Post by: JonLeung on November 23, 2005, 08:48:57 AM
What if the controller, revolutionary in itself, isn't the only new thing? We haven't seen the attachments other than the analogue stick, so maybe there's something major there.
I remember rumblings about an online service rivalling Xbox Live's, but I would see that more as doing what others are already doing. Unless it's, like, multiple times better. Not having experienced Xbox Live myself, I don't really know, but I guess it'd sound good if it was at least comparable.
What could it be? Is it truly revolutionary? If there really is more to it, it's kind of sad to see the speculation having stopped once the controller was revealed in September.
Though at the same time, it might not be much at all. They would probably save further innovations for a later Nintendo console so that the Xbox 720 and PS4 won't have an edge in that department even if they copy the one-handed remote controller.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 23, 2005, 09:04:07 AM
Duh...
(Display, display, display)
Post by: PaLaDiN on November 23, 2005, 09:10:03 AM
I'm banking on there being nothing more to it. The controller is plenty big enough by itself.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 23, 2005, 10:32:45 AM
We still don't know:
- what the launch games are
- what ANY games are being made really aside from some names
- the launch date
- what the graphics even look like
- what the shell looks like
- what exactly comes with each controller
- what comes with the console
- what colours are available
- exactly what third parties are on board (we know some but there's no official list)
- the price
- the specs
- what the game discs look like exactly (or even really what they are as that seems to be wishy-washy too)
- what the pachaging for the games looks like (minor stuff but it's cool to know)
- the final name as Revolution might still be a codename
- anything about the download service beyond that it exists
- anything regarding the marketing of the console
So yeah if you ask a Nintendo rep if there is more to know of course he's going to say "yes" because we still don't know a whole bunch of things. That doesn't mean there's a big surprise waiting. I imagine most of it is routine stuff. If there are any surprises it would probably relate to a game announcment or significant third party support deal. I figure the controller is pretty much done aside from maybe some changes Nintendo will make in response to impessions of the controller (ie: better battery design than AAs). To me the controller looks exactly like what Nintendo wants it to. If there's a change I figure it will be because they felt pressure to make it but it wasn't part of their original "vision".
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 23, 2005, 10:39:27 AM
Nintendo's definition of surprises is just like ours. Hell they SURPRISED the hell out of us at GDC with that TP trailer, so I'm sure when they say surprises....they mean surprises.
Also, how can you ignore the statement Retro made:
(paraphrased) "We are going to use all the aspects of the revolution, as well as the controller."
Post by: ThePerm on November 23, 2005, 10:47:06 AM
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on November 23, 2005, 11:20:53 AM
Post by: Caliban on November 23, 2005, 12:03:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Of course there is more to know about the Rev.
- the specs
Didn't someone from Nintendo say that the specs won't be released to the public? Tough luck.
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 23, 2005, 12:04:59 PM
Quote
even Reggie was wrong about Mario 128.
Miyamoto was wrong about Mario 128 as well. It wasn't because he was left out of the secret inner sanctum at Nintendo, they really thought Mario 128 would be shown at E3. I assume of course that's what you're talking about...
Post by: Epitaph on November 23, 2005, 12:08:02 PM
You see people swatting flies. What if they arn't swatting to the screen but actually flying critters. They also never showed any games running. That is not like nintendo, every consol they ever showed has come with a game demo. Theres something else just how good is it gonna be is left to be seen.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 23, 2005, 12:13:59 PM
Just because Nintendo doesn't reveal them doesn't mean the general public won't find out what they are.
I'd say the absolute latest we get some info regarding the guts of the machine is one week after the first launch.
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 23, 2005, 12:39:49 PM
Quote
They also never showed any games running. That is not like nintendo, every consol they ever showed has come with a game demo.
Wait, are we now ignoring the demos they showed to certain press members, or what?
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 23, 2005, 12:47:18 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 23, 2005, 12:53:47 PM
I was just pointing out that there WERE demos when the controller was revealed. Of course, when you put the quote back into context it makes a little more sense (>_>), but I don't think we'll being seeing any 3D display...
