Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 01:52:35 PM
Matt C's IGN Blog promises Rev Specs
There, now I'm gonna be refreshing the darn site every 2 minutes for the next 5 hours in darned anticipation. You've ruined my evening Matt!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on March 29, 2006, 02:05:23 PM
Too bad Nintendo hasn't shown us any screens. If they showed us some screens and they looked fantastic then even if these specs are "weak" it wouldn't matter because we can say "it doesn't matter because the games will still look this good."
Post by: Talon on March 29, 2006, 02:08:55 PM
The only people who truely care about the specs of the Revolution is the developers (and fanboys comparing cock sizes).
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 02:14:22 PM
Anyways, saying that specs don't matter is just as ridiculous as saying that they're all that matters. The key is that specs don't tell anything as is, they're just pixels on your computer screens, and as with everything else in life the true value in anything is only uncovered after a lot of hard, conscious work and thinking. Specs alone can tell us nothing, but a considered analysis of the specs may lead us to some insightful conclusions about the world of videogames.
Especially for Nintendo fans is this true. After all, what other company out there believes so much in the intentional and calculated synergy of hardware and software but Nintendo?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 02:39:23 PM
IGN basically confirms their past predictions
After reading that I had three thoughts:
1. Should we all start talking about $99 or $150 launches again?
2. Nintendo is obviously steering away from the "More is more" approach. With IGN reconfirming the comparatively low amount of system Ram for the Rev (though, it should be pointed out that competing systems only need so much RAM for their bloated HD textures) and no talk from IBM about multi-cores, the Rev will be known NOT for games that support worlds with hundreds of thousands of characters at once, but for games based on essential and innovative gameplay.
For example, Ninety-Nine Nights, on the XBox 360, has its wow factor in having thousands upon thousands of enemies onscreen for players to kill all at once by merely pushing a button. The Revolution looks to be aiming to have games that, without the appeal of thousands upon thousands of mindless NPC cannon fodder, will be involving through the essence of their gameplay.
3. Where's that guy who talked about the repackaging of the GC? I wanna worship him!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: trip1eX on March 29, 2006, 02:53:51 PM
This thing definitely ain't going for more than $200.
Sure it's a gamecube repackaged, but really it's always been. From the get go, Perri Kaplan said 2 or 3 times more power.
btw folks remember you don't need half the power to 480i/p that you need in order to do hi-def.
Post by: IceCold on March 29, 2006, 02:56:49 PM
QuoteOh no, don't lure Knoxville in..
3. Where's that guy who talked about the repackaging of the GC? I wanna worship him!
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 03:12:44 PM
Take the $100 or $150 launch thought and mix in Nintendo's "in-addition-to-a-PS3-or-XBox" strategy and also their "non-gamers" strategy and mix it all together...
It all seems to come together so well!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: trip1eX on March 29, 2006, 03:23:22 PM
While a low pricepoint makes it easier for hardcore gamers to pick up the REv too most folks (75% or greater) don't buy more than 1 console and the hardcores buy 'em all anyway.
Still a low pricepoint will be tempting to many. They'll get increased graphics and tech, but save themselves at $200 if not more. Plus have a new way to play. Sure the tech increase won't be as great, but also remember the difference on a regular TV won't be as great as a spec comparision would imply because 360/PS3 games will be developed for 720p.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 29, 2006, 03:26:02 PM
That said, I trust Nintendo to make up for it with an extremely compelling controller and games.
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 03:30:56 PM
And I think that the Rev's price point, combined with it's mind-blowing interface and "can't get anywhere-else" gaming experience, will make it VERY attractiev to the casual know-nothing gamer.
And of course, the mainstream market, and the non-gamers, wouldn't be as picky on Specs, they're all about utility and the price barrier they face.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KnowsNothing on March 29, 2006, 03:34:21 PM
These specs are pretty dissapointing, I guess. Personally I don't really care. It's more powerful than the GC, and honestly with compelling software I wouldn't have cared if it were the same as the GC. I just wanted to say that while one of the main benefits of this harware is price, I really doubt we'll see even a $150 launch price, never mind you crazy $100 theorists. This is going to save Nintendo a bunch of money on manufacturing, but how much of that money will be passed on to us? I think it'd be pretty stupid to launch at $100.
Personally I'm predicting around a $199 launch, which is still pretty cheap. I also think it's a high possibilty that we'll be getting some sort of demo with it, and/or maybe some kind of coupon for the Virtual Console. So yeah, uhhh. The end.
Post by: BigJim on March 29, 2006, 03:37:53 PM
There's no doubt Revolution is $200 max now. It could scale down to $150 fairly quickly I think.
GameCube was able to measure up well against the other systems because the on-paper stats alone don't speak for the bandwidth and other efficiencies in its design. So, just think "equal or better than Xbox" if you want an idea about how games will look.
It's not as power hungry on paper as I thought it'd be, but I'm not sure it matters. It's not an HD system. If you thought GameCube looked good, if you thought Xbox looked good, then Revolution will look better. Though don't expect to be blown away with HD-equivalent visuals either.
More RAM would be nice, though. They could bottleneck themselves quickly on that.
Post by: TMW on March 29, 2006, 03:39:39 PM
Post by: ThePerm on March 29, 2006, 03:39:44 PM
as far as the underpoweredness...why?
Theres no point. You can have cake, and eat it too.
Post by: KnowsNothing on March 29, 2006, 03:46:14 PM
I'd rather have one, cheap, but really good cupcake, with revolutionary cupcake features.
Post by: Ceric on March 29, 2006, 03:46:46 PM
Nintendo is pretty good at picking the right Tech to get the job. Knowing what and what not to dedicate to hardware. We'll just have to see how the leverage the now how.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 29, 2006, 03:58:17 PM
On paper, my PC, a 1GHz Athlon T-bird (is this old-skool already lol) with 256mb RAM and 16mb Voodoo3-era video card, looks NUMBERIFIC, but it could only run games that look less than the Dreamcast's best.
And I still think Xbox's best doesn't look as good as GC's best (gameplay design considered). The only obvious "advantages" I see in Xbox is the extra RAM available for bigger textures and its bumpy-maps (and no, its absurdly high-contrasted shadowing doesn't count for anything since most games used the same blasted contrasted "different as night & day when comparing shadowed surfaces to non-shadowed surfaces" lighting conditions).
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
Capcom should put Okami on Rev.
Post by: jasonditz on March 29, 2006, 04:03:31 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 29, 2006, 04:05:17 PM
In some cases there are tradeoffs. Console A has this one thing better than console B but console B has something else that's better than console A. But in this case EVERY one of these "numbers" is smaller and significantly so. I have a hard time believing this is not going to be a problem.
Post by: jasonditz on March 29, 2006, 04:12:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Yeah I really don't know what the numbers mean anymore, other than newer/cheaper can yield bigger numbers. Just what kind of performance does it really yield?
On paper, my PC, a 1GHz Athlon T-bird (is this old-skool already lol) with 256mb RAM and 16mb Voodoo3-era video card, looks NUMBERIFIC, but it could only run games that look less than the Dreamcast's best.
Yeah, and my old Lindows PC with its 1.2 Ghz Duron and the Gig of RAM I stuck in it (and it's 64 MB shared video card) ought to fricking scream, but Quake 3 gets about 3-4 FPS on it with all the settings at bare minimum.
I'm still holding out hope that the chip in the Rev isn't simply a Gecko with a higher clock speed, but a step up on the PPC architecture. Sort of a trimmed down G4 in the same way the Gecko is a trimmed down G3. You up the clock speed 67% AND add Altivec and you're talking a very respectible performance boost.
Post by: IceCold on March 29, 2006, 04:16:57 PM
QuoteAha! Now I remember - I just made a thread about multiplatform and exclusive games on the Revolution, and why it is going to be an exclusive console. I had forgotten this one point and couldn't remember it, but now I do.
Originally posted by: Kairon
Trip1ex, Nintendo has gone on record that they want gamers to buy the Rev EVEN if they own a PS3 or X360. Hardcore gamers will basically have no excuse to NOT own a Rev if the thing is as cheap as we all suspect. This non-competition thing is certainly working out nicely.
And I think that the Rev's price point, combined with it's mind-blowing interface and "can't get anywhere-else" gaming experience, will make it VERY attractiev to the casual know-nothing gamer.
And of course, the mainstream market, and the non-gamers, wouldn't be as picky on Specs, they're all about utility and the price barrier they face.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
In addition to all the reasons I listed for the negative situation regarding multiplatform ports, if the Revolution is a "second console" it will be even worse. Everyone who buys the Rev as a second console will never buy the multiplatform games for it. If they already have a PS3/360, they would buy the superior version and neglect the Revolution one. Therefore, the sales of these games would potentially be even lower. I never did like the "second console" thing..
Unless, of course, 3rd parties actually spend time on the Rev port and utilise the controller to improve it. Then it would be unique and better, so it would sell a lot more. But we really can't trust 3rd parties not to use the controller as a gimmick.
Post by: trip1eX on March 29, 2006, 04:23:30 PM
The GPU doesn't seem that powerful, but we still know nothing about it's architecture. There's been 4 generations of ATI gpus since the 'Cube and Xbox launched. Make it run 50% faster with a newer revision of the 'Cube's gpu and you'll have 2-3x faster.
Also if you don't know anything about hardware specs then don't comment.
Clock speed doesn't tell the whole story. Yes the REv is not as powerful as the PS3 or 360. But we all knew that already. Nintendo has said they aren't playing that game.
Anyway back to clockspeed. Compare an Athlon AMD 64 cpu to a P4. The P4 all run at much higher clockspeeds, but the AMD 64s do more work per clock cycle and thus are just as fast and actually faster.
The 'Cube memory has always been the fast kind of memory. They deliberately picked that memory because they believe it suits games better because of the frequent input and output between gamer and machine. IT's much faster than what the Xbox had and so in essence it's equal to larger amounts of slower memory.
Post by: jasonditz on March 29, 2006, 04:35:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
EA and Ubisoft aren't going to go to any serious effort to get their PS3 focused games working well on the Rev. They're just not and this isn't going to help.
I agree 100% and add a great big "so what?" to the equation.
EA and Ubi by and large make garbage, and virtually nobody buys a Nintendo system to play their sloppy ports of sloppy games.
I have some reservations about the seemingly low specs, but what it does to EA or Ubi's games frankly doesn't even enter into the equation for me.
I'm going to hold off judgement until I see some actual game footage...
Post by: Arbok on March 29, 2006, 04:36:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Reading IGN's article it sounds to me that Nintendo is passing off an Xbox with a new controller as a next gen console.
Yeah, that's exactly what I don't like. I was expecting the system to be weaker than the 360 or PS3, but not to the point where it was comparable to the original Xbox. It really gives third parties a whole new reason to exclude Nintendo too, except instead of online play it's graphic power and Ram, and having ports scaled down because lazy developers don't want to spend the effort to reprogram "bloat ware" games is going to look very bad for the Revolution, or having to cut the number of things occuring on the screen at once.
I hope this turns out better, but I think Nintendo drastically dropped the ball in what went under the hood of the system and they really need to release some “damage control” footage or screens for the online community who will see this to mill over.
