Gamecube on 51" HDTV

[T5K]thrasher said:
Like i said. Im looking for component cables right now. Looks like lik-sang is the only place to get them at the moment as nintendo has stopped shipping them.

And s-video looks great on my projector. It could be that it has the faroujda DCDi processing chip to scale the picture to the native dlp reselution. ( i love my x1)
Click to expand...

Thank you, thats the point, if HD widescreen was a priority or even an after thought, then Nintendo would still be shipping YPrPb cables. I too looked for Component cables for the Nintendo Gamecube, and was told that they were back ordered until June, I guess they have changed stance and are no longer manufactouring and supporting them.

And yes, im guessing the scaling ability has a whole lot to do with image quality, as an s-video signal stretched, through last - current gen technology would look horrible. It must look very good playing video games at 100+ inches, and yeah im jealous. :p
 
steviep said:
NullModo... the PS2 looks better than the cube? lol I think you should reverse those cables - the Cube is a much more powerful piece of hardware, far more capable of eye candy than the PS2, and almost even the X-box (see RE4 comparison thread from a few weeks back). Connecting a Cube through S-Video over composite CAN produce a "night and day" difference, though... as when I first did it a couple years back, I was blown away. (See: Zelda: Wind Waker)
Click to expand...

Eh, that's just a difference of personal opinion. I've seen GCs hooked up through component (although not on this TV) and have yet to be impressed. Then again some people think the Xbox looks better than the PS2, and I don't agree with that either.

Either way I only have two GC games. The only reason I own one is because I could get it for $10 and it seemed dumb not to. I don't really care for the cutesy nintendo games, never a fan of Zelda/Mario/etc. I am interested in picking up Eternal Darkness when I get the chance though, I have heard good things.
 
steviep said:
the GPU inside will certainly be capable of it, and at the very least, 480p widescreen will be standard...
Click to expand...

480p is not widescreen, it is still 4:3.

Personally, I get the feeling Nintendo isn't hopping on the HD bandwagon for two reasons: one, they know their most important market segment, children, generally do not play games on HDTVs, or will even have HDTVs in the near future. Second, the Revolution is not going to be a major step up from the Gamecube in terms of hardware capabilities, and the question of whether or not the Revo can even handle 720p/1080i/1080p is still in the air.
 
Zelda cutesy? hehe ok... I guess it does have it a bit, but it doesn't detract from the awesomeness of the game. Do grab Eternal Darkness, though - excellent game. And if you've got a lot of friends, don't be shy to consider one of the many excellent party games on the system (Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario Sports, or even Donky Konga). All make for extremely good drinking games.

You don't think the Xbox looks better than the PS2? I guess that explains why you say the same thing about the Gamecube. I have a feeling you'll get flamed, but the people in this thread seem to be behaving for the most part, so maybe not. I hope you are aware, though, that the PS2's 300-ish mhz isn't as powerful as the 500-ish mhz gamecube and the 700mhz-ish Xbox, though, right? Visually, the other 2 systems are quite a bit more capable.
 
Zelda has always been "cutesy" though. Hell a link to the past was pretty cutesy, and it is IMO one of the best games ever made.
 
Terpfen said:
480p is not widescreen, it is still 4:3.

Personally, I get the feeling Nintendo isn't hopping on the HD bandwagon for two reasons: one, they know their most important market segment, children, generally do not play games on HDTVs, or will even have HDTVs in the near future. Second, the Revolution is not going to be a major step up from the Gamecube in terms of hardware capabilities, and the question of whether or not the Revo can even handle 720p/1080i/1080p is still in the air.
Click to expand...

