Post by: Kairon on December 05, 2005, 03:57:09 PM
Revolution tech Details Emerge
Some key quotes:
"Readers are advised to make two notes before continuing with this article. The first is that developers are still working with incomplete Revolution hardware. Most studios are, in fact, developing on "GameCube-based kits," according to major software houses we spoke to, which have asked to remain anonymous. The second is that developers are still without final specifications for Revolution's ATI-developed graphics chip, codenamed Hollywood."
""To be honest, it's not much more powerful than an Xbox. It's like a souped up Xbox," a major third party source revealed to us. "But it's the controller that makes the difference and the controller is really nice." "
"Revolution will not have the RAM capacity to store and display an abundant source of high-definition textures. Third parties have revealed to us that the console will top out with 128MBs of RAM, and possibly even less. One studio would not give us an exact figure, but did say, "The same as GameCube plus an extra 64MB of main RAM." That number is by comparison nearly triple the amount of memory in GameCube. However, it is a far cry from the 512MBs present in Xbox 360."
"No developer that chatted with us had, or was willing to share, details on the console's GPU, Hollywood."
"Finally, quizzed about publishers' internal reaction to the device, a source responded: "People are interested, but they're still taking it all in at the moment. I'm sure [Nintendo is] going to get a fair amount of support. Probably a lot of people will initially look at existing franchises and whether or not they can kind of do customized versions for Revolution using most of the assets they've got. But whether they'll say, "Okay, let's do something completely original for it," that's the other question because it could be quite expensive to do that. Not as expensive as doing a PS3 or Xbox 360 game. But if you're a third party and you want to do cross platform, if you're doing a game on 360 you can do it on PS3 or PC using the same assets and that does make it a bit easier.""
My personal take:
Seeing what the GC can do with RE4 and Zelda:TP, the Rev will do perfectly fine on standard definition TVs. Also, this is NOT GC level graphics, we are looking at an increase in power, but an increase that doesn't push into diminishing returns like the PS3 or X360.
What this actually does suggest is that Nintendo may be looking at really hitting a low price point. Very impressive, especially if they can launch at sub $190. Can you imagine the revolution dropping to $99 within one year of it's release, yet still being competitive with PS3 and X360 based purely on revolutionary gameplay experiences?
But of course, we're still apparently waiting for news on the graphics chip.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ThePerm on December 05, 2005, 04:03:35 PM
this means gamecube had 40 mb of ram total(i think) thats 120...round up 128mb
processing speed 485....round up 500x3 1.5ghz
162 mhz gpu...162*3=486mhz
could do 20 million polygons(according to factor 5) with all necassary effects on
60 million...but eh lets round way up since gpus are so much more efficient now....
150 million polygons
textures....3 times better then the ones an star fox adventures
characters look 3 times better than they did on re4
also....
xbox 360-revolution
512mb 128mb
3.2 ghz 1.5 ghz
500mhz 486mhz
Post by: Caterkiller on December 05, 2005, 04:14:07 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 05, 2005, 04:19:56 PM
Time to make more sense.
Post by: mjbd on December 05, 2005, 04:20:47 PM
Post by: mjbd on December 05, 2005, 04:24:55 PM
Post by: Kairon on December 05, 2005, 04:26:38 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: BigJim on December 05, 2005, 04:35:59 PM
Well if they're decidedly not going for HD, then they don't need the same horsepower the other systems have. There's only so much detail that an SD-TV is going to be able to distinquish. The performance won't blow any skirts up (and I won't be saying "wow") but it's probably adequate... aside from the "no HD" thing.
That said, a 2-3x boost is probably the wimpiest upgrade to date in console land. CPUs and GPUs have moved mountains in that time period.
For the most part in the past, the console would probably account for 90% of the technology while the controller was a cheap, mindless pad of buttons. The Rev controller seems to be much more intelligent than normal. I wonder if Nintendo spent less than usual on the console to be able to account for this controller.
Post by: Kairon on December 05, 2005, 04:40:07 PM
Either way, it's become apparent that the "Revolution" won't just be the controller, but probably also a mass-market price right out of the door.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: mac<censored> on December 05, 2005, 04:56:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Either way, it's become apparent that the "Revolution" won't just be the controller, but probably also a mass-market price right out of the door.
That would be very interesting -- if Nintendo can crack the "oh why not" price barrier, the Rev will probably become ubiquitous.
As they've shown with the DS (vs PSP), it's not always raw horsepower that wins. A Rev that hits a sweet spot of lowish (but not lowest) price and good (but not best) graphics, combined with a controller thath gets people interested (it doesn't really have to be perfect, just enough to make people take a 2nd look), would look awfully similar in approach to the DS...
For a company like Nintendo (who though rich can't drop quite the bundles of cash their competitors can) that seems a pretty intelligent strategy.
Post by: attackslug on December 05, 2005, 05:29:12 PM
And even if there is a huge gap in graphical quality, dammit, that controller is still going to change gaming as we know it.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 05, 2005, 05:52:19 PM
With this amount of power, I'm hoping Nintendo can more than break the $200 mark, I'd like to see it debut at $150 like the DS.
Edit: IGN is also reported that devs are being told that a Thanksgiving weekend launch is likely. If true, I find that very disappointing. Nintendo really doesn't seem to care about competing at all; while that may not matter if the company is able to market this system as a product for a different market but it may seal the Revolution's fate if the system doesn't catch on outside of the hardcore market.
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on December 05, 2005, 06:00:50 PM
Post by: odifiend on December 05, 2005, 06:18:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
Edit: IGN is also reported that devs are being told that a Thanksgiving weekend launch is likely. If true, I find that very disappointing. Nintendo really doesn't seem to care about competing at all; while that may not matter if the company is able to market this system as a product for a different market but it may seal the Revolution's fate if the system doesn't catch on outside of the hardcore market.
couch, you have to remember the way most people's money works. Assuming the Revolution could launch in the summer, many people are on or will go on vacation so that is money they can't spend on a console. Fall brings about school meaning back to school supplies (shoes and new wardrobes for kids & tuition and books for colleges kids). November is about the time when most people can recoup from those previous expenses, just in time to drop some dough for Christmas. Novemeber is the sweetest spot for anyone to launch.
"Asked if it was developing for Revolution, one major third party source said that it was well past the experimental stage and was evaluating what types of games might work on the platform. "We are looking at it quite differently. It's like another current generation platform for us. But it's such a nice controller that it opens up a lot of possibilities. It's very different and it's very precise."
I don't know why but this quote kind of excites me. The Revolution is similar enough to current gen that developers can just jump right in and seemingly the only that is holding them back would be interesting concepts.
Post by: Kairon on December 05, 2005, 06:30:41 PM
As for the $150 price point idea, it could happen but I don't think we'll hit quite that low. My highest hopes reside around the $169 to $179 price range, but of course the most believable route is the $200 mark.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: attackslug on December 05, 2005, 06:35:07 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on December 05, 2005, 06:41:23 PM
I actually agree that November is financially the best time for a launch, but for me, it stinks. And when Sony and MS have 100+ games to play in the first half of 2007 while Nintendo sits on a library of 20-30 games, it's going to look pretty stinky to a lot of other hardcore gamers too.
BiLdItUp1: I don't see any reason to charge $200 other than to make a profit (which of course Nintendo should try to do). I also see the potential for consumers to think it's "cheap", but hardcore gamers will already know that it's less powerful than the others, and the non-gamers Nintendo is going for will not pay high prices for something they never felt they needed, so there are two demographics that will basically want the cheapest price possible. Given non-gamers are the audience Nintendo wants the most, I think a low price is best.
Post by: zakkiel on December 05, 2005, 06:54:02 PM
QuoteI think Moore's law is at two years for doubling now. Theoretically, hardware hasn't gotten much more than 3 times as powerful.
hat said, a 2-3x boost is probably the wimpiest upgrade to date in console land. CPUs and GPUs have moved mountains in that time period.
The only specific stat in that article is the RAM, and Microsoft officials admitted off the record that the Xbox's 512 RAM was mostly so people who didn't know anything about consoles wouldn't freak out. There's no need for that much memory.
Personally, I'm waiting on the graphics card. That's the decisive factor for the graphics.
The bad part about this news is not the vague commentary on graphics by developers who gamecube kits. After all, they are gamecube kits. No, it's the fact that developers still don't have real Rev stats, let alone Rev kits, at this point in the cycle. I don't need Nintendo to do marketing at this point, but I definitely need them to support independent developers better than this. What the hell, Nintendo?
Also, for the record, I think a launch PP of under $199 would be a big mistake. At that point, you just lose visibility and credibility as a home console and start entering the territory of those "it's fun to learn" devices. Actually, I think they'd be smart to go to $250.
Post by: BigJim on December 05, 2005, 07:28:52 PM
Even the Xbox is still losing money at $150, so I don't think the hardware is quite as cheap as people think. This still reads like a $199 price. I think it'll come out that Rev is better than just a slight bump over XB1.
Edit: Moore's law refers to the number of transistors doubling every 18-24 months. Performance is a misquote.
I also don't like that dev kits still aren't widespread. Sure games can be made on Cube kits, but there's no way to do anything with the control scheme when even as of the TGS the technology on the whole wasn't finalized. Fresh code has to be built to accomodate it, and memory considerations need to be kept in mind... so the first 6 months of 3rd party games probably won't take good advantage of it.
Post by: pudu on December 05, 2005, 07:35:39 PM
Lets just wait and see if it is a "souped up Xbox" or simply more reasonable, yet still comparable console power wise. As long as it is capable of decent physics, a respectable amount of objects on screen for game interactions, and delivers comparable (not necessarily better) graphics who cares? If it turns out being limited as far as those aspects go Nintendo will be shooting themselves in the foot giving devs the opportunity to use this amazing controller but not giving them the proper system power to create some truley immersive game environments. The big problem they face, really, is with this sort of control that puts you more into the game, gamers will expect more out of the environments since they are interacting with them on a deeper level.
Post by: Kairon on December 05, 2005, 07:40:46 PM
I wonder whether PS3 will really launch March 2006 like they say, so it's not at all an issue of "first or last." It's an issue about how far along their game development is. Nov 2006 would mean that their launch games have in excess of a years development with full dev kits, and in excess of 1.5 years counting preliminary development on GC kits. That's not a long time, but it just seems to me too long considering the following.
If Nintendo really knew what their controller was back in mid 2005, then they knew all they needed to do to plan out their games conceptually if not actually. That conceptual process I would like to think would allow them to develop faster than the 12 month cycle. Let's not forget that Rogue Leader 2 was done in 9 months.
I'm not expecting any of the Rev's launch titles to be so deep that they require heavy investment in content creation or concept, I'd expect them to be all gameplay centered (or more sparkling innovationy even) and thus not need to stay in development longer just to add content.
Also, if the Rev is really easier to develop on than these newer consoles then I'd expect Nintendo to prove it with relatively fast turn-around times. Definitely Nintendo does a lot of demos and testing, but once again I thought that they could have done this lengthy experimentation process mid 2005 so that they'd be ready to jump right in with the relatively easier coding once dev kits are finalized.
Finally, why should the IBM cpu be done a year in advance of the system? Surely it wouldn't take them that long to start the manufacturing process!
But anyways, I wonder whether prices on the console will eventually drop so low that we could see the widespread re-emergence of the "pack-in" title. If the Rev console price drops to below $99 in 2-3 years or so we could start seeing $99 Rev + Game bundles that'd really rake in the casual game buyers.
Finally, I'd prefer an earlier lackluster launch to a later decent launch. I'd think a console could ride for maybe 2 months on launch excitement alone (and "proof-of-concept" rev controller titles) before it really needs to deliver the solid games, so instead of a Nov 2006 launch (if it is true) I'd much prefer a much weaker Aug 06 launch that only has it's killer apps hit in Nov or Dec.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Guitar Smasher on December 05, 2005, 07:58:52 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on December 05, 2005, 08:18:34 PM
Can you imagine the revolution not being around in three years? Graphics do matter to an extent; a rehashed Gamecube will not sit well with anyone. Nintendo has their security, the controller; now they can afford to step up and compete power wise with the competition who is using most of their power on resolution rather than actual AI, physics, or polys.
If the console truly is so lacking in ram (AND still has no harddrive forcing you, requiring you whether you have a wifi enabled modem or not, to buy Nintendo's overpriced wifi peripheral to be able to conect your console to your PC to eat up its harddrive to save your downloads; thankyou Nintendo, I almost lost faith in your ability to one up the connectivity blunder from the GameCube) it equals Nintendo having their controller stolen from them and mass marketed by MS and Sony in five years on the big stage.
A lot of 360's cost comes in not only the HD hardware in the system, but the fact there are three of those 3.5 ghz chambers; I believe Nintendo should at least match them with a single core 3.5 ghz CPU. Developers will have a hard time using all three cores on 360 so most games will only use on core meaning the other two are a waste of money. Basically Nintendo could get the same bandwidth (if not more since its not using HD) as 360 at one third the cost just from the forsight, the knowing that few developers will be able to aford to make many games using multithreading.
Even if the final kits prove more powerful, and even if the gpu has some tricks; there is no denying the limited bandwidth they are talking about and lack of a harddrive meaning the internal flash memory can't be relied upon for use in games. If Nintendo really goes for the $200 mark they better include a healthy packaged in harddrive; otherwise I will feel like I'm paying two hundred for a controller.
Post by: Kairon on December 05, 2005, 08:56:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
"Can you imagine the revolution dropping to $99 within one year of it's release"
Can you imagine the revolution not being around in three years? Graphics do matter to an extent; a rehashed Gamecube will not sit well with anyone. Nintendo has their security, the controller; now they can afford to step up and compete power wise with the competition who is using most of their power on resolution rather than actual AI, physics, or polys.
If the console truly is so lacking in ram (AND still has no harddrive forcing you, requiring you whether you have a wifi enabled modem or not, to buy Nintendo's overpriced wifi peripheral to be able to conect your console to your PC to eat up its harddrive to save your downloads; thankyou Nintendo, I almost lost faith in your ability to one up the connectivity blunder from the GameCube) it equals Nintendo having their controller stolen from them and mass marketed by MS and Sony in five years on the big stage.
A lot of 360's cost comes in not only the HD hardware in the system, but the fact there are three of those 3.5 ghz chambers; I believe Nintendo should at least match them with a single core 3.5 ghz CPU. Developers will have a hard time using all three cores on 360 so most games will only use on core meaning the other two are a waste of money. Basically Nintendo could get the same bandwidth (if not more since its not using HD) as 360 at one third the cost just from the forsight, the knowing that few developers will be able to aford to make many games using multithreading.
Even if the final kits prove more powerful, and even if the gpu has some tricks; there is no denying the limited bandwidth they are talking about and lack of a harddrive meaning the internal flash memory can't be relied upon for use in games. If Nintendo really goes for the $200 mark they better include a healthy packaged in harddrive; otherwise I will feel like I'm paying two hundred for a controller.
Nemo, increased graphical power means nothing if you don't own an HD TV. Sure, there will be the need to push a number of characters onscreen at any one time, but The Rev is already looking capable of matching the X360 tit for tat...on a standard TV. With HD prices still as high as they are, Nintendo's bet is that penetration only exists and only matters to a small number of people. I see no reason to question this upon a review of HD TV prices.
And the RAM on the X360 is so high because of the unprecedented demand for HD size textures. Remove that and you simply don't need 512 MBs of ram. Oh, and the Rev will be using faster RAM than the X360's off the shelf stuff, come to think of it. One wonders how much Ram the graphics card will add to that too.
And I don't see why you bring up a hard drive. I have not seen any true killer apps that justify the use of a harddrive. For a media center you need one, but for a gaming console, like the Rev shall be, it's simply unnecessary. Especially compared to the smaller size, higher reliability, and less moving parts of 512 MBs of Flash memory, PLUS expandability, all a Hard Drive nets you is the chance to download huge MMORPG patches. And, let's face it, Nintendo's WiFi is pushing more for a "one system host for others in a limited multiplayer environment" than a consistent online world with a big expensive and not-free server farm: Nintendo is not gunning for any FFXI any time soon.
I don't understand what makes the XBox 360 so appealing to you. It's got so much technological brute force, but none of it is focused on providing anything more than the ability to rip your CDs onto the 360 and get the most out of a $600-$1800 tv. Certainly the system's power is essential to providing a game experience, but the X360 brought us a very expensive HD revolution that is simply not worth the price of entry (meaning the price of an HD TV for the average consumer). In the end, the X360 will need quality game design to compete.
And that is still where Nintendo is focused. By not getting into an HD grudge match they can cut down on a lot of fat which would only exist if HD were needed, thus saving costs and offering a comparable experience. This is key to Nintendo's second-console strategy: they need to be cheap enough so that they can become impulse buys, and even more appealing impulse buys that use more exciting controller technology. In a sense, they're looking to exploit a gameplay edge with their controller, come in at an easier-to-swallow price, and still offer the same visuals of the PS3 and X360 to the majority of people who wouldn't get any benefit from HD at all.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Nile Boogie on December 05, 2005, 10:13:20 PM
RE4 with better textures and Zombies that respawn but don't fade after death.
Metriod Prime 3 with triple the poly count.
F-Zero Gx with real time physics reaction. (PPU?)
Grand Turismo 4 with Hi textured back drops.
Rouge Leader with 3x the ships on screen.
MGS3 with more fluid animation
The Wind Waker with...um...well nothing, The Wind Waker is graphic perfection.
Even after playing Call of Duty 2 on anXboX360 w/HD, these games(above) still look really good. HD texturs are nothing but sexy, its true and there is no way around it but if you can push SD textures to the limit then you'll almost have Pixar quality gaming at DvD quailty resolutions. I'm sure most of us would be more than happy with the results.
Post by: nemo_83 on December 05, 2005, 10:26:00 PM
I believe Zelda and Metroid of all games in the industry deserve the use of a harddrive the most for open environments.
Post by: Kairon on December 05, 2005, 10:35:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
I don't see a relation between next gen graphics and HD resolution; next gen graphics to me are smoother models, lighting effects, translucencies, partical effects, and individual leaves on trees. Nintendo can do a single core 3.5 ghz CPU, it would cost a third of what the 360 does to make, it would still be simple and compact, and it would be more efficient without the woes of HD hacking framerates.
I believe Zelda and Metroid of all games in the industry deserve the use of a harddrive the most for open environments.
Well, actually...
This illustrates how little we actually KNOW... hmmm. All this information from IGN's sources aren't given in terms that describe actual performance. The X360 for all intents and purposes is just a souped up XBox on a standard TV after all. I mean, we suspect that the CPU is finished, but we don't really know anything about it's capabilities, and we know even less about the GPU.
I think a lot of us are actually working off the assumption that when Iwata says that on a standard TV the Rev will look just like the X360 and PS3, he's telling us the truth. And that would include transparencies, partical effects and what-not. As far as we know, the only thing the Rev can't do is output in HD, and play games at 120 FPS.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: wandering on December 05, 2005, 11:07:44 PM
Regardless, let's assume that their information is correct, and the rev will only be 2-3x more powerful than the cube. While that would be a risky move (their bet that gamers don't care about high end graphics and HD support may turn out to be false)....as a gamer, I'm not sure I can say I care that much.
I was watching an xbox 360 commercial the other day - and it focused on the sweat that was glistening and coming off a basketball player's body. The trouble is - the graphics just weren't anywhere close to being photo-realistic. So, while I could intellectually appreciate the detail, I couldn't really bring myself to be all that excited about it. Graphics have reached a plateau....and these days I care much more about function than I do about form. For example, let's look at the metroid prime 3 demo that was released. Both the detail and the art were kind of underwhelming - though I have no doubt that the game will look much, much better in those regards when it's released. The thing that impressed me about it was that the scenery seemed to stretch out into infinity everywhere. And that's what excites me about the next gen - the possibility of epic landscapes that put games like metroid prime and wind waker to shame. The possibility of realistic physics, of huge amounts of enemies, of fully destructable environments. And, yeah, if the rev can't handle that, THEN I'll be dissapointed about it's capabilities.
The other thing that excites me about the rev specifically is that I think it may usher in games where graphics truly don't matter. That's the thing I love about the DS - while games on both the gba and the psp all pretty much look the same, on the DS all kinds of truly unique and artisitc visual styles have manifested themselves. It seems that the combination of the DS's lower power point, and it's marriage of 2D and 3D visuals, left devs with a system where they feel free to use the sort of graphics that best benifted their games....instead of graphics that meet an expected standard of technical capability and visual style. And I hope that that's what we'll get with Revoltution. I hope that, while the competition employs boring near-photo-realism (while simultaniously burning away billions of dollars), games on the Rev will employ comic book stylings, SquiggleVision, and all kinds of other crazy and interesting visual styles.
Post by: Rhoq on December 06, 2005, 01:35:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
Can you imagine the revolution not being around in three years? Graphics do matter to an extent; a rehashed Gamecube will not sit well with anyone. Nintendo has their security, the controller; now they can afford to step up and compete power wise with the competition who is using most of their power on resolution rather than actual AI, physics, or polys.
If the console truly is so lacking in ram (AND still has no harddrive forcing you, requiring you whether you have a wifi enabled modem or not, to buy Nintendo's overpriced wifi peripheral to be able to conect your console to your PC to eat up its harddrive to save your downloads; thankyou Nintendo, I almost lost faith in your ability to one up the connectivity blunder from the GameCube) it equals Nintendo having their controller stolen from them and mass marketed by MS and Sony in five years on the big stage.
*Warning - the following is a "Bobby's Dead", season-long dream sequence*
Could it be that the Revolution might not be Nintendo's true next gen-console, but a "fourth pillar"?
Just like how Nintendo keeps insisting that the DS is the "third pillar" and a next-gen successor to the GBA is on the horizon What if the Revolution is to the GameCube what the DS is to the GBA?
The DS and Revolution, respectively, might just be a massive experiment that Nintendo is trying out to see what new ideas work on their hardware and push gaming technology into another direction. I have a feeling that the Revolution is no more that an transitional console and that Nintendo's real Next-Gen gaming machine might come along, 3 years down the road (which by-the-way is the same estimate that had been given for the next GameBoy, if the DS proved to be successful).
Sony has already stated that they are hoping that the PS3's life cycle could be a full decade before introducing the PS4. While Microsoft hasn't really commented on what's after the 360, I think it will be on the market no more than 5 years before the XBox3 comes out.
If Nintendo can introduce a console more powerful than the PS3 in the Fall of 2009, it would gve them the advantage over both the PS3 and the 360. This console would also incorporate the features which proved to work on the DS & Revolution as well as traditional control methods truly making it a "complete gaming experience".
I know this might be a little far-fetched but - one can dream, can't he?
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on December 06, 2005, 02:04:32 AM
And the thing it said about Hollywood, I'm not sure if I understood that, but aren't they saying that Hollywood has yet to be revealed? How can they judge graphics without knowing anything about the GPU?
I know I'm buying a Rev no matter what...but dear God does Nintendo like digging themselves in holes. Last gen (GameCube) supposedly weaker graphics were one of the reasons that did them in, now that it really does have weaker graphics...
Post by: majortom1981 on December 06, 2005, 02:47:41 AM
Second off the article even states that they are absically using gamecubes with more memory and rev controller functionality.
they even said its a glorified xbox. How do you know that . Power pc chips are the equivalent to amd chips they run things faster at a slower clock rate then intels p3 series as what is in the xbox.
How can you possibly say how fast the rev will be when you dont have the gpu and the finished cpu in your hands?
also they dont even mention the developers company.
it could be there dogs cousins brother who gave them thast info . they could have even made it up to have content for there rev section.
there was no facts in that article.
Post by: Strell on December 06, 2005, 03:06:52 AM
Post by: odifiend on December 06, 2005, 03:35:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Well, I'm farily annoyed at ign. We still don't really know how powerful the rev will be....and they've essentially decided to set the tone of the debate by giving the world the impression that the rev will officially be disapointing power-wise, even though they're creating that impression with incomplete, and non-final, information.
This isn't a problem if you actually read the article...
I personally don't see how this report and the information it contains are a problem. We still have no numbers with the exception of a ballpark for RAM. Even if worse scenario, Nintendo were to repackage a Gamecube with the functionality of the controller, the new modes of play have the potential to be worth the price of admission. The Gamecube is pretty capable - I've never been playing a game where a developer fully took advantage of its capabilities and been underwhelmed or disappointed. The Revolution will be more capable than the GCN. What is the problem?
P.S. I would be interested to know what developer made the comment about the souped up Xbox, since the logical inclination would be compare it to the Gamecube. Xbox is able to do HD as well, so again it'll be fine.
Post by: mantidor on December 06, 2005, 03:43:57 AM
Post by: Artimus on December 06, 2005, 04:44:51 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on December 06, 2005, 04:56:36 AM
Post by: pudu on December 06, 2005, 05:07:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
This isn't crappy journalism and if this makes you see Rev in a bad light then that's Nintendo's fault. Get over whatever problem you have with IGN.
First I'd like to say that I do read IGN regularly and have respect for Matt but as far as his coverage of the revolution thus far I'm not very impressed. I also am pretty PO'd on his previous PSP-loving talk in the DS mailbags, among other such things. But anyway, back on subject. How many times has Matt pounded into everyone's head the graphics aren't going to be too hot? Seems like every chance he gets he does but there is no real good facts to back it up. Then he decides to open the rev channel and guess what? He finds another way to bring us some "news" on revolution and to everyone's surprise it focuses on the revs lack of power. I think this is just getting a little old and he needs to get over it...at least until he gets some actual specs and screens from actual games. We really have no clue about these devs, who they are, how what they are working on will compare to the final dev kits, etc etc Also, we don't know what Matt used and didn't use in that article as far as what they said. I guess what I'm saying is until we get some actual hard facts and quotes actually connected to names look at this article as perhaps Matt simply trying to prove his long-winded argument (or whatever you want to call it).
Post by: odifiend on December 06, 2005, 05:09:02 AM
EDIT:
pudu, meh to your theory. I can't see Matt making this up. Nintendo has been saying crap that has pointed to this all along. Matt likes tech and often sides with it but generally pretty impartially - you can't deny that the PSP is technically better than the DS or the Xbox360 looks good in HD. I like it that he is not a raving fan boy. I'm reminded of a letter where somebody wrote in saying something to the effect of DS is destroying PSP in sales and the letter's author expected Matt to go cry in the corner for saying that he liked the PSP and its launch line up. Matt was like the DS has games now and most PSP releases are movies, not the desired effect of the letter. I can't believe how ridiculous Nintendo fans can be when somebody shows appreciation to Nintendo's competitors.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on December 06, 2005, 05:11:51 AM
Post by: pudu on December 06, 2005, 05:20:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
Dude, Matt frigging prefaced the article with statements like bear in mind developers pretty much have GCN dev kits and Hollywood's details haven't been fully disclosed. In spite of not knowing everything to know about the Revolution, he is reporting what he has been told - journalists do that too. People like to be kept up to the minute...
Hmm you have a point. He did give disclaimers and explain the situation. The fact of the matter is though that a lot of people are going to see this as cold hard facts unfortunatley. I guess I don't like knowing someone what already has him mind made up on how inferior the Rev is just put together a bundle of annonymous quotes hower he wanted to make his theory look better. I did read his letter from the editor, which again focuses on system power vs unique controls and he seems more realistic but is still saying the same old, "the controller will make up for the shoddy graphics" bit.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 06, 2005, 05:21:52 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on December 06, 2005, 05:26:33 AM
From a strategic standpoint for Nintendo, I think everything the company is doing makes sense: less power won't matter to the non-gamers Nintendo wants to reach, and a low price will help. A later launch date also makes sense since Revolution is not being designed to compete head-to-head with the other consoles, and top-quality launch games will be a must to prove the system's controller is really great. From a hardcore gamer's standpoint, I think this news is mostly bad, the only silver lining is that Nintendo won't charge us an arm and a leg like the competition.
Someone said they'd rather see Nintendo launch earlier with less impressive games - I disagree. I think a good launch lineup is crucial for this console because Nintendo needs to sell the concept early. If Nintendo can't prove the idea is cool early on, people will lose interest and it won't matter how great the later software is. Someone might try to use the DS as a counter example, but the DS is the follow-up to the industry-leading Gameboy while Revolution is the latest in a line of consoles that are shrinking in popularity.
Post by: mantidor on December 06, 2005, 05:55:15 AM
Post by: Rhoq on December 06, 2005, 06:41:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
This should be put into a rumor section if anything, its just vague quotes up in the air, but guess what? is the front page article.
I think part of the problem is that IGN launched this "Revolution" channel a bit prematurely. As much as we all wanted it, there really is no need for one yet because, realistically, we still know next to nothing about the system.
Matt had stated a few times over the last few months that his plan was to launch "IGN Revolution" before the end of 2005 but part of the hold-up was that he wanted to wait until there was more concrete information about the system - hardware and software. Months later, and the only knowledge we've gained about the Revolution is that the once mysterious controller looks like a TV/VCR/DVD remote and will allow the user to interact with games in a way currently not achievable on the current line-up of game consoles. We know that it will allow us to download classic games from the NES, SNES and N64 - acting as a virtual console. We also know that it will be backwards compatible with current GameCube software.
Most (if not all) of the technical specs are purely speculation. Aside from the codenames of the CPU and GPU we know nothing else, except for what anonymous sources (supposedly developers) are reporting to the gaming media.
With the exception of Super Smash Brothers and Metroid Prime 3, no games have officially been announced. We know that new Zelda and Mario games are in development for the Revolution, but nothing else has been confirmed from thrid party developers.
Usually, when IGN reports a rumor, they label it as such. Matt was smart to pad the information with the following paragraph, before continuing on with the story:
"Readers are advised to make two notes before continuing with this article. The first is that developers are still working with incomplete Revolution hardware. Most studios are, in fact, developing on "GameCube-based kits," according to major software houses we spoke to, which have asked to remain anonymous. The second is that developers are still without final specifications for Revolution's ATI-developed graphics chip, codenamed Hollywood."
