I can’t believe there was a time when Nintendo made cutting edge hardware

Why did they stop?

Attached: B9FA3D93-0356-46E7-8EBE-391C5FF7A511.jpg (450x450, 17K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Tv_GQNh9D68
youtube.com/watch?v=s5HUmxNsqEc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2_technical_specifications
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameCube_technical_specifications
youtube.com/watch?v=nhP49PlN6HY
youtube.com/watch?v=ECEuVwjzHB4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The cutting edge hardware was garbage.

Because they realized that they could make tons more money by delivering actually unique gaming experiences to wider audiences, using more matured and proven tech, all which also helped them keep the price tags of their devices low.

when it stopped selling

>blurry mess output with games running at 20fps on average

N64 hardware was garbage, GCN was really solid though

>cutting edge
>n64
nani

CONSOLES HAVE NEVER BEEN "CUTTING EDGE", YOU FUCKING IDIOT. THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN UNDERPOWERED COMPARED TO PCS.

They found out that there was more money in finding dumber customers than developing better product. The entire video game industry followed them right down that hole too.

lol PCs were trash up until the late 90s compared to consoles/arcades

It didn't start that way though

it wasn't like that before you retarded zoomer

the gpu chipset in the N64 was genuinely cutting edge at the time

I dont know how I ever played collectathons. Console still has some of my favorite games but I would rather sandpaper my dick than play Dong 64 or Tooie.

To innovate in more important ways. Also, no console is cutting edge but i guess you mean "powerful".

>control stick in the middle
>"""cutting edge"""

>didn't play game
>hurr it's bad
you misstyped resetera on the address bar buddy

N64 was budget hardware cut down feature wise and performance wise, as well as architecturally. The overwhelming majority of its games ran at or around 20FPS. Few hit 30 and the number that hit 60 is in the single digits. Developers had numerous problems with its hardware architecture as well as Nintendo's restrictions on documentation. This is a Saturn game released within a year of the N64's launch, the Saturn which struggles to even do 3D because it treats it like scaled and rotated 2D and it still runs at 30FPS and has scenes where it runs at 60FPS.

zoomers are embarrassing this board.

Attached: pdzfinale.webm (314x240, 2.91M)

he's right sorta, collectathons are a delicate balancing act and DK64 and Tooie go way too far

N64 was the strongest console at the time, it just wasn't obvious. The most immediate difference between the ps1 was that the 64 didn't have flickering textures due to pixel precision.

lmao panzer dragoon graphics are shit

I mean, you said it yourself - the saturn struggles to do proper 3D. It's a fact that the N64's graphical rendering was cutting edge at the time. Games being poorly optimized and/or pushing the system too hard don't change this. Also, Panzer Dragoon has barely anything on-screen, it's hardly a technical marvel - just clever trickery.

They make the most powerful handheld game console and they're about to release a new model that's very close to current gen home console power. Is that not cutting edge enough for you?

when good hardware becomes almost useless because nintendo didn't wanted to get in the CD bandwagon

zoomer post, most PCs were nothing special compared to consoles up to the mid-late 90s

back then arcades were the "cutting edge", it's still hard to believe Scud Race and Virtua Fighter 3 were from 1996

I suspect nintendo just couldn't get deals for powerful systems and resorted to trickery like how they lengthened the lifespan of old games, but not via inflating the difficulty but by using unique gameplay gimmicks.

The wii was a testament to this but the wii u and later the switch proved gamers don't want to run on the same gimmick forever, sooner or later when those in charge of nintendo right now are all gone someone with the mind of an ea businessmen will take over and either run it into the ground or make the company in line with zony and m$, but with mario as the flag ship runner

Or they could just go all mobile and remain profitable with just software alone, frankly I predict a Nintendo made mobile isn't too out of the question

PD looks worse than SF64 tho

Frames per second is a modern meme nobody talked about that shit until like 2010. literally nobody cared

Switch is the most powerful handheld ever so they never stopped

two years later the dreamcast destroyed it. The N64's progress in 3D feels like a bump, especially in the wrong direction if in two years for the same price the quality improved several orders of magnitude thanks to not using dumbed down 1995 workstation hardware.