Post by: Djunknown on March 29, 2006, 04:44:54 PM
On the bright side, games ought to be sold at current gen prices. There's no good excuse to slap a 60 dollar tag, except to say "We're doing it for other systems", which is BS.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 29, 2006, 04:50:00 PM
EA and Ubi by and large make garbage, and virtually nobody buys a Nintendo system to play their sloppy ports of sloppy games."
I personally don't care but it makes the console look bad. If the same game is available on all consoles and the Rev version is very obviously the worst version it makes it look like it's because it doesn't have the ability to pull it off. All those people who think that the Cube had the weakest hardware weren't looking at Resident Evil 4. They were looking at Madden and Splinter Cell. Ubisoft and EA will expose the difference between the console hardware. Nintendo can not publicly release the specs and make their own games look great and have this great gameplay that makes it so you don't notice anything's wrong but all that won't hide the hardware's weaknesses if Madden 07 has a crappy framerate or weaker graphics.
Post by: Arbok on March 29, 2006, 04:54:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I personally don't care but it makes the console look bad. If the same game is available on all consoles and the Rev version is very obviously the worst version it makes it look like it's because it doesn't have the ability to pull it off. All those people who think that the Cube had the weakest hardware weren't looking at Resident Evil 4. They were looking at Madden and Splinter Cell. Ubisoft and EA will expose the difference between the console hardware. Nintendo can not publicly release the specs and make their own games look great and have this great gameplay that makes it so you don't notice anything's wrong but all that won't hide the hardware's weaknesses if Madden 07 has a crappy framerate or weaker graphics.
Exactly, Nintendo should be trying to recapture the casual audience who eats up the Madden games each year, but instead this move seems to give them more of a reason to look toward the 360 and the PS3 to get their shovelware. Of course the controller could make the difference, but that would assume that EA or Ubisoft would be willing to alter a port enough so that it doesn't come off as more than a gimick, and with them I kind of doubt that will happen.
Post by: majortom1981 on March 29, 2006, 04:56:52 PM
A powerpc 733 is the equivalent to a pentium 4 1.5 ghz. The rev cpu is about 833 power pc.
The xbox was a 733 p3 ( i think a celeron wich makes it worse)
http://www.macworld.com/2001/07/bc/buzzppcvpentium/
link to my proof.
IF you call a system that is 2 times as powerfull as the original xbox an xbox then go ahead.
Post by: Caliban on March 29, 2006, 05:01:04 PM
Something also funny is how in the NGC/PS2/Xbox generation it was supposed that the PS2's raw power was superior to the NGC, really? I never saw those overpowering raw specs surpass the NGC.
Oh and btw, the NGC supported 480p and not more, the Xbox supported 720p? So the REV with these specs supports only 480p, well the graphics certainly will look just as good on a SD tv just as the X360 or Ps3 games will, I think.
In the end, what is important? The price. I hope it will be $249.99CAD. But then again I bet futureshop/bestbuy.ca will rip us off, so there's amazon.ca or some other local store that you know they do good prices like perhaps a new and used store or EBgames or Walmart.
Post by: jasonditz on March 29, 2006, 05:07:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: majortom1981
The revolutions cpu is way faster then the original xbox's
A powerpc 733 is the equivalent to a pentium 4 1.5 ghz. The rev cpu is about 833 power pc.
The xbox was a 733 p3 ( i think a celeron wich makes it worse)
http://www.macworld.com/2001/07/bc/buzzppcvpentium/
link to my proof.
IF you call a system that is 2 times as powerfull as the original xbox an xbox then go ahead.
Well, in all fairness a G4's got some extra capabilities that it's not clear if the Rev's CPU will have or not. Even without it, the PPC is the superior CPU, no question.
But again, lets not get bogged down on CPU specs, because frankly by itself it means almost nothing to performance.
Post by: RiskyChris on March 29, 2006, 05:22:24 PM
Because you can't just look at clock speed and say "oh god that's an xbox."
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 05:25:07 PM
And I'm still loving the idea that I may be able to afford all the controllers I'll need and more than one launch game at launch. That DEFINITELY tickles me.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 05:26:29 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: capamerica on March 29, 2006, 05:45:26 PM
I remember Nintendo saying that when you compare the Revolution to the Xbox360 on a Standard non-HDTV you won't see a difference. I think the amount of power in the Rev will do just that. You remember that both the Xbox360 and the PS3 need the extra power to do HD games, since Nintendo is not doing HD they don't need as much power. The 360 and PS3 need more video ram cause they are loading in much higher res textures while Nintendo on the other hand can get away with less video ram cause they don't need high res textures.
Post by: jasonditz on March 29, 2006, 05:45:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Yeah, I expect that these babies will be a step or two beyond what an XBox can do a a step or two behind the X360.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
From what I've seen of the 360 so far I'm not sure there's more than a step between the two anyhow.
Post by: Mario on March 29, 2006, 05:52:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditzQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
EA and Ubisoft aren't going to go to any serious effort to get their PS3 focused games working well on the Rev. They're just not and this isn't going to help.
I agree 100% and add a great big "so what?" to the equation.
EA and Ubi by and large make garbage, and virtually nobody buys a Nintendo system to play their sloppy ports of sloppy games.
I have some reservations about the seemingly low specs, but what it does to EA or Ubi's games frankly doesn't even enter into the equation for me.
I'm going to hold off judgement until I see some actual game footage...
Remember this is Ian... while non-games he wont play aren't necceassary, ports he wont play are crucial.
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 05:53:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditzQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Yeah, I expect that these babies will be a step or two beyond what an XBox can do a a step or two behind the X360.
From what I've seen of the 360 so far I'm not sure there's more than a step between the two anyhow.
QFT
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: eljefe on March 29, 2006, 05:56:12 PM
I've wondered this myself...I think in all honesty Nintendo WANTS to limit developers. Including themselves.
This sounds bad to some former (or soon-to-be-former)Nintendo fans, but in a nutshell, Nintendo is forcing themselves and other developers to think INSIDE a box.
At a glance that may seem restrictive, especially when the other console makers don't seem to have those restrictions. The thing is, we as consumers sometimes forget that the console hardware is an artistic medium.
Restrictions = challenge. Every work of art is the result of the struggle between the artists' MIND and his MEDIUM(S), and, of course, TIME. The restrictions INHERENT in those three elements, or caused by circumstance, directly determine the characteristics of the outcome. Art exists because of restrictions.
Videogames are more than "traditional" (read: static) art. They are dynamic, because they are INTERACTIVE. So, like "traditional" games and sports, which are interactivities, they still rely on restrictions:
MEDIUM - Rules in sports or board games act as one type of restriction (e.g. playing surface, field size/ shape, part(s) of the body eligle for use in the game, et cetera)
MIND - Mental ability and strategy play a part in restricting the participants, it also directly affects the other two factors (e.g. the number of players allowed, turn-based play, coaches experience, et cetera)
TIME - In most games, time is also a restricting factor, (e.g. shot clock, hourglass timers in board games, even the length of rests like halftime or timeouts)
I recognize that this is a relatively young artform but the arguments are really unnecessary. Think: how many people seriously debate whether chess is better than checkers? Or whether cricket is better than baseball? (People who do engage in discussions of that nature end up sounding rather silly.)
Each is different, not better or worse, than the other: each has a unique set of rules and restrictions.
The same is true with fine art. The artist is restricted, by circumstance or choice, to use a certain types of paint or certain colors (or for a sculptor, what material: marble, metal, wood…). There is also the decision to use different types of brushes and chisels, or even our hands to mold clay. There are countless types of brushstrokes and chiseling techniques to choose from.
Musically, the composer or performer has a similarly wide array of restrictive choices (number/type of instruments, genre, duration of the piece…)
So, whether it's a game or a work of art, the restrictions do not add to the end product...they ARE the product.
All three videogame consoles are playing by different rules. For the benefit of our visual learners, ALL of the game system manufacturers are forcing developers to think inside a "box". Each "box" is just shaped differently. The four boundary lines are formed by the restrictions ( i.e. the systems features and specs) that make the shape of a box/ rectangle/ trapezoid, et cetera.
Different developers and consumers are attracted to different shaped boxes. Also, different types of games fit into to the different shapes and sizes. An easy example is to compare handheld and console games. The shape of each is DIFFERENT, but is perceived as BETTER or WORSE by the developer or consumer. People prove which shape they like by either developing for that shape or buying games that fit that shape.
So, Nintendo's decision to leave out HD or high spec hardware is purposeful. It is one more identifying restriction that is defining their consoles' "shape". The Gamecube's shape was confused by many developer's and consumer as "like an XBOX or PS2, but less powerful / with no online plans / no DVD funtionality" (or "a similar 'shape' but smaller, and therefore annoyingly restrictive").
Everything about the Revolution is meant to be different: the controller, the lesser emphasis on graphics, the size, the price, (even down to the PR doublespeak, "We aren't competing with MS and SONY"). The DS is not proof that Blue Ocean Strategy "works", it has proved that a uniquely different "shape" garauntees "different shaped games" .
Whether those games are worth playing is a matter of personal taste. That is why some people, like Ian, don't particularly like the "new shaped games" that are receiving praise from game critics.
That is also why, if Nintendo properly markets the "shape" of the Revolution, some developers will avoid it like the plague. New-shaped-games ARE possible on a regular-shaped-systems, HD graphics and advanced AI are parameters that will lead to new "shapes". However, Nintendo is betting on the fact that "new shaped games" will be much more likely to occur with the parameters they are setting for their console.
Post by: MysticGohan on March 29, 2006, 06:04:30 PM
You like Nintendo? or are you going Awol and joining the dark side :p
Post by: Artimus on March 29, 2006, 06:04:55 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 29, 2006, 06:13:53 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on March 29, 2006, 06:20:39 PM
Here is why. The comparisons between Xbox 360 and the new Revolution supposed SPECS are not put in context.
They don't explain what anything means, or how numbers don't tell everything. They purposely went out to make Revolution's numbers look poorly, without commenting on benefits of the stats.
It would have been better to have reported the story without any comparisons. Let the bloggers do that. Then as a more respectable journalist dig into the numbers, and find out what developers think about the lower numbers and see if they compare it to just an Xbox.
Breaking this into two stories would have been better in my opinion.
Post by: nemo_83 on March 29, 2006, 06:23:38 PM
It just bugs the hell out of me that Nintendo is not only not supporting HD, they have admited its affects on gameplay by saying they will support it with a future system (reminds me of their arrogance about online with GCN), they are a year late, there has been no confirmation of even an optional first party hard drive, and they still do not match the 360 in specs and raw graphical effects. The source claims it is "unlikely the GPU will feature any added shaders."
In my eye, lighting effects as opposed to pixel ratios are the most prolific change from the previous generation of hardware, and Nintendo is penching pennies and brushing both off like they do hoping it will all just go away. That last secret better be awesome; it better not be some g!mmick like: it can broadcast the audio and video signals to TVs wirelessly or it comes with a small 480p screen.