Now, I know that IGN has made some big blunders in the past (like the Factor 5/X Box/Star Wars Rogue Squadron series rumor), but Matt has always appeared, to me anyways, as being cautious. I don't believe that he would have published a story like this if he didn't trust the anonymous source(s) he received his information from.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 06, 2005, 06:52:37 AM
I think this shows a huge flaw in Nintendo's plans. Okay Rev games are cheaper to make. That's great. BUT that only really applies if the game is exclusive. The Rev doesn't fit into multiplatform plans. You can't port to it or from it easily. So now third parties have to choose between making a game for one platform or paying a little bit more to make a game for three platforms. And who is going to make an exclusive game for a Nintendo console? That's the last place console. That's the biggest risk. The other platforms are all safer bets and you can make one game for ALL of them. Nintendo's strategy of offering lower development costs is good in theory if they were allowing you to make basically the same games for a lower price. But they made it an "either or" situation and nine times out of ten third parties are going to pick PS3/X360/PC.
I'm not keen on the November date either. I'll agree that typically that's a good time to launch but Nintendo doesn't have any feasible way to fill the gaps until then. This is EXACTLY the same crap that hurt the Cube. The last N64 game was released like in May and Nintendo for all intents and purposes didn't exist until the Cube launch in November. That drought damn near killed the Cube right from the start and the post-drought killed it for good. Nintendo hasn't learned ANYTHING if they're making this incredibly stupid mistake again. All the same mistakes are here. De-emphasising hardware specs and taking their sweet time giving developers the real scoop bit them in the ass on the Cube but they're doing it again.
They're betting the farm on the controller. They aren't realy fixing or improving anything. They've got their nifty controller and they're relying entirely on it to save their ass. Nintendo is showing up for a race late, unprepared, and out-of-shape. But this time they've got rollerskates on so they think they'll do better.
Maybe IGN isn't being entirely accurate with this but that's too bad. Nintendo brings this crap on themselves with their idiotic secrecy. If you always talk about how hardware doesn't really matter and hide your specs everyone is going to assume you've got weak hardware. Even if this is blatant false rumour mongering Nintendo has brought all this negative press on themselves by not speaking up and telling us how it really is.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 06, 2005, 07:02:28 AM
Their approach gave them a system that easily held itself graphically against the PS2 and XBox...People just seriously need to be patient and stop assuming baseless crap...
They're betting the farm on the controller. They aren't realy fixing or improving anything. They've got their nifty controller and they're relying entirely on it to save their ass. Nintendo is showing up for a race late, unprepared, and out-of-shape. But this time they've got rollerskates on so they think they'll do better.
Um, what? So "improvement" means adding High Dollar and basically doing everything Sony and MS do? (ex. not making a profit) How hilarious this is...
Post by: odifiend on December 06, 2005, 08:27:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I think this shows a huge flaw in Nintendo's plans. Okay Rev games are cheaper to make. That's great. BUT that only really applies if the game is exclusive. The Rev doesn't fit into multiplatform plans. You can't port to it or from it easily. So now third parties have to choose between making a game for one platform or paying a little bit more to make a game for three platforms. And who is going to make an exclusive game for a Nintendo console? That's the last place console. That's the biggest risk. The other platforms are all safer bets and you can make one game for ALL of them. Nintendo's strategy of offering lower development costs is good in theory if they were allowing you to make basically the same games for a lower price. But they made it an "either or" situation and nine times out of ten third parties are going to pick PS3/X360/PC.
A little more? Some of the budgets on today's video games are in excess of 8 million dollars - and rising. I think you are downplaying that fiscal decision. It very well might be cheaper to develop for the Revolution, reportedly more similar to current gen's technology - technology about which developers already have a working knowledge, than to sink thousands just to understand how to even push a PS3 or Xbox360 and then millions on a game just to have it flop. PS3 support is constantly being dropped on the pretext of it being much harder to develop for than the Xbox360.
Who is going to develop an exclusive game for a Nintendo console? Surely you jest. Nintendo doesn't make FPSes, but it is the most obviously ready-to-flourish genre on the Revolution. The third party that swoops in and makes an FPS that is good enough could make the next Halo or GoldenEye.
EDIT: crippling grammar
Post by: BigJim on December 06, 2005, 08:29:01 AM
Easy port-ability matters, but I believe "fit" with their demographics matters too. If the Rev controller proves to be a hot platform for FPS's or survival horror games, that's going to open some new doors. Early execution on Nintendo's part will be crucial here. E3 will be very important (to developers just as much as gamers). They need to prove their case like Mario 64 did for 3D gaming.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 06, 2005, 08:44:07 AM
No. Improvement means addressing the stuff that you screwed up last time around. Nintendo isn't doing that. This isn't about HD or what Sony and MS do. This is about learning from your mistakes and fixing the things that hurt you and had no real reason to occur. It isn't part of Nintendo's vision to leave us with virtually nothing to play until November. That's just a big f*ck up, plain and simple and any successful company would try their hardest to avoid that after it already bit them in the ass.
I'm starting to think Nintendo is either too stubborn to admit their wrong or they're too stunned to even notice what they do wrong.
Post by: JonLeung on December 06, 2005, 08:48:54 AM
When the Sega Genesis came out, it was a big deal that it was 16-bit. People saw the NES as technically inferior, being 8-bit. So when the Super NES came out, it was all about the 16-bitness. I think the Turbo GrafX-16 got its number from being 16-bit, or at least pretending to be - didn't it really have two 8-bit processors?
I admit to not knowing much about what is being referred to here (the bus? some sort of cache? I dunno) but most people seem to see this as a doubling of power per generation, whether or not it's entirely true. If that's how they see it, what's so wrong with the doubling or tripling "power" of the Revolution over the GameCube? You're getting an expected jump or even better!
Sure, the next-gen Xboxes and PlayStations claim to be multiple times "more powerful" than its predecessor. Didn't someone say the PS3 was 35 times more powerful than the PS2? If you think about it, 32 times is already twice to the power of five - and 35 or whatever is even more - so shouldn't that kind of power be reserved for at least five generations later, like the PS7? And while the graphics are better on the PS3, can you really say it's 35 times better? How do you quantify that?
Anyway, we had the 8-bit ones, the 16-bit ones, then 32 and 64. Everyone knows the PSX did better than initally predicted, triumphing over the N64. If not for the FMV sequences, anybody should be able to visually tell that the PSX was inferior to the N64 even without knowing that they were 32- and 64-bit.
It's not about power. The PSX and PS2 were inferior, technically, to their competition. And yet Sony is the market leader. Not knowing what to do to maintain their hold, the simplest idea is to make the PS3 the most powerful. They're going to wow everyone with graphics.
But since we know that graphics and power aren't everything, the Revolution has a chance. It's not going to be ugly. The key here is the controller (and it's backed up by other unique things like the back-catalogue download service, and the always-exclusive Nintendo franchises). Nintendo's going to make this console inexpensive so that it continues to have high returns. They just need to dispel the belief that a lower price point means an inferior console, but I think they can do that by showing off the controller more and presenting it as separate from the soon-to-be-traditional consoles. It's true that they're going to be competing for the same dollars as Sony and Microsoft, but if the controller is all that it's cracked up to be (and if people can stop being stubborn and give it a try) then I think less graphical power than the rest is a minor concern.
Sure, we would want things to look better than the competition. And some of us would be willing to pay more for it, if only they would offer it. But hey, it's just the way Nintendo is.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 06, 2005, 09:12:54 AM
I think the way it works is like this. Whoever wins the previous generation wins the next generation and does so until they make some huge colossal screwup that drives people away like the plague in which case another company in the right place at the right time takes over. So the best thing to do is to make sure you're the company in the right place and hold out until the marker leader screws up.
Post by: ShyGuy on December 06, 2005, 09:21:01 AM
They apparently aren't learning there lesson on the DS, what with the weak launch and non-games, but somehow they're beating the PSP. Inconcievable!
Post by: Ian Sane on December 06, 2005, 09:56:45 AM
I didn't say "learned their lesson", I said "learned from their mistakes". Big difference. It has nothing to do with punishing them or anything like that. I fear Nintendo is going to end up worse off this generation than the one before because they're making the same mistakes they made with the Cube all over again.
And the DS falls into the "market leader remains on top until they screwup big time" theory. It's a whole lot easier to recover from a crummy launch when you used to have virtually 100% of the market than when you're in last place.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 06, 2005, 09:58:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
No. Improvement means addressing the stuff that you screwed up last time around. Nintendo isn't doing that. This isn't about HD or what Sony and MS do. This is about learning from your mistakes and fixing the things that hurt you and had no real reason to occur. It isn't part of Nintendo's vision to leave us with virtually nothing to play until November. That's just a big f*ck up, plain and simple and any successful company would try their hardest to avoid that after it already bit them in the ass.
I'm starting to think Nintendo is either too stubborn to admit their wrong or they're too stunned to even notice what they do wrong.
So how about listing these so-called mistakes? They have 3rd parties lauding their decision and have more than made up for their "lack-of-mainstream" appeal...
Post by: Artimus on December 06, 2005, 10:05:45 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 06, 2005, 10:23:39 AM
De-emphasis of technology: with the Cube Nintendo gave conservative specs and everyone thought they were underpowered. Now they're not even giving out the specs at all and again everyone is assuming they're underpowered.
Behind the times: the N64 didn't use CDs, the Cube didn't go online, the Rev doesn't support HD. I feel the HD thing is easily the most minor of those three but again there's a new technology that's starting to take off just as Nintendo is releasing a new console and they're ignoring it, assuming that something that is currently niche but is growing in popularlity is still going to be niche five years from now.
Delay with getting dev kits out: devs are still working with incomplete hardware. The same thing happened with the Cube. Most third parties couldn't make the launch and we got some HORRIBLE ports like Spy Hunter as a result as third parties tried to catch up.
Huge drought prior to launch: the N64-to-Cube transition was rocky with literally no console games being released on a Nintendo console for several months. This seriously hurt the Cube's momemtum. It's already happening with the Cube-to-Rev transition and it's going to be easily as bad if not worse if they wait until November to launch.
These are things that were being brought up in "what should Nintendo do for their next console?" threads within the first year of the Cube's life. These are old issues that were widely regarded as big problems. Yet Nintendo isn't really addressing any of them.
Post by: ShyGuy on December 06, 2005, 10:29:56 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 06, 2005, 10:38:44 AM
Noone cares, and it doesn't affect the end result...
Behind the times: the N64 didn't use CDs, the Cube didn't go online, the Rev doesn't support HD. I feel the HD thing is easily the most minor of those three but again there's a new technology that's starting to take off just as Nintendo is releasing a new console and they're ignoring it, assuming that something that is currently niche but is growing in popularlity is still going to be niche five years from now.
So we get an expensive function that just eats game resources and emphasizes poor textures...It's the wave of the future, I'm telling you...Again, noone worth talking to cares about such garbage...The people that consider High Dollar important aren't in it for Ninty's gameplay anyway, so there's no point...
Delay with getting dev kits out: devs are still working with incomplete hardware. The same thing happened with the Cube. Most third parties couldn't make the launch and we got some HORRIBLE ports like Spy Hunter as a result as third parties tried to catch up.
As with all system launches...It's pretty much unavoidable, so don't even bother arguing it...HOWEVER, because devs already have what's important (Revmote and souped-up GC dev kits) the "poor launch" is most definitely in 3rd party hands...While crappy games are going to be unavoidable, I believe the only big "flaw" in the Rev launch will be GC-like graphics in 3rd party games...But not like that's the reason you'll be purchasing a Revolution anyway, right?
Huge drought prior to launch: the N64-to-Cube transition was rocky with literally no console games being released on a Nintendo console for several months. This seriously hurt the Cube's momemtum. It's already happening with the Cube-to-Rev transition and it's going to be easily as bad if not worse if they wait until November to launch.
Meeeeeh, the Cube's momentum had NOTHING to do with N64 software, it had to do with GC software that people didn't want (because they are stupid for not liking Luigi's Mansion)...The fact that Ninty is attempting to bring in new gamers only makes this point of yours even more moot...
Post by: Ian Sane on December 06, 2005, 10:41:14 AM
And make sure the actual hardware itself is going to last five years without any big problems limiting what can be done. Now that doesn't mean they're not doing that with their hardware but console games typically get more impressive in regards to the technical achievements as their life goes on. I don't know exactly how capable the Rev hardware is but it should be such that in 2011 the games are much more impressive from a technology perspective than the ones made in 2006. Hopefully the Rev is capable of providing that. Nintendo says that the games will look comparable and if that's the case then they can fib a bit about specs and get away with it. No one will notice that they lied if the games look great regardless. But being all quiet despite rumours of being underpowered is just going to make it "fact" that the Rev is underpowered.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 06, 2005, 10:48:27 AM
WHY? So Ninty fans can finally have an e-penis to sling around? It's so utterly pointless it's mindboggling! The average consumer doesn't read ANYTHING on specs AT ALL!
Post by: Guitar Smasher on December 06, 2005, 10:52:51 AM
Honestly, you can't outright say that. Of course they've improved things.
It's no longer the 'purple lunchbox'. Now it's the sleekest of the new systems.
It's no longer the only one without online. Now it's the one with the most accessible online system.
It's no longer the system with the 'too small disk space'. Now it's assumed it'll match Xbox360's discs.
It'll no longer have the same 'tiku tiku tiku! image', or at least not to the same degree. Now with the release of Zelda:TP, and the sexy look, it'll get more respect.
It's no longer the least functional controller. Now its controller puts the others to shame (presumably).
Now in response to the lack of HD, I think the Rev more than makes up for it in these departments: downloadable past games, and the controller. These are things that almost everyone will be able to use, as opposed to HD. The icing is that these things add no cost to the console/games.
Post by: odifiend on December 06, 2005, 10:53:52 AM
Post by: JonLeung on December 06, 2005, 10:57:49 AM
Except the part about Luigi's Mansion. Okay, maybe I didn't dislike it, but I really would've wanted to have a Mario game or for SSBM to have come out a couple weeks earlier to have made it for launch. I know you can't talk about rushes with Nintendo (supposedly SSBM was rushed as it was (o_0)) but if not for Rogue Leader, I probably wouldn't have gotten a GameCube right at launch (as in, the first day).
But yeah, specs get lost when it comes to consumers. Some don't even believe the PS2 is underpowered to the competition this generation. It basically comes down to the kinds of games they'd want to play. If the controller does provide new game experiences, and those are games worth experiencing, then it'll sell.
Post by: pudu on December 06, 2005, 11:09:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
They don't have to emphasize technology. They just shouldn't de-emphasize it.
I agree with this. They are taking a pesimistic approach in my opinion by continually telling us that technology doesn't matter and that the Rev being the weakest console doesn't matter. What they should consintrate on is the good aspects of their tech. They are obviously already doing this with the controller but they could also do it the the graphics. Prove to us your point, make us say "wow". If they turn out having a weaker console but it's still very capable then they should embrace this and show off what is good about it. Tell us about it's ease of development, it's streamlined and and efficient performance, its strengths that will still make it next gen and seperate it from the GCN.
Something they should definately consider is shelf life. If when its launched it turns out to sport a far less impressive visual package and it's using easier to utilize hardware what happens in years to come when devs start to actually tap the PS3 and Xbox 360?
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 06, 2005, 11:20:10 AM
1)2-3 times more powerful. Lets, get this straight. Xbox was not twice as powerful as the Gamecube. Though people seem to believe it was. That was the perception because of the lack of understanding in technology. 3 times the power of a Gamecube system for Standard Defination gaming means that developers should be able to design whatever they want, and have enormous freedom with the graphics. Yeah, it won't be HD but still graphics will look good.
2)November really bummed me out. But it is OUR own fault. We started to believe the hype of rumors. June, July, August release dates. We actually believe Sony Playstation 3 will be out in April of Japan. (HA!!!) November gives Nintendo plenty of time to actually have Smash Brothers Revolution as a launch game. It gives them plenty of time to produce Mario for launch as well.
3)Nintendo has more time to get development kits out to 3rd parties for launch games now. Instead of the lack which would have happened with a Summer launch.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 06, 2005, 11:53:50 AM
How would I know they lied? How would ANY of us know unless the Rev graphics looked like the N64 or something? The X360 is visually underwhelming but I couldn't tell you if the given specs match what I'm seeing. Something like Sony's "Toy Story graphics" claim is insane but saying they can push whatever billion polygons per second provided they're wireframes and have no detail on a black background isn't something I would spot. Hell if Nintendo did release specs I wouldn't be able to comment on them because I don't really know anything about hardware. But the second they hinted that they would never release specs I immediately assumed it was because the hardware wasn't up to snuff so they were hiding it.
"Noone cares"
"noone worth talking to cares about such garbage"
"But not like that's the reason you'll be purchasing a Revolution anyway, right?"
"because they are stupid for not liking Luigi's Mansion"
In other words "I and other diehards who think Nintendo can do no wrong don't care so it's not important." Well yes I suppose, Bill, that if everyone thought like you then Nintendo would sitting pretty. But not everyone thinks that way and that's the problem.
To me most of this stuff doesn't matter either, except for game droughts. But I know it matters to lots of people. I know that these mistakes contributed greatly to the Cube's underperformance and last place finish. Fixing sh!t like this can only attract more people to Nintendo which is good for us fans because it means better third party support and better overall stability for Nintendo if they don't have to worry about their marketshare constantly shrinking. It means more options for us. It means Nintendo having a stronger presence in the industry and thus having more influence. More Nintendo influence is good because they care about making great games. We basically have nothing to lose if Nintendo just addresses recurring problems.
On the flipside doing NOTHING to address these will just result in a lower marketshare, less influence on the industry, less third party support, and less games and options for us.
Nintendo releasing "tweaked" specs
PROS: removes nasty rumour that Rev is underpowered and makes the Rev look good to those who care about that sort of stuff.
CONS: Nintendo doesn't tell the 100% truth, which no one could really prove, and offends some hardcore fans who will buy anything Nintendo releases anyway.
Nintendo hiding their specs
PROS: proves that Nintendo isn't about hardware specs and thus delights some hardcore fans who will buy anything Nintendo releases anyway.
CONS: creates a widespread rumour that the Rev is significantly underpowered thus creating a bad image for a console that already has to fight so hard just to distance itself from the Cube's poor image.
It's all little stuff like that.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 06, 2005, 11:57:48 AM
Um, no...I guarantee you that a strong majority of gamers don't give a flying crap about specs...You state that specs are a huge deal and it's not...The score of MS and Sony fanboys are the only ones making a deal of this, the average consumer does NOT, that was my point...My being a fanboy does NOT change this fact...
Post by: zakkiel on December 06, 2005, 12:04:48 PM
QuoteThe same way we're hearing about this stuff now. And you appear to be asking Nintendo to lie to you, jsut make sure you don't find out about it. A little odd.
How would I know they lied? How would ANY of us know unless the Rev graphics looked like the N64 or something?
QuoteWell said.
WHY? So Ninty fans can finally have an e-penis to sling around? It's so utterly pointless it's mindboggling! The average consumer doesn't read ANYTHING on specs AT ALL!
QuoteTrue. Also, with six years bewteen launches power doubling would imply systems eight times as powerful.
Edit: Moore's law refers to the number of transistors doubling every 18-24 months. Performance is a misquote.
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 06, 2005, 12:22:57 PM
Now, you are saying 'tweaked' stats are what Nintendo needs to release to be on top. I am sorry, but it would be discovered, and I would lose alot of respect for Nintendo.
I would completely be out of the gaming industry if it wasn't for Nintendo. Their systems, their games, and their public gaming philosophies are similar to mine.
We don't know how bad of a gaming drought their will be before the Revolution is released. Obviously, Nintendo is still working on Gamecube games...for example that 3D Kirby game isn't out yet. And there was rumors of a Gamecube version of Mario Basketball. I am willing to bet that this supposed drought we are fearing won't be too bad. Specially with all the DS games that WILL be coming out.
And yes that matter. portable games take up equal amounts of play time as console.
Now, I stated above the November launch is definately a better date for Nintendo. Basically it means more games will be available at launch, and gives time to truly polish those games.
The fact that the hardware may be very similar to current generation software also helps quickly produce launch games for the system. I now believe that Smash Brothers Revolution will be available day 1. I also fully believe Mario Revolution will be available day 1. And Retro should have no problem preping Metroid Revolution for day 1 as well. That is at least 3 big title games at launch. And we know Nintendo has more development houses creating games as we speak.
Nintendo may be late, and it may be a hard, long wait for us fans, but it will truly be worth the wait...and this launch will be impressive.
Last, I am believing more and more about the possiblity of a $149 system launch. I know people argue that $199 is the magic number. But not for nongamers, not for people who have never RISKED money on a console. $149 is a better price. I think Nintendo realizes that have to appear drastically different from the competition and truly make themselves known as a different console.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 06, 2005, 12:24:56 PM
I don't feel it's that insignificant but even if it is what is the harm is releasing specs? Some people, even if it's not many, are turned off by the lack of specs. NO ONE would be turned off by the release of specs. One has some negative results and the other doesn't so why go with the one that has some negative results?
"One of the things we on these boards have admired Nintendo for is being the most intellectually honest company in the industry. They admit when they make mistakes, they strave to have VERY GOOD customer relations, and they actually care about their fans and gamers."
BS. Nintendo lied about the Cube online plans. They kept saying they were going to release them at a later date when they had NO PLANS at all. Funny how so many people forget that. They basically lied to our face about that one. And they hardly ever admit mistakes. Nintendo isn't perfect. Their reputation is based on the fact that they're very exceptional. They do care about quality and provide very good customer service. But they're nowhere near perfect and have done shady things that directly affect us in the past. They released a tiny memory card and charged the same price Sony did for a card 8 times the size. They charged an extra ten bucks for Player's Choice titles. They made us jump through hoops to get their first demo disc. They care about profit over all else regardless of how horrible their marketshare is and have no problem denying us options so that every quarter they stay in the black.
Nintendo is a fantastic company but they aren't saints. Following the same pattern of specs so that they can be fairly compared to the competition is small potatoes compared to the fact that they used to have an illegal monopoly of the console industry. If that didn't ruin your fandom of Nintendo then why would giving technically-accurate-but-not-applicable-to-real-life specs?
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 06, 2005, 12:32:05 PM
No specs doesn't lead to negative results...
I've said this way too many times already: The specs just don't matter...They don't tell us what games will look like, and they definitely don't tell us the potential behind said games...Tell me, why do you want the specs? So you can compare realistic specs versus the competition's overhyped specs? What's the point?
Post by: pudu on December 06, 2005, 12:40:35 PM
Quote
Whoa baby. I should put an end to some speculation before it runs out of control.
Tonight's article will be a continuation of last night's. Satoru Iwata has not personally delivered us the full spec breakdown. Nintendo doesn't want to talk specs and I don't think anything we do will really change that.
That said, devs do have official documentation and it has been directly quoted to me over the phone.
Tonight, we'll talk a bit more about CPU / GPU power. We'll also have a clarification on RAM. (And before you go thinking that we messed up and it has 512MBs, think again -- it's the other way.) And we'll reveal the real DVD capacity. That 12GB stuff was completely bogus.
Devs also speculate on a price point.
Can someone do me a favor and pass this along to the guys at the GA Forum before they toss me into the bonfire.
Thanks.
Matt
Looks like he's saying even worse RAM specs then he previously thought and small disk sizes. Wow things keep looking up...wtf is Nintendo doing this simply to be different or release a cheap-@ss sub $200 console? Man...I hope they haven't gone off the deep end. They can only do so much before they really start pissing off their fans.
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 06, 2005, 12:46:35 PM
Post by: pudu on December 06, 2005, 12:52:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
Why does "not 12 gigs" mean small disc sizes again?
Just wait and see. Nintendo's going to go the proprietary route again and probably not offer even the standard DVD9 capacities.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on December 06, 2005, 12:52:24 PM
Seriously. It sounds like he's pulling this sh!t out of his ass or the Devs' asses. The ONLY official statement on the graphics is that "they will make you go 'wow!'" and we're supposed to believe the system is going to be uber-underpowered?
Post by: Rhoq on December 06, 2005, 12:56:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
Why does "not 12 gigs" mean small disc sizes again?
Nah, I'd bet it's just a standard DVD-9. I never bought the whole 12GB capacity disc anyways, unless they were hinting at the Revolution using a 2 sided DVD-14/DVD-18.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 06, 2005, 12:57:28 PM
You mean the fans that don't give a ****?
Post by: pudu on December 06, 2005, 12:58:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Dirk Temporo
So we're supposed to believe that the Rev has less than 128 MB of RAM? Horseshit.
Seriously. It sounds like he's pulling this sh!t out of his ass or the Devs' asses. The ONLY official statement on the graphics is that "they will make you go 'wow!'" and we're supposed to believe the system is going to be uber-underpowered?
Yea makes me wonder if Matt is just enjoying using comments from devs with incomplete specs and kits to paint the picture he wants, while knowing that Nintendo will just let it happen. On a good note, I hope this is actually enough to force Nintendo to reveal something to counter the negative hype that will follow. One thing that confuses me is that he says that there will be no difinitive specs about the hardware because Nintendo hasn't sent him any but he also says he will tell us how much RAM there is and that the devs have official documentation. Either the documentation is of final hardware specs or its not. If its not then it should be seen as such.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 06, 2005, 01:01:21 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 06, 2005, 01:05:01 PM
Post by: pudu on December 06, 2005, 01:06:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
They can only do so much before they really start pissing off their fans.
You mean the fans that don't give a ****?
Yea I guess. I presume if the difference isn't too vast most fans wouldn't care, but the picture Matt's painting is making it look pretty bad. I don't think a DS and PSP comparison should be made here, ppl expect different things out of home consoles. As I've said before, if they console limits itself too much it will suffer because with the new immersive controller ppl will expect to have at least a decent environment with proper physics and detail... I'm sure a lot of ppl would be upset if they had this great potential with the controller but the games looked so limited when compared to those on the competing consoles.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 06, 2005, 01:18:24 PM
This is something I'm actually not too concerned about. The Cube discs were a little small but as storage gets bigger and bigger the less you really can do with it. How big of a game can they honestly make? With the Playstation there were games that required 4 discs. It was clear that more space was required and I think Nintendo skimped with the Cube (4 CDs is around 2.7 gigs, in theory one Cube disc couldn't even hold some PS1 games). But are there any games that really require more than a DVD? Xenosaga I think but other than that nothing I can think of. There's going to be a plateau where disc space just isn't an issue anymore. Plus there's already a big difference between the X360 and PS3 discs in terms of size. It's not like Nintendo is the odd man out. The biggest problem with something like disc size is multiplatform games and I think the controller is by far the biggest hurdle regarding that issue.
Post by: mantidor on December 06, 2005, 01:22:18 PM
Post by: pudu on December 06, 2005, 01:23:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Just wait and see. Nintendo's going to go the proprietary route again and probably not offer even the standard DVD9 capacities."
This is something I'm actually not too concerned about. The Cube discs were a little small but as storage gets bigger and bigger the less you really can do with it. How big of a game can they honestly make? With the Playstation there were games that required 4 discs. It was clear that more space was required and I think Nintendo skimped with the Cube (4 CDs is around 2.7 gigs, in theory one Cube disc couldn't even hold some PS1 games). But are there any games that really require more than a DVD? Xenosaga I think but other than that nothing I can think of. There's going to be a plateau where disc space just isn't an issue anymore. Plus there's already a big difference between the X360 and PS3 discs in terms of size. It's not like Nintendo is the odd man out. The biggest problem with something like disc size is multiplatform games and I think the controller is by far the biggest hurdle regarding that issue.
Yea I forgot about all the reasons why the Rev won't require as much as the other consoles. The two most important ones I think are:
-SD means that any FMV used will be FAR less in terms of space required (plus Nintendo doesn't usually care much about FMV anyway)
-Revs lesser graphical capablilities probably won't require as much data as far as polys, textures, etc.
Post by: nemo_83 on December 06, 2005, 01:43:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: RhoqQuote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
Can you imagine the revolution not being around in three years? Graphics do matter to an extent; a rehashed Gamecube will not sit well with anyone. Nintendo has their security, the controller; now they can afford to step up and compete power wise with the competition who is using most of their power on resolution rather than actual AI, physics, or polys.
If the console truly is so lacking in ram (AND still has no harddrive forcing you, requiring you whether you have a wifi enabled modem or not, to buy Nintendo's overpriced wifi peripheral to be able to conect your console to your PC to eat up its harddrive to save your downloads; thankyou Nintendo, I almost lost faith in your ability to one up the connectivity blunder from the GameCube) it equals Nintendo having their controller stolen from them and mass marketed by MS and Sony in five years on the big stage.
*Warning - the following is a "Bobby's Dead", season-long dream sequence*
Could it be that the Revolution might not be Nintendo's true next gen-console, but a "fourth pillar"?
Just like how Nintendo keeps insisting that the DS is the "third pillar" and a next-gen successor to the GBA is on the horizon What if the Revolution is to the GameCube what the DS is to the GBA?
The DS and Revolution, respectively, might just be a massive experiment that Nintendo is trying out to see what new ideas work on their hardware and push gaming technology into another direction. I have a feeling that the Revolution is no more that an transitional console and that Nintendo's real Next-Gen gaming machine might come along, 3 years down the road (which by-the-way is the same estimate that had been given for the next GameBoy, if the DS proved to be successful).
Sony has already stated that they are hoping that the PS3's life cycle could be a full decade before introducing the PS4. While Microsoft hasn't really commented on what's after the 360, I think it will be on the market no more than 5 years before the XBox3 comes out.
If Nintendo can introduce a console more powerful than the PS3 in the Fall of 2009, it would gve them the advantage over both the PS3 and the 360. This console would also incorporate the features which proved to work on the DS & Revolution as well as traditional control methods truly making it a "complete gaming experience".
I know this might be a little far-fetched but - one can dream, can't he?
You've just illustrated the nightmare situation I was thinking about. If that were the case I could afford to skip the Revolution. Really the whole time with the GameCube I was always suspicious that Nintendo had created the system as something to keep us busy while they worked on something bigger (the next next generation hardware with the next Mario Bros and a revolutionary controller); the whole time I felt the console felt incomplete, the controller lacked innovation, and the fun factor seemed absent from many of their games despite their visual appeal (they felt formulative). I felt we had had old coke/new coke pulled on us; like they were using reverse psychology releasing games that lacked the Nintendo excellence like Luigi's Mansion and Mario Sunshine. Now it seems their next system is just a recased GameCube (1.5) with the controller and game that they should have launched four years ago. I expect more.
If you think I'm being critical, wait until you hear what MS and Sony fanboys have to say.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 06, 2005, 01:45:17 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 06, 2005, 01:59:05 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 06, 2005, 02:02:22 PM
Yeah, "I like gameplay"...