480p isn't widescreen natively, but CAN be widescreen natively (you obviously don't play much current gen games)

I believe you are sadly mistaken thinking that the Revolution will not be a LOT more powerful than the gamecube (ignore the "2x-3x" comment, as it was unfounded, and relied on visual difference - which would be true, not specification difference). If you think that Nintendo is releasing a 1ghz system for $200, you should probably think again. While the specs are not known officially, it would be safe to say that Nintendo's aiming for a similar visual presentation as the X360... and considering it will be out a year from now, like the PS3, it is safe to say that they can accomplish that visual presentation with less/cheaper hardware. Just look at current gen. 500mhz gamecube CPU brought you RE4 - of which you'd be very hardpressed to find too many games on the 700mhz XBox that look that good.

In the same sentence, if you believe that either the PS3 or the XBox360 are going to give you significantly better visuals, that are more than 2 or 3 times better than last gen, I suggest you look at the X360 launch lineup. You'll be just as hardpressed to find a game that looks better than its PC counterpart.

So, Terpfen, where did you get the information on Nintendo's next gen hardware? We'd all be interested to know, since we're all in the dark still.
 
Was a Link to the PAst the 2D side scroller? I liked that one even if it was underrated.

It is hard to compare hardware vs. hardware in consoles, it isn't like PCs where you can say the 700 Mhz processor is faster than the 500 mhz one (not that you can even say _that_ this day in age) plus, this isn't a thread about that, so let's just not go there. I could be used to the was the PS2 looks, but it just looks better to me. Everything I've played on GameCube almost seems like it hashints of cell-shading... not that that is bad, but it feels really weird in games like Madden.

One thing that is pretty cool about the GC is that playing Japanese imports requires only that bootloader disc. The Naruto fighting game is crazy, even if we have no clue what any of the menus say as we scroll though, and it has it's fair share of japanese eccentricity... Other than that I'll probably pick up the Final Fantasty game that came out only for GC a while back, and who knows whatever else.
 
A Link to the Past was the SNES Zelda, with a kind-of overhead world view. The 2D sidescroller that you're talking about likely is the 2nd Zelda game for the NES (Adventures of Link) - and both are among my top games ever played :)

As for the visual difference - it is likely that you're used to the PS2's look and feel. I won't knock you on it, I just feel that both of the other 2 systems are more visually capable. It's just a matter of opinion, I guess - that's all :)
 
NulloModo said:
Was a Link to the PAst the 2D side scroller? I liked that one even if it was underrated.
Click to expand...

Link to the past was more of an overhead isometric view, Zelda II was the side scroller a la Mario brothers.

EDIT : Damn beaten to the punch :D

FF3 Had some pretty cutesy characters as well, as did Secret of Mana, and they are both great games.
 
NulloModo said:
Eh, that's just a difference of personal opinion. I've seen GCs hooked up through component (although not on this TV) and have yet to be impressed. Then again some people think the Xbox looks better than the PS2, and I don't agree with that either.

Either way I only have two GC games. The only reason I own one is because I could get it for $10 and it seemed dumb not to. I don't really care for the cutesy nintendo games, never a fan of Zelda/Mario/etc. I am interested in picking up Eternal Darkness when I get the chance though, I have heard good things.
Click to expand...

You can't possibly claim that PS2 has anywhere *near* the graphical horsepower of Xbox or GC. Look at ANY cross-platform game and it *always* looks the worst on PS2. See any Splinter Cell game for a shining example of this. More recently, see Resident Evil 4, side by side, on PS2 and Gamecube. In every single scene, every single case, the GC version looks better.

PS2 has a lot of good exclusive games, but when it comes to cross platform titles the PS2 is *rarely* the choice to go with, and *never* so based on the graphical prowess.

Jason
 
steviep said:
480p isn't widescreen natively, but CAN be widescreen natively (you obviously don't play much current gen games)

I believe you are sadly mistaken thinking that the Revolution will not be a LOT more powerful than the gamecube (ignore the "2x-3x" comment, as it was unfounded, and relied on visual difference - which would be true, not specification difference). If you think that Nintendo is releasing a 1ghz system for $200, you should probably think again. While the specs are not known officially, it would be safe to say that Nintendo's aiming for a similar visual presentation as the X360... and considering it will be out a year from now, like the PS3, it is safe to say that they can accomplish that visual presentation with less/cheaper hardware. Just look at current gen. 500mhz gamecube CPU brought you RE4 - of which you'd be very hardpressed to find too many games on the 700mhz XBox that look that good.

