racketboy.com

Jubal wrote:for Sonic Adventure 2 Battle, are the added multiplayer modes good? do they add to the overall experience compared to the original?

I will leave SA 2 Battle up and take SA DX down.

-Jubal-

um...They are pretty entertaining. I'm not sure which ones are new, but I've found all of them except the cart racing to be fun. It's no timesplitters, but it will keep you busy a bit longer.

Zork wrote:

LordOfTheCynics wrote:

baphomet_irl wrote:I think Resident Evil 4 should be considered exclusive, as having both of the versions, the GC version is immensely superior...

Not meaning to be off topic, but how is that?

The sound quality on the PS2 version sounds muffled or something when you do a comparison. This is due to Capcom or whatever sub division of theirs that handled the port ended up compressing the sound all to hell. When you play both side by side there is a real sound quality difference. Why nobody ever really talks about it I have no idea...

yes on my nice new speakers I did definitely notice that, its especially noticeable during the beautiful, hypnotic save game/typewriter music which is very wide and spacious normally

I read a review of God Hand theyre on HG101 and it said that one of the guys who went to Clover R.I.P. said he'd leave Capcom if they made a PS2 port, and indeed he did eheh

The graphics are really seriously better too - although obviously the GC one (PAL anyway) is letterboxed, but it is still far more impressive

I mean I really couldnt believe that certain scenes were really all runtime/in engine - especially the scene when you get to the top of the tower and fight the little kid in the tentacley thing (with the yellow eye) the last part of that scene where it lunges out at you with a motion blur and a depth of field type effect is incredible...

having seen this scene It really amazes me how the general concensus is that XboX is best graphically, then PS2 and GC last

(at least thats the general opinions ive experienced talking to people)

I think it might be because of Nintendos cartoonish, stylized primary colour type art in their flagship games, but I have to say that I certainly think the GC had the best graphical capabilities of those 3 consoles, it may not have been able to push quite as many polygons, but its shader effects were beautiful, water especially

also I have SC2 on GC and PS2 (and ive played XboX version), and I do think that although the graphical differences between it and XboX are quite small, I do think the GC version looked better.

A reply to Baphomet:

I thought the general consensus was that the GC was more powerful than the PS2? It definitively came a good bit after it.

Ivo.

Ivo wrote:A reply to Baphomet:

I thought the general consensus was that the GC was more powerful than the PS2? It definitively came a good bit after it.

Ivo.

maybe everyone I talk to are just idiots :p

when i say the general concensus thou - i mean in the completely casual, general populace.

baphomet_irl wrote:

Ivo wrote:A reply to Baphomet:

I thought the general consensus was that the GC was more powerful than the PS2? It definitively came a good bit after it.

Ivo.

maybe everyone I talk to are just idiots :p

when i say the general concensus thou - i mean in the completely casual, general populace.

to be honest I thought the PS2 had a faster processor as well but wikipedia verifies the gamecube is faster

Gamecube: 485 MHz IBM "Gekko" PowerPC CPU.

Playstation 2: CPU: 128 bit "Emotion Engine" clocked at 294 MHz(299 Mhz on newer versions), 10.5 million transistors

and just to round out the list

Xbox: CPU: 733 MHz Intel Pentium III (Micro-PGA2). IA-32. 180 nm process.

Dreamcast: CPU: SH-4 RISC CPU with 128 Bit FPU functions for 3D graphics computations (operating frequency: 200 MHz, 360 MIPS, 1.4 GFLOPS)


also I have moved the list of GC games to the first post of the topic, make it a bit more useful to the random surfing public.

-Jubal-

yeh I was mainly talking about the gfx cards tbh - ATi for the Cube, nVidia for the XboX and who made the emotion engine (god I hate that name) - was it in house?

baphomet_irl wrote:yeh I was mainly talking about the gfx cards tbh - ATi for the Cube, nVidia for the XboX and who made the emotion engine (god I hate that name) - was it in house?

Ya, Sony made that vile chip. Actually, there are some spectacular xbox games which do make it powerful, just the proof is less visible than one may think. Most of the extra pizazz the xbox has is for lighting, bloom, limited HDR (i think it had 1.0) to round of the list. Plus, it could do more physics as well. Ninja Gaiden was pretty damn good lookin'. the gap between the xbox and GCN tho isn't that bad, considering the Gekko is a superior chip, just not as fast. Power wise the GCN is like 80% of the xbox, considering it's efficiency and such. The only true problem is the texture memory. Nintendo always seems to skimp out on it.

yeh back in the 'olden days' it was always like that nVidia had more 'horsepower' usually, but a still frame of a RADEON usually looked better, but could never run as fast

as a Quake player I was an nVidia man mainly

baphomet_irl wrote:yeh back in the 'olden days' it was always like that nVidia had more 'horsepower' usually, but a still frame of a RADEON usually looked better, but could never run as fast

as a Quake player I was an nVidia man mainly

Well, nowadays at least, the computer chips (between ATi and nVidia) are pretty equal and can be pretty much compared with clocks and size/type of ram. Currently nVidia is in the lead since they have the 8800GTXs out! Those things are fuckin' nutz. 1 foot long!

Speaking of all this power, and graphics and cards and RE4. I remember a while back when RE4 was hot there was an article somewhere going over whether or not the Dreamcast could play RE4. The answer ended up being yes how well...that I don't remember.