*squints*
Definitely don't see it here...
Post by: Dirk Temporo on December 06, 2005, 02:04:24 PM
Here
So yeah. Apparently we're supposed to believe that the Revolution is possibly LESS than twice the power of the Gamecube, despite that Nintendo is 100% capable of making it better than that and still keeping the price and power consumption low.
Post by: Mario on December 06, 2005, 02:15:19 PM
Sadly we'll probably have to wait til E3. Oh well, back to Mario Kart DS.
Post by: nemo_83 on December 06, 2005, 02:22:12 PM
I'm not going to get my hopes up for a miracle GPU or some rumored PPU with dedicated ram just yet, though they would explain a lot; more likely this CPU of Nintendo's may turn out to be dual core in the end (I'd rather the system have a single powerful core as it would be more familiar to developers than parallel coding).
The heartbreak of this is Nintendo is confused. They see that a weaker system can win, but they fail to see that that scenario has gone out the window as the weaker system only ever wins if it comes out earlier than the more powerful expensive system. The Revolution will come out a year after 360 and will (if this ign article is correct) not only not be more powerful than 360 but actually weaker. Nintendo is betting all their money on MS not being a factor; that is what this all comes down to. They have tunel vision for Sony as bad as MS. Because Nintendo knows MS can't get a grip on the Japanese market they feel Sony is their only competition as they're counting on being the only alternative to Japanese developers other than Sony as they're the only company other than Sony that can sell systems on both sides of the ocean.
On the surface it just looks like Nintendo is abandoning American gamers because they know how American third parties are going to view this, they're going to say to themselves that if they put a mature rated game on the console like GTA then the majority of the audience by law will immediately be alienated from being able to purchase the game as the pricing aims the hardware at short people with little money. They'll say, it'll be like the GC; what few people buy it who are actually gamers will also be the type of gamers who play the other consoles and probably own multiple consoles so why even bother porting it to the Nintendo system.
Post by: Artimus on December 06, 2005, 02:23:21 PM
Post by: BigJim on December 06, 2005, 02:28:16 PM
Seriously, Nintendo says it's not as powerful as the other systems. Perrin says 2-3x but then retracts it. Developers are saying it's 2x more powerful. Nintendo also says that the Rev could be your second choice for a system, and will be priced accordingly.
What's so hard to believe about this, really? It's not like the clues have been elusive. Are people expecting 360-grade specs for a standard def system?
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 06, 2005, 02:28:22 PM
By announcing the importance of first-person shooters in the North American market at TGS during the Rev unveiling? Ninty hasn't "abandoned" anyone...
They see that a weaker system can win, but they fail to see that that scenario has gone out the window as the weaker system only ever wins if it comes out earlier than the more powerful expensive system.
Where the hell is the evidence behind this? It has to do with SOFTWARE, not with time released...And once again people don't factor in the fact that this is a completely new form of playing games...This isn't like last gen where Xbox and GC came in a year late with the same functionality...Ninty is coming in with something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT...
Post by: Mario on December 06, 2005, 02:33:22 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 06, 2005, 02:34:17 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 06, 2005, 02:44:11 PM
Post by: mjbd on December 06, 2005, 02:50:43 PM
Post by: mjbd on December 06, 2005, 02:55:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
On the surface it just looks like Nintendo is abandoning American gamers
By announcing the importance of first-person shooters in the North American market at TGS during the Rev unveiling? Ninty hasn't "abandoned" anyone...
They see that a weaker system can win, but they fail to see that that scenario has gone out the window as the weaker system only ever wins if it comes out earlier than the more powerful expensive system.
Where the hell is the evidence behind this? It has to do with SOFTWARE, not with time released...And once again people don't factor in the fact that this is a completely new form of playing games...This isn't like last gen where Xbox and GC came in a year late with the same functionality...Ninty is coming in with something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT...
I just want to give you props man, cause you see things clearly.
Post by: IceCold on December 06, 2005, 02:58:50 PM
I have no doubt that first party games and exclusives will look great SD, but the Rev definitely isn't a good platform for porting.
QuoteNo, then that would just become the next Dreamcast. And I don't want something like that - didn't want it for the GB"E" and I don't want it for this - one system is enough for a cycle.
If Nintendo can introduce a console more powerful than the PS3 in the Fall of 2009, it would gve them the advantage over both the PS3 and the 360.
KN - I'm with you.
Post by: mantidor on December 06, 2005, 03:03:03 PM
Post by: Kairon on December 06, 2005, 03:09:48 PM
And I can't see how with HD not packed in with the cheaper version of X360, developers could consider relying on it. What's the HD status on the PS3 by the way? Regardless, does anyone know about the speeds of access regarding Flash Memory versus Hard Disks?
Finally, IGN's sources seem to think a $149 launch price, or lower. That'd make the Rev out of the gates in impulse buy territory... awesome. My impulses are snapping already.
Oh, and with regard to 3rd parties having difficulties with ports...hmmm... it depends on whether they can "scale down" their polys and textures without too much difficulty. But then again, you have to ask, if a $149 mass market console gets significant userbase, why not go downscale your graphics? After all, third parties follow the almighty $ and Nintendo is leveraging two things to build a profitable casual-and-non-gamer userbase: innovative gameplay AND dirt cheap prices. Plus the fact that it will be very competitive on standard TVs doesn't hurt that equation one bit.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 06, 2005, 03:12:19 PM
I've been convinced that many third parties are inferior to others. I'm not worried.
When I get awesome games, I WIN, not the console.
Post by: odifiend on December 06, 2005, 03:27:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
I dont see Nintendo pricing the console at less than $200. At the same price that the DS? it doesnt make sense at all.
Why not? The GBA at a 100 dollars has sold millions of units. When you get in that price range shopaholics like myself will just buy crap...
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Finally, IGN's sources seem to think a $149 launch price, or lower. That'd make the Rev out of the gates in impulse buy territory... awesome. My impulses are snapping already.
Ditto, my man... My spending hand is twitching.
Post by: mjbd on December 06, 2005, 03:34:52 PM
Post by: odifiend on December 06, 2005, 03:41:59 PM
Post by: mantidor on December 06, 2005, 03:43:28 PM
Post by: odifiend on December 06, 2005, 03:46:45 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on December 06, 2005, 03:48:40 PM
But I wish they would've made it $99.99-149.99, because then they could've doubled the RAM in the unit.
Cost-cutting has a law of dimishing returns too.
Post by: BigJim on December 06, 2005, 03:50:41 PM
Still, I doubt we'll see it for $99 out of the gate anyway.
Quote
does anyone know about the speeds of access regarding Flash Memory versus Hard Disks?
Hard drives are an order of magnitude faster. It might be ok for data that doesn't need immediate or frequent access, but the system might just as well pull it off the disc rather than hold it in flash. Also unless I'm not up to speed on the bleeding edge of flash memory, flash doesn't have "infinite" read/write abilities like a hard disk does. So it seems less than ideal to use it for that purpose.
What if it's used up for game saves and virtual console stuff? I don't think it can't be counted on very highly.
Post by: IceCold on December 06, 2005, 04:06:36 PM
QuoteNo. I don't agree at all. The single most important reason that Nintendo lost the 64 and Cube era was 3rd party support. Nintendo should be trying as hard as they possibly can (and they really have been lately) to get support on their system - exclusive or multiplatform. The last thing I want is to keep seeing games exclusive for only PS3 and Xbox 360.
Originally posted by: odifiend
The thing about ports is the n64 and gamecube stopped getting them, so 'no ports' really isn't a brand new phenomenon. N-Fans are elitist and generally won't buy ports so what is the point. Companies like EA will forever port their stuff over though, and since they are like Nintendo's main 3rd party supplier, support will be about the same.
If you want Nintendo's strategy to JUST be the non-gamers, then that's the way to go - just having first party games and EA support, without other multiplatform ports. But Nintendo wants to keep existing gamers - your way would just be effectively abandoning them altogether.
Post by: Pittbboi on December 06, 2005, 04:26:19 PM
Like it or not, the majority of the world are graphics whores (I just don’t like that term, “graphics whore”. It devalues the fact that, like it or not, graphics have contributed to great games. People have a right to care about them). There’s just no getting around that. The group of people who aren’t graphics whores isn’t enough to sustain a system. Just look at Sony. PS2 was the weakest console of the bunch, but Sony knew just what to say to make people believe otherwise, and that, combined with the fact that it was the previous generation’s undisputed market leader, led to it dominating this generation’s “console wars”. (LOL—console war? In retrospect, there never was a war. There wasn’t a single point this generation where Sony was in any sort of threat of losing its number 1 spot.)
IGN, while viewed as shoddy by a lot of people, is unfortunately seen as a legitimate source of gaming news and discussion by legions more—including developers. So I believe that Matt’s capable of having such contacts, and I believe that, while not 100% accurate in the slightest, this news is more or less along the lines of the truth about the Revolution. Everything points to that being the case. In terms of power, Rev is definitely coming in at a pathetic third place. Hell, if it’s nothing more than a souped up Xbox, one must wonder if it’s worthy of even being considered a next generation console. I have to agree with a lot of what Ian said: Nintendo is repeating a lot of the same mistakes that doomed the Cube, and I just don’t think there’s any point in arguing that; sheer logic and numbers are against you.
However, with that being said, I also agree with Kairon. This generation, more than any other, consumer opinion is going to decide the fate of the Rev. If Nintendo can achieve its goal of positioning the Rev as an “And” console; if Nintendo can make the Rev into a cheap and intriguing piece of technology that people won’t simply glance over; if Nintendo can successfully make the Rev both the cute accessory that everyone simply must have and, at the same time, a legitimate gaming console then it won’t matter how underpowered the system is, everyone will simply HAVE to own one and developers would be stupid not to develop for it. If Nintendo can achieve this, then the fact that they’re repeating their mistakes will be more then forgivable. Loss for the greater gain and all that jazz.
Still, what I fear is that Nintendo hasn’t quite realized that, for the past two generations, it’s done nothing but rub its good name in the dirt. Like it or not, in that time the Nintendo brand name has gone from being synonymous with all of gaming, to being a guilty pleasure (At my college it’s almost a joke to say you own a Gamecube, even if the same people who laugh at you admit that it does have a handful of good games in it’s library). Nintendo still has its fair share of, hardcore, diehard fans (Bill). But there’s no denying that a significant portion of \ Sony and MS’s fanbase consist of former Nintendo fans who just couldn’t take the abuse Nintendo called “good ideas” and “profit protecting” and fled—understandably so. Furthermore, an even bigger portion of Sony and MS’s fanbases consist of people those former Nintendo-lovers influenced.
So the big mystery is this: even if Nintendo is successful in creating the console it wants—a graphically sub par but cheap and innovative console that just begs for people to give it a chance—will people (especially those that have been dooped by Nintendo in the past) give them that chance? Will it be enough for them to sell enough consoles to convince developers that putting in the extra time and money to make exclusives and decent ports is worth it? I guess only time will tell on that one. Money runs this industry, and no matter how innovative and cool some developers think the controller is, the big wigs above won’t give them the green light to do anything if they don’t believe a decent return will be had.
Post by: odifiend on December 06, 2005, 04:40:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteNo. I don't agree at all. The single most important reason that Nintendo lost the 64 and Cube era was 3rd party support. Nintendo should be trying as hard as they possibly can (and they really have been lately) to get support on their system - exclusive or multiplatform. The last thing I want is to keep seeing games exclusive for only PS3 and Xbox 360.
Originally posted by: odifiend
The thing about ports is the n64 and gamecube stopped getting them, so 'no ports' really isn't a brand new phenomenon. N-Fans are elitist and generally won't buy ports so what is the point. Companies like EA will forever port their stuff over though, and since they are like Nintendo's main 3rd party supplier, support will be about the same.
If you want Nintendo's strategy to JUST be the non-gamers, then that's the way to go - just having first party games and EA support, without other multiplatform ports. But Nintendo wants to keep existing gamers - your way would just be effectively abandoning them altogether.
My way? Please, I was talking about ports only. Ports are likely a very expensive proposition right now. And on a Nintendo console, they likely won't sell especially if Nintendo is planning to be a second console. Nintendo, while they have been trying to get support lately, has forced a decision on developers to pretty much develop exclusives which is good because that is what they're hardcore fanbase buys and it will also ensure that their console is offering something fresh.
Besides Cold, if any target market takes off whether that is non-gamers or gamers, developers will flock ensuring future support.
Post by: mantidor on December 06, 2005, 04:40:47 PM
what logic are you talking about? certainly the big "mistakes" for you or Ian are the controller and the graphical power, which obviously werent big problems for the GC. Arguments to justify GCs failure are, form factor (stupid and solved), lack of online (solved), not enough size for the media (solved again if this rumor is true), so how are the same mistakes? seriously?
Post by: zakkiel on December 06, 2005, 04:41:36 PM
QuotePictures get in the way of enjoying the controller. Only with text-based games can you truly focus on the wonder that is the Revmote!
I'm starting to think that the Revolution will not have graphics.
QuoteI have to concur. Seriously, I believed the basic thrust of the article before, but now I just reject it until I hear otherwise from Nintendo. 128 megs of notebook RAM costs $20, bought individually. wholesale it's gotta be a lot less. It just makes no sense at all for Nintendo not to stick it in.
So we're supposed to believe that the Rev has less than 128 MB of RAM? Horseshit.
Post by: odifiend on December 06, 2005, 04:46:29 PM
EDIT: Seriously though if the GCN had 40 MB of ram, what is the problem if the Rev falls at 104 vs. 128?
Post by: mjbd on December 06, 2005, 05:16:04 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on December 06, 2005, 05:18:00 PM
64MB + 24MB (88MB total) of 1T-SRAM
16MB D-RAM
Total of 104MB of RAM.
IBM-made Broadway CPU is "Gecko 2.0", with twice the clock speed of the GCN's Gecko, if that much.
ATi-made Hollywood GPU hasn't been seen yet, but on paper it's supposedly a "Flipper 2.0". Has 3MB of embedded RAM. Most likely has some built-in special effects that are more up-to-date than the ones in Flipper.
Storage medium is an ordinary single-or-double layered DVD.
"Every developer was in agreement that Revolution should launch with a price tag of $149 or lower. Some speculated that based on the tech, a $99 price point would not be out of the question."
Edit: Some GameCube specs, FYI.
24MB 1T-SRAM
16MB D-RAM
Total of 40MB RAM.
Gecko CPU = 485 MHz
Flipper GPU = 162MHz, 3MB of embedded RAM, and lots of built-in special effects.
Post by: Nile Boogie on December 06, 2005, 06:04:47 PM
"Considering everything we know, the above link represents the what the graphical abilities are of Nintendo's Next-Generation console, Codenamed: Revolution."
Although I just found the old SpaceWorld2000 video of Metriod Prime, more ram and better(bump) texture processing should lead you to games that look just a tad bit better this. If this is the case, then I will be more than happy.
Post by: zakkiel on December 06, 2005, 06:10:12 PM
QuoteOh, come on. You can't tell me that the difference between high- and low-def requires five times the RAM for textures.
104mb of ram is a significant increase from the 42mb of ram in the gamecube. About 2.5 times more memory isnt bad. The main reason 360 uses so much is because of the high-res textures.
Post by: Kairon on December 06, 2005, 06:17:19 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 06, 2005, 06:20:34 PM
Post by: ThePerm on December 06, 2005, 06:26:17 PM
i can see where they are going...they really want to be everybody's second console...which would make them actually the number 1 console...by having a great pricepoint and something new....but that can't last forever. If they want to decimate the competition they better bring it whenever the competition fights back. They will. I say 2 years from now Sony will make hteir own gyro controller...that works a different way...but still works...and likewise for microsoft.
Post by: Kairon on December 06, 2005, 09:03:17 PM
All this whole "next generation" worry is upsetting me because it's ridiculous. The X360 is practically indistinguishable from current gen on a standard TV, what's so next-gen about that? The Rev is already expected to be more powerful than the RE4-and-Twilight Princess GC, and without diverting this power to HD I anticipate that in everything gameplay wise, the Rev will be able to do what the competition does on a standard TV. Well, that is unless Sony comes up with a way to use all 7 of the PS3 cores for a Skynet AI routine to take over the world AND run at 120 FPS while doing so.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on December 06, 2005, 09:07:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePermNot because I want better graphics, but because I want better gameplay. Nintendo has totally gone hill in their game quality this generation....its not up to snuff like it used to be. It used to be he best...now its sort of average in my eyes. A better controller isn't going to make games that much better. Its the content.
You're wrong. The controller is the very answer to how Nintendo was underwhelming with Sunshine, with Double Dash and with Wind Waker. Nintendo foundered this generation because they suddenly hit a brick wall in terms of user interface and what they could do with it. Wind Waker didn't offer much new over OoT, Sunshine was forced to introduce the hovering water pack to feel any different at all. The formulas are so set and perfected with a typical controller that there just isn't anywhere else to innovate aside from sticcking two people on one Mario Kart, so that's why this gens games feel lackluster to you, and that's why Nintendo made the new controller. You're actually looking at it backwards ThePerm.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: wandering on December 06, 2005, 09:19:50 PM
Though it's going to be really annoying to hear people bitching about this for the next 6 months or so. Because, for all the hoopla, I'm still convinced that Nintendo was right when they said the graphics would be on par with the competition's. Standard-def graphics + much more familiar hardware + magical Nintendo hardware design that perfectly balances and utilizes the hardware's components to their fullest = amazing looking games.
...Which is why I'm annoyed that ign has released this info. Nintendo knew that spec numbers would be misinterpreted, and that's why they didn't want to release them until after games were shown. Not that it's ign's job to be a propaganda machine for Nintendo (even though the other channels are propaganda machines for their respective consoles...)
In any case, now that this is out there, Nintendo should totally release a single amazing "concept shot" of next-gen mario or something, just to stem criticism.
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 06, 2005, 09:55:09 PM
Oh good, this is golden. So! Are you going to tell me next that Xbox360 looks enough better? What's Microsoft's defense for having graphics that fail to impress on every level except for rich people who delude themselves that it looks a whole lot better on their expensive TVs? They don't even have a controller to show off, what have they got to hide behind? Have they seriously fooled you that easily with their meaningless specs?
Post by: Nephilim on December 06, 2005, 10:04:34 PM
This is not true, They upped it to increase pc ports
Nornal rec. ram these days is 512
With 3gig of ram becoming a reality next year (1.5 being released), It is a very smart choice, and the rec will proberly increase to 1gig for most big budget games around the same time
Post by: KDR_11k on December 06, 2005, 10:23:30 PM
2. Define "2-3 times as powerful". Before my last upgrade my PC had a 1.53GHz Athlon XP, 512MB RAM and a Radeon 8500 (64MB). Now it has a 1.8 GHz Athlon 64, 1024MB RAM and a GeForce 6800 (128MB). How many times more powerful is my system compared to its previous configuration?
3. Diminishing returns apply to component pricing. A 900MHz CPU won't save more than a few cents compared to a 1.5GHz CPU. A GPU on par with a GeForce 1 would cost more in production overhead than actual performance. A 20GB harddrive is generally nuts when it comes to pricing, you're paying for the mechanism and case, the platters would cost next to nothing. If Nintendo really uses a system with less than 128MB RAM and a 900MHz CPU they're being stupid as a tenner more would easily double the specs. Never mind that it's idiotic to design a completely new chip that doesn't perform better or cost less than a run-off-the-mill standard chip (production volumes would be smaller for a custom chip so prices are higher).
I remember reading that the X360 was originally slated to have only 256 mb of RAM and was fine at that level, and that it was upped to 512 very late in its research cycle for no other reason than that Microsoft could use it as a more impressive selling point.
It was upped because Sony said they'd go with 512MB and devs were complaining to MS.
RAM is needed the coming gen because not only will resolutions for textures increase (have you ever played Unreal Tournament 2004? You can run up to a wall and it won't blur! Compare that to Metroid Prime), there will be four times as many textures per surface (diffuse, spec, normal, misc (material type map to display proper impacts in case of Quake 4)). RAM is also needed because level sizes in the current console gen have been constrained by RAM sizes and streaming isn't an option for everyone. Hell, with enough RAM RPGs could keep all the battle data in memory while you're on the field so the transition is instanteous. More RAM; means larger chunks of the world available at once, larger draw distances and more detailed world states (i.e. monsters will remain active when you're not there and won't respawn when you leave the room and reenter).
Post by: mantidor on December 07, 2005, 02:58:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
3. Diminishing returns apply to component pricing. A 900MHz CPU won't save more than a few cents compared to a 1.5GHz CPU. A GPU on par with a GeForce 1 would cost more in production overhead than actual performance. A 20GB harddrive is generally nuts when it comes to pricing, you're paying for the mechanism and case, the platters would cost next to nothing. If Nintendo really uses a system with less than 128MB RAM and a 900MHz CPU they're being stupid as a tenner more would easily double the specs. Never mind that it's idiotic to design a completely new chip that doesn't perform better or cost less than a run-off-the-mill standard chip (production volumes would be smaller for a custom chip so prices are higher).
Thats one of the reason I find those specs highly not true, I really dont think Nintendo went to IBM and ATI and told them to made "double" the clock speed, they told them to make a solution in a specific price range with the best technology available for such price, and as you said, using 900Mhz instead of 1.5GHz wouldnt be saving a lot of money at all. The decision of how fast should the processor be its completly up to IBM, and I dont think they have made a 1GHz processor, do they even make those anymore?
Post by: ShyGuy on December 07, 2005, 05:04:38 AM
I think I'm going to have to see some screenshots/movies before I form an opinion on whether or not Nintendo is underpowering the revolution.
Post by: BigJim on December 07, 2005, 05:05:29 AM
2x the performance could easily mean anywhere up to 1.5GHz, for example. They do make those PPCs still.
Edit: And whether or not we agree with IGNs information on a technical level, or whether we even like it or not, the point is clear. Nintendo is decidedly going in the opposite direction of the competition. Sony and MS are making insanely expensive hardware. Nintendo is making Rev so cheap it's almost an impulse buy.
Post by: mantidor on December 07, 2005, 05:15:28 AM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on December 07, 2005, 05:28:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Nile Boogie
http://xfersf06.ign.com/^1606475555/movies/cubemovies.ign.com/docroot/media/previews/video/metroid4/metroid4fmv.mpg?position=front
"Considering everything we know, the above link represents the what the graphical abilities are of Nintendo's Next-Generation console, Codenamed: Revolution."
Although I just found the old SpaceWorld2000 video of Metriod Prime, more ram and better(bump) texture processing should lead you to games that look just a tad bit better this. If this is the case, then I will be more than happy.
Uh. Your link doesn't work.
Post by: odifiend on December 07, 2005, 05:55:50 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on December 07, 2005, 06:00:08 AM
ThePerm: I don't see how more RAM equals better gameplay. The problem with Nintendo's titles this generation had way more to do with rushing the games than RAM, in my opinion. Super Mario Sunshine and Zelda were both pumped out "on schedule" instead of spending an extra few months to get more levels in there.
I also think people's standards were raised. I think a lot of people had ramped-up expectations because the Nintendo 64 delivered such amazing 3D re-imaginings of its classic games. For me, it's no surprise that Super Mario Sunshine can't live up to the rush I felt the first time I played Super Mario 64...because it's not a totally new experience. Neither was Super Mario World! I also think a lot of us have a more critical eye than we used to - my guess is that a lot of people here grew up on NES and/or Super NES, like me. Looking back, Super Mario World could be considered "disapointing" compared to SMB3, but I didn't notice as much back then as I do now, because I've spent an extra 14 years becoming intimately familiar with video games.
Post by: mantidor on December 07, 2005, 06:09:27 AM
Post by: trip1eX on December 07, 2005, 06:10:45 AM
It's more and more apparent that the REv is the DS and the 360/PS3 combo is the PSP in the upcoming next-gen console battle.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on December 07, 2005, 06:21:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
It worked for me (yesterday). It is just Spaceworld 2000 Metroid.
Wow...the debate was heated for a while.
I won't get into the nitty-gritty right now, but I will say this.
If the REV graphics looked like that Metriod vid and that Zelda vid....I'd be pleased.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 07, 2005, 06:37:28 AM
Twilight Princess looks loads better than the SW2000 video!
Post by: Ian Sane on December 07, 2005, 07:28:05 AM
I don't think it had anything to do with the interface but entirely due to a few things. Nintendo didn't go online which is was the next logical step in game development. Case in point Double Dash tries to be innovative with a two driver design but it didn't really take off. Mario Kart DS however plays more like the classic Mario Kart games but added online play, which was the next logical step for multiplayer game, and it is universally loved. If Nintendo wasn't so stubborn about online gaming they could have had a whole new feature to work with.
Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker's shortcoming were mostly due to a lack of polish. People complained that N64 games were few and far between. The real complaint was "your third party support sucks" but Nintendo misinterpreted that and instead rushed their games. Typical out-of-touch Nintendo solution.
I think they hit a brick wall in the sense that with the Cube Nintendo suddenly got the idea that their franchises were what made them special and they pumped out an insane amount of sequels and spinoffs that no one really needed. What the hell was the point of making another Mario Golf when the original was so perfect? There wasn't. How do you justify making another Paper Mario? I thought the sequel was great but it was just more of the same and I got bored of it. In their peak Nintendo rarely made redundant games; almost everything was essential. If they couldn't justify another sequel it didn't get made. On the Cube when Nintendo went away from milking sequels they made brilliant games. Pikmin is fantastic and Pikmin 2 is the type of essential sequel they used to stick to. Metroid Prime was fresh and exciting. As was Animal Crossing though technically it was originally an N64 game. I was rarely underwhelmed when Nintendo tried something new. Even Luigi's Mansion, though short, was fresh and entertaining while it lasted. It was just a lousy choice for the flagship title.
Although the remote and the DS touchscreen provide new interfaces I feel they are a "requirement" only in the sense that Nintendo has hit a brick wall regarding franchise spinoffs and needs to make up a new tool to freshen up unneeded Mario spinoff #27. I think if they made more of an effort to create new franchises they would find that the traditional controller with the added option of online gaming, which will at least justify new entries in all of their multiplayer focus franchises, will allow them to innovate. They have to stop thinking in franchises and think in individual games. I can think of dozens of ideas for games with the traditional controller and I'm not a developer. Nintendo SHOULD be able to think of more ideas than I. There's no need to force a sequel. If one works, do it, and if not then don't. Now they shouldn't abandon franchises completely. They just need to create new ones to replace the stale ones and have a steady cycle of the new replacing the old. A new idea can become a huge franchise.
I think the problem though is that we fans always demand more sequels to the games we like, even if there really is no need for the series to continue. People have asked for another Punch-Out for years even though anyone who has played it knows that Super Punch-Out is perfect. So thus Nintendo feels pressure to deliver follow-ups to everything which eats up resources and limits the amount of brand new stuff they can work on. The only way to deliver all the sequels while making something new is to create a totally different controller.
Post by: BigJim on December 07, 2005, 07:50:15 AM
Nintendo *talked* a big game about also being for mature gamers this generation, and we saw exactly how small their bite really was. They practically didn't even show up. There's plenty of *talk* that this controller is the next big thing for FPS's or survival horror, but the proof will be in the pudding. The potential could be significant, but we don't yet know if Nintendo is really going to stand up and be counted.
Since adults make up a huge part of the gaming audience now, to be ignored by them or to ignore them at this point is stupid and deadly. This cheap price won't help the perception, so it's up to content to make the difference. Token games that demonstrate the controller won't be enough. They need to make a Halo-sized impact to even begin to prove Nintendo can hang with adults too.
This is a huge uphill battle, and Nintendo hasn't yet proven their interest in changing that perception. Make MP3 or some new IP the new Halo of first person gaming, then maybe there’s a chance that more mature-style developers will take notice and climb aboard. Until then, their own reputation remains a handicap.
I don’t mean to change the flow of the discussion, but it was something I wanted to mention back on page 3 but didn’t get to until now.
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 07, 2005, 08:00:19 AM
Nintendo never did neglect mature gamers. They just had a different view of what made a mature game.
Nintendo believes games like Zelda Wind Waker, Mario Sunshine, and Mario Kart should be considered mature games, that are also friendly to all ages. All those games had significant challenge that is addequate for all age games, even the hardcore.
Nintendo has never neglected mature games. Mature games just have become jaded and believe unless its rated M then it must be for kids. Which is stupid.
Ian earlier you said that Nintendo lied about the Gamecube online plans. We don't know if that is true. Nintendo has obviously been working on the Nintendo Wifi for several years...probably since early Gamecube years. Now, I believe Nintendo was hoping to have an infrastructure up and ready sometime in Gamecube's lifecycle, but later decided it wasn't financially worth it that late in the game. Obviously, I have no proof of that. But you don't have proof that Nintendo outright lied either. They had to be working on things...otherwise we wouldn't have the advanced infrastructure we have forming for the DS and Revolution.
Post by: BigJim on December 07, 2005, 08:09:42 AM
What you're describing is their classic "everybody" style. Mature games aren't meant to be for everybody. It doesn't have to be an M-rating. It's a combination of things from art style, to music, mood, context and content.
The widely accepted ideals of what mature games are is absolutely lacking on GameCube.
Post by: odifiend on December 07, 2005, 08:12:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
Since adults make up a huge part of the gaming audience now, to be ignored by them or to ignore them at this point is stupid and deadly. This cheap price won't help the perception, so it's up to content to make the difference. Token games that demonstrate the controller won't be enough. They need to make a Halo-sized impact to even begin to prove Nintendo can hang with adults too.
This is a huge uphill battle, and Nintendo hasn't yet proven their interest in changing that perception. Make MP3 or some new IP the new Halo of first person gaming, then maybe there’s a chance that more mature-style developers will take notice and climb aboard. Until then, their own reputation remains a handicap.
Nintendo's image has definitely worsened with regards to adults but if you remember, the N64 had no problem hanging with adults in the beginning. Everybody was playing GoldenEye. It wasn't until later when the N64 had a stream of entirely in house developed games that the 'mature' audience left. 'Mature' audiences are not hard to capture. A killer launch FPS is all you need and these people will flock. The potential is there and I'm really hoping Nintendo is doing something exclusive with Free Radical or that Game Zero might make an appearance.
