Support NeoGAF

[JordanN]

I mean, to each their own, but I laid out the specs difference.

New 3ds *might* have a better CPU than wii but the gpu is still worse than cube or Xbox and even the ps2 in some cases. 3ds is a dreamcast - ps2 level machine. The original 3ds CPU was too weak to even have ice climbers in smash lol.

Something tells me Wii still has the better CPU than new3ds but i have to do more research.

Smash bros on 3DS ran at 60fps and 3D.

 

[Chozofication_]

JordanN dude compare mario 3d land at 30fps to sunshine on cube or worse mario galaxy at 60fps 3ds is quite a ways away from cube visuals

 

[Vorg]

I mean, to each their own, but I laid out the specs difference.

New 3ds *might* have a better CPU than wii but the gpu is still worse than cube or Xbox and even the ps2 in some cases. 3ds is a dreamcast - ps2 level machine. The original 3ds CPU was too weak to even have ice climbers in smash lol.

Something tells me Wii still has the better CPU than new3ds but i have to do more research.

So what you're saying is games like Resident Evil revelations and Mario Kart 7 would be possible on Dreamcast/ps2?

 

[Cattlyst]

Like many posters here, I owned all three during that generation (and still have them all, somewhere!). Xbox wins hands down in terms of graphical grunt. The Gamecube probably comes in second on a technical level but there are some PS2 games that are super impressive and aren't matched by anything on GC. Gran Turismo 3 for example. All three have great looking games, but Xbox definitely wins IMO.

 

[JordanN]

JordanN dude compare mario 3d land at 30fps to sunshine on cube or worse mario galaxy at 60fps 3ds is quite a ways away from cube visuals

Launch era game and Nintendo didn't actually push the system as hard.

Capcom games in particular were better optimized. Even Smash Bros had to be outsourced to Namco.

 

[Chozofication_]

So what you're saying is games like Resident Evil revelations and Mario Kart 7 would be possible on Dreamcast/ps2?

Oh definitely, though they'd look a bit different. Sometimes we see fancier lighting than dreamcast in games like Kirby triple deluxe. And shiny layers thanks to the pica gpu's fixed functions.

But geometry wise and overall performance, 3ds, at its absolute best is ps2 level, and ps2 still has the advantage in geometry deformation, fillrate and memory bandwidth.

 

[Vorg]

Oh definitely, though they'd look a bit different. Sometimes we see fancier lighting than dreamcast in games like Kirby triple deluxe. And shiny layers thanks to the pica gpu's fixed functions.

But geometry wise and overall performance, 3ds, at its absolute best is ps2 level, and ps2 still has the advantage in geometry deformation, fillrate and memory bandwidth.

OK, I think we're done here.

 

[Chozofication_]

Launch era game and Nintendo didn't actually push the system as hard.

Capcom games in particular were better optimized. Even Smash Bros had to be outsourced to Namco.

Kirby triple deluxe is a great example of 3ds power, and the overall detail is much lower than return to dreamland on Wii.

What you're saying is akin to saying ps vita is better than ps3 because it has more ram and a newer architecture! 3ds is not GameCube/Xbox/Wii level hardware

 

[Chozofication_]

OK, I think we're done here.

Dude look at the dragon quest 8 port on 3ds, it's missing some objects on 3ds. You think what im saying is foolish but you have no counter? Mk7 is pretty low poly.

 

[A.Romero]

OG Xbox was a great machine at it's time:

- Supported High Def
- Supported true 5.1 sound through optical (the others used Dolby Prologic)
- Had integrated network support

If someone decided to mod it, it opened a lot of possibilities including XBMC which was a great app that lay the foundations to many media features that we take for granted today and weren't available at the time even on dedicated media devices.

It was a great machine techwise and was a great first effort.

I had a PS2 and it had my favourite games (for example MGS2 and MGS3) but it was technically inferior.

Never had a GC because the games it had didn't seem to be worth it.

 

[JordanN]

Oh definitely, though they'd look a bit different. Sometimes we see fancier lighting than dreamcast in games like Kirby triple deluxe. And shiny layers thanks to the pica gpu's fixed functions.

But geometry wise and overall performance, 3ds, at its absolute best is ps2 level, and ps2 still has the advantage in geometry deformation, fillrate and memory bandwidth.

