic transfers. The image stored on the DVD is 4:3. If you have a 4:3 TV the DVD player places black bars at the top and bottom of the image and stretches the image to fill the width. If you have a 16:9 player the DVD player outputs the signal as is to your TV and your TV stretches the signal to fill the width. The PlayStation does this the same way. I would assume that the GameCube would either render in 16:9 or stretch internally before sending the 480P signal out to the TV.
      • Note quite, there are actually two different versions of 480p. One is at 720x480p, the other is at 640x480p. When my panasonic ct36hx41 gets the first version, it squeezes the image into a 16:9 letterbox without wasting any scanlines for the top or bottom bars. If it receives a 4:3 formatted 480p signal (640x480) it fills the entire screen.
      • Not so. Look at the back of a DVD, if it states "Enhanced for 16:9" then the image stored on the disc is Anamorphic. When scenes are filmed there is a special lens that can be fitted to the camera (Anamorphic lens) that compacts a 16:9 (720x480) aspect ratio to 4:3 (640x480). If you were to view this on a 4:3 screen it would look "smushed". Some producers merely mask the top and bottom of the lens to produce a widescreen image, in this case you are actually losing resolution because you're only using the middle portion of the film. True Anamorphic uses the entire frame. If you go into your DVD setup screen you should have 3 video settings (16:9 standard, 16:9 widescreen, 4:3 standard). If you have an HDTV capable widescreen monitor the DVD player outputs exactly what's on the disc. If the monitor is not HDTV capable the DVD player will stretch the image before sending it. If, like me, you have a 4:3 monitor the DVD player stretches the image out then shrinks it to 640px wide then sends it out. A lot of the older 1st and 2nd gen DVD players didn't do this so well and that's why Laserdics looked better than a lot of DVD transfers on a 4:3 monitor. As DVD players matured the converting algorithms improved.

        DVD output:
        16:9 "Enhanced/Anamorphic" 720x480p
        16:9 "Widescreen" 640x480p "masked"
        4:3 "Standard" 640x480p

        I hope this makes sense...
    • To start, there are plenty of widescreen TVs out there that are not HDTV. The widescreen issue is seperate from that of 480p/1080i support.

      In many games (like GT3) the PS2, for example, supports widescreen displays. This means that the game will have a 16x9 aspect ratio. It will use all of the frame's horisontal lines of resolution (as opposed to dedicating some top and bottom hor lines to black, in order to make the wide aspect ratio on a 4x3 display).

      There is nothing stopping any console game from supporting widescreen displays. You could even make widescreen games on a 8bit NES! It is just a matter of scaling the picture, cramming more picture into each horisontal line. This would result in a squased diplay on 4x3 televisions.

      Now as for the 480p-1080i modes support, this is obviouly hardware specific. The output chip needs to be able to draw to these video modes. Again, this is a seperate issue from the 4x3/16x9 issue. It just so happens that most high-end TVs that support these modes also happen to be widescreen displays (but not all!).

      In conclusion, *any* console can support 16x9 widescreen display modes, but the support for high-resolution progressive display modes is hardware hence console specific.
    • (The highest resolution a regular TV can support -- 240 lines of horizontal resolution.)

      WTF?

      NTSC has 525 scanlines (480 visible), and PAL has 625 (576 visible).

      480i is exactly the same as NTSC but digital, 480p gives you a better picture due to non-interlacing (NTSC updates every other line each sweep).

  • A rule of thumb. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by El Camino SS ( 264212 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @02:49PM (#2672237)

    I think that the whole issue about which game system is the best comes down to a lesson my father taught me about of all things, cars.

    Its about stability, reliability, and working out the kinks.

    He said never, ever buy a car the year the new model comes out. The manufacturers have tested it, but not the way the consumers will. Usually, the best cars to drive are the ones where they are about to change the fundamental design (usually after three years or car generations) a few years after have worked out all of the major complaints brought in, and before they change the design again.

    So what does this have to do with video consoles? Well, as I see it, Nintendo has gone through several generations of workign the bugs out in hardware and gameplay, and that in itself is its benefit and reason to buy.

    There are at least 3 generations of Nintendo in major US release, even after they made coin ops.
    Playstation is on generation 2.
    Xbox is on its first generation.

    Honestly, I can't even think of a in-house Nintendo game that I was ever dissatisfied with, other than the super-late shipping time.