Post by: JonLeung on December 07, 2005, 08:15:01 AM
Mario has his spin-offs, but I think Mario's actual adventures are slowing down, if we don't count his RPGs. Three games on the NES, two on the Super NES, one on the N64...and most people (including myself) are hesitant to want to count Sunshine. It was a good game, but it didn't feel like a full Mario game being limited in locale. So it's like half a game. (Next, we may only get a quarter of a game...) Not all changes are popular, but the inclusion of FLUDD was an attempt to create a different sort of Mario platformer. I'll admit that Mario Party is getting redundant, but that's probably why they included a microphone in the last two iterations and 8-player in the latest one.
Metroid entered 3D, and then included a light/dark world dynamic. Sure, it's been seen in other games like The Legend Of Zelda: A Link To The Past and the Silent Hill series and others, but it also had completely new Suits. Yes, the multi-player was lackluster, I'll admit that.
Link has had the most 3D games, four compared to Mario and Samus's two each. So by the time Wind Waker was to come around there was already Ocarina Of Time and the unique-3-days-system from Majora's Mask. The most obvious difference in Wind Waker was its cel-shaded look, but the game also had sailing. I personally didn't like the sailing, it took too long most of the time, but it was an additional gameplay element nonetheless. And Twilight Princess has the werewolf thing going on. One thing about Zelda games is curious; everyone (who isn't a major fan) thinks it's always about Link saving Zelda from Ganon, but until Wind Waker, every game introduced a new villain (that is, if you count Ganon/Agahnim/Ganondorf as separate) and the games come in pairs, it seems, with one game in each pair not involving Ganon (or one of his other forms) as the final boss. So it only happens half the time, which is as close to never as always, technically. I think it's the Ganon ones that sell better, but that's (kind of) beside the point.
I think my original point was that Nintendo hasn't hit a brick wall when it comes to coming up with something actually new in sequels. I think the thing is that consumers care less about the characters and situations regardless. Especially those that are more plot-based than gameplay-based. I probably went off on a tangent there, but I would agree with Ian's last point in the particular regard that the controller will add "newness" to continuing franchises, and this difference is more immediately evident than Samus finding herself in two intertwined worlds, for example.
I just hope I'm not playing the exact same games by flicking my wrist up instead of pressing A to jump, but as I pointed out, Nintendo should still be capable of coming up with new things in sequels.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on December 07, 2005, 08:19:03 AM
anyways, if this launches at $200 without the shell controller and a game I might be pissed. I want $150. $200 w/ Smash Bros.
but this worries me --- they need to keep load times down. We play SSB:M all day (my dorm room is a vortex) and I love how there's never more than a 2-3 second load time before battles. I hope Ninty can keep access times down.
Also they need to know that they are walking the fine line between gaming console and one of those shifty TV games like baseball or golf, or even that thing that you draw on and then it shows up on the TV.
Post by: JonLeung on December 07, 2005, 08:25:00 AM
The whole "maturity" thing is really hard to define, and unfortnately is best described with a combination of societal perceptions. You can say a game's mature if the ESRB gives it an M or higher. You can say that's not the case, since that's too literal, but at the same time based on one organization's perception. You can say that games like Conker are IMmature, considering its content. Like fart jokes would really win you much respect in a truly mature setting. But then you could say the game is mature because only mature gamers can play it without carrying that immaturity out of the game. Etc. Personally I think it's stupid if people think they're more mature because they're beating up a prostitute instead of saving Dream Land.
It's not limited to genres, either, but for the typical-not-so-bright-consumers, it would help if Nintendo (or a second-party) could get an exclusive FPS ready for the Revolution right at launch. The controller is practically asking for it. Who would want to play FPSes with a two-handed gamepad (which would probably feel clunky after handling the Revolution remote controller) when you can do it so much easier and feel more involved when playing them on the Revolution?
Post by: Ian Sane on December 07, 2005, 08:47:28 AM
I've noticed that when Nintendo doesn't want to do something, but is being bugged about it, they blatantly half-ass it. Like if they throw us a few bones we'll shutup. It is REALLY obvious that Nintendo doesn't want to make mature games which is why we always get a lacklustre effort from them. It's the same thing with sports games. It's the same thing with demo discs (Nintendo has never really done much with the concept). It was the same thing with online play. Thankfully that was only something they temporarily didn't want to do but on the Cube it was like "we're not interested in this so we're not going to help anyone else use this feature. Oh the fans want it. We'll just throw them a few LAN games and hopefully they'll shutup." It's a very big problem because it scares people away. Sadly Nintendo doesn't realize that third party support is the solution to the problem. Nintendo doesn't have to make games they don't want to if third parties fill in the gaps for them. But since Nintendo typically just makes a few token third party deals and not much else I think they don't care about that issue either. As long as their games sell and they make a profit who cares.
That's why I'm so sceptical about this "Nintendo is an 'and' company" stuff because they've said the same thing about mature games and it was a half-assed effort. If Nintendo truly is focused on non-gamers and on being everyone's secondary console then they're not going to make any serious effort to appeal to hardcore gamers.
"I think it's the Ganon ones that sell better, but that's (kind of) beside the point."
I think the Ganon ones sell better because they're always the first one released. When the first Zelda game is released there is still hope that Nintendo's console will be a serious competitor. When the second one is released everone already knows the console is a "failure" and thus there's less interest. That's how it works for the 3D ones anyway.
"Nintendo isn't as guilty of cookie-cutter sequels as others."
I agree. But by Nintendo standards they've fallen big time. Plus when Capcom releases cookie-cutter sequels it doesn't matter because they don't provide 90% of the major games for a console by themselves. You don't notice when a third party does it or Sony and MS does it because there's enough other new stuff on the PS2 and Xbox that you don't care.
Post by: JonLeung on December 07, 2005, 09:14:55 AM
Why make mature games when they typically don't sell as well as E-rated games? If Pokémon and Mario sell, why not continue with those? The GTA games are among the very few exceptions.
Sure, there IS room and demand for M-rated games, and at least T-rated things that sell well like the Final Fantasy games. I think that the solution is not for Nintendo themselves to make games, but to entice the third-party developers that do so.
The controller is a good first step, at least for those who want to make creative games and not more GTA clones.
And yes, those developers are businesses too.
It's always about balancing creativity and cash flow, isn't it?
Post by: KDR_11k on December 07, 2005, 09:19:56 AM
Post by: Pittbboi on December 07, 2005, 09:22:17 AM
Post by: BigJim on December 07, 2005, 09:28:00 AM
It's squarely on Nintendo's lap to set the pace. Launch with a Halo killer and people will be more willing to buy those types of games later on.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 07, 2005, 09:35:30 AM
Nintendo doesn't just sell games, they sell consoles. Making only E-rated games would be a fine strategy for a third party developer. But a console won't sell if it just has E-rated games. It needs variety and that means lots of different target demographics, genres, styles, etc. Nintendo's "every game for everybody" approach doesn't work because everything ends up being the same style so anyone who doesn't like Mario doesn't like ANYTHING Nintendo makes at all. The Playstation brand hasn't been so successful because it has mature games. It's successful because it has all types of games. The PS2 is a true "everyone" console. Hardcore gamers, casual gamers, men, women, adults, children, sports gamers, rpg nuts, fighting game fans, hardcore shmup players, etc. ALL can find a fair amount of games that interest them. The Gamecube is the most restrictive console as only a Nintendo fan would be able to get any serious use out of the thing. Now third parties are the key here but Nintendo will NEVER get decent third party support unless they sell consoles and they don't sell consoles because they have no variety so the ONLY way to fix that problem is to, at least temporarily, provide the variety themselves.
Nintendo had the "mature" audience with Goldeneye on the N64 but they followed it up with Banjo-Kazooie and everyone bailed. The easiest solution to their problem is to have a big mature title and if it takes off have other mature games to keep the momentum going. That means not releasing one mature game (Eternal Darkness), having it flop, and then never trying again. They have to keep trying until they release a title that catches on and they have to keep a steady flow of non-everybody titles in the works so that if something catchs fire they're not stuck having to wait a few years to get a follow-up developed.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 07, 2005, 09:49:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"The real complaint was "your third party support sucks" but Nintendo misinterpreted that and instead rushed their games. Typical out-of-touch Nintendo solution."
I agree that people wanted better third party support, but there was also a ton of complaining about Nintendo's delays and slow release schedule. Any time a game got delayed on the N64 there was a huge collective moan from the public. Ian, you'll probably argue that by saying that better third party support would have prevented that, which is true, but the message to Nintendo was clear: We don't like delays.
As for mature games, we can argue over the definition of mature all day, but we know what people mean when they say Nintendo isn't mature enough: it isn't offering the types of adult-themed games that sell to the current mainstream gaming audience. Those are FPS', war simulators, Horror games, and Grant Theft Auto. But how is Nintendo supposed to fix this? Either it can focus most of its attention on the mature games market, which we all know it won't do, or it can pay off a bunch of third parties to do the same thing. The thing is, Nintendo has to pay a lot of third parties a lot of money to make this strategy work: Resident Evil and MGS: TS weren't enough. Can Nintendo really afford to pay off enough developers to produce, say, 5 exclusive mature titles per year?
In the end it doesn't matter because I think with Revolution Nintendo is saying, "Screw that demographic". Can Nintendo attract a new demographic instead? We'll see.
Post by: JonLeung on December 07, 2005, 10:03:21 AM
This way, any gamer over about the age of 20 who has memories of games a few generations back, whether they were with the Nintendo camp (NES/Super NES) or Sega camp (Master System/Genesis) would get a Revolution for nostalgia alone. Monopoly on the classics!
That is, if older gamers are into nostalgia when the alternative is something like Halo 3. >_<
But I think the download service really would sell better among the over-20s than the below-20s.
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 07, 2005, 10:17:55 AM
During the NES, and SNES era. Nobody would have argued that Mario was a I LOVE HALO 2 game. Mario was a platformer that agreed with all ages. Mature games loved the game, younger players enjoyed the game, and teens enjoyed the game.
The same has been true with EVERY ONE of Nintendo's major franchises has this mass appeal.
Now, you we changed the rules on Nintendo. We have told them that we believe Mario is 'I LOVE HALO 2'. We believe Pokemon is 'I LOVE HALO 2', and now we believe Zelda is 'I LOVE HALO 2'. Why because they get an 'E' rating for everyone?
Mario 64 and specially Mario Sunshine had some really difficult sections of the game that could only be beaten by skilled, sophisticated players. Sure the plot was silly, and colors were bright, but the game itself was a true Mario experience.
Pokemon is a very serious RPG wrapped around a cute package, and a lighthearted story. However, because of a cartoon show that exists no 'mature' gamer will touch the series.
Nintendo's style has always been to make great games that appeal to everyone...and people have now twisted that to mean Nintendo doesn't care about mature gamers.
Well I ask what about these series is not for mature gamers:
Mario
Mario Kart
Fire Emblem
Super Smash Brothers
Advance Wars
Metroid
Zelda
Mario RPGs (Paper, and GBA/DS games)
Has there been a game or two in these series that has appealed to younger markets alittle more? Sure. But look back and tell me that Nintendo has really changed their style much from back in the day? No, we have changed and become jadded. Because now it is acceptable to have Cop Killing heros, raping and stealing cars in our games. (YEAH, that is really Mature.)
Nintendo's approach is to gaming is more mature and sophisticated than most of the M rated games out there...but we just won't accept it, because the industry has become overrun by teens that are too insecure to play anything accept what looks cool to them.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on December 07, 2005, 10:29:10 AM
Post by: JonLeung on December 07, 2005, 10:34:28 AM
I remember kids on the bus making fun of another who played Pokémon, and then he caved and one day was like, "yeah, I finally gave up on Pokémon" a couple days before the next games in the series came out. You could tell there were some insecurity issues there.
Unfortunately image is hard to change when you're against alternatives that throw a lot of marketing dollars down. It's difficult for me, being 25, to express my enthusiasm for the next Nintendo game. Oftentimes it comes down to someone saying "Nintendo sucks" and trying to change the conversation to something they can relate to, like a PS2 or Xbox game. If I try to factually express that gameplay=/=number of colours, they still can't follow because they stick with their obviously skewed-by-the-media perception. And though many of them have a GameCube now it's rarely a topic of discussion when there's yet another game, even if generic, on another console that just came out and doesn't involve throwing Poké Balls.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 07, 2005, 10:38:40 AM
People were complaining about delays but that was only because the third party support was weak. Nintendo's output level on the N64 was probably pretty comparable to the SNES. It's just that on the N64 you could notice the delays because there was pretty much nothing else being released. People did mean "we hate delays" but that's not really what they needed. Nintendo should have read between the lines there and come of the conclusion that though they think they hate delays they really hate gaps in the release schedule which were the result of poor third party support. Nintendo was treating a sympton instead of a problem. If a patient says they have headaches do you give them an Aspirin or do you try to find out why they're having headaches?
People always ask for sequels too but that's not always what you should give them. Often what they're REALLY asking for is a game that will give them the same satisfaction they felt when they first played that game. How many times have you seen people on message boards talk about some old game they loved and how fresh and exciting it was and how they want a sequel? How many times did those same people complain when a highly anticipated sequel arrived and failed to deliver? I love Gunstar Heroes but I don't want the sequel. That's because what made Gunstar so great to me was it's uniqueness. The sequel repeats some of the same bosses and thus lacks that uniqueness. Fans asked for those bosses to return and they were foolish to do so. What they REALLY were asking for were bosses as creative and original as those in the original game but they didn't actually realize that.
It sounds a little confusing now that I re-read what I've typed but sometimes what a person asks for isn't really what they want and a company like Nintendo has to be able to spot that.
Post by: JonLeung on December 07, 2005, 10:46:59 AM
I think they said that at one point, actually, I can't remember if they said it in a way that didn't sound arrogant.
Hopefully for the sake of all those naysayers of the controller that Nintendo's departure from tradition here is what gamers want whether they realise it or not yet.
Post by: trip1eX on December 07, 2005, 10:58:12 AM
I think the 'Cube started off with decent 3rd party support in America. But it slipped as the Xbox started to outsell it. Tho folks seem to forget EA and Ubisoft make alot of games (most of their major ones) for the 'Cube still.
I also think Nintendo has to start facing the facts that the American market is different than the Japanese market. They need to face this especially as a software developer.
Anyway I think it's just the nature of the beast as far entertainment goes that what worked 20 years ago doesn't necessarily work today. The same movies and music certainly aren't as popular today as 20 years ago and I think the same with games. And what I'm really talking about is image. Because I mean the stories really haven't changed. But they need updating to appeal to today's youth.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 07, 2005, 11:01:52 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 07, 2005, 11:14:49 AM
Playstation became Hip when it took the market from Nintendo during the PS/N64 era. And then Sony started releasing games (as well as 3rd parties) that have never been seen on Nintendo before...bloody, mature oriented games. Soon Sony became known as the system for these games, though if you look back, Nintendo 64 had several games like this as well.
That myth just continued to carry throughout all of Nintendo. Soon Nintendo became a younger system, because these new hip games weren't on it.
However, to ask Nintendo to change and adjust to become hip is to ask them to sell their souls to the devil. A great example is Lunatics. They tried to make Looney Toons hip, but destroyed everything that was loveable and interesting about the characters. If you ask Nintendo to make their games and characters hip, and geared towards more mature characters, you are asking creators and artists to betray their art, and their personal style.
You actually kill Nintendo.
Post by: ruby_onix on December 07, 2005, 11:18:32 AM
Quote
An article published by US website IGN this morning revealed some details of the console, and several developers today have spoken to GamesIndustry.biz to help fill in the gaps.
Quote
The picture we're building up of the final console is as follows; the Cube will be powered by the IBM CPU codenamed Broadway, which is very similar to the Gekko CPU used in the GameCube, but runs at around twice the clock speed and offers potentially two to three times the overall performance, and the ATI graphics chip codenamed Hollywood.
While Broadway is well-understood by developers, the ATI part remains "a bit of a black box", according to one senior developer we spoke to. "We have theoretical throughput figures and stats from Nintendo, but nobody's seen the hardware yet - we're just treating it like it's a faster version of the GameCube GPU, at the moment."
Quote
In terms of RAM, the system is well-known to boast 512MB of Flash RAM which can be used to store save games and downloaded content, but this will not be accessible to developers, we were told. What they'll have available is 96MB of main memory, built on the same 1T-SRAM architecture as the Cube, and "a few megs here and there for other stuff" - such as 3MB of on-board memory on the graphics chip, which will be used for a frame buffer. "That's plenty, since the Revolution isn't supporting HDTV," one developer added.
Quote
"You can basically treat it like a current generation machine," one told us. "The time it'll take to ramp up to developing on this is basically nil - we can just work on a PC or maybe an Xbox, and then improve the quality of our assets when we move to the Revolution. Or even work on a Cube, in fact. The libraries are very similar."
"We could do a game for this in a few months," commented another developer. "Developing games is going to be easy, the challenge is going to be using the controller properly."
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 07, 2005, 11:22:46 AM
Keanu: "WHOA."
Thank you, gaming journalists.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 07, 2005, 11:29:44 AM
That only applies if you ask Nintendo to make Mario cool which no one is asking (though I wouldn't mind them removing things they added later that made him less cool like his voice). But there is nothing stopping Nintendo from making some new franchises to appeal to a new generation of gamers. They don't even have to be dark and gory. They just have to be different because younger gamers today don't identify with Mario and they shouldn't have to. Note that Nintendo had a huge boom with kids when Pokemon came out. That was brand new and the kids of the time period took it as their own. In 1988 kids had Mario and in 1998 they had Pokemon. Kids need something in 2008. The way Nintendo is going they would try to give them Mario and Pokemon again and neither would work.
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 07, 2005, 11:33:45 AM
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on December 07, 2005, 11:38:40 AM
Post by: JonLeung on December 07, 2005, 11:48:18 AM
And RE4 probably would've sold better on the GCN if they didn't announce that it was coming to the PS2 shortly BEFORE the GCN version came out.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on December 07, 2005, 11:56:36 AM
I'm not saying it'll boost the Rev's marketshare; I'm just saying that it's a huge plus for me. And when it comes to me playing games, I'm the one who matters.
Post by: Nile Boogie on December 07, 2005, 11:56:59 AM
Revolutions final specs will be simalar to the MacMini.
Post by: BigJim on December 07, 2005, 12:12:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Hmmm let my try to make my point another way.
During the NES, and SNES era. Nobody would have argued that Mario was a I LOVE HALO 2 game. Mario was a platformer that agreed with all ages. Mature games loved the game, younger players enjoyed the game, and teens enjoyed the game.
The same has been true with EVERY ONE of Nintendo's major franchises has this mass appeal.
Now, you we changed the rules on Nintendo. We have told them that we believe Mario is 'I LOVE HALO 2'. We believe Pokemon is 'I LOVE HALO 2', and now we believe Zelda is 'I LOVE HALO 2'. Why because they get an 'E' rating for everyone?
Mario 64 and specially Mario Sunshine had some really difficult sections of the game that could only be beaten by skilled, sophisticated players. Sure the plot was silly, and colors were bright, but the game itself was a true Mario experience.
Pokemon is a very serious RPG wrapped around a cute package, and a lighthearted story. However, because of a cartoon show that exists no 'mature' gamer will touch the series.
Nintendo's style has always been to make great games that appeal to everyone...and people have now twisted that to mean Nintendo doesn't care about mature gamers.
Well I ask what about these series is not for mature gamers:
Mario
Mario Kart
Fire Emblem
Super Smash Brothers
Advance Wars
Metroid
Zelda
Mario RPGs (Paper, and GBA/DS games)
Has there been a game or two in these series that has appealed to younger markets alittle more? Sure. But look back and tell me that Nintendo has really changed their style much from back in the day? No, we have changed and become jadded. Because now it is acceptable to have Cop Killing heros, raping and stealing cars in our games. (YEAH, that is really Mature.)
Nintendo's approach is to gaming is more mature and sophisticated than most of the M rated games out there...but we just won't accept it, because the industry has become overrun by teens that are too insecure to play anything accept what looks cool to them.
Back in the NES and SNES days, video gamers were predominantly pre-teen and teenage boys. The debate over "kid games" didn't exist to any great extent because game content was fine for that audience. But the audience grew up. NES gamers are likely playing PlayStation and Xbox now (if anything).
If you're trying to say the market changed and Nintendo didn't change with it, then I agree 100%. But that's Nintendo's fault. Irrelevance is the DNA for failure. This shift in the market is not a fad. Video gaming is a subset of pop culture now which spans all age groups. You either move with the times or fade into obscurity.
We know what Nintendo's style is. The problem isn't what they're doing. It's what they're not doing. Not everybody wants "everybody" games. Clearly their increasing marketplace irrelevance has indicated this. They rely on "everybody" games because they have to. A healthy, diversified platform wouldn't have that problem.
Another Mario or Zelda is not the answer to the gaping hole that is "no answer to Halo, Doom, Half-Life 2, World of Warcraft, GTA, Call of Duty, Unreal Tournament, etc." And if those games are only meant for insecure teens, then I will proudly say I'm a 27 year old trapped in a teenage time warp. Because those are the types of games Nintendo lacks, and some of which I would LOVE to play on this new controller.
The marketplace hasn't been overrun with teenagers since the 90's. There are just as many real, "secure" adults out there playing games as there are pimply-faced kids, if not more so. And about 80% of them aren't playing GameCube, that's for sure.
Perception is reality in business. Nintendo has a perception problem, whether real or imaginary. As couchmonkey said, the definition of "mature" can be debated, but we all know what we mean despite whatever personal spin we want to put on it. Perhaps "mature" really isn't the right word. But we should at least be able to understand it in theory.
What is Nintendo going to do to reverse the very real trend, if anything? That remains to be seen. They're capable of setting the pace with a Halo killer if they so choose to make one with the new controller. They've been *all talk* when it comes to the mature/hip/whatever demographic, with no bite. So let's see something, if they're really serious about being for "everybody".
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 07, 2005, 12:21:47 PM
You can't tell a developer or an artist to create something they initially don't desire to make.
Nintendo did the right thing by trying to branch out and bring in developers to make games for them.
Capcom, Silicon Knights...Nintendo needs to do more of this, but only when the developers and Nintendo can get on the same page.
Post by: JonLeung on December 07, 2005, 12:22:41 PM
Sometimes I wish Nintendo would throw up a big ad saying "YOU DUMMIES. 9 OUT OF 10 DECENT XBOX GAMES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE PC TOO." It would certainly stir up controversy. I know not everyone has a decent computer like I do, but certainly Microsoft has said things with less factual basis, like the ad implying that Nintendo is for sissies.
Post by: Kairon on December 07, 2005, 12:38:51 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 07, 2005, 12:48:19 PM
Post by: mjbd on December 07, 2005, 12:49:28 PM
Post by: BigJim on December 07, 2005, 12:58:28 PM
I still think it's FINE for standard definition games. 2.5x the GameCube means about 2x the Xbox (subjectively speaking). I don't think anybody should get their panties in a bunch over that... unless they're still pissed off about the no-HD thing, which is their perogative. I think that sucks too.
Post by: ruby_onix on December 07, 2005, 01:03:19 PM
The problem is, Nintendo doesn't seem to want the little guys anymore. They pretty much booted them all in favor of building canvases that suit their own personal needs.
Yeah, the Revolutionary Controller is awesome, and if it's cheap enough there may eventually be one in every home in America. But I fear that the clearly "limited" nature of their design (which I'm sure Nintendo's quite satisfied with) is going to simply hand another generation of success to Nintendo's competitors, as soon as they decide to copy the Revolutionary Controller. Unless Nintendo's monopoly powers kick in before then. Those are obviously Nintendo's favorite way to keep the third parties in line.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on December 07, 2005, 01:06:26 PM
Why are you guys ignoring this? This is great news!
Bill - the reason why I liked those FMV's is because they are smooth. The textures are high-quality and the animation is great. I'd like to see something like an FMV but real....wouldn't you? Answering yes doesn't make you a graphic-whore......
Also, I don't get this whole debate over the 2-3 times more powerful comment (ghz, megs, and all that other stuff included). To get upset over this, first of all (1), you need to know what 2-3 times more powerful means graphically. Second of all (2), you'd have to actually care about it not being many more times powerful like the 360 for example.
1: If I compared the prettiest N64 game to the sh!ttiest Cube game (disregarding art style, e.g., animal crossing and cubivore), I'd probably say that the cube is about 2-3 times better than the N64. Who says there not doing this now? What I'm getting at is "2-3 times more powerful" is all about perspective.
2: Now, imagine two cameras. One is 3 mpx; the other is 6 mpx. If I were to actually know my sh!t (like a developer would) I would say that technically, the 6 mpx camera is far more advanced than the 3 mpx. To the consumer, however, one is noticeably more clear but it is also more expensive. All, but the most devoted of consumers, decide that they don't need the "future" yet, and pick up the far cheaper 3 mpx camera. Now, imagine if the 6 mpx and the 3 mpx cameras where on the same playing field. If they both shot a 640 X 480 picture, even with the 6 mpx's power, the two pictures are indistinguishable. So if you could only print pictures in 640 X 480, then what's the point of payin $200 or more on a 6 mpx camera?
The only thing that would teeter the decision is if the 6 mpx is from a highly reputable company and its quality will last for years. Also the features would play a role.
Let's talk about the Xbox 360 and REV in terms of features, reputation, and quality.
Nintendo wins point for point on a SD tv....that's all that matters to Nintendo.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 07, 2005, 01:12:20 PM
It has nothing to do with me hating nice graphics, I just don't like the obstruct shiny-ness...Compare a game like Twilight Princess to what we've seen of nextgen thus far (such as Perfect Dark Zero) and there's this nasty film of shiny goo on nextgen games that I reaaaally don't like...If Ninty could create what is seen in the FMV in a less shiny state then I'll be all good...
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on December 07, 2005, 01:14:09 PM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on December 07, 2005, 01:16:10 PM
When used in abudance, I think it makes everything look fake.
Post by: ruby_onix on December 07, 2005, 01:18:24 PM
Quote
Also, I don't get this whole debate over the 2-3 times more powerful comment (ghz, megs, and all that other stuff included). To get upset over this, first of all you need to know what 2-3 times more powerful means graphically.
The GamesIndustry.biz report says "2x the clock speed, 2-3x the performance". I would expect that "polygons per second" is a good indicator of performance.
Sooo... Take pretty much any game from this generation of consoles... if it's running at 30fps, bump it up to 60fps... add a Revolutionary Control method... and... you're done. There's the Revolution.
The next generation, as Nintendo apparently sees it.
Unless/until Nintendo gives us some reason to believe otherwise.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on December 07, 2005, 01:24:03 PM
Post by: Kairon on December 07, 2005, 01:24:09 PM
For Nintendo, Silicon Knights and Left Field and Factor 5 were pretty much duds. Retro had HUGE problems early on, who would've known that despite laying off all those people and cancelling 4 of their 5 projects that they'd come out more or less ok? And it's debatable, but Rareware has also turned out to be not all they were made up to be. Going back to 1998, it looks like Nintendo got lucky with the Pokemon Franchise creators GameFreaks.
In the meantime, companies like Bungie and DMA became big. Who was DMA before GTA3 you ask? They made Space Station Silicon Valley and Body Harvest. Did any of you guys out there buy those games? They were lukewarm according to reviewers and their sales weren't that great either, but you gotta look at what their style was. If you had been able to look at a Space Station Silicon Valley in 1999 and had the courage to say "These guys are gonna make great games, BUY DMA whatever you do!" then give yourself a pat on the back. You just picked the rare winner out of the entire stockmarket.
The question with the little companies is: who is the next DMA? Not N-Space nor Kuju. I personally can't think of any companies that I feel are on the verge of breaking out. Maybe hunt down the Cubivore people, but they might not be able to deliver a high-content game since Cubivore was very very straightforward contentwise. Konami's already gripped hard onto the music genre, but if you'd foreseen that you'd probably be rich now... Maybe Suda51, but you'd have to hope that they can create a game that doesn't have the trappings of a game and cut down on immersion killing extras and concentrating more on seamless user-game connections.
God, are there any innovative companies today who have games out that could match DMA's Body Harvest? Are there any companies out there capable of coming to the table with new-concept ideas that can, as Miyamoto does, up-end the tea table?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on December 07, 2005, 01:28:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onix
Sooo... Take pretty much any game from this generation of consoles... if it's running at 30fps, bump it up to 60fps... and... you're done.
Hey, you just described the XBox360 on a standard TV! To describe the PS3 you'd need to bump it up to 120FPS, but yeah...
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ruby_onix on December 07, 2005, 01:48:37 PM
Quote
Well how is bumping up the framerate bumping up the number of polygons per second?
Framerate consumes polygons-per-second.
Like, you know how the Cube is supposed to do 6-12 million polygons-per-second? Well, if you take 12 million polys-per-second, divide it by 30 frames-per-second, you can guess that things onscreen can be made up of 400,000 polys, before things start to bog down. If you make the game 60 frames-per-second, then you can only use 200,000 polys. Do you see how that works?
If the Rev is 24 million polygons-per-second, then it can do that 400,000 polygon game with the silky smoothness of 60fps. If they're willing to go with 30fps, then they can have 800,000 polygon games, the kind which would barely run on this generation (at a clunky 15fps).
Yes, two times the polygons-per-second is a nice thing, and nobody would turn it down.
But last generation Sony said the PS2 could do 66 million polygons-per-second (which was a lie, of course). This time, (IIRC) they're saying the PS3 can do 1.5 billion. Hideo Kojima is daring people to regognize even a single visible polygon anywhere in his MGS4 trailer. Even if that's jumping from lie-to-lie, that is what you call a "generation leap". Two times is not.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 07, 2005, 01:54:31 PM
I'll give you Left Field but SK and F5 are both talented developers that could have done way better if Nintendo wasn't such a moron regarding marketing. Eternal Darkness was given a horrible marketing push and then SK was treated like a glorified port house to work on a remake of MGS. ED itself was quite good which you can't say for Giest. They left apparently because they didn't like the direction Nintendo is taking regarding non-gamers. Factor 5 made THE killer app for the Cube in Rogue Leader but Nintendo focused on Luigi's Mansion instead in their commercials. Rebel Strike sucked but considering that Factor 5's N64 games were also quite good I consider that a fluke caused by a poor design decision to feature foot missions. F5 left because of Nintendo skimping on the hardware (I think). If Nintendo wasn't making an underpowered remote-controlled non-gamer console conceivably BOTH developers would still be with Nintendo. They had talent. Nintendo just blatantly misused them.