Can you show me a fighting game on Gamecube/Wii that had characters as complex as the ones in the Street Fighter 4 port?

Even in close ups, facial deformation is there, characters had individual teeth, detailed hair and bump maps. And it ran at 60fps (or 40fps with 3D).
The only sacrifice was the backgrounds were static (but this was a launch game, coming off devkits that still weren't final).

Edit: Found a native res shot.

Kirby triple deluxe is a great example of 3ds power, and the overall detail is much lower than return to dreamland on Wii.

What you're saying is akin to saying ps vita is better than ps3 because it has more ram and a newer architecture! 3ds is not GameCube/Xbox/Wii level hardware

Gamecube/Wii was far more ancient in comparison.

 

[stranno]

OG Xbox was a great machine at it's time:

- Supported High Def

Most Gamecube US titles support 480p aswel. And XBOX had really few 720P titles, being Hulk: Ultimate Destruction the most impressive.

And not every single XBOX game use progressive. Kung Fu Chaos, one of my favourite games on the system, supported progressive in the demo, but devs dropped it in the final build.

Can you show me a fighting game on Gamecube/Wii that characters as complex as the ones the Street Fighter 4 port?

Even in close ups, facial deformation is there, characters had individual teeth, detailed hair and bump maps. And it ran at 60fp (or 40fps with 3D). .
The only sacrifice was the backgrounds were static (but this was at launch game, coming off devkits that still weren't final).

Tatsunoko vs Capcom, maybe? Style is quite different though.

 

[A.Romero]

Most Gamecube US titles support 480p aswel.

And not every single XBOX game use progressive. Kung Fu Chaos, one of my favourite games on the system, supported progressive in the demo, but devs dropped it in the final build.

It's true but while the max PS2 and GC achieved was 480p, Xbox had some games running at 720P and 1080i.

 

[cireza]

So what you're saying is games like Resident Evil revelations and Mario Kart 7 would be possible on Dreamcast/ps2?

Look at it the other way round. Dreamcast can output in progressive a resolution of 640*480, that's a lot of pixels compared to 400*240. 3DS being a modern hardware, it will be able to do natively stuff that is not present in the Dreamcast (visual effects and stuff), but it terms of raw graphics ? Pretty sure that the console is more capable.

How many sacrifices would it take to run MSR on 3DS ?

A new Runabout was announced on 3DS and I was hoping for great stuff, in the end what did we get ? This :


Dreamcast :


Higher resolution, better graphics, better physics, 60fps

 

[JordanN]

Tatsunoko vs Capcom, maybe? Style is quite different though.

Look at their hands/feet. They're fused together i.e low poly.

The 3DS port has individual fingers, a set of teeth and full bump mapping.

And this was a launch 3DS game too. Tatsunoko vs Capcom came out 2 years into the Wii's lifespan and the character models still aren't as detailed.

 

[Stuart360]

Yeah as someone who owned a Xbox and Gamecube, that discussion yesterday was interesting to read. It was the first time i'd ever seen anyone suggest the Gamecube was more powerful than Xbox. It certainly was not something i ever read at the time.
Xbox games certainly looked a level above Gamecube and PS2 games, and multiplatform games proved that.
Those Rogue Leader SW games were amazing on Gamecube though, as good as anyhting on Xbox arguably.

 

[Chozofication_]

Look at it the other way round. Dreamcast can output in progressive a resolution of 640*480, that's a lot of pixels compared to 400*240. 3DS being a modern hardware, it will be able to do natively stuff that is not present in the Dreamcast (visual effects and stuff), but it terms of raw graphics ? Pretty sure that the console is more capable.

How many sacrifices would it take to run MSR on 3DS ?

A new Runabout was announced on 3DS and I was hoping for great stuff, in the end what did we get ? This :


Dreamcast :


Higher resolution, better graphics, better physics, 60fps

I can't believe we are having this discussion honestly! Going to have to bow out for now lol.

 

[Cattlyst]

I can't believe we are having this discussion honestly! Going to have to bow out for now lol.