In the same sentence, if you believe that either the PS3 or the XBox360 are going to give you significantly better visuals, that are more than 2 or 3 times better than last gen, I suggest you look at the X360 launch lineup. You'll be just as hardpressed to find a game that looks better than its PC counterpart.

So, Terpfen, where did you get the information on Nintendo's next gen hardware? We'd all be interested to know, since we're all in the dark still.
Click to expand...

Nintendo never said that Rev would be 2-3x more powerful than GC, that was just rumour. YESTERDAY, however, they did say (Jim Merrick interview, Computer gaming world website, if I recall) that there would be no significant difference in the graphical quality between PS3/Xbox 360 and Revolution.

That said, there *certainly* won't be any significant difference between Xbox 360 and PS3 in terms of graphics. The two systems are all but identical, spec-wise, with CPU's based around the same exact powerPC core and GPU's in the same class. If anything, 360 has the advantage for it's full implementation of DirectX, whereas PS3 has to use the previously marketed and failed CG language for it's GPU.

Graphically I expect the next generation to look *very* similar, system to system. Features and services will be what differentiate the upcoming generation, and as announcements go, MS and Nintendo are leading the pack right now.

Jason
 
The component out on the GameCube was a total halfass job, just play the PS2 port of RE4, sure it's lower poly count but it has the expanded Assignment Ada. And supports widescreen 480p. (and I'm not a PS2 !!!!!!, I own all 3 consoles)

SVideo isn't hugely different from 480i, there's a little more color bleed, but that's it. It's not really noticable. You'll still see pretty good detail.
 
Are you aware that 480p widescreen, while not included in RE4 GC due to capcom laziness, is pretty much a standard with other games that support 480p? If you look up the thread from a week or so back, you'd discover that the GC version of RE4 is still the much better version (it wasn't just poly counts that are missing). That said, when it hits the discount bins I'll still be picking up the PS2 RE4 for the extra 3 hour mission, if it's fun.
 
steviep said:
480p isn't widescreen natively, but CAN be widescreen natively (you obviously don't play much current gen games)
Click to expand...

Yes, I do play current gen games. Ninja Gaiden is both 480p and widescreen capable. I happen to have a TV that supports both modes. This does not mean that when I load Ninja Gaiden, it is running in a widescreen version of 480p. There is no such thing.

Or do you think that the Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2's 720p mode is actually 720p, even though it isn't widescreen?


I believe you are sadly mistaken thinking that the Revolution will not be a LOT more powerful than the gamecube (ignore the "2x-3x" comment, as it was unfounded, and relied on visual difference - which would be true, not specification difference). If you think that Nintendo is releasing a 1ghz system for $200, you should probably think again. While the specs are not known officially, it would be safe to say that Nintendo's aiming for a similar visual presentation as the X360... and considering it will be out a year from now, like the PS3, it is safe to say that they can accomplish that visual presentation with less/cheaper hardware. Just look at current gen. 500mhz gamecube CPU brought you RE4 - of which you'd be very hardpressed to find too many games on the 700mhz XBox that look that good.
Click to expand...

CPU speed has nothing to do with graphics capabilities, and you should know better than that. Yes, I know the Revolution will have a custom R520, codenamed RN520, which would theoretically put the Revolution on par with the X360 were it not for the fact that it's a custom part. Given the small form factor of the Revolution, my personal belief is that ATi is producing a lower-performance version of the R520 for Nintendo; it would have to be a lower-performance version for heat dissipation reasons.


In the same sentence, if you believe that either the PS3 or the XBox360 are going to give you significantly better visuals, that are more than 2 or 3 times better than last gen, I suggest you look at the X360 launch lineup. You'll be just as hardpressed to find a game that looks better than its PC counterpart.
Click to expand...