And regardless of how you feel about Rare now they made the game that let the SNES beat the Genesis and they basically carried the N64 on their back. Rare is one of the best things Nintendo has ever had. They probably wouldn't have been able stay in the console market without them.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 07, 2005, 02:00:10 PM
Sony also spent a fortune designing their chip, will be selling at a price that might cause you to mortgage your house, and is banking on people playing more of the same with new coat of paint...That's not a generation leap to me...It's more like another step up a decrepit ladder...
There are also games that just wouldn't benefit that much from a framerate jump from 30 to 60...Wind Waker runs at a nice and steady 30 (people say there are times where framerate drops, but I've honestly never seen it), and I never would have guessed such if I had been asked the first time I played the game...Now stop doublestandarding Ninty on these things when you'll be seeing the same problems on the other side...You think we'll be seeing pretty 60 fps games on the other consoles soon? Ha, I think not...
Post by: Mario on December 07, 2005, 02:16:21 PM
Quote
The question with the little companies is: who is the next DMA? Not N-Space nor Kuju.
Why not?
Quote
Even if that's jumping from lie-to-lie, that is what you call a "generation leap". Two times is not.
Eh, my eyes will decide that. Doesn't look very substantial to me.
Post by: foolish03 on December 07, 2005, 02:24:05 PM
IGN may be wrong
Post by: BigJim on December 07, 2005, 02:24:50 PM
Quote
and is banking on people playing more of the same with new coat of paint..
Sounds like the N64-to-Cube transition to me.
Post by: Kairon on December 07, 2005, 02:33:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"For Nintendo, Silicon Knights and Left Field and Factor 5 were pretty much duds."
I'll give you Left Field but SK and F5 are both talented developers that could have done way better if Nintendo wasn't such a moron regarding marketing. Eternal Darkness was given a horrible marketing push and then SK was treated like a glorified port house to work on a remake of MGS. ED itself was quite good which you can't say for Giest. They left apparently because they didn't like the direction Nintendo is taking regarding non-gamers. Factor 5 made THE killer app for the Cube in Rogue Leader but Nintendo focused on Luigi's Mansion instead in their commercials. Rebel Strike sucked but considering that Factor 5's N64 games were also quite good I consider that a fluke caused by a poor design decision to feature foot missions. F5 left because of Nintendo skimping on the hardware (I think). If Nintendo wasn't making an underpowered remote-controlled non-gamer console conceivably BOTH developers would still be with Nintendo. They had talent. Nintendo just blatantly misused them.
And regardless of how you feel about Rare now they made the game that let the SNES beat the Genesis and they basically carried the N64 on their back. Rare is one of the best things Nintendo has ever had. They probably wouldn't have been able stay in the console market without them.
Look at Factor 5's history with Nintendo and you will realize that they're a one-trick pony. You're gonna tell me that Indiana Jones on the N64 and the Rogue Squadron copycat Battle for Naboo insinuate that Factor 5 shows a strong developmental history? The only time that Factor 5 has struck success has been with the Rogue Leader formula, and that formula was not only stale with RS3, but they failed utterly at delivering any other gameplay to shore it up. Factor 5's only redeeming trait was that, hey, look, they gave Bespin some really nice textures. Factor 5 made nice space fighter action engines, but precious nothing else. That's why they left Nintendo, because Nintendo saw no reason in keeping them after it became apparent that the allure of Rogue Squadron had been squandered.
And have you PLAYED Silicon Knight's Eternal Darkness? They credit Miyamoto for teaching them alot about game control, but that game's control was still off-kilter. The game was basically a standard 3rd person action game with exceptional atmosphere and concept, but no real gameplay meat. Reading the game's reviews finds reviewers struggling to justify why the game is anything more than a set of pretty cinemas strung together by the sparkling innovationy (yes, I think all us Nintendo fans can let the cat out of the bag now) sanity system and run-of-the mill third person gameplay. Apparently, gamers saw through that because they weren't convinced to pick up the title in even respectable numbers. I bought the game, I played all three threads, I ENJOYED it even! But the fact is, the game did not deserve all the hype that fans gave it, nor did it deliver on the promises of SK.
Furthermore, looking at the many Too Human concepts through time we can find certainly a lot of fanciful cyberpunk wishful thinking, a lot of talk about solving things either via stealth or action, but nothing truly innovative or nothing that hadn't been done before. The X360 incarnation is finally looking to bring the game down to a plain simple action game with a sci-fi setting, something appealing yes but also something that it isn't worth losing sleep over any time soon. The reason why SK left Nintendo is because yes, they disagreed with Nintendo. Silicon Knights thought that Too Human was the next big thing, and Nintendo disagreed.
No, I must stand by my evaluations of these companies. The strikes against them are inherent in actual game design, not mere technical acuity or stylistic quirks... but actual matter-of-fact game design, or lack of.
And we can certainly thank Rare for Donkey Kong Country and Goldeneye, but approximately a decade has passed between now and then and if you think that this is still the same company, well... no, lol. It most definitely isn't.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 07, 2005, 02:42:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJimQuote
and is banking on people playing more of the same with new coat of paint..
Sounds like the N64-to-Cube transition to me.
Pretty much...Get to know me well enough and you'll see that I've been tiring of console gaming for quite a while now...There are few titles that have kept me playing console games, and this has mainly been for Wind Waker and Jungle Beat...As I've said before, if Nintendo's next system was merely a more powerful Gamecube I would most likely not even bothered getting it until the next Zelda came out, and I would only pop back in for more unique titles (such as Jungle Beat and Animal Crossing, etc...)
The first turning point was with the DS...The DS has already given birth to some absolutely unique and fun titles like Yoshi Touch & Go, Kirby Canvas Curse, Nintendogs, and Ouendan (which I hope to get within the month!) and this is the path I want to see games go...It's the same reason I cannot wait for the Revolution...It's not because I'm a Nintendo fanboy that I can't wait...I'm not a sheep, and I don't appreciate it when people don't even bother trying to discuss an issue with me and instead say, "Oh, but you're a Nintendo fanboy, so that's why you think it's okay for Nintendo to do this..." I've been waiting YEARS for someone to do something about how incredibly dull games have gotten, and I'm happy that Nintendo is the one to hopefully spark a charge in the industry and garner my re-interest in console gaming...
Post by: ruby_onix on December 07, 2005, 03:15:11 PM
Quote
Sony also spent a fortune designing their chip, will be selling at a price that might cause you to mortgage your house, and is banking on people playing more of the same with new coat of paint...
Which is pretty much the exact same thing Sony did with the PS2.
With the N64, Nintendo delivered a $200 supercomputer with a revolutionary new control method, leaving everyone scratching their heads wondering how it was possible. (And then they tripped up big time.)
With the GameCube, Nintendo delivered a $200 supercomputer which tried to fix a blunder that should never have happened, but didn't do much else. Nobody was left scratching their heads about the "$200 supercomputer" part, because Nintendo had them all convinced it was an overpriced $100 Fisher Price toy, and because MS had a more reasonable looking $300 supercomputer on the market.
With the Revolution, Nintendo will apparently deliver a $100 Fisher Price toy with a Revolutionary new control method.
I don't believe that Nintendo can't compete on a level playing field with Sony. Actually, I think if Nintendo really tried, Sony honestly wouldn't stand a chance. Seriously. I would like the Rev to be a $200 supercomputer with a revolutionary new control method, that leaves people scratching their heads wondering how a thing of such greatness is even possible. And without the collosal blunder this time, since I know the two don't automatically go hand-in-hand.
But... I guess I'll just have to wait and see what we're offered.
Post by: Mario on December 07, 2005, 03:25:17 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 07, 2005, 03:26:53 PM
I'm just sitting here shaking my head, wondering just where the hell you've been for the past year, with Ninty trying to expand the industry...Do you REALLY think Sony and MS are going to be expanding the industry? Is there really someone out there that stupid to go, "Oh hey, I used to hate gaming, but now it's even prettier and in HD! I'm going to spend a lot of money on it!" GIVE ME A BREAK! For once, people, use some common sense and actually listen to what Ninty has been saying! They aren't trying to win back Sony and MS fans, who are pretty much implanted in their systems...They wish to bring new gamers to the table, those that HAVE NEVER CARED FOR GAMING BEFORE, they wish to satisfy the hardcore tastes of their fans (those who aren't little pissy ****s that whine constantly about visuals), and as a side quest they hope to be a second choice of the Sony and MS fans who didn't give the Gamecube a second thought (and thus will look at the Rev in terms of a new form of gameplay)...
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 07, 2005, 03:27:15 PM
Post by: Rhoq on December 07, 2005, 03:37:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
What does fisher price mean?
Fisher-Price is a specialty division of Mattel which is known specifically for making toys for infants, toddlers and young children. They used to have a line of (quality) electronics made for young children (not sure if they still do, but more than likely they do). Man, when I was a kid, I absolutely loved my Fisher-Price price turntable (record player) and cassette recorder.
Fisher-Price Website
Post by: Mario on December 07, 2005, 03:44:08 PM
Man.. .that would be amazing if they had stuff like the Revolution controller when I was a kid. I actually remember back in the day when I learned how to control pad, this would be 100 times that feeling!
Post by: ruby_onix on December 07, 2005, 03:45:12 PM
Quote
What does fisher price mean?
Assuming you're serious (you can never tell on PGC anymore), they're a toy company. They make brightly-colored plastic toys for young children to smack around and throw at things. The white plate on the front of the Cube in contrast to the rest of the system drew a few nasty comparisons to Fisher Price early in the Cube's life.
Quote
Fisher Price toy? I'm wondering if you've even seen the Rev system at all...
Yeah. The Rev looks cooler than the Cube did.
Radica maybe? Or How about Tiger Electronics?
Quote
I'm just sitting here shaking my head, wondering just where the hell you've been for the past year, with Ninty trying to expand the industry...
By going back to being a toymaker. Toys have always been popular with non-gamers. Not exactly an unexpected move, but it's bound to annoy the multi-billion dollar industry that Nintendo practically gave birth to.
Quote
They aren't trying to win back Sony and MS fans, who are pretty much implanted in their systems...
I'd settle for them trying to win back the Megaman fans, the Castlevania fans, the Final Fantasy fans, the Dragon Warrior fans, the Metal Gear fans... you probably get the idea.
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 07, 2005, 03:48:49 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 07, 2005, 03:51:58 PM
Radica maybe? Or How about Tiger Electronics?"
*crickets chirp*
"Not exactly an unexpected move, but it's bound to annoy the multi-billion dollar industry that Nintendo practically gave birth to."
Yeah I'm sure it's pissed off MS and Sony, considering this plan has a lot more thinking behind it than shoving more pieces into a box...Oh, and I'm sure the devs are pis...Wait, they AREN'T...
"I'd settle for them trying to win back the Megaman fans, the Castlevania fans, the Final Fantasy fans, the Dragon Warrior fans, the Metal Gear fans... you probably get the idea."
Without even knowing any nextgen titles, you could probably bet on quite a few coming back for the Virtual Console alone...Considering these people are the real fans of the games of the series, and aren't those that came in during the PS1 era...
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 07, 2005, 03:57:25 PM
QuoteVIDEO GAMES ARE TOYS, sooner or later you'll have to come to terms with that.
By going back to being a toymaker. Toys have always been popular with non-gamers. Not exactly an unexpected move, but it's bound to annoy the multi-billion dollar industry that Nintendo practically gave birth to.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 07, 2005, 04:19:36 PM
Post by: Dasmos on December 07, 2005, 04:33:43 PM
Quote
Yeah. The Rev looks cooler than the Cube did.
Radica maybe? Or How about Tiger Electronics?
What does that make PS3? Breville or maybe Russell Hobbs.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on December 07, 2005, 05:00:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BiLdItUp1
Bill, what do you mean? Wanna show us some screengrabs? Do you think the nextgen is too 'plastic?'
Check this out:
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/656/656823/perfect-dark-zero-20051007101141139.jpg
Perfect Dark Zero isn't nearly as bad as some of the other stuff, but what happened is developers got WAY too lighting happy and tried to emphasize their lighting techniques. Kind of, "HEY LOOK WHAT WE CAN DO WITH LIGHT!"
Post by: mantidor on December 07, 2005, 05:02:50 PM
so basically gamesindustry reported the same thing that ign but still ign made the revolution look bad?
Post by: mjbd on December 07, 2005, 05:03:24 PM
Quote
The console is more than capable of outputting some gorgeous standard definition games. But all the same, I'm offering you two valuable tips: stop clinging to the idea that Revolution is on par graphically with 360 and PS3 or you're going to set yourself up for a disappointment. Second, don't believe every marketing catch phrase that comes out of a Nintendo executive's mouth. You realize that Iwata usually doesn't even write those speeches, right? They come by way of Nintendo of America.
Matt from IGN posted this in the mailbag today. I think he summed it up perfectly. Rev definately does not look like a cheap toy, more like an IPOD to me. If you want a system that is going to give you insanely fantastic visuals, your gonna have to buy a PS3, and make sure you have a HDTV. I have been trying to figure out what Rev games will look like, and this is what I have come up with. Take elements of games from this generation, the best textures from this game, the best effects from this game, best character models from that game, and so on. I see Rev being able to incoperate all these things into one package.
Post by: darknight06 on December 07, 2005, 05:47:49 PM
One look at a close up in FIFA for the 360 says everything.
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 07, 2005, 05:48:31 PM
What I mean is.
A cheap, innovative, hip system, that is appeals to broad market, because it is cool and different.
A lower price point makes it perfect for this to happen...so does the retro downloadable games.
Post by: MysticGohan24 on December 07, 2005, 05:50:05 PM
I've seen 360, frankly I'm still waiting to be impressed.
I'd like to see what Rev is really capable of, until then I'll take a grain of salt to anything IGN splurges out
Post by: Artimus on December 07, 2005, 06:18:57 PM
Post by: zakkiel on December 07, 2005, 07:14:40 PM
QuoteThe middle sentence is questionable, but it's the first and last that are really risible. SK chose to work on MGS because they wanted to. And simply because you dislike the non-gamer policy does not make that the reason they left (which preceded Nintendo's announcements regarding the Rev, if I remember right).
Eternal Darkness was given a horrible marketing push and then SK was treated like a glorified port house to work on a remake of MGS. ED itself was quite good which you can't say for Giest. They left apparently because they didn't like the direction Nintendo is taking regarding non-gamers.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 07, 2005, 07:40:58 PM
Yeah, they left because of Ninty's direction towards "short, simple" games...You know, like Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3, etc...SK left because Ninty wouldn't give them a huge budget...
Post by: trip1eX on December 07, 2005, 07:46:35 PM
Post by: Samus Aaran on December 07, 2005, 09:10:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Well, 720p (1280x720) is 3X the pixel-area of 480p (640x480), so it's arguable to ask for bigger (~3X) textures to take advantage of the increased real-estate.
it's true that the pixel-area of 720p is 3 times bigger than the 480p. That means the graphics card of the ps3 and the X360 needs to have 3 times the pixel fil rates of the Revolution graphics card to take advantage of the 720p. But, for the use of memory for the textures it could be worse than 3 times the memory of the Revolution.
In video games they used lots of texture resolution of 256X256. And, when they want bigger resolution for the texture they tend to multiply by 2 the resolution to have texture of 512X512, 1024X1024, etc. because it would be to complicate to program a 3D engine that use lots of different bizarre texture resolution like 400X400 and it would require lots of extra calculation for the cpu. They never use texture with resolution like 512X256 because when you loads textures in graphics card, the graphics card reserve memory block for a square. Then, if you load a texture of 512X256 the graphics card use the memory for a texture of 512X512 and you basically waste 512X256 memory.
Texture of 256X256 use: 256ko
Texture of 512X512 use: 1024ko
Texture of 1024X1024 use: 4096ko
You see. It goes by step of 4 times more memory each time you take the next texture resolution. When Nintendo said that you would not really be able to see the difference betwen the Revolution and the other next-gen console on normal tv resolution they were surely not lying.
The Revolution don't really need the extra power of the X360 and ps3 to compete on normal resolution. Maybe the ps3 will have lots more power to spend on physics, on math calculation and lots more memory for lots of different textures if they develop a game with no HD resolution. But, the X360 is another story because Microsoft as require that all games must have HD resolution.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 07, 2005, 09:26:41 PM
Now that's detailed.
Post by: Rhoq on December 08, 2005, 01:34:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mjbdQuote
I have been trying to figure out what Rev games will look like, and this is what I have come up with. Take elements of games from this generation, the best textures from this game, the best effects from this game, best character models from that game, and so on. I see Rev being able to incoperate all these things into one package.
RE4 and LOZ:TP are perfect examples of what the Revolution's graphics will look like at the very least.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 08, 2005, 06:57:56 AM
Twilight Princess is a Cube game and thus is NO indication of what the Rev will offer. The Cube wasn't designed with non-gamers as a focus (in fact the very concept didn't really exist) and it has a normal controller. Metroid Prime 3 is just a name thrown out. We know nothing about it so we can't say what it is or isn't yet.
Post by: Artimus on December 08, 2005, 07:14:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
We know nothing about it so we can't say what it is or isn't yet.
That's pretty much applicable to everything you say.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 08, 2005, 09:12:28 AM
By the way, that's Doom 3, which has been ported to the XBox. I hope Hollywood has good shader performance so we'll see better material shaders but overall the Rev should be able to deliver graphics like that. Well, except for the textures, those will look a lot worse than Unreal Tournament 2004.
They never use texture with resolution like 512X256 because when you loads textures in graphics card, the graphics card reserve memory block for a square. Then, if you load a texture of 512X256 the graphics card use the memory for a texture of 512X512 and you basically waste 512X256 memory.
Not necessarily true. Some PC graphics cards work like this but I think it's completely nonexistent in the console world. I'm VERY sure that many PS2 and XBox games use non-square textures (haven't seen assets for any GC games but lots of PS2 and XBox texture flats).
Also, don't forget texture compression (growth stays the same but the absolute values shrink). All current gen consoles can do 6:1 compression. That can be applied to all textures except normalmaps (creates VERY visible artifacts).
Post by: Chris1 on December 08, 2005, 09:21:56 AM
Post by: Artimus on December 08, 2005, 09:28:40 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 08, 2005, 09:51:43 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on December 08, 2005, 09:54:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RhoqQuote
Originally posted by: mjbdQuote
I have been trying to figure out what Rev games will look like, and this is what I have come up with. Take elements of games from this generation, the best textures from this game, the best effects from this game, best character models from that game, and so on. I see Rev being able to incoperate all these things into one package.
RE4 and LOZ:TP are perfect examples of what the Revolution's graphics will look like at the very least.
*drools*
I honestly don't see why people care about graphics so much. I remember playing Mario 64 for the first time, and the BEST thing about it was controlling Mario. Seeing Mario do back-flips, crawl, climb trees, swim, side-jump, wall-jump, and so on, made me want the game badly. Graphics be damned. That game could of been ugly as hell and I still would of bought it. So, what's the difference today? If Nintendo comes out with the next Mario 64, who will honestly care about its graphics?
I think we all feel the pressure to "like" graphics because Sony and Microsoft keep shoving it down our throats. Imagine if Sony and Microsoft didn't care about graphics, instead, they focused their time on gameplay. Wouldn't the game industry be roughly a billion times better? Wouldn't we be arguing over how great a game is and not what specs the system can push?
Some of you need to take a step back and look at the situation. Graphics don't make Gameplay....GAMEPLAY. It is the only thing a game needs, everything thing else is just icing on the cake.
The REV will be able to provide new and creative games. Every popular game today, can be made better and more intuitive with the REV's control. Games that could have never existed, can only exist on the REV. And best of all, the possibilities of games are endless.
Doesn't that make it a winner, in our books, by defualt?
Post by: JonLeung on December 08, 2005, 10:14:57 AM
You can look at screenshots and, assuming they aren't faked too much, you get an idea what the graphics are like. It's harder for you to point at a still shot and go "there's some fine gameplay right there". Even a video may not do justice.
And even if you could, there's a lack of screenshots or videos of anything remotely related to the Revolution at the moment. All that people can go on are supposed specs of power even though most probably don't know what it all means.
Ideally, yes, gameplay would be the best indicator of how factually "good" a game is. But it's hard to quantify and it's hard to point out. In a shallow consumer culture where people are wowed by how sleek, stylish, sexy, and spectacular something can be, it's hard to sell something on a deeper level alone.
At least the Revolution itself is pretty sleek and stylish. The gameplay just by the controller alone is already unique, so hopefully there'll be lots of demo stations set up and commercials that let people understand what it is. I think there are some people who don't even understand the DS commercials...
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 08, 2005, 10:38:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Twilight Princess is a Cube game and thus is NO indication of what the Rev will offer. The Cube wasn't designed with non-gamers as a focus (in fact the very concept didn't really exist) and it has a normal controller. Metroid Prime 3 is just a name thrown out. We know nothing about it so we can't say what it is or isn't yet.
Bull...If Nintendo wasn't interested in creating such titles they wouldn't be making TP as it is...They didn't go "Oh, we're not going to make any more long games so let's just make this last one anyway for the Gamecube." STUPID LOGIC...Try looking at the DS, please...Created with non-gamers in mind yet the games for the hardcore crowd still exist...Nintendogs, Animal Crossing, Brain Training, and Mario Kart can ALL FREAKING EXIST AT THE SAME TIME! THINKING IT WON'T BE THE SAME FOR REVOLUTION IS STUPID, END OF STORY! >=O
Post by: Rhoq on December 08, 2005, 10:55:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Try looking at the DS, please...Created with non-gamers in mind yet the games for the hardcore crowd still exist...Nintendogs, Animal Crossing, Brain Training, and Mario Kart can ALL FREAKING EXIST AT THE SAME TIME! THINKING IT WON'T BE THE SAME FOR REVOLUTION IS STUPID, END OF STORY! >=O
Excellent point, Bill. I think the DS is definitely a gauge for what the Revolution experience will be like. Due to the DS' unique features, interactive gameplay designs, never before possible have been achieved thanks to the touch screen and built-in microphone. The Revolution will be bringing that same level of interactivity (and more) to your TV.
Anyways, to get back on topic a bit...I have no problem with the Revolution being the least-powered system of the 3. I accept that the recent developer reports of the system being approximately twice as powerful as the GameCube are most likely accurate. Knowing what the GameCube is already capable of calms any fears, because I know without a doubt that the Revolution will be adequate for my gaming needs. However, less matured gamers will probably tear the Revolution apart.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 08, 2005, 10:57:51 AM
Different target demographics. It makes no sense to make short simple games on the Cube because it's already established as a "gamer's console". Non-games wouldn't sell. You use the DS as an example a lot but to me the DS is exactly what I'm afraid the Rev will be like. Sure there are some hardcore gamer games but they're much more rare than they were on the GBA. In fact until Advance Wars came out there was pretty much nothing. With the DS Nintendo's releases are split between non-gamer and traditional and as a result the library is pretty slim. If the Rev is like that then I can see why a company like SK, which is not about making non-gamer games at all, would leave Nintendo. When they joined with Nintendo the two companies philosophies were in sync. Once Nintendo started focusing on non-gamers they weren't and thus they left. Maybe that's just a convenient excuse but if I was in their situation I would leave too. I'm not interested in non-games and thus wouldn't want to exclusively support a console that specifically targets non-gamers.
Yeah both types of games exist on the DS but for a hardcore gamer the library is comprimised. Why go for a console where you have to compete for the console maker's attention when you can go somewhere else where you have their full attention? This is especially important for a developer. SK can consider the entire X360 userbase as their potential market. They would never be able to do that with the Rev. There's no way to tell which part of the userbase is non-gamer and thus not a target.
I kind it funny that when the Xbox 360 screens first showed up so many of us complained that it didn't look much different than this gen. Yet it's very likely that the Rev will follow the same path only even worse yet that's okay. It's alright for Nintendo to have something that looks like it's from last-gen but not MS or Sony. Graphics aren't all that matters and I guess the logic is that Sony and MS don't have nifty new controllers but strictly in terms of graphics don't say that the Rev graphics will be fine if the X360 graphics weren't good enough for you. I'm not a graphics whore but I like to see a noticable change when I buy a new console. There has to be more than just the controller for me to buy a new console. Otherwise they might as well make it available both a standalone and a Cube upgrade.
Post by: ABlueflameA on December 08, 2005, 11:07:20 AM
-Blueflame
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 08, 2005, 11:08:29 AM
A "compromised library" has really taken a hit on the DS, let me tell you! And this "competing for attention" has completely failed Ninty in the past and there's absolutely NO way they could possibly gain back a Halo or GTA audience from MS and Sony, but you don't seem to realize this...Ninty will be keeping their userbase, plus gaining those that have never gamed before and those that want to try something new...THEY ARE NOT COMPETING FOR THE SAME USERBASE AS MICROSOFT AND SONY! If they did they would LOSE, PERIOD! Stop making up this crap that Ninty needs to fix mistakes because your strategy is just instant death trying to compete with companies that cliche more with that group...Ninty has their own cliche, will add more to their cliche, and will thrive...They have gained the most profit of any of the three companies so I think they know what they are doing, thank you very much...
I kind it funny that when the Xbox 360 screens first showed up so many of us complained that it didn't look much different than this gen. Yet it's very likely that the Rev will follow the same path only even worse yet that's okay.
Wow, you didn't really think before typing this, eh? 360 has nothing going for it besides graphics...GRAPHICS ARE THE FREAKING SELLING POINT! Revolution's selling point is not the graphics and Ninty has stated this time and time again! GAH!
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 08, 2005, 11:09:19 AM
So yes, the Rev graphics will be fine, but the 360's aren't good enough for me.
edit: hi bill
Post by: Don'tHate742 on December 08, 2005, 11:22:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
Until games are playable, it's hard to rate things on gameplay.
You can look at screenshots and, assuming they aren't faked too much, you get an idea what the graphics are like. It's harder for you to point at a still shot and go "there's some fine gameplay right there". Even a video may not do justice.
And even if you could, there's a lack of screenshots or videos of anything remotely related to the Revolution at the moment. All that people can go on are supposed specs of power even though most probably don't know what it all means.
Ideally, yes, gameplay would be the best indicator of how factually "good" a game is. But it's hard to quantify and it's hard to point out. In a shallow consumer culture where people are wowed by how sleek, stylish, sexy, and spectacular something can be, it's hard to sell something on a deeper level alone.
At least the Revolution itself is pretty sleek and stylish. The gameplay just by the controller alone is already unique, so hopefully there'll be lots of demo stations set up and commercials that let people understand what it is. I think there are some people who don't even understand the DS commercials...
Well now you see why Nintendo wants people to play and watch at the same time. Like you said, proving gameplay through vids and screens isn't possible.
Ian, you can bitch all you want right now, but mark my words: Once there are actual playable demos for the REV, you will careless about what the games looks like. That's the key....
Post by: Artimus on December 08, 2005, 11:26:25 AM
The GBA, in five years, has 14 games over 90% on GameRankings, and another 15 over 85%. The DS has 3 games over 90% and another 11 over 6 over 85%, despite being out 1/5 the time. That means the ratio for the two systems having quality games is roughly the same, or slightly better for the DS. Thats with developers having to experiment! If you look at the first 6 months compared to the last 6 months, all but TWO of the highly rated games have come out recently. That means the numbers will more than likely grow even faster now. How in ANY WAY is that compromised?
Ian, you always say Nintendo needs to do so and so and so and so, and yet when they release Mario Kart to sell over 1,000,000 copies, while also selling 1,000,000 copies of a wholly new series, you say they're compromising! I can't even think of any other "non-games" that are coming out soon besides Electroplancton! Oh, I forgot, they're releasing a Brain Flex game that took like...no resources to develop. Versus Prime Hunters, an original sports title, and a brand new platformer starring Peach.
MAKES NO SENSE MORON.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 08, 2005, 11:30:44 AM
You misinterpreted what I said. I don't mean anything regarding MS and Sony in that arguement. I mean us, existing gamers in the Nintendo userbase, now have to compete with non-gamers for Nintendo's attention. Originally 100% of the games made for a Nintendo console were built with gamers in mind. Now that's not the case so we're going to get like 70% or maybe even 50% or lower. It's like the amount of games available is shrinking.
Though I don't really see the difference between Nintendo gamers and Sony or MS gamers. To me I just see gamers and I feel Nintendo scares them off mostly due to incompetance and screwing up simple stuff that seemingly no one could screw up. I've always felt that not screwing stuff up is the key to Nintendo reclaming market share because then they're on even footing and it all comes down to who has the better games which gives Nintendo a big advantage.
And regarding the graphics issue I would consider it a knock against both consoles for the graphics being underwhelming.
Post by: Artimus on December 08, 2005, 11:41:13 AM
Super Mario Advance
F-Zero
Mario Kart: SC
Advance Wars
Golden Sun
Mario Advance 2
Versus on the DS:
Mario 64
Wario Ware Touch!
Kirby: CC
Advance Wars DS
Nintendogs
Mario Kart DS
Mario & Luigi
Metroid Prime Pinball
Animal Crossing DS
DS wins 9 to 6. And even if we remove non-game Nintendogs and Animal Crossing and small-title Pinball, they're tied. The DS probably fares better anyway, because the GBA had two ports.
Saying the DS is less focused on gamers than ANY other handheld ever, is just flat out wrong.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 08, 2005, 11:56:46 AM
I never would say that. Game.com? N-Gage? PSP?
The DS beats those by miles.
Post by: BigJim on December 08, 2005, 12:00:24 PM
Quote
Ninty has their own cliche, will add more to their cliche, and will thrive...They have gained the most profit of any of the three companies so I think they know what they are doing, thank you very much...
This point and similar ones are brought up regularly. Every time I see this retort I kind of scratch my head. Ian is making a point from a customer's standpoint. Non-games aren't his thing. They're not really my thing either. The defense for this always seems to basically be, "it's best for Nintendo. It's best for Nintendo" bringing it back to Nintendo like it's only about their own betterment. Are you a shareholder? Are you with Golin-Harris or some other PR firm they work with? Are you a sheep repeating the PR message?
What's best for Nintendo isn't necessarily what's best for all of their customers. As an "everybody" company that dips their wick in every pool, they haven't proven they can keep "everybody" happy in the process. If I ever again have to wait over a year between games I want to play, then I (and customers like me) are within reasonable logic to just say "screw you" and find a better alternative... along with the majority of the market that apparently already has.
