Which machine do you expect to be most powerful?

Which machine do you expect to be the most powerful?

  • Xbox2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nintendo Revolution

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    107
london-boy said:
Well, if the title of the thread is "what console will have the most features", then we're back to square one: the one that comes out last, most certainly.

The titles is "what do u think will be the most powerful console". It's different...

And if you want good games, a FFTSW graphics with FFX physics scenario is not gonna be very pretty.

Do you expect some next-gen machine to be capable of only FFX physics?
 
GwymWeepa said:
Most people in the general public equate graphics to power when it comes to consoles, let's not get nit picky ;)
I don't and I would suspect that neither does most of the other posters on this board.
 
cybamerc said:
GwymWeepa said:
Most people in the general public equate graphics to power when it comes to consoles, let's not get nit picky ;)
I don't and I would suspect that neither does most of the other posters on this board.

I defined what I meant by power, its based on what most people feel is "power" or do you argue that if you polled most casual gamers would say that they factor in cpu power more than they do raw graphics? Whether they are wrong or not, that's what they feel is power, and why I neglected to be more precise about what I meant.
 
GwymWeepa said:
cybamerc said:
GwymWeepa said:
Most people in the general public equate graphics to power when it comes to consoles, let's not get nit picky ;)
I don't and I would suspect that neither does most of the other posters on this board.

I defined what I meant by power, its based on what most people feel is "power" or do you argue that if you polled most casual gamers would say that they factor in cpu power more than they do raw graphics? Whether they are wrong or not, that's what they feel is power, and why I neglected to be more precise about what I meant.

It will be even more vague this way. People's feel of "power" cannot be quantified nor easily compared.
 
london-boy said:
It's not all about graphics. I think people need to get it into their heads that we need solid physics and animation. Shiny graphics only gets you so far.
I just read a nice quote yesterday.

What role does realism play in videogames I ask myself. Is this image more interesting? Sometimes.. however, what if a "detailed" hand with 5 fingers is catching a bottle but the fingers pass right through it? Is this still realistic? Rather than to show each meticulous and tiny detail of a finger, it is more important to make the end action look more credible by working on the movement and functionality of the arms and the hand in relation to the object.
 
^ ^ Sharing my feelings.

And Gwymweepa (crazy name by the way :D ), no i don't expect next gen consoles to only be capable of FFX physics, since current gen are already capable of much more. Just like i don't expect next gen hardware to be capable of producing FFTSW graphics. It was an example obviously. Emphatically exaggerated to get the point through better.
 
I think that it's no longer important just how powerfull a console is IMHO. (of course it needs to have some power ;)) It's mainly going to depend on how well a developer can make use of the CPU and GPU.
 
What I feel is "power", it's something that arises strong feelings in me, not just something that makes me go instantly :oops:.
"Power" to me is not only something that can be experienced visually, it's a more wholesome thing.
 
Think of an action game where you can cut, break, pick up, throw, burn everything you possibly can, and see it happening in a realistic way. A fighting game where finally the 2 characters don't go through each other when doing throws. Characters that not only move properly, but also have soft tissue which moves realistically. When they fall on the floor, they do so realistically, where any movement interacts with the environment and on themselves... Facial animation that actually looks realistic, hair and cloth that finally move realistically, get broken, cut, fall down, get wet, heavier, drip water when pressed in your character's hands.
Light that works properly. Shadows that are different depending on the light source, like in real life.


Graphics only takes you so far.
 
If power is xbox > GC > PS2 > DC > N64 > PS > Saturn etc

Then its number crunching abilities combined with visuals and effects and a lack of limitations. The N64 was powerful for its day but seriously limited by catridges etc..

If its selling games then everything sony ever shifted is more "powerful", but sony products always seem lacking in real oomf to me. All show.
 
sytaylor said:
If power is xbox > GC > PS2 > DC > N64 > PS > Saturn etc

Then its number crunching abilities combined with visuals and effects and a lack of limitations.