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that launch games are entirely meaningless. Boy, Fantavision really showed off the PS2's power, didn't it?


So, Terpfen, where did you get the information on Nintendo's next gen hardware? We'd all be interested to know, since we're all in the dark still.
Click to expand...

Keep up with Nintendo's statements, and lessen the sarcasm.
 
wow, this threads gotten a little out of hand..lol..anyway, i just got ep 3 and a p scan dvd player, looks pretty damn fine, only thing i dont like much ios ive got everything set to 16:9 and i have bars at the top and bottom of the screen..is that because of the weird 2:35 aspect of the movie?
 
So Nintendo's statements present the specs of the system? Awesome! Please post a link so that we can all see proof that what Jim Merrick just said is completely false!
 
nintendo makes component cables, but they only work with older model gamecubes because the new ones don't have the fancy pants video output, just the plain old av thingy thats been around since the snes. Most gamecube games that support 480P require that you hold down B while the game starts up to enable it. Nintendo is weird isn't it? 480P gamecube looks much better than 480i on a 51" screen trust me. Heck with mariokart DD its almost jaggie free when I'm sitting all the way back on my couch playing with my wavebird. Too bad their isn't very many other reasons to own one.
 
There are lots of reasons, but this thread isn't to discuss them.
If you own one of the new gamecubes without the component out, you can contact Nintendo and they will exchange it for you to the older model, free of charge. Visit nintendo.com for more on that.
 
Frangible said:
The component out on the GameCube was a total halfass job, just play the PS2 port of RE4, sure it's lower poly count but it has the expanded Assignment Ada. And supports widescreen 480p. (and I'm not a PS2 !!!!!!, I own all 3 consoles)

SVideo isn't hugely different from 480i, there's a little more color bleed, but that's it. It's not really noticable. You'll still see pretty good detail.
Click to expand...

Not really noticeable? Are you wearing the *uber-dark* glasses today?

Side by Side , check out the differences. It's *Night and Day*. GC's graphics *pwn* the PS2's in this game, period.

Jason
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See this thread for more on that. And more comparison pictures, of course.

But I think Frangible was talking about the difference between 480i and p on an S-Video cable when he said "not really noticable" - I could be wrong though. RE4 - definately noticable.
 
steviep said:
There are lots of reasons, but this thread isn't to discuss them.
If you own one of the new gamecubes without the component out, you can contact Nintendo and they will exchange it for you to the older model, free of charge. Visit nintendo.com for more on that.
Click to expand...

This will not solve the OP's gripes though. The pixelation and dithering is even more noticable in 480p vs. SVideo which blurs the colors a bit due to the Y/C channels, and the lack of widescreen support in the GC version of RE4 means he'll still be playing it in a 4:3 window.

The only way to get true widescreen support in RE4 is the PS2 version.

But I think Frangible was talking about the difference between 480i and p on an S-Video cable when he said "not really noticable" - I could be wrong though. RE4 - definately noticable.
Click to expand...

I meant 480i vs. SVideo. There is a difference but it appeared very slight to me. All the individual pixels were quite visible, there was just color bleed in high contrast boundries. 480p vs. SVideo was more noticable. 720, 1080 etc are another ballpark.
 
Is true widescreen support worth it though? I mean, hit the zoom button on your TV (which you have to do for non-digital-widescreen TV anyway, and non-anamorphic movies) and the problem is solved. Check out that previous thread - I'd say that if I had to pick between version, I'd still choose the GC. It's the better copy.
 
Frangible said:
This will not solve the OP's gripes though. The pixelation and dithering is even more noticable in 480p vs. SVideo which blurs the colors a bit due to the Y/C channels, and the lack of widescreen support in the GC version of RE4 means he'll still be playing it in a 4:3 window.

The only way to get true widescreen support in RE4 is the PS2 version.



I meant 480i vs. SVideo. There is a difference but it appeared very slight to me. All the individual pixels were quite visible, there was just color bleed in high contrast boundries. 480p vs. SVideo was more noticable. 720, 1080 etc are another ballpark.
Click to expand...