Attached: sc1.jpg (1920x1080, 705K)

You didn't care because you were a kid.

> literally nobody cared
everyone cared as far back as the early 90s.
youtube.com/watch?v=Tv_GQNh9D68

N64 never turned to profit in hardware sales, and neither did Gamecube. Wii was first Nintendo home console that made profit outside just game sales since SNES.

It wasn’t profitable. Why be cutting edge when people were still buying gameboys up until 2001

Talks about 90's. Posts a Digital foundry video from late 2010's.

of a 1993 game. Besides, were living in the now. You may be a kid still but the blisteringly shit 17FPS ocarina of time does not hold up very well.

QED

Lesser hardware means it's cheaper for someone to buy for their kid. Then they get you by never reducing their prices for games. Plus ill take a okay looking fun game over a visual stunning boring game

The game may be from 1993 but what about primary sources from 1993 what magazines and old forums talk about framerates

>Frames per second is a modern meme nobody talked about that shit until like 2010.

i couldn't stand SNES Doom back then because the framerate made me sick

magazines didn't give a shit about frame rates back in the 90s. i still have some edge magazines piled up from that era. not a single mention of frame rate

Saturn, N64 and every 6th gen console stomped on PCs

spotted the bitter sega fanboy

Exactly, nobody gave two flying fucks. Now every kid throws toys out of pram if game dips to 59FPS for a millisecond. Makes me sick.

>Saturn stomped on PCs
lolwut? I guess the tilemapping is pretty impressive but for 3d not in the slightest

Good joke

plenty do, look at saturn uk's review of doom.

Probably because the N64 was objectively a massive failure. Nintendo went from having 60% of the home console market to about 25% thanks to the success of the PS1.

why did it have almost exclusively 3D games? meanwhile half of PSX library were 2D games

Outside fancy words it's true though, Nintendo struck real gold with casual market and Wii. Making worse consoles has been profitable business decision for them.

Because the hardware was tuned for it. Pretty much every element of the N64 was tuned to give the best 3D possible.

nobody has ever enjoyed playing video games at a dogshit framerate, people were just more willing to put up with it in the 90's because they understood that was the price they had to pay for the awkward transition into 3D where most developers couldn't even figure out how to make the game control well nevermind optimize performance.

Yeah but imagine what could have been

>The cutting edge hardware was garbage.
N64 was on par with, if not better than, gaming PCs at the time.

The real power of the N64 was rarely tapped. Getting Nintendo to publish a game which actually took advantage of custom RSP microcode was an uphill battle, but when you did the results blew every other console out of the water. Look at Conker or World Driver Championship.

the n64's 2D is just billboards All the filtering makes the 2D look really unpleasant.

They decided that they wanted to hit a lower price point than the rest.

PCs of that time had terrible graphical power. I don't even think they really were ahead until the PS2 era

>very close to current gen home console power
lol

Reminder that part of the reason the N64 failed was because nintendo themselves refused to release key developer tools and information on shortcuts to 3rd party devs to ensure that their own 1st party titles would be the best on the system. They literally sabotaged their own console just so they could create this fake image of themselves as a superior game developer.

I still have gaming magazines talking about Toshinden's 60fps mode, the 60fps Ridge Racer Bonus disc, and F-Zero X. Obviously hitting 60 was rare but bad framerates was always called out.

let’s check out the Sega Saturn version of doom then from a 1997 review of the game

Attached: 62B2E7E3-02D4-457D-A6F7-275CE1364AC2.jpg (1221x1698, 358K)

Attached: EECB2CD7-40B7-4C34-9513-8484C29705FA.jpg (1221x1698, 383K)

the 3d accelerator boom definitely pushed pcs ahead of consoles, and that wasn't long after the 5th generation began.