Post by: odifiend on November 23, 2005, 12:53:51 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 23, 2005, 01:03:04 PM
I hope not or at least I hope they don't change the controls to be more FPS-like which is what those revamped controls sounded like. That would be a Ubisoft "Prince or Persia: Warrion Within" routine where you change the sequel to suit those that DIDN'T buy the earlier game at the expense of those who did.
Metroid Prime 3 should be made for those who loved Metroid Prime 1 or 2. If it's not I'm not buying it and if that means I have no reason to buy a Rev at launch I won't buy one then either. I don't remember exactly what the revamped controls were (though I remember being really turned off by them) so hopefully it'll all be okay.
This 3D display stuff is incredibly unrealistic. I don't think scientifically it's even possible or least not in a way where it wouldn't look like total crap and cost tons of money. If you get your hopes up for "magic" technology like that you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 23, 2005, 01:37:13 PM
Although I admit it'd be a little strange, and maybe not needed or even improved, but I don't think it's any reason to refuse to buy the game, since the controls were only a minior factor in making Metroid Prime such a singular game.
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on November 23, 2005, 01:38:06 PM
But of course that's ridiculously off topic.
Yes, there's much more to the Revolution - or at least there better be. The hardcore have already bought into it. The hardcore believe in Nintendo. The hardcore believe that the controller truly is a revolution. The problem is our sisters and grandpas, and the rest of the mainstream, have yet to buy into it. There has to be something...I don't know, I just feel like there's a little thing missing from a winning formula, and I think Nintendo knows what that is.
Post by: Nile Boogie on November 23, 2005, 01:48:29 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 23, 2005, 01:50:55 PM
Those people in general don't know the Rev even exists. That has more to do with Nintendo starting the marketing blitz than the console itself. The console itself is probably enough. Nintendo being so damn tight-lipped and vague is why your sister and grandpa haven't bought into it.
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 23, 2005, 02:04:04 PM
Post by: mjbd on November 23, 2005, 02:31:03 PM
Post by: Epitaph on November 23, 2005, 03:14:52 PM
As for the 3d display its not that far fetched. Already companys are releasing 3d monitors for around 600$, although these monitors are still flawed it is a true 3d image. People always seem to underestimate where technology is at.
Sharps 3d monitor
http://www.sharpsystems.com/products/lcd_monitors/15-17_inch/ll-151-3d/
http://www.sharpsystems.com/news/press_releases/release.asp?press=59
Article outlining the current situation of 3d monitors
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115975,00.asp
Theres also this true 3d "monitor" although impractical still a sign of technology to come. Its the same idea as when nintendo had the 3d fox mcloud at e3.
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Apr/gee20030428019757.htm
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001july/bch20010703006630.htm
Now with all this new push for 3d whos to say nintendo didnt create something no one else ever thought of dooing. Its not a revolution if its already been done.
Post by: stevey on November 23, 2005, 04:23:42 PM
- what the launch games are"
mp3, m128, ssbO,
"- the launch date"
mid 2006
"- what the graphics even look like
- what the shell looks like
- what exactly comes with each controller
- what comes with the console
- what colours are available"
there was a aort mp3 vid, like the wavebird but with a snes layout, a stick and shell, controller-stick-shell-power cords-hook up cords-and a system,black red white siver green.
"- the price"
199.95
"- the specs"
NEVER!!!
"- what the pachaging for the games looks like (minor stuff but it's cool to know)"
stop wasting people time bitching
"- the final name as Revolution might still be a codename"
they dont know.
"- anything regarding the marketing of the console"
"who are you" with ninja's
Post by: ruby_onix on November 23, 2005, 05:49:16 PM
The Revolution will be battery powered, running on four "C" size batteries, similar to the "ghetto blasters" of the 1980's, for that extra nostalgic charm.
Resist evolution! Enter the console ghetto! Join the Revolution!
Post by: Famicom on November 23, 2005, 06:04:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: stevey
"- anything regarding the marketing of the console"
"who are you" with ninja's
I'M SOLD
Post by: IceCold on November 23, 2005, 10:49:09 PM
I'd say there's still something embedded in the console that won't be revealed until Sony finalizes their hardware
Post by: King of Twitch on November 23, 2005, 11:04:11 PM
Post by: MrMojoRising on November 23, 2005, 11:46:37 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 23, 2005, 11:55:18 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 24, 2005, 06:33:53 AM
Though those of us who actually play games now might. But then who cares about the existing gaming market that made Nintendo what it is the first place?