No, no. Please continue! I never thought I'd witness a Dreamcast vs 3DS battle in my lifetime XD

 

[thelastword]

You know what would be great, if we could create a thread with;


Emulated PS1 games vs N64
Emulated PS2 games vs GC/XBOX

We can see which games hold up best to high rez scrutiny......We can investigate, polygon counts, artstyle, textures and generally how these games look today. Videos of these games in motion would be nice too, for what we can't see in stills (like effects)...We can delve into framerate captures, Screenshots, which console had more 60fps games or more fluid games, which console had the best looking games in general...…..I'd like to put some games under the lens like GT3/4, Valkyrie Profile, Shadow Hearts etc......Just installing some emulator software as we speak...….I think it makes more sense to analyze the real mettle of these games under HD scrutiny.....For example, FF12 had some nice looking textures on PS2...….

 

[synchronicity]

Xbox > GC > PS2

The power difference basically shows the time the hardware was in the market launched.

In terms of power, sure, but in terms of love:

PS2>>>>>>>GC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Xbox

But, in fairness, the PS2 was just the perfect storm. There will never be another console like it, and there never was one before it.

That generation of gaming was the most exciting for me though. I owned all 3 consoles - still do, and it just seemed like that period of time was ripe with creativity, experimentation and growth for the medium. It was a truly formative time. The whole gaming scene was just fertile.

 

[Vorg]

You know what would be great, if we could create a thread with;


Emulated PS1 games vs N64
Emulated PS2 games vs GC/XBOX

We can see which games hold up best to high rez scrutiny......We can investigate, polygon counts, artstyle, textures and generally how these games look today. Videos of these games in motion would be nice too, for what we can't see in stills (like effects)...We can delve into framerate captures, Screenshots, which console had more 60fps games or more fluid games, which console had the best looking games in general...…..I'd like to put some games under the lens like GT3/4, Valkyrie Profile, Shadow Hearts etc......Just installing some emulator software as we speak...….I think it makes more sense to analyze the real mettle of these games under HD scrutiny.....For example, FF12 had some nice looking textures on PS2...….

Hey, I'd be down for this. Would make for a cool thread, tbqh.

 

[zcaa0g]

No you children are trying to claim the xbox with its shitty Celeron cpu and normal map shiny walls out performed the GC when this is far from the truth. Rogue Squadron a launch GC game out performed the most demanding xbox game in polycount by a huge margin.
Edit:

Console power discussion Xbox vs Gamecube or modified P3 733 vs PPC 750CXe Gekko @ 485MHz

There is a discussion here regarding the graphics capabilities of the Gamecube in relation to other consoles, and particularly the Xbox, since it tends to be considered the most powerful console on the market. an exerpt from the original postquote: So who's to say what is most...

arstechnica.com

Nintendo sucked then, Nintendo sucks now. Under powered Fisher Price class hot garbage.

 

[Paracelsus]

When I saw Dead of Alive 3 I was blown away so bad that years later Dead or Alive 4 made me go "is that it?".
I still wonder what would've happened had XBOX hogged all the third parties, that gen would've probably lasted 10 years.

 

[pawel86ck]

Dude it is fact the GC outperforms the Xbox on polycount, the GC cpu is far superior to the Intel Celeron in Xbox. Celeron were cheap ass cpu's very similar to an i3 today when i9's are available.
Games like Rogue Leader, F-Zero GX, MP2 and RE4 are clearly running more complex geometry than Riddick or Halo.
The fact is that the GC cpu was so efficient it was used in Wii, the Wiiu cpu is literally 3 GC CPUs duck taped together.
Keep arguing kid ill bring up even more forum topics from 2003 and 2004 to destroy you with the facts.
Of that gen Rogue Leader was the pinnacle in how many polys were being pushed in real time, hundreds of ships on screen at one time...14-20 million polys a second.

Rogue Leader is a totally different type of game (a space shooter with 2D backgrounds, or small levels with one simple scenery) and you cant compare it to halo games, and not to mention splinter cell games.

destroy you with the facts.

If you really want to look at facts, so here you have detailed specification analysis

GameCube vs. Xbox: Part Deux - Page 13 of 18 - ExtremeTech

For two boxes that do essentially the same thing, Xbox and Game Cube could hardly be more different internally. Take our tour, and understand why.

www.extremetech.com

20-30 million triangles/sec on Game Cube vs 116.5 million triangles/sec on xbox

Xbox pushes 8 million polygons a second with textures and effects in the real world, GC pushes 14-20 million real world.