Ah, if you're talking 480i vs Svideo, then yes, I'm sure the difference is negligible at best.

Jason
 
steviep said:
Is true widescreen support worth it though? I mean, hit the zoom button on your TV (which you have to do for non-digital-widescreen TV anyway, and non-anamorphic movies) and the problem is solved. Check out that previous thread - I'd say that if I had to pick between version, I'd still choose the GC. It's the better copy.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Which is preferable, the GC's better visuals, or the expanded Assignment Ada in the PS2 port? I still haven't beat the PS2 port yet, so I guess I'll found out.
 
Frangible said:
I don't know. Which is preferable, the GC's better visuals, or the expanded Assignment Ada in the PS2 port? I still haven't beat the PS2 port yet, so I guess I'll found out.
Click to expand...

For the main game experience, GC 100%. For the extended content, I'll wait for the PS2 version to hit the bargain bin and snag it in the $15-20 range. I've got all 3 systems at home and I *never* buy the PS2 game when it exists on another system. I also grabbed Soul Calibur 2 for GC instead of PS2, though that was mostly because the GC version had link while the PS2 version had that gay-ass Tekken character.

Jason
 
The extra 3 hours of extended play time isn't worth the atmosphere that you lose as a result. The extra gun/clothing isn't worth it at all, either. However, like Jason I will likely be picking it up for the PS2 when it gets really cheap. The game itself - the GC version is the only way to go, if you've got the system.
 
steviep said:
So Nintendo's statements present the specs of the system? Awesome! Please post a link so that we can all see proof that what Jim Merrick just said is completely false!
Click to expand...

Why yes, Nintendo's statements have in part revealed what to expect with the Revolution. They have not published a full spec list; this is different from not knowing in general what's going in the machine, and you know better than that.

Or maybe not, if you think CPU speed determines graphic prowess...
 
guys, 480i and s-video is the same thing. S-video, Composite and RF conections would all be considered able to transfer 480i resolutions. Component video can also transfer 480i, unless the source is providing a progressive signal.

S-video offers a clearer transfer of the picture, then composite, because it's a 4-wire solution inside the cable, whereas composite blends everything into one cable. And of course component, whether running 480i or p, or HD resolutions, offers the best speration of colors and contrast due to being multiple cables.


There is a difference in 480p modes, it can be both 640x480 and 852x480. You mostly only see the '852' resolution on plasma EDTV's, but it works great for Dvd's.

Some earlier games, offered progressive scan support, without running in widescreen. Mostly when you see 480p now, unless it specifies otherwise, as some earlier progressive gamecube games, like Mario Sunshine, which ran in 480p, but not widescreen.

The widescreen version of 480p is referred to as an 'anamorphic' version of 640x480, at least thats what I'm seeing in some FAQ's and what not.

That comparison of PS2 vs GC on RE4 is damn amazing. The textures, lighting and particle effects are a ton cleaner on the cube. I'll be bargain binning the PS2 version myself, it looks like.
 
S-Video vs. Composite can be dramatic on some signals... sometimes a lot bigger than the difference between S-Vid and Component.

480p can easily be widescreen, all prog-scan DVD players can output a 480p signal in native widescreen mode (any anamorphic DVD).

As for the RE4 screenies - I dunno, looks like a crapshoot to me. I think the PS2 version looks better overall. The GC version seems to have slightly higher 'resolution' but the textures are better on the PS2 version, and the colors much richer (though that could just be how the TVs were set up I guess). The GC version looks overrendered to me, similar to how I think the original GT looked better than GT2 on the PS1, GT2 tried to do too much with the hardware and it all came out looking blocky instead.
 
NullModo, take a look at those screens again. The textures on the PS2 are about 10 times worse than the GC. And much more detail on them as well. (Visit the mouse-over link)

Terpfen, the only answer I wanted from you was facts - not the speculation we regularly take part in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top