LacR asks, Can you tell me if its a good idea to

buy a third party memory card that has more room for games such as an Interactive memory

card as opposed to the Nintendo memory card. Will it be as reliable as Nintendo's memory

card, will I have no problem saving games on it?

Mike H. Says: If history is any indication, the

answer is emphatically NO.

I couldn't say how many time I've lost data on 3rd party memory cards for the N64.

Generally 3rd parties promote larger storage on their cards, but they accomplished that by

using data compression. Far too often, the data got corrupted and everything was gone. I

don't even know why those things were even allowed on the market.

Buyer beware. Watch PGC for memory card reviews. We'll

let you know how 3rd Party memory cards do this time around. Otherwise, Nintendo's cards

are the way to go.

Rize Says: Yeah, if there was a quick and dirty

way to get much larger memory storage for you, Nintendo would do it. Of course, there

is a quick and dirty way, but the problem is that it's dirty. Your best bet for

expansive memory is either waiting for the SC card adapter, or getting one Digi Card and

an Interact Shark Port for your PC (I'm not sure when that will be available, but they

always make'em).

TYP Says: I've been asking this question to myself

many a time (I was actually looking over this stuff a few hours before). I've seen some

nasty corruption on my friend's DC and my 4x N64 card. I suspect the 4x problem had to do

with the constant changing between 1 through 4, and Interact's 16x steady-state design

should make things a little better. I am currently planning on buying Interact's card when

it comes out, backing things up onto it, and testing things out from there. If I buy the

product, I'll be sure to share the results with the readers as well as my fellow

staffers.... But if the SD adapter comes out around the same time, can be used as a

standard memory card (some are questioning this) and is priced reasonably, I'll definitely

go for that instead!

Jonathan Says: If you need more space, an extra

first-party memory card will only set you back fifteen bucks... that's a lot better than

$35 for an extra PS2 or Xbox card. And actually, Nintendo should eventually be releasing

larger first-party cards. Note that the current one is called "Memory Card 59",

and the Rogue Leader manual simply refers to it as "Memory Card". Thus, Memory

Card 118 and 177 aren't out of the question.

TYP Says: I have to comment on that $35 issue with

PS2/Xbox cards. Unless developers are lazy with game save optimization (which they

unfortunately are in general), that $35 can go a long way compared to the Memory Card 59.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe all PS2 and Xbox games inherently take up 1.5 MB (yeah

right!)

Max Says: Sadly, based on experience I'd say no.

  I've had a few 3rd party N64 memory cards, and in turn, lost all my data on several

occasions. I've even had problems with 3rd party PSX memory cards (though certainly not as

many). 3rd party cards may be less expensive or hold more data, but that usually means

they are less reliable. Be careful.

Nintendo's memory cards are probably the safest bet. To be fair though, with the new

system and new format, perhaps things will be better this time around. For the sake of PGC

readers, I expect I'll give a few 3rd party cards a try -- but only for backup. I don't

want to take any chances!

mike4pepsi asks, If the Xbox is so much more

"powerful" than our beloved GameCube, why haven't I needed a diaper for any of

the games I've seen. I mean, the first time I saw Resident Evil, I... I... entered another

plane of existence. An existence where reality and video games merge, for the first time,

visually. Rouge Leader looks better than the movies, how? If you think about it, there are

a ton of PC's that easily have 5 times the power of GameCube, but still, no other games

can come close! Does the GameCube have a little magic? I mean you have to have pretty big

sleeves to fit this trick up there. There must be a really small pixie in there or

something, I just don't get it.

Mike H. Says: A lot of people are asking that, or

SHOULD be.

The X-box is the more powerful system on paper. The only magic to GameCube's performance

is the elimination of internal bottlenecks that makes the CPU, GPU and memory efficient

and almost 100% functional out of the box. Is the Xbox more powerful in real performance?

That depends on who you ask. But from what we've gathered from those close to Xbox's

hardware and software development, raw 100% functionality is not as easily attainable

because of those bottlenecks. It is absolutely clear that the GameCube is getting more

mileage out of its hardware, for what it is. If GameCube and the Xbox were clocked

equally, MHz-wise, GameCube would be running mad circles around Willy Gates.