The 360 has around five times the RAM of Revolution, and honestly the only game on 360 that has my attention because of graphics is Gears of War; judging from how I feel about 360's graphics, I'm not expecting to be wowed by Nintendo's "next gen" visuals. It just speaks to me that once again three years after the system comes out I am going to be asking myself when is the next time Nintendo is going to release a game, a game I am interested in, because I'm not buying a third party half raw feature-raped port.
Now Nintendo I predict is moving Zelda to Revolution for launch, it must have been doing it all along; there isn’t much difference between the hardware specs anyways so it can’t be that much work.
Post by: Requiem of Darcness on March 29, 2006, 06:32:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
I really think that IGN article was irresponsibily written, and garbage.
Here is why. The comparisons between Xbox 360 and the new Revolution supposed SPECS are not put in context.
They don't explain what anything means, or how numbers don't tell everything. They purposely went out to make Revolution's numbers look poorly, without commenting on benefits of the stats.
It would have been better to have reported the story without any comparisons. Let the bloggers do that. Then as a more respectable journalist dig into the numbers, and find out what developers think about the lower numbers and see if they compare it to just an Xbox.
Breaking this into two stories would have been better in my opinion.
I agree with you about the article not putting the specs in context. The GC according to Matt himself was about about 90% as powerful as the X-box. Plus it doesn't take into account the different chip architectures. Thats said I find the Rev's specs disappoiting. I didn't expect it to approach the 360 or PS3 but I figured the Rev's CPU would be around 1.5 Ghz, GPU 400mhz, and the RAM would be around 256MB. I can tell you what Ubisoft and EA are going to do right now. They are just going to port their GC game engines to Rev, slap some half ass control scheme for the new controller, and leave the old control scheme for the GC games in the there for use with the Revs controller shell.
Post by: Mario on March 29, 2006, 06:35:35 PM
Quote
Now Nintendo I predict is moving Zelda to Revolution for launch, it must have been doing it all along; there isn’t much difference between the hardware specs anyways so it can’t be that much work.
No, you don't know what you're talking about. TP wont get a graphical upgrade on Rev, that would REALLY make the GC version useless.
APRIL FOOLS SUCKERS AHAHA
Post by: Ian Sane on March 29, 2006, 06:51:00 PM
So in a way it might be better for Nintendo to have less freedom so that they push the hardware more often. That doesn't help for third parties. Restriction can be good for art but there's a business side. Third parties can potentially make more money on the other two consoles which provide them with more freedom. A third party will only accept major limitations if they feel they have to to make money.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on March 29, 2006, 07:14:57 PM
I can't believe you all fell for it. hahahah Matt got you all, on an early april fools joke!!! haha its a joke........ right?
Post by: BigJim on March 29, 2006, 07:17:05 PM
So I'm betting against Altivec, but it's true that we have no idea if anything was added since the GameCube hardware. In 5 years they could have adopted more than just a 67% clock boost. But we just don't know.
Everybody comparing the CPUs, you're right the AMD chips are clocked lower but perform just as good as the Pentium 4s. It may also interest you to know that Intel has stepped back and adopted AMD's approach for their dual-core systems. They now clock much lower (just like AMDs) and perform competitively with AMD at similar GHz speeds. So apparently AMD was on to something.
But anyway... The Xbox 1 used a 733MHz Pentium 3. A P3. It wasn't much to write home about even at the time Xbox launched. This comparison doesn't totally apply anymore because all 3 systems are now using PPC derivatives. It's not completely off-kilter to at least compare the new consoles. But again, Revolution has less performance to push by its nature. It's not an HD system. So many people pissed on those of us that wanted HD, well now you're getting almost all that you need for your standard def TV at an affordable price. So congratulations. What, not satisfied? Welcome to our thoughts 9 months ago. It's not too late. You can join our club. We won't be as dismissive of you as you were of us.
Ian touches on an interesting point... If every game looked at least as good as Zelda TP or Resident Evil, there wouldn't be much to worry about. But their low-res cartoon artistic style just doesn't mesh well with modern hardware. WILL they finally mature their product and not recycle old textures and models?
We REALLY should wait for E3. Well, we have no choice. There's still more than specs here.
You will say wow! Well, maybe... or not.
Post by: ruby_onix on March 29, 2006, 07:43:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Iwata
Hay guys. We blew our entire hardware budget on the controller. LOLZ. Sorry. GameCube 1.5 FTW.
Post by: nemo_83 on March 29, 2006, 07:46:12 PM
Though GCN and Xbox specs mattered little, the 360 and Revolution are both made by the same companies so specs will be fair game for comparisons.
Post by: TerribleOne on March 29, 2006, 07:46:44 PM
This one really hurts, I can't even fanthom who's making these decisions. Let's think about what's goin to happen here: Let's say it's 2010 and the next-gen is at full force, us Ninty fans will be still playing with outdated technology and graphics from ten years back!! No matter what Super-crazy-shader-XL-teh bumpmaster tech they might come up with, i still think that it will feel almost embarrassin to play 1999 vs 2009. yea yea yea sooner or later nintendo will hav some pretty stuff to show but why not with the freedom it deserves.
At the end of the day money rules most and Nintendo is a business first and we are feeling the effect.
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 08:05:25 PM
...Doh! Another Apple comparison! ARggggghhhhhh!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: nemo_83 on March 29, 2006, 08:07:25 PM
Why isn't Nintendo just partnering with MS? Why isn't the Revolution controller the interface for one of the other two consoles?
Post by: TrueNerd on March 29, 2006, 08:08:51 PM
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 08:09:46 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Jensen on March 29, 2006, 08:11:12 PM
My Geforce 3 runs at about 215MHZ, while a 7800GTX runs at 430MHZ. Though it only has twice the clockspeed, the 7800 can push through at least 10 as many pixels, with many other added features. Because GPUs are massively parallel, clock speed doesn't say much.
CPUs, on the other hand, usually have much less variance between brands and generations at the same speed. AMD CPUs are about 50% more efficient than Intel CPUs per clock. So you can get a very rough idea of power from the CPU Mhz speed.
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 08:12:32 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 08:14:01 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Mario on March 29, 2006, 08:15:59 PM
Quote
I'm going to be pissed if it's an April fools joke cause it's too early and too sensitive of a subject to be messing around with.
LOL, seriously.
Also, Matt is apparently refusing to answer the claims of April Fools on the IGN message boards.
Also x 2, even if these random numbers are actually true, i'll believe Iwata over IGN. "Specs really don't matter"
Post by: Guitar Smasher on March 29, 2006, 08:32:08 PM
Post by: Artimus on March 29, 2006, 08:34:09 PM
So how about them Bronkos?
Post by: nemo_83 on March 29, 2006, 08:35:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Also, Matt is apparently refusing to answer the claims of April Fools on the IGN message boards.
Also x 2, even if these random numbers are actually true, i'll believe Iwata over IGN. "Specs really don't matter"
It's not even April yet.
And like I already said, it is entirely fair to compare spec numbers between 360 and Revolution (it wouldn't be so fair to compare PS3) as ATI made the GPU in both systems and IBM made the CPU in both systems.
Post by: thejeek on March 29, 2006, 09:04:41 PM
1: Notice that the CPU frequency is carefully chosen to be slightly under the Xbox1 CPU clock so dimwits can point and say 'Dur! is slower than the Xbox1! Dur!'.
2: Maintained same CPU to GPU clock ratio despite different rates of development in CPU and GPU technology in last 5 years
3: Why have 24MB of 1-T RAM plus a second block of 64MB of 1-T RAM? If they're really just stretching the GC then surely they'll have 24MB of faster 1-T plus more DRAM or they'll have more than 24MB of 1-T in a single block. Two blocks of different sizes is bonkers - what underlying manufacturing constraint would lead to that?
4: They haven't increased the embedded 1-T RAM in the GPU (hint, IGN say this so it doesn't appear to threaten the 360 with 10MB embedded RAM)
I expect the Revolution to have disappointing specs - they may even be as disappointing as the ones IGN 'leaked', but the particular 'specs' we have here are bullshit
Post by: Arbok on March 29, 2006, 09:05:15 PM
In fact, it's like the whole HD TV argument, with the number of people who own them yet don't watch HD channels. They believe the picture is better when watching regular television, even though it’s no different from watching it on a normal TV. Same thing applies to other products, like soft drinks versus generic brands. They might taste identical, but if there is a preconceived notion of one being better then the other, then this will effect our judgment. Much in the same way that if people are told that the Revolution will look just like the Xbox long enough, then they will dismiss the system from the start even if the real world examples prove otherwise. If anything, Nintendo needs to show that the games are up to snuff to at least convince them to try it out and hopefully get hooked on the controller, assuming it will be as fantastic as promised.
To make my overly long story short, having these specs released right now was actually a pretty bad blow to the Revolution unless Nintendo has a counter up their sleeve.
Post by: thejeek on March 29, 2006, 09:09:39 PM
Quote
To make my overly long story short, having these specs released right now was actually a pretty bad blow to the Revolution.
Yeah - handy that isn't it... Expect some bullshit story about 'unexplored potential' in the Xbox 360 later today and then something about how the PS3 can be used to design nuclear reactors and open wormholes to another dimension tomorrow....
Post by: Shift Key on March 29, 2006, 09:09:52 PM
Quote
Insiders stress that Revolution runs on an extension of the Gekko and Flipper architectures that powered GameCube, which is why studios who worked on GCN will have no problem making the transition to the new machine, they say.
This is why its not a huge jump on processing power from GC to Rev. Quit being so pessimistic guys.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 29, 2006, 09:13:06 PM
awww yeeeaah.
Post by: Mario on March 29, 2006, 09:14:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thejeekQuote
To make my overly long story short, having these specs released right now was actually a pretty bad blow to the Revolution.
Yeah - handy that isn't it... Expect some bullshit story about 'unexplored potential' in the Xbox 360 later today and then something about how the PS3 can be used to design nuclear reactors and open wormholes to another dimension tomorrow....
I know, Nintendo have been trying as hard as they can to keep these silly numbers out of the equation, yet Matt a 'supposed' Nintendo fan leaks all this crap all over the web. What were his intentions?
Post by: thejeek on March 29, 2006, 09:18:51 PM
Quote
I'd be surprised if these numbers were not correct.
IBM has gone from 0.18 micron bulk silicon process to 0.09 micron SOI in the last five years - do you really think they couldn't squeeze more than a 66 percent speed increase out of the Gekko and still sell them to Nintendo now for well under what the Gekko cost originally?
Those specs are either bullshit or Nintendo committing corporate suicide - my money is on bullshit.
Post by: Arbok on March 29, 2006, 09:20:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
I know, Nintendo have been trying as hard as they can to keep these silly numbers out of the equation, yet Matt a 'supposed' Nintendo fan leaks all this crap all over the web. What were his intentions?
To generate web traffic for IGN, regardless of what impact it could have to other companies. I don't think there are any surprises there, though.
Post by: thejeek on March 29, 2006, 09:22:03 PM
Quote
I know, Nintendo have been trying as hard as they can to keep these silly numbers out of the equation, yet Matt a 'supposed' Nintendo fan leaks all this crap all over the web. What were his intentions?
And Nintendo have a good track record keeping secrets - the details of the controller didn't leak out despite Nintendo having apparently prevously shown it to several 3rd party developers, so why would these particular details leak out now?
