What is the most overrated system technically?

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

what do you mean overrated technically? you mean a system where the visuals don't match the hype? a whole bunch of systems can be put in that catagory.

AlexKidd5000

Yea, most consoles actually. For example the N64 was supposed to do The Terminator 2 quality graphics and the PS2 Toy Story quality graphics.

As far as I know N64 was hyped to do "The Terminator 2-quality effects" which to a cretain degree is correct as it was based on SGI tech which was used to render The Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park and that special effect is basically environment mapping as seen on Metal Mario (here is a symbolic pic of it) which was quite advanced effect for the time. Of course the tech was compromised and cost-reduced to make it affordable (which is evident in the low amount of RAM, cost-reduced CPU and limited storage space N64 had) but it's factually based on "supercomputer" tech of the time (namely SGI workstations, which were far above other home computers at the time).

The "Toy Story graphics" thing was actually something Microsoft said about the first Xbox and even they ment only "Toy Story-quality effects" which is also a semi-accurate statement as Xbox was capable of pixel-shading, a rendering technique used in Toy Story (albeit the Xbox only had hardware support for the feature while Toy Story was rendered by a rendering farm).

And PS2 hardware was also mighty impressive for the time it was made (1999), just that when it came out it was already a little dated compared to the latest PC tech (for example the PS2 lacked hardware support for "Transformation & Lighting", a new GPU feature at the time and it required some weird hardware exploration to render bump-mapping; it was also unable to do anti-aliasing in hardware or so I heard).

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Spinnerweb"] The Jaguar was 64-bit? *blinks innocently* I didn't know, really. Then again, the only Jaguar game I ever saw gameplay was a stinkin' Bubsy game that looked worse than a NES one.AlexKidd5000

64-bits doesn't mean "twice better graphics than 32-bit". It simply means that some operations can be performed with twice better precision (which can be slower than 32-bit precision actually).

Most N64 games were actually using the faster 32-bit code, true. This is also a reason why N64 was emulated on 32-bit PCs. Only some games explored the 64-bit precision it offered.

[QUOTE="AlexKidd5000"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] just about everybody in the games industry made bogus claims about their hardware, even going so far as to give theoretical performance I remember seeing a press conference with Trip Hawkins where he claimed in 1995 that the 3DO was on par with the PS1 and Saturn for instance.Last-Resort

Jaguar could outmatch PS1 even if it had a better design. It has two pretty good GPUs but one is used for sound alone.

3DO was pretty nice for it's time I think, just overpriced.

N64 was factually the strongest 5th gen console. Just because CTR looks good (and I don't think it looks *that* good; it obviously lacks any perspective-correction and texture smoothing) doesn't negate that. Also, once 3rd parties got grips of the N64 hardware (which was admittedly problematic to develop for) they started making much better-looking games (see World Driver Championship or Rush 2049 for example).

NES was actually planned to be 16-bit at first but they dropped that.

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"][QUOTE="AlexKidd5000"] Yup, very true. I think I also remember Jack Tramiel claiming that the Jaguar was in the same league as the PS1 and saturn too lolnameless12345

Jaguar could outmatch PS1 even if it had a better design. It has two pretty good GPUs but one is used for sound alone.

3DO was pretty nice for it's time I think, just overpriced.

N64 was factually the strongest 5th gen console. Just because CTR looks good (and I don't think it looks *that* good; it obviously lacks any perspective-correction and texture smoothing) doesn't negate that. Also, once 3rd parties got grips of the N64 hardware (which was admittedly problematic to develop for) they started making much better-looking games (see World Driver Championship or Rush 2049 for example).

NES was actually planned to be 16-bit at first but they dropped that.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="penpusher"]

You know i was gonna respond until read this massive article and my eyes cant keep up with the strain. I think we'll agree to disagree, i reckon the graphics being inferior are important because my point was that they were hindered by that 8 bit cpu which was unwisely shoved into a console that was advertised as 16bit. If you fancy condensing that into a sensible sized responce then we'll talk dude, as it is I think youre going over board on detail, most of which I already know.

nameless12345

• PCE was released 1 year before Mega Drive and over 3 years before SNES. Like the Dreamcast in its time, the PCE was far ahead of every other home system at the time of its release.
• Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet that never "bottle-necked" its graphics, which were the best of its era. Like the Xbox, the PCE compensated for its lower-bit CPU with higher MHz clock rate.
• It's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, hence why the Xbox had the best graphics of its era and how the Xbox 360 can rival the PS3 despite an inferior CPU.
• SNES version of Rondo of Blood (released 2 years after PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but had inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.

• PCE completely dominated the Mega Drive in Japan throughout the 16-bit era.
• PCE had a huge game library in Japan, but North America only received a fraction of it.

• PCE was first console with 16-bit GPU, dual-GPU, CD-ROM storage, CD-quality audio, and RAM expansion packs.
• What held back the PCE is not the 8-bit CPU, but its RAM which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. The Arcade Card later added more RAM which allowed the PCE's dual 16-bit GPU to produce better graphics than both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated by Fatal Fury Special.
• The PCE was underrated, not overrated.

To be honest it didn't really matter that Xbox's processor was 32-bit because it was simply better architecture than the PS2. Only thing PS2 had over it was a theoretically higher FLOPS performance but that ment next ot nothing in the real world. Xbox could run Half-Life 2 with unchanged physics from the PC version which was quite an achievement. It was funny watching the Emotion Engine in the PS2 getting beat by a gimped Pentium III in the Xbox (kinda how the "mighty" Cell in PS3 had a hard time keeping up with the 360 in multi-plats).

Also, PC Engine/TG-16 was the strongest games console when it came out, not system. Sharp X68000 computers were surely superior to it.

The PS2's CPU is actually superior to the Xbox's. It's just that a large chunk of that power was used to help render the graphics because the GPU lacked an awful lot of functions. It's similar to how the Cell is used in replacement of shaders an awful lot of the time so that it can play 360 ports.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] Fine, I'll compress my argument down in a bullet-point format:

• PCE was released 1 year before Mega Drive and over 3 years before SNES. Like the Dreamcast in its time, the PCE was far ahead of every other home system at the time of its release.
• Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet that never "bottle-necked" its graphics, which were the best of its era. Like the Xbox, the PCE compensated for its lower-bit CPU with higher MHz clock rate.
• It's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, hence why the Xbox had the best graphics of its era and how the Xbox 360 can rival the PS3 despite an inferior CPU.
• SNES version of Rondo of Blood (released 2 years after PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but had inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.

• PCE completely dominated the Mega Drive in Japan throughout the 16-bit era.
• PCE had a huge game library in Japan, but North America only received a fraction of it.

• PCE was first console with 16-bit GPU, dual-GPU, CD-ROM storage, CD-quality audio, and RAM expansion packs.
• What held back the PCE is not the 8-bit CPU, but its RAM which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. The Arcade Card later added more RAM which allowed the PCE's dual 16-bit GPU to produce better graphics than both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated by Fatal Fury Special.
• The PCE was underrated, not overrated.

magnax1

To be honest it didn't really matter that Xbox's processor was 32-bit because it was simply better architecture than the PS2. Only thing PS2 had over it was a theoretically higher FLOPS performance but that ment next ot nothing in the real world. Xbox could run Half-Life 2 with unchanged physics from the PC version which was quite an achievement. It was funny watching the Emotion Engine in the PS2 getting beat by a gimped Pentium III in the Xbox (kinda how the "mighty" Cell in PS3 had a hard time keeping up with the 360 in multi-plats).

Also, PC Engine/TG-16 was the strongest games console when it came out, not system. Sharp X68000 computers were surely superior to it.

The PS2's CPU is actually superior to the Xbox's. It's just that a large chunk of that power was used to help render the graphics because the GPU lacked an awful lot of functions. It's similar to how the Cell is used in replacement of shaders an awful lot of the time so that it can play 360 ports.

The PS3....

I remember me about this hype arround the "Cell Processor", and now?The graphics is marginally better than on the XBOX 360.

Now I want to say something about the N64 vs PS1 debate above my comment.

I know many people will hate me now and I excuse if I sounding very arrogant and stubborn but as a owner of both consoles I will never understand what some people causes to prefer the PS1 graphics over the N64, it makes no logic.Imo, the completly PS1 graphics is ruined by the lack of perspective correction, it has extremly pixelated and distorted textures, pixelated graphics in general, awful effects, a low draw distance, clipping polygons, warping, flickering etc.I mean the graphics....it looks so 2,5 D like and totally unfinished to me.

The N64 otherwise, it has MUCH smoother visuals, there are no dancing polygons and non pixelated graphics,That's what I call good graphics.Of course the N64 has blurrier graphics, however I honestly say mediocre textures like on Donkey Kong 64 look good enough to outmatch the PS1 because the texture filtering is a very big advantage.