But can you prove it? For now you have only linked some thread from 2002,

Claimed performance figures : Gamecube vs Xbox

Developers of Rogue Leader on the GC estimate RL pushes 15 million polygons per second with 8 hardware lights and 5-8 textures. Tecmo developers of Dead or Alive 3, considered the most visual impressive game on the xbox claim it pushes a maximum of 8 million per second.quote:but we estimate most...

arstechnica.com

It's mentioned here Dead Or Alive 3 pushes 5-8 million polygons, so your conclusion is xbox cant render more polygons LOL . But what about games after 2002? You want to tell us the best looking games on xbox launched before 2002 and no xbox game used more polygons later on?

And because you keep mentioning RE4 just tell me what's complex in this particular game? Character models? Detailed scenery? Polygon wise RE4 looks like a normal xbox game just without shadows buffers (no dynamic shadows) and without shaders.

Metroid Prime 2, the same thing, flat textures, flat lighting, and no dynamic shadows

Rogue Squadron however used bump mapping, self shadows, and even cube maps on water surface but like I have said before, it wasnt complex game, and besides wikipedia mention xbox port was already 50% completed and would look better than Game Cube version. So if that was the best looking GC game, and Xbox version would look even better, than it's only because Xbox hardware was more capable.

I have no idea how to count polygons in games, but the amount of details (trees, vegetation, various objects, shadows, water with amazing real time reflections) I can see in far cry is really something else compared to Game Cube games. I dont remember even single game on GC that would render so huge scenery with similar amount of trees, shadows and shader effects.

 

[Esppiral]

Xbox Was way ahead of the competition, the fact that you can patch many of its games to render natively at 720p on a modded console speaks for itself.

Nothing that generation can match the insane amount of polys DOA 2 ultimate puts on screen at 720x576.

Though there is still people that still believes the ps2 was the strongest of the bunch. Even being the weakest (not counting the Dreamcast)

 

[Oemenia]

I was going to say there are Nintendo fanboys rewriting history but seems they already have in this thread.

No you children are trying to claim the xbox with its shitty Celeron cpu and normal map shiny walls out performed the GC when this is far from the truth. Rogue Squadron a launch GC game out performed the most demanding xbox game in polycount by a huge margin.
Edit:

Console power discussion Xbox vs Gamecube or modified P3 733 vs PPC 750CXe Gekko @ 485MHz

There is a discussion here regarding the graphics capabilities of the Gamecube in relation to other consoles, and particularly the Xbox, since it tends to be considered the most powerful console on the market. an exerpt from the original postquote: So who's to say what is most...

arstechnica.com

I mean like I thought you guys were delusional when you started claiming Resident Evil 4 was better than Doom 3 and all.

But what next, Gamecube had better third-party support than the XBOX?

 

[nkarafo]

Gamecube falls in the middle hardware wise but for some reason it's games impressed me more than XBOX.

I think Rogue Leader was the best looking game in that generation and it was a launch title ffs.


Also, i thought the XBOX had a fast Pentium 3 CPU and not a Celeron?

 

[pawel86ck]

You know what would be great, if we could create a thread with;


Emulated PS1 games vs N64
Emulated PS2 games vs GC/XBOX

We can see which games hold up best to high rez scrutiny......We can investigate, polygon counts, artstyle, textures and generally how these games look today. Videos of these games in motion would be nice too, for what we can't see in stills (like effects)...We can delve into framerate captures, Screenshots, which console had more 60fps games or more fluid games, which console had the best looking games in general...…..I'd like to put some games under the lens like GT3/4, Valkyrie Profile, Shadow Hearts etc......Just installing some emulator software as we speak...….I think it makes more sense to analyze the real mettle of these games under HD scrutiny.....For example, FF12 had some nice looking textures on PS2...….

That's a good idea, because it's hard to find good quality screenshots from PS2/GC/XBOX era, but there's working xbox emulator already? If not maybe the best idea would be to use Xbox X screenshots instead or xbox 360 (xbox 360 emulated xbox OG in 480p, but with AAx4, and also scaling is very good to higher resolutions)

 

[Oemenia]

Wii is 100% the better machine than Xbox in what they can do per clock. It has more memory, and now its main pool is 6.4gb/s just like Xbox in addition to the advantage cube already had - another pool of 2.6gb/s PLUS the edrams 17gb/s. and its front side bus is 110mhz faster.

