Was GC more or less powerful than PS2? *spawn

[Deleted member 13524]

Using RE4 is a very bad example since the PS2 version is just a port and wasn't built from ground up to take advantage of the PS2 capabilities. There are many games on the PS2 that are a lot more impressive looking than RE4 (GC version).

This is completely untrue, especially the "look way better part". There are many..many.. great looking PS2 games out there that easily surpass the best looking GC games. Jak series, Ratchet & Clank series, Onimusha series, GoW 1&2, GT4, Torrist Trophy, MGS3, Silent Hill 3, Ghost Hunter, ZOE3, VF4, Soul Calibur 3, Tekken 4, Tekken 5, Ace Combat 5, Transformers, Yakuza, Shadow of The Colossus, Okami etc..etc.. all clearly beat the very best that the GC can can pushes out

I stated my opinion based on the experience I have with both systems, which I still own.


As for the fanboy talk AFAIK, I'm still entitled to have an opinion without being insulted as a 'troll'.
Let's keep it civil, ok?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This is completely untrue.

Until someone invents a technique to measure the subjective concept of 'looks better', beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all, it's hard to argue that a persons subjective position is 'completely untrue'. Games like SOTC had a terrible framerate, for example. And great art. It's impossible to measure a game making such sacrifices against nonexistant similar games on another platform.

Personally, although I didn't see many GC games, I think they were so close as to make the matter irrelevant. I recall one game, Burnout or somesuch, that I saw on both, and I think one platform had more frequently updated reflections. I think that was GC, but may be mistaken. For all I know the PS2 did have a poorer reflection map update, but may have had better shadowing that I didn't notice. Given the quite divergent nature of the platforms and their rather polarised strengths and weaknesses, I doubt anyone anywhere could sum up 'most powerful platform' in any meaningful well, and I'm highly dubious of anyone who takes such a strong position for either platform.

 

[function]

When you consider that the GC came three years after the amazing Dreamcast (most impressive 3D console ever IMO) and the same year as the mighty Xbox, it's pretty clear that the Gamecube wasn't pushing any envelopes or bleeding any edges. It was actually a pretty conservative design (as is Nintendo's way) that was happy to sit just behind the curve and produce graphics that were consistently nice but not really so much more.

When you consider that the Dreamcast was Sega's last console and the Xbox lost so much money that it made Sony jealous enough to make the PS3, you realise that with the cheap and cheerful and profitable-despite-low-sales Gamecube, Nintendo actually had the last laugh. So much of a laugh that Nintendo decided to re-use the never-quite-cutting edge Gamecube and make the Wii - which even the Xbox 1 could show up - to make glorious amounts of money.

The Gamecube is fantastic hardware for what it is. The problem seems to occur between people that don't like what it was and people that can't accept what it was.

 

[I.S.T.]

...Jealous?

 

[SedentaryJourney]

Doesn't matter if you could transform a shit ton of polys if you can't light shade and texture all of them...

Now in terms of total GFLOPS, the GC was rated higher at 13...

I read 10.5 GFLOPS and most of it is hardware T&L.

 

[Nesh]

When you consider that the GC came three years after the amazing Dreamcast (most impressive 3D console ever IMO) and the same year as the mighty Xbox, it's pretty clear that the Gamecube wasn't pushing any envelopes or bleeding any edges. It was actually a pretty conservative design (as is Nintendo's way) that was happy to sit just behind the curve and produce graphics that were consistently nice but not really so much more.

When you consider that the Dreamcast was Sega's last console and the Xbox lost so much money that it made Sony jealous enough to make the PS3, you realise that with the cheap and cheerful and profitable-despite-low-sales Gamecube, Nintendo actually had the last laugh. So much of a laugh that Nintendo decided to re-use the never-quite-cutting edge Gamecube and make the Wii - which even the Xbox 1 could show up - to make glorious amounts of money.

The Gamecube is fantastic hardware for what it is. The problem seems to occur between people that don't like what it was and people that can't accept what it was.