I content that even Mario 64 looks better than 95% of the PS1 library.Despite of them the N64 was bashed for it's "Kiddy Image" but not for the graphics.

Oh and sorry for my terrible english, I try my best.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] Fine, I'll compress my argument down in a bullet-point format:

• PCE was released 1 year before Mega Drive and over 3 years before SNES. Like the Dreamcast in its time, the PCE was far ahead of every other home system at the time of its release.
• Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet that never "bottle-necked" its graphics, which were the best of its era. Like the Xbox, the PCE compensated for its lower-bit CPU with higher MHz clock rate.
• It's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, hence why the Xbox had the best graphics of its era and how the Xbox 360 can rival the PS3 despite an inferior CPU.
• SNES version of Rondo of Blood (released 2 years after PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but had inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.

• PCE completely dominated the Mega Drive in Japan throughout the 16-bit era.
• PCE had a huge game library in Japan, but North America only received a fraction of it.

• PCE was first console with 16-bit GPU, dual-GPU, CD-ROM storage, CD-quality audio, and RAM expansion packs.
• What held back the PCE is not the 8-bit CPU, but its RAM which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. The Arcade Card later added more RAM which allowed the PCE's dual 16-bit GPU to produce better graphics than both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated by Fatal Fury Special.
• The PCE was underrated, not overrated.

magnax1

To be honest it didn't really matter that Xbox's processor was 32-bit because it was simply better architecture than the PS2. Only thing PS2 had over it was a theoretically higher FLOPS performance but that ment next ot nothing in the real world. Xbox could run Half-Life 2 with unchanged physics from the PC version which was quite an achievement. It was funny watching the Emotion Engine in the PS2 getting beat by a gimped Pentium III in the Xbox (kinda how the "mighty" Cell in PS3 had a hard time keeping up with the 360 in multi-plats).

Also, PC Engine/TG-16 was the strongest games console when it came out, not system. Sharp X68000 computers were surely superior to it.

The PS2's CPU is actually superior to the Xbox's.

It is? How come no PS2 game matched H-L 2's physics on the Xbox then?

Likewise, I highly doubt PS2 could run a game as CPU-demanding as Operation Flashpoint: Elite was.

PS2's GPU was a gen behind Xbox's, that's true.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

To be honest it didn't really matter that Xbox's processor was 32-bit because it was simply better architecture than the PS2. Only thing PS2 had over it was a theoretically higher FLOPS performance but that ment next ot nothing in the real world. Xbox could run Half-Life 2 with unchanged physics from the PC version which was quite an achievement. It was funny watching the Emotion Engine in the PS2 getting beat by a gimped Pentium III in the Xbox (kinda how the "mighty" Cell in PS3 had a hard time keeping up with the 360 in multi-plats).

Also, PC Engine/TG-16 was the strongest games console when it came out, not system. Sharp X68000 computers were surely superior to it.

Kaszilla

The PS2's CPU is actually superior to the Xbox's. It's just that a large chunk of that power was used to help render the graphics because the GPU lacked an awful lot of functions. It's similar to how the Cell is used in replacement of shaders an awful lot of the time so that it can play 360 ports.

That was PSP. PS2 and PS3 had a GPU. And PS1 had a GPU too but only for 2D graphics.

The PS3....

I remember me about this hype arround the "Cell Processor", and now?The graphics is marginally better than on the XBOX 360.

Now I want to say something about the N64 vs PS1 debate above my comment.

I know many people will hate me now and I excuse if I sounding very arrogant and stubborn but as a owner of both consoles I will never understand what some people causes to prefer the PS1 graphics over the N64, it makes no logic.Imo, the completly PS1 graphics is ruined by the lack of perspective correction, it has extremly pixelated and distorted textures, pixelated graphics in general, awful effects, a low draw distance, clipping polygons, warping, flickering etc.I mean the graphics....it looks so 2,5 D like and totally unfinished to me.

The N64 otherwise, it has MUCH smoother visuals, there are no dancing polygons and non pixelated graphics,That's what I call good graphics.Of course the N64 has blurrier graphics, however I honestly say mediocre textures like on Donkey Kong 64 look good enough to outmatch the PS1 because the texture filtering is a very big advantage.

I content that even Mario 64 looks better than 95% of the PS1 library.Despite of them the N64 was bashed for it's "Kiddy Image" but not for the graphics.

Oh and sorry for my terrible english, I try my best.

Stefan91x

Well, there's the "blurry" and "foggy" argument against N64 (also low framerates which to a degree is true) but I agree with you. Filtered textures just look better than pixelated ones, no matter the res, imo.

The PS3....

I remember me about this hype arround the "Cell Processor", and now?The graphics is marginally better than on the XBOX 360.

Now I want to say something about the N64 vs PS1 debate above my comment.

I know many people will hate me now and I excuse if I sounding very arrogant and stubborn but as a owner of both consoles I will never understand what some people causes to prefer the PS1 graphics over the N64, it makes no logic.Imo, the completly PS1 graphics is ruined by the lack of perspective correction, it has extremly pixelated and distorted textures, pixelated graphics in general, awful effects, a low draw distance, clipping polygons, warping, flickering etc.I mean the graphics....it looks so 2,5 D like and totally unfinished to me.

The N64 otherwise, it has MUCH smoother visuals, there are no dancing polygons and non pixelated graphics,That's what I call good graphics.Of course the N64 has blurrier graphics, however I honestly say mediocre textures like on Donkey Kong 64 look good enough to outmatch the PS1 because the texture filtering is a very big advantage.

I content that even Mario 64 looks better than 95% of the PS1 library.Despite of them the N64 was bashed for it's "Kiddy Image" but not for the graphics.

Oh and sorry for my terrible english, I try my best.

Stefan91x

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"] In theory, the Jag could be near Ps1. It could obviously do better than what those impossible to use devkits provided. Also, the 3DO was lazy. it could have done better to. good grief. I always say, actual use the power your overhyping. The N64 was a collosal failure in power when a game like CTR can look better than 89% of the library and you are saying the 3D is pure power or whatever that terrible commercial was. Also bits mean squat. If the NEs was 16-bit, it could have ended up being exactly the same.Last-Resort

Jaguar could outmatch PS1 even if it had a better design. It has two pretty good GPUs but one is used for sound alone.

3DO was pretty nice for it's time I think, just overpriced.

N64 was factually the strongest 5th gen console. Just because CTR looks good (and I don't think it looks *that* good; it obviously lacks any perspective-correction and texture smoothing) doesn't negate that. Also, once 3rd parties got grips of the N64 hardware (which was admittedly problematic to develop for) they started making much better-looking games (see World Driver Championship or Rush 2049 for example).

NES was actually planned to be 16-bit at first but they dropped that.

Well, I think games like Perfect Dark, DK64, Majora, Banjo-Tooie and Conker pretty much "maxed-out" the 64 and likewise PS1 probably couldn't do much better than what GT2, Chrono Cross, FF IX and Vagrant Story displayed. TNFS, Wing Commander 3 and Super SFII Turbo on the 3DO and Doom, Rayman and AvP on the Jag were also mighty impressive for the time being.

Just switching to 16-bit architecture alone wouldn't have any real effects on the NES but if they clocked the CPU higher and/or gave it a higher colour count/more graphical features it would come to expression. But that's essentially what a SNES is.

[QUOTE="penpusher"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] That's where you're wrong. The PC Engine / TurboGrafx-16 was never "overrated" when it first came out in 1987, but was far ahead of other consoles at the time (the NES, Master System, and Atari 7800). Also, the PCE never became "obsolete", but was still hugely popular in Japan, where it trounced the Mega Drive (Genesis) in terms of popularity.

The PCE may have had an 8-bit CPU, but that 8-bit CPU could perform at a clock rate (7.16 MHz) approaching the Mega Drive (7.67 MHz) and nearly twice that of the SNES (3.58 MHz), more or less equating to an overall CPU performance comparable to the SNES. In addition, the PCE had two 16-bit GPUs (whereas the SNES and Mega Drive had one each), and a CD-ROM add-on (launched in 1988) that gave it far greater storage capacity, cut-scene capability, and audio quality, than what the SNES or Mega Drive could do. If anything, the PCE is technically underrated, not overrated.

Emerald_Warrior

I disagree, that 8 bit cpu was a bottle neck, you can quote tech specs all you like but if you just look at the games and compare them to the offerings of other consoles you see a marked difference in favour of the snes and megadrive, even rondo of blood, which was on that CD add on (which itself was over rated) looks inferior to it's snes, modified port. Those two 16 bit graphics unit meant nothing after shoving an 8 bit cpu in there.

Again if you dont beleive me just compare the games. Even in japan it lost steam and was swamped after the megadrive and snes were released and people began to see (key word see) that the turbografx was just a powerful 8 bit console. So as far as I'm concerned it was over rated.