Post by: Arbok on March 29, 2006, 09:26:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thejeek
And Nintendo have a good track record keeping secrets - the details of the controller didn't leak out despite Nintendo having apparently prevously shown it to several 3rd party developers, so why would these particular details leak out now?
Because there are now a bigger pool of developers, as I assume anyone who plans to have a Revolution game at or near launch now has these development kits. So a larger pool of developers means that it's easier to release information due to the fact that it's harder for a company to track down a particular leak. Of course they could be bogus, and IGN could have mud on their face, but it will probably hurt Nintendo more in the long run unless they get out a quick press release to flat out deny this.
Post by: odilon on March 29, 2006, 09:27:28 PM
Post by: BigJim on March 29, 2006, 09:36:11 PM
Now Entering:
Phase 2: Denial. With a pinch of meaningless conspiracy theories.
Wake me when you get to Acceptance.
Post by: wandering on March 29, 2006, 09:39:04 PM
Call me when we have actual screenshots.
Quote
the Rev will be known NOT for games that support worlds with hundreds of thousands of characters at once, but for games based on essential and innovative gameplay.
Eh, I think you may be surprised. This is the same company that made Zelda and Pikmin, remember. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if just the opposite happened: the rev becoming known for epic games, while the competition becoming known for games filled with bloated HD and special effects.
Quote
I know, Nintendo have been trying as hard as they can to keep these silly numbers out of the equation, yet Matt a 'supposed' Nintendo fan leaks all this crap all over the web. What were his intentions?
....um, to get more viewers to the site. It's kind of hard to blame him - he's a reporter, not a Nintendo PR spokesperson. Though comparing rev's specs to the original xbox's was a bit much.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 29, 2006, 09:40:30 PM
Post by: wandering on March 29, 2006, 09:47:47 PM
Quote
unless they get out a quick press release to flat out deny this.
I'm sure we'll get a press release. One that's carefully worded to suggest A) the rev is rather more powerful than current gen systems (more powerful than xbox, in other words B) the lower specs only affect HD C) HD isn't supported because most people don't have it, it's too expensive, and because HD causes slower framerates, overheating, and herpes.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on March 29, 2006, 10:21:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
I'm going to be pissed if it's an April fools joke cause it's too early and too sensitive of a subject to be messing around with.
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Matt is apparently refusing to answer the claims of April Fools on the IGN message boards.
Also x 2, even if these random numbers are actually true, i'll believe Iwata over IGN. "Specs really don't matter"
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
It's not April fools, it's only March 29, it'd make no sense.
So how about them Bronkos?
QuoteNemo & Artimus: Actually, now is the perfect time to start an Internet April Fools Joke, you need time for the news to spread and the anticipation to build. They can't start the rumor on the 1st and then say it is a joke on the 1st, most people would have missed the whole build-up and only seen the end result, and that is no fun
Originally posted by: nemo_83
It's not even April yet.
. Besided April 1st is on a Saturday, they don't normally update on a friday.Mario: If the numbers i saw were done correctly then the Rev numbers are exactly 1.5x GC for the CPU & GPU making for a GC 1.5
-<GC>-x(math)=-<Rev>-
162mhz x 1.5 = 243mhz
485mhz x 1.5 = 729mhz
This has got to be a joke, there is no way that the CPU will not hit at least 1.3ghz or 3x GC #'s.
A 1 ghz chip is sooo cheap, it just wouldn't make sense to go slower than that.
And the fact that Matt won't respond to questions about an april fools joke only strengthens my argument.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 29, 2006, 10:25:36 PM
Basically, if it's true the Rev has defeated its own purpose. The GC's RAM was already way too small for any form of world that doesn't stop the player every five steps to load the next area (Metroid Prime doors? Wind Waker ocean? Load times.). 24 MB! That's like trying to write an epic novel on post-it notes! Of course it doesn't do HD, that'd eat the whole RAM just for the framebuffer! Did they lock their software developers away or why wasn't Iwata overthrown the moment he told them "Oh, sorry, you're going to suffer from the same old RAM constraints again!"?
Screw 150-200$, more than 50$ including a game is asking too much.
It does sound stupid though (Thejeek, the GC was built on .25µ, even more steps in between) so it may be fake. Whether that's IGN, the dev or Nintendo lying, it's about on par with claiming that Bush plans to adopt the swastika as the US flag.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on March 29, 2006, 10:32:09 PM
QuoteAre you suggesting that Yamauchi is gonna return to throne?
Originally posted by: Kairon
Mac users are feeling the effects to this day. This is what happens when your smaller focused company has to face competition from huge mega corporations that can outspend you to the moon. You either adapt and change your strategy, or slowly wither away into nothing like Apple was doing before Steve Jobs returned to the company.
...Doh! Another Apple comparison! ARggggghhhhhh!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: BigJim on March 29, 2006, 10:33:04 PM
It's not like he was asked point blank and ducked an answer. He hasn't posted much at all in general. But Peer shot down the April Fools theory. So that ends that. He's also updated his blog with additional thoughts.
Post by: thejeek on March 29, 2006, 10:34:40 PM
Quote
It does sound stupid though (Thejeek, the GC was built on .25µ, even more steps in between) so it may be fake.
Absolutely - that only makes it worse - the IBM 750GX (a derivative of the 750FX and pretty similar to Gekko) runs at over 1GHz and that's an off-the-shelf part on an old process (.13 micron)
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on March 29, 2006, 10:34:53 PM
Post by: BigJim on March 29, 2006, 10:37:04 PM
I'm about to head over to GAF. I can only imagine the 100 pages of shock and hilarity that await.
Post by: Mario on March 29, 2006, 10:49:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
"Matt is apparently refusing to answer the claims of April Fools on the IGN message boards."
It's not like he was asked point blank and ducked an answer. He hasn't posted much at all in general. But Peer shot down the April Fools theory. So that ends that. He's also updated his blog with additional thoughts.
Heh, alright. I haven't actually been there myself.
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 10:50:12 PM
Probably a similar situation within IBM.
Thus, comparing the clock rates of one to the other doesn't exactly have a great deal of ground to stand on.
Anyways, the rate of diminishing returns at this point is crazy. You see all that stuff they're pouring into the X360 and PS3? HD is all fine and dandy, but is it worth the all those extra costs to manufacturer, developer, and consumer to see slightly flashier graphics? "2-3 times the GC" is really sounding to me like a sweetspot in terms of efficiency for all involved: manufacturing, graphics budget of development, and the consumer dollar on both the software and hardware fronts.
Oh, and about that darned Steve Jobs-Hiroshi Yamauchi comparison... didn't Yamauchi say sometime in 2004 that there was no need to really push graphics mcuh further beyond this generation? LOL. But seriously, I'm really digging Iwata-san, he seems like he actually has a plan with the Rev, unlike the aimless transitional Cube. And hey, it just may work!
BTW, this makes me wonder...exactly HOW expensive is the controller anyways? Nintendo has said they poured tons into the controller technology research... will they expect us to pay tons ($50+?) for each individual controller? That'd suck!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 29, 2006, 10:51:27 PM
LET'S NOT CALM DOWN.
What's good for IGN traffic is good for PGC forum traffic.
BLING BLING
Post by: wandering on March 29, 2006, 10:59:36 PM
Quote
Are you suggesting that Yamauchi is gonna return to throne?
One can only hope!
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 11:14:56 PM
And then I'm gonna get giddy at how fast Nintendo can aggressively drop the price on this baby! The sooner it hits $100 the sooner it hits the mass casual market and sales EXPLODE! Remember, The PSX and PS2 sold lot of units, yes, but they sold their most 3-4 years in when they hit mass-market prices and their hit games could be bought at 20 bucks a pop!
The only thing that could muck this up for me now is whether the revolution will have enough launch games for me to buy! I intend to go hog wild on this baby!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: pudu on March 29, 2006, 11:30:22 PM
What gets me is why would someone under an NDA, with their job on the line, leak this information to one of the biggest game-related sites on the web? Why would Nintendo put all this time and money into R&D and not even produce a graphics card that could utilize the newest shader funcitons and whatnot to help with graphics and ease system strain? How in the world could they stress to no end that gameplay is #1 and not discuss/acknowledge that CPU performance has to do with MANY aspects of a game that directly affect GAMEPLAY (ai, physics, framerate, etc.) Would this create similar gameplay limitations due to hardware specs, just with a new way of controlling those limited characters/objects?
These are but many of the questions that are frantically buzzing around in my head. I'm sorry if I've been a bit negative for some of you to handle but these are all legit things I think Nintendo will have to explain and/or justify somehow. I already know I'm getting the console, I just am now worried this choice in hardware power might unessarily limit the creative freedom and potential of the Revmote. It almost seems with such an intuitive device that it is almost begging for some decent power to back it up!
--anyway I'll post again tomorrow when I can think more logically (2:30am now)
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 11:32:27 PM
And actually, the X360 was gonna have 256 MB of RAM before they got RAM-Envy when they saw Sony's spec sheet and upped it to 512 just to keep up with the Joneses. So going by MS's original, un-tainted estimate of how much RAM they'd need for the HD machine... 256/3 is roughly, what? 85 MB? Nintendo has more than that.
AND, this time it's all 1T-SRAM. That sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? Doesn't the XBox 360 use plain vanilla DDR RAM?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: thejeek on March 29, 2006, 11:44:02 PM
Quote
AND, this time it's all 1T-SRAM.
Yeah - but in two banks of different sizes apparently. Firstly, this is just plain technically stupid and I can't imagine Nintendo would actually do it (hence specs are bullshit). Secondly, it's going to annoy the bollocks off developers by forcing them to not only accept a very much smaller amount of memory than other systems but also painstakingly divide their stuff up between the two (three including DRAM??!?) banks of memory - Nintendo want to make development easier not more tedious (hence specs are bullshit)
Post by: ShyGuy on March 29, 2006, 11:46:29 PM
I will wait till I see some screenshots running on Rev hardware before I decide if this is ohnoes! or sooo good.
Post by: Kairon on March 29, 2006, 11:58:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: pudu
Alright I need to go to bed but here is what is going through my head right now (which I already posted @ gonintendo.com):
What gets me is why would someone under an NDA, with their job on the line, leak this information to one of the biggest game-related sites on the web? Why would Nintendo put all this time and money into R&D and not even produce a graphics card that could utilize the newest shader funcitons and whatnot to help with graphics and ease system strain? How in the world could they stress to no end that gameplay is #1 and not discuss/acknowledge that CPU performance has to do with MANY aspects of a game that directly affect GAMEPLAY (ai, physics, framerate, etc.) Would this create similar gameplay limitations due to hardware specs, just with a new way of controlling those limited characters/objects?
These are but many of the questions that are frantically buzzing around in my head. I'm sorry if I've been a bit negative for some of you to handle but these are all legit things I think Nintendo will have to explain and/or justify somehow. I already know I'm getting the console, I just am now worried this choice in hardware power might unessarily limit the creative freedom and potential of the Revmote. It almost seems with such an intuitive device that it is almost begging for some decent power to back it up!
--anyway I'll post again tomorrow when I can think more logically (2:30am now)
I'd like a chance to address these topics, if I may.