I am perplexed by your comments. DC came very early as it was the best time to be released taking into account competition and SEGA's position. When the GameCube was released it was a very powerful console for its time.It was a pretty well designed product that achieved its goals. Very powerful and very cheap. It was considerably much more powerful than the DC.
The mighty XBOX went the brute force route which was causing millions of losses to MS and it wasnt leaps and bounds above Gamecube's performance. It wasnt a well thought design. Its aim was to come up with something that would hit competition with performance and it wasnt even leaps and bounds above GC even though at the end it was the most powerful of the three.
And I dont get your jealousy comment. You talk as if Sony made the PS3 because of the XBOX??
The only problem with GC was content and features

 

[function]

The "jealous" bit was a joke! The Xbox lost so much money that no-one could believe it. Everyone thought MS were idiots. Then PS3 launched at five hundred and ninety nine you-ess dollars and still manage to wipe out all the profits that the Playstation series had ever made. Even if you love the PS3 (and it seems like a great console so why shouldn't you) there's got to be a lol in there somewhere ...

I don't agree that the GC was very powerful. I do agree completely that it was well designed to achieve its goals. If you look earlier in this thread it turns out it's probably not even as powerful as the PS2, which launched over a year earlier and was produced at least partially (I can't remember if it was fully) on an older node. This isn't because Nintendo are idiots, it's because Nintendo wanted something that could hang with the PS2 while being cheap enough to sell profitably at toy prices, take retail price cuts over it's lifetime (despite never having a shrink) and still not lose them lots of money. That's not a cutting edge console, it's a conservative system!

It's not an insult to say the GC was never very powerful, never bleeding edge, never super expensive to manufacture. And the Xbox was much more capable - it really, really showed on the relatively rare occasions that it got to stretch its legs. But looking at the profits of Nintendo vs the losses of MS I think it's fair to say that while MS had much better hardware, Nintendo chose their hardware much better.

Anyway, I liked the GC, really enjoyed Twilight Princess, and in general liked the way GC stuff looked (trilinear filtering ftw) compared to the PS2. There's a lot to be said for making sure it's easy to make stuff look nice. Though maybe that benefited people like me more than people like ERP who were trying to make multiplatform games work properly on the GC ...

 

[Prophecy2k]

This is completely untrue, especially the "look way better part". There are many..many.. great looking PS2 games out there that easily surpass the best looking GC games. Jak series, Ratchet & Clank series, Onimusha series, GoW 1&2, GT4, Torrist Trophy, MGS3, Silent Hill 3, Ghost Hunter, ZOE3, VF4, Soul Calibur 3, Tekken 4, Tekken 5, Ace Combat 5, Transformers, Yakuza, Shadow of The Colossus, Okami etc..etc.. all clearly beat the very best that the GC can can pushes out

ZOE3... 3!!!!!!

Did I miss something?!?

 

[PSman]

If you were talking about "look" as in art style and feel then I can understand. It's fine to prefer an art style and feel of a certain game over the other.

However, when it comes to the technical aspect it is completely objective. And the fact is that there are many..many... PS2 games out there that surpass the best looking GC games on the technical level.

Take RE4 (GC version) and MGS3 (PS2 version) for examples

MGS3 has much bigger and far more complex environment than RE4. The living breathing jungle of MGS3 and its foliage clearly trump every environments in RE4. Not only that, MGS3 also pushes a lot more poly overall and has better and more consistent textures quality.

So MGS3 is the overall much more technically impressive game.

I stated my opinion based on the experience I have with both systems, which I still own.


As for the fanboy talk AFAIK, I'm still entitled to have an opinion without being insulted as a 'troll'.
Let's keep it civil, ok?

Until someone invents a technique to measure the subjective concept of 'looks better', beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all, it's hard to argue that a persons subjective position is 'completely untrue'. Games like SOTC had a terrible framerate, for example. And great art. It's impossible to measure a game making such sacrifices against nonexistant similar games on another platform.

Personally, although I didn't see many GC games, I think they were so close as to make the matter irrelevant. I recall one game, Burnout or somesuch, that I saw on both, and I think one platform had more frequently updated reflections. I think that was GC, but may be mistaken. For all I know the PS2 did have a poorer reflection map update, but may have had better shadowing that I didn't notice. Given the quite divergent nature of the platforms and their rather polarised strengths and weaknesses, I doubt anyone anywhere could sum up 'most powerful platform' in any meaningful well, and I'm highly dubious of anyone who takes such a strong position for either platform.