I really hate nintendo sometimes

the 6th generation put PCs back into a bad place. It took until 2003/4 for them to catch up again.

He said it

Its not just that, its that over the generations from the SNES - Wii era the players in the industry changed from being other relatively small toy companies, to being major conglomerates who could afford to lose money getting into pissing contests over higher-end hardware sold for a loss.
Nintendo took the lesson of PS1 vs N64 and PS2 vs Gamecube as being low end easy to develop on hardware can not only be more profitable it can also win the market. Which they did with the Wii.

WiiU ironically demonstrated Nintendo becoming overconfident and again trying to build powerful custom hardware. The issue they ran into is that in today's market by the time your custom hardware is ready, the off-the-shelf SOCs have passed it by.
Which is why the generation after that, Nintendo went to using a cheap off the shelf SOC.

I'm not sure about that. The Dreamcast and PS2 could just barely play Half Life and that was a '98 PC game.

>Yea Forums is now unironically comprised of GRAFICS kiddies
what happened to this place?

Yeah but that name though.

The U means U dont know what the fuck it is.

dreamcast port wasn't finished, ps2 port looked far superior to the PC original. The west isn't known for good programmers on console. Shenmue had visuals that the PC couldn't reach until 2004. This is on 1998 hardware, mind you. This is a 2001 game on 1999 hardware vs a 2003 PC game on 2003's hardware. Both are segmented into small map chunks so the open world excuse doesn't work.

Attached: comparison.png (1440x479, 1.13M)

No doubt it suffered from marketing problems and confusion from people who thought it was just an add-on for the Wii.
But Nintendo getting all new custom hardware developed for them, which was then leapfrogged in capabilities by the cheap basically off-the-shelf architecture Microsoft and Sony adopted really damaged them.

Ultimately it led to the victory of the handheld-only faction within the company who had already been using cheap basically off-the-shelf ARM hardware for more than a decade.

except western games have always had the best graphics

Those are vastly different games with very differently spent visual budgets.

I distinctly remember gta 3 and soul reaver 2 having terrible draw distance on the ps2 compared to pc.

pre-rendered vs real-time

Nah, Morrowind is far from a looker. PC just didn't have the hardware to keep up.

Attached: dmc.jpg (1280x1487, 539K)

The ps2 port used the blue shift assets didn't it? They came out the same year on both platforms.

nigga what

not that guy, and I hate FFX, but it was a goddamn technical marvel at the time graphically speaking

umm morrowind is just a single game...

that's a 3D environment from FF10.

morrowind ran like shit on the xbox so I'm not sure what your point was

I

NEED

FOOD

sure but western games have always peaked technology, halo released the same year as ffx

and day of defeat is another one. Here's a meme PC game. which had great graphics at the time.

Attached: comp2.png (1426x594, 1.39M)

The difference is its a small self contained scene vs an open world. They were able to use shortcuts like having a flat image as a background and minimally rendering objects in the distance because the player couldn't actually go to them without a scene change.

Any source on that claim?

they stopped putting effort into their hardware when they got away with selling rebranded gamecubes with a waggle gimmick slapped on them (which the gamecube was originally supposed to have anyway) because casuals bought 100 million of them to "play" wii fit.

you're stacking COMPLETELY different games against each other

woah GTA V doesn't look as good as some corridor game

>Why did they stop?
Despite being the second strongest console of the PS2/GC/Xbox generation, it was the worst selling. Also of note, during the PS1/N64/Saturn era and the PS2/GC/Xbox era the weakest console had the most sales. They made the correct decision to say "why invest in hardware when it does't matter and good games are what drive sales?"

>Despite being the second strongest console of the PS2/GC/Xbox generation
> Also of note, during the PS2/GC/Xbox era the weakest console had the most sales.
umm, no, sweaty...

Attached: burnout 3 gamecube.jpg (1366x624, 290K)

There was not a single second of time that was cutting edge.

why are pc mustards always so insecure? it wasn't until relatively recently that your reddit meme platform took over from arcade games as the standard-bearer for "muh grafix."

