consoles
Home » computer and video games » gamecube » gamecube hardware » consoles » nintendo gamecube console - indigo
|
GADGET HAT
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nintendo GameCube Console - Indigo The following report compares gadgets using the SERCount Rating (base on the result count from the search engine). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
POPULAR HAT - 2006-02-13 11:35:00 | © Copyright 2004 - www.hat.net () | sitemap | top |
HARDWARE:
The first somewhat obvious advantage of the Gamecube is it's sheer processing power. The hardware architectural scheme is simply unparalleled when compared to the likes of the PS2 and Xbox. With the help of hardware development giants like IBM, NEC and ATI, Nintendo was able to assemble a very powerful machine that is cost effective and easy to code for. The beauty of the Gamecube's hardware design is in it's high emphasis on multi-processor resource sharing. With a CPU developed by IBM, a main graphics processor developed by ATI and a slew of other hardware components dedicated to such environmental effects as dynamic light sourcing, bump mapping, tri-linear vector shading, DLPII surround sound support to name a few. Given that all of these components work in tandem and are (for the most part) independent of each other, it is easy to see how resource burden is effectively reduced. Couple this with super-high-speed DRAM (best showcased in the loading-time-free Metroid Prime), and you've got the potential for more performance than you could ask for. Keeping all of this in mind, let us first take a look at PS2 when making comparison. The PS2's general processing scheme is dependant on 3 separate processors: the CPU and two "Emotion-Engine" co-processors. At first glance one may look at this layout and think, "that's not so bad, sounds like Nintendo's design." The truth is, although the intention of the 3 processors was to share processing burden, only but a handful of software titles for the PS2 have effectively been able to pull this off. In my research, I've found that the common, major complaint stemming from production houses was the inefficiency to which it takes in order to couple the processors. Rather than being an automatic component of the hardware (e.g. one processor starts to lag so it automatically routes data crunching to the next processor), whether or not the co-processors go to work is dependant on whether or not that instruction is explicitly stated in the software engine architecture (source code). In most cases, software development houses (especially those who specialize in making cross-platform software) will simply limit processor utilization to the CPU. Take a second to consider how much needs to be processed by the CPU: polygon draw, dynamic light sourcing, shadows, environmental mapping, reflections... this list goes on. Point being, the PS2 is really only barely hanging on in the hardware development. Now, to something a little harder to see is the Xbox architecture. Being the fair an honest critic that I am, I have been quite impressed by the visual and audio processing of the Xbox. Coupled with the fact that it has a built-in hard drive and ethernet card, I must say it is a good design in general. What turns me off about the Xbox is its incredibly striking resemblance to a PC (e.g. CPU, graphics card, sound card, hard drive setup). For God's sake, the thing supports Direct X. What turns me off to this set up is the sheer redundancy of it all. Why not just buy a computer? It does more, and is easily upgraded to last into the future. Granted I have enjoyed Halo, but I've enjoyed UT 2003 on my Pentium 4 1.4Ghz / Nvidia GeForce 4 Ti a heck of a lot more... especially with my mouse and keyboard.
SOFTWARE:
This is where the debate can truly get ugly. I'll be forthright, Nintendo's Gamecube has hands-down the best and most diverse software catalogue among all three next-gen platforms. First and foremost, when considering this statement you've got to look at console-specific games. Sure, the PS2 may have a ridiculous slew of games over both Xbox and Gamecube, but consider the fact that you can attribute this to PS2's earlier launch. Generally speaking, the majority of PS2's console specific games were developed from launch through to the first year of release. Given this fact coupled with the knowledge of PS2 being a less powerful system altogether, who wants these games anyway? If there is credit to be had on the PS2 side of things, it's that of the Grand Theft Auto franchise, the Gran Turismo Franchise, and a couple of good RPGs like Suikoden and Zenosaga... that's it. Both Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy are coming to the Gamecube, so both of those Franchises can no longer be used as bargaining chips. Also, consider that Grand Theft Auto exclusivity expires in 2004. Many experts are weary to assume that exclusivity will continue. You wanna talk Xbox now? Only one word: Halo. That's it. Other than Halo, all you have are other multi-platform games that you'll find on both PS2 and Gamecube anyway. Oh, and don't be so naïve as to effetely fall victim to the whole "Only on Xbox" campaign. Given the financial backing of a corporate giant such as Microsoft, how much more obvious is the fact that they pay out big bucks for limited (insome cases 1 to 2 weeks of) exclusivity. Don't be a fool, open your eyes... honestly what else is there for Xbox? Nothing. Now, lets look at Ninetendo's more notable exclusive franchises: Metroid, Zelda, Mario, F-Zero, Starfox, Resident Evil, to name only a few. Couple that with every other multi-platform game that is being published for Gamecube anyway, and you have the strongest software line-up. That's, it. Simple.
VALUE:
$... plus a free game? Are you kidding? Need I say more? Buy it now, you will not be dissapointed.