Nintendo has a pattern

seince nintendo 64 is when it started. that was the begining of being graphicly behind and starting to disapoint. the n64 was good but the gamecube was when they started to let people down. the graphics should have had a wider graphical capability and was in bad shape. but i will admit that it can last no matter how much you hit it.the xbox and playstation and even to some point the dream cast is some what better graphicly. now with the new consoles the xbox 360 and playstaion 3 slapping the wii's already pink belly, it wont help nintendo in their next console to be behind on graphics. What is your opinion on this cycle and do you think it to continue?

Nintendo 64 had better graphics than the Playstation

Gamecube had better graphics than the PS2, thus the Dreamcast

Umm....what? The N64 had great graphics for its time and the GC was stronger than the ps2 as evident by Resident Evil 4.

Well last generation the Xbox was released quite late. The Gamecube was developed to compete with the PS2's hardware.

Traditionally Nintendo have generally been competitive with their hardware.

Well last generation the Xbox was released quite late. The Gamecube was developed to compete with the PS2's hardware.

Traditionally Nintendo have generally been competitive with their hardware.

Fried_Shrimp

game cube was weaker than ps2CATERBIRD

game cube was weaker than ps2 CATERBIRD

PS2 was the weakest.

game cube was weaker than ps2 RE4 looked better only slightly, but if you compare other games youll notice alot of difference with superiority of graphics. xbox was the graphical best of them...... dont favor guysCATERBIRD

game cube was weaker than ps2 RE4 looked better only slightly, but if you compare other games youll notice alot of difference with superiority of graphics. xbox was the graphical best of them...... dont favor guysCATERBIRD

This topic failed so badly.

[QUOTE="Fried_Shrimp"]

Well last generation the Xbox was released quite late. The Gamecube was developed to compete with the PS2's hardware.

Traditionally Nintendo have generally been competitive with their hardware.

ImSwordMan

I don't see a pattern at all since, as it has been said before, the GC was more powerful than the PS2 and the same goes for the Nintendo 64 in relation to the original Playstation.

then give me more examples. i own both but notice mor gamecube games looking unpolished while ps2 games were polished and mad to be realistic or at least as much as would allow.CATERBIRD

So to summarise you think that Nintendo has a pattern. Most of us disagree.

game cube was weaker than ps2 RE4 looked better only slightly, but if you compare other games youll notice alot of difference with superiority of graphics. xbox was the graphical best of them...... dont favor guysCATERBIRD

Gamecube:

Central processing unit: 486 MHz IBM "Gekko" PowerPC CPU

System memory:
43 MB total non-unified RAM
24 MB MoSys 1T-SRAM (codenamed "Splash") main system RAM. 324 MHz, 64-bit bus. 2.7 GB/s bandwidth.[9]
3 MB embedded 1T-SRAM within "Flipper"".[10]
Split into 1 MB texture buffer and 2 MB frame buffer.[10]
10.4 GB/s texture bandwidth (peak). 7.6 GB/s framebuffer bandwidth (peak). ~6.2 ns latency.[9]
16 MB DRAM used as buffer for DVD drive and audio. 81 MHz, 8-bit bus. 81 MB/s bandwidth.[9]

Graphics processing unit:
162 MHz "Flipper" LSI. 180 nm NEC eDRAM-compatible process. Co-developed by Nintendo and ArtX.

Playstation 2:

CPU: 64-bit "Emotion Engine" clocked at 294.912 MHz (299 MHz on newer versions), 10.5 million transistors.

Graphics processing unit: "Graphics Synthesizer" clocked at 147 MHz

System Memory: 32 MB(32 × 220 bytes) Direct Rambus or RDRAM

Then again, if you want to live in a parallel universe where 300 Mhz > 500 Mhz, that's your problem.

The Gamecube's Power PC processor was more powerful than the PS2's processor.

It's like comparing a Pentium 4 to a Duel Core in modern terms.

another example would be burnout 2 to flatout 2.... flatout 2 looked better. burnout 2 looked ok, but less texture quality was there.CATERBIRD

i noticed.... that dosent immediatly mean better graphics... the sega saturn had a 2nd processor slapped into it but it didnt fare much better than the genisis did it... power equals possibilities but not immediate success.CATERBIRD

This was a GC launch game, and other than not being HD, it wouldn't look out of place on a 360 or PS3. A few years later they made a sequel which looked even better.

i noticed.... that dosent immediatly mean better graphics... the sega saturn had a 2nd processor slapped into it but it didnt fare much better than the genisis did it... power equals possibilities but not immediate success.CATERBIRD

It sold the most and had a considerable enough amount of power not to be severely left in the dirt by Xbox and gamecube. But when it came down to it Gamecube and Xbox were the power houses of last generation, look at Fable! And Resident Evil 4 was a big step down on the PS2 in the graphics department, and it's obvious. How can you even say that? I mean go back and look at Rouge Squadron on Gamecube and give me anything on PS2 that looks remotely like that, go back on Xbox and look at Ninja Gaiden or Conkers Bad Fur Day and give me anything on PS2 on par.

It took PS2 until about late in it's span, after 360/Wii/ And Ps3 were done releasing to get some good graphic power houses. But when it came to who had the best last gen in graphics, Xbox and Gamecube were close. Let's just say if Nintendo or Microsoft got first last Gen and developers worked with their power, PS2 would have been getting ugly and less ports of GCN and XB games.

Rogue Squadren 3 could never have been pulled off on the PS2. Even Resident Evil 4 had to be downgraded for the Sony port.

For comparrison.

TC, the gamecube was more powerful than the ps2 and it was on par with the xbox

I thought the OP would be more like Zelda --> Mario --> Pokemon --> Sonic --> Repeat.

But you're wrong anyway, N64 > PS1 grapically.

No nintendos patterns is release something (DS) wait 2 years release a smaller form factor , then release another iteration that has something else.

Now you have Nintendo Wii, and in 2 years you will have Nintendo Wii HD

N64 had better processor and GPU than Ps1. Ps1 had the upperhand because of storage, the CD had 8x the storage the cartrige had, wich made big games possibles and the use of higher textures and FMV.I would say technically they were on equal fotting, one being more powerfull (n64) and the other offered more possibilities.

The gamecube was again more powerfull than the ps2, slightly, but less powerfull than xbox. But again had less storage, only 1.5gb and the inability to dvd playback was a major draw.

From what I gather Nintendo only pattern is always stay behind in the STORAGE SOLUTION and NEVER offer video playback.

As the wii had still dvd(4.7gb) and only 512 built in memory and can't even play dvd movies. Even the 360 that has outdated storage solution is miles ahead against nintendo.

Nintendo does save money since there is no patent required since doesn't offer the video/dvd/blu-ray playback. But I as consumer think this is being cheap in the wrong places, thus I don't support nintendo since n64.

Both the N64 and Gamecube were much more powerful than their contemporary PlayStation counterparts. I don't know where you got this "pattern" from TC. Only this generation have they dropped the ball when it comes to delivering high, standard-raising visuals, while still lacking third-party support.

They set the trend of having the most worse third party party support compared to their competition

They set the trend of having the most worse third party party support compared to their competition

SergeAndKid

i noticed.... that dosent immediatly mean better graphics... the sega saturn had a 2nd processor slapped into it but it didnt fare much better than the genisis did it... power equals possibilities but not immediate success.CATERBIRD

Nintendo 64 had better graphics than the Playstation

Gamecube had better graphics than the PS2, thus the Dreamcast

ImSwordMan