Post by: PaLaDiN on November 24, 2005, 08:07:23 AM
You know I highly doubt it's the same market anymore. The existing market has pulled Nintendo down from its position at the top. Try again.
Post by: JonLeung on November 24, 2005, 08:32:48 AM
Post by: mantidor on November 24, 2005, 09:19:46 AM
Post by: JonLeung on November 24, 2005, 09:43:54 AM
Shake-shake! Shake-shake!
(Oooh, a Mischief Makers sequel on the Revolution would be pretty hot!)
Post by: Ian Sane on November 24, 2005, 10:15:53 AM
But I think if they didn't get royally spanked with the Cube we wouldn't be getting the remote. There would be some improvements to the controller, they may even have included motion control, but we wouldn't get such a huge change like we are. The remote is the result of a company panicking and trying to be distinguish themselves from the competition. I think Nintendo really doesn't think they can compete (I disagree but they clearly think that) and the remote is the result. It's such a BIG change and it seems so forced like they were trying so hard to be innovative. I've noticed Nintendo isn't so great when they TRY too hard to be creative. That's where the Cube controller's "innovations" and stuff like the water pack in Super Mario Sunshine comes from.
The competition is why we're getting a big change. But without Sony we still would getting an innovative controller. It just would be more of an addition to the existing design then a complete overhaul.
A lot of the controller has to do with Iwata being in charge as well. Had Nintendo never slipped from the top perhaps Yamauchi would still be the boss.
I think Gunpei Yokoi leaving Nintendo (and sadly dying) had a huge effect on Nintendo as well. With the NES and SNES Nintendo had two big developers that would have influence on the console's design. Miyamoto is largely to blame for the cartridges as he didn't want load times in his games. If Yokoi was still around his input probably would have been taken into account too and he might have wanted to go the CDs. Having two big developers provided more balance. Plus Yokoi's games were a whole lot less cutesy and happy as Miyamoto's. The N64 would probably never have been given the "k!ddy" moniker if there was more variety to the lineup which Yokoi could have provided.
So the N64 could have turned out different and assuming Yokoi would still be alive if he was still with Nintendo at the very least the Rev controller would have had input from Iwata, Yokoi and Miyamoto and thus it might have ended up differently again. The Rev controller could only come about with a small group of people calling the shots. If too many people were involved there would be more pressure to plays things safe and be more traditional.
Post by: couchmonkey on November 24, 2005, 10:39:53 AM
Nintendo believes that graphics are reaching their apex, that's why when the GameCube came out, Nintendo made comments that it expected the Cube to last 7 years (or was it 10?) Of course, as soon as MS and Sony started announcing plans for their consoles, Nintendo had to change it's mind, but it does suggest that Nintendo didn't think the technology would be ready for another big graphical leap in five years. And they were right. As far as I'm concerned, Xbox 360 is pretty, but nothing I'd pay $400 for.
So if Nintendo didn't have so much competition, I think it would be waiting a few more years to launch the Revolution, and the system might be less radical, although you have to remember that Japan is experiencing a gaming depression, and Nintendo thinks America is heading the same way. A change may be necessary no matter how much competition there is.
Post by: Kairon on November 24, 2005, 10:47:56 AM
But of course, Nintendo here is spurred by the realization that they're stuck, but not only competitively. Nintendo has also been stuck creatively as well. Mario Sunshine, Mario Kart
D, WindWaker, all imparted some sort of ... "this isn't exactly IT" from Nintendo fans. And I'm willing to bet that Miyamoto knew it. Mario Kart: DD's long dev time is probably an example of a very long nintendo-esque experimentation period that vielded almost no fruits. I mean, even as far back as early Cube Miyamoto was starting to talk about wanting the "joystick and ONE BUTTON" game paradigm that he's come close to realizing with the rev controller. It's amazing to think that EVEN THEN he was toying with the ideals that would later be the revolution.So we can see that while getting stuck marketwise this generation is certainly a factor, we shouldn't be in doubt of Nintendo's drive to innovate. They innovated amazingly with the N64 coming out of the highly successful SNES, and they've given plenty of hints during the Cube era that show that they were innovating even then regardless of how their console was doing merely because they were feeling constricted creatively and were already thinking ahead to what new boundaries they could open up.
