zarx said:
Scoobes said:
TheBardsSong said:
What makes the Gamecube being more powerful than the Xbox argument really funny is that even it's successor's hardware is only barely as/more powerful than the original Xbox, and even then the Xbox beats the Wii in a number of areas. Saying the Gamecube is more powerful than the Xbox is like saying it's more powerful than the Wii.
|
The funny thing is, the top GameCube games shown in this thread really do outshine the vast majority of games on the Wii which further emphasises the point about developer effort. X-box was the easiest of all the consoles last gen to develop for as it was essentially a PC and it shows in a large number of games with impressive visuals. Gamecube took far more effort by comparison and considerring the small market share it had, few developer were willing to put much effort into the machine. This shows as it's only a few games where the developers have put effort in (like RS2) which show off its visual prowess and are easily on par with the X-box titles.
|
The Xbox was also hurt by the fact that MS at the time didn't really understand how console development worked and refused to give devs direct access to the hardware until after launch. Most games on Xbox were just using PC engines optomised just enough to get everything to run smoothly and called it a day, or up ports as most games led on PS2. There are only a handful of games that pushed what the system could really do, like Team Ninja who did more at 60fps than most Xbox games did at 30
|
There were quite a few games that I felt made decent enough use of the hardware. I can't imagine many PC engines required much in the way of optimisation considering the hardware was essentially made up of off the shelf PC components. Personally I thought Halo 2 and Far Cry pushed the system byintroducing normal mapping and then there were games like Riddick and Splinter Cell which had excellent lighting. Didn't it also have a lot of Unreal Engine 2 games?