    It has worked so far very well with the cars.
    It has done well with consoles.
    • Okay, I'm about to go really off the main topic. But about buying first generation equipment:

      There is a small collection of old computer equipment behind some glass in a hallway of CMU's new computer science building. There is a picture of some long-forgotten computer being unloaded from a large truck, back in the early, early days (i.e. just after the Univac changed everything in the US computing industry). They give some advice to the reader, which they gleaned from : "Never buy serial number 1 of *anything*".

      -Paul Komarek
  • I remember when I was younger, and my father decided that a game console would be my birthday present - at the time, I had the fateful choice between either SNES, or whatever SEGA system was out (genesis?).

    I remember it plainly - sega was "the cool system". It had the blood, and the arcade ports - and, good golly, it had a black case!! but I just couldn't help but be taken with the appearance and gameplay of the SNES. Super Mario World was a huge-ass factor in my decision. And I've never regretted it. I still play my SNES games today.

    but I bring this up for a major reason - this "Xbox vs. GameCube" sounds like "sega vs. snes" all over again... and even if xbox does survive, I doubt it'll ever be nintendo.

    microsoft's xbox, imo, relies too much on the "cool" factor. nintendo has higher standards of quality.
  • For the most part I enjoyed the read (though I already know what all was in my little Cube). I did have a problem with a few of the opinion based statements that where made though. The writter claims that faster load times on the cube are probably attributed to low geometry and lower resolution textures in games than that of the Xboxs. I have a feeling that this reviewer had a tendency to not look at the games he was playing. While some of the textures in Luigi's mansion might be viewed as graining...every other game has had UNBELIEVABLE textures and geometry. I guess he hasn't played SMB or SSB or Rouge Leader or anyother game for that matter. So...please take some of the statements in this review with a grain of salt and just look at the technical stuff stated.
  • Although I love my Gamecube, I am noticing some wierd visual anomalies when playing Pikmin in 480p on my XBR 400.

    Since I am an owner of many macs with powerpc and ATI chipsets I am familiar with some of the "syncing" problems ATI has with their cards, specifically, their tendency to refresh different parts of the screen at different times...

    Put simply, when my gamecube displays at 480p it seems like the top 1/3 of the screen refreshes before the bottom 2/3, resulting in unnatural pixel shift in (a sort of invisible line) and around the top 1/3 of my screen. This is very similar (if not identical) to the display problems of ATI cards on the mac in graphically intensive situations. When playing quake 3 on my mac with a ppc g4 500mhz with radeon will sometimes choke and refresh different parts of the screen at different times.

    If anyone out there knows what the hell I am talking about, I would enjoy any feedback regarding these GC visual farts, which are very evident in Pikmin. Please assume I have hooked everything correctly and have troubleshooted everything I can think of.

    I refuse to beleive this is a problem with my TV as it has diplayed 480p very well in the past.

    My real question is... is anyone else experiencing these visual anomalies?

  • I don't get everyone saying the Xbox is a PC and getting PC ports while the Gamecube is cool and a unique console.

    The Xbox is just as much a "PC" as the Gamecube is a Mac/Apple/PowerPC, so with the anti microsoft politics aside, each console has its own advantages and leave it at that.

    If you want to compare against PC's then that rules out Metal Gear Solid, Unreal Tournament, All EA Sports games, The Grand Theft Auto Series, bunch of Sega Games and tons more.. (I can even play tonyhawk on the pc).

    Its just the simple fact microsoft chose proven, affordable and mass produceable hardware without changing the underlying infrastructure they have been developing on for the past two decades.

    My point is, none of the consoles are a "PC". All these new consoles have there own advantages as well as problems.

    SO just game on , read the review and decide for yourself what you want.
    • People probably say that because it's, um, a PC? It does run Windows2000 after all. And it does use the same DirectX API as PC's. And I'd be willing to bet that by moving a few libraries around the XBox would run PC software and visa-versa. It's also using a processor that is identical to a PC processor. Plus the same memory. Plus the same hard drive.

      This is nowhere near the same as the GameCube. Does a GC run MacOS? Does it support the QuickTime API? Or QuickDraw? Does it use a standard G3 or G4 processor? Does it use commodity memory? A commodity hard drive? The answer to all of these is no. An XBox is 95% identical to a PC. A Gamecube has as much in common with a Mac as a Mac has in common with an IBM RS/6000.
      • You are still wrong. The xbox uses a hybrid intel cpu, a hybrid motherboard, a special, not released nv25 gpu, a special memory sharing bus, proprietary directx (which is there more then qualified development api) and a win2k/windows xp micro operating system.