The difference is there are people like me that WANT Nintendo to be enough for them for any number of reasons. Be it for their IPs, overall quality, emotional attachment to the brand, or whatever. We're all fans and we all want more of what we like. Not getting it can leave customers hungry. And it's only because Nintendo is so great at what they do. They're almost victims of their own success in that regard.
It's sort of ridiculous that this topic keeps coming up. We're customers. It's not always all about their quarterly revenue and EBITDA.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 08, 2005, 12:05:13 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 08, 2005, 12:08:33 PM
Second, stop with the bullcrap theoretical stuff, go to a game store and look at the DS library. I've got more "real" games for the DS right now than I bought for the GBA in its entire lifespan. If you think the DS game library is "compromised", then you're either blind or deliberately obtuse. It's just that simple.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 08, 2005, 12:49:39 PM
I'm just not that interested in what I'm seeing on the shelf. To me there's too much emphasis on games designed to get people who don't play games interested. You may think otherwise but in regards to what interests me the lineup has been compromised by Nintendo's plan to attract non-gamers. Technically you don't just need non-games to attract this audience as a small simplistic game can do the trick too.
Post by: zakkiel on December 08, 2005, 12:57:35 PM
QuoteSee, the thing is you and Ian keep espousing your personal preference as though Nintendo had some sort of obligation to meet it. Since Nintendo owes you exactly nothing, this isn't terribly persuasive. You also then threaten Nintendo loss of customers, right after saying it doesn't matter what's best for Nintendo. That's incoherent. If Nintendo's non-gamer policy is the best decision, it doesn't matter if you leave - that's just the price of a strategy beneficial to Nintendo overall. If it isn't the right decision, then you have to actually argue to that effect if you want to convince someone. Repeatedly saying you plan to stop buying Nintendo consoles doesn't impress anyone. If that's what you want to do, do it. Just don't expect us to care.
If I ever again have to wait over a year between games I want to play, then I (and customers like me) are within reasonable logic to just say "screw you" and find a better alternative... along with the majority of the market has apparently already has.
Post by: Artimus on December 08, 2005, 01:19:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
To me there's too much emphasis on games designed to get people who don't play games interested.
WHAT GAMES are you talking about!? If you see games made to appeal to non-gamers, what games are they!? Because I think you're looking at the shelf in imaginary Ian land, not reality.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 08, 2005, 01:23:19 PM
How does a company whose success is based on loyal customers like myself not owe me anything? I think within a reasonable limit it is the job of a console maker to make sure their userbase is satisfied.
"You also then threaten Nintendo loss of customers, right after saying it doesn't matter what's best for Nintendo."
Anytime I discuss Nintendo's success I'm always talking about market share because that's what benefits us gamers. Higher market share means better third party support. Nintendo's profit however doesn't affect us at all so "Nintendo's profitable" is a dumb arguement because I really don't care. Well I don't want them to go broke but cutting corners and denying us options just to stay in the black every quarter doesn't benefit any of us at all. It just screws us over. I don't want Nintendo to go broke but I do want them to increase their market share and address my reasonable needs.
When Nintendo said they wouldn't go online because it wasn't profitable I didn't care because I'm not a shareholder. I'm just a Nintendo gamer forced to be offline. Now if going online would have bankrupt them then I would have given them some slack. But they just didn't want to have a temporary loss and I don't care about that. I think keeping your customers satisfied at a temporary loss is more important than routinely pissing your customers off so that you never ever waste a dime. One day Nintendo's little profit bubble is going to pop when their antics have scared too many people off for them to make a profit and then they'll be screwed. Naturally I would rather not see that.
Post by: trip1eX on December 08, 2005, 01:35:35 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 08, 2005, 01:37:10 PM
Stuff like Warioware, Yoshi: Touch 'n' Go, Pac-Pix, and Feel the Magic. Little short novelty games that are fun for someone who is just thrilled by the concept of playing games. As someone with more experience in gaming I get bored of games like this in minutes and I would never pay full price for them. They're perfect for non-gamers because they require no commitment and can be played for five minutes. They're like those free flash games only they cost money.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 08, 2005, 01:38:46 PM
Every thought that maybe I want Nintendo's first party titles too? Those are my favourite games and that is the only reason why I stick with Nintendo. If that wasn't a priority I would have dumped Nintendo in 1997.
Post by: Artimus on December 08, 2005, 01:52:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"WHAT GAMES are you talking about!? If you see games made to appeal to non-gamers, what games are they!?"
Stuff like Warioware, Yoshi: Touch 'n' Go, Pac-Pix, and Feel the Magic. Little short novelty games that are fun for someone who is just thrilled by the concept of playing games. As someone with more experience in gaming I get bored of games like this in minutes and I would never pay full price for them. They're perfect for non-gamers because they require no commitment and can be played for five minutes. They're like those free flash games only they cost money.
Ian...you expect us to buy this? You named four games, all four of which came out in the first quarter of the DS's life. Since then there is Mario Kart, Mario & Luigi, Castlevania, Trauma Center, Advance Wars, Animal Crossing, Phoenix Wright, Tony Hawk, Sonic, and on and on. Those games you mentioned weren't because of a non-gamers focus (and TWO were weren't Nintendo), they were because of a new type of control.
What about the full fledged games? What about the fact that once the DS got a bit older those games stopped coming? What about the fact that there are six other first party titles that are full fledged? What about the fact that the GBA had a WarioWare?
Post by: ShyGuy on December 08, 2005, 02:06:56 PM
Post by: zakkiel on December 08, 2005, 02:16:04 PM
QuoteYou bought the product. The product worked as advertized. Therefore, Nintendo discharged the sum of its obligations to you. If you made regular charitable donations to Nintendo, then you might have a case. You didn't, so far as I know. You just made a decision entirely based on self-interest about a product purchase, and Nintendo's only responsibility is to make sure the product does what they say it will do when you buy it.
How does a company whose success is based on loyal customers like myself not owe me anything? I think within a reasonable limit it is the job of a console maker to make sure their userbase is satisfied.
QuoteNintendo cares whether your demands are satisfied in exactly the same way that you care if Nintendo makes a profit - it's necessary for your own self-interest. If in fact they decide that their interests don't depend on satisfying you, then they will drop you like a hot rock however you whine. As I have nothing at stake in whether your demands are met, I don't give a damn, and neither I imagine does anyone else here who doesn't share your demands.
It just screws us over. I don't want Nintendo to go broke but I do want them to increase their market share and address my reasonable needs.
Nintendo isn't in a bubble; that honor belongs to the company in massive debt, which also happens to be the one with the greatest marketshare. And even if Nintendo were in a scenario where it survived by clinging to a group of diehard fans on verge of a mass exodus, what on earth makes you think you speak for those fans? You certainly don't for me.
Post by: Mario on December 08, 2005, 02:32:52 PM
Post by: trip1eX on December 08, 2005, 03:14:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"IF I wanted 3rd party titles and wanted to go online and didn't like Nintendo's direction and what they do then I would buy another console and call it good."
Every thought that maybe I want Nintendo's first party titles too? Those are my favourite games and that is the only reason why I stick with Nintendo. If that wasn't a priority I would have dumped Nintendo in 1997.
Well then there is something you like about Nintendo.
Still it looks like you need to buy a 2nd console to be satisfied. I would recommend that route.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on December 08, 2005, 03:17:02 PM
This isn't flame, Ian, you must understand that we honestly don't know what the hell your talking about. You and your mom
.**Ok, that was flame
Post by: mjbd on December 08, 2005, 03:45:39 PM
Post by: BigJim on December 08, 2005, 03:56:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkielQuoteSee, the thing is you and Ian keep espousing your personal preference as though Nintendo had some sort of obligation to meet it. Since Nintendo owes you exactly nothing, this isn't terribly persuasive. You also then threaten Nintendo loss of customers, right after saying it doesn't matter what's best for Nintendo. That's incoherent. If Nintendo's non-gamer policy is the best decision, it doesn't matter if you leave - that's just the price of a strategy beneficial to Nintendo overall. If it isn't the right decision, then you have to actually argue to that effect if you want to convince someone. Repeatedly saying you plan to stop buying Nintendo consoles doesn't impress anyone. If that's what you want to do, do it. Just don't expect us to care.
If I ever again have to wait over a year between games I want to play, then I (and customers like me) are within reasonable logic to just say "screw you" and find a better alternative... along with the majority of the market has apparently already has.
Oddly enough, many of the opinions here are repetitions of Nintendo's talking points. What's best for Nintendo is best for them, apparently. How convenient it is, I suppose, to share in collective thought.
We are allowed to be individuals. Everybody can freely develop their own opinions here. That's all there IS until Nintendo provides something more than buzzwords. One doesn't have to drink the Kool-Aid to have a valid opinion. And those that don't, don't have to preface opinions with, "It's just my own opinion, but..." because opinion is all anybody has for the next year and probably beyond.
My personal opinion doesn't matter. I was exemplifying a problem with the "everybody" buzzword strategy. Nor did I "threaten" anything. I was pointing out their continued irrelevance in the marketplace in fewer words. That's not a personal opinion. That's a fact. It's evidence of a problem. That's not what's best for Nintendo or its customers.
I didn't say it doesn't matter what's best for Nintendo. I said it's *not all about what's best for them* when you are a customer. And it's not. Customers matter. Their profit is not the end-all be-all of our existence, except the "collective" that use this defense religiously as evidence of Nintendo's infallible strategy. Normal customers care about getting what they want. If they don't, they consider other options. Nintendo even told us to. So what?
Nintendo owes me nothing. You're absolutely right. I also owe them nothing. Nor does anybody else.
"If Nintendo's non-gamer policy is the best decision, it doesn't matter if you leave - that's just the price of a strategy beneficial to Nintendo overall"
Precisely. Best decision for themselves. Disregard existing customers for the bigger bottom line. That's not an "everybody" strategy. The keyword in your statement is "if". Again even if I use myself as an example, I am exemplifying an issue bigger than myself. I'm not that conceited. I believe that trying to attract everybody can leave people unsatisfied, unless you're big enough to keep all of those appetites fed. "Jack of all trades, master of none" is not a new idea. That's my hypothesis and I haven't seen anything that disproves it, other than those that say they're satisfied. But such is expected inside the bubble that is a Nintendo forum and can't be proven or disproven here. But I do think marketshare is part of the equation, and that segment isn't compelling evidence of a great strategy. It remains to be seen if Rev makes it better or worse for everybody, for real.
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 08, 2005, 04:11:19 PM
From what I can gather the point beneath your pseudo-intellectual blathering is that you don't want to wait a year between playing games. All right, I don't think any of us do. Point taken.
There also seems to be a vague undercurrent of "games for everybody aren't working", am I getting that right? I don't know, it's hidden under all the pretentious crap. Funny how being part of the free thinkers exempts you from being coherent.
The reason the "collective" "use this defense religiously" is because as long as Nintendo is profitable, Nintendo is alive, and as long as Nintendo is alive, Nintendo makes Nintendo games. Do I have to point out why that's a good thing? Nah, what's the point, I'm just a drone who repeats the company mantra and I like Nintendo games because Nintendo tells me to.
Post by: BigJim on December 08, 2005, 04:14:00 PM
"There also seems to be a vague undercurrent of "games for everybody aren't working", am I getting that right? I don't know, it's hidden under all the pretentious crap."
I'll try to be more obvious about it when it is brought up yet again in the next 200 post thread.
Nintendo can be profitable and alive making more games that more people want. But are they big enough to handle it? They've licensed out so many of their IPs this generation as it is. I am not expecting everything from Tickle-me-Kirby to Toadstool's Fantasic Bass Fishing to cover every possible niche. I'm just a fan of the big IP epics most of all, and the StarFox-to-Zelda wait makes BigJim something something.Anyway, enough for now.
Now rejoin the Borg grasshopper.
Post by: ThePerm on December 08, 2005, 04:14:19 PM
Post by: BigJim on December 08, 2005, 04:28:42 PM
Post by: mjbd on December 08, 2005, 04:33:09 PM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on December 08, 2005, 04:37:17 PM
Nintendo of America seems to have cleared up things nicely in IGN's new article. Seems that the lack of RAM is due to the lack of HD output. I reckon that makes sense.
Post by: odifiend on December 08, 2005, 05:30:02 PM
On a somewhat related not, the segments of their video game month that I saw while flipping shocked and dismayed me.
"Resident Evil 4 just dropped for the Playstation 2. This is brand new Resident Evil. What do you think DJ 15-minutes of fame?"
"I don't know. I didn't like all that."
"Well definitely check out RE4 and buy a PSP. It is going to be hot."
Post by: heinous_anus on December 08, 2005, 09:02:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
Yes, fight the collective, you brave free-thinking rebel you.
From what I can gather the point beneath your pseudo-intellectual blathering is that you don't want to wait a year between playing games. All right, I don't think any of us do. Point taken.
There also seems to be a vague undercurrent of "games for everybody aren't working", am I getting that right? I don't know, it's hidden under all the pretentious crap. Funny how being part of the free thinkers exempts you from being coherent.
The reason the "collective" "use this defense religiously" is because as long as Nintendo is profitable, Nintendo is alive, and as long as Nintendo is alive, Nintendo makes Nintendo games. Do I have to point out why that's a good thing? Nah, what's the point, I'm just a drone who repeats the company mantra and I like Nintendo games because Nintendo tells me to.
Wow, this is getting rough. But, you know what, no one is really responding to a couple of REALLY important points in Ian and BigJim's thoughts.
How is a continually shrinking home console marketshare good for Nintendo and its userbase?
Why is it so horrible to expect Nintendo to occasionally experience temporary financial setbacks if it provides us, its customers, with a better overall experience (case in point: online gaming)?
Ian, you are spot-on with regard to MS and Sony's share of gamers. Really, the argument is about whether or not Nintendo had any control in losing hordes of fans, or potential fans/customers, to its competitors. Of course it did; it still does.
Post by: wandering on December 08, 2005, 09:22:55 PM
As for Nintendo being unwilling to lose money, are we forgetting that Nintendo is not a Microsoft-like gigantic corporation? What would sinking billions of dollars into a failed cube online plan have done for Nintendo? Aside from making Ian happy, I mean?
Nintendo is profit-oriented, yes, but they aren't THAT bad....even Microsoft isn't willing to offer free online just for the sake of selling more games/consoles.
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 08, 2005, 11:18:07 PM
Did you take a moment to see his reaction, you abominable ***hole... that's your name, right? Any clue why he didn't take it seriously? Think the signature had something to do with it?
In all seriousness...
"How is a continually shrinking home console marketshare good for Nintendo and its userbase?"
I don't think anybody's arguing that, we just disagree on how to fix it. Acting like Microsoft and Sony isn't going to fix it... Nintendo proved that with the Cube. Ian can delude himself all he wants that "their hands were tied behind their backs" and "they weren't trying hard enough" and "they made stupid mistakes like... uh... umm" but the fact of the matter is that Nintendo can't fight Sony or Microsoft using Sony or Microsoft tactics.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 09, 2005, 02:07:52 AM
Quote
I honestly don't know how much 'weaker' the Revolution will be; the handful of people I know who are game developers are mostly programming peons so they don't have too much information. One of my friends did say he thinks that a lot of people are under a serious misconception about the system because of what Nintendo has released as a 'Pre-Alpha' development kit to certain companies. He claims that Nintendo has released an improved Tri-Force based (for those that don't know, that's the Gamecube's arcade platform that is ~2X as powerful as the Gamecube) development kit that emulates the new features of the Revolution (like per-pixel shading); the purpose of this kit is not to produce something that performs in the same range as the Revolution but is to enable developers to Port/Develop the engine and test new features on a small scale. I'm told that it is not that uncommon for companies like Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony to provide the developers with different hardware inorder to allow them to progress so I think that this sounds reasonable.
The only other thing I have heard from developers is that Nintendo is undercutting their performance on purpose in order to send the message to developers that they're not going to pressure them to produce games which they can not afford to make and to send the message that they want more creative and enjoyable games rather than prettier games.
Now, everything I have been told could have been a pack of lies but none of it sounds unreasonable; the initial development kits for the 360 were just Power Macs (and in a tight NDA agreement several people might be under the impression that this is the final hardware and leak it to news sites), and Nintendo announced that the Gamecube would only produce 12-15 Million Polygons per second (While Microsoft promised 155 Million with the XBox and Sony Promised 66 Million with the PS2; the XBox 360 may approach 40-60 Million and the PS3 may get into the 60-100 Million range but no hardware can sustain 100 Million + Polygons per second in a game situation) so it's not unreasonable to say Nintendo may make claims at the lower end of what is possible on their system.
Post by: mantidor on December 09, 2005, 02:52:38 AM
Post by: heinous_anus on December 09, 2005, 03:21:05 AM
Get real. It's obvious that Nintendo is NOT concerned with being on competely equal footing in terms of pure horsepower (see every speech that Reggie, or anyone else makes - "would you rather see the sweat on a player's body, or be given a completely new way to play?"). Do I care about specs? No. Do we, or should we, care? Most of us don't. That doesn't mean that there isn't an audience out there for rumors/speculation/etc. for people concerned with so-called "tech specs."
Really, the only spec that Matt posted in that news article as fact, or near-fact, was the RAM, which he's been told was straight out of Nintendo documentation. Everything else is pretty hazy still, and I think that was pretty clear - "we've been told by development houses that" "...Hollywood GPU is BELIEVED...".
And Paladin, please clarify yourself. What the hell do you mean "any clue why he didn't take it seriously?" And Ian has actually articulated some pretty good points in previous threads, and even this one, regarding things that Nintendo did poorly with the Gamecube, or didn't improve upon after the 64. No one is really arguing that Nintendo should carbon copy the Sony/Microsoft model, just that Nintendo might be in a better off position now had they done things differently.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on December 09, 2005, 03:37:21 AM
Were quite tired of it....
Post by: trip1eX on December 09, 2005, 05:37:54 AM
I just have to say you have a choice. I'm amazed by some folks who don't exercise this right if they are unhappy.
btw, that mtv article was dumb. They didn't give much opinion on the controller. Most of it was describing the the demos which have been described countless times in other articles. I wanted more of an opinion. Like how it worked in Metroid Prime. The author speculates how you'll move in Zelda or GTA, but he gall damn played Echoes so he should the hell know!!!!!
Post by: Pittbboi on December 09, 2005, 06:51:32 AM
I'll agree that Ian complain a lot. Ok, a whole lot. But I've also seen Ian give Nintendo their credit when it was due. A lot of people just can't face the fact that Ian (and most people who share his opinion) wouldn't have so much to complain about hadn't Nintendo given them a reason to. NIntendo's last place for a reason, and it's not because they were doing all they could.
"now people have a preconcieved notion and no matter what screenshots or videos we see this mindset wont change. It happened to the GC and Nintendo wanted to avoid the same situation"
Nintendo may have wanted to avoid the situation, but being tight lipped about every little detail and forcing people to come to their own conclusions or chase down the information themselves(Which, logically, isn't always going to be good) sure as hell wasn't the way to do it.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 09, 2005, 06:51:58 AM
Well it's not like my opinion is going to change. If Nintendo actually learned from their mistakes for a change maybe the same points wouldn't have to be brought up again.
"If only Matt didnt start this crap the first information about graphics would be a screenshot which obviously would look amazing and people wouldnt be bitching so much, now people have a preconcieved notion and no matter what screenshots or videos we see this mindset wont change. It happened to the GC and Nintendo wanted to avoid the same situation."
It has nothing to do with Matt. The second Nintendo started de-emphasizing specs and hardware in speeches and said outright that they would likely never release the Rev specs alarms started going off in people's heads that Nintendo was hiding something and had a reason to hide it. They planted the "Rev is underpowered" thought into everyone's head themselves. If they really wanted to wait for a screenshot then they should have said something to the effect of "the Revolution will have comparable hardware performance to the competition" and then not mention the HD thing until after screens were released.
"The only other thing I have heard from developers is that Nintendo is undercutting their performance on purpose in order to send the message to developers that they're not going to pressure them to produce games which they can not afford to make and to send the message that they want more creative and enjoyable games rather than prettier games."
This is a noble cause in theory but developers don't make the decision, the publishers do. And if the publishers think that spending more money on a PS3 game that has a much wider potential userbase to sell to they'll go with that. This "we're going to fix the industry" stuff just doesn't work if you're the last place console.
Post by: BigJim on December 09, 2005, 07:50:08 AM
They fought going online because they said it wasn't profitable. Now here we are with a free service starting to ramp up. I would love to know what changed their minds, exactly. What's profitable about a free service now that wouldn't have been the case on GameCube... They could have been a match-maker with Cube. They were being bull-headed. But that's changed now. So great.
Nintendo doesn't have to sink to MS or Sony levels of spending. But they can be a well run business while also being relevant to industry trends at the same time. New controller? Ok, it may be a good idea on paper. It's either awesome or a non sequitur. We'll see what happens. They don't have to BE the competition to compete. Just be relevant.
They're almost like the biggest mom and pop company in the world. Their "Wal-Mart" competitors are bleeding money out the ass while their little shop does well. That's fine, but it comes with the problems we've seen that affect us more than it does Nintendo. Lack of options, lack of support. etc. This is what I meant back when I said it wasn't all about Nintendo. If they focus more on scale (less profit per customer, but more customers) they could shake things up considerably and still be a well oiled machine. Long term outlook matters just as much as next quarter's results... I know that's blasphemy on Wall Street, but it's true.
Their approach these days feels like they're squeezing fewer customers for maximum profit. Mario has turned out to be quite the athlete for a portly 3-footer.
Post by: eljefe on December 09, 2005, 08:04:41 AM
Each company has decide who they are willing to frustrate and who they are able to please.
Unfortunately for Big Jim, Ian Sane, and heinous, you are on Nintendo's list to please.
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 09, 2005, 08:26:13 AM
All right I don't know how to make it any clearer. The person I "insulted" obviously realized it was a joke, so I'm not sure why everybody else didn't.
Forget about carbon-copying Sony or Microsoft... Nintendo didn't carbon-copy them this generation, it just used their approach and that didn't work. It seems to me like everything you guys are saying about what Nintendo should do... they already did this generation, and it didn't work. So now you're telling them to do it again and you expect me to think that's a good idea?
Ian's never made a good point about what Nintendo did wrong this generation. You can argue all you want about "no online" being the reason Nintendo didn't do as well as the others, but I call bull. So few people actually used online last gen that it was a non-factor. Microsoft spun the Live numbers like crazy but at the end of the day, userbase percentage wise, it was a dismal failure that only got slightly better near the end. Even Halo 2 couldn't push more Xbox Live users... if it had, we would have heard about it.
So then you start being all confused about "What's profitable about a free service now that wouldn't have been the case on GameCube"? The answer is simple. Free = number of people aren't negligible anymore. Haven't you seen what happened with Mario Kart DS? Do you think they're being profit-minded with a free service? Don't you think maybe they were holding off on online until they could implement it for free without bleeding out their ass? Don't you think maybe online now has enough people who care about it to be worth implementing? What's your answer for the huge disparity between Xbox Live and Mario Kart online percentages? Are you going to tell me Mario Kart was more popular than Halo 2?
No, obviously Nintendo looked at how Xbox Live was hemorrhaging money and thought "I got to get me some of that". Typical bull-headed Nintendo, always last to make the decisions that make sense.
You know some of you guys would make a lot more sense if you didn't always assume "Nintendo never makes a logical decision".
Post by: Plugabugz on December 09, 2005, 08:45:19 AM
I can, two of them. Europe is one. Australia is another.
Useless marketing by advertising games in a manner that the USA/Japan would liken to (and i've shown several of those), releasing the wrong type of games at the wrong time of year (Mario Strikers after Pro Evolution 5). The 6-8 month delays, STILL, despite it being said by Nintendo 2 years ago that Europe would be a more prominent in their plans. Nintendo WiFi website launching 3 weeks after the first online game was released, despite ads being shown before it's launch.
I won't go into what they are doing wrong in another territory, but here they need to focus on breaking the typical afterthought attitude they stick here and actually releasing games, particularly ones that suit the region, in a more timely manner. Third parties manage it.
I might as well be the Ian of Europe
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 09, 2005, 08:52:26 AM
I doubt they'll make Nintendo that much better at US market share though. I mean that seems to be the measuring stick of success that we're using.
Post by: Kairon on December 09, 2005, 09:23:22 AM
But these are management problems and have little to do with Nintendo's overall gameplan of the future of gaming. Still, this makes me sad that Merrick is returning to NOA. NOE needs a strong leader to whip them back into shape and with Merrick going away, I just don't know what'll happen in those...understandably smaller, yet still embarassing markets.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on December 09, 2005, 10:08:00 AM
Sure I have. What Nintendo did wrong this generation is that they had to prove that the "failure" of the N64 was a fluke and that without the cartridge limitation they could offer something comparable to the competition. The problem was that when it was time to impress everyone and show they were still with it they screwed up a lot. Most of them were by themselves small things but they f*cked up simple stuff that anybody who has played game for more than two weeks could pull off. This made them look incompetent and out-of-touch. What sort of idiot makes it impossible to make third party component cables and then makes their cables only available online? Who would use purple as the primary colour? Why would you make memory cards 8 times smaller than the competition and then charge the same price? What's the point of releasing a demo disc is someone has to buy a new console to get it? These are easy things to pull off and Nintendo screwed them up. That doesn't give someone confidence in your product.
There was also the one two punch of making the shortest first party game in the linep the flagship title and then following it up with a huge drought of virtually no games at all. When people complain about big breaks between games on your previous console this is the LAST thing you want to have happen within the first three months after launch. The marketing sucked of course and largely still does. Super Mario Sunshine's ad basically made people think the exact opposite about the game as was intented. The switcheroo with the Zelda footage didn't do them any favours either. The Spaceworld 2000 Zelda footage was the killer app. People were going to buy a Cube for a Zelda that looked like that. Then Nintendo, who had to fight off a k!ddy image, switched it with a cartoon and totally flushed the momentum away. Not only was mature Zelda a killer app, it made Nintendo look cool. It was helping fix their image. Wind Waker made them look more childish and out-of-touch then ever before. It was a great game in the end but it didn't sell Cubes. Instead the Cube seller is going to end up being one of the last games released for the console. Why didn't they do safe Zelda FIRST and then do risky cartoon Zelda?
No online was just the last straw. That just confirmed how out-of-touch Nintendo was. I don't think any of these things by themselves (except maybe the big drought) killed the Cube. It was the combination. For the first year or so of the Cube's life Nintendo seemed absolutely clueless and that was when they had to prove that the k!ddy image and the assumptions that they were out-of-touch or didn't know what they were doing were false. They didn't and that's why the Cube flopped.
When Nintendo does almost everything right and still gets last place then you can say they can't compete. But you can't look at a generation where they screwed up like 90% of the simple stuff any idiot could do right and say that. I think that things would improve tremendously if they did pretty much what they did before but were on the ball and stopped doing stupid sh!t. Now every generation it's going to get harder to get people to notice that but still.
As for Europe and Australia I think the key to Nintendo's problem there is to release the damn games. There shouldn't be huge delays between the NA and European versions or NA first party games that don't get released in Europe. Australia doesn't even have multiple languages like Europe does. It should be just the PAL conversion that delays things. I think Nintendo would greatly improve in those markets if they made quick PAL conversions of the NA version of games for Australia and the English-speaking European countries. There's really no need to do anything else for those areas. So the non-English versions still have to wait but I think that's better than everyone waiting.
Plus as a Canadian I'm pretty used to my entertainment having an American slant. They still have American Thanksgiving in the Candian version of Animal Crossing. Why not just let Europeans deal with that too? It's still better than no game at all.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on December 09, 2005, 10:39:19 AM
Post by: trip1eX on December 09, 2005, 10:41:59 AM
Post by: Deguello on December 09, 2005, 11:10:08 AM
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 09, 2005, 11:35:12 AM
I look at your Litany of Recycled Complaints and whereas you seem to see "reasons Nintendo is not number one" all I see is "mistakes that if rectified would at best increase Nintendo's market share by a couple percent".
Until you can come up with more than that, you still haven't made a good point.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 09, 2005, 11:54:09 AM
If that's what I see that's what I think. What am I supposed to do? Change my opinions because you don't come to the same conclusion I do?
One thing that's very interesting is ironically I have a more optimistic view regarding Nintendo. I think they could do way better if they were more on the ball while the rest of you have this pessimistic idea that they're screwed with no hope beyond targeting a different market entirely.
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 09, 2005, 12:09:53 PM
No, the thing is that you've got a different viewpoint of this whole thing. You're still seeing everything as a sports competition to win the cup, but it doesn't work that way. Nintendo fixing all their mistakes wouldn't let them win, it would just at best split the market into three sections and at worst do nothing because nobody cares about Nintendo anymore. Did you notice how Nintendo fixed a lot of your complaints in this gen but nothing happened? Did you notice how none of your complaints were as bad as the whole cartridge fiasco but Nintendo still did worse this gen?
I can't speak for everybody else but my pessimistic view of Nintendo's hopes is more a result of the current market than a statement on Nintendo itself. I love Nintendo's games but nobody seems to be giving them a chance, and I'm not convinced it's because they're screwing up. I think it's because for better or worse the market has been stuck in a rut ever since Sony came along and brought their "overwhelming hype sells anything" approach to games. You want Nintendo to be number one again? Throw out the current market and all the retarded crap that comes with it, show people why they started playing games in the first place, get other people playing games and addicted to games, and the current market will come around once they let go of the crap Sony and Microsoft have been feeding them for two generations now.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 09, 2005, 12:27:27 PM
Personally I don't think they fixed much. They got rid of the cartridges but other than that didn't really do much else. I'd say they did worse because when the N64 launched everyone thought it would dominate like the SNES did. It didn't but it still sold enough systems during the time when people had faith in it that a lot of people owned one for the first few years at least. Super Mario 64, Goldeneye and Ocarina of Time for example were played by damn near everyone. The Cube didn't have that initial period of faith. It was assumed that history would repeat itself and the Cube would not deliver like the N64 didn't. And Nintendo didn't prove otherwise early on and made a lousy first impression. Everyone assumed the same problems were going to repeat themselves and it seemed like they were going to so they did.