As it stands, at the end of the day, performance is comparable and the average user is not

going to see a tremendous difference between any of the platforms, regardless of their

paper hype. This is a level playing field. Who's got more creativity to take the win?

Rize Says: A system's power is only as good as the developers that use it. The

graphics engine programmer needs to provide a great engine that really pushes the console

in question, then the artists and level designers have to use their skills to flesh out

the game. Special effects programmers add punch to the visuals and animators make the

models movement fluid. If everything goes well, you'll be left with a great looking game.

Maybe we need to give developers more time with the systems before we can truly make any

judgements, but I think it's clear that GameCube can compete very comfortably with Xbox,

despite the "technical" difference between the systems.

Mike S. Says: Well, as for the CPU, the Xbox's 733

MHz Pentium chip is actually not as fast as the GameCube's 484 MHz PowerPC Gekko

processor. Let me explain why. The Xbox has a CISC processor and the GameCube has a RISC

processor. CISC stands for Complex Instruction Set Computer and RISC stands for Reduced

Instruction Set Computer. In CISC, the processor receives commands of varying length. In

RISC, all commands must be the same length (2 instructions I believe). Here's an example

of how both CISC and RISC would handle some basic math of adding the numbers 4, 5, 1, and

then subtracting 2.

CISC: 4 + 5 + 1 - 2 = 8

RISC: 4 + 5 = 9

9 + 1 = 10

10 - 2 = 8

Now, it may seem that RISC takes longer but it actually doesn't. Because of the short

command, and the fact that they are all the same length, RISC actually performs faster

than CISC. About 1.75 times faster than CISC. So, the 484 MHz Gekko is comparable to an

847 MHz CISC processor.

The GameCube is also more memory efficient. David (Rize) Trammell wrote an article about this not

too long ago, I suggest you check it out.

Mike H. Says: Though, of course, a comparison of

the CPUs is only part of the story. Memory and GPUs play important factors as well. Some

developers have gone on record to suggest Gekko functions about equally to a Pentium at

800 MHz, so the above ad-hoc explanation isn't too far off, at least as far as the CPUs

are concerned.

Jonathan Says: Microsoft loves to flaunt numbers,

but the proof is in the games. Let's wait a year and then decide which system is more

powerful.

Max Says: I just showed my pal Gary (the guy who

drew Louie for the Rumors section) a movie of Resident Evil for GameCube and he absolutely

lost it. Actually, the first time I saw it, I was jumping for joy too; it just looks so

fantastic. The same can be said of Rogue Leader or several other GameCube titles. Wave

Race: Blue Storm, Smash Melee, Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, Eternal Darkness. There's just a

lot to be excited about. The X-Box launch lineup has done nothing to catch my attention or

raise my excitement like the Cube has. Not at E3, nor on X-Box kiosks that sit

adjacent to many Cube kiosks. Yeah, DOA3 looks great and Halo looks exciting but that's

about it. The rest of the games (Madden, NHL Hitz, Cel Damage) are coming to GameCube or

don't look that great. Munch's Odyssey is totally blah-a poor man's Banjo-Kazooie.

Microsoft's games look OK but again, nothing special. The controller isn't near as bad as

many say it is, but it is still hard to get a grip on and nowhere near as comfortable as a

GameCube controller. Does the X-Box have potential? Sure, but it's going to be awhile

before I even think about buying one. Right now, there are no games that will compel me to

buy a system. Between GBA and GameCube, I think my gaming funds will be tied up for some

time to come.

rgk4612 asks, Have you guys heard any news on a GameBoy Advance Super Monkey Ball, and if

so, is it possible it could use the tilt pack? That would be sweet.

TYP Says: It could be done, but I'm sure Sega and

Amusement Vision want to do something more original than that. Kirby's Tilt 'n Tumble and

Flippin' Kirby feature somewhat similar gameplay, with the latter a GCN-GBA game. Besides,

tilt packs are pretty expensive, and Sega may not want to spend the money or force

consumers to pay more. Not to mention THQ's driving will of keeping costs down. Sega

doesn't want to risk creating a game few in North America would buy if it even got

published there. This is exactly why AM2 is taking the time to port Shenmue II to the Xbox

for North America. (On a related note, if you DCers want the game, but don't want to pay

for an Xbox or wait that long, consider modding your DC and buying the upcoming PAL

edition coming out December 4th.)

