Oh yeah...semantics. The last resort of those truly "Caught with their pants down."
...and then accuse the the other person of your own fault with a completely incorrect interpretation of said fallacy. What I was trying to do was to rephrase the statement into something that might convey better understanding of the meaning. Nothing more.
The wii is a completely original, and different console, only graphic whores could ever dare to call it the same as the GC, becoase all they care about is graphic power(aka if It's not 3 times more powerful, all it is, is a redesign).
Graphic power Isn't everything.
Oh yea a internet connection/wifi, a completely different OS, a intergrated motion control system(It's not just a add on), SD card slot(did the GC have USB funtionality, I forget if it did), saving "can not" be done on the GC memory card for wii games, even though the wii is BC, why? Because the wii game architexture is completely different from the GC(likewise, you have to rewrite a port for the wii, you can't just transfer everything to a wii Disc, and call it a day). If they were the same systems or even close, you would beable to save to the GC memory card.
They are radically different systems.
You've assumed what people meant and even threw in the word "modified" as if to change the discussion. Unless I am not seeing your words correctly, your interpretation of "The Wii was a GCN........" actually means "The Wii is a modified GCN." You don't want to hear the differences nor do you want to hear when people are giving a FACTUALLY wrong interpretation of the system. We're not talking about whether or not the Wii is a good system. We're discussing facts.
Every substantial difference between the Wii and GCN has been minimized by yourself or another. Even your spec link shows differences. Do you consider a a faster processor and ram to be minor? These are differences which place the Wii well ahead of its predecessor. You can ignore any of the differences but it won't make them go away. A system 1.5-2x's more powerful then what it replaced is significant.
There is no difference.
A retarded Sonic.
"Every substantial difference between the Wii and GCN has been minimized by yourself or another. Even your spec link shows differences. Do you consider a a faster processor and ram to be minor? These are differences which place the Wii well ahead of its predecessor. You can ignore any of the differences but it won't make them go away. A system 1.5-2x's more powerful then what it replaced is significant. "
Exactly
Being faster with more ram is not being 1.5-2x more powerful. That statement alone doesn't even make sense. There is no way to quantify power.
Architecture is what matters, and it uses the exact same architecture as the GCN. It can't do anything the GCN couldn't do.
The Xbox 360, by contrast, can do loads of things the Xbox couldn't do. And no, I'm not talking about "hurf durf it can use this peripheral, which was never released on the original xbox in the first place!" I'm talking about hardware differences. You know, the stuff above your head that you don't understand.
A retarded Sonic.
When I google Gamecube tech specs and Wii tech specs, they sure look different to me.
Different CPU, different GPU, etc.
From what I read about the processors, it would be like saying "This Pentium III PC is basically the same thing as this Pentium II based PC."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)