Yes, Competition is good. But it isn't what drives Miyamoto. And in the end, Miyamoto is what drives Nintendo, for better or for worse.
~Carmine M. Red
~Spending Thanksgiving in Mexico!
Post by: mantidor on November 24, 2005, 11:26:21 AM
And even if you are the market leader, when someone like ms enters the battle, you have to prepare, Im sure that if it wasnt for ms, sony wouldve also waited another year to release the ps3.
oh god and mischief makers revolution would be so awesome!
Post by: Ian Sane on November 24, 2005, 11:27:27 AM
I question if Nintendo really thinks that or if it's just damage control. Remember they lowballed the revealed Cube specs and everyone thought they were inferior as a result. So to cover it up they're all "well graphics don't matter, they're peaking anyway." Plus they don't want to overspend like MS so the Rev hardware isn't going to match powerwise. So again "graphics have hit their apex" sounds better then the real reason.
"Let's not forget that Nintendo was doing just superbly with the SNES, yet they still introduced the analog stick which was, in its own right, a revolution at the time."
The N64 controller didn't replace what was already there though. The entire SNES controller except the select button was present in the N64 controller. It still had a d-pad and L&R triggers and at least four face buttons arranged in a similar fashion. It was more of an evolution. It took what was there and added something incredibly significant and innovative to it. The Rev controller is trying to replace what's already there. That is significantly different then what the N64 controller was doing. Adding stuff is usually fine but removing stuff is largely frowned upon. If the analog stick bombed Nintendo could go back to using the old controller design on the N64 with no problem. They can't do that with the Rev. If the remote bombs unless they include the shell with every controller they're screwed. They can't go back to the old way because they've removed too much. That's a big risk and I doubt that would do something like that if they were more certain of their future. Nintendo's goal is to get back on top by completely changing the whole console market. They would never go that far if they were still number one or even a competitive number two.
Post by: odifiend on November 24, 2005, 11:50:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Nintendo believes that graphics are reaching their apex, that's why when the GameCube came out, Nintendo made comments that it expected the Cube to last 7 years"
I question if Nintendo really thinks that or if it's just damage control. Remember they lowballed the revealed Cube specs and everyone thought they were inferior as a result. So to cover it up they're all "well graphics don't matter, they're peaking anyway." Plus they don't want to overspend like MS so the Rev hardware isn't going to match powerwise. So again "graphics have hit their apex" sounds better then the real reason.
Can you argue that graphics are peaking, Ian? Nintendo is a company, and like all companys, things they say should be taken with a grain of salt. But can you say that the increased amount of money Microsoft spent on the xbox resulted in much improved graphics over the 'inferior' gamecube? Even the nextgen xbox360 is not that much improved. Graphics are peaking, period. I'm not saying Nintendo should have ass it, but there is a point of lowered returns on an investment. What is the sense in putting a 300 dollar chip that improves graphics but that consumers are only willing to pay 50 dollars for?
Post by: Ian Sane on November 24, 2005, 12:14:38 PM
They kind of are but graphics aren't the only reason to improve hardware. AI, physics, framerate, the amount of character you can have on screen, etc all benefit from improved hardware. You know the epic battles in the Lord of the Rings movies where thousands of individual characters are all doing their own thing? That was controlled by some AI programming stuff. Until I can play a game that features battles like that with thousands (hell I'd settle for hundreds) of AI controlled characters battling like that with me in the middle of it ther is still a need release newer consoles. In Nintendo's case their refusal to embrace online gaming on the Cube alone necessitated that they make at least another console.
Post by: Epitaph on November 24, 2005, 12:27:00 PM
Also interesting is that the company that helped make the virtual boy had a head mounted display that projected a image in mid air or it apeared to float in mid air. Im not compleatly understanding the details of it. It was created by reflection technology that from what I can deduce no longer exists but its product private eye is very well reseached on the internet.