I might also point out the megadrive also had a cd add on which provided pretty much the same extra abilities as the turbo CD. I would have said it was the most over rated system but it wasnt a system really and it was only the games that killed that.

What it looks like to me (by looking at the games, as he said) is:

TurboGrafx-16 is more powerful than the 8-bit systems (Atari 7800, NES, & Sega Master System), but less powerful than the other 16-bit systems (Genesis, SNES, & Neo-Geo AES).

[QUOTE="Stefan91x"]

The PS3....

I remember me about this hype arround the "Cell Processor", and now?The graphics is marginally better than on the XBOX 360.

Now I want to say something about the N64 vs PS1 debate above my comment.

I know many people will hate me now and I excuse if I sounding very arrogant and stubborn but as a owner of both consoles I will never understand what some people causes to prefer the PS1 graphics over the N64, it makes no logic.Imo, the completly PS1 graphics is ruined by the lack of perspective correction, it has extremly pixelated and distorted textures, pixelated graphics in general, awful effects, a low draw distance, clipping polygons, warping, flickering etc.I mean the graphics....it looks so 2,5 D like and totally unfinished to me.

The N64 otherwise, it has MUCH smoother visuals, there are no dancing polygons and non pixelated graphics,That's what I call good graphics.Of course the N64 has blurrier graphics, however I honestly say mediocre textures like on Donkey Kong 64 look good enough to outmatch the PS1 because the texture filtering is a very big advantage.

I content that even Mario 64 looks better than 95% of the PS1 library.Despite of them the N64 was bashed for it's "Kiddy Image" but not for the graphics.

Oh and sorry for my terrible english, I try my best.

Last-Resort

Gex 3D was a PS1 port. Rayman 2 was made made with N64 in mind and it looks better on it than PS1 version (altho DC version is better).

I think SM64 looked fine for it's time. Impressive, even, considering it had a vast fully 3D world. Launch N64 games like Wave Race 64 (amazing water effects for the time) and Pilotwings 64 (huge draw distance) were impressive too.

The launch PS1 titles like WarHawk, Toshinden and Ridge Racer were impressive for the time being too, but aged poorly, imo.

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Jaguar could outmatch PS1 even if it had a better design. It has two pretty good GPUs but one is used for sound alone.

3DO was pretty nice for it's time I think, just overpriced.

N64 was factually the strongest 5th gen console. Just because CTR looks good (and I don't think it looks *that* good; it obviously lacks any perspective-correction and texture smoothing) doesn't negate that. Also, once 3rd parties got grips of the N64 hardware (which was admittedly problematic to develop for) they started making much better-looking games (see World Driver Championship or Rush 2049 for example).

NES was actually planned to be 16-bit at first but they dropped that.

nameless12345

Well, I think games like Perfect Dark, DK64, Majora, Banjo-Tooie and Conker pretty much "maxed-out" the 64 and likewise PS1 probably couldn't do much better than what GT2, Chrono Cross, FF IX and Vagrant Story displayed. TNFS, Wing Commander 3 and Super SFII Turbo on the 3DO and Doom, Rayman and AvP on the Jag were also mighty impressive for the time being.

Just switching to 16-bit architecture alone wouldn't have any real effects on the NES but if they clocked the CPU higher and/or gave it a higher colour count/more graphical features it would come to expression. But that's essentially what a SNES is.

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"][QUOTE="Stefan91x"]

The PS3....

I remember me about this hype arround the "Cell Processor", and now?The graphics is marginally better than on the XBOX 360.

Now I want to say something about the N64 vs PS1 debate above my comment.

I know many people will hate me now and I excuse if I sounding very arrogant and stubborn but as a owner of both consoles I will never understand what some people causes to prefer the PS1 graphics over the N64, it makes no logic.Imo, the completly PS1 graphics is ruined by the lack of perspective correction, it has extremly pixelated and distorted textures, pixelated graphics in general, awful effects, a low draw distance, clipping polygons, warping, flickering etc.I mean the graphics....it looks so 2,5 D like and totally unfinished to me.

The N64 otherwise, it has MUCH smoother visuals, there are no dancing polygons and non pixelated graphics,That's what I call good graphics.Of course the N64 has blurrier graphics, however I honestly say mediocre textures like on Donkey Kong 64 look good enough to outmatch the PS1 because the texture filtering is a very big advantage.

I content that even Mario 64 looks better than 95% of the PS1 library.Despite of them the N64 was bashed for it's "Kiddy Image" but not for the graphics.

Oh and sorry for my terrible english, I try my best.

nameless12345

Gex 3D was a PS1 port. Rayman 2 was made made with N64 in mind and it looks better on it than PS1 version (altho DC version is better).

I think SM64 looked fine for it's time. Impressive, even, considering it had a vast fully 3D world. Launch N64 games like Wave Race 64 (amazing water effects for the time) and Pilotwings 64 (huge draw distance) were impressive too.

The launch PS1 titles like WarHawk, Toshinden and Ridge Racer were impressive for the time being too, but aged poorly, imo.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"] An upgrade showed that it could be right around PS1 levels. I also said it could be near not outmatch it. Yes it was. But there are games that debatable look better than Rush 2049 and World Driver, further making the factually strongest system unable to prove any potential even with expansion packs. The only impressive system at that time was the PC than for consoles, the DC actually did what the N64 (and potentially the PS1) should have done or came near 2. Not one showed its true power. Not even the Jag, Saturn, and 3DO. Pc-FX did and it was pretty bad when 1987 looking point and click games cause the console to overheat. and it would have and could have been the almost exact same thing. bits mean NOTHING.Last-Resort

Well, I think games like Perfect Dark, DK64, Majora, Banjo-Tooie and Conker pretty much "maxed-out" the 64 and likewise PS1 probably couldn't do much better than what GT2, Chrono Cross, FF IX and Vagrant Story displayed. TNFS, Wing Commander 3 and Super SFII Turbo on the 3DO and Doom, Rayman and AvP on the Jag were also mighty impressive for the time being.

Just switching to 16-bit architecture alone wouldn't have any real effects on the NES but if they clocked the CPU higher and/or gave it a higher colour count/more graphical features it would come to expression. But that's essentially what a SNES is.

Well, that's not quite true. SNES is based on Apple II GS tech (which came out in 1986) whereas NES is a decidedly older design dating back to 1983 (Famicom) or even older in computer terms (1975 computer technology).

Also, SNES could do hardware scaling and rotation (i.e. Mode 7), had much more RAM and so on.

Mario World was fine but Pilotwings did a better job at demonstrating it's capabilites (i.e. Mode 7).

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"] This would only make sense if you played a majority of mainstream games on the Ps1 that were overhyped to death. CTR looks better than over half the library by itself, Gex looks better on the PS1 as well yet they made Gex with the N64 version in mind. Many N64 games barely use the machines power and use the lazy Jag approach of making random plain colored 3D models in simple shades and etc. etc. Mario 64 is actually a very bad looking game, and some Ps1 games released at the time looked better than it. Regardless each system has games that look better than the other, and the fact is the N64 failed to provide what it could, its devkits were limited (not as limited as some other consoles at the time) it had tech issues, cart format, which even without it, it would still have issues, nobody really proved how to use the machine effectively, some regular game look better than games with the Exp pack, the N64 was a disappointment. But some of this goes for the PSX as well.Last-Resort

Gex 3D was a PS1 port. Rayman 2 was made made with N64 in mind and it looks better on it than PS1 version (altho DC version is better).

I think SM64 looked fine for it's time. Impressive, even, considering it had a vast fully 3D world. Launch N64 games like Wave Race 64 (amazing water effects for the time) and Pilotwings 64 (huge draw distance) were impressive too.

The launch PS1 titles like WarHawk, Toshinden and Ridge Racer were impressive for the time being too, but aged poorly, imo.

I'm pretty sure even PC gamers were impressed when they saw Mario 64. PC got Quake but Quake ran only in software mode and low-res when it came out (GLQuake patch that added 3D acceleration came in early 1997) while Mario 64 had nicely smooth visuals (because of texture filters and anti-aliasing).

The color choice in SM64 is really a art-style choice. It's not ment to look super-detailed but it's supposed to have a more "cartoony" look.

Also, Piltwings 64 had nicely detailed and big islands.

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Gex 3D was a PS1 port. Rayman 2 was made made with N64 in mind and it looks better on it than PS1 version (altho DC version is better).

I think SM64 looked fine for it's time. Impressive, even, considering it had a vast fully 3D world. Launch N64 games like Wave Race 64 (amazing water effects for the time) and Pilotwings 64 (huge draw distance) were impressive too.