720p or not, games like mario galaxy, klonoa, silent hill or prime 3 show wiis visual chops.

Wow, this reminds of the 16-bit discussions that infested the internet for so long.

"Sonic was never good"
"Blast processing isn't real"
"LOL SNES was waaaaaaaaaaaaay more popular"
"But what about mode 7?"
"Super Mario Brothers 3 isn't the best game ever made, its the best game that will EVER be made!"
"Sure Contra Hard Corps and Castlevania Bloodlines are good. For Genesis B-tier games that is!"

Anyways, the Wii GPU was barely more powerful than the GC's.

 

[Stuart360]

You know what would be great, if we could create a thread with;


Emulated PS1 games vs N64
Emulated PS2 games vs GC/XBOX

We can see which games hold up best to high rez scrutiny......We can investigate, polygon counts, artstyle, textures and generally how these games look today. Videos of these games in motion would be nice too, for what we can't see in stills (like effects)...We can delve into framerate captures, Screenshots, which console had more 60fps games or more fluid games, which console had the best looking games in general...…..I'd like to put some games under the lens like GT3/4, Valkyrie Profile, Shadow Hearts etc......Just installing some emulator software as we speak...….I think it makes more sense to analyze the real mettle of these games under HD scrutiny.....For example, FF12 had some nice looking textures on PS2...….

As someone who's actually emulated all those consoles (except Xbox, could never get emulators to work), it goes like this -

N64 > PS1
Gamecube > PS2.

N64 games can look surprisingly good at higher resolutions due to their 'solid' graphics. PS1 can look bad as higher resolutions make warping textures/polygons look even worse, plus seems between polygons can be massive at higher resolutions.

Gamecube looks fantastic at higher resolutions, and PS2 can as well in some games, but even at higher resolutions, some PS2 games can look blurry and aliasy. Textures can also be a problem with PS2 at higher rez.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

I can't fact check every game on that list, but I do recall Soul Calibur 2 was technically 4:3 ratio. So it had 720 vertical pixels, but black boxes on both sides.

Silent Hill 3 sort of did this. If you use the xploder disc to force 480p you can tell the resolution was a bit odd.

Xbox Was way ahead of the competition, the fact that you can patch many of its games to render natively at 720p on a modded console speaks for itself.

Nothing that generation can match the insane amount of polys DOA 2 ultimate puts on screen at 720x576.

Though there is still people that still believes the ps2 was the strongest of the bunch. Even being the weakest (not counting the Dreamcast)

Ps2 was the "fastest" at certain things like fill rate where the idea of passes made sense. Near the end of its life we got some really good looking games. It was not more "powerful" as there was a lot of hardware in the Xbox that PS2 had to do in software or not do at all. Quite a few games can be forced to not only 480p but true 16:9 by simply hex editing editing the iso.

 

[thelastword]

In terms of power, sure, but in terms of love:

PS2>>>>>>>GC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Xbox

But, in fairness, the PS2 was just the perfect storm. There will never be another console like it, and there never was one before it.

That generation of gaming was the most exciting for me though. I owned all 3 consoles - still do, and it just seemed like that period of time was ripe with creativity, experimentation and growth for the medium. It was a truly formative time. The whole gaming scene was just fertile.

Like anything else, you release a product later, you can put more under the hood.....Yet I'm more impressed with PS2 as an engineering marvel at the time that it came, even XBOX and GC coming after PS2 didn't have many of it's features..

The PS2 had a very good CPU and was a poly pushing high bandwidth juggernaut compared to the two...Granted it's shading capabilities was not as advanced as the shader based GPU's found in XBOX or quite as good as GC, but it had it's strengths in other areas like I mentioned. You wanted 60fps games, PS2 was your best bet......which I felt was the most important thing at the time at 480i, 480p........Hell, even now, I think next gen consoles should make the transition to 60fps, forget about 30fps...Hell, lets target 120fps, so 60fps can become standard.....