 

[Nesh]

The "jealous" bit was a joke! The Xbox lost so much money that no-one could believe it. Everyone thought MS were idiots. Then PS3 launched at five hundred and ninety nine you-ess dollars and still manage to wipe out all the profits that the Playstation series had ever made. Even if you love the PS3 (and it seems like a great console so why shouldn't you) there's got to be a lol in there somewhere ...

Oh now I got it

I don't agree that the GC was very powerful. I do agree completely that it was well designed to achieve its goals. If you look earlier in this thread it turns out it's probably not even as powerful as the PS2, which launched over a year earlier and was produced at least partially (I can't remember if it was fully) on an older node. This isn't because Nintendo are idiots, it's because Nintendo wanted something that could hang with the PS2 while being cheap enough to sell profitably at toy prices, take retail price cuts over it's lifetime (despite never having a shrink) and still not lose them lots of money. That's not a cutting edge console, it's a conservative system!

Is it not? I think we lean towards concluding that the PS2 is in some areas more powerful but overall the GC is the more powerful system.
I dont know

I feel that the GC was outputting clearly better performance than PS2 with examples such as Resident Evil Remake, Star Wars Rogue Squadron, Metroid F-Zero and Resident Evil 4.
I also remember that multiplatform games had better framerates.

 

[Teasy]

I don't agree that the GC was very powerful. I do agree completely that it was well designed to achieve its goals. If you look earlier in this thread it turns out it's probably not even as powerful as the PS2, which launched over a year earlier and was produced at least partially (I can't remember if it was fully) on an older node.

If you look earlier in the thread and take whatever info you're being given without question you might think that. But I wouldn't advise it for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

GC wasn't cutting edge, but being cutting edge isn't the only route to being powerful. GC got there through being an extremely efficient system, low latency, big caches and lots of built in effects. Anyone playing Rebel Strike, RE4 ect back in the day would have been in no doubt that GC was a powerful system for its time.

It never ceases to amaze me how time can alter perception. When the GC/PS2/XBox generation was in full swing (everyone still playing these games and the devs on here still working on all three systems) I doubt you'd find more than the odd person on this forum who'd claimed GC was the weakest system. Even multi platform games developed with PS2 as the lead platform usually went XBox/GC/PS2 in order of which was best looking.

 

[Nesh]

If you were talking about "look" as in art style and feel then I can understand. It's fine to prefer an art style and feel of a certain game over the other.

However, when it comes to the technical aspect it is completely objective. And the fact is that there are many..many... PS2 games out there that surpass the best looking GC games on the technical level.

Take RE4 (GC version) and MGS3 (PS2 version) for examples

MGS3 has much bigger and far more complex environment than RE4. The living breathing jungle of MGS3 and its foliage clearly trump every environments in RE4. Not only that, MGS3 also pushes a lot more poly overall and has better and more consistent textures quality.

So MGS3 is the overall much more technically impressive game.

I think your example is not objective at all. You are comparing two different games with different focus. MGS3's jungle was divided into more and smaller sub-sections than Resident Evil 4, so every few meters you were greeted with a loading screen, so it wasnt as "open" and "big" as you claim.
Resident Evil 4 also boasted more effects, better lighting and textures. The very detailed real time cut scenes in RE4 (which PS2 run as video) is a testament to its capabilities. Not to mention sections where you were attacked by tenths of characters simultaneously. But then again I dont know why we are comparing these two games as they are too different.
RE4 GC vs RE4 PS2 is a much more objective comparison even though someone may claim that it wasnt as optimized on the PS2 or it didnt play by its strengths.
But lets take the Onimusha series and compare to Resident Evil 4 and Zero which are similar in nature and both feature prerendered backdrops. Still you see that GC allowed for more complex lighting, textures and detailed characters.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

However, when it comes to the technical aspect it is completely objective.

No, it isn't. It's only objective when comparing like-for-like, or when you can compare all the variables appropriately (which isn't possible). To compare two different games, you need poly counts for polys seen and unseen; shadow detail; number of lights; complexities of 'shaders'; complexities of AI; environment size and variety; total texture quality (if one game blows a significant part of its texture budget on a few supoer quality animated textures, for example, the rest of the txtures will take a hit); controller and display lag (a game may make sacrifices in the visuals to get tighter controls); framerates and IQ;...the list goes on and on, and these things aren't measurable just by looking and deciding Game X looks better than Game Y. Even ports don't count as fair tests when issues like budget or developer experience can affect port quality. Or even when a port is tweaked to make a change, like tightening up the controls and sacrificing a little eye candy to achieve that.