There have always been leaks. I don't know why they happen, but they happen. *shrug* Right now I just accept their existence.
Nintendo's major R & D budget seems to have gone into developing the Revolution controller. This appears to have been a difficult process, with latency issues apparently being a real major hurdle. Also, it appears that Nintendo never intended to compete with Sony or MS in terms of hardware prowess this generation. They had originally intended to release the freehand controller as a GC expansion that would extend the GC's life another generation, then had to scrap that plan when faced with the inevitable march of hardware. Then, they opted to continue on their tact of ease of development and the GC's ultra streamlined design instead of brute power, it appears that Nintendo requested hardware that would provide them the most bang for their buck: not expensive to make, powerful for stndard definition, easy to develop for. There may have been some oversights, or tricky cost-cutting decisions, which I suppose is where the shader functions were scrapped. Still, these were probably made on a value analysis taking into account the rate of diminishing returns on graphics these days.
And I think it's ridiculous to wonder whether the Rev's hardware will cripple games. AI in videogames is a result of good design and smart algorithms, not CPU thunder. Physics seemed to work well enough on the last generation of games, this generation will be fine too, just the Rev won't be able to cram 1 million rubber duckies in your bath like the PS3 can, or bounce that many ping pong balls or whatever. And framerate, did the last generation give you any indication that framerates were suffering in Nintendo games? Isn't 30FPS, 60 FPS enough? If not, the PS3 does have that 120 FPS claim...
The revolution hardware is exactly what it needs to be. IGN describes it as a vehicle for the Revmote, and I think this is true. The hardware does everything it needs to do to put a pretty nice visual on your Standard Definition TV and little else. It doesn't need the 3X RAM count for HD textures, nor does it need heaps upon heaps more of headache-inducing multi-threaded multi-core complex and expensive computing brute force just to throw enough millions of characters on the screen for players to slaughter by pressing one button like X360's Ninety-Nine Nights. All that would be a waste, it would increase the risk for Nintendo and it would increase the Price for buying and developing on the Revolution, things that would limit the Revolution controller's exposure to gamers, casuals, and non-gamers, adoption by developers, and ultimate success.
The Revolution basically IS the controller, it seems. Everything else is just there to complement it, and anything more would only hinder it. In contrast to your ending thought, The Revolution controller actually calls out for the mainstream price of widespread adoption, and for the risk-reducing safety of non-bleeding edge hardware and easy development environments.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: eljefe on March 30, 2006, 03:15:35 AM
QuoteGood. You got it. At least part of it.
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
eljefe talked about Nintendo forcing a restriction which works better for art. I'll agree with one thing. When Nintendo has on a cartridge based N64 and had a buttload of self-imposed restrictions put on them they blew me away far more often then they did on the Cube. On the Cube they had no need for midi sounds yet they still used them. They had the option for FMV and when they used it in Super Mario Sunshine it looked horrible and looked exactly like the in game graphics which is kind of, well, stupid. They made a very bland boring Mario model that looked like something out of a Dreamcast launch title and used it in every Mario game since Super Mario Sunshine. They had a lot of freedom and they rarely used it so their games seemed like they were missing something. On the N64 it was like every game was pushing the hardware to it's limits. With the Cube, it rarely felt like that.
So in a way it might be better for Nintendo to have less freedom so that they push the hardware more often. That doesn't help for third parties. Restriction can be good for art but there's a business side. Third parties can potentially make more money on the other two consoles which provide them with more freedom. A third party will only accept major limitations if they feel they have to to make money.
To address your point, even the N64 missed out on 3rd party support (for really complex reasons). Nintendo's reaction seemed to be to try and keep up graphically with the XBOX and PS2 to attract the 3rd parties back. The trouble is the techniques they used to differentiate themselves from the competition were not seen as desirable to the majority (the handle, the little discs, better loadtimes, the color). Basically, the things that made it different didn't make people say "I NEED THAT". So developers, realizing this ahead of time (or smarting from poor sales on the GC on multiplatform games), decided to avoid the GC as a business decision.
People posting above don't get it. The Revolution COULD compete directly with the 360 and PS3. But, that is the single most foolish thing Nintendo could do.
As an extreme, I'll compare the PS2 and GBA. Many people own both because they fulfill such drastically different needs for FUN. They are BOTH fun. So people are willing to buy both.
That is also part of why the PSP isn't selling as well it could be: it is not different enough from the home consoles. Its spec sheet, and the philosophy of the company backing it, are creating a "shape" that is nearly identical to the PS2 but portable. Therefore the same types of games and developers are attracted to it.
Post by: attackslug on March 30, 2006, 03:34:14 AM
BTW, the Cube "did not support shaders", yet quite a few games featured full bumpmapping, complex depth of field blurring, and some rather impressive texture effects. Just look at the cinematics in RE4 or just about any surface (particularly the water) in RSIII.
Post by: Fro on March 30, 2006, 04:44:42 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 30, 2006, 04:59:29 AM
Overall these specs would probably be pricier and less powerful than even the cheapest off-the-shelf components.
BTW, an interesting comment I've read onj /. was that since IGN is working with Nintendo they are bound by the same NDAs as everyone else, even if Matt got the information from someone outside the company and never even got close to the department working on it he'd still put the company in jeopardy,
Post by: jasonditz on March 30, 2006, 05:15:09 AM
Post by: mantidor on March 30, 2006, 05:19:50 AM
Post by: BranDonk Kong on March 30, 2006, 05:25:15 AM
Post by: BranDonk Kong on March 30, 2006, 05:33:24 AM
Post by: Ceric on March 30, 2006, 05:34:25 AM
In regards to what eljefe originally said just watch the original Star Wars Trilogy and then the New Star Wars Trilogy. Thats an example of someone going from limits to no limits and everyone can agree the original ones were better. In fact you might argue that about the Original Star Wars Trilogy versus the Redo's.
Now...
2 words "Specialized Harware"
Follow-up...
I'm sure that the architecture was designed to eliminate bottle necks and won't have very much a to b time. Nintendo has a knack for picking the right hardware to get the job that they want done done well. I thought Ati mentioned that Hollywood would be more in line with a generation above I thought that was on there site but I can't find it. For copyright and licensing reasons I would assume that IBM and ATI wouldn't allow for the use of the same technology in the chips.
Post by: jasonditz on March 30, 2006, 06:02:46 AM
Post by: Strell on March 30, 2006, 06:35:36 AM
Hooray!
They could put actual freakin' chips in there and have a faster machine. I'm talking Doritos. But only the EXTREME ones.
Post by: trip1eX on March 30, 2006, 07:25:43 AM
Post by: Pale on March 30, 2006, 07:32:22 AM
People need to stop taking Matt's "inside info" with such confidence and wait to hear it from the horse's mouth before you complain... or better yet, wait to actually see how the games look before you complain. This is the same pissing contest that has been going on in the PC industry for years.
How can we as fans, on one hand, say that the 360 doesn't look good enough to be called next gen, then on the other hand claim that because these supposed specs are better than a gcn but supposedly not as good as a 360, they suck?
So, in one thread, let's all say that the 360 doesn't look that much better than the cube, then in another thread say that the rev will suck if it isn't as fancy as the 360?
Blah. Stop worrying so much and enjoy some video games. If you will truly enjoy MS or Sony's approach more, then buy that system over the Rev. That's the best way to tell Nintendo what you want. If you aren't ready to go that far then doesn't that prove that Nintendo is making the right decisions?
Post by: Arbok on March 30, 2006, 07:41:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
How can we as fans, on one hand, say that the 360 doesn't look good enough to be called next gen, then on the other hand claim that because these supposed specs are better than a gcn but supposedly not as good as a 360, they suck?
Because this is more than just how something will look. This is more about what you can and can't do with the system. That you can't have tons of enemies running around the screen as you battle in a war without framerate issues. That you can't have tons of human controlled characters moving around, using the wi-fi connection, on screen at once.
This is more about performance and less about graphics, and what it means to companies who want to port their 360 and PS3 made games over to the system and how many sacrifices they will pick to make in order to make the port process easier.
I was fine that the system was going to be much weaker than the PS3 or 360, but I wasn't expecting it to be comparable to a Xbox spec wise. Perhaps that was foolish on my part, but for a next generation system I don't think it's asking too much.
Really, it's all speculation at this point how Revolution games will look, but Nintendo now has the dilemmia of having to show it off ASAP before these revealed specs can do any more damage from the internet crowd that is quickly spreading things such as "Revolution will just be a Xbox with a new controller, save your money." And, again, that's not the type of comments you want to hear as it convinces some to not even try the system and see if they will like the new controller.
Post by: RiskyChris on March 30, 2006, 08:05:00 AM
Post by: jasonditz on March 30, 2006, 08:19:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
How can we as fans, on one hand, say that the 360 doesn't look good enough to be called next gen, then on the other hand claim that because these supposed specs are better than a gcn but supposedly not as good as a 360, they suck?
I for one don't care what the competition is doing in this regard, but if you look at the progression from NES to SNES, SNES to N64, or N64 to Gamecube, there seemed to be a much bigger jump than there is in this case.
Post by: denjet78 on March 30, 2006, 08:19:33 AM
I still don't understand how people can forget last generations "spec wars":
XBox - 300 MILLION PPS (or whatever other crazy number it was that they threw out)
PS2 - 76 MILLION PPS
GC - 12 million pps
Now which system actually delivered their hardware numbers? Which system actually surpased their hardware numbers? Nintendo has already proven that specs mean NOTHING. I don't care who you know or how in-the-know you think you are. Did anyone honestly believe that the GC, with it's limited specs, would ever be able to come anywhere near the XBox? And there are people out there who still think it's weaker than the PS2 with all these idiotic arguments! All you're doing is helping to spread missinformation. Anyone wonder why Nintendo isn't playing the spec game? Because of idiots like you!
In the end, Nintendo is giving us a completely new way to play games, not just a better looking version of what's already out there. That, in the end, will drive my purchasing decision. If the games look like they came straight off an N64... well, maybe not that bad but I don't need all the whiz-bangs in order to get into my games. Does no one have an imagination anymore? Do you not realize that these are FANTASY worlds?
No wonder I spend more time emulating than I do playing current generation software. Almost everything sucks now because all the effort is going into making the graphics look just that much better. And for what? Smaller game worlds? Less play time? You're not going to get your massive worlds that you're all whining about. As graphics become more and more expensive to produce, there will be less and less of them in games simply because developers won't be able to afford the resources needed for them. Or they'll just continue to cut into the game-play departments budget. At some point Sony or MS will come out with a console that will be able to completely and acurately represent any object virtually. It'll take a dozen people 5 years to render a table with all the lighting and shading and physics and such attached to it, but it'll be perfect!
...
I don't even know why I'm trying.
No one ever understands what I'm talking about.
Post by: BigJim on March 30, 2006, 08:19:38 AM
The most uproar is , ironically, coming from Nintendo fans. Most other people are just interested in the controller and feel that hardware isn't everything. It's really exposing the unusual love/hate relationship Nintendo fans have with Nintendo...
I also got feedback from someone that does game logic (he knowz secretz!!!!!11) Game logic is the deep game code stuff, btw. He says games are 25% hardware and 75% how you use it. If Revolution is anything like GameCube's architecture (which it sounds like it is) it's going to be considerably faster than Xbox.
