Topic: GAMECUBE is 1990s technology

[ultrafamicom]

The Nintendo GameCube uses technology that was developed in the 1990s. Last Century.

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



 

[Artimus]

Umm...haha?

[Bill Aurion]

Graphics aren't important to me, so I couldn't care less how powerful the next system is...

[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.

[Grey Ninja]

ultrafamicom, you should really take a look at the Xbox sometime.    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.

[alvinaloy]

I don't care if it's last century's technology. Whatever it is, it gets the job done, I'm enjoying my games, and I'm sure I'll continue to enjoy the games that will come out until the next generation Nintendo kicks in.

[Mario]

Well then why didnt they release it in the 1990s then lolololol

[Bill Aurion]

Quote
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.

Um, 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...

[mouse_clicker]

I said they were identical in every respect except for graphics, so that means their gameplay is exactly the same- and I don't have to know you to say that about you, because I'm assuming you're a sane individual and ANY sane individual would choose the game with the better graphics.

[Bill Aurion]

My argument was choosing between games that had a difference in gameplay...not graphics...

[PIAC]

i love good graphics, i won't say that i dont, but i prefer that the gameplay is better than the graphics, two of my favorite cube games are old dreamcast ports because they have such awsome gameplay. Metroid Prime and F-Zero GX are great examples of getting a prefect ballence of gameplay and graphics. my theory on the priority of game elements goes like this

gameplay > story (if aplicable) > control > graphics = sound > manual > boxart

[mouse_clicker]

We weren't talking about games period until I brought them up. 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.  

[Hostile Creation]

It's only five years later.  About the gap betwixt GC and N64.

So yes, the graphics will be very good.  Funfun.

[Bill Aurion]

Quote
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.

If the games are fun, then I could seriously answer "yes" to your assumption...

[mouse_clicker]

You're like a slipper, wet little worm, Bill- the tighter I grasp the more you slither away.

[Hostile Creation]

Someone gave me the nickname noodle at school. . . now she calls me noodle every time she sees me. . . relates to some joke about blonds she told.  I think it has something to do with wiggling when I have an orgasm.  Or something.  Anyway, your worm comment reminded me of that.

[mouse_clicker]

Hostile, you know the saying "it's the thought that counts"? Well, some stories are better left as thoughts.

[Uglydot]

Apparently now the date on my hardware tells me how good it is.  Whoo, this makes hardware buying a lot easier.

[Hostile Creation]

Oh, you mean like the one where I was wondering if whales could. . . wait.  Nevermind.  I already made that mistake once.

[yellowfellow]

this gameplay over graphics arguement is overused that it has come to be meaningless.  whenever someone states that they like "gameplay over graphics", it appears as an attempt to simply propel that person's status to the level of "true gamer".  the comment is pretentious and exaggerated; as by liking "gameplay over graphics" you are now considered "hardcore" and an "old-skool gamer".
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.  

[Bloodworth]

yeah, this thread is pretty obvious...newer systems will be better than older systems.  

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.