Still it would have been interesting to see what Ken Kutaragi would have come up with in a PS2 in late 2001...When PS2 launched, we had talks of Saddam buying it to launch nukes etc......It was very impressive kit when it came out....It had several USB ports, it had a Fire Wire or I link to connect two consoles for split screen over two TV's, it had an HDD bay, it played your Cd's and DVD's, you could connect a network adapter, it was just a very well done and advanced console on features.........Of course, games are always the most important thing and we all know how that went down....

 

[bobone]

Man those screenshots bring me back.
I loved the GC because of its library, but everyone I knew agreed that the Xbox was superior in the graphics department.
Resident Evil 4 really gave it a run for its money, but I think overall the Xbox wins.

Also, the PS2 was a joke when you put screenshots side by side. I know it sold insanely well, and I loved mine; but not because of the graphics.

 

[Chozofication_]

Wow, this reminds of the 16-bit discussions that infested the internet for so long.

"Sonic was never good"
"Blast processing isn't real"
"LOL SNES was waaaaaaaaaaaaay more popular"
"But what about mode 7?"
"Super Mario Brothers 3 isn't the best game ever made, its the best game that will EVER be made!"
"Sure Contra Hard Corps and Castlevania Bloodlines are good. For Genesis B-tier games that is!"

Anyways, the Wii GPU was barely more powerful than the GC's.

50% faster is not barely ; that's a gtx 1080 > 980 ballpark improvement.

 

[Chozofication_]

No, no. Please continue! I never thought I'd witness a Dreamcast vs 3DS battle in my lifetime XD

Man the dreamcast was, the most advanced console ever released considering when it launched. 2 years after 64 and that much more powerful?! Respect

 

[Stuart360]

50% faster is not barely ; that's a gtx 1080 > 980 ballpark improvement.

I thought the Wii was pretty much a repackaged Gamecube?

 

[Chozofication_]

I thought the Wii was pretty much a repackaged Gamecube?

Yes, but it's still a 1080 > 980 level upgrade.

 

[Negotiator]

Wii CPU utilized an OoO uarch, which actually yielded a better IPC than in-order PPC CPUs:

Speculatively speaking

This post is part of a series – go here for the index. Welcome back! Today, it’s time to take a closer look at the triangle binning code, which we’ve only seen mentioned briefly s…

fgiesen.wordpress.com

"Unfortunately, due to a number of unfortunate design choices, they sucked at basically everything else. In my experience, it was fairly common for random game code to take about the same (wall-clock!!) amount of time on the 3.2GHz Xenon/PS3 PPEs as it did on the ~730MHz Nintendo Wii (and I do mean Wii, not Wii U), which was also PowerPC, but using a very different core derived from the PowerPC 750CL. I talked to a couple of multi-platform game devs and I’m not the only one with that experience."

People always fall for the MHz myth, don't they? Even Jaguar has a better IPC than in-order PPC CPUs:

 

[lock2k]

Xbox was a juggernaut, GC was a pretty damn good machine and PS2 was by far the weakest but had a monster of a library, proving that software is king. I love all three though, for different reasons.

 

[Great Hair]

Of course the xbox had the strongest hardware, they literally just grabbed off the shelf PC components and over night they had their baby machine ready to be shipped. I was more impressed by the visuals displayed by the GameCube than what the humongous xbox could do. It terms of size to visuals (S:V), the GameCube leads, PS2 on 2nd and the Xbox .....

• OG Xbox 7.7Liter, close to twice as heavy as the PS2
• PS2 3.5L
• GC 2.7L
• DC 2.8L

Remove the drives of each console (ps2 + HD space, gc and dc + modem) and i bet you could fit them inside the OG Xbox case without much trouble. 3 consoles instead of just one

 

[Oemenia]

Wii CPU utilized an OoO uarch, which actually yielded a better IPC than in-order PPC CPUs:

Speculatively speaking

This post is part of a series – go here for the index. Welcome back! Today, it’s time to take a closer look at the triangle binning code, which we’ve only seen mentioned briefly s…

fgiesen.wordpress.com

"Unfortunately, due to a number of unfortunate design choices, they sucked at basically everything else. In my experience, it was fairly common for random game code to take about the same (wall-clock!!) amount of time on the 3.2GHz Xenon/PS3 PPEs as it did on the ~730MHz Nintendo Wii (and I do mean Wii, not Wii U), which was also PowerPC, but using a very different core derived from the PowerPC 750CL. I talked to a couple of multi-platform game devs and I’m not the only one with that experience."