Jonathan Says: Monkey Ball seems to be something

that Sega wants to continue selling in the future, and a GBA version certainly makes a lot

of sense. Sure, Flippin' Kirby is sort of similar, but not really, and it doesn't have the

extensive multiplayer modes that I'm sure a handheld Monkey Ball game would feature. Too

bad you couldn't do single-cart multi very well, since only one person would have the tilt

pack.

Max Says:

size="2"> Super Monkey Ball is coming to the PS2, so why not GBA? Amusement

Vision are also said to be looking into doing (if not already developing) projects for

GBA. Maybe a handheld Monkey Ball could already be in the cards.

Ranbir asks, I recently bought a 65" wide screen TV from Sony (XBR.) When I bought it

the salesperson said that if I played video games on it, it would get burn-in on the

screen. Is that really going to happen? I was really looking forward to playing GameCube

on that baby.

Mike H. Says: The only burn-in is in your wallet

for that baby. Just kidding. It's a bit strange that the issue of burn-in is still brought

up occasionally even today.

For those that don't know what burn-in is, it's a TV "defect" that can happen

when an image is frozen (or paused) on a screen for a long duration of time. The image is

constant long enough to leave a permanent "imprint" on the screen, causing color

problems. That's why screensavers came about so many years ago.

HOWEVER, burn-in typically affects older sets far more often than new ones. It might still

be an issue with some rear-projection units.

For your own piece of mind, don't leave a game on pause for hours on end. Turn the TV off

if you need to keep it paused. Otherwise, you'll be fine.

Rize Says: Well, the other problem is a HUD

display. Imagine playing a PC game like Diablo 2 for hours and hours... there are parts of

the screen that hold your life orb and stats that never change. Even when the game isn't

paused, this could potentially cause a problem over long, long periods of use. So.. turn

your TV off if you pause it, and be careful with games that have persistent HUDs,

especially if they contain bright colors. Still, as Mike said, it's very difficult to burn

images in today's screens. They're much more resistant.

Mike S. Says: Burn-in used to be a problem on

older TVs. But from what I've heard it takes something like 48 hours of straight use to

have it cause problems on most fairly new TVs.

TYP Says: The Dreamcast had a built-in screen

saver to help combat this issue. While I haven't heard or seen anything about such a

feature on the GameCube, I'm sure that developers could create one as part of a game if

needed. I highly doubt it will be needed though...

Jonathan Says: The number one cause of screen-burn

is playing games on projection TVs. Whether it's front- or rear-projection, just don't do

it. As for normal picture tube sets, you should be fine. Many models, especially the

high-end ones like Sony's XBR, have extra resistance to screen-burn, and it takes quite a

long time to cause any damage anyway. A lot of modern game software will darken the screen

when you pause (the first game I ever saw doing that was Claymates on SNES), but it's

still a good idea to turn the TV off if you plan to leave the system running while you run

to the store for snacks.

HuStLiNThUg asks, We all know about Resident Evil being exclusive to Cube. But is there

any news on any of Capcom's fighting games coming to Cube?

Jonathan Says: Before the big RE

announcement, Capcom had basically said that most of their future games would be hitting

all platforms, and simultaneously at that. Maybe the old plan has been tossed out in light

of Resident Evil's move, but if not, you can probably look forward to all manner of Capcom

stuff hitting GameCube...

Max Says: Well, there have been some encouraging

rumors. One is that Capcom vs SNK 2 could show up on GameCube.  Another is that

Capcom are developing an fighting pad that will be included with a fighting game for

GameCube.  Louie the Cat has been purring about some great Capcom support, before and

after the RE announcement. And Capcom / Nintendo seem to be as chummy as ever, if not more

than ever.  I'd say that Capcom fighting fans have a lot to look forward to.

To this I say "HADUKEN!"