[QUOTE="nameless12345"]
[QUOTE="Chozofication"]
Get real. There was nothing impressive about that crap. Anyways, those PC centric developers just didn't want to lift a finger if the development platform wasn't x86. A game not being on a system means it can't be ran is just as asinine. Those latter games looked like crap too.Â
Jag85
Those two running on a measly 64 megs of RAM and Pentium 3 was pretty dang impressive if you ask me.
PC versions required atleast a Pentium 4 with 256 MB RAM to run any decently. (and a capable graphics card with pixel-shaders)
GameCube didn't have the RAM and the shading capabilities (normal mapping) to run them on a decent level.
I'm not even so sure if Wii was able to output better graphics than first Xbox due to a GPU based upon GC's.
And before you want to say that GC had better fill-rate and poly-counts - I don't really agree, Xbox's GPU could do up to 29 million polys (485k@60fps) while GC's could do up to 20 million polys (337k@60fps).
Xbox's GPU supported full DX 8.1 feature set (pixel shader 1.4) while GC's supported DX 7 feature set. (with some fixed-function shaders aka "TEV pipeline")
To say that Xbox couldn't handle GC's games like Resident Evil 4 and Rogue Leader in comparable graphics is just nonsense but GC would most likely have issues running several Xbox games.
The Xbox had more SDRAM, but the GameCube had faster, more efficient, 1T-SRAM.
As for fill rates and poly counts, Xbox games barely ever went over 10 million polys/sec in game, whereas the GC launch game Rogue Squadron was already hitting highs of 15 million polys/sec in game. In terms of practical polygon counts and fill rates, the GameCube was the faster console.
As for the feature set, the Xbox used pixel shader 1.1, not 1.4, though 1.1 was still a lot better than the GameCube's fixed-function shaders.
As for the unnecessary Wii comparison, I highly doubt the Xbox would be able to handle a game Xenoblade Chronicles, what with its huge open world and all.
And finally, as has already been pointed out, the Xbox would have serious issues running Rogue Leader. But it's also true that the GameCube would also have issues with the best-looking Xbox games due to the lack of a PC-like x86 architecture.
Â
More RAM > faster RAM.
PS3 had faster RAM than 360 (XDR RAM) but it wasn't better than 360's unified RAM (GDDR3 type).
The Factor 5 guys also said that they were struggling with memory on the GC. (they applauded the graphics chip and CPU tho)
Rogue Squadron 2 & 3 were fine games that showcased what GC could do.
Were they more advanced than late Xbox games tho?
Unless you only care about poly-counts, no.
They used the simplistic emboss-mapped bump-mapping on most surfaces which is just more textures seen from different angle.
Late Xbox games used lots of normal mapping which would be hard to get out of GC. (most devs used EMBM instead)
And I think you still don't quite realize that it was not the issue that Xbox couldn't handle high-poly games to (out)match GC's, but simply that it traded poly-counts for more effects.
From this perspective, the Xbox was a little similar to N64, which could also theoretically output more polygons than the PS1 but mostly exchanged them for more/better effects.
After all, advanced effects tend to lower general performance.
As for shader model in Xbox - you are right, I mixed it with OpenGL.
The GPU is based on GeForce 3 Ti 500 which was pretty much the best GPU money could buy on the PC at the time.
I circled some big ones in red, although there are others in the pictures. if you somehow think there are none after looking at these pictures than agree to disagree, but i think anyone can see some of them fro these pictures. It's all over the game, and changes based on how far or close you are. It's also a bit jaggy. Oh my friend i forgot something important, your 2nd picture is emulated, not sure about the others, but that 2nd pic is clearly emulated or it was messed with. I do agree with you that it is a good looking gamecube game still even with these issues.
Log in to comment