Lol, good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thenewguy
Printable View
Lol, good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thenewguy
The GBA is only about 8% more powerful than the SNES + some 3D ability.
I don't think the sound is as good though as well as other hardware shortcomings.
Please explain how you got to that number? I see the comparison with the SNES, I saw it when the GBA launched actually, but it turned out to be much more powerful than any 16-bit hardware. Like Chilly said, the GBA is basically like the 32X. The 32X is at least 50 times the MIPS of the Genesis CPU, which itself is generally more powerful than the SNES not considering Mode 7's chip assisted effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturn Fan
8% more powerful than the SNES ladies and gentleman:Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturn Fan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWBUdgIa0oE
GBA also had some amazing art work on it's games.
http://www.ps3blog.net/wp-content/up...naaj-rally.jpg
Link isn't working TB.
What'd you post mate? I was skimming earlier and missed that "8%"...pretty funny. As a CD based console what do you think it would've cost at no profit or a small loss? (Yes, contrary to Nintendo practices I know). Cartridges would've been just stupidly expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Oh and which one'd you vote for?
Bah, this is why I only use imgur for my pictures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Kamahl posted an unbelievable gameplay video of Asterix and Obelix XXL for GBA, it looks like an unfiltered N64 game. I see 2D sprites and fairly nice but small 3D environments with few objects and fairly close draw in.
I might've guessed that.
Would a Neptune have been madly expensive in `93? Still apart from audio the GBA seems a bit more powerful than the 32X.
Also good to see some votes for the '3rd place alone' option.
I'm all about Golden Sun/Golden Sun The Lost Age.
Honestly I don't know how well the GBA would have fared as a home console. I can't process the idea. For one, it would have to be different, the library would never be the same, and even if it was, some wouldn't make much sense without previous games in the same series (and therefore have a completely different impact, specially pokemon). It would also be competing with the SNES without offering much noticeable improvement. The 93 timetable doesn't fit.
As far as how good it is, well, I might put it above the PC Engine, but at the same time I love shooters too much. Tough choice. It's behind the Genesis and SNES either way.
I don't see how you put it behind the Genesis and SNES... it's easier to program and much more powerful than either of those. From a CPU standpoint, it's slightly less powerful than the SH2 in the 32X, but it has a good VDP which the 32X lacks. Overall, the two are very close and would have made fierce competitors. Both are far more powerful than the Genesis and SNES, which makes sense since they came after both. Hardware generally gets more powerful and cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
You know, the GBA's CPU has thumb mode capabilities.
We could call this kinda like 16-bit. ;)
Actually, thumb mode for the ARM is very similar to the SuperH ISA. It doesn't make it a 16 bit CPU any more than the 16 bit instructions of the SuperH (and ALL the instructions on the SuperH are 16 bits) make it 16 bit. An ARM running on thumb instructions is very similar to an SH processor.Quote:
Originally Posted by evildragon
I think of the thread this way: What he's saying is think of it like Nintendo retiring the SNES early by replacing it with a console that uses the GBA hardware. This would go head to head with the 32X from Sega, which you are supposed to assume came out a little earlier to compete with this new Nintendo console. Both are fully supported by their parent companies and third party devs for the purpose of comparison.