No matter how much you may ike to think you can fairly compare two platforms from looking at them, you can't, unless the differences are clearly substantial like comapring C64 to ZX Spectrum. And in those cases the performance metrics clearly identify the more powerful platform anyway. The only way to measure performance objectively would be to sit down with SDKs and performance montiros and run a shed-load of scientific, evaluative tests.

 

[Teasy]

If you were talking about "look" as in art style and feel then I can understand. It's fine to prefer an art style and feel of a certain game over the other.

However, when it comes to the technical aspect it is completely objective. And the fact is that there are many..many... PS2 games out there that surpass the best looking GC games on the technical level.

Take RE4 (GC version) and MGS3 (PS2 version) for examples

MGS3 has much bigger and far more complex environment than RE4. The living breathing jungle of MGS3 and its foliage clearly trump every environments in RE4. Not only that, MGS3 also pushes a lot more poly overall and has better and more consistent textures quality.

So MGS3 is the overall much more technically impressive game.

That isn't completely objective. Its based on your perception of those games. In your opinion one has more polys and better textures ect ect

You really should stop making these wild comments such as " The living breathing jungle of MGS3 and its foliage clearly trump every environments in RE4". There's nothing that amazing about MGS3's jungle area, not to the point where anyone could objectively say it clearly trumps every environment in RE4.. Did you ever see the lava room in RE4?

When it comes to my opinion on both games. I'd have to say RE4 had the better texture work, more varied, colourful and detailed overall. I don't know which pushed more polys overall, RE4 had higher poly models (Leon vs Snake) and more enemies on screen, but I can't be sure when it comes to environments, certainly nothing in MGS3's environment tells me its using much higher poly counts than RE4. Effects such as lighting and fire were more impressive in RE4 IMO.

 

[function]

Is it not? I think we lean towards concluding that the PS2 is in some areas more powerful but overall the GC is the more powerful system.
I dont know

Well, neither do I to be honest. Powerful is a really loose term and some things - like the impact of better texture filtering and having a flicker filter on everything - are pretty hard to describe simply in terms of "power". If you just compare poly or pixel throughput you can probably be pretty definite about things, but objectively judging the impact of "more colourful textures" for instance seems pretty ... difficult.

I feel that the GC was outputting clearly better performance than PS2 with examples such as Resident Evil Remake, Star Wars Rogue Squadron, Metroid F-Zero and Resident Evil 4.
I also remember that multiplatform games had better framerates.

I must apologise in advance because it's Controversy Time! Metroid, F-Zero and Resident Evil 4 all looked great IMO. Super Mario Sunshine looked pretty nice too, and Twilight Princess looked even better. The Star Wars Rogue Squadron games on the other hand, didn't.

Bland, barren environments with low poly rigid models moving around doing nothing much in particular. I had 2 or 3 - can't remember - and it looked poor. And the on-foot sections were laughably bad - horrible infact. But there'd always be some PR stuff about amazing lighting and 20 million polygons per second and wham, it's a Factor Five love in as a few un-animated boxes move around above some snow or dirt. Take away the Star Wars and Nintendo fan multipliers and THE EMPEROR IS NAKED GOD DAMN IT!!!

Man, I got so sick of people posting pictures of the trees as the answer to any and every possible criticism of the game's visuals. Yeah, the game looks much better when you can't see anything because of trees.

It's funny how fast the love for Factor 5 disappeared when the Star Wars franchise disappeared and they "betrayed" Nintendo. And dragons are a lot harder to animate than an X-Wing.

If you look earlier in the thread and take whatever info you're being given without question you might think that. If you know enough about it to see the glaring inaccuracies then no you wouldn't.

He couldn't remember some bullshit theoretical figures (and didn't claim he could) but spent time butting his head against the hardware during actual professional game development. I think that's far more insightful than something off a spec sheet, or even better (worse), a PR claim or something like it given to the none technical gaming press.

I think it's odd the way you dismiss what he says pretty much out of hand - unless I'm underestimating your experience and your CPU poly clipping for the Cube was loads better than his.

 

[Teasy]

Well, neither do I to be honest. Powerful is a really loose term and some things - like the impact of better texture filtering and having a flicker filter on everything - are pretty hard to describe simply in terms of "power". If you just compare poly or pixel throughput you can probably be pretty definite about things, but objectively judging the impact of "more colourful textures" for instance seems pretty ... difficult.



