Rogue Leader.
Ahh.. the reason I bought a Cube. And the reason I almost sold it.
It's not nearly as impressive as some would have it out to be.
And better than ANYTHING on Xbox? Oh, please. Without even thinking. Rally Sport kills it in the technical department. So does Serious Sam for that matter.
Yes, but how well does this lipstick go with it?Quote:
Originally posted by JefmcC
Rouge Leader.
:wtf:Quote:
So does Serious Sam for that matter.
my biggest problem with rally sport is the textures blur 2 inches past your car and i HATE THATQuote:
Originally posted by JefmcC
And better than ANYTHING on Xbox? Oh, please. Without even thinking. Rally Sport kills it in the technical department. So does Serious Sam for that matter.
and while Serious Sam is a decent looking game its far from better looking than RL and when you turn fast in the game you can actually see it draw the frame
big frame rate issues when turning around and stuff in that game
Rogue Leader has plenty of frame issues too. And LOTS of collision problems. I liked it enough to finish it, but it is very overated as a standout Cube title. Rogue Leader looks good, but a lot of it looks monotone. Metroid and Starfox are the two best looking games on Cube. Nothing else should even be mentioned.
For people that cite Resident Evil, it does look great, but Alone in the Dark on DC does just about the same thing.
Serious Sams frame issues are a different thing. I wouldn't call it a frame rate thing, it's looks like something else. It's not pretty, but it goes unnoticed for a majority of the game. Most of the time the game is smooth as butter. If you played through the entire game on Xbox, you would see some really nice graphics, that, over all look better than Rogue Leader. I am speaking about color useage, number of enemies on screen, draw distances, lens flairs that actually enhance the visuals, reflective floors, and the biggest bosses ever!
Rally Sport? You either dig the field of vision or you don't. Personally, sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. It IS more realistic (drive down a real road and tell me if you can see every detail and rock at 500 ft.) But I like that this eliminates the shimmery effect. They just need to push it back a bit.
yes 500 ft away they wont be sharpQuote:
Originally posted by JefmcC
Rally Sport? You either dig the field of vision or you don't. Personally, sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. It IS more realistic (drive down a real road and tell me if you can see every detail and rock at 500 ft.) But I like that this eliminates the shimmery effect. They just need to push it back a bit.
but they wont be blurry at 2 inches either
they needed a better medium :P
I'll be the first one to call kbuchanan a raving fanboy, but he's sort of right about the GC's CPU. Now, I wouldn't say the GC clearly has a more powerful CPU, but it's probably a little faster for some things. The problem is you're all reading his comments as "The Gamecube is more powerful than the Xbox" (well, that and you see the name 'kbuchanan next to his posts) and automatically think, "No way dude, the Xbox is more powerful." And he has said dumb shit like the Gamecube is clearly more powerful overall than the Xbox in the past, so it's understandable.
The GC has a 485 MHz PowerPC chip, and the Xbox has a 733 MHz bastard (it's been pumped up to perform like a PIII but if you take apart your Xbox the chip has 'Celeron' stamped on it). Now, looking at those numbers you're gonna think the Xbox's CPU is more powerful, because 733 is clearly larger than 485. What you can't see by comparing the speed rating is that IBM and Intel rate their chips differently. In a sideby side comparison test (these are a little hard to come by, Apple does them all the time but insists on only using Photoshop for their tests because it makes them look better) a 485 MHz PowerPC chip is probably gonna be a little faster than a 733 MHz Celeron or PIII for some applications.
The other side of the coin is that CPU power isn't everything, no matter how much kbuchanan would like it to be. For pumping out polygons and such for 3D graphics (and the VAST majority of games coming out these days are 3D), the GPU is more important. And the Xbox's GPU stomps the GC's. Plus it has other advantages, like more RAM and the hard drive which allows it to have faster loading and faster streaming textures and such.
I know it's a full month later and all, but.........Quote:
Originally posted by Saint of Killers
I'll be the first one to call kbuchanan a raving fanboy, but he's sort of right about the GC's CPU. Now, I wouldn't say the GC clearly has a more powerful CPU, but it's probably a little faster for some things. The problem is you're all reading his comments as "The Gamecube is more powerful than the Xbox" (well, that and you see the name 'kbuchanan next to his posts) and automatically think, "No way dude, the Xbox is more powerful." And he has said dumb shit like the Gamecube is clearly more powerful overall than the Xbox in the past, so it's understandable.
The GC has a 485 MHz PowerPC chip, and the Xbox has a 733 MHz bastard (it's been pumped up to perform like a PIII but if you take apart your Xbox the chip has 'Celeron' stamped on it). Now, looking at those numbers you're gonna think the Xbox's CPU is more powerful, because 733 is clearly larger than 485. What you can't see by comparing the speed rating is that IBM and Intel rate their chips differently. In a sideby side comparison test (these are a little hard to come by, Apple does them all the time but insists on only using Photoshop for their tests because it makes them look better) a 485 MHz PowerPC chip is probably gonna be a little faster than a 733 MHz Celeron or PIII for some applications.
The other side of the coin is that CPU power isn't everything, no matter how much kbuchanan would like it to be. For pumping out polygons and such for 3D graphics (and the VAST majority of games coming out these days are 3D), the GPU is more important. And the Xbox's GPU stomps the GC's. Plus it has other advantages, like more RAM and the hard drive which allows it to have faster loading and faster streaming textures and such.
Thanks for laying down the law and putting kbuchanan in his place. :D
In some respects, one system might have the advantage over the other. But OVERALL, X-Box is the most powerful. There has to be a reason most developers and techies say this: probably cause it's true? I don't know :p .
That doesn't discredit the GC in any way. And why should being slightly less powerful be such an insult? Just accept it and move on.
What you see and what actually is isn't always one and the same.