I think that same "Nintendo's console won't deliver" attitude will be there for the Rev. But if Nintendo can make such a good impression early on they can prove otherwise and start going back up. With the Cube it was like "oh Nintendo's going to be all k!ddy and have huge game delays again." Then they saw Wind Waker and the Super Mario Sunshine commercial and the huge post-launch drought and said "see? Told ya." Avoiding that negative first impression at the very least can get Nintendo increasing their market share again. It can get the press saying good things. At the very least those who buy the console will feel more content and confident in it and that will help their image.
The Xbox started from nothing and never had a change at being number one but a year in their fanbase felt things were getting better and that their "brand" was constantly improving. A year in Cube owners were depressed and felt that the same problems were going unaddressed and that they were basically on a sinking ship. Negative morale kills a console because it spreads. People owning a console and then trading it in and talking to their friends about how much it sucks has a huge effect.
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 09, 2005, 12:36:37 PM
You misunderstand. I'm not talking about the beginning of the Cube's lifespan, I'm talking about its course. If those are really the reasons Nintendo isn't number one, how come:
a) New colors
b) A large number of great games
c) Better marketing
d) The new Zelda
... are doing absolutely nothing to push Cube sales up? What I'm saying is that it'll take more than just fixing mistakes to get Nintendo on top. People just aren't interested in Nintendo home consoles anymore. They're just another console maker with nothing special to offer except they don't have Sony's and Microsoft's money to throw around, and no amount of fixing mistakes will suddenly get people to notice them.
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 09, 2005, 01:19:08 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 09, 2005, 01:54:18 PM
a) New colors
b) A large number of great games
c) Better marketing
d) The new Zelda
... are doing absolutely nothing to push Cube sales up?"
Because it's too late for the Cube. Once it was branded as a loser console it never had a chance. What I'm talking about is making virtual no mistakes on their NEXT console. Start off a new console without any obvious goof-ups and with consistent competence. Nintendo could have literally done NOTHING wrong from 2003 onwards but it wouldn't have made a difference.
Post by: Kairon on December 09, 2005, 02:33:59 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: mjbd on December 09, 2005, 02:34:39 PM
Post by: Kairon on December 09, 2005, 02:54:56 PM
Are MARKETING or MANAGEMENT problems. None of these problems (need to advertise, poor treatment of EU/AUS, the need to lie to gamers and fans, the need to capture mindshare), none of them, deal with the core values or ideas that Nintendo is driving towards, and given that light, I'd like to think that we can all agree that we're all hugely excited for the Rev.
Yay.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: BigJim on December 09, 2005, 03:51:03 PM
Lucky me.
My concern really IS Nintendo and their position in the market. Not my personal satisfaction, even though I am not perfectly content either. I'm ultimately interested in Nintendo's success and where I think they can improve because I am an analytical prick. As pessimistic as I may come across, I have been a big Nintendo fan for almost 20 years, and probably will be for a long time to come. I *care* and that's why I am concerned."It seems to me like everything you guys are saying about what Nintendo should do... they already did this generation, and it didn't work."
I don't know if you're including me in that comment. I'm assuming not because I pointed out problems of this generation that have not been done/fixed because most of them didn't happen until this generation. They won't be done/fixed until Nintendo delivers Revolution. My concern is that they not replicate those mistakes. Many of them will be fixed, so I am happy about that. But there is still more to do/show. Until they DO indicate that those problems are fixed, you're gonna have to deal with some of us worriers.
That's the potential downside to releasing information in a slow drip. There's more to learn before I can completely back it up."Don't you think maybe they were holding off on online until they could implement it for free without bleeding out their ass?"
Naturally, but that's not exactly what they said at the time. From teasing us with broadband and modem adapters to commenting that they'd be going online every time they were asked for years... to only not deliver until recently? That's a piss poor way to communicate with customers. If you have no product or service in the pipeline, say so. I'd be fine if they had said from the start, "This just doesn't work for us this generation." I would have accepted that and backed them up. Just don't dangle the carrot and not deliver.
"I love Nintendo's games but nobody seems to be giving them a chance, and I'm not convinced it's because they're screwing up. I think it's because for better or worse the market has been stuck in a rut ever since Sony came along and brought their "overwhelming hype sells anything" approach to games."
Nice point. What Nintendo does, they do well. I think our concern, really, is that we don't want Nintendo bullied into obscurity any more. Sure they'll likely be around a long time, but unless they find solutions to fight back they're lessening their chances each generation. Unfortunately, the Sony and MS behemoths can't be ignored. As I said, they don't have to BE Sony or MS to compete. They just have to be relevant. The DS is a solid system. The Rev is shaping up. Let's just see the rest of the plan.
"I'd like to think that we can all agree that we're all hugely excited for the Rev."
Excited about the potential, absolutely.
Post by: zakkiel on December 09, 2005, 04:46:59 PM
QuoteOddly enough, all the "mistakes" I see listed here are really "things I want Nintendo to do because it would best serve me." Witness the ridiculous claim that an online service would have made some difference to the Cube's performance, for example. How convenient narcissism is. It saves you from ever finding out how other people feel about some particular policy, and if they do insist on telling you, you can always copmfort yourself with the thought that their opinions are illegitimate because they are mindless Nintendo drones.
ddly enough, many of the opinions here are repetitions of Nintendo's talking points. What's best for Nintendo is best for them, apparently. How convenient it is, I suppose, to share in collective thought.
Post by: mjbd on December 09, 2005, 05:23:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
It seems to me that most of the problems we agree that Nintendo has...
Are MARKETING or MANAGEMENT problems. None of these problems (need to advertise, poor treatment of EU/AUS, the need to lie to gamers and fans, the need to capture mindshare), none of them, deal with the core values or ideas that Nintendo is driving towards, and given that light, I'd like to think that we can all agree that we're all hugely excited for the Rev.
Yay.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Agree 100%. Even this generation, Nintendo's marketing for gamecube has been lackluster from the beginning. Games like Eternal Darkness should have been give a much bigger marketing campaign. Even the games they did advertise, they still made stupid mistakes. One being who ever they put in charge of marketing, cause alot of their commercials suck, and release dates. Releasing Metroid Echoes a week after Halo 2, not a very good move. I do like what Nintendo has done for the DS, most the advertising looks pretty slick, and hopefully that keeps up for Rev.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 09, 2005, 06:27:48 PM
Post by: BigJim on December 09, 2005, 06:34:37 PM
Last I checked, opinions are selfish by default. Yours included. If you don't read those opinions in context or just didn't read the last page or so, oh well.
" It's WAR once again. "
Meh...
Post by: Nile Boogie on December 09, 2005, 06:47:16 PM
•Markerting
•Lack of of DVD support
•Smaller disc size
•Off-line
•3rd Party support( better but not great)
I love Nintendo games and since the others don't deliver what I want, I have to be patient with what I have. With that being said it doesn't take away from the fact these points, although they're not important to Nintendo per se, if you're going for market leadership you have to give the people, all the people not just Nintendo fans what they want.
I'm glad Nintendo decided to flip the script and go what I like to call "mainstream niche." Since Nintendo sucks at playing catch-up, they quit and started a whole new race and that seems perfect to me.
Ahhh what do I know, I'm a eagles fan.
Post by: BigJim on December 09, 2005, 07:46:02 PM
), but since apparently my opinions sometimes get mixed with others, these are what I consider Nintendo's big boo-boo's this generation.- Marketing/product perception/image
- Late to market/large headstart for competition
- Console design
- Narrow audience/demographic
- Weak support (partially due to previous)
- No killer apps/system sellers (their own GTA/Halo)
- No DVD support (by Iwata's admission)
Online falls under "would have been nice" but I'm not sure it falls on the biggie list. It would have helped image/perception, but it's actual impact is questionable. Would it have resulted in a few million more hardware sales to tie or beat MS? Probably not. The fact that Sony still has no significant online plan for PS3 is amazing though. Nintendo could leapfrog them next year. Whodathunkit?
The headstart for the competition thing has almost gone forgotten. PS2's lead was deadly for everybody else. Flat out. That's the biggest mistake of all (IMO) that created some of the other problems. I still wonder if Xbox's headstart will actually result in an irreversable lead. I doubt it, though. Sony could be strong enough to catch up. Nintendo is the wildcard. Will they win? Nah, but I do think MS and Nintendo will take bigger pieces of the pie. No more 60/20/20 or whatever it is.
About half of the list is unanswered. There's already some possible perception issues (HD support) but hopefully the corrections will strongly outweight the negatives. Strong marketing and a killer app in SD will still beat PDZero in HD any day of the week.
Post by: mjbd on December 10, 2005, 06:19:39 AM
Post by: zakkiel on December 10, 2005, 09:06:30 AM
QuoteThat's.... bizarre. Last time I checked, an opinion can't be selfish. That's a category mistake. People can be selfish. Actions can be selfish. Opinions can't be selfish any more than mathematical proofs can be selfish. I guess you might mean self-serving, in which case, no, there is no requirement that an opinion be self-serving, and the majority of human opinions ("the sky is blue") aren't.
Last I checked, opinions are selfish by default.
QuoteA crushing rebuttal! If only I understood what exactly it was supposed to be rebutting. Perhaps because I responded to something from a few pages ago, you assume that I just didn't read the other pages, or something? Where do you think I took the online service example from? And if I hadn't read the last few pages, it still wouldn't be relevant unless someone had either made or responded to my point already, which they hadn't and still haven't.
If you don't read those opinions in context or just didn't read the last page or so, oh well.
Post by: nemo_83 on December 11, 2005, 12:24:02 PM
Cube mapping is used to create 3D reflections, a bubble for example; if the technique were reversed placing the camera inside it would be as if the player where inside a virtual imax theatre and with the use of motion capture headgear the player could look around putting an end to tunnel vision.
By the way, does anyone find this suspicious: IBM On
Post by: mac<censored> on December 11, 2005, 01:37:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
Cube mapping is used to create 3D reflections, a bubble for example; if the technique were reversed placing the camera inside it would be as if the player where inside a virtual imax theatre and with the use of motion capture headgear the player could look around putting an end to tunnel vision.
Commonly used for that purpose too, and it doesn't even really require any new technology (that's one of the advantages of cube mapping). However because of the angles involved (at typical viewing angles, only a small area of the background is visible), the resolution of textures used in a a cube-mapped environment is much more noticeable, so you have to either use huge textures or blur the background pretty drastically. In reflections the size is usually reduced enough that you don't see the same problems.
Here's a pic I made with a cube-mapped background:
Alien disco donut
The background is 6 800x800 textures. Notice that in the background the pixels are fairly obvious despite interpolation, whereas the reflection of the same background looks "clean".
Post by: nemo_83 on December 11, 2005, 04:05:08 PM
Post by: attackslug on December 11, 2005, 04:18:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
Cube mapping is used to create 3D reflections, a bubble for example; if the technique were reversed placing the camera inside it would be as if the player where inside a virtual imax theatre and with the use of motion capture headgear the player could look around putting an end to tunnel vision.
You've just pretty much summed up QuicktimeVR. There's some sort of Nintendo patent regarding "depth-mapped panoramic cube mapping", which as far as I can tell, makes for a more interactive form of QTVR where realtime 3d objects can interact with the static images used for the environment, ala Resident Evil but without the use of a polygonal mesh.
As far as displacement mapping goes, I always thought that was a way of converting a greyscale texture into real geometry. Unless my understanding of the tech is off a bit, I'd imagine that displacement mapping would only result in the rendering of more polys thus lowering performance.
Post by: mac<censored> on December 11, 2005, 06:50:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
This cross shows that the image doesn't have to be of low quality.
It's a nice picture, but it's very low-res (the faces are only 125x125)! It works reasonably well as an environment map because it is so low-res -- at any kind of realistic viewing angle the pixels become entirely blurred out:
Florentine donut
Notice that the reflection looks great but the background is completely "out of focus". For some purposes that's fine (and even makes it look sorta artsy), but I'm not sure it's reasonable for the "VR" kind of experience I thought you were suggesting. For the background to be sharp and non-pixellated, I'd think you'd need something like 2048 x 2048 textures (for each face, or a 6144 x 8192 "cross"!!).
Post by: nemo_83 on December 11, 2005, 07:39:30 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 11, 2005, 07:52:31 PM
Post by: wandering on December 11, 2005, 10:16:06 PM
Quote
Do you want to have lots of prerendered graphic adventures (AKA Myst clones) on the system?" Yes, sure, that's what non-gamers play the most (second to bejewelled and tetris clones) but their PCs do that well enough.
Sure do! And PC's won't do those kind of games well enough, after non-gamers see how they can be done on the rev by comparison.
Post by: JonLeung on December 12, 2005, 03:55:32 AM
I'm been trying to convince my dad to play the Myst games because he plays Spider Solitaire practically 24/7, over and over and over. He doesn't like fast-action games so you'd think that would be his style. I figure if you're going to spend all day in front of a computer being unproductive, you might as well do it with a game with actual story and stuff. Not a pack-in Windows card game. (As if to spite me he played Minesweeper for a whole day once.)
Maybe people don't care about Myst anymore; the last couple installments were kind of quick with less fanfare as the first couple. It's no longer the best-selling PC game series (eclipsed by The Sims, obviously). But if most of those Myst/Sims sales were to people who aren't interested in most games (with the exception of my father), maybe it wouldn't hurt to have a couple games like that on the Revolution. Okay, there are already too many Sims games on consoles, but a Myst-like game done right on a console would be sweet. The controller works well, like a mouse, which is probably why past attempts at point-and-click games have rarely worked on consoles in the past.
Of course, with the blow-them-up mentality of the so-called "hardcore" gamers, you'll need to balance this out with a decent FPS, another genre that works best with a mouse.
Maybe Nintendo is after PC gamers (since for whatever reason many people consider that a different market)...
Post by: ThePerm on December 12, 2005, 06:09:28 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on December 12, 2005, 07:37:36 AM
About Nintendo's ability to compete in the existing market: I think Nintendo could compete in the existing market, but I don't think it's enough just to not make any mistakes. In order to actually match or beat the competition, I think Nintendo would need supreme third party support and that would mean cutting liscensing fees, and probably even paying off some developers to make sure that key franchises like GTA, Final Fantasy, and Metal Gear are ported to the Revolution. At that point, everything could degenerate into a big bidding war between the hardware developers and while I think Nintendo could compete in that type of war, in the end the only way to win is to invest way more money.
So rather than staying in a market where the only way to keep marketshare is to cut profits, Nintendo is trying to seek out a new market. For the record, I'd still like to see Nintendo be a little more competitive for third party support, but by differentiating itself from the competition and seeking new markets the company puts itself in a position to "win" the war without wasting as much money as Sony and Microsoft have to. Not to mention it gives Nintendo a more exciting (to me) feature than high-definition graphics.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 12, 2005, 07:53:36 AM
I think it was more the lack of the feature being the problem then having the feature being any huge advantage. Nintendo LIED to their fanbase about online plans that they never really had. They let us think they would be going online for over a year after the console launched. Lying to your fanbase isn't very good PR.
Second both competitors had a feature that Nintendo failed to match. The gen before everyone thought CDs were the future. Nintendo didn't. That descision proved to be very wrong. Now they're got to show that was an isolated incident. Now everyone thinks online is the future. But not Nintendo. Nope old fuddy duddy Nintendo is behind the times yet again. That's a very negative perception and I think things like that hurt Nintendo more than anything. With the N64 Nintendo got the image of being too consertative and behind the times and the Cube being offline just confirmed that for everyone just like now no HD support is confirming that again. They always look like the old fuddy duddy playing catch up, always one generation behind.
Post by: nemo_83 on December 12, 2005, 10:19:05 AM
I believe Nintendo should have done online, and they shouldn't have tried to pass the cost along to the consumer in the form of GBA connection games (sells charts speak the opinion of gamers).
The previous generation Nintendo offered the analog stick and Sony offered the CD; it was a close race. Now Nintendo is offering the remote and Sony is offering blue ray and the format is not as big an issue as MS has already put its foot down on using a small format (itty bitty compared to Blue Ray); Sony will be going against two companies with cheaper formats and cheaper lasers which means cheaper consoles, that means larger install bases, and it will result in more games for everyone whose name isn't Sony.
Blue Ray might as well = cartridge.
Hell, with a new expensive cart system at least ram wouldn't be an issue anymore. An expensive disk system; its an oxymoron.
I predict next generation we will move to flash memory of some type; something solid and rewrittable.
On software, the Cube, as I've said before, felt like a game of Old Coke New Coke. The Cube software wasn't bad, it just lacked the fun and thrill of immersion brought on by the N64. The Cube to me tasted like New Coke; now they're going to act innocent and come out with Coca Cola Classic, and everyone is going to drink it up like its going out of style. I feel like the controller and software of the Cube were intensionally held back to lower people's expectations of the company and make consumers feel Nintendo is the underdog, that they're a victim of image control, and that they're really ignorant enough to launch a purple lunchbox as a serious piece of electronics equipment in the U.S.
Then I snap out of that theory and realize they may have fixed the surface image of the Revolution but they still are truly ignorant to fact that their image is shaped in other ways too. Americans for example care to an extent about how the Revolution will consume less energy, be more quiet, and is a fourth the size of my British Literature text book; but Americans only care so much. The Japanese market may see those qualities as crowning jewels; Americans though are going to say, "I really don't care about any of that as they left out 400 MB of RAM and two thirds of the CPU to make it that small and quiet." Americans would rather deal with the noise and have the bandwidth than to be nit picky about how Nintendo could trim two inches from the thickness. With the Revolution Nintendo is saying to its fans that the system is just as equivalent to 360 or PS3 as the DS; as in, Nintendo doesn't presently have a console.
Now what is developing into my greatest fear; how their online will work on the console. Will there be a central forum, will there be a ranking system allowing one to view things like drop out rates, wins, loses, accuracy, efficiency, will there be third parties charging on the side to play their games, will obsenities be flailed at me in ten year old voices (its quite disturbing on LIVE) telling me things I shant write here making me feel as though I have some how crossed connections with Xbox LIVE, will Nintendo be censoring, etc? There is so much about their online plan I know nothing about, like, will it be ready for launch? Will there be a game worth buying the system at launch, will that game work online? Nintendo has said nothing but, "hey dude, don't worry about it, it's free, I'm free, you're free; now pass that *** ***** and let's free our minds." Nintendo needs to release information. Its not like they have any console on the market or software coming out for it so they can't hurt any products; if anything they can make themselves look serious in the console market and more people will buy more handhelds until the console launches.
Not telling the industry what you have planned causes things like the megameltdown. People start wondering if you're buying X company, or that you have some miracle that allows your weaker hardware to outperform the competition, or that you are going to use the motion capture control with a visor; when in reality you've got nothing. That's right, I'm calling your bluff Nintendo. I'm calling you chicken, draw your pistols, shoot me dead. I've seen the big gun, now show me the bullets ************. I want to be disproved; I want to see the fire in your eyes again. I'm waiting and its already three hours past noon.
Post by: IceCold on December 12, 2005, 01:49:51 PM
QuoteWell, there are always the people who don't own a Gamecube but do own an Xbox or a PS2
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
About the quality of Nintendo games this generation: Yes, a lot of them weren't as good as in the past, but I don't think it affected sales (that much). I don't think people who don't own a GameCube made that choice because Nintendo's big games aren't as good as they were in the past - most of them have never even played the games, so how could they know or care?
Anyway, I also disagree about the quality of Nintendo games this generation - to me they were of exceptional quality, and I don't think this is a major reason at all that the Gamecube did poorly.
And I strongly agree with nemo that Blu-Ray is a huge Sony mistake. With their ulterior motives, they're doing the same thing as with the PSP - they're taking the focus away from gaming. So is Microsoft, but this, in a way, is worse. The cost of having Blu-Ray will be felt, and the price of the PS3 will reflect that. And to top it off, it has no use for games. No one will use that much storage; Microsoft and Nintendo have gone with lower capacity discs, and the game industry will use them as the guideline, not Blu-Ray discs.
Post by: Kairon on December 12, 2005, 01:55:09 PM
You don't seem to realize that Nintendo has already undertaken on the biggest risk of all. The Revolution Controller is putting Nintendo's Game Design Legacy on the line, betting it all, and saying now or never. Nintendo's games for the Rev are forced to start from near scratch, their dev teams can't reuse many past concepts, and EVERYONE is still looking to Nintendo to lead, lead, lead.
For years, Nintendo has laid claim to making the best videogames, period. Now, with the revolution controller, their telling us that they're going to prove once and for all whether Nintendo is just a bloated old brand, or whether they can really, truly, make another Mario 64.
Nintendo's reputation as a game maker is on the line here Nemo. If they lose that claim to fame among the general industry, then they've got nothing left.
If that doesn't strike you as fire, then I don't know what does.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: nemo_83 on December 12, 2005, 04:59:26 PM
If Nintendo is aiming so low with the initial hardware cost, why should they not take the risk now of a visor which would be optional rather than waiting five years for their hard work to allow the competition to be the first ones to the market with a wireless motion control 3D visor system.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 13, 2005, 03:27:45 AM
Third parties trust Sony enough to deliver a system with a large userbase and therefore are willing to make games that use the BRD. Sony is pretty good at netting exclusivity deals as well so if they snatched e.g. Rockstar they'd make a GTA that wouldn't be feasible on the X360 (GTASA already uses as much disc space as the DVD medium offers (can only use one layer because refocussing takes too long AFAIK)). If in doubt they'll just make the game for the PS3 and downsample the textures for the X360 and Rev. After all, optimization for disc constraints comes last so the PS3 fork would have to cull the least content.
I'd say MS made the bigger mistake, games on the PS2 manage to fill DVDs without using a lot of FMVs, textures on the X360 will take up 16 times the space (1024x1024 vs. 256x256) already, music will take 3 times (5+1 channels vs. 2), animations will need more space because of more bones, even geometry is getting more space consuming. The Rev can get away with it to a certain degree (lower resolution greaphics, two channel audio, etc) but for the X360 it'll turn into a huge constraint. Multi-disc games would mean you can't have streaming so that's not a clean solution.
Post by: odifiend on December 13, 2005, 04:46:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
The final testament will be the games, they will show if Nintendo has lost the magic or if the interface is so integral to the experience that it can nolonger be seperated from fun factor. If its all about control, nothing is stoping MS from dumping tons of money in an "ultimate" video game system next generation using motion control and 3d visor.
Patents. People even on these forums have found the 3D sensing patents. As for a 3D visor, nobody wants that
.RE: Bluray: I'd imagine with Xbox360 games already pricing at 60 USD, the price of BluRay would be passed on to the consumer. 65+ USD would be a bad move, especially since the Revolution being able to come in around the same price.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 13, 2005, 05:56:27 AM
65+ USD would be a bad move
I wouldn't expect prices like that. MS themselves are pushing for 50$ prices and I doubt Sony would appreciate such pricing, either. Besides, games are as expensive as customers are willing to buy them and I doubt they could tell to people "look, Blu Ray is so expensive, our games are more expensive as a result".
Post by: nemo_83 on December 13, 2005, 06:17:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiendQuote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
The final testament will be the games, they will show if Nintendo has lost the magic or if the interface is so integral to the experience that it can nolonger be seperated from fun factor. If its all about control, nothing is stoping MS from dumping tons of money in an "ultimate" video game system next generation using motion control and 3d visor.
Patents. People even on these forums have found the 3D sensing patents. As for a 3D visor, nobody wants that
RE: Bluray: I'd imagine with Xbox360 games already pricing at 60 USD, the price of BluRay would be passed on to the consumer. 65+ USD would be a bad move, especially since the Revolution being able to come in around the same price.
There are a storm of rumors and I'm trying not to get my hopes up. I've heard the system will have a screen on top, I've heard it will use a projector, I've heard it will look like 360 on a regular TV, and I've read the following patent.
"[0009] We use cube mapping for a somewhat different purpose--to pre-render a three-dimensional scene or universe such as for example a landscape, the interior of a great cathedral, a castle, or any other desired realistic or fantastic scene. We then add depth to the pre-rendered scene by creating and supplying a depth buffer for each cube-mapped image. The depth buffer defines depths of different objects depicted in the cube map. Using the depth buffer in combination with the cube map allows moving objects to interact with the cube-mapped image in complex, three-dimensional ways. For example, depending upon the effect desired, moving objects can obstruct or be obstructed by some but not other elements depicted in the cube map and/or collide with such elements. The resulting depth information supplied to a panoramically-composited cube map provides a complex interactive visual scene with a degree of 3D realism and interactivity not previously available in conventional strictly 2D texture mapped games."
Sounds like RE Rebirth, but instead of scrolling the character through a flat pre rendered picture, you move the character through a pre rendered image that is panoramic allowing the camera to move in full 3D. The room would not just be a flat image with an invisible wire frame inside, it would contain six images, and the CPU would make the transitions from one image to the next seemless giving the illusion of true prerendered 3D backgrounds.
They could cube map entire sky lines or simply lanscape or mountains in the backgrounds that are out of reach but instead of a flat image they create a distant image that can be viewed from multiple perspectives as if it were a hologram.
This is like augmented reality reveresed.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 13, 2005, 07:33:53 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on December 13, 2005, 07:52:13 AM
Imagine for example, Samus' ball, prerendered using cube mapping, perfectly round. Imagine her arm cannon prerendered (as if it came right out of a hollywood movie) in six dimensions all at once allowing you to see it in 3D.
Post by: odifiend on December 13, 2005, 07:54:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
65+ USD would be a bad move
I wouldn't expect prices like that. MS themselves are pushing for 50$ prices and I doubt Sony would appreciate such pricing, either. Besides, games are as expensive as customers are willing to buy them and I doubt they could tell to people "look, Blu Ray is so expensive, our games are more expensive as a result".
MS may be pushing for $50 games but with the exception of inhouse titles, that was not a reality. I'd imagine with HD graphics and increased development time, royalty-paying publishers want to ensure their games make a profit.
I actually see Sony as not discouraging this trend of games over 50 USD just because of their current debt and reports that they will be taking losses on the hardware. How else could they profit?
Post by: KDR_11k on December 13, 2005, 09:18:55 AM
Characters can be VERY detailled on the system, you wouldn't need to put its full power into rendering characters. AI and physics are handled by the CPU (the bit of power that ordering the GPU around needs is probably surpassed by the operating system's idle usage...), not the GPU and lighting can be kept at the same performance by baking the lighting for the scenery and only calculating it for the characters (that's what many games do these days). If the shaders can handle the lighting for the characters then that's enough.
With prerendered scenery you can't move the camera around and you're much more restricted in what you can do. Moving the camera around allows for much more immersive games since he camera would be closer to the player (unless you want the player to move only step wise as seen in Myst).
MS may be pushing for $50 games but with the exception of inhouse titles, that was not a reality. I'd imagine with HD graphics and increased development time, royalty-paying publishers want to ensure their games make a profit.
MS can't enforce it but they're sure as hell trying to discourage 60$ games. I'd expect publishers to fall in line with that within the next few months (for now they know that there's not much competition so they can demand outrageous prices). Most publishers are just porting the PC version's graphics to the x360, anyway (while selling the PC game for 40 Euros compared to 68 Euros for x360 games)
I actually see Sony as not discouraging this trend of games over 50 USD just because of their current debt and reports that they will be taking losses on the hardware. How else could they profit?
Sony makes the same profit whether the game costs 50 or 60 (their license fee is constant), the only difference to them is that at 60 people will buy fewer games and therefore pay less to Sony. Plus lower game prices make the system look better to the customer and many casuals won't pay that much so it'd even threaten Sony's sales.
Post by: odifiend on December 13, 2005, 09:37:34 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 13, 2005, 10:28:06 AM
Besides, they can afford releasing GBA games for less than console games despite expensive cartridges. Media costs are really a minor factor.
Post by: attackslug on December 13, 2005, 10:32:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
It could prove less taxing to load six frames of a room than to render it in real time allowing the power to be focused on rendering the character in real time, streaming AI, physics, and lighting.
Imagine for example, Samus' ball, prerendered using cube mapping, perfectly round. Imagine her arm cannon prerendered (as if it came right out of a hollywood movie) in six dimensions all at once allowing you to see it in 3D.
Cube mapping doesn't do this. I don't know where that idea came from, but it looks like the interpretations everyone seems to love on Gamespot's forums. "Panoramic cubemapping" only allows for what is essentially a skybox. Creating true 3d objects out of 2d images is just BS through and through. The closest thing to what you've described is displacement mapping (a whole new can of worms), that in a nutshell converts textured bumps and depth into ACTUAL bumps and depth (ie more polys), allowing for the creation of very complicated detail on models quickly and accurately. For instance, if a displacement map of a rough, pockmarked brick wall was used on a flat surface, it would would modify the geometery of the wall to actually have pocks, bumps, and spaces between the actual bricks. It's quick and efficient compared to actually modelling the individual details in the wall by hand, but it is very taxing on the CPU and GPU because of the huge increase in polygons.
I've seen this theory of getting enormous detail at no cost many times before, just applied to a different name. First it was applied to NURBS, this cubemapping bit, and now displacement mapping -- everyone seems to latch onto the idea that these are some sort of magic bullet that will allow for the rendering of complex, fully 3d objects without the use of system resources. This is, of course, utter bollocks. Everytime someone shoots the rumor down, it just gets shifted to another CG technology that people don't fully understand.
ANYWAYS, this is an example of panoramic cubemapping: http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen5/f14a-pope.html
You need quicktime to view it, and it ought to give a pretty good idea of what the limits of this technology entail.
You had the right idea when you described it as a more dynamic take on what goes on in Resident Evil. I *think* that Nintendo's patent is a step forward in that it eliminates the need for a polygonal mesh for the interaction of realtime objects and the pre-rendered scene, somehow through the use of a corresponding depthmap for each face of the cubemap.
I'm by no means a 3d modeling guru, but I have a decent understanding of the basics. Also keep in mind that if any of these fantastic rumors/interpretations of patents had any weight behind them, you'd see all sorts of stuff about it on anandtech, gamasutra, etc, and NOT a casual gaming forum like GS or PGC.
PANORAMIC CUBEMAP
Post by: Kairon on December 13, 2005, 11:38:14 AM
It will still be cents a disc...BUT it can't be made at any existing CD manufacturing plant. This means that all the costs associated with it are merely the couple hundred million dollars in start up costs that it'd take Sony to build a brand new Factory.
