By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Graphics: Gamecube vs. Xbox vs. PS2 vs. Dreamcast

LinkVPit on 17 August 2012
keironuk said:
LinkVPit said:
wasn't the GC the most powerful? I may be wrong?


I think it was the 2nd most powerful but was not far off the xbox which i think was the most powerful.


I thought because the GC was the most powerful and sold the least is why Nintendo stopped taking part in the power race? Either way the PS2 was the least powerful and the strongest!



Around the Network
kain_kusanagi on 17 August 2012

Halo 2 had the best graphics of last gen in my opinion. So I'd say it goes Xbox > Gamecube > PS2



lilbroex on 17 August 2012
LinkVPit said:
wasn't the GC the most powerful? I may be wrong?


No, you are not wrong. It was but less than 5 games actually made use of it. It cost to much and to long for developers to make games of that quality when you look at the install base versus the other two consoles.



NintendoPie on 17 August 2012

I have to say that the GC impressed me the most when I played it.

But that's from my memory.
Going off pictures I would say GC > XBox > PS2.



lilbroex on 17 August 2012
BasilZero said:
After seeing Super Mario Sunshine's visuals and Wind Waker's unique style at the time, I have to say the GCN.

Especially when you consider ports of GCN games such as RE4 which had a few minor graphic tweaks due to the aging PS2's specs compared to the GCN.

Of course the Xbox could of been #1 , I wouldnt know since I never personally had one.


There were not few. Cacpom themselves said that most of the effects had to be removed and the polygon count was cut in half. It also had longer load times.



Around the Network
lilbroex on 17 August 2012
BasilZero said:
lilbroex said:
BasilZero said:
After seeing Super Mario Sunshine's visuals and Wind Waker's unique style at the time, I have to say the GCN.

Especially when you consider ports of GCN games such as RE4 which had a few minor graphic tweaks due to the aging PS2's specs compared to the GCN.

Of course the Xbox could of been #1 , I wouldnt know since I never personally had one.


There were not few. Cacpom themselves said that most of the effects had to be removed and the polygon count was cut in half. It also had longer load times.

I see , I guess the prices played part in it as well cause when the PS2 version came out it was like 39.99 while the GCN version, I nabbed it for 19.99~

The GCN version was 49.99 at launch. Mikami was adament about it not being ported to other consoles but Capcom went over his head and did it anyway. One of the main reasons he left the company.



HappySqurriel on 17 August 2012
lilbroex said:
LinkVPit said:
wasn't the GC the most powerful? I may be wrong?


No, you are not wrong. It was but less than 5 games actually made use of it. It cost to much and to long for developers to make games of that quality when you look at the install base versus the other two consoles.

The XBox had more theoretical processing power and a more advanced GPU architecture, but the Gamecube was very well balanced system that was designed around real-world performance. Ultimately, it would be fair to say that the best looking games for both systems were similar in quality ...



lilbroex on 17 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:
lilbroex said:
LinkVPit said:
wasn't the GC the most powerful? I may be wrong?


No, you are not wrong. It was but less than 5 games actually made use of it. It cost to much and to long for developers to make games of that quality when you look at the install base versus the other two consoles.

The XBox had more theoretical processing power and a more advanced GPU architecture, but the Gamecube was very well balanced system that was designed around real-world performance. Ultimately, it would be fair to say that the best looking games for both systems were similar in quality ...


No. Not even theoretically could the Xbox's Pentium 3 based Celeron outperform the PowerPC processor in the GC.

The GPU was less advanced but used more modern technology that was easier to program. There was no similarity.

The fact still remains to this day.

The max achieved on the Xbox in an actual game was 12 million polygons at 30 FPS with minimal effects.

The max achieved on the GC in an actual game was 20 million polygons at 60 FPS with full bump mapping, dynamic self-shadows, bloom lighting andenemy/enivornmental destruction with over a 100 A.I. controllered enemeis on screen at once.

Those are the facts till the end of time.



HappySqurriel on 17 August 2012

On a side note ...

With how much of a sales lead the PS2 had developers devoted a ton of resources to improving game performance on the PS2 and this makes me wonder what games would have looked like for the Dreamcast, XBox and Gamecube had similar resources been devoted to those platforms.



lilbroex on 17 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:
On a side note ...

With how much of a sales lead the PS2 had developers devoted a ton of resources to improving game performance on the PS2 and this makes me wonder what games would have looked like for the Dreamcast, XBox and Gamecube had similar resources been devoted to those platforms.

 

The games that pushed each respective console the hardest were.

PS2 - God of War 2

Xbox - Chronricles of Riddick

GC - Rebel Strike

Dreamcast - Shenmue

Each of those respective games used the most of what each consle had to offer technically.