        Just because they use that, doesn't mean it is a pc. My dreamcast has a keyboard, mouse, ethernet and modem and runs Windows CE, that doesn't make it a "PC".

        Sony recently released linux for the PS2, does that make it a PC?

        The GameCube uses a Power PC processor, bios and an ATI video card, not much different then a MAC and could easily be hacked to run any os. Just doesn't include a convenient ethernet port or disk drive.

        Xbox is far from a PC. it is about as much of a pc as a Tivo is or as much as a pc as my dreamcast is.

        Hell, my dreamcast has the familair powervr chip that i had in one of my old pc's as well.

        so being proprietary means it is a good console? or not being proprietary means it is a pc?

        and a proprietary machine being a pc is cooler then a pc? (ps2 running linux kit)

        just curious
    • The real problem here is figuring out what people mean by a "PC". I agree that the Xbox is not, in the strict sense, a PC. Then again, what is a PC these days? What is the most recent PC standard? The IBM PC standard wasn't even sacred for very long (i.e. once the BIOS was reverse engineered).

      However, in the sense that "PC" means computer running windows (I really hate it when people do that), then I suppose the Xbox is mostly like a PC. If PC means being afflicted by legacy, then the Xbox's use of the x86 ISA places it firmly in the aflicted camp. If PC means endorsed by Microsoft, or compliant with whatever Microsoft comes up with today ("Designed for Microsoft Windows Whatever"), then it's a PC.

      I guess the real issue on people's minds is how much work is necessary to port from the Xbox what we normally call an x86-based PC. I'm guessing that it would take a lot of work.

      -Paul Komarek

  • Wrong (Score:3, Informative)

    by mike260 ( 224212 ) on Friday December 07, 2001 @06:09PM (#2673461)
    "Flipper always operates on 4 pixels at a time using its 4 pixel pipelines; each of those pipelines is capable of applying one texture per pipeline"

    Nope, it can actually apply 8 textures using 16 combiner stages.

    "The Flipper graphics core is a fairly simple fixed function GPU"

    It can do z-texturing, dependant-texturing, 8-way multitexturing etc. There's no way you can describe it as simple or fixed function. I'd suggest that whoever wrote this article boot up Pikmin, walk out into the water on level four and take a look at what Flipper can do in a single pass over a flat polygon.
  • I remember having my SNES console and thinking that there would never be games that could be superior to some of the first games that came out (Super Mario World, FZERO, Zelda, etc..) but as the years went by the console continued to mature (FX Technology in Starfox, Amazing graphics in Super Mario World 2, Chrono Trigger, Super Metroid!) It took several years before games of that caliber were finally released. The hardware on the SNES never changed, so it is absurd to dwell on the hardware of a system to measure how great of a console it is.

    Then what makes a console great? If hardware was what made the SNES better than its predecessors then why are millions of people (including myself) still playing and discovering games that actually surpass PS2,XBOX,GCUBE, et cetera on almost every level?

    The answer is simple, it's the games. Which is what many posts ahead me have said. But what makes a game great? The CODING and DEVELOPMENT behind the game. I think we are forgetting about how much CODING and DEVELOPMENT has to do with a consoles success. (Which is why many top level game designers [recently: Hideo Kojima MGS, MGS2; Shigeru Miyamoto Mario, Zelda, Pikmin] People always attribute a consoles success to games, but the success of the games is caused by the great coding behind the games. And for coding to get to that level coders need time to work with the console and also the technology within that console. It took many years before the full potential of the SNES was realized. My biggest fear is that the Console Gaming Industry is rushing too fast to try and compete with the new developments in technology to appease all the uneducated consumers who just demand the fastest, most powerful machine; and in doing so is not letting their console systems reach their true potential.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I will take Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 2, Final Fantasy 3, Super Metroid, et cetera over almost all of the current games for the next generation of consoles (granted PS2 is FINALLY starting to get some good material).

    Bottom line: We shouldn't spend so much time analyzing and over-analyzing the hardware behind the systems (we've argued about bits [4bit, 8bit, 16bit, 32bit] and now it's X-CPU vs. GCube-CPU, and nVidia NV2A vs. ATI Flipper). We should focus more attention to those who spend YEARS developing some of the most imaginative and engrossing games in the world, and give payment where it's due: the people behind the games.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close