Megadrive1988
Veteran
the SNES was not the most powerful, if you count NeoGeo
Xbox 2 coming in Nov-Dec 2005 - Revolution could be stronger
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
- Status
the SNES was not the most powerful, if you count NeoGeo
Function
Well you can't exactly calculate it to any sort of number obviously. Its just apparent that GC is made to be more about efficiency then brute power like XBox.
Compare PS2's best games to DC's best games, then do the same for XBox and GC. As for ID, its no suprise that a PC developer looking to port a PC game to consoles wouldn't choose a very none PC like console (like GC).
Well you can't exactly calculate it to any sort of number obviously. Its just apparent that GC is made to be more about efficiency then brute power like XBox.
Compare PS2's best games to DC's best games, then do the same for XBox and GC. As for ID, its no suprise that a PC developer looking to port a PC game to consoles wouldn't choose a very none PC like console (like GC).
Teasy said:
quite frankly, I disagree with that comment and question its validity for various reasons:
- One has to question why Microsoft took upon this venture in the first place. With investments exceeding 2 billion and huge losses which were to be expected from the beginning, one has to wonder what the real reasons were and that was obviously worth the losses as it seems.
- Given that they are aware of the Dreamcast situation and what incredible hype and momentum Sony was able to draw to the PS2 which launched considerably later, you can be assured that Microsoft will make sure that it won't get into the same situation nor be viewed as being in it.
- Microsoft has a huge capital and it has its goals. When you make the decision to take new challenges, like entering the console industry, upon yourself, the are well aware of what risks it include, but also the potential gains. Obviously, Microsoft is very commited in staying in the industry, even after aware what losses were made with Xbox. You don't just make a new console optimized for costs with no chance in reality to even have a chance. If they want to have a successful console next generation, they will have to be able to stay competitive. By this reason alone, do I think that they will make sure it's hardware is close enough to compete in the eyes of the casual consumer. Accoarding to quite a few sources, Sony is expected to let PS3 fall back to 2007. The CELL processor is already hyped as a "miracle to beat" processor if it delivers - I really don't see Microsoft wanting to be in a position that would make them look infirior nor do I think that would be a smart thing to allow.
- Leaving out a harddrive already lowers the cost quite substantially. What is important for Microsoft is for them to be able to cut prices over time and reach the break-even-point relatively early to draw a profit from it. To turn a profit, it needs to deliver and obviously sell. By customizing their console instead of using "off-the-shelve" parts, it's already done on step in the right direction. Excluding the harddrive and another risk falls out. Given that there are 3 IBM dual-core processors, it also doesn't sound as if Microsoft is too keen on cutting to much from its console.
- Lastly, marketing strategy. They know the competiton is listening and watching carefully, so I wouldn't even be surprised if those claims are wrong or misleading to throw of Sony into believing that they really care about launching a console without making a loss.
In short, I doubt Xbox2 will be a beast in many areas and that it has quite a higher budget than Nintendo which will most likely be a budget console set to be sold cheaper and on a profit.
I didn't say that would lie or make up quotes form developers. I just said they don't usually have a clue.
Even still I doubt it based on what nitnendo has done in the past.
no bloddy way, as I said before it had some nicne graphical features, making it more capable thatn the PSX, but hardly any of those capabailties were all that visible. PSX could push far more polygons than the gamecube, not only that it's games had better framerates for what was drawn...
Like I said, based on nintendo in the past this wasn't typically the case.
Qroach said:
Looking past at my N64/PS1 library, I strongly disagree. Most (3rd party) N64 games were bad because they were using very small cartridge, but the top tier (EAD/RARE) beat (technically) everything I own on the ps1.
Anyway, there has been many threads on that topic on this board ...
Well, perhaps you don't own the best PSone games or something, but the N64 had texture filtering and a few other graphical enhancements going for it, but would never win against the PSX in a poly pushing contest.
Ok, pit any genre on the PSX versus the same genere on the n64 and see which one wins...
Ok, pit any genre on the PSX versus the same genere on the n64 and see which one wins...
Qroach said:
@o@; actually I meant to go back and edit this part but I forgot to. I was going to remove Atari completely and reword it such that I was comparing the systems at launch in Japan. Unless I'm mistaken the Sega Master System came out years after the Famicom in Japan.
Qroach said:
It had the ability to do a lot more effects in hardware than the Genesis, so processor speed doesn't really matter in my opinion.
Qroach said:
I TRULY beg to differ. I CANNOT play PS1 games. They give me a horrible headache... I can't even define why since I don't know the terms very well. Texture shimmering? Aliasing? The N64 did not push as many polies as the PS1 but it sure as hell did A LOT more with them.
Qroach said:
I did include XBox, saying it was the exception to the rule rather than the rule... and as far as the handhelds go...
Qroach said:
Did you ever play those? Do you have any idea how they ate batteries? The gamegear was horrible for batteries such that when I played through Sonic 2 on it with six never before used batteries... I ALWAYS ran out of batteries in the LAST STAGE forcing me to get an AC adapter... and that was the least power hungry of the consoles you mentioned. Great graphics on a handheld come at the expense of battery life. I'm very pessimistic about the battery life for the PSP for the same reason. I truly hope it bucks the trend.
Qroach said:
Famicom had no competition really when it launched... unless you include the decrepid old atari... When it came to America YEARS later and the Sega Master system came out not far after, there you could say there was competition, but the master system came out longer after the famicom than the SNES came out after the genesis... the round you did ceed to Nintendo.
Then to say the Playstation is more powerful than the N64 is absolutely rediculous... (Hell Nintendo had a large hand in the design of the playstation and shunned it in favor of the N64... to their later regret)
Then the gamecube compared to the PS2 and Dreamcast...
