[QUOTE="RyanWare"][QUOTE="zaku101"][QUOTE="RyanWare"][QUOTE="zaku101"]GC+No AA=Galaxy. GC+AA=sunshine+with lower graphics then Galaxy of course. Turn it off and you could have made Galaxy.
zaku101
But there is a fundamental flaw with your argument. If the Wii - which is roughly twice as powerful as the GameCube - can only run Mario Galaxy at 30 fps, then how on earth could the GameCube run it at a playable framerate?
And yet you say Mario Galaxy is possible on the GameCube. For this theory to be true, then you must be claiming that Mario Galaxy only uses half of the Wii's power. You must think that half of the Wii's RAM is sitting idle, unused. You must think the Wii's CPU and GPU are both working at only half their capacity.
Right? If I'm wrong, then please - with your infinite wisdom - explain how.
The game can run in 60 FPS of course np. Developers often lower the FPS to make sure that the game does not have any lag or slow downs. They also did this with Halo 3 were they didn't make the game run at 60 FPS but it can run in 60 FPS of course. If you really take the time to look at the specs of the Wii and Xbox there almost the same so yes. There're processors are almost the same but the Xbox has a better graphic card with better shadier support. The real question is why does this game have no AA at all for a Wii game? It leaves me to think it was developed with the GC specs in mind.
But see, there's something that you're lacking here that is kind of imporant... it's called PROOF. You're pulling things from your ass and calling them fact. Point me to where Nintendo says they intentionally lowered Galaxy's framerate to 30fps, or I have absolutely no reason ot believe you.
Not that it matters anyway, because let's pretend for a moment that Galaxy's framerate really was lowered on purpose. You say this is to ensure a stable framerate, yes? Then the same would have to be done on the GameCube to enable a stable framerate... and yet, again, the GameCube is only half as powerful as the Wii. It can't do it. Therefore, Galaxy on GameCube would not be at a playable framerate.
See? It's really simple - you're wrong. The sooner you accept that, the better. :)
It won't even matter if the game was running at 30 or 60 FPS. Since the two systems are almost the same. But I believe that this could have also like I said been done to keep the GC specs in mind. As the Wii not even as powerful as the Xbox(6 years old now I think) so I won't really call it half as powerful but more of a 1.5 GC. If for a fact it was made for the Wii specs in mind or if there was a 2 times jump in power you would at least see 2X of AA but you see none.
Please Read.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/05/08/geek-out-xbox-uber-boss-robbie-bach-takes-a-shot-at-nintendo-s-underpowered-wii-does-he-manage-to-score-a-bulls-eye-or-just-shoot-himself-in-the-foot.aspx
I'm fully aware of the Wii's graphical capabilities. Why do you keep bringing the Xbox into this? The Xbox was clearly more powerful than the GameCube was. Comparing it to the Wii is harder, however, because the Wii actually has a much faster processor (can't just look at MHz), plus more and lower-latency RAM than the Xbox. The only area that the Xbox beats the Wii is in the GPU - and that's largely because the Xbox's has better support for programmable shaders than the GC's and Wii's. This allowed for extensive use of shader effects in Xbox games (bump mapping, normal mapping, etc.) that cannot be used so liberally in GC or Wii games.
But enough about Xbox. We're comparing the GC and Wii - which is very easy to do since they both run on the exact same architecture. The Wii is essentially an overclocked GameCube with twice as much RAM. The CPU and GPU are roughly 50% faster.
So on to Galaxy. Galaxy only runs at 30 fps, and it does in fact have minor framerate problems in some areas (read reviews if you don't believe me). This, to me, signifies that Mario Galaxy is in fact using the Wii's hardware to the best of its abilities at this point in time. So much so that the Wii actually struggles sometimes to maintain a steady 30 fps framerate. Another indicator of this is the very fact that Galaxy has no AA - it would have AA if the Wii had extra horsepower left over. But the Wii is being pushed to its current limits with Galaxy.
And since the Wii is more powerful than the GameCube, then it's fair to say that GameCube would struggle to produce the same results at a playable framerate. I know the Wii isn't significantly more powerful than the GameCube - but it is more powerful, and you have to remember that. As a developer infamously said, it's essentially "two GC's duct-taped together."
And if two GC's duct-taped together can only run Galaxy at 30 fps, with occasional framerate dips, and with no AA... then it's quite obvious (to those of us who are rational) that a single GC could not pull off the same feat.
But if you still believe that somehow that purple box with only 43MB of RAM and a 485MHz CPU can run Mario Galaxy as well as the Wii... then i don't know what to say. Your thinking defies logic.
Log in to comment