The launch PS1 titles like WarHawk, Toshinden and Ridge Racer were impressive for the time being too, but aged poorly, imo.

nameless12345

I'm pretty sure even PC gamers were impressed when they saw Mario 64. PC got Quake but Quake ran only in software mode and low-res when it came out (GLQuake patch that added 3D acceleration came in early 1997) while Mario 64 had nicely smooth visuals (because of texture filters and anti-aliasing).

The color choice in SM64 is really a art-style choice. It's not ment to look super-detailed but it's supposed to have a more "cartoony" look.

Also, Piltwings 64 had nicely detailed and big islands.

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well, I think games like Perfect Dark, DK64, Majora, Banjo-Tooie and Conker pretty much "maxed-out" the 64 and likewise PS1 probably couldn't do much better than what GT2, Chrono Cross, FF IX and Vagrant Story displayed. TNFS, Wing Commander 3 and Super SFII Turbo on the 3DO and Doom, Rayman and AvP on the Jag were also mighty impressive for the time being.

Just switching to 16-bit architecture alone wouldn't have any real effects on the NES but if they clocked the CPU higher and/or gave it a higher colour count/more graphical features it would come to expression. But that's essentially what a SNES is.

nameless12345

Well, that's not quite true. SNES is based on Apple II GS tech (which came out in 1986) whereas NES is a decidedly older design dating back to 1983 (Famicom) or even older in computer terms (1975 computer technology).

Also, SNES could do hardware scaling and rotation (i.e. Mode 7), had much more RAM and so on.

Mario World was fine but Pilotwings did a better job at demonstrating it's capabilites (i.e. Mode 7).

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"]The problem with the SNES other than Perhaps sound in some areas is that it's basically and NES with more colorsLast-Resort

Well, that's not quite true. SNES is based on Apple II GS tech (which came out in 1986) whereas NES is a decidedly older design dating back to 1983 (Famicom) or even older in computer terms (1975 computer technology).

Also, SNES could do hardware scaling and rotation (i.e. Mode 7), had much more RAM and so on.

Mario World was fine but Pilotwings did a better job at demonstrating it's capabilites (i.e. Mode 7).

NES could handle Pilotwings, F-Zero and Super Mario Kart? I think not.

It's true the pirates ported some SNES games over to the NES (such as SMW, DKC and SFII) but even then the difference is huge.

For example here's the SFII port for NES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hQjFpGB6_k

Not bad but not really comparable to the SNES version.

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well, that's not quite true. SNES is based on Apple II GS tech (which came out in 1986) whereas NES is a decidedly older design dating back to 1983 (Famicom) or even older in computer terms (1975 computer technology).

Also, SNES could do hardware scaling and rotation (i.e. Mode 7), had much more RAM and so on.

Mario World was fine but Pilotwings did a better job at demonstrating it's capabilites (i.e. Mode 7).

nameless12345

NES could handle Pilotwings, F-Zero and Super Mario Kart? I think not.

It's true the pirates ported some SNES games over to the NES (such as SMW, DKC and SFII) but even then the difference is huge.

For example here's the SFII port for NES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hQjFpGB6_k

Not bad but not really comparable to the SNES version.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"] Yes, but they actually started to use the machine for these abilities more later. many games seemed to be just Nes ports with more colors. For the first 2 years anyway. As for the GEN, it seemed to have upscaled SMS games.Last-Resort

NES could handle Pilotwings, F-Zero and Super Mario Kart? I think not.

It's true the pirates ported some SNES games over to the NES (such as SMW, DKC and SFII) but even then the difference is huge.

For example here's the SFII port for NES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hQjFpGB6_k

Not bad but not really comparable to the SNES version.

Well, more processing power, better graphics and more storage space/memory is what makes a new system (alongside a new controller).

This would only make sense if you played a majority of mainstream games on the Ps1 that were overhyped to death. CTR looks better than over half the library by itself, Gex looks better on the PS1 as well yet they made Gex with the N64 version in mind. Many N64 games barely use the machines power and use the lazy Jag approach of making random plain colored 3D models in simple shades and etc. etc. Mario 64 is actually a very bad looking game, and some Ps1 games released at the time looked better than it. Regardless each system has games that look better than the other, and the fact is the N64 failed to provide what it could, its devkits were limited (not as limited as some other consoles at the time) it had tech issues, cart format, which even without it, it would still have issues, nobody really proved how to use the machine effectively, some regular game look better than games with the Exp pack, the N64 was a disappointment. But some of this goes for the PSX as well.Last-Resort

How I said it in my other comment, imo Mario 64 looks better than the most PS1 games.From my standpoint there was no full 3D platformer on the PS1 which looks better than Mario 64, no Croc, no Spyro, absolutly nothing.And by the way Mario 64 wasn't a very impressive N64 game.

The PS1 has tons of bottlenecks

For example the PS1 has ernourmous problems do display open 3D worlds on the screen without extremly degradation of the graphics.It can't handle many polygons and it has very limited 3D capabilities, hence it has the disastreus disadvantage that your screen gets bombarded with extremly polygon clipping, totally distorted textures etc.Did you ever played Spyro, Driver and Tomb Raider?Than you know what I mean.God those games look so horrible.....thus the PS1 is absolutly not suitable for complex 3D graphics.

I mean you can tell me what you want, it doesn't change the fact that the N64 blows the PS1 out of the water when it comes to 3D graphics.The PS1 has to many disadvantages against the N64 and it has those kind of graphics what I describe as "Pseudo 3D" .It was never competitive to the N64 and will never be.

And before some people call me a fanboy, I also want to point out that I hate the graphics of the PS1 but not the console itself.

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"]

This would only make sense if you played a majority of mainstream games on the Ps1 that were overhyped to death. CTR looks better than over half the library by itself, Gex looks better on the PS1 as well yet they made Gex with the N64 version in mind. Many N64 games barely use the machines power and use the lazy Jag approach of making random plain colored 3D models in simple shades and etc. etc. Mario 64 is actually a very bad looking game, and some Ps1 games released at the time looked better than it. Regardless each system has games that look better than the other, and the fact is the N64 failed to provide what it could, its devkits were limited (not as limited as some other consoles at the time) it had tech issues, cart format, which even without it, it would still have issues, nobody really proved how to use the machine effectively, some regular game look better than games with the Exp pack, the N64 was a disappointment. But some of this goes for the PSX as well.Stefan91x

How I said it in my other comment, imo Mario 64 looks better than the most PS1 games.From my standpoint there was no full 3D platformer on the PS1 which looks better than Mario 64, no Croc, no Spyro, absolutly nothing.And by the way Mario 64 wasn't a very impressive N64 game.

The PS1 has tons of bottlenecks

For example the PS1 has ernourmous problems do display open 3D worlds on the screen without extremly degradation of the graphics.It can't handle many polygons and it has very limited 3D capabilities, hence it has the disastreus disadvantage that your screen gets bombarded with extremly polygon clipping, totally distorted textures etc.Did you ever played Spyro, Driver and Tomb Raider?Than you know what I mean.God those games look so horrible.....thus the PS1 is absolutly not suitable for complex 3D graphics.

I mean you can tell me what you want, it doesn't change the fact that the N64 blows the PS1 out of the water when it comes to 3D graphics.The PS1 has to many disadvantages against the N64 and it has those kind of graphics what I describe as "Pseudo 3D" .It was never competitive to the N64 and will never be.

And before some people call me a fanboy, I also want to point out that I hate the graphics of the PS1 but not the console itself.

[QUOTE="Last-Resort"]

This would only make sense if you played a majority of mainstream games on the Ps1 that were overhyped to death. CTR looks better than over half the library by itself, Gex looks better on the PS1 as well yet they made Gex with the N64 version in mind. Many N64 games barely use the machines power and use the lazy Jag approach of making random plain colored 3D models in simple shades and etc. etc. Mario 64 is actually a very bad looking game, and some Ps1 games released at the time looked better than it. Regardless each system has games that look better than the other, and the fact is the N64 failed to provide what it could, its devkits were limited (not as limited as some other consoles at the time) it had tech issues, cart format, which even without it, it would still have issues, nobody really proved how to use the machine effectively, some regular game look better than games with the Exp pack, the N64 was a disappointment. But some of this goes for the PSX as well.Stefan91x

How I said it in my other comment, imo Mario 64 looks better than the most PS1 games.From my standpoint there was no full 3D platformer on the PS1 which looks better than Mario 64, no Croc, no Spyro, absolutly nothing.And by the way Mario 64 wasn't a very impressive N64 game.

The PS1 has tons of bottlenecks

For example the PS1 has ernourmous problems do display open 3D worlds on the screen without extremly degradation of the graphics.It can't handle many polygons and it has very limited 3D capabilities, hence it has the disastreus disadvantage that your screen gets bombarded with extremly polygon clipping, totally distorted textures etc.Did you ever played Spyro, Driver and Tomb Raider?Than you know what I mean.God those games look so horrible.....thus the PS1 is absolutly not suitable for complex 3D graphics.