Nintendo has a history of technological leadership. There are exceptions, but it does NOT have a history of being relatively weak compared to the competition... except in handhelds and the handhelds that were graphically superior to the gameboys all but required you to be connected with an AC adapter... minimizing their portability.
OICAspork said:
AFAIK, Sony was only there for the CD drive. I'd be quite suprised if Nintendo seriously had a "large hand" in the design of the playstation.
As for PSX/N64 - I quite agree with Qroach on this one and would even go as far to say that in the eyes of most casual consumers, the PSX was more appealing. I for one couldn't stand N64 graphics...
"I don't think the N64 was more powerful than the playstaiton at all. Most N64 games had trouble maintaining 30fps, and drew far less polygons than the PSX. N64 had some nice graphical features but those didn't make it's games look all that much better"
More polys, polys that looked like crap. Shoot, I'd go so far as to say that Mario 64 looks better than any playstation game ever released on a technical level...though the art design of many PSX games really made up for the craptacular effects (like Vagrant story). PSX couldn't hold a candle to the n64 when it came to rendering 3d, I can still play Banjo Kazooie and still actually enjoy the graphics, while anything on the PSX save for a 2d title makes me want to belch up my own bile.
More polys, polys that looked like crap. Shoot, I'd go so far as to say that Mario 64 looks better than any playstation game ever released on a technical level...though the art design of many PSX games really made up for the craptacular effects (like Vagrant story). PSX couldn't hold a candle to the n64 when it came to rendering 3d, I can still play Banjo Kazooie and still actually enjoy the graphics, while anything on the PSX save for a 2d title makes me want to belch up my own bile.
What are the Xbox's biggest exclusive franchises after Halo?
The DOA games?
PGR?
Ninja Gaiden?
KOTOR?
Besides Halo, what do they have which will get people to buy Xbox2 boxes in 11/05?
A Madden demonstrably better (visually and maybe with physics not in the current game) than the current generations and maybe the PC versions (even on a high end rig) may move hundreds of thousands or even a million or two million boxes.
However, not being exclusive, if there's a prospect of a PS3 version within a year which will be at least as good, it might mute a lot of the impact.
Or maybe an as yet unknown franchise, possibly something from Rare, or another internal studio, or a studio yet to be acquired (in which case they should be working on them now). Perhaps an ambitious PC/multiconsole game being made now for the future that MS acquires to make an XB2 exclusive.
The DOA games?
PGR?
Ninja Gaiden?
KOTOR?
Besides Halo, what do they have which will get people to buy Xbox2 boxes in 11/05?
A Madden demonstrably better (visually and maybe with physics not in the current game) than the current generations and maybe the PC versions (even on a high end rig) may move hundreds of thousands or even a million or two million boxes.
However, not being exclusive, if there's a prospect of a PS3 version within a year which will be at least as good, it might mute a lot of the impact.
Or maybe an as yet unknown franchise, possibly something from Rare, or another internal studio, or a studio yet to be acquired (in which case they should be working on them now). Perhaps an ambitious PC/multiconsole game being made now for the future that MS acquires to make an XB2 exclusive.
ok, in japan possibly... I'm not sure when it came out in japan.
Performance in games does though. Snes had some great graphical features for it's time. THere were certain things you just couldn't do on the snes because it's processors were relatively slowly clocked. Like the NHL hockey games on the genesis (1992-1993) ran at a performance level you couldn't get on the Snes with the same game. 60fps locked in that game was quite a feat.
I can hardly play n64 games since those blurry textures really bothered me. Sure it got rid of the ailiasing on the PSX, but hte poly count was almost haved onteh n64 and the performance in most games was horrible.
Yes I played all of them, and they were all more powerfull than the handhelds from nintendo, considering how long ago they came out.
Um the colleco was closer in hardware to the NES, infact I think it used some similar hardware ad yet came out earlier.
I still diasagree. i could live wiht teh pixelated textures on teh PSX as long as the game ran fast and it could draw almost twice as many poly's.
Like i said before you have to include the xbox in there. So this round doesn't count.
I think it would make as much sense to say Nintendo has a history of technological inferiority as it would to say they have one of technological superiority (not saying anybody is saying either). That is to say, it seems to me that they have a history of being able to compete. The SNES had its ups and its downs, as did the N64 and the Gamecube.
That said, if Nintendo is coming out a year later with parts from the same companies, I don't think it is all that unreasonable to expect at least a little advancement relative to Microsoft.
Assuming Nintendo is coming out in 2006 and Sony 2007, IMO it might be better for MS to wait until 2006 (and come out with an even larger/more polished launch library than they would otherwise). Of course, I am not in charge of anything, just my opinion.
That said, if Nintendo is coming out a year later with parts from the same companies, I don't think it is all that unreasonable to expect at least a little advancement relative to Microsoft.
Assuming Nintendo is coming out in 2006 and Sony 2007, IMO it might be better for MS to wait until 2006 (and come out with an even larger/more polished launch library than they would otherwise). Of course, I am not in charge of anything, just my opinion.
OICAspork said:
The DC is nearly three years older than the GC! It'd be fairer to compare the N64 to DC as the age gap is less, in which case the N64 gets a complete kicking on every level (with the DC costing a lot less on it's release in the US and Europe despite also featuring a modem and optical media).
The GC is nearly 18 months newer than the PS2, and in many ways fails to outperform or even match it. I'm sure I read a comment by Tomonobu Itagaki that the PS2 and GC were about as powerful as one another.
There's a lot more I'd like to say on all this, but I don't have time right now. Suffice to say, when a Nintendo machine is more powerful than it's competition it's always come along 18 months to 2 years after the competiton in question, and hasn't (IMO) featured the performance improvement you should be expecting to see given all the extra time. Anything that comes along 2 years after a Nintendo machine normally smokes it.
- Status