I trust his input, and he knows more than probably any of us, so I say don't be over dramatic with the Xbox comparisons. We heard it'd be better than Xbox months ago, and it's still true.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 30, 2006, 08:20:23 AM
Kaplan said 2-3 times, this isn't even 2 times. Matt claims the think is directly related to the Flipper so it'd use an ancient architecture, he also said the Ati chip doesn't have shaders. If that were true the stats would be directly comparable to the GC and not be anywhere close to 2-3 times.
However, things like multiple but identical RAMs suggest that these specs are taken from a Devkit that was cobbled together from modified GC hardware, not some internal document that specifies the final specs for the hardware ordered. I'm not sure but they may even be the specs of a GC devkit with extra cycles and RAM to handle debugging.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 30, 2006, 08:23:21 AM
Isn't that logical conclusion? If the 360 doesn't look good enough then logically something with significantly lower specs than the 360 would be even worse.
"People need to stop taking Matt's 'inside info' with such confidence and wait to hear it from the horse's mouth before you complain"
In this case though we'll probalby never hear it from the horse's mouth. Nintendo doesn't seem to want to make the specs public. If you want this info then websites getting "scoops" from devs is the only source. This is partially why I thought it was a mistake for Nintendo to talk about never revealing the specs. They were going to come out somehow and it would have been better if Nintendo themselves revealed them so that they could make sure we all had correct info and they could balance it out with screens and movies to show that the graphics will be fine regardless. Though that in itself is optimism. I've assumed Nintendo would be able to demonstrate that they don't need high end specs to have comparable looking games but they actually might not.
The whole Rev secrecy in general has been weird. They showed us this weird controller but have never given us any actual demonstration of it or shown us any games or given any indication that it will work with existing game genres. That seems just as borderline insane as being all hush-hush about specs that everyone knows aren't up to snuff (there's no need to hide them otherwise) only to have them released publicly by another source. Or to publicly announce missing features like HD as some of the first concrete info.
I have found it difficult to be excited about the Rev because the only indication that it will be any good is because Nintendo says it will. It's like all the potentially negative sh!t is out in the open and any of the stuff that will actually create interest is locked in a vault.
There are good things we know about too like the download service and free online. But, geez, Nintendo. Just give me a reason to buy a Rev besides your word. Afterall if you're trying to sell me something your opinion is biased anyway.
Post by: jasonditz on March 30, 2006, 08:44:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"How can we as fans, on one hand, say that the 360 doesn't look good enough to be called next gen, then on the other hand claim that because these supposed specs are better than a gcn but supposedly not as good as a 360, they suck?"
Isn't that logical conclusion? If the 360 doesn't look good enough then logically something with significantly lower specs than the 360 would be even worse.
Or is it just that all these specs are starting to mean less and less to the final product. The 360 is lightyears ahead of the original Xbox in terms of processing power, but when it comes to games, they look incrementally better. Nothing I've seen so far out of the 360 seems like a great leap forward. Nothing I've seen looks like it would leave RE4 in the dust.
The same was not true last generation. Pretty EOL N64 games like Perfect Dark and LoZ: MM were not even in the ballpark of stuff like Pikmin visually.
So I dunno... maybe it is all we really need. Maybe those gaudy specs of the 360 and PS3 are going to be mostly wasted. We know the Rev will be capable of RE4 and TP calibur graphics and then some...
Post by: Ian Sane on March 30, 2006, 08:48:28 AM
I think this is more due to the fact that Nintendo fans actually care about Nintendo and no one else does. A lot of people just see a Nintendo console as something to play Nintendo franchise games on. There are a lot of people that bought a Cube just to play Mario games but also owned a PS2 or Xbox as their "main" console. They were pretty satisified. However Nintendo fans who bought a Cube as their main console were justifiably a little disappointed.
I lurk at the Penny Arcade forums and typically they have a lot of optimism regarding the Rev. But most of them are going to buy another console. It doesn't matter if the Rev is incapable of playing traditional games or will always have the worst version of third party games because those people are only going to buy the odd Nintendo game every couple of months and download old games while their PS3 or Xbox 360 suits their main gaming needs.
When you're a Nintendo fan you don't want to buy another console. That changes everything. That means any problems with the Rev are something you have to live with for the next five years.
One group is content with Nintendo in a distant last place with months going by with no good games released. The other is not. That's the difference.
Post by: Pale on March 30, 2006, 09:23:19 AM
Post by: jasonditz on March 30, 2006, 09:48:37 AM
I can't offhand think of a system that was the low end and got vastly inferior ports. Companies like EA tend to develop to the weakest system then tarted out the same version with a little extra eye candy for the other systems. Look at stuff like Gun and NHL 2k6 on the Xbox 360... it's basically prettied up Xbox 1 games that were themselves originally prettied up PS2 games.
My guess is they'll either use the Rev as a basis for a game, or they won't do a Rev version at all. That might be scary in the beginning, but if the Rev does wind up getting too big a market share to ignore, it might be the PS3 and Xbox 360 owners complaining "why did I spend $400 on this system when most of the games are just Rev ports with a little extra eye candy and worse controls?"
Post by: iMoron on March 30, 2006, 10:19:14 AM
............................................................
I have notice that all to many are still refering to SDTV instead of EDTV in many comments about the Revolution's power... Progresive 480 resolution is EDTV... Enhance Definition TV. There are a bunch of Digital TV sets that display EDTV and not HDTV... But to many are been fooled by the HighDef... and many think that Digital TV sets are the same as HDTV sets, but they are actualy EDTV...
With that said... What the heck... I am economicaly BROKE... econnommy is bad... it will take me more than 3 years to improve my status... because of various reasons... So am happy I won't miss good gaming because I can't buy that HDTV someone thinks I need... The news lady looks good wile showing the weather on my TV set... will HDTV let me get real with her... NO... so my SDTV is good and if I manage I will get a better TV, one that outputs 480p (EDTV) and a Revolution...
This specs are much better than the GAMECUBE's ... so we will have better than the GC games... it is not like if the SNES had horib games because the GENESIS had higher clock speed...
Actually... if specs were so important, computergames would rule... But... wheres that industry? It is not dead, but it is not growing as much as the PC market itself... and in most part because those who are exclusive to PC gaming and puch graphics tend to just push graphics... And... most of the Gaming PC hardware gets somewhat wasted... no one of them PC game makers have gotten the juce out of the last graphic card... always jumping to the next big thin... Thoug consoles are diferent I feel games are meant to be played... and if a good gaming experience comes in blak and white then be it, do I care for the most realistic crapfest with bland substance, NO...
Even I, as a developer wanabe, have been pondering my ideas... as long as the gameplay is involving, graphics are secondary... even a text adventure would be enyoiable... And I tell you, no one can make better graphics than an Interactive Fiction (text adventure)... NO ONE...
Power Me Silly! Bring on the GAMES!
Post by: SixthAngel on March 30, 2006, 10:34:47 AM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on March 30, 2006, 11:38:32 AM
"This is an unfortunate eventuality, and also one that stems mostly from a mentality that insists Nintendo is competing with Microsoft and Sony, which it isn't."
I'm sorry to break it to you Matt, but no matter what you, Iwata, Miyamoto, or Reggie say, Revolution WILL compete with MS and Sony. You cannot stop that. They are all home game consoles, therefore, they will compete.
And then he goes on to talk about how IGN is almost 100% reliable at delivering breaking news. Well Matt, last I checked, the last "breaking news" you delivered about the Rev specs was that it was going to be about three times as powerful as the Gamecube. Oops, looks like you contradicted yourself.
I really don't get it. If those numbers turn out to be true, regardless of the architecture, it's basically an Xbox. Nobody's going to buy it except those of us who are loyal to Nintendo because, well, they already HAVE an Xbox.
AND GODDAMN IT! WHY THE HELL DOESN'T IGN EVER NAME ITS SOURCES?!
Post by: RiskyChris on March 30, 2006, 12:13:48 PM
Which you don't.
Which I don't.
Which means neither of us can make the claim that is is an xbox.
But you know... my AMD 4200+ dual core processor clocks in at 2.2GHz, which I bought 6 months ago for ~$500. I really got ripped off buying a 2.2GHz CPU then, eh? Why not spend the same money and get an Intel 3.8GHz CPU?
Right.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 30, 2006, 12:46:56 PM
Post by: Magik on March 30, 2006, 01:21:45 PM
Post by: MysticGohan on March 30, 2006, 01:28:20 PM
While Matt may work for a somewhat Reputable site ( and I use that term losely ) I doubt this is all there is to Rev, if it's even official. I'm inclined to believe this is somekind of an early April Fools, we'll see I suppose. Matt to me has never been one to be realiable, so let's see if PGC can come up with anything. So far nothing's been posted on any realiable sites including PGC, I'm sure the staff might have some knowledge on Matt's inane specs that he's spewing forth. Only time will tell.
Post by: Mario on March 30, 2006, 01:49:44 PM
Quote
However Nintendo fans who bought a Cube as their main console were justifiably a little disappointed.
UGH, please don't speak for all Nintendo fans. Cube is a f'ing great main console for me, PS2 is still played as my secondary console only because GC lacks real racers, but every system has a hole somewhere.
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on March 30, 2006, 01:59:40 PM
We have stop inserting these irrelevant Intel vs. AMD comparisons to uphold Nintendo, since the differences between AMD and Intel philosophy isn't really analogous to the whole 'RISC' vs. 'CISC' thing. In any case, much of the RISC vs. CISC thing was spewed out by Apple's marketing corps, and now with the Intel switch, we are finding out just how far those fabrications went, especially with the G4 but even with the G5. So let's just stop with that nonsense, because none of us can really debate about it (we have to rely on Anandtech or Tom's or whatever - certainly not 'Macworld').
Also, irrelevant - pointing out how PCs with higher clocks than the GC couldn't even run DC-calibur graphics. There's so much more to consider, because PCs aren't built with gaming in mind, and they have to run a friggin' OS (and that OS is usually Windows...). Game consoles, even multi-purpose ones like the Xbox/360 and PS2/3, are designed around gaming (in comparison with generic PCs).
Still Dirk's reasoning is wrong:
Quote
I really don't get it. If those numbers turn out to be true, regardless of the architecture, it's basically an Xbox.
Dude, the GameCube was in many respects (though obviously not all) as powerful as the Xbox. If the Rev has spec'ed up as much as they claim, it should blow the Xbox out of the water in terms of graphics. In any case, nobody knows specs or what they mean - I don't think anyone, besides idiotic fanboys and probably some of the inane 'hardware dudes', will know or care what they are. I'm not just talking about non-gamers - casual gamers are usually clueless to this BS.
As for your other comments about Matt - cut the dude some slack. What he (and Nintendo) mean is that they Nintendo isn't going to compete as far as cutthroat graphical ability is concerned. I'm pretty sure that when Iwata was asked recently about what Microsoft had done wrong with the 360 launch, he said explicitly that he wouldn't point it out because it would be helping the enemy. As to whether this is the correct strategy or not to take (regarding the graphics) only time will tell. But don't presume to say that noone will buy a Rev because 'it's an Xbox.' You're only focusing on one aspect, and are furthermore comparing Apples to Oranges.
