Mr Khan said:
selnor said:
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
1. How about this thread on this very site : http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=146580&page=1
In this thread i read a lot people saying and showing screens to prove that the GC was a bit more powerfull then the xbox.
2. Apparantly the brothers offered their 51 % to Nintendo (49%), but at that time many great talents had left Rare already. So Nintendo said no. You can't blame Nintendo for the fact that Rare was no longer worth buying. Blame Rare.
Check out this about it thread on VGChartz itself: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=3094
|
Thats not proof. Usiing a forum full of fanboys. I want an article or hard figures to back up those claims. Not selected high res screensots. I owned a GC and later got an Xbox. Xbox clearly had more power. But GC was a powerful console certainly beating out pS2.
Forums are not facts and figures and certainly arent developer proof or hardcore articles.
|
The only thing the Xbox was really ahead in was that the GPU had a more advanced feature-set (more than GC or even Wii can do), and had a quicker fill-rate making it capable of doing HD (again, GC and Wii can't do that), but in other terms, who's to say? Some numbers can support GC doing other certain things Xbox couldn't do.
|
The only thing I ever read was that GC could theoretically put more Polys onscreen. But Xbox like you say could do more lightsources, better textures, bumpmapping etc etc. Also that Xbox could do better AI and have bigger more expansive levels due to developers loading onto the HDD and drawing from there not just the disk. Also xbox having more memory allowed alot of this to happen.
Overall Xbox could pull of a better technically looking game. Part of the reason why HL2 was possible with all its physics with Gravity plus great visuals.