I mean you can tell me what you want, it doesn't change the fact that the N64 blows the PS1 out of the water when it comes to 3D graphics.The PS1 has to many disadvantages against the N64 and it has those kind of graphics what I describe as "Pseudo 3D" .It was never competitive to the N64 and will never be.

And before some people call me a fanboy, I also want to point out that I hate the graphics of the PS1 but not the console itself.

Well, many N64 games do look crap (foggy, blurry, laggy) but the games that really pushed it (mostly Rare games but also Nintendo, Factor 5, Boss Studios, Iguana and Midway games) looked mighty impressive for a cartridge-based system.

And even mediocre developers such as Titus (the makers of Superman 64) got to grips with the system eventually (for example in Roadsters, which looked better than the PS1 version; it looked better even than the DC version but that's because the DC port was sucky).

And it's true N64 could access up to four times the system RAM as PS1 could (with Exp. Pack), do effects PS1 couldn't (texture filtering, anti-aliasing, environment mapping, ect.) and had a considerably more powerful CPU. So it's a bit of a shame the cartridges and micro-codes limited it's performance a little.

namelss at the rate your going im going to need a moving team and a flatbed to toss all the defeated arguements on and haul away..

*tips over wheelbarrow and walks away*

so for this you got my respect

[QUOTE="Jag85"] Fine, I'll compress my argument down in a bullet-point format:

• PCE was released 1 year before Mega Drive and over 3 years before SNES. Like the Dreamcast in its time, the PCE was far ahead of every other home system at the time of its release.
• Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet that never "bottle-necked" its graphics, which were the best of its era. Like the Xbox, the PCE compensated for its lower-bit CPU with higher MHz clock rate.
• It's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, hence why the Xbox had the best graphics of its era and how the Xbox 360 can rival the PS3 despite an inferior CPU.
• SNES version of Rondo of Blood (released 2 years after PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but had inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.

• PCE completely dominated the Mega Drive in Japan throughout the 16-bit era.
• PCE had a huge game library in Japan, but North America only received a fraction of it.

• PCE was first console with 16-bit GPU, dual-GPU, CD-ROM storage, CD-quality audio, and RAM expansion packs.
• What held back the PCE is not the 8-bit CPU, but its RAM which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. The Arcade Card later added more RAM which allowed the PCE's dual 16-bit GPU to produce better graphics than both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated by Fatal Fury Special.
• The PCE was underrated, not overrated.

nameless12345

To be honest it didn't really matter that Xbox's processor was 32-bit because it was simply better architecture than the PS2. Only thing PS2 had over it was a theoretically higher FLOPS performance but that ment next ot nothing in the real world. Xbox could run Half-Life 2 with unchanged physics from the PC version which was quite an achievement. It was funny watching the Emotion Engine in the PS2 getting beat by a gimped Pentium III in the Xbox (kinda how the "mighty" Cell in PS3 had a hard time keeping up with the 360 in multi-plats).

Also, PC Engine/TG-16 was the strongest games console when it came out, not system. Sharp X68000 computers were surely superior to it.

To be honest, I don't think the Xbox's 32-bit Pentium III was any match at all for the PS2's 64-bit Emotion Engine, and that's pretty much the point: it never really mattered in the first place. My point was that what made the Xbox superior to the PS2 was the GPU, not the CPU. What made the Xbox superior was its GeForce 2 Ultra GPU, which the PS2's Graphics Synthesizer was no match for. That's the same reason why the Xbox 360 can still hold its own against the PS3: despite the PS3's Cell being far superior to the 360's Xenon CPU, the Xbox 360 has a slight edge when it comes to GPUs, and that's why it can produce graphics that are almost on par with the PS3.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder about the Sharp X68000. I almost forgot it was released the same year as the PC Engine.

the X68000 weren't just better, they were significantly better, in fact the CPS1 arcade machine (SF2, Final Fight) was essentially a X68000 in an arcade cabinet, the first system to beat it in any way was the Neo Geo (although even then , the Neo Geo isn't that much more capable)

Darkman2007

Also, it's worth noting that the most powerful arcade system in the late 80s was arguably the Namco System 21 "Polygonizer", which was released in 1988 as the first arcade system board dedicated to 3D graphics.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] Fine, I'll compress my argument down in a bullet-point format:

• PCE was released 1 year before Mega Drive and over 3 years before SNES. Like the Dreamcast in its time, the PCE was far ahead of every other home system at the time of its release.
• Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet that never "bottle-necked" its graphics, which were the best of its era. Like the Xbox, the PCE compensated for its lower-bit CPU with higher MHz clock rate.
• It's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, hence why the Xbox had the best graphics of its era and how the Xbox 360 can rival the PS3 despite an inferior CPU.
• SNES version of Rondo of Blood (released 2 years after PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but had inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.

• PCE completely dominated the Mega Drive in Japan throughout the 16-bit era.
• PCE had a huge game library in Japan, but North America only received a fraction of it.

• PCE was first console with 16-bit GPU, dual-GPU, CD-ROM storage, CD-quality audio, and RAM expansion packs.
• What held back the PCE is not the 8-bit CPU, but its RAM which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. The Arcade Card later added more RAM which allowed the PCE's dual 16-bit GPU to produce better graphics than both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated by Fatal Fury Special.
• The PCE was underrated, not overrated.

Jag85

To be honest it didn't really matter that Xbox's processor was 32-bit because it was simply better architecture than the PS2. Only thing PS2 had over it was a theoretically higher FLOPS performance but that ment next ot nothing in the real world. Xbox could run Half-Life 2 with unchanged physics from the PC version which was quite an achievement. It was funny watching the Emotion Engine in the PS2 getting beat by a gimped Pentium III in the Xbox (kinda how the "mighty" Cell in PS3 had a hard time keeping up with the 360 in multi-plats).

Also, PC Engine/TG-16 was the strongest games console when it came out, not system. Sharp X68000 computers were surely superior to it.

To be honest, I don't think the Xbox's 32-bit Pentium III was any match at all for the PS2's 64-bit Emotion Engine, and that's pretty much the point: it never really mattered in the first place. My point was that what made the Xbox superior to the PS2 was the GPU, not the CPU. What made the Xbox superior was its GeForce 2 Ultra GPU, which the PS2's Graphics Synthesizer was no match for. That's the same reason why the Xbox 360 can still hold its own against the PS3: despite the PS3's Cell being far superior to the 360's Xenon CPU, the Xbox 360 has a slight edge when it comes to GPUs, and that's why it can produce graphics that are almost on par with the PS3.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder about the Sharp X68000. I almost forgot it was released the same year as the PC Engine.

The Emotion Engine was supposed to be "three times as powerful" as a Pentium III but in reality the PowerPC and Pentium III found in GameCube and Xbox were the better CPUs. EE had a higher FLOPS performance and could do more (untextured) polygons but it was worse at AI and physics calculations than the Pentium III found in Xbox. The only advantage PS2 had over GC and Xbox were the vector units which could help with the graphics and physics but GC and Xbox made up with their more advanced GPUs. Infact there was nothing the PS2 could do that GC and Xbox couldn't do better.

You got the GPU in Xbox wrong, it was based on GeForce 3, not 2. It also had some features from GeForce 4 and was very advanced for the time. Infact it beats even the Wii is shading capabilites.

Xbox would have been awesome with a 1 Ghz CPU and 128 megs of RAM but that would have raised costs which wouldn't be very smart considering the original Xbox was already selling for a loss. Besides, MS "sacrificed" Xbox so that 360 could succeed.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

To be honest it didn't really matter that Xbox's processor was 32-bit because it was simply better architecture than the PS2. Only thing PS2 had over it was a theoretically higher FLOPS performance but that ment next ot nothing in the real world. Xbox could run Half-Life 2 with unchanged physics from the PC version which was quite an achievement. It was funny watching the Emotion Engine in the PS2 getting beat by a gimped Pentium III in the Xbox (kinda how the "mighty" Cell in PS3 had a hard time keeping up with the 360 in multi-plats).

Also, PC Engine/TG-16 was the strongest games console when it came out, not system. Sharp X68000 computers were surely superior to it.

nameless12345

The PS2's CPU is actually superior to the Xbox's.

It is? How come no PS2 game matched H-L 2's physics on the Xbox then?

Likewise, I highly doubt PS2 could run a game as CPU-demanding as Operation Flashpoint: Elite was.

PS2's GPU was a gen behind Xbox's, that's true.