On top of these there are numerous new advancement in led's, crt's, lcd's that this technology uses. The more I think of it the more realistic the idea of some big announcement seems true.
Post by: odifiend on November 24, 2005, 01:53:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Can you argue that graphics are peaking, Ian?"
They kind of are but graphics aren't the only reason to improve hardware. AI, physics, framerate, the amount of character you can have on screen, etc all benefit from improved hardware. You know the epic battles in the Lord of the Rings movies where thousands of individual characters are all doing their own thing? That was controlled by some AI programming stuff. Until I can play a game that features battles like that with thousands (hell I'd settle for hundreds) of AI controlled characters battling like that with me in the middle of it ther is still a need release newer consoles. In Nintendo's case their refusal to embrace online gaming on the Cube alone necessitated that they make at least another console.
You must remember that in the beginning Nintendo was supposed to go online, so I don't think it would have been that ridiculous for the Cube to stick around for another 2 or 3 years. But yes, definitely, Nintendo needs at least one other console, now.
AI, physics and framerate, characters on screen do benefit from improved hardware, yes - but Ian could anyone ever sell you on those things by themselves? Could you see yourself buying a brand new console because 30 more people could appear on the screen without slow down or because wind unsettles even eyebrow hair? I think the answer is no... These things really don't affect gameplay at all or significantly. I mean it would be cool to say, yeah all those people in the background are really 'there' actually fighting, but i mean how does that affect your main character? What good does it matter that 2 miles in the background, AI is actually controlling a fight or that the fight is scripted? This is past the point of diminishing returns - that level of detail adds nothing, in fact it is detrimental because companies will be distracted by the detail and neglect game play.
EDIT: spelling
Post by: Ian Sane on November 24, 2005, 02:02:55 PM
The hell they don't. How could you play Pikmin on the N64? You couldn't. It would never be able to handle 100 characters on screen at once like that. What about Half-life 2? Does not the physics in that game play a big part in how it plays? Graphics don't affect gameplay. These are the very things that DO.
"Ian could anyone ever sell you on those things by themselves?"
Depends on the game. And I think that applies to the general public as well. If you showed a game like the battles in Lord of the Rings where the screen is just cluttered with guys fighting then you could sell it. I'm not talking about guys 2 miles in the background. I mean like guys in your face every way you look. You and 1000 allies fighting 1000 enemies.
Or change it up and imagine a car chase game where you chase someone though a city with a realistic amount of cars.
Post by: odifiend on November 24, 2005, 03:24:49 PM
1000 allies and enemies? I'm sorry but WTF? Unless your TV is a 200 in or you have an aerial shot, these enemies could not even be portrayed on screen. And then what is the sense?
"Or change it up and imagine a car chase game where you chase someone though a city with a realistic amount of cars."
That wouldn't be any fun if there was any realism in the game... or it is the dead of night - which video game consoles now can already handle.
Post by: couchmonkey on November 25, 2005, 06:23:57 AM
Higher framerates: Framerates will never be perfect as long as developers put more emphasis on graphical flair than smooth gameplay. Perfect Dark 0 still runs at only 30 FPS and most GameCube games could run at 60 FPS if they just downgraded the graphics. See Mario Kart: DD!!
More characters on-screen: There is one good application for this, and that's online gaming. I think PD0 allows 32-player battles as opposed to Halo's 16. Pretty good.
For one-player games, I'd say look at Pikmin, Burnout 2, and Star Wars: Rogue Leader. None of these games would benefit very much from having even more action on screen, I was already accidentally running into stuff all the time in those three games. Adding more action to the screen at this point is more of a graphical treat than an actual gameplay improvement.
Better physics: Maybe it's just me, but I don't have a problem with the physics in current videogames. I hear that Half-Life 2's physics are really impressive, but hitting stuff with other stuff can only get so realistic before it stops improving the game.
Better AI: This is one thing that I think really stands to improve in current videogames, especially in complex RTS games. The Pikmin could stand to be a bit smarter, for example.