I must apologise in advance because it's Controversy Time! Metroid, F-Zero and Resident Evil 4 all looked great IMO. Super Mario Sunshine looked pretty nice too, and Twilight Princess looked even better. The Star Wars Rogue Squadron games on the other hand, didn't.

Bland, barren environments with low poly rigid models moving around doing nothing much in particular. I had 2 or 3 - can't remember - and it looked poor. And the on-foot sections were laughably bad - horrible infact. But there'd always be some PR stuff about amazing lighting and 20 million polygons per second and wham, it's a Factor Five love in as a few un-animated boxes move around above some snow or dirt. Take away the Star Wars and Nintendo fan multipliers and THE EMPEROR IS NAKED GOD DAMN IT!!!

Man, I got so sick of people posting pictures of the trees as the answer to any and every possible criticism of the game's visuals. Yeah, the game looks much better when you can't see anything because of trees.

It's funny how fast the love for Factor 5 disappeared when the Star Wars franchise disappeared and they "betrayed" Nintendo. And dragons are a lot harder to animate than an X-Wing.



He couldn't remember some bullshit theoretical figures (and didn't claim he could) but spent time butting his head against the hardware during actual professional game development. I think that's far more insightful than something off a spec sheet, or even better (worse), a PR claim or something like it given to the none technical gaming press.

I think it's odd the way you dismiss what he says pretty much out of hand - unless I'm underestimating your experience and your CPU poly clipping for the Cube was loads better than his.

I'm not dismissing anything out of hand. I said that from reading his comments it seems they all come from the perspective of porting games to GC that were designed for another platform. That's fine but its not a fair way to judge the power of a system. How is that dismissing what he's said out of hand?

Also no its not just a case of not remembering a number from a spec sheet. He claimed that GC had a polygon limit of 10m if you don't light or clip anything (basically claiming it couldn't hit 10mpps in game). Meanwhile there are complex games like Rebel Strike going well over 10mpps (Factor 5 claim 20m). If someone told you PS2 could manage only 10m polys per second if you use no lights or clip anything would you be so ready to believe it?

 

[Teasy]

Bland, barren environments with low poly rigid models moving around doing nothing much in particular. I had 2 or 3 - can't remember - and it looked poor. And the on-foot sections were laughably bad - horrible infact. But there'd always be some PR stuff about amazing lighting and 20 million polygons per second and wham, it's a Factor Five love in as a few un-animated boxes move around above some snow or dirt. Take away the Star Wars and Nintendo fan multipliers and THE EMPEROR IS NAKED GOD DAMN IT!!!

Man, I got so sick of people posting pictures of the trees as the answer to any and every possible criticism of the game's visuals. Yeah, the game looks much better when you can't see anything because of trees. :mad

The on foot missions where bad in game play and animation, nobody said Factor 5 were great at creating wonderfully playable games. But bad looking, really?? The environments were covered in high detail textures/bump mapping, which is far from bland. The models were perhaps low poly in comparison to say Leon from RE4 yes, but for what they were representing they were very detailed. Lighting was dramatic and varied and lots and lots of texture layers were used. Yes it played to the strengths of the system in that less dynamic models were easier to produce purely with the hardware T&L unit. But honestly I can't grasp the idea that it was poor graphically, controversial isn't a strong enough word IMO

Also I find it very funny that you use barren environments against the game and then try to claim all the tree's in the game hid how barren it was

 

[PSman]

MGS3's jungle was divided into more and smaller sub-sections than Resident Evil 4, so every few meters you were greeted with a loading screen, so it wasnt as "open" and "big" as you claim.

Yes there are load times, but the point here is that MGS3 environments are far more wide open than RE4's - the parts where you fight The End is a great example of just how huge MGS3 environment is. RE4 environments are basically lifeless and pretty much just a bunch of very linear straight line paths.

Resident Evil 4 also boasted more effects, better lighting and textures. The very detailed real time cut scenes in RE4 (which PS2 run as video) is a testament to its capabilities.