How are they different?
>hurr morrowalk is open world
it is, but it's divided into very small map segments with loading times between them. You drank the reddit koolaid hard if you think PCs were inferior for decades.

Attached: ps2 lighting vs pc lighting.png (1195x1155, 1.56M)

>zoomers are embarrassing this board.

He is 1000% correct faggot.

>rebuking false statements means you are insecure.

>2 models on screen at a time
Wow, great display of grafix

I'm not talking about morrowind as that's one single game, your second example was even more retarded and so is your third, I can cherry pick too if I arbitrarily choose ugly games and pretty games against each other for no reason at all

hey, console ports look so nice on PC. muh ultra settings muhfugga. Look at how much better ultra looks vs medium (console) this justifies spending $400 on a single component part of a $900 PC. Totally worth it. Oh there's no actual games built for the hardware, it's all ports. But the ports are slightly better.

Attached: the ultra settings meme.jpg (1280x720, 93K)

Holy shit are those cobblestones huge!

Gamecube sold like shit, that's why.

crying about unfair comparisons isn't rebuking anything. Just makes you look sensitive.

I feel like hardware has always been a secondary objective for Nintendo. The SNES virtually has the same CPU power as the Sega Master System and for some reason they decided to really outdo themselves with the virtual boy, N64 and Gamecube, none which were very very very popular.

The Wii took everyone by surprise as I think at that era Nintendo reached "full casual" with the DS and Wii. I don't own a Wii U or Switch but imo the wii u failed due to the controller. The Switch is more straightforward but I don't buy the "Wii U had bad games" meme since both the Switch and Wii U had great first party games

Attached: sonic_hedgehog-774294408032165888-20160910_051227-img1.jpg (1920x1080, 442K)

No one is crying faggot, rebuking is not crying.

morrowind isn't divided into very small segments what are you talking about??

The Saturn version of Doom was amazingly poorly suited for the hardware and basically just ran on the CPUs without taking advantage of the 3D hardware. The devs wanted to rebuild the game with the Powerslave engine and id said no, something Carmack later came to regret. Check out Powerslave for what the Saturn could do, it’s no Quake but a big step up from pseudo-3D like Doom or Duke.

The PS1 version of Doom used hardware acceleration and ran a lot better with some additional features like colored lighting not on the PC.

>Also of note, during the PS1/N64/Saturn era and the PS2/GC/Xbox era the weakest console had the most sales.
neither the saturn nor the dreamcast had the most sales those generations.
>They made the correct decision to say "why invest in hardware when it does't matter and good games are what drive sales?"
but "good games" aren't what drove sales for the wii. turbo-casual shovelware that barely qualified as a game is what drove sales for the wii. that's why software sales started drying up as soon as the app store was invented and normalfags could have the same experiences for much cheaper.
if it was all about good games, then nearly every major nintendo franchise wouldn't have taken a nosedive in quality in that era. the wii's library has aged like milk more than any other modern console.

That's not an excuse to go full-retard with gimmicks, but then again, people still eat up this shit, so fans have no one to blame but themselves if they're complaining about an emphasis on gimmicks over shear performance.

simulators on pc looked better than anything on consoles
youtube.com/watch?v=s5HUmxNsqEc

I remember reading somewhere that 3D acceleration on the Saturn was a bitch to work with in general.

It was, but that isn't why the choice was made to do it in software. The dev team wanted to use hardware acceleration but John Carmack nixed the idea because he hated texture warping.

Why am I seeing all this crying?

you never played it at release? It has to load every few moments you get near a border to load in the next area.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2_technical_specifications
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameCube_technical_specifications
By basically every metric other than disc size the GC was better than the PS2. You could see it in every multiplatform game, the most prominent example being RE4.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 98K)

ridge racer r4 looks better, runs better too.

had colored lighting too, unlike quake on PC.

It was an oddball machine and a lot harder to work with than the PS1 but was quite capable in the right hands. Like I said, look at Powerslave.

