was the Xbox more powerful than the GameCube?

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]Okay then, here's a couple more:No superiority, just pointing out that it looks great for the last generation.Yo-SUP

Do you meen the cartoony look the game has? It's a Mario game, of course it does. That's kind of what they were going for. I'm just saying that it looks anything but bland. It's bold, vibrant and coloful. That was kind of a key thing in Sunshine since it had to do with paint and a tropical setting. It made it one of the most eye-popping games last-gen, IMO.

There's no arguing those objects do look cartoony, but they do have shadowing and texturing to them. It's not like it's one solid color, even though.

[QUOTE="Yo-SUP"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]Okay then, here's a couple more:No superiority, just pointing out that it looks great for the last generation.Emerald_Warrior

Do you meen the cartoony look the game has? It's a Mario game, of course it does. That's kind of what they were going for. I'm just saying that it looks anything but bland. It's bold, vibrant and coloful. That was kind of a key thing in Sunshine since it had to do with paint and a tropical setting. It made it one of the most eye-popping games last-gen, IMO.

There's no arguing those objects do look cartoony, but they do have shadowing and texturing to them. It's not like it's one solid color, even though.

I can tell you that going from PC's ultra-crisp textures in Unreal Tournament 2003 to GC's blurry textures in SMS was quite the disappoitment for me.

Looking back now, SMS does look good but I wasn't really impressed by it back then.

Even the water effects didn't convince me and the poly-counts were not terribly high either.

SMG was certainly the more impressive game, visually and technically. (despite running in low resolutin and consequently looking quite "jaggy")

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Yo-SUP"] [img]http://i.imgur.com/kdCcKE6.png[img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/osxXzpu.png[img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/jXl3hOp.png[img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/JyeFOKv.png[img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/4UaA7yv.png[img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/IywYzxo.png[img] I circled some big ones in red, although there are others in the pictures. if you somehow think there are none after looking at these pictures than agree to disagree, but i think anyone can see some of them fro these pictures. It's all over the game, and changes based on how far or close you are. It's also a bit jaggy. Oh my friend i forgot something important, your 2nd picture is emulated, not sure about the others, but that 2nd pic is clearly emulated or it was messed with. I do agree with you that it is a good looking gamecube game still even with these issues.nameless12345

Do you meen the cartoony look the game has? It's a Mario game, of course it does. That's kind of what they were going for. I'm just saying that it looks anything but bland. It's bold, vibrant and coloful. That was kind of a key thing in Sunshine since it had to do with paint and a tropical setting. It made it one of the most eye-popping games last-gen, IMO.

There's no arguing those objects do look cartoony, but they do have shadowing and texturing to them. It's not like it's one solid color, even though.

I can tell you that going from PC's ultra-crisp textures in Unreal Tournament 2003 to GC's blurry textures in SMS was quite the disappoitment for me.

Looking back now, SMS does look good but I wasn't really impressed by it back then.

Even the water effects didn't convince me and the poly-counts were not terribly high either.

SMG was certainly the more impressive game, visually and technically. (despite running in low resolutin and consequently looking quite "jaggy")

Well of course SMG looks better, it's on the Wii, not the GameCube.

[QUOTE="Yo-SUP"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]Okay then, here's a couple more:No superiority, just pointing out that it looks great for the last generation.Emerald_Warrior

Do you meen the cartoony look the game has? It's a Mario game, of course it does. That's kind of what they were going for. I'm just saying that it looks anything but bland. It's bold, vibrant and coloful. That was kind of a key thing in Sunshine since it had to do with paint and a tropical setting. It made it one of the most eye-popping games last-gen, IMO.

There's no arguing those objects do look cartoony, but they do have shadowing and texturing to them. It's not like it's one solid color, even though.

Picture 1 the rope is clearly a flat and bland texture. Nothing cartoon about it. Stands out like Santa in anime convention.

picture 2 has some shades but it's single color and stands out.

The pipe in pic 3 looks terrible and is a jagged detailed texture. Yet if you have more distance it has a different look. Same goes for the last picture.

