Post by: ultrafamicom on November 01, 2003, 03:03:12 PM
The IBM Gekko processor. its based on the PowerPC G3, with some Nintendo-specific enhancements. 90s tech.
The ArtX Flipper - designed started in late 1997 or early 1998. finished by 2000. again, 1990s technology.
MoSys 1T-SRAM - designed in the late 1990s.
Matsushita G.O.D. (GameCube Optical Disc) designed in the late 1990s
I am very much looking forward to GameCube2 / N5 / whatever Nintendo's next console is called. it will be the first Nintendo console designed this century. should provide incredible gaming experiences that N64 and Gamecube could only dream of
Post by: Artimus on November 01, 2003, 03:10:37 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2003, 03:25:36 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 01, 2003, 03:29:06 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on November 01, 2003, 03:32:36 PM
Of the three consoles, GameCube actually uses the newest tech. I know that you weren't trying to compare or discredit the GameCube, I am just saying that it's somewhat laughable how old the Xbox's technology really is.
Post by: alvinaloy on November 01, 2003, 03:49:31 PM
Post by: Mario on November 01, 2003, 03:51:48 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2003, 03:52:29 PM
QuoteUm, no...I would take the shoddier looking one if the gameplay was better...hands-down...Don't try and act like you know me, cause it's not cool...
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Yes you could, Bill, don't lie- given two games that were exactly the same in every respect except one had very dated, shoddy graphics and the other had very crisp, polished graphics, which would you take? I think the answer's obvious- while graphics will always play second fiddle to gameplay, they DO go a long way towards pulling you into the game. Graphics ARE important.
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 01, 2003, 03:55:00 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2003, 03:59:02 PM
Post by: PIAC on November 01, 2003, 04:22:48 PM
gameplay > story (if aplicable) > control > graphics = sound > manual > boxart
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 01, 2003, 04:39:44 PM
You said plain and simple:Quote
Graphics aren't important to me, so I couldn't care less how powerful the next system is...
So by that comment, I could logically and correctly assume you would have no misgivings at all if the N5 were as powerful as the Atari 2600.
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 01, 2003, 05:13:20 PM
So yes, the graphics will be very good. Funfun.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2003, 05:20:29 PM
QuoteIf the games are fun, then I could seriously answer "yes" to your assumption...
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
So by that comment, I could logically and correctly assume you would have no misgivings at all if the N5 were as powerful as the Atari 2600.
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 01, 2003, 05:49:15 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 01, 2003, 06:05:22 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 01, 2003, 06:09:38 PM
Post by: Uglydot on November 02, 2003, 02:52:52 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 02, 2003, 05:12:24 AM
Post by: yellowfellow on November 02, 2003, 06:43:53 AM
not saying this was your intention Bill, just that this is how the arguement is interpreted.
the fact is, what we consider as "gameplay" is so crucial and found in every successful game that stating you "like gameplay" is simply obvious and trite. every "good" game has worked it formulaically such that the only true difficulty from the game is simply from the game itself. this absence of frustration adds to the overall "fun" we experience when we play, and isn't "fun" the main reason why we play games in the first place? thus it only seems logical that one would find "fun" in a game considered to have good "gameplay".
we are a visual species; 80% of what we perceive is generate through what we "see". therefore a product must be in some way asthetically pleasing to be marketable. understandably, the visual may play a lesser value in the eyes of one individual relative to another. however, stating no "graphics don't matter" and "graphics have no importance" doesn't elevate you above the masses, it just comes off as being condescending.
at any rate, i hope i didn't offend anyone and i hope i made some reasonable sense. sorry if i don't, i feel hungover and am going back to bed.
Post by: Bloodworth on November 02, 2003, 08:35:56 AM
The gameplay over graphics argument is irrelevant now. Sony has the weakest graphics, yet they have unbeatable lead.
What I would say this generation has shown us is that image beats all. Sony has used their reputation in home electronics to establish themselves as the standard, and breaking that image will be very tough for either company. There are plenty of casual gamers out there that will buy a Sony system simply because they already have Sony stereos and Sony TVs.