>ridge racer r4
1999. gp2 is 1995

youtube.com/watch?v=nhP49PlN6HY
???

too bad the GC was gimped by Nintendo's stupid third party policies at the time. Yamauchi really fucked up there

The Wii U failed because of marketing and only marketing. No one knew it was a new console for the first two years it was out. The fact shameless 1:1 ports of Wii U games sell like hotcakes on the Switch shows this.

Comparing numbers isn't how you compare these games. VPU0/1 blew away what the GC could do.

Attached: ps2game.jpg (1280x896, 394K)

>less RAM
>less VRAM
>slower VRAM
>worse T&L
>worse SIMD
"By every metric" that can actually be measured, the PS2 almost always comes out on top. Didn't usually turn out that way in practice but theoretically speaking the PS2 does outperform the Gamecube and there do exist games that demonstrate this capability.
>muh resi 4
The game's engine was built from the ground up for the Gamecube, the PS2 port was never planned or anticipated and it was rushed through in a matter of months.

Why do you keep talking up colored lighting as if it was a ultra killer console feature?
Dark Forces had colored lighting on the PC in1995.

Japanese games had better art direction for a long ass time but this is more or less what I remember from 6th gen in terms of graphics comparisons. To be fair, I'm pretty sure a lot of ports were tossed over to B-teams which is why Splinter Cell looks like ass on PS2. I just know Max Payne isn't one of them.

Attached: 1528937662674.png (1359x698, 1.28M)

and the PS1 is from 1994. What's your point?

western devs are so incompetent.

I feel like there's little to no reason why Nintendo has re-entered the core console race
In fact, if I remember correctly, those were the initial rumors when the WiiU flopped
>No more gimmicks, we swear

AMD's APU's are so commonplace now--and performance varying to the point where consoles are re-releasing upgraded versions, that there's no reason why Nintendo couldn't throw something out. Even if it was the worst performing, vehement fans will still buy it up.

Here's a question: considering Nintendo dominates the handheld market, do you think Sony should ever release another handheld? What about Microsoft? Seems like a good complementary product in the age of streaming.

Attached: 1253608270188.jpg (184x184, 6K)

VP2 was probably one of the most technically impressive games of the era. Shame the series turned into mobile shit and we never got that VP3 Hrist everyone wanted.

k but where are those constant loading screens tho?

and the PS1 is from 1994. What's your point?

western devs are so incompetent.

"Keep?" First time I mentioned it. Quake didn't have it is my point, but Powerslave did. Did Dark Forces? Post proof.

k but where are those constant loading screens tho?

>I feel like hardware has always been a secondary objective for Nintendo.
that's true with the handheld market. but it wasn't always the case with their home consoles.
the famicom was more powerful than the sg-1000, which was its actual competition at launch in japan. sega fans always bring up the master system instead, but that came out several years later and benefited from technological advances in that time, so it's not a fair comparison.
the snes was more powerful than the genesis in everything except speed, and nintendo went further in pushing hardware with stuff like mode 7 and super fx.
the n64 was easily the most powerful console on the market, hands down. cartridges were the issue, not power.
the gamecube was second only to the xbox in power.
it wasn't until the wii that they gave up on making competitive, industry-leading hardware for their home consoles.

>the snes was more powerful than the genesis in everything except speed, and nintendo went further in pushing hardware with stuff like mode 7 and super fx.
that's not true at all
while the snes ppu has impressive background capabilities, the sprite hardware is somewhat inefficient, the cpu is pathetically slow and it's all bottlenecked by slow ram

as for the gamecube, refer to

it's a stupid comparison because if you want to compare a 1999 game to a 1995 game whats preventing me from comparing gp3 to ridge racer 4. their release is even closer lol just 1 year.
youtube.com/watch?v=ECEuVwjzHB4

>pushing hardware with stuff like mode 7
Mode 7 isn't pushing any hardware it's a display mode that was designed along the system itselfe. It's like saying a 1080p display is pushing hardware for displaying a 1080p image.