In any case, it's quite possible the numbers aren't final (if they're even real). I remember the GC specs were changed at the last minute also (PPC was spec'ed up 80MHz, Flipper was spec'ed down 40Mhz)
Post by: Ian Sane on March 30, 2006, 02:09:22 PM
Well I was referring more to fans in context of the "Nintendo fans are the only ones complaining" argument. Nintendo fans have more reason to complain then gamers who just like Nintendo but don't buy Nintendo consoles as their main console.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on March 30, 2006, 02:24:16 PM
Again.
Post by: jasonditz on March 30, 2006, 03:06:07 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on March 30, 2006, 03:37:36 PM
Also remember how some developers bitched how sony built a dramatically different and a possible foreign architecture to them which will obviously spike up their costs and probably game costs. I personally think its sad how we obsess over spec numbers, and realistically we should only worry about games and game quality. I believe that this is like the DS except on a home console front screw the specs and bring on a radical new experiance its admittant that the DS has some antiquated technology but its really a vehicle to the touch screen gameplay or gives a new dimension to the game with the 2nd screen, the Rev will obviously be a vehicle to the controller and maybe they focused on the technology of the controller mechanics so that there isn't any latency from the physical action and then to get it transmitted to the action in the game.
To me this will be like a comparison of Rev vs 360 and PS3 to the DS and PSP, did we care that the DS was under powered compared to PSP? Not really Why? A lot of killer aps and new experiances are on the DS compared to the ports and antiquated(and some under developed) game mechanics that are on the PSP. Will there be dud games? Yeah, sure some innovative games might be duds but hey atleast they tried something new and different. But look at how many duds are on the PSP just because the developers saw it as a port machine and essentially treat it as one (case and point EA, capcom and in some cases Sony games). Did the PSP's multimedia capabilites sway our purchase away from a DS? Answer: Not really since there are so many different machines that could do those multimedia funtions much better and are cheaper than the PSP.
Post by: Artimus on March 30, 2006, 03:39:51 PM
Post by: RiskyChris on March 30, 2006, 04:01:48 PM
Post by: Jensen on March 30, 2006, 04:49:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Physics seemed to work well enough on the last generation of games, this generation will be fine too, just the Rev won't be able to cram 1 million rubber duckies in your bath like the PS3 can, or bounce that many ping pong balls or whatever.
What GameCube games uses physics? The only gameplay element that I can think of that features (non-character) physics is a couple of bridges in Wind Waker.
It would be nice to see rag-doll physics in RE4 (though, even without it, the animation is quite good) I love all the physical simulation in Half-Life 2, and I think it could only be improved with a Revolution controller.
Post by: Magik on March 30, 2006, 04:50:18 PM
For goodness sake, just get over with it. It's absolutely mindblowing how so many people have overreacted to these specs. Heck, a lot of them are the same people who claim they don't matter.
In the end, all that matters is how developers utilize the hardware. All the high-end specs mean nothing if the developers don't know how to use it.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 30, 2006, 05:21:27 PM
The Commercial
20 seconds of video footage where we see the hands of the player and the hands of the character in the game from a first-person perspective, the game on top, the controller on the bottom.
Both images freeze and the Revmote and the handle of the character's sword both flash, indicating that they are in sync.
Then, the game starts moving, the player is attacked by a skeleton. The player slashes the sword horizontally through the skeleton's chest (skeleton, no blood). The skeleton falls in half, and as the view from the player shifts downward, the player then pantomimes driving the sword into the skull of the fallen skeleton as it thrashes around: it screams and dies. Then the player is attacked by several stone golems. The player hits a button and the character's hands switch from a sword to a mighty hammer. The character then proceeds to smash the stone golems into rubble, blocking their attacks when necessary.
Then, a huge demon shows up in the skies above it flies down on massive red wings and begins hurling balls of fire at the player, the player dodges one and then presses another button to raise a shield to block the second. The demon dives at the player, as the player charges the demon, jumps raises the sword to stab the demon's face, and...cut to Revolution logo, end commercial.
That's all they need. Every gamer in the goddamn world will want one with a simple commercial which showcases exactly how insanely cool the Revmote can be.
Post by: Jensen on March 30, 2006, 05:33:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thejeek
2: Maintained same CPU to GPU clock ratio despite different rates of development in CPU and GPU technology in last 5 years
3: Why have 24MB of 1-T RAM plus a second block of 64MB of 1-T RAM? If they're really just stretching the GC then surely they'll have 24MB of faster 1-T plus more DRAM or they'll have more than 24MB of 1-T in a single block. Two blocks of different sizes is bonkers - what underlying manufacturing constraint would lead to that?
I expect the Revolution to have disappointing specs - they may even be as disappointing as the ones IGN 'leaked', but the particular 'specs' we have here are bullshit
The CPU to GPU clock ratio and the two blocks of ram are to maintain compatibility with Gamecube games. Just underclock the CPU and GPU, and the Revolution is now a Gamecube.
If the architecture was changed much at all, the GC would have to be emulated, requiring a lot more power. Despite being several times faster than the original Xbox, the 360 can't natively run any original Xbox games, or even support them through a generic emulator.
Post by: jasonditz on March 30, 2006, 05:48:56 PM
Post by: Jensen on March 30, 2006, 06:19:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
There's no reason you'd have to underclock the CPU and GPU at the exact same percent.
How do you know there is no reason? Perhaps because the GPU and CPU share ram, they need to be synchronized more tightly than in PCs. Maybe the CPU and GPU won't be underclocked. I'm not a hardware engineer for Nintendo, so I can't say for sure, but it seems to be the simplist way to do things.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 30, 2006, 06:45:31 PM
Post by: jasonditz on March 30, 2006, 06:54:01 PM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on March 30, 2006, 06:59:05 PM
Matt says:
Quote
Thanks for the letter. I'm going to take a deep breath and try to run through this. Let's start with the similarities between GameCube and Revolution. According to Revolution developers, Nintendo's new console shares similar CPU and GPU architectures to GameCube. The new clock rate figures we revealed are almost exactly 1.5 times more powerful than those for Nintendo's current generation system. I mean, if you were to take a calculator and multiple the CPU and GPU speeds on GameCube by 1.5, you would end up with the MHz figures we posted for Revolution. But that doesn't mean the console as a whole is only 1.5 times more powerful. There are other considerations, including RAM and overall bandwidth, which play important roles in the final equation.
We posted these specs because they are newsworthy and it's our job to bring readers the latest in Revolution developments. Some hardcore fans are really upset that we chose to file our report, but we make no apologies for doing what we're paid to do.
Unfortunately, though, some people have really bashed the console based on our report, which is unfair. I want to be clear to readers that many Revolution games will look positively beautiful. There are some important factors to remember when thinking about the console - and you won't find these considerations in any tech spec piece. First off, the machine will be roughly twice as powerful as GameCube, a system whose games have set graphical benchmarks. Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime, Resident Evil 4, Rogue Squadron - these are very pretty games. Imagine what smart developers will be able to do with twice the horsepower and, just as importantly, double the memory. On top of that, studios have had five years to come to grips with the GameCube architecture. They know what they're doing on the console. And Revolution is an extension of that. First generation Revolution games have the potential to look as good as sixth generation GameCube efforts. I find that possibility extremely intriguing.
I have a 50" plasma screen hanging on my living room wall. I have a 30" LCD on my dining room wall. And I have an HD CRT in my bedroom. I'm a technical guy. I like high-definition graphics. I am going home tonight to play Oblivion on Xbox 360. I am, you could say, fully emerged in the so-called "HD era" of videogames. And yet, I'm promising you that you're going to be impressed with the visuals in some of the Revolution games on the horizon. I guess for now you'll just have to trust me on that point.
I rarely leave home without my Nintendo DS Lite. Meanwhile, my Sony PSP has been collecting dust for months. I bring this up to illustrate my final and most important comment. Graphics are integral to me, but gameplay is king. And where gameplay is concerned, Revolution has the potential horsepower of five Xbox 360s. When you read our spec pieces, keep this point in mind and have a little faith in Nintendo to deliver the goods.
now that wasn't so hard
Post by: KDR_11k on March 30, 2006, 08:56:45 PM
No, that's only when you're a fanboy. Fan status only indicates supporting something, not rejecting the alternatives.
IMO screw the spec numbers, I wonder why people are so obsessed with them as we all know rev has no 720p or 1080p so these supposed "low" specs shouldn't be a problem since it seems like Rev doesn't need a lot of resources to be used just to keep up a constant frame rate on the HD resolutions.
Em, do you understand which specs are affected by a change in resolution and which ones aren't (and especially to which deegree)? RAM takes only a minor hit* from a change in resolution, the GPU's fillrate cares but the rest not so much and the CPU doesn't even know what resolution we're talking about.
If the architecture was changed much at all, the GC would have to be emulated, requiring a lot more power. Despite being several times faster than the original Xbox, the 360 can't natively run any original Xbox games, or even support them through a generic emulator.
1. The XCircle has a generic emulator but it won't run games that aren't certified as working.
2. Explain the PS2, please. It's not impossible to make a new chip that can handle everything the old one did and more, especially when you've got the same manufacturer working on it (PC CPUs are compatible with each other, for example). Using the same architecture after five years just results in your system being comparable to a handheld.
Overall these "1.5" specs would be too low, no amount of "but the Megahurtz myth isn't true!" can change that. He claimed it uses the same architecture as the GC and even if it didn't, the difference is never THIS big. Imagine Nintendo's follow up to the N64 was as powerful as the DS. It's like how horsepower doesn't necessarily translate into faster cars but a 20 HP car won't be in the same league as a 100HP one no matter how you look at it.
*= Minor for the PS3 or XCircle, if those specs are true it is indeed major for the Rev.
Post by: thejeek on March 30, 2006, 10:57:24 PM
Quote
The CPU to GPU clock ratio and the two blocks of ram are to maintain compatibility with Gamecube games. Just underclock the CPU and GPU, and the Revolution is now a Gamecube.
If the architecture was changed much at all, the GC would have to be emulated, requiring a lot more power. Despite being several times faster than the original Xbox, the 360 can't natively run any original Xbox games, or even support them through a generic emulator.
Maybe but I don't buy it. In particular, the northbridge could handle any memory address translation required to recreate the GC memory map so I don't see the need for segmented memory (which developers are united in their contempt for). As for needing an emulator - I'd imagine that the CPU + GPU would support a superset of the operations provided by the original GC parts, irrespective of how much faster the Revolution parts run. My suspicion is that either these specs are from a rush-job dev-kit and not representative of final hardware or are simply invented by someone with no imagination and an axe to grind...
Post by: wandering on March 30, 2006, 11:35:46 PM
Quote
Imagine Nintendo's follow up to the N64 was as powerful as the DS.
...except that the ds is less powerful than the n64 in some areas, and almost certainly not twice as powerful as the n64 overall.
Personally, I'm expecting the rev to be GameCube plus in terms of graphics. Metriod Prime 3 will be Metroid Prime plus massive environments. Pikmin Rev will be Pikmin plus thousands of enemies on screen. Etc. Would that be so bad?