I bet though PS3 games would be 60 bucks at launch, it'll eventually settle back into a more sensible 50-55 dollars range for new releases quickly. Marginally more expensive, but then again third parties are understandably getting worried with high dev costs.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Edit: Oh! I KNEW that the edit button hadn't just magically disappearted from the forum! Yay!
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on December 13, 2005, 12:07:26 PM
Post by: Kairon on December 13, 2005, 12:35:26 PM
In my last post, where it reads "family?"
I meant factory. Uh, yeah. Have NOOOO idea what happened there! hehe....*gulp*
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on December 13, 2005, 07:24:48 PM
Post by: ssj4_android on December 14, 2005, 06:32:51 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 14, 2005, 06:36:11 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 14, 2005, 10:57:04 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 14, 2005, 10:58:00 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: couchmonkey on December 14, 2005, 12:04:20 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on December 14, 2005, 12:23:10 PM
Have there been any confirmed launch titles?
Post by: Caterkiller on December 14, 2005, 03:35:44 PM
And Iwata wants Miyamoto to have Mario ready for launch but there have been no promises yet.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 14, 2005, 04:21:15 PM
[NINTENDO] "WE ARE MAKING STUFFS, DO NOT WORRY."
Post by: jasonditz on December 15, 2005, 06:51:53 AM
It leaves me actually feeling pretty good... I'm still buying the rev, of course, but if it manages to stay in the $99-$149 range I can probably think about adding either a PS3 or an Xbox 360 later in the year.
Post by: jasonditz on December 15, 2005, 07:09:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"For Nintendo, Silicon Knights and Left Field and Factor 5 were pretty much duds."
I'll give you Left Field but SK and F5 are both talented developers that could have done way better if Nintendo wasn't such a moron regarding marketing. Eternal Darkness was given a horrible marketing push and then SK was treated like a glorified port house to work on a remake of MGS. ED itself was quite good which you can't say for Giest. They left apparently because they didn't like the direction Nintendo is taking regarding non-gamers. Factor 5 made THE killer app for the Cube in Rogue Leader but Nintendo focused on Luigi's Mansion instead in their commercials. Rebel Strike sucked but considering that Factor 5's N64 games were also quite good I consider that a fluke caused by a poor design decision to feature foot missions. F5 left because of Nintendo skimping on the hardware (I think). If Nintendo wasn't making an underpowered remote-controlled non-gamer console conceivably BOTH developers would still be with Nintendo. They had talent. Nintendo just blatantly misused them.
And regardless of how you feel about Rare now they made the game that let the SNES beat the Genesis and they basically carried the N64 on their back. Rare is one of the best things Nintendo has ever had. They probably wouldn't have been able stay in the console market without them.
I really disagree with all the hate for LF... Courtside for the Cube was a compelling play experience, much of the play mechanics (pass stick) were eventually copied by the bigger players. It really needed a chance to get some more polish, and a franchise mode, and I was sorry to see Nintendo pull the plug on it.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 15, 2005, 07:47:48 AM
Post by: Caterkiller on December 15, 2005, 08:45:34 AM
If its true then Nintendo really has found some amazing new way of making games with lower power but able to perform graphicly just as good as Microsoft and maybe Sony. Hope, this isn't what you guys were all talking about a page or 2 ago.
Post by: jasonditz on December 15, 2005, 10:03:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Caterkiller
Has anyone checked this out at Revo-Europe? http://www.revo-europe.com/news.php?nid=8636
If its true then Nintendo really has found some amazing new way of making games with lower power but able to perform graphicly just as good as Microsoft and maybe Sony. Hope, this isn't what you guys were all talking about a page or 2 ago.
I saw that too... I'm skeptical until I see it in action, but it would make sense as far as making ports from the other systems possible.
Not that the rev's success is going to live or die on ports from the other systems... first party is and has always been the key for nintendo.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 15, 2005, 10:22:43 AM
Post by: attackslug on December 15, 2005, 11:53:31 AM
Displacement mapping increases polycounts, actually. Basically, it works kind of like bump or normal mapping in that it uses a greyscale texture to alter the appearance of the model. Unlike bump/normal mapping, which simulate the illusion of complex geometry by dynamically changing the highlights and shadows of a texture, displacement mapping makes the geometry more complex by subdividing the mesh and modifying it's shape to confrom to the texture.
For example, a flat wall given a brick-patterned displacement map will actually have bumps and crevices "modeled" into it, potentially bumping the amount of polygons needed to render it through the roof.
In short, it's quick and efficient in terms of time and effort needed to construct detailed models or maps, but that much more taxing on the hardware because of the additional polys it needs to push. If the rev actually uses this technique, it could speak quite well for the horsepower of the system -- it takes alot of resources to do this, which is why we won't be seeing it in any games until later Xbox360 or PC releases.
Post by: trip1eX on December 15, 2005, 05:22:10 PM
Anyway I saw a good post on what the secret may be. It definitely is one of the better guesses I've come across. You know that overly large 'A' button on the controller? Well it's not just a button. It has multiple functions depending on how you press it. Simple appearance for new gamers. Complex functionality for the hardcore. ...which, course, is Nintendo's strat. Best analogy I can think of is Apple's Mighty Mouse. Simple in apperance yet actually has 4 buttons and 4 way scroll wheel. Again just a guess but sounded like a good one.
Post by: nemo_83 on December 15, 2005, 06:02:53 PM
The A button thing would be g i m m i c k y; I'd rather they put a scroll wheel on the controller. In fact I would build one around the A button.
Most games will have mechanics of point, click, drag, and release.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on December 15, 2005, 06:37:05 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 15, 2005, 07:16:11 PM
DUR
Post by: KDR_11k on December 16, 2005, 05:08:03 AM
Post by: trip1eX on December 16, 2005, 06:00:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
I too read that about the A button, and I believe it is a flat out lie; Nintendo is going for simple with the controller. At this point I don't see the B button turning out analog or the A button being combined with the d pad; its such a lame brained idea. Its exactly the kind of stupid designs I used to doodle up thinking about the Dolphin in highschool. I'd rather they stick with their trademarked dpad and the big A button. Imagine the remote as a big analog stick; how many buttons do you see on your analog stick. Its kind of difficult to keep up with too many functions when gesturing your arm.
The A button thing would be sparkling innovationy; I'd rather they put a scroll wheel on the controller. In fact I would build one around the A button.
Most games will have mechanics of point, click, drag, and release.
How can a guess be a flat out lie?
Anyway I think the idea of it fits in well with Nintendo wanting a simple controller, but also wanting to have extra functionality for the hardcore. For the new gamer it would just be one button.
But maybe it's programmable so it can be used as multiple buttons. Like the left and right sides are different buttons. If you've seen Apple's Mighty Mouse you'll know what I'm talking about. Apple's mouse doesn't look like it has any buttons. But it's got 4 and a 4-way scroll wheel in the shape of a tiny ball.
Anyway it is just a guess. One of the more solid ones I've read about. But from all reports the controller is smaller than it looks and so probably is the button. And that doesn't help that guess.
But your nonsense about pressing multiple buttons while aiming the remote is just that- nonsense. HOw many buttons does your TV remote have? How would the 'A' button thing be sparkling innovationy? If by pressing it different it can represent more buttons how's that sparkling innovationy?
Most games will have the mechanics of point, click, drag, release. Ah not sure what you're talking about there. For some of the games announced with the controller like Metroid and SSB and a Mario game I don't think that's the case. Sure we'll point the controller. Sure we'll press buttons. Sure we might drag something in a game. But that's all rather obvious. We're not going to be playing a Windows game of move your files to another folder.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 16, 2005, 06:18:20 AM
That sounds a little too complex. In fact it just sounds f*cking unusable. Analog face buttons SUCK. How hard you push a button is usually based on how you're feeling at a point in the game. During a very intense point you're going to press harder because you're keyed up. You don't have time to think about how hard you're pushing a button.
Digital controls are the easiest to use because they require little thought. It's like a light switch - on or off. One thing I'm very concerned about regarding motion control is the "interpretation". What I think is one movement might be interpreted differently by the game. I don't need that sort of wishy-washy "did I do it correctly" stuff with the buttons too.
Post by: Kairon on December 16, 2005, 06:27:11 AM
Anyways, this A button idea isn't analog, so that last statement isn't really applicable. But seriously, it seems too small to incorporate hidden Multi-digital-button functions. If it did have multiple digital sensors underneath it, would it not need to be larger and shaped in such a way that clearly defined its possibly complex nature? Basically, wouldn't it need to look more like a D-Pad? That is afterall what's being proposed: the A-button having the functionality of the D-pad, but looking like an 'ol button to fool the casuals.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: trip1eX on December 16, 2005, 01:41:40 PM
I wasn't thinking analog button at all. Ah well given some of the comments about the small size of the remote it's probably not it.
But I haven't heard any good guesses yet as to what 'secret' there is left to tell.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on December 16, 2005, 08:38:11 PM
Post by: rhahertyehbah on December 17, 2005, 08:10:51 AM
Post by: IceCold on December 17, 2005, 10:22:14 AM
But then you'd be taking away resistance - resistance on buttons while playing a game is extremely important.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 19, 2005, 07:56:37 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 19, 2005, 11:55:58 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 19, 2005, 12:30:24 PM
Post by: animecyberrat on December 19, 2005, 06:22:59 PM
Way back when the SNES was around its major competitors (regardless of "generation" crap people spill) were the
Sega Genesis (EQUAL power less colors faster cpu better sprites slightly less ram and expansions that actualy got USED, equal size cartsCd Expansion, Equal large library)
Neo Geo (ALmost but not quit twice as powerfull, several times the ram, far more colors, FAR suprerior Sprites, many expansions, bigger carts, faster cpu, CD Expansion, slightly smaller library)
Turbo Graphic-16 (basicaly equal power, less ram, less colors, similar sprite capabilities, far smaller "cart" size CD Expansion, slower CPU, far smaller library"
3Do (AT LEAST double power, cd media equald FAR larger storage capacity, FMV capabilities built in, better 3d capabilities, far superior sprite capabilities, far more colors, far superior CD sound, far smaller library)
Atari Jaguar (SEVERAL times more power full, several times faster, far more colors, larger cart sizes, cd expanio, far more ram, FAR smaller game library, far superior 3d and 2d capabilities.)
Yet all these systems which are mostly far superior in power with Genesis and turbo graphix being only exceptions, SNES still oput solld ALL of these, and then some. Even on that same note the SNES was NOT 3 times as powerfull as NES, it was basicaly twice as fast, 3 times the sprite capabilities, tripple the ram, and tahst about it, well and cart siszes were larger and Steroe sound was built in. Look up the specs of these systems and then checkout some screen shots and game fotoage and you will see that the NES-SNES conversin was NOT much bigger that what is so far peroted as 2-3 times GC leap has been rumored to be.
Next I woudl liek to also point out that 3D0, Neo Geo AND Atari Jaguar ALL were FAR superior to SNES in EVERY convievable way with 1 exception software, also these systems were several times more expensive. Snes in itw prime was between 150 and 200 dollars demending on bundles and core unit combinations. Neo Geo was 1000 in its prime an games were well over 100 dollars each. 3D0 launched and stayed close to 700 dollars durring same time span, Atari Jaguar was launched around 350 and didnt go down for a while.
The SNES being INFERIOR to these systems still managed to out sell them all three COMBINED, due to thei software lineup and smaller price.
I had a Genesis first and SNES way latter, and I could never for teh life of me figure out how either systems out sold the neo geo! Seriously its that much better but the price was what killed it.
NExt I would like to make a few comments regarding the last gen verses next gen. First I agree mostly with Ian Sane but I have more to add so bear with me.
First I agree totaly that Nintendo killed the n64 way too early and had a way too buig gap between it and GC. SNES continued to get games three years into N64s life cycle and same with NES to SNES.
Second the GC was underhyped, Nintendo didnt do much at all to tell people hwo great it was or what it could do, instead they simpley thought thier brand name alone was sufficient.
Third there were too few decent games at launch and it took way too long afterwards to get some good games, Ps2 launched with triple the number of games as GC and Xbox double, its not so much weather tehyw ere good or not but it was the fact people could see there was enough variety to justify the purchase becaus ethey enw more games were on teh way, where as GC it was like you eithe rliked the few games at launch and were williong to stick it out or you waited to see if some good games woudl come out or not (ME I waited untill the 99 dollar prioced drop cuz it took THAT long to get enough games for me to consider it good enough to buy)
Then Nintendo focused too much on over hyping new games liek Pikin which to me were to wierd to gey int (yes I tried it but I hated the game)
They could have spent more time hyping games that people would have appealed to mroe pople, like Eternal Darkness or Metroid Prime (which is bad marketing on thoier part cuz I NEVER heard of ET untill LAST YEAR, anmd Metroid I was never that into but got Prime eventualy after Echos came out cuz I wanted it but need to play the first game first.)
Then there was teh fact that PS2 AND Xbox could also play DVDs yet GC couldnt THIS IS *THE* mistake that killed them plain and simple. In the first year of the current get DVD players were still rather expensive and not quit as popular as VHS. nearly EVERY PERSON I KNEW was either getting a ps2 or xbox simply cuz they could play dvds AND games. less than a year latter DVD players Drop dramaiticaly in price, and they practicaly erase vhs from peoples minds.
The online thing is debatable rememebr Nintendo worked with Sega to get TWO Phatasy Star Online games for GC and one was EXCLUSIVE at first. Nitendo had a chance to say make Mario Kart DD online and Star Fox Assault but they chose not to cuz it wouldnt be proffitable, BULLS**T, they wouldnt have to buld any infrastructure at all they just woudl have to host a coupple games thaty would have made up the cost in sales and subscription or they could have done waht sony did and just factor the onine cost into the game eitehr way it could have been profitable or at least WOULD have sold some more systems cuz then people wouldt have that excuse not to but it and YES judgeing by the number of people who got Xbox Live and how Xbox over took Nintendo youd bea *&*&img idiot not to see the connection.
Last I will address 3rd party support, Nintendo did EVERYTHING they could to get stellar support but after companies LOST money porting games over they jumped ship, not to mention that early 2003 Nintendo STOPPED prodcution even only temproarily of GC it turned MANY developers away, cuz they saw this as Nintendo trhowing in teh towel so to speak, go back and re-read your magazine form this time period and you will see this was THE TIME when the 3rd parties companies left. Factor 5, Sega Sports (changed to 2k sports and sold to Take 2, Midway, Lucas Arts (aBIG loss regardless of what anyone says otherwise), Namco, even Kanomi all mentioned they were threw with GC, Nintendo had to dropp the price, BRIBE three of those companies to stay and still suffered losses. Namco agreed to stay because Nintendo agreed to let them use Link in thier Sould Calibur 2 game, which was at teh time percieved as a move that would attract more peopel to teh Cube version of the game. Even Atari had said they were gonna leave GC but Nintendo paid them to get Budakai and a hand full of other games since. M<idway ONLY ported MK 6 due to overwhelming fan demand only to be rewared with crappy sales (yeah Nintendo fans bitched hard enough to get that game and we didnt even buy it)
Midways Arcade Treasures 2 was ONLY ported because Midway knew that Nintendo fans had a strong attachment to most of those games simply becaus ein their hayday they were available on NEs or SNES and Nitendo fans would be nostalgic for them and cuz its a bargian game that was a quik port to get extra money.
If itw asnt for EA, THQ, Activision and SEGA maintianing support GC would have died in 2004. Nintendo BARLEY sold equal with Xbox (the year before) and it took a HUGE price cut and a special pack in to get that much support back.
Capcom was iffy to begin with and theres nothing Nintendo could have done to fix that Capom just plain screwd Nintendo over in the 64 days by only making what was it three games, all crappy ports to boot. The Resident Evil ports and remakes dindt mean s*** to people who had a ps2 cuz all those games were already playable on it one way or another
Looking back I remeber ever time Nintendo would release one of those Holiday shopping guides I woudl start to get excited about somthing then realized that after no one else did it wasnt going to take off. I had high hopes for GB Player but yet Nintendo screwed that up. I had faith in E-reader simply cuiz Mario 3-e and again thew screwed that up, then Mario PArty E and those NES games could have some difference if Nintendo had chosen to make more games available and kept them as e-reader games instead of re-realsing them as GBA games and over pricing them and killing off e-reader.
The other mistakes they made were mostly image and marketing mistakes and so far they havent done much to improve those much. Dont get me wrong I have full faith in the Virtual Console to sell Revs and the free online and if they get some good FPS games and some good Online games theres a winning combination, me persoanly (Adn damn you if you flame me for my own opinions) I hate the new controller and so do most people I show it to, it wont fix any gameplay issue only create new barriers, deves taking longer to test thier control schemes is what will imrpiove game play and devs trying new things could work without teh remote control device. However that desont mean it wont bea success but if not for the Shell I garuntee you I would pass the rev up all together simply cuz I have aDS and all the old systems. For me GC was mosty dissapointemnts witha few great games mixed with a bunch of crap. To spell it out clearer (and I know MOST of you will diagree but I dont give a*^&*) I hated Pikmin, Paper Mario, Sunshine, Luigis Mansion, Pikmin 2, Animal Crossing, MK Double Dash ALL the mario sports games, every mario party game past 4, F-Zero, and even hated Wind Waker (GASP!)
I dint like and do play MK Deadly Allience, Mega Man Anniversary Collection, Sonic ADventure 1-2 and Heroes, DBZ Budokai, True Crime, Sould Calibur 2, most EA games yes I even loved rogue agent, and games like Star Wars Lego and teh TMNT games, ammong others. I play a lot more than just nintend 1st party games alwasy have been a bigger SEGA fan than Nintendo so I had hopes for Sega making more games for system too, yet I always chose Nintendo over Sony anyday for various reasons. Yet I eventualt caved in and now have the other 2 (thanksa fu%&ink lot Nintendo dumb @$$es! ) seriously I have lost alot of faith, but I haev been playing games since Atari 2600 so have seen giants come and go and yet they remian so they must be doing something right and dmanint I have faith that even if REV isnt as powerfull as Ps3 they can still KILL SONY! if yo manage to read this entire post props to you and pat yourself on the back, if yu got beef wit me or my OPINIONS bring it, if you try and refute FATCS I will reply but as of right now I and all of you only have 3 things to go on, the past,m the present and SPECULATION. Thats it. The past shows us GIANTS can fall yet Nintenod somehow stays around, the present shows us that Nintendo is regaining some midnshare and image plus alot of repsect, the future is up in the air but take everythig togetehr and you will see theres a lot fo reasons to believe Nintendo will come out on top next gen cuz they so far are fixing the MAJOR problems, yet tehres a few areas tehy need to work on, but Ill save that for another post cuz DAMN! just reading this monster hurts!
Post by: IceCold on December 19, 2005, 09:22:03 PM
QuoteIf anything, they under hyped Pikmin; as they did with most their games, including, yes, Eternal Darkness and Metroid Prime. In the perfect world, Pikmin would have been the best seller on ALL the consoles this gen, because it was so original and creative... but the videogame industry has become so stagnant that it's scary...
Then Nintendo focused too much on over hyping new games liek Pikin which to me were to wierd to gey int (yes I tried it but I hated the game)
I don't mind if you don't like the controller, but please wait until some games are actually shown before you say that it will create new barriers etc..
You analysed the third party situation very well, actually. The fact is that it's true; Nintendo fans won't buy the third party garbage... only amazing games sell decently. But look back at the SNES era - third party sales were extremely strong. That's because there was a larger userbase and those other gamers who buy those types of games were part of it, and the SNES was their primary system. Like the PS2... If Nintendo can attract a larger userbase for the Rev consisting of people other than hardcore fans, then the games will start selling again. But instead of getting those other gamers which migrated to Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo is trying to create a whole new audience in non-gamers. As has been said, it's risky but if it works, it has great potential... the non-gamers could get interested in other types of games, and also, there will be more third party support is the userbase is strong regardless of the demographic.
But that's the thing that worries me about this "second system" stuff; if many people buy the Rev as a second system, multiplatform sales will just be horribly low. As it is, developers are definitely going to make games with the 360 and PS3 & HD in mind, then scale them back quickly to port them on the Rev. It's bad enough that the Cube getting the worst ports gives it a bad image... So if this happens, a lot of support will dry up. But again, if the userbase is high enough, it won't really matter, as the Rev will get a significant amount of exclusives.
You are an atypical NIntendo gamer - you say that you like Mortal Kombat, EA games, True Crime etc, but you hated Pikmin, Sunshine, Wind Waker, F-Zero etc.. So you really do have a unique viewpoint of things. I won't tell you what to like or not, but I'm just saying that your tastes are quite abnormal. Did you like any first party games this gen?
Also, I don't think that the DVD thing was all that important. You said it was the deciding factor, but the Cube is last for a slew of reasons, and DVD certainly wasn't that important. Maybe at the beginning of the generation, it sold some PS2s and Xboxes, but DVD prices got progressively cheaper, and only a little into the generation it wasn't a selling point. And anyway, you had to buy a lot of extra stuff for DVDs on the Xbox. I actually think this helped Nintendo a bit in one regard - software tie-in ratio. DVDs have nothing to do with games, and the people that bought PS2s and Xboxes because of the support likely bought less games. Look at the PSP tie-in ratio - it's the same situation; people look at it as a media player and the few games that are available don't sell well. This drives developers away, and that's why Nintendo has always been about the games. Looking at the next generation, Sony and MS are moving further away from gaming and I don't like it at all...
Post by: Kairon on December 20, 2005, 05:31:07 AM
That's why it's so important for them to stand out now, shoot for a low price point and try to grab as much userbase as possible. Where moneyhats have failed before (probably because no matter what happens, Microsoft moneyhats are bigger), Nintendo needs SOMETHING to work to gain third party support, and now they're trying to expand their market segment beyond the hardcore gamers who don't buy third party games on Nintendo systems, but into a new, open-minded and possibly lucrative non-gamer and casual-gamer segment.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: animecyberrat on December 20, 2005, 06:19:13 AM
Back in SNES days Doom came out on SNES and Nintendo fans were throwing that in Sega fans faces cuz it DINDT come to Genesis, then N64 got a Doom remake and Nintendo fans were bragging about that, GC Doom gets canceled and Nintendo fans say Doom syucks, geta life, tahst my repsonse. Doom si a great friggin game but just cuz it didnt get put on Nintyendos system now its stangant and stale and sucks, tahst the kind of bitching i hate from Nitendo fans. OPbviously ltheres enouugh people out tehre that think these games you call stale are great otherwise they wouldnt oput sell the new stuff, cuz people buy what they LIKE.
I like MK because I was tehre when it came out and its a game I grew up on, just as much as Mario same as Doom, these gam,es are all childhood favorites for me there fore I will always get them because theyalways provide me with a remensciant experience that I enjoy, its the same with mario games and Zelda, except this gen I mario didnt feel like Mario and Zelda didnt feel like Zelda. YES I loved the cartoon graqphics of WW it was fun to actualy get to play a cartoon looking game especialy since I always dreamed games would get to this point, but the game was not fun to playa nd didnt feel like Zelda at all, Zelda games always have Hyrule and
Ganon, and Moblins and Octos, and Triforce, and things like that, yet Wind Waker had Pirates and crap, it would have been a far better game if it hadnt been Zelda at all, Zelda has a different feel to it.
Same with Sunshine heres what I hated about that, and MOST people I know who hated it agreee with me cuz they also grew up with Mario bros.
First once again it was a crappy 1 player game not good for a Mario Bros game (pisses me off Luigi cant even get into games anymore) it wouldnt have been hard at all to have turn based gameplay like old school mario. Second Mario Bros games, even Mario 64, always had fire flowers, Magic Mushrooms, Goombas, Koopas, Buzzy Beetles, Boos, Bricks you broke with your head, Gold Coins, things like that were absent from Sunshine, again it was a fun game but it didnt "feel" at all like Mario and there fore didnt deserve the titles and wasnt worethy pf my playing. Thats how I viewed it and all my friends also who chose Ps2 because it had MORE fun games to chose from, I was always content but never satsified with my Cube.
Next I will mention Wario World. I forgot about this game because i had higfh hopes it would be teh Mario game that sunshine wasnt, and again it was nothing like the Wario or Mario games I was familiar with so I didnt like it much, If teh main character was someone else it would have been different cuz I wouidl have figured it was justa nother crash banditoot and would have played it just for fun, whihc i did for a while but it wasnt that good to me.
Metroid Prime and Star Fox Adventures so far have been theonly 1st party games this Gen I thought were excelent enough to stand up to thier names and provide me with hours of fun. Star Fox sorta made up for teh Zelda game but not enough, TW better deliver or I might pass on rev altogether. Well no cuz I will buy it for the old games plain and simple.
As for the revmote It will creator barriers i dont have to play it to knwo that people will and already are scared to try it out taht alone truns peopel away and thats a barrier. Yes I am willing to gvie it a try and see if it can change my mind, but I know alot of people who arent and they are the people Nintendo needs to attract cuz they are like me, they dont stick to 1 console unless it provide them with enough content to keep them occupied.
I have hopes for Rev to get the next Quake and Doom gamnes cuz ofteh remopte and hope they will be cool enough to make up for not getting them this gen, same with Area 51 another game that could have easily worked on Cube but got canceled cuz of thier last place possition.
I think Nintendo did a lot to attract 3rd party dev tis gen, actualy teh only thinsg they could have done better were to make just 1 frigign online game to set the standard and tahst woudl have atrracted more devs, then those 3rd party games that got canceled due to no online wouldnt have had that excuse.
I am glad that Gun and True Criome new york still got ported as well asl Def Jam and the X-men Legends games, most of teh 3rd party games I care about get on teh cube and the few rare 1st and second party titles I like more than jsutify my purchase, but I felt left out not getting a dvd player and online suport, simpley cuz everyone else did, it may have not been a factor to you but it was to millions of other in teh begining, when iT MATTERED. The first two years of a consoles life are the most important and durring that time period many peopel were turned away by that one little flaw, it WAS a decideing factor cuz I know SEVERAL people who loved teh cube but didnt getone cuz Ps2 could play movies,a nd the FACT, taht dvd sales skyrocketed and prices wnet down reflected this, not just Sonly but eveyr movie indusrty leader admited this was the factor that drove DVD popularity, like it or not its a proven FACT. It wont fix the problem now cuz DVD players are so cheap no one cares if tehr ev plays tjem or not, but back when GC came out people did so tahst when it maters duh it dont matter now and tahst why providing the dvd player now isnt gonna solve any problems.
I dontmean to sound angry cuz I am not I love my GC and have more than 30 games for it, several are exclusives not 1st party exclusives but exclusive none the less and yes I got RE 4 and its kept me busy for awhile too.
I was mostly idspointed by no Doom or Quake or ANY good 1st person shooters, Sure they arent my favorite genere but teh lack of them was really felt. Also Fighting games are one of my favorite generes and the disapointing line up one cube has left a sour taste in my mouth. What would it hurt to put Capcoms Street Fighter Anniversary Collection on cube, or how about Tekken or Viurtua Fighter? Tahst what got ot me, especialy when i saw PS2 get so many great Fighting games like Samurai Showdown and King of Fighters and GC gets crap I het disapinted. I was ok with MK 5 and would have got Mk 6 buy was turned off by the delay and the fact that they left out the online even though they said it would be there. Again if Nintendo woudl have just made 1 online game that sold decent others games wouldnt have ahd to suffer.
I dont care too much about online but I have friends all across the country and would have liked to play them online but only way I could have done that was geta ps2 and that wsnt gonna happen till this year.
So again if t wasnt for EA providing me with some 007 and Need For Speed and Segas SOnic games and Activisons action titles I would have given up on Cube back when the F&**ed FF:CC/ . I forgot to mention that I liked Zelda FOur swords and Pac Man vs but agian not having froiends with GBAs made that hard for me to get anything out of. Also since my friends allgot ps2 or xboxes tehre were few times we would get togetehr and play anytign on my cube if it wasnt for Mario Party and Smash BRos none of them woudl have ever played it, nor goten one of thier own eventualy like some did. Theres more games I did like than didnt like and thast why I am content but a lot of teh games I wanted that got cancelled pissed me off untill I decided why not just geta Ps2 and get the games I want. I dont want to do that next gen even though i usualy do anyways.
Back in 802 I had an Atari 2600 and maintain it was better than anything else untill NES, which I got and then when 16 bit started I switched to Gensis cuz for me it was better, then AFTER the N64 came out I finaly went back and got aSNES cuz they were cheap enough. I skiped Satrun and got a Ps1 and N64 same day to compaore them and see which one gave me most games to play, surprisingly enough Nintendo won for me that round cuz only ps1 gamesI ever played were Mk Trilogy, Tekken 3 and FF7. N64 brought me Doom, quake (both better than ps1 counterparts) Mario 64 A true mushroom kingdom Mario experience, Zelda OOT, Mario Party 1-3.
MK Trilogy, MK 4, Crusin USA, Killer INstinct Gold, and too many to name right now. Yes 64 was lacking in 3rd party support but because games were harder and took longer to make on it they generaly came out better cuz devs took more time to finish the games, GC people got sloppy. With Rev it shoule be teh other waya rond considering if its true it runs on similar to GC architacture cus DEves ownt have to learn it like they will PS3 and 360. Rememebr teh satrun was superior to Ps1 in graphcis and had better 1st party games and good 3rd party suport for a while and lost because devs had a ahard time making games work properly on its complicated structure, this could repeat itself with ps3. Saturn only had 2 processors and 2 Gapchics chips, PS3 has way more than that to deal with so it could take longer to get full potential and its likely rushed incomplete sloppy games will plague it just like Saturn.
As for 360 I expect it to do worse than 1st xbox but I wont get int o teh whys just yet. I actualy enjoy discussing this stuff with you guyts so if you have more to add or have a different piont of view pelase share. Also I um want to gve Ian some props for having to constantly fend off peoples attacks cuz I see alot of times he makes good sense, not always but sometimes he does in fact see what some of ya all dont. I never have bene a fanboy of any company except maybe Sega but they also have lost my trust. I just like to play video games for various reasons and alwasy liek a good variety I cant ever play the same thing for too long.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 20, 2005, 07:23:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
But in this case the "hidden functionality" is more natural...*broken record* (I hate repeating myself)
I disagree, I just don't see multi-functional buttons as being natural. Unless you're referring to moving the controller in 3D space. That's "hidden" functionality that I can totally agree with, because it's not just some extra digital click, it's a whole method of control in and of itself.