No one knew the control stick would change everything
They thought everyone only wanted d pads

>Seems like a good complementary product in the age of streaming.

I feel handhelds are now niche since smartphones absolutely shit all over handhelds. Now companies like Nvidia would rather make controller peripherals for smartphones rather than a dedicated console.

Honestly I don't see handhelds coming back. Once the 3ds is cut from life support, it's dead.

Man I remember when the Game Boy Advance came out and I already thought it was dated compared to PDAs and the best cell phones in 2001. Then a few years later Sony came out with the PSP and it absolutely shit all over the DS in terms of resolution, processing power and sound capabilities.

Honestly Nintendo's the only one left with enough first party games to release any sort of game on any type of console they make, underpowered or overpowered

Attached: sonic_holding_DS.png (1462x1659, 728K)

Unless Nintendo can make a iPhone that supports physical buttons yet doesn’t suck they’ll stick to consoles

Success of Wii was not due to Nintendo fans, it was due to Nintendo managing to attract whole new consumerbase of casual who had been interested in vidya before. Microsoft and Sony tried to replicate that success hard with their own gimmicky toys like Kinect.

Hiroshi Yamauchi stepped down and Satoru Iwata took over.

why does "low" look the best?

the hardware didn't change in the PS1, it did on PC. You aren't very bright.

I would like another handheld from sony and it did pretty well in japan
Xbox pretty much flopped this gen. Only people who play sport games bought it. The one good exclusive it was going to get got canned

not him but you're either retarded or intellectually dishonest if you think it's reasonable to compare games from the end of the life cycle with early games

the bigger issue is that they designed a controller that you could hold differently for playing 2d games vs. 3d games - and then they made a console that was poorly-suited for 2d games and barely got any of them. and then when it became clear that the n64 would be pretty much a 3d-only machine, they never made a redesigned model of the controller.

No depth of field bullshit.

It's not. Same hardware. Why is it dishonest? Cuz the devs got "better" with that same hardware?

umm yeah? what's so odd about that? compare uncharted 1 with 3

No
Typically because they don’t realize portables are for poorfags
Look at the vita using proprietary memory cards
Or the PSP using UMDs
The whole idea of a portable is
Cheap hardware
Cheap price
Cheap plentiful games

Portables are made for game devs weird experimental games that they can’t afford to spend a 55 Million dollars funding.
But 2.5 Million? I guess we can try it out

Maybe a smarter man than me can explain why we have all these beasting cell phones and every game is shit? Most of them cant be fucked with controller support at all and the ones that do play like PS2 shovelware anyway.

>Why did they stop?
They never stopped
Their hardware was always about innovation not raw power

Sin and Punishment 2 tho brah

Yep, devs get better with hardware, still the same hardware. No changes, unlike on PC which is constantly changing.

yeah so comparing games with five years between them establishes nothing

might as well use the original ridge racer because why not?

>less RAM
GCN has 43MB total, PS2 32MB
>slower VRAM
When you take into account the higher compression abilities of the GCN it turns out it puts more data through than the PS2
>worse T&L
GCN has 20MPolys/sec, PS2 9.8MPolys/sec
Not to mention the GCN's superior clock speeds and architecture

R4 is one of my favorite games and the treatment it received on the PS Classic was horrible.

Tri-strip geometric transformation (VU0+VU1): 150 million vertices per second[14]
3D CG geometric transformation with raw 3D perspective operations (VU0+VU1): 66-80+ million vertices per second[8]
3D CG geometric transformations at peak bones/movements/effects (textures)/lights (VU0+VU1, parallel or series): 15–20 million vertices per second[14]
Lighting: 38 million polygons/sec
Fog: 36 million polygons/sec
Curved surface generation (Bezier): 16 million polygons/sec
Image processing performance: 150 million Pixels/sec
Actual real-world polygons (per frame): 500-650k at 30 FPS, 250-325k at 60 FPS
Instructions per second: 6,000 MIPS (million instructions per second)[15]

also for ps2 GPU
Polygon drawing rate: 75 million/s (small polygon)
50 million/s (48-pixel quad with Z and A)
30 million/s (50-pixel triangle with Z and A)
25 million/s (48-pixel quad with Z, A and T)
16 million/s (75-pixel triangle with Z, A, T and Fog

I wonder if the N64 DD didn’t flop and we got a more modern looking n64 controller how different things would be

Much nicer looking environments here. Amazing how this blows away a PC sim.

keep in mind PS2 has no real bandwidth limitation.