Well the biggest reason why there wasn't a PS2 game with half life style physics is that Half Life was really the only game that had physics like that, and it was ported to Xbox because that was the only console that had a GPU that could handle it (though I'd expect the Gamecube probably could've since the Xbox ran Half Life way above low settings, but it wasn't as easy to port from PC to GC as PC to Xbox)

The other reason is that, as I said before, is that the PS2's GPU sucks, so the Vector units on the PS2's CPU (which make up most of the PS2's power, not 300 mhz main core) is used on almost every game for graphics to some extent. The GPU is actually pretty good at pushing polygons, but it lacks some standard functions that had been standard for years upon its release.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

To be honest it didn't really matter that Xbox's processor was 32-bit because it was simply better architecture than the PS2. Only thing PS2 had over it was a theoretically higher FLOPS performance but that ment next ot nothing in the real world. Xbox could run Half-Life 2 with unchanged physics from the PC version which was quite an achievement. It was funny watching the Emotion Engine in the PS2 getting beat by a gimped Pentium III in the Xbox (kinda how the "mighty" Cell in PS3 had a hard time keeping up with the 360 in multi-plats).

Also, PC Engine/TG-16 was the strongest games console when it came out, not system. Sharp X68000 computers were surely superior to it.

nameless12345

To be honest, I don't think the Xbox's 32-bit Pentium III was any match at all for the PS2's 64-bit Emotion Engine, and that's pretty much the point: it never really mattered in the first place. My point was that what made the Xbox superior to the PS2 was the GPU, not the CPU. What made the Xbox superior was its GeForce 2 Ultra GPU, which the PS2's Graphics Synthesizer was no match for. That's the same reason why the Xbox 360 can still hold its own against the PS3: despite the PS3's Cell being far superior to the 360's Xenon CPU, the Xbox 360 has a slight edge when it comes to GPUs, and that's why it can produce graphics that are almost on par with the PS3.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder about the Sharp X68000. I almost forgot it was released the same year as the PC Engine.

The Emotion Engine was supposed to be "three times as powerful" as a Pentium III but in reality the PowerPC and Pentium III found in GameCube and Xbox were the better CPUs. EE had a higher FLOPS performance and could do more (untextured) polygons but it was worse at AI and physics calculations than the Pentium III found in Xbox. The only advantage PS2 had over GC and Xbox were the vector units which could help with the graphics and physics but GC and Xbox made up with their more advanced GPUs. Infact there was nothing the PS2 could do that GC and Xbox couldn't do better.

You got the GPU in Xbox wrong, it was based on GeForce 3, not 2. It also had some features from GeForce 4 and was very advanced for the time. Infact it beats even the Wii is shading capabilites.

Xbox would have been awesome with a 1 Ghz CPU and 128 megs of RAM but that would have raised costs which wouldn't be very smart considering the original Xbox was already selling for a loss. Besides, MS "sacrificed" Xbox so that 360 could succeed.

I agree the GameCube's PowerPC CPU was more powerful than the PS2's Emotion Engine, but I disagree about the Xbox's Pentium III, which is technically inferior to the Emotion Engine when it comes to gaming. A lot of the Xbox's capabilities in terms of graphics and physics mainly came from its GeForce GPU rather than its Pentium III CPU.

When the Xbox first came out, I remember how the media said its GPU was based on the GeForce 2 Ultra, though Wikipedia now says it's based on the GeForce 3. Nevertheless, I don't think there's that much difference between the two, since the GeForce 2 Ultra was more or less on par with a mid-end GeForce 3 in terms of performance. As for the Wii, that has pretty much the same shading capabilities as the Xbox, but it's just trickier when it comes to coding the Wii's shaders.

If the Xbox had a 1 GHz CPU and 128 MB RAM, that would have made it almost as expensive as a gaming PC at the time. Microsoft was already making losses on each Xbox sold, so giving it anymore power would have been way too much of a financial strain on Microsoft.

Anyway, on topic, speaking of technically overrated consoles, I would have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times. Sony hyped the PS2 as being a huge leap over the Dreamcast, and yet the PS2 was barely anymore powerful than the Dreamcast, and was in some ways even inferior, since it lacked the anti-aliasing and texture compression capabilties of the Dreamcast. As for the Xbox, Microsoft hyped it as being much more powerful than the GameCube, and while the Xbox did indeed have more advanced shading capabilities, its actual graphical performance was slightly below the GameCube's graphical performance (e.g. Rogue Leader, Resident Evil 4, etc.). So yeah, I'd have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

To be honest, I don't think the Xbox's 32-bit Pentium III was any match at all for the PS2's 64-bit Emotion Engine, and that's pretty much the point: it never really mattered in the first place. My point was that what made the Xbox superior to the PS2 was the GPU, not the CPU. What made the Xbox superior was its GeForce 2 Ultra GPU, which the PS2's Graphics Synthesizer was no match for. That's the same reason why the Xbox 360 can still hold its own against the PS3: despite the PS3's Cell being far superior to the 360's Xenon CPU, the Xbox 360 has a slight edge when it comes to GPUs, and that's why it can produce graphics that are almost on par with the PS3.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder about the Sharp X68000. I almost forgot it was released the same year as the PC Engine.

Jag85

The Emotion Engine was supposed to be "three times as powerful" as a Pentium III but in reality the PowerPC and Pentium III found in GameCube and Xbox were the better CPUs. EE had a higher FLOPS performance and could do more (untextured) polygons but it was worse at AI and physics calculations than the Pentium III found in Xbox. The only advantage PS2 had over GC and Xbox were the vector units which could help with the graphics and physics but GC and Xbox made up with their more advanced GPUs. Infact there was nothing the PS2 could do that GC and Xbox couldn't do better.

You got the GPU in Xbox wrong, it was based on GeForce 3, not 2. It also had some features from GeForce 4 and was very advanced for the time. Infact it beats even the Wii is shading capabilites.

Xbox would have been awesome with a 1 Ghz CPU and 128 megs of RAM but that would have raised costs which wouldn't be very smart considering the original Xbox was already selling for a loss. Besides, MS "sacrificed" Xbox so that 360 could succeed.

I agree the GameCube's PowerPC CPU was more powerful than the PS2's Emotion Engine, but I disagree about the Xbox's Pentium III, which is technically inferior to the Emotion Engine when it comes to gaming. A lot of the Xbox's capabilities in terms of graphics and physics mainly came from its GeForce GPU rather than its Pentium III CPU.

When the Xbox first came out, I remember how the media said its GPU was based on the GeForce 2 Ultra, though Wikipedia now says it's based on the GeForce 3. Nevertheless, I don't think there's that much difference between the two, since the GeForce 2 Ultra was more or less on par with a mid-end GeForce 3 in terms of performance. As for the Wii, that has pretty much the same shading capabilities as the Xbox, but it's just trickier when it comes to coding the Wii's shaders.

If the Xbox had a 1 GHz CPU and 128 MB RAM, that would have made it almost as expensive as a gaming PC at the time. Microsoft was already making losses on each Xbox sold, so giving it anymore power would have been way too much of a financial strain on Microsoft.

Anyway, on topic, speaking of technically overrated consoles, I would have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times. Sony hyped the PS2 as being a huge leap over the Dreamcast, and yet the PS2 was barely anymore powerful than the Dreamcast, and was in some ways even inferior, since it lacked the anti-aliasing and texture compression capabilties of the Dreamcast. As for the Xbox, Microsoft hyped it as being much more powerful than the GameCube, and while the Xbox did indeed have more advanced shading capabilities, its actual graphical performance was slightly below the GameCube's graphical performance (e.g. Rogue Leader, Resident Evil 4, etc.). So yeah, I'd have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

The Emotion Engine was supposed to be "three times as powerful" as a Pentium III but in reality the PowerPC and Pentium III found in GameCube and Xbox were the better CPUs. EE had a higher FLOPS performance and could do more (untextured) polygons but it was worse at AI and physics calculations than the Pentium III found in Xbox. The only advantage PS2 had over GC and Xbox were the vector units which could help with the graphics and physics but GC and Xbox made up with their more advanced GPUs. Infact there was nothing the PS2 could do that GC and Xbox couldn't do better.

You got the GPU in Xbox wrong, it was based on GeForce 3, not 2. It also had some features from GeForce 4 and was very advanced for the time. Infact it beats even the Wii is shading capabilites.

Xbox would have been awesome with a 1 Ghz CPU and 128 megs of RAM but that would have raised costs which wouldn't be very smart considering the original Xbox was already selling for a loss. Besides, MS "sacrificed" Xbox so that 360 could succeed.

Containmomentum

I agree the GameCube's PowerPC CPU was more powerful than the PS2's Emotion Engine, but I disagree about the Xbox's Pentium III, which is technically inferior to the Emotion Engine when it comes to gaming. A lot of the Xbox's capabilities in terms of graphics and physics mainly came from its GeForce GPU rather than its Pentium III CPU.

