Pemalite said:
Ganoncrotch said:
In some ways, but using something like dire ports of Madden from EA onto the GC was more an indication of what EA thought about the console at the time more than the graphical power that it was capable of, using software to try to directly say "look what the hardware is capable of" in terms of a system where devs don't have confidence (or coding ability) would mean that someone could jump to games like WWE2k18 on the Switch to suggest the machine isn't capable of playing a x360 title above 10fps
Of course if you have an entire library of games which look better on one machine than the other then you have other things to consider and could say that software overall does say that the machine was more powerful, but keep in mind as well on the ps2/xbox games had access to an absolute ton more storage space, even a 2 disc game on the GC would still be around half the space of anything on a DVD, never mind a dual layer disk.
Just saying, that "software = representation of the machines power" could lead to someone posting this
As the ability of the Switch. Seriously though... love that video so much, watch the framerate when their name bar appears at the end, you can pretty much count the frames.
|
What I am more or less saying is you take a well made game for Xbox or Gamecube and break down the rendering pipeline, it removes all subjectivity.
The best looking games on Xbox were certainly using rendering techniques that typically didn't appear on Gamecube for one reason or another.
Ganoncrotch said:
When it comes to the Sixth generation though, if I'm not mistaken wasn't factor 5's Star Wars game the highest polygon shifting title of that generation (I could be wrong on that, but have heard it uttered a few times, not saying that misinformation can't spread)
Sure was beautiful though.
|
That game was a powerhouse.
The Original Xbox easily had superior culling to pretty much any GPU released up to that point in time as it was a big focus by nVidia, thus poly counts would be a tough one to gauge as they can be counted differently or counted in a way that doesn't account for that technology.
But from a raw numbers perspective... The Original Xbox did have a higher theoretical count in that aspect over the Cube.
|
Just keep in mind on one hand you are saying that "games looked nicer on the xbox meaning the hardware was stronger" but when it's a game shifting the most poly's of the generation you flip to "that game is great.... but the xbox hardware is the thing which shows its hardware was stronger, not the software but the raw numbers"
I will point out, that I agree with you that the xbox is the more capable machine, I don't believe that the GC could hold a candle to it in raw power, but I'm just saying that the GC was capable of great things with great devs and equally places like EA could make the machine look like dogshit when they lost interest in it. I just always try to stay away from the "software running great = great hardware" angle.