People always fall for the MHz myth, don't they? Even Jaguar has a better IPC than in-order PPC CPUs:

The WiiU CPU was worse than the 360's. And that had three upclocked cores of the mythical CPU.

Here while you're at it, the Wii could do better graphics, just long as you went 480p!

 

[Mr Nash]

TIL the PS2 is ancient. FeelsOldMan...

 

[Boss Mog]

I had all 3 but it's hard to pick my favorite between the PS2 and the Gamecube. the PS2 was a behemoth with so many quality 3rd party games, but the Gamecube was Nintendo's best system imho because it had insane 1st party games and very decent 3rd party support.

 

[Doczu]

No, no. Please continue! I never thought I'd witness a Dreamcast vs 3DS battle in my lifetime XD

Let me drop by for this battle

From what i read the 3ds GPU could draw ~20 milion poly's, so that's almost as much as the Gamecube, correct? Now taking into account 3D you should half the amount. So technically if someone would make a AAA game only in 2D, then you could overpower the Dreamcast, even fight with the PS2/GCN.
Add to the fact a more moder shader pipeline and you get games with effects not possible on the older systems, maybe just the OG Xbox could draw these effects.
So you could run a fame like Revelations on the Dreamcast, but it would look like Code Veronica. The low resolution ofthe 3DS worked both in it's favor and was a bottleneck. Check some Citra screenshots, the art shines in a lot of the games when bumped to higher resolutions.

On topic: i had a Gamecube, compared a lot of games with the PS2 and many of them had way worse audio or textures. Years later i learned it was mostly because of the disc capacity. Had they chosen normal size dvd's, then a lot more games would look and sound better.

 

[Negotiator]

The WiiU CPU was worse than the 360's. And that had three upclocked cores of the mythical CPU.

Here while you're at it, the Wii could do better graphics, just long as you went 480p!

Did you even bother to read my post?

Do you understand the difference between SIMD/vector processing and random game code?

Clearly not. Try again.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I had all three eventually (Dreamcast as well). Xbox last as I wasn’t into shooters at all yet so it took KOTOR to get me on board.

The GC was probably my favorite/most played. Honestly though, that was my least favorite generation of gaming (started seriously with NES). Not a fault of the generation. I was just busy finishing up college and then in grad school so I was busy and stressed and gaming isn’t the most relaxing hobby. I was also a bit burnt out in games and it took the shift toward more cinematic, narrative-driven games the last two gens along with Nintendo getting away from chasing the Wii casuals to rejuvenate my interest in gaming. Along with getting tenure and having very little work or financial stress and a lot more free time.

 

[UltimaKilo]

I will just say that is was my favorite gen. I probably owned 80-100 PS2 games and most of my gaming was done on the PS2. However, it was so special when a GCN or XBOX exclusive came out.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

All three systems are great. But remember only one had Blinx and Dino Crisis 3

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

It's true but while the max PS2 and GC achieved was 480p, Xbox had some games running at 720P and 1080i.

that was due to the small amount of edram on ps2 and gc I think.

As someone who's actually emulated all those consoles (except Xbox, could never get emulators to work), it goes like this -

N64 > PS1
Gamecube > PS2.

N64 games can look surprisingly good at higher resolutions due to their 'solid' graphics. PS1 can look bad as higher resolutions make warping textures/polygons look even worse, plus seems between polygons can be massive at higher resolutions.

Gamecube looks fantastic at higher resolutions, and PS2 can as well in some games, but even at higher resolutions, some PS2 games can look blurry and aliasy. Textures can also be a problem with PS2 at higher rez.

Also, the PS2 was a joke when you put screenshots side by side. I know it sold insanely well, and I loved mine; but not because of the graphics.

we also have to remember ps2 was very hard to program for, so many multiplatforms wouldn't necessarily look as good. But games like silent hill 3 and gran turismo 4 looked very good, as did games tailored to the strengths of the hardware like jak and daxter, ratchet and clank, kingdom hearts, and god of war.

 

[CrustyBritches]

Xbox > GC > PS2. I was more a GC/DC guy that gen. Soul Calibur(DC) and Wind Waker being games that really blew mind. SCII on GC was beautiful, but it looked even better on Xbox.