When the Xbox first came out, I remember how the media said its GPU was based on the GeForce 2 Ultra, though Wikipedia now says it's based on the GeForce 3. Nevertheless, I don't think there's that much difference between the two, since the GeForce 2 Ultra was more or less on par with a mid-end GeForce 3 in terms of performance. As for the Wii, that has pretty much the same shading capabilities as the Xbox, but it's just trickier when it comes to coding the Wii's shaders.

If the Xbox had a 1 GHz CPU and 128 MB RAM, that would have made it almost as expensive as a gaming PC at the time. Microsoft was already making losses on each Xbox sold, so giving it anymore power would have been way too much of a financial strain on Microsoft.

Anyway, on topic, speaking of technically overrated consoles, I would have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times. Sony hyped the PS2 as being a huge leap over the Dreamcast, and yet the PS2 was barely anymore powerful than the Dreamcast, and was in some ways even inferior, since it lacked the anti-aliasing and texture compression capabilties of the Dreamcast. As for the Xbox, Microsoft hyped it as being much more powerful than the GameCube, and while the Xbox did indeed have more advanced shading capabilities, its actual graphical performance was slightly below the GameCube's graphical performance (e.g. Rogue Leader, Resident Evil 4, etc.). So yeah, I'd have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

To be honest, I don't think the Xbox's 32-bit Pentium III was any match at all for the PS2's 64-bit Emotion Engine, and that's pretty much the point: it never really mattered in the first place. My point was that what made the Xbox superior to the PS2 was the GPU, not the CPU. What made the Xbox superior was its GeForce 2 Ultra GPU, which the PS2's Graphics Synthesizer was no match for. That's the same reason why the Xbox 360 can still hold its own against the PS3: despite the PS3's Cell being far superior to the 360's Xenon CPU, the Xbox 360 has a slight edge when it comes to GPUs, and that's why it can produce graphics that are almost on par with the PS3.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder about the Sharp X68000. I almost forgot it was released the same year as the PC Engine.

Jag85

The Emotion Engine was supposed to be "three times as powerful" as a Pentium III but in reality the PowerPC and Pentium III found in GameCube and Xbox were the better CPUs. EE had a higher FLOPS performance and could do more (untextured) polygons but it was worse at AI and physics calculations than the Pentium III found in Xbox. The only advantage PS2 had over GC and Xbox were the vector units which could help with the graphics and physics but GC and Xbox made up with their more advanced GPUs. Infact there was nothing the PS2 could do that GC and Xbox couldn't do better.

You got the GPU in Xbox wrong, it was based on GeForce 3, not 2. It also had some features from GeForce 4 and was very advanced for the time. Infact it beats even the Wii is shading capabilites.

Xbox would have been awesome with a 1 Ghz CPU and 128 megs of RAM but that would have raised costs which wouldn't be very smart considering the original Xbox was already selling for a loss. Besides, MS "sacrificed" Xbox so that 360 could succeed.

I agree the GameCube's PowerPC CPU was more powerful than the PS2's Emotion Engine, but I disagree about the Xbox's Pentium III, which is technically inferior to the Emotion Engine when it comes to gaming. A lot of the Xbox's capabilities in terms of graphics and physics mainly came from its GeForce GPU rather than its Pentium III CPU.

When the Xbox first came out, I remember how the media said its GPU was based on the GeForce 2 Ultra, though Wikipedia now says it's based on the GeForce 3. Nevertheless, I don't think there's that much difference between the two, since the GeForce 2 Ultra was more or less on par with a mid-end GeForce 3 in terms of performance. As for the Wii, that has pretty much the same shading capabilities as the Xbox, but it's just trickier when it comes to coding the Wii's shaders.

If the Xbox had a 1 GHz CPU and 128 MB RAM, that would have made it almost as expensive as a gaming PC at the time. Microsoft was already making losses on each Xbox sold, so giving it anymore power would have been way too much of a financial strain on Microsoft.

Anyway, on topic, speaking of technically overrated consoles, I would have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times. Sony hyped the PS2 as being a huge leap over the Dreamcast, and yet the PS2 was barely anymore powerful than the Dreamcast, and was in some ways even inferior, since it lacked the anti-aliasing and texture compression capabilties of the Dreamcast. As for the Xbox, Microsoft hyped it as being much more powerful than the GameCube, and while the Xbox did indeed have more advanced shading capabilities, its actual graphical performance was slightly below the GameCube's graphical performance (e.g. Rogue Leader, Resident Evil 4, etc.). So yeah, I'd have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times.

I'm pretty sure the physics and AI in Xbox's H-L 2 were calculated on the CPU, not the GPU. EE may be better for graphics but it doesn't really mean much. A beefy GPU is a lot better for graphics.

There was quite a huge difference between GeForce 2 and 3. Namely GF3 had pixel-shaders which were a big novelity back then. It was mostly used for water effects back then (here is Morrowind's pixel-shaded water; the water in Mario Sunshine on the GC is also pixel-shaded) but nowadays they use them for basically all effects. Wii's GPU is based on GC's which had pixel-shaders (the so-called "TEV pipeline") and while flexible, it required more work to get the desired effects and was generally less capable.

Also, Doom 3, H-L 2, Far Cry Instincts, Operation Flashpoint Elite and Riddick would have "killed" GameCube and PS2.

Today:

Playstation 3

6th Gen:

Playstation 2

5th Gen:

Nintendo 64

4th Gen:

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

3th Gen:

Nintendo Entertainment System

2th Gen:

Atari 2600

1st Gen:

...

Pong?

Today:

Playstation 3

6th Gen:

Playstation 2

5th Gen:

Nintendo 64

4th Gen:

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

3th Gen:

Nintendo Entertainment System

2th Gen:

Atari 2600

1st Gen:

...

Pong?

XxOskarxXTBXx51

I don't think anyone was really bragging about the NES tbh. Consoles like Master System, Turbografx and Mega Drive were all advertising techical superiority over the NES. It was just a repacked Famicom and they didn't even fix sprite flicker and slowdown issues.

And don't forget PS1 and Genesis with their "1 million polygons" and "blast-processing". I'd also rather pick the 5200 instead of 2600. 2600 was fine for a late 70s console imo. It just wasn't designed for straight arcade ports.

[QUOTE="XxOskarxXTBXx51"]

Today:

Playstation 3

6th Gen:

Playstation 2

5th Gen:

Nintendo 64

4th Gen:

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

3th Gen:

Nintendo Entertainment System

2th Gen:

Atari 2600

1st Gen:

...

Pong?

nameless12345

I don't think anyone was really bragging about the NES tbh. Consoles like Master System, Turbografx and Mega Drive were all advertising techical superiority over the NES. It was just a repacked Famicom and they didn't even fix sprite flicker and slowdown issues.

And don't forget PS1 and Genesis with their "1 million polygons" and "blast-processing". I'd also rather pick the 5200 instead of 2600. 2600 was fine for a late 70s console imo. It just wasn't designed for straight arcade ports.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="XxOskarxXTBXx51"]

Today:

Playstation 3

6th Gen:

Playstation 2

5th Gen:

Nintendo 64

4th Gen:

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

3th Gen:

Nintendo Entertainment System

2th Gen:

Atari 2600

1st Gen:

...

Pong?

Darkman2007

I don't think anyone was really bragging about the NES tbh. Consoles like Master System, Turbografx and Mega Drive were all advertising techical superiority over the NES. It was just a repacked Famicom and they didn't even fix sprite flicker and slowdown issues.

And don't forget PS1 and Genesis with their "1 million polygons" and "blast-processing". I'd also rather pick the 5200 instead of 2600. 2600 was fine for a late 70s console imo. It just wasn't designed for straight arcade ports.

I've heard Allen Acorn (the creator of Pong and one of co-creators of the Atari 2600) say the same thing. It wasn't planned to be anything more more than a machine that could play way more variations of Pong than any other machine, because they were getting their profits cut by all the Pong-Clones out there.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I don't think anyone was really bragging about the NES tbh. Consoles like Master System, Turbografx and Mega Drive were all advertising techical superiority over the NES. It was just a repacked Famicom and they didn't even fix sprite flicker and slowdown issues.

And don't forget PS1 and Genesis with their "1 million polygons" and "blast-processing". I'd also rather pick the 5200 instead of 2600. 2600 was fine for a late 70s console imo. It just wasn't designed for straight arcade ports.

Emerald_Warrior

I've heard Allen Acorn (the creator of Pong and one of co-creators of the Atari 2600) say the same thing. It wasn't planned to be anything more more than a machine that could play way more variations of Pong than any other machine, because they were getting their profits cut by all the Pong-Clones out there.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="XxOskarxXTBXx51"]

Today:

Playstation 3

6th Gen:

Playstation 2

5th Gen:

Nintendo 64

4th Gen:

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

3th Gen:

Nintendo Entertainment System

2th Gen:

Atari 2600

1st Gen:

...