Attached: rr1.jpg (1280x720, 104K)

Attached: 1541695773524.png (640x1800, 252K)

>GCN has 43MB total, PS2 32MB
The Gamecube only has 40MB of RAM if you consider the 16MB of ARAM, which is less than a tenth of the bandwidth of that the main RAM.
It's basically useless outside of a disc cache, and very few games use it for anything more than that. The CPU can't even access its contents outside of just using DMA to copy it into main RAM.
The remaining 3 MB in your figure are the texture cache and EFB. That's VRAM, which you haven't included in the PS2 figure. Tut tut.
>When you take into account the higher compression abilities of the GCN it turns out it puts more data through than the PS2
Sure, but that's just one thing you can do with VRAM. The Gamecube cannot compete with the PS2's fillrate. The lack of fillrate is probably why RE4 runs with a reduced sized framebuffer.
>GCN has 20MPolys/sec, PS2 9.8MPolys/sec
The Gamecube's T&L unit is fixed function, while the PS2's is completely microprogrammable. They are not comparable at all.

The question you have to answer, is why if the PS2 was so awesome, did Sony dump its custom hardware architecture and copy the Gamecube's basic formula of an IBM sourced CPU + off-the-shelf GPU for the PS3? Why was every system in the generation after the PS2 more of a development of the Gamecube design?
Why has no one since used the PS2's hardware as the basis for their systems?

Yeah grandma’s in retirement homes aren’t shitting up the board claiming Nintendo is for senior citizens

isn't the cell processor in ps3 some really unique shit tho?

Not really. It's PowerPC based, and the Xenon is a tri-core Cell that dumps all the slow, useless and hard to program cell processing units or whatever the hell they called them

That's what these numbers idiots don't get, the Gamecube had really, really slow RAM. PS2 however can do operations in software faster than the GC can do in hardware thanks to its generous bandwidth.

The Cell was in many ways the next step after the EE. The Cell's PPEs were a natural evolution of the EE's VPUs.
The difference is that by 2006 CPUs had extremely robust SIMD capabilities and did not need to offload such work to coprocessors, and there was never a reason or advantage to having 6 of them as in the PS3 instead of the two (only one if you consider VU1 part of the GPU) that were in the PS2 anyway.
As for the GPU, blame Sony for huffing their own farts and believing that the Cell could actually render graphics.

Boomers didnt buy the Gamecube but keep buying underpowered handhelds and gimmicks. Nintendo makes a profit regardless.

Meanwhile xbox and sony qte fans think having a 10 year old cpu and fake 4k for a mid cycle refresh in their $400x2 box will make it have fun games.

PPE is still an outgrowth of PPC, and not the PS2's custom architecture.
In modern terms its like the multi-core CPUs with an integrated GPU that you find in most low-end laptops and consoles these days.

why's it being powerpc based generic as opposed to being designed around mips?

>that RAM doesn't count because I don't like it
>that GPU power doesn't count because I don't like it
ok then believe what you want

All 7th gen consoles were PowerPC

The Gamecube's memory architecture is actually all right. Together with the generous caches you're very unlikely to be bottlenecked by the memory bandwidth on the Gamecube, although this may be overcompensating for the N64's infamous bandwidth bottleneck.
It's just that there's really only 24MB of it. The 16MB ARAM that Gamecube fanboys use to inflate the RAM size is close to useless, and remained that way until they replaced it with GDDR3 on the Wii.