what an upper-cut, let's see the replay. PS:My native language is Greek, it's ok for me to make fun of other non-English speakers
The only excuse I made was on your behalf. You weren't clear in your statement. Apparently you meant to say something that you did not type and then you tried to confuse the meaning, just like you often do in your threads. I was guessing that English is not your native language as a possible reason for this being the case. Asking if Spanish is your native tongue should not be considered 'throwing shit around'. There should be no offense taken in that and I already stated that before your reply.
Yeah I fuck up sometimes, everybody does, but I don't get how you somehow thought I was referring to the CELL, while I mentioned the PS3. Sure the CELL is powerful, but it has a limit and the old 7800 coupled to it is more of a dead weight pulling it down when doing gaming, so that a future OMAP CPU (which is an ARM+SGX) might have the same gaming power in less than a couple years isn't so far-fetched. Now the whole cheap-Xbox thing is a theory of my own, based on the success of the Wii and the fact that some higher-ups at redmond are getting feed-up with the costs of the Xbox so far. The Reg goes farther, not mentioning it as a cheap option, but a custom-ARM thats both powerful and cool, which while possible isn't the best choice IMO. Would I bet it will happen? maybe, do I KNOW it WILL happen? nope.
You were talking about the CPU in the next XBox and compared it to the PS3. How would I not think you were comparing a CPU to a CPU? It's like discussing something with Gollum FFS.
Because I SAID I WASNT?:banghead: Check it, does the Reg mentions the OMAP? anywhere? nope, it doesnt, I brought that up because on a older thread I posted a link to gizmodo showing a future OMAP that has the power of the PS3. The Reg article says the next Xbox will use a custom ARM like th A4, which is another theory. Are we cool?
ARM's "power" is second to its primary goal, which is energy efficiency. It is true that ARM co-processors are often included in strong systems, but to say that they'll move from buff to puff in a generation is childish. The worst thing Microsoft can do, is to pull a Wii by slightly upgrading the existing components to gain more power - which I honestly doubt they will. Don't forget that they market to the HIGH END GAMER. They want to blow your mind and take your money, ARM won't do that now, and not ever.
The Gamecube was buff, more than the PS2, it failed, they released the Wii, it was weak from the get-go, and it sold more than anyone expected, where's your point anyway? 5 years it took them to get a GPU+CPU for the X360, AMD is still trying to get Fusion to work, and any ARM manufacturer can make a SoC without breaking a sweat, what does that tell you? And X360 for the highend gamer? please, the highend gamer laughs at the upscalled HD, the downgraded graphics compared to even midend PCs, and the fact that you cant use a mouse, which really sucks in FPS games no matter what some fanboys say. MS is already trying to make the X360 more like the Wii with Kinect, so its not crazy to assume they will carry that strategy into the nextgen. I'm not saying ARM is going to take over the world, but is getting more powerful by the minute, and considering how fucking expensive the RROD problem was is no wonder why MS would want to play it safe and go for a reliable, easily customizable CPU, specially since just by looking at sales numbers its obvious most buyers don't give a fuck about processing power, not even in portables.
The GC was not buff, it was well balanced to the point of outperforming the PS2 - but there are many things the PS2 was stronger at at the lower level, it was a matter of bottlenecks. why are you doing this? there's no common sense in trying to suggest that a low powered processor will be the heart of the next XBOX. XBOX's marketing strategy wouldn't allow it to fail at that level by offering worse graphics than the competition in exchange for what? Kinect?
Haha, you're a lawyer right? I wonder if GC would still be "well-balanced" if you were the one making the point. There was a bigger gap between the PS2 and GC than between the DC and the PS2, just looking at Rogue Leader in 2001 was proof enough. Dude, their marketing strategy already took a 180° turn when they announced Natal: when the Wii was released they didn't give 2 shits about motion control, nor did sony, and now both are rushing to get theirs on the market, while saying than the already aging hardware is going to stay for the next 5 years or more The original Xbox lasted merely 4 years, and was replaced so MS could stay on the front of the hardware race, yet the X360 is going to last what, 10 years? if you cant see that change in strategy you're going blind...
You're looking at just one game... I can do the same. All DBZ games on the PS2 compared to those for the SNES, well, the PS2 games looks terrible, played terrible and generally sucked whereas the SNES ones were fun, enjoyable, and brilliant.
That I dont have the time to post more examples doesn't means theres only one... Launch title Luigi's mansion was already impressive, Pikmin 1&2, RE0, 1 and 4 (last one is obvious), Zelda WW and TP, Baten Kaitos, etc... Then there are the multiplatform games: Xbox and GC version looked almost the same, while PS2's were full of jaggies to say the least.
"Luigi's mansion" You're kidding right? That was possibly the worst mario game ever, worse than that educational one for the SNES. The only good thing about it was that it was 60MB in size. "Then there are the multiplatform games: Xbox and GC version looked almost the same, while PS2's were full of jaggies to say the least." Yeh, True Crime being one I remember; Xbox and PS2 versions were around the same size (over 1.5GB) whilst the GC version was limited to 1.45GB of data, meaning it was worse. Oh and then there was FIFA, my god, the audio quality on the GC version was so bloody pathetic that I didn't even bother with my audio cables on the GC. The xbox version was clearly supreme, followed by the PS2 version. I'd post a 'fail troll is failing' pic but quite frankly; I can't be arsed to find one.
We are talking about graphics you retard, remember? Just one of many pathetic GTA clones out there, a true loss for all GC owners I'm sure. BTW learn to quote dimwit... Again, who fucking cares? only recently with FIFA 10 has that series finally made a game that didn't utterly suck compared to PES. And is obvious you cant be "arsed" to do shit, so GTFO:gravedigging:
I'd pick RE4 as the graphical high note for the Cube. That game still looks fucking great. As a general rule, though, most multi-platform games looked best on the Xbox, with the Gamecube second and PS2 third. I actually quite liked Luigi's Mansion...
Yeh, and the graphics sucked. UT had better graphics, and that's years older. "Just one of many pathetic GTA clones out there, a true loss for all GC owners I'm sure." So now you disreguard how I'm making a comparison because it makes your comparison look like what you talk; complete garbage? "BTW learn to quote dimwit..." Hate to tell you but this is a quotation mark: ". By order of the English language it is you that looks stupid. "Again, who fucking cares? only recently with FIFA 10 has that series finally made a game that didn't utterly suck compared to PES." WAH WAH WAH I'M SHADOWLAYER AND I'M MAKING EXCUSES BECAUSE I LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT. Grow the hell up. "And is obvious you cant be "arsed" to do shit, so GTFO:gravedigging:" Eh?
It's silly to even suggest Xbox would use ARM. Microsoft's core audience is still the hardcore gamer and their not going to limit their next consoles specs just because they introduced Kinect.