No it doesn't. RE4 uses pseudo pre-baked lighting whereas MGS3's are largely in real time. Simply look at how the sun light in MGS3 shine through the trees & leaves and then cast their shadow on Snake! This show just how amazing MGS3's lighting is. Speaking of the textures RE4's textures are pretty inconsistent. It looks great in some parts and in others it is just flat out ugly and pixelated. Whereas the textures in MGS3 are consistent and razor sharp.

The very detailed real time cut scenes in RE4 (which PS2 run as video) is a testament to its capabilities.

MGS3 also has very detailed real time cut scenes, except MGS3's cut-scenes are a lot more sophisticated, has more details, more actions going on, better facial expressions, more effects etc..

Not to mention sections where you were attacked by tenths of characters simultaneously.

That also happen in MGS3.

There's nothing that amazing about MGS3's jungle area, not to the point where anyone could objectively say it clearly trumps every environment in RE4.

MGS3's jungle is huge and is full of highly detailed foliage and animals. Its real time lighting effects cast shadows on the characters and animals. MGS3's environments are clearly far more sophisticated than RE4's environment.

Did you ever see the lava room in RE4?

That's just one small areas, whereas MGS3 contains many beautiful looking areas.

 

[Teasy]

How can the environment be far more open if you have to stop and wait for loading? That's a complete contradiction in terms. You keep talking about RE4 environments being lifeless, detail wise they are not in the slightest, various animals roam around in RE4 and there are also lots of little details like dust/fog/leaves blowing around. Also RE4 lighting was dynamic, that much is completely obvious.. I mean where are you even getting this stuff from? Did you play the PS2 or PC version or something?

I actually agree in part about textures. RE4 was inconsistent to a degree. Some of its texture work was a bit low detail while others were extremely detailed. While MGS3's textures were consistent, consistently bland green and brown smudges (outside of some cut scenes).. razor sharp?, you're joking yeah?

As for the lava room being one small area, yes it was a smaller area than most in RE4, it was also absolutely stunning. The lava, the heat effects in the air, probably the most impressed I've ever been by a game.

 

[function]

Also no its not just a case of not remembering a number from a spec sheet. He claimed that GC had a polygon limit of 10m if you don't light or clip anything (basically claiming it couldn't hit 10mpps in game). Meanwhile there are complex games like Rebel Strike going well over 10mpps (Factor 5 claim 20m). If someone told you PS2 could manage only 10m polys per second if you use no lights or clip anything would you be so ready to believe it?

"On GameCube the biggest issue is it was just had pathetic triangle throughput, the 10M polygons per second (I don't remember the real number) assumes you never clip or light anything."

He said it wasn't the real number. The important point was that it had pathetic triangle throughput given lighting and clipping considerations. If someone told me they didn't remember the PS2's actual triangle throughput I'd probably believe them - and it wouldn't mean they wrong about the point they actually wanted to make.

The on foot missions where bad in game play and animation, nobody said Factor 5 were great at creating wonderfully playable games. But bad looking, really?? The environments were covered in high detail textures/bump mapping, which is far from bland. The models were not low poly, low poly in comparison to say Leon from RE4 yes, but for what they were representing they were very detailed. Lighting was dramatic and varied and lots and lots of texture layers were used. Yes it played to the strengths of the system in that less dynamic models were easier to produce purely with the hardware T&L unit. But honestly I can't grasp the idea that it was poor graphically, controversial isn't a strong enough word IMO

It's been a long time since I got excited over tiled ground textures, and I don't remember Dot3 in Rogue Squadron (2 or 3, whichever I had). EMBM wasn't really brag worthy by the time the GC came out.

I think RS probably did play to the strengths of Gamecube though, which only adds to my being happy to entertain the idea that the PS2 may be more powerful. Other developers played to the Gamecube's strengths and didn't make it look like the GC had a strength deficit compared to the PS2.

Also I find it very funny that you use barren environments against the game and then try to claim all the tree's in the game hid how barren it was

Barren and ugly environment ---> [Loading new level] ----> On the forest floor, draw distance of 5 trees. At least that's what I remember. I was being made to watch someone else play at the time. My game definitely had some barren and ugly snow bit, some awful on-foot bits, and some barren and ugly dirt bit that was also an awful on-foot bit. Urgh.

[Edit]Been researching (looking at videos on Youtube), and while the on foot sections were every bit as awful as I remember some of the flying bits are rather better than I remember, so I was being unfairly harsh. I still don't see it as one of the best GC games though and all the stuff about rigid models stands.[/Edit]