how will it be better, did you not read the articale that i just put up. i guess not.
Printable View
how will it be better, did you not read the articale that i just put up. i guess not.
read what i put up, then explain to me why it would look better. i have both an xbox and a gamecube, and to tell you the truth i think that gamecube right now beats the xbox in game and in visual quality.
Even those who do not like Xbox admit that it is more powerful. I have Xbox and GC and I definately notice that the graphics are better on Xbox. What in the world makes you think GC has better grahics than Xbox? There is really no logic to that. I don't care about the whole GC vs. Xbox thing. I'm just saying that Xbox is more powerful. Once again like Farmer Bob said, GC doesn't have support for pixel shadders, which Doom 3 will probably use.Quote:
Originally posted by cocanut
read what i put up, then explain to me why it would look better. i have both an xbox and a gamecube, and to tell you the truth i think that gamecube right now beats the xbox in game and in visual quality.
please read what the developer said about that issue, wait i'll just repost it again:
"Julian Eggebrecht: Maybe without going into too much detail, we don’t think there is anything visually you could do on X-Box (or PS2) which can’t be done on GameCube. I have read theories on the net about Flipper not being able to do cube-mapped environment maps, fur shading, self-shadowing etc... That’s all plain wrong. Rogue does extensive self-shadowing and both cube-maps and fur shading are not anymore complicated to implement on GameCube than on X-Box. You might be doing it differently, but the results are the same. When I said that X-Box and GameCube are on par power-wise I really meant it. "
Of course the developer is going to stick by its system. You think that they would downplay their system by saying that Xbox is stronger, no. That statement by the developer is not completely true. Why do you keep reposting this same statement. One good example is TS2. PS2's version looks ok. GC's version looks pretty good. And Xbox's version looks the best(not by that much, sometimes unoticeable). GC could run Doom 3, but it would run smoother on Xbox. I love my GC, but I don't know if it could handle Doom 3.
that developer is not from nintendo, he is from a company called factor 5, if you dident know that. but if you want i'll find more links, even one that deals with ts2
here is a link about gamecube Graphics chip link
Dude, he helped develop the Gamecube's audio DSP chip. I'm sure there's a little bias, and no matter what you do, the GC doesn't have pixel shader support. No pixel shader support equals nudered Doom 3. We all know that the GC can handle Doom 3, but it was designed to run on the GF3. Since the Xbox is a GF3 with a little more features, it's really the perfect platform for it to be released on.Quote:
Originally posted by cocanut
that developer is not from nintendo, he is from a company called factor 5, if you dident know that. but if you want i'll find more links, even one that deals with ts2
although the pixel and vertex shaders are nice you got to take into account that the x-box uses slow *** ddr ram...slow when you compare it to the extremely fast 1T sram on the gc that is...with faster ram you can stream things in and out and therefore do things more efficently...and the ram is shared on the x-box so while you do have 64 megs you gotta sort of like partition it sort to speak...like have how many megs dedicated to sound...graphics etc...it's obiously more complicated than that but you get the idea...while on the other hand the gc's memory is not shared...plus a ratio of 6:1 texture compression isn't too shabby either :) however in the end...it's how developers use it that counts...with that said...games on both systems look great and both have their strengths and weaknesses...
If it can run fine on GC and Xbox, then that probably means that it would just be easier for the developers to design it for Xbox. We don't know for sure. Who knows, maybe the GC can. It's just up to the developers.
It will definitely show up on the XB due to it be a simple port. Moving a game from PC to XB is simple - moving to the PS2 or GC is much more difficult. Plus I have serious doubts that the GC could be considered to be more powerful. The XB has a more powerful graphics subsystem - hands down. And it is a more compatible system with current standards and conventions. Proprietary hardware sucks for the cost, and will be the end of both Nintendo and Sony.
if you say so,:D . however if anyone is losing mony it would be M$ in their hardware.
Why does everyone have to always bring up the console wars crap? It shouldn't matter who is losing money. Which is better? Whichc one has better games? It doesn't matter. Just enjoy the console you have and be done with it.:pQuote:
Originally posted by cocanut
if you say so,:D . however if anyone is losing mony it would be M$ in their hardware.
I hope that guy is not correct about proprietary hardware. there must be room for more than just industry standard in gaming consoles, there always has been in the past.
As far as doom 3, I think it will only appear on xbox but I think the GC hardware is close too xbox and would be able to pull the game off.
Without pixel or vertex shading? I'd like to see that!Quote:
Originally posted by bigpoppapumpg
I hope that guy is not correct about proprietary hardware. there must be room for more than just industry standard in gaming consoles, there always has been in the past.
As far as doom 3, I think it will only appear on xbox but I think the GC hardware is close too xbox and would be able to pull the game off.