^ ^ Strictly tied to release date. Because i'm always right.
 
I didnt vote. because I think each of the three new consoles will have certain specific strengths over the other two. just as it is now with the PS2-GCN-Xbox. no console completely eclipses the other two. they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I expect that to be true of the new consoles as well. that was also true of the Saturn-PS1-N64. and of the Genesis-SNES.


I for one, would not say the Xbox is clearly and totally superior to the PS2.
many PS2 games are technically better than certain Xbox games, and vice versa.


only if you compare say, NeoGeo to Genesis, you get the NeoGeo winning in every technical area over the Genesis. Or the PC Engine / TG16 over the Famicom/NES. or Dreamcast over N64-PS1. (cant count that since DC is a generation ahead of N64-PS1) or Lynx-GameGear-TurboExpress over GameBoy. Or Amiga over a 1984-1986 PC.
 
I think it will be mostly like this generation.

Nintendo will still have thier own market that is geared towards a younger crowd or people who don't care about physics or graphics. It will be good, but they aren't going to go at it like sony and microsoft.

I think xbox 2 will be best out of the gate and it looks like it will have great potential.

I think sony will pull ahead in a few years after launch once everyone figures out their ps3 and the best way to program for the cell design.
 
This is easy...

The one with the best compiler and who's titles have the fewest bonehead project managers... :p
 
I'm a total newbie to amigas. my only experience with them is WinUAE.

Oh then you won't mind me trolling a little and point out that the Sharp X680x0s pwnz0rs Amigas.. :p (and I'm sure that we can attract a few Atari ST fanboys as well)... ;)
 
yes, I am now a HUGE fan of the Sharp X68000 series. it so totally blew the living snot out of the 1980s Amiga, as far as arcade ports are concerned. not so much the potential of the Amiga, which was probably only somewhat weaker than the X68000, but software wise, the difference is incredble. in the Amiga's defence, many games were Atari ST ports, that did not show what the Amiga could do. I'd say overall, ones impression of the Amiga vs X68000, when comparing software, might be like the NES vs the SMS, where SMS generally had better graphics and audio. at the most (worst case for Amiga, best case for X68000) the comparison is like that of the Famicom/NES vs the PC Engine.

the best part of owning a X68000 for me would've been the 99% identical arcade ports of Strider, Alien Syndrome, SF2ce, Ghouls N Ghosts, Final Fight, Image Fight, R-Type, Gradius I & II, Fantasy Zone, and dozens of others. as well as the best version of Thunder Force II the original, which predates the Megadrive/Genesis TF2. i wish Sharp had made the X68000 into a console, like Fujitsu did by turning the FM Towns into the FM Towns Marty, or like Commodore did by turning the A1200 (or A1400, i forget) with AGA graphics into the CD32.

X68000 is so godly. only the NeoGeo is a better 16-Bit machine. X68000 crushes the MD/Genesis and SNES, IMVHO. I would've been thrilled if Hudson (creators of at least part of the X68000 chipset and OS) had used the X68000 or modified version as the basis for the PC Engine 2. it would've been true 16-Bit, unlike the SuperGrafx. an X68K based PCE2 would've been enough of a leap beyond the PCE that developers and gamers would care, which certainly was NOT the case with the poor SuperGrafx.

excuse my small troll on X68000 and Amiga :)
 
Pah the amiga was for pussies who couldn't program.... The ST was it, any machine that requires real skill to scroll the screen at a decent framerate is clearly superior.

Someone should describe the lengths it was necessary to go to, to implement "hardware" (and I use the term loosely) sideways scrolling on an Atari ST.

Of course the technique only works on PAL ST's, but they never sold man outside of europe so it didn't matter.
 
I picked nintendo. This generation they had the art direction and power to make games more apealing to my eyes . Now if this is what you were asking i dunno. But to me the one that puts out the most pleasing image is the most powerfull .
 
Back
Top