Considering that it was already difficult to distinguish between GC and XBX graphics despite the numbers difference, the comparisons here really don't mean much.
I concur. Look what Nintendo did with the Gamecube despite all of its limitations. You can say that some of them were mistakes, but it didn't hinder them too much. They know how to make the most with what they got.
specs dont mean a damn thing. the PS2 was the weakest system of the last generation (we wont count DC) and it was the most successful.
Or at least it had the broadest usebase. Nintendo actually made a bigger profit. Your point is still valid though. I think it's also important to remember that the specs on paper also don't always come out the way you'd excpect in action. The Sega Genesis had a more powerful CPU than the SNES, but there was rarely a significant difference in actual game performance, and the SNES consistently had better graphics. Not to be totally biased toward Nintendo here, the N64 was also significantly more powerful than the PlayStation, but it was the N64 that developed a reputation for bad graphics.
The belief around the gamer world is that Resident Evil MIGHT be a XBOX 360 exclusive. All trailers and news has really been around the 360. I might be wrong but maybe Microsoft purchased the rights. Back to topic: I agree that Nintendo does amazing things with the stuff it has, for example Super Mario Sunshine. This could aslo be a way of making this console CONSIDERABLY less expensive than the other consoles, making it a target for mothers, younger audinces and us cheap asses.
RE5 is slated for 360 and PS3. capcom isnt going to sell the rights to their second biggest money maker.
I a little let down. But Nintendo the Gamecube was a really efficient system, so maybe the Rev will be just as efficent or even more efficient. Anyway, bring on the games!
Everyone is completely right when they say that Nintendo ususally does the best with what they have and RE was that. I think Nintendo is going to win the war with its 'looks beauitful, but plays amazing' compared to the 'plays well yet looks realistic"
I think this is news I've seen before, but for the sake of commentary. It's basicly a gamecube on steroids. Nothing wrong with that as the gamecube already looked amazing. At this point I think hardware has passed the point where its performance limits graphical capabillities. It's more a question of how much effort the designers want to put into a game. For instance look at two games. I'll use Eternal Darkness and Starfox Adventures. Both came out around the same time. But starfox adventures looks much better than Eternal Darkness (even though ED in every other way was a better game), while ED looked more like a dreamcast game. Detail just isn't an issue of hardware anymore. Effects and framerate are the last things to push with graphics. If a developer wants to push detail they will. I think most games on the market aren't even using the full power of the current gen systems. (except mabey PS2 which has to be pushed to its limits to compare to GC and Xbox). I look at plenty of games on gamecube and xbox and say to myself "I know they can do better, I've seen them do better." Remember it takes time and money to develope those high detail character and environment models. Consider how powerful the xbos 360 is. Yet the games on it only look slightly better than current gen games. If the developers don't want to produce higher detail then games will look like crap, if they want to spend more time on them they'll look awsome on any hardware of the generation. I have no doubt that all 3 systems will have some jawdropping games as well as their share of blocky, grainy, jaggy half asses.