Pic 4 is the same as pic one. Both sides one color.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THAT SHIP IN PIC 5 IS CLEARLY BAD Cartoon graphics my ass, there is not one other ship like it, compare it to the other ship in the same pic. Gray flat textured ship. Looks like it came from the jaguar launch lineup.

but if you still don't see it that's fine. Fun game, nice water. Those duck things are annoying though at the beach.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Do you meen the cartoony look the game has? It's a Mario game, of course it does. That's kind of what they were going for. I'm just saying that it looks anything but bland. It's bold, vibrant and coloful. That was kind of a key thing in Sunshine since it had to do with paint and a tropical setting. It made it one of the most eye-popping games last-gen, IMO.

There's no arguing those objects do look cartoony, but they do have shadowing and texturing to them. It's not like it's one solid color, even though.

 

Emerald_Warrior

I can tell you that going from PC's ultra-crisp textures in Unreal Tournament 2003 to GC's blurry textures in SMS was quite the disappoitment for me.

Looking back now, SMS does look good but I wasn't really impressed by it back then.

Even the water effects didn't convince me and the poly-counts were not terribly high either.

SMG was certainly the more impressive game, visually and technically. (despite running in low resolutin and consequently looking quite "jaggy")

Well of course SMG looks better, it's on the Wii, not the GameCube.

Wii is a OCed GC with more memory.

GC could already be on Wii's level if Nintendo wanted so.

Considering how well SMG 1 & 2 look and they both running on that hardware it would be pretty amazing to see how they looked more more powerful hardware. (for example a dual-core PowerPC with AMD X series class custom GPU and four times the RAM)

But I guess that would be the Wii U...

I don't pretend to know the technicalities of it all. I've never been much of a techie. But it seems to me that graphics on the Wii looked better than graphics on the GameCube in a lot of cases.

[QUOTE="TheKingIAm"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

From a technical perspective - not really.

If you want to talk aesthetics then yes, I'd agree the art-directions in the games you mention still hold up well and they also run at consistently smooth framerates.

nameless12345

They were impressive for the hardware they were running on but you're still comparing DX7 level hardware to DX8.1 level hardware:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R100#R100.27s_pixel_shaders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_3_Series#Programmable_shaders_and_new_features

There's no way GC's "similar to Radeon 7500" GPU was in the same performance and feature set class as Xbox's customized GeForce 3 GPU.

Skilled devs can get good effects out of fixed-function shaders (the water in Sunshine being a prime example), still, devs would have problems re-creating some of the effects Xbox had no issues with on the GameCube. (like normal mapping for example)

The CPU in GC mostly handles the geometry and physics/AI/game logic and altho you can get some custom lighting effects on it (likely used just in non-gameplay cut-scenes), I wouldn't say it makes a "world of difference".

A better GPU will always be better for graphics than a better CPU.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TheKingIAm"] Why not technical?TheKingIAm

They were impressive for the hardware they were running on but you're still comparing DX7 level hardware to DX8.1 level hardware:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R100#R100.27s_pixel_shaders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_3_Series#Programmable_shaders_and_new_features

There's no way GC's "similar to Radeon 7500" GPU was in the same performance and feature set class as Xbox's customized GeForce 3 GPU.

Skilled devs can get good effects out of fixed-function shaders (the water in Sunshine being a prime example), still, devs would have problems re-creating some of the effects Xbox had no issues with on the GameCube. (like normal mapping for example)

The CPU in GC mostly handles the geometry and physics/AI/game logic and altho you can get some custom lighting effects on it (likely used just in non-gameplay cut-scenes), I wouldn't say it makes a "world of difference".

A better GPU will always be better for graphics than a better CPU.

How much faster should the CPU have been to not "bottleneck" it?

Technically, GC's ran at lower clock and had 64-bit SIMD (Xbox's 128-bit).

That's why I said "similar to" not "like".

Xbox's GPU does all those effects in hardware.

It's possible GC used "hacks" to output those effects.

I agree GC was a "well-balanced" system but let's not exaggerate it's prowess.

Also the GC should have been able to produce better textures than the Xbox considering its gpu could produce 8 textures per pass while the xbox only 4 TheKingIAm

[QUOTE="TheKingIAm"]Also the GC should have been able to produce better textures than the Xbox considering its gpu could produce 8 textures per pass while the xbox only 4 Yo-SUP