Pong?

Darkman2007

I don't think anyone was really bragging about the NES tbh. Consoles like Master System, Turbografx and Mega Drive were all advertising techical superiority over the NES. It was just a repacked Famicom and they didn't even fix sprite flicker and slowdown issues.

And don't forget PS1 and Genesis with their "1 million polygons" and "blast-processing". I'd also rather pick the 5200 instead of 2600. 2600 was fine for a late 70s console imo. It just wasn't designed for straight arcade ports.

Maybe they were referring to Mode 7 which was semi-3D.

Advertising is always exaggerated.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I don't think anyone was really bragging about the NES tbh. Consoles like Master System, Turbografx and Mega Drive were all advertising techical superiority over the NES. It was just a repacked Famicom and they didn't even fix sprite flicker and slowdown issues.

And don't forget PS1 and Genesis with their "1 million polygons" and "blast-processing". I'd also rather pick the 5200 instead of 2600. 2600 was fine for a late 70s console imo. It just wasn't designed for straight arcade ports.

nameless12345

Maybe they were referring to Mode 7 which was semi-3D.

Advertising is always exaggerated.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

I agree the GameCube's PowerPC CPU was more powerful than the PS2's Emotion Engine, but I disagree about the Xbox's Pentium III, which is technically inferior to the Emotion Engine when it comes to gaming. A lot of the Xbox's capabilities in terms of graphics and physics mainly came from its GeForce GPU rather than its Pentium III CPU.

When the Xbox first came out, I remember how the media said its GPU was based on the GeForce 2 Ultra, though Wikipedia now says it's based on the GeForce 3. Nevertheless, I don't think there's that much difference between the two, since the GeForce 2 Ultra was more or less on par with a mid-end GeForce 3 in terms of performance. As for the Wii, that has pretty much the same shading capabilities as the Xbox, but it's just trickier when it comes to coding the Wii's shaders.

If the Xbox had a 1 GHz CPU and 128 MB RAM, that would have made it almost as expensive as a gaming PC at the time. Microsoft was already making losses on each Xbox sold, so giving it anymore power would have been way too much of a financial strain on Microsoft.

Anyway, on topic, speaking of technically overrated consoles, I would have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times. Sony hyped the PS2 as being a huge leap over the Dreamcast, and yet the PS2 was barely anymore powerful than the Dreamcast, and was in some ways even inferior, since it lacked the anti-aliasing and texture compression capabilties of the Dreamcast. As for the Xbox, Microsoft hyped it as being much more powerful than the GameCube, and while the Xbox did indeed have more advanced shading capabilities, its actual graphical performance was slightly below the GameCube's graphical performance (e.g. Rogue Leader, Resident Evil 4, etc.). So yeah, I'd have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times.

nameless12345

I'm pretty sure the physics and AI in Xbox's H-L 2 were calculated on the CPU, not the GPU. EE may be better for graphics but it doesn't really mean much. A beefy GPU is a lot better for graphics.

There was quite a huge difference between GeForce 2 and 3. Namely GF3 had pixel-shaders which were a big novelity back then. It was mostly used for water effects back then (here is Morrowind's pixel-shaded water; the water in Mario Sunshine on the GC is also pixel-shaded) but nowadays they use them for basically all effects. Wii's GPU is based on GC's which had pixel-shaders (the so-called "TEV pipeline") and while flexible, it required more work to get the desired effects and was generally less capable.

Also, Doom 3, H-L 2, Far Cry Instincts, Operation Flashpoint Elite and Riddick would have "killed" GameCube and PS2.

I see. Didn't know that about the GF 2 and 3.

In my opinion, Resident Evil 4 and the Rogue Squadron games "killed" the Xbox. Also, some of the PC ports you've mentioned had frame-rate issues on the Xbox, which most certainly wouldn't have been an issue if they'd been ported to the GameCube instead (although that would have been way more difficult to pull off). But I agree that they both "killed" the PS2, technically speaking... although in reality, it was the PS2 that killed them both (along with the Dreamcast).

Mode 7 isn't even Semi-3d.

i compare it to those old portable hand and games that slapped a car sticker in the middle of the screen and you just moved the track and not the actual car.Containmomentum

Mode 7 would be called "pseudo-3D" today. Back then, however, 3D did not only mean polygons, but also referred to sprite-scaling, isometric graphics, stereoscopic 3D, holographic 3D, etc. It was during the 32-bit era that 3D came to refer exclusively to polygons... though nowadays, 3D is mainly used to refer to stereoscopic 3D rather than polygons.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] meh , Ive seen a SNES advert where Nintendo promises "advanced 3D graphics" (and this is an early ad, there was no SuperFX), so both can be accused of alot of lying. and yes, the 2600 was designed to do pong variants for the most part, at least according to the original vision of the designers (thats according to Howard Scott Warshaw , the guy behined Yar's Revenge, Indiana Jones and ET on the 2600)Containmomentum

Maybe they were referring to Mode 7 which was semi-3D.

Advertising is always exaggerated.

Yes it is. It's called "pseudo 3D" or "2.5D". Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.5D

Wolfenstein 3D and Duke Nukem 3D were "pseudo 3D" too.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

I agree the GameCube's PowerPC CPU was more powerful than the PS2's Emotion Engine, but I disagree about the Xbox's Pentium III, which is technically inferior to the Emotion Engine when it comes to gaming. A lot of the Xbox's capabilities in terms of graphics and physics mainly came from its GeForce GPU rather than its Pentium III CPU.

When the Xbox first came out, I remember how the media said its GPU was based on the GeForce 2 Ultra, though Wikipedia now says it's based on the GeForce 3. Nevertheless, I don't think there's that much difference between the two, since the GeForce 2 Ultra was more or less on par with a mid-end GeForce 3 in terms of performance. As for the Wii, that has pretty much the same shading capabilities as the Xbox, but it's just trickier when it comes to coding the Wii's shaders.

If the Xbox had a 1 GHz CPU and 128 MB RAM, that would have made it almost as expensive as a gaming PC at the time. Microsoft was already making losses on each Xbox sold, so giving it anymore power would have been way too much of a financial strain on Microsoft.

Anyway, on topic, speaking of technically overrated consoles, I would have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times. Sony hyped the PS2 as being a huge leap over the Dreamcast, and yet the PS2 was barely anymore powerful than the Dreamcast, and was in some ways even inferior, since it lacked the anti-aliasing and texture compression capabilties of the Dreamcast. As for the Xbox, Microsoft hyped it as being much more powerful than the GameCube, and while the Xbox did indeed have more advanced shading capabilities, its actual graphical performance was slightly below the GameCube's graphical performance (e.g. Rogue Leader, Resident Evil 4, etc.). So yeah, I'd have to say both the PS2 and Xbox were technically overrated in their times.

Jag85

I'm pretty sure the physics and AI in Xbox's H-L 2 were calculated on the CPU, not the GPU. EE may be better for graphics but it doesn't really mean much. A beefy GPU is a lot better for graphics.

There was quite a huge difference between GeForce 2 and 3. Namely GF3 had pixel-shaders which were a big novelity back then. It was mostly used for water effects back then (here is Morrowind's pixel-shaded water; the water in Mario Sunshine on the GC is also pixel-shaded) but nowadays they use them for basically all effects. Wii's GPU is based on GC's which had pixel-shaders (the so-called "TEV pipeline") and while flexible, it required more work to get the desired effects and was generally less capable.

Also, Doom 3, H-L 2, Far Cry Instincts, Operation Flashpoint Elite and Riddick would have "killed" GameCube and PS2.

I see. Didn't know that about the GF 2 and 3.

In my opinion, Resident Evil 4 and the Rogue Squadron games "killed" the Xbox. Also, some of the PC ports you've mentioned had frame-rate issues on the Xbox, which most certainly wouldn't have been an issue if they'd been ported to the GameCube instead (although that would have been way more difficult to pull off). But I agree that they both "killed" the PS2, technically speaking... although in reality, it was the PS2 that killed them both (along with the Dreamcast).

That "inferior" CPU in Xbox could still do better physics and AI than PS2. EE was better for graphics but again, a better GPU is better for graphics than some graphics-oriented CPU (Sony used those since the first PS btw).

RE4 and RS2 were impressive, no doubt, but I don't see them as the most impressive 6th gen games, graphically speaking. I would put Doom 3 and Chaos Theory on the Xbox above them, effects-wise (RE4 and RS2 had impressive poly-counts, mind).

I don't see how GC would have ran PC ports better than the Xbox since the first Xbox basically *is* a PC in a console case. If anything, the different architecture of GC would make porting PC games over harder.