Post by: KDR_11k on March 31, 2006, 03:18:48 AM
Neither is this "Revolution". Well, okay, it beats the N64 but it's not twice as powerful as the GC.
Metriod Prime 3 will be Metroid Prime plus massive environments. Pikmin Rev will be Pikmin plus thousands of enemies on screen. Etc. Would that be so bad?
No, that wouldn't be bad at all but these specs wouldn't even allow THAT.
Post by: Nephilim on March 31, 2006, 03:21:17 AM
normally when people use a new architecture, which being new tech normal gets outdated in a month by them finding a way to push it and a newer version
Instead I fully expect Rev to be pushed to the limit
Post by: Ian Sane on March 31, 2006, 06:53:55 AM
That's what I wanted to know. I was very happy to find that IGN had already done the comparison for me and someone else didn't have to. It's also good that IGN did it because then the comparison is going to be more accurate. Someone on a forum might not have the correct information for the older consoles. I can feel confident that IGN would have that data. Plus since the website that revealed the specs did the comparison we have one universal comparison to reference. Had people on different forums done the comparison we might have numerous different results.
Post by: Jensen on March 31, 2006, 06:54:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
2. Explain the PS2, please. It's not impossible to make a new chip that can handle everything the old one did and more, especially when you've got the same manufacturer working on it (PC CPUs are compatible with each other, for example). Using the same architecture after five years just results in your system being comparable to a handheld.
The PS2 has a secondary chip/CPU to run playstation 1 games. Kinda like the DS has a second CPU that is also used for GBA games.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 31, 2006, 07:08:28 AM
I don't get why anyone is complaining about Matt comparing the specs to the Xbox.
Because in the original version of the article he claimed that because the XBox has more MHz it's better. Those Rev numbers clearly outdo the Xbox but they fall hort of anything worth calling "next gen".
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 31, 2006, 07:11:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wanderingQuote
Imagine Nintendo's follow up to the N64 was as powerful as the DS.
...except that the ds is less powerful than the n64 in some areas, and almost certainly not twice as powerful as the n64 overall.
What the hell.
N64 games typically ran at 256x224. DS games are 256x192 for two screens.
Your N64 "favorites" like Zelda and Mario Kart typically ran at 20fps AT MOST. Only in extremely rare occasions (like, never) were games like Excitebike 64 released that were able to reach a solid 30fps.
Yet I hear about Mario Kart DS (with 3D characters) maintaining 60fps. That's a SIGNIFICANT jump. Stictly comparing Mario Karts, DS is 3X as powerful.
Post by: trip1eX on March 31, 2006, 07:33:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I don't get why anyone is complaining about Matt comparing the specs to the Xbox. Most of us aren't very technical.
I emailed the guy about that. The problem with his comparison is it that it's bs. His cpu comparison is like you saying my car does more rpms so it's faster even tho you have a v4 in your car and I have a v8 under my hood. He just perpetuates the whole Mhz myth. It's even more irritating because we already knew the Gamecube was on par with the Xbox as it was. And his comparison makes it sound like the Rev is just now as powerful as the Xbox despite a 50% increase in cpu power. IT's bs.
I mean look at it another way. He's saying the 'Cube needed a 50% power increase to equal the Xbox. Now we know that's bullcrap. ONe look at RE4 and it's easy to see that.
I have no illusions that the Rev is going to be a 360 or PS3. Nintendo has always said it isn't. They are going there own direction. But to say a 730 Mhz PPC cpu is somehow the same as a 730 Mhz Celeron processor is bs and really just an outright lie.
Post by: Kairon on March 31, 2006, 07:36:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Metriod Prime 3 will be Metroid Prime plus massive environments. Pikmin Rev will be Pikmin plus thousands of enemies on screen. Etc. Would that be so bad?
No, that wouldn't be bad at all but these specs wouldn't even allow THAT.
And you know this...how?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on March 31, 2006, 07:56:51 AM
Post by: Kairon on March 31, 2006, 08:19:10 AM
Ah, but then let's look at a launch window game developed in 9 months for the GC, Rogue Leader. The Battle of Endor, especially for a Star Wars fan, is epic. You're looking at about 4-5 capitol ships on the rebel side, maybe 50+ ties and more than a dozen rebel ships, all with models far more complex than in the world of Pikmin, and all moving in action. This was a first-generation title with a 9 month development time and look what it was able to do. And of course, if you're gonna call the Ties dumb, the thing is that AI is a matter of code, not cpu. It only becomes a matter of cpu if you need to do real AI, and then I don't think even our resident supercomputers are good enough for that. Anyways, the Rogue-Leader title wasan action-shooter, which specifically necessitated enemies that you would be able to down by the truckloads.
Another near-epic example could be from (the admittedly deeply flawed) Rogue Leader 2 Extreme Survival Modes where players would need to down 100s of Ties on a single life above the endless deathstar towerscape, or the evacuation of Yavin which took place over a Junglescape.
But anyways, here we have this epic game with great graphics, tons of units on the battlefield, developed in 9 months and as a first generation title. Why does the GC seem to not have any epic titles other than this? It isn't for lack of computer power, think what could've been done with a longer dev time, a different game genre and a later generational attempt. No, it's because no one aside from Factor 5 even tried.
Oh, and unless we're hardware geeks who can explain EXACTLY why a PPC core is better than a regular P3, I don't think we have any real authority on how powerful a chipset is. Well, on top of that, IGN just gave us clockspeeds, not anything else on the chipsets, which makes judgements of worth by non-enthusiasts even less factually sound.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: RiskyChris on March 31, 2006, 08:20:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Yep. Question is why would they choose not to take that approach, instead crippling their hardware's ability to run native software?
I don't get why anyone is complaining about Matt comparing the specs to the Xbox.
Because in the original version of the article he claimed that because the XBox has more MHz it's better. Those Rev numbers clearly outdo the Xbox but they fall hort of anything worth calling "next gen".
What is next gen? I think it involves the whole package, not just hardware specs. The controller is truly next-gen (moreso than any other controller in the past).
The DS is a "next gen" handheld because it combines innovation with functionality.
Post by: Arbok on March 31, 2006, 08:31:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RiskyChris
What is next gen? I think it involves the whole package, not just hardware specs. The controller is truly next-gen (moreso than any other controller in the past).
The DS is a "next gen" handheld because it combines innovation with functionality.
The DS was both, let's admit that. The system is *much* more powerful than the GBA was, its predecessor, while also adding in the extra screen that it has to deal with. Is it as powerful as a PSP? No, but then it's a portable and technology in that sector is much more expensive and there are things to consider like battery life that one doesn't have to put into consideration when making a console system. In other words, the DS was both a huge step in process power and a huge leap in innovation. In terms of the Revolution, it seems like Nintendo just went with the latter and kind of skimped on the former. I hope I'm proven wrong, but it's all speculation without screens or footage at this point at what results it might generate.
Post by: RiskyChris on March 31, 2006, 08:43:53 AM
I bring up the DS because it sits compared to the PSP similar to how the revolution will be versus the PS3 and 360. The revolution is unquestionably stronger than the gamecube! How can you call the DS a next-gen worthy system, when the jump from GBA to DS is very much analogous to the jump from GC to Rev? Innovation included.
I'll definitely be picking up a PS3 sometime in 2007 (sooner if a killer app demands it), but to question the revolution's place as a valid next-gen system is silly to say the least.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on March 31, 2006, 08:44:09 AM
Rev would = DS, alternative input method and processing power split between visuals and control method. designed around creating new types of games.
PS3 & X360 = PSP, bumped up specs and 'more of the same' games only in HD, now with lots of non-game functions added.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 31, 2006, 08:56:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
I think everyone should just see these 'next-gen' as if they were handhelds for a second:
Rev would = DS, alternative input method and processing power split between visuals and control method. designed around creating new types of games.
PS3 & X360 = PSP, bumped up specs and 'more of the same' games only in HD, now with lots of non-game functions added.
Yes! FFS, people, listen to BNM and understand the comparison.
I'm quite positive that it will be JUST fine.
Plus, did you read the last quote from Matt?
Quote
I am, you could say, fully emerged in the so-called "HD era" of videogames. And yet, I'm promising you that you're going to be impressed with the visuals in some of the Revolution games on the horizon. I guess for now you'll just have to trust me on that point.
Now, can we STOP the preemptive bitching and wait until we have SOMETHING upon which to make a judgment call before we make judgment calls?
Post by: Ian Sane on March 31, 2006, 08:59:43 AM
PS3 & X360 = PSP, bumped up specs and 'more of the same' games only in HD, now with lots of non-game functions added."
Even if the DS didn't have the touchscreen it would still be seen as next-gen compared to the GBA. It would be a big deal just because it was a 3D portable with online support. Mario Kart DS for example doesn't really use the unique DS features but it would still impress because on a portable that level of 3D graphics with that framerate and online play would be a big deal. Now the PSP kind of kills some of the impact but considering the price for that Sony is kind of overdoing it.
Let's assume Sony and MS are overdoing it with the PS3 and X360. Let's assume they're going beyond the normal hardware upgrade and thus the price is going to be too high. If the Rev didn't have the remote would it be considered good enough to be a suitable followup to the Gamecube? Ignoring the competition, under normal circumstances would the Rev hardware be a big enough jump from the Cube? I question if it is. The DS without the touchscreen is still a worthy followup to the GBA. Ideally the Rev should be good enough that if it were a traditional console we would consider it a worthy followup.
You can say that horsepower isn't all that matters anymore but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. I'd say that perhaps we need more than just horsepower, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get it as well. "Not enough anymore" isn't the same thing as "don't need it anymore".
Post by: Dirk Temporo on March 31, 2006, 09:00:37 AM
Post by: vudu on March 31, 2006, 09:07:13 AM
QuoteExcept there's one problem. The comparisons aren't very good.
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I don't get why anyone is complaining about Matt comparing the specs to the Xbox. Most of us aren't very technical. If you just give us a number without any frame of reference we won't know what it means. So it just makes sense to compare the specs to other consoles to give an idea of where the Rev fits. If you want to know what the specs are then you want to know how they compare with the Xbox 360.
The United States is approximately 5,983,240 square miles. Canada is roughly 6,198,886 square miles. So we can assume they have a similar population size, right? Nope. In 2002 the population of the USA was 280,562,489, while the population of Canada was only 31,902,268. So even though the USA is slightly smaller than Canada in size (96%), it contains almost nine times as many citizens.
Point being, you can't compare raw specs and expect to draw any meaningful conclusion.
QuoteHow much does IGN pay this man?
I have a 50" plasma screen hanging on my living room wall. I have a 30" LCD on my dining room wall. And I have an HD CRT in my bedroom.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 31, 2006, 09:09:04 AM
Nonsense. There are many script-AI algorithms that take more CPU than others without implementing real AI. Pathfinding, for example. Pikmin tend to get stuck on simple obstacles. Raph Koster said that 90% of the CPU load on Everquest servers is just simple pathfinding for the monsters. Especially if you want the AI to dynamically assess a situation and use the terrain to its advantage you'll have to use CPU power for that. Or you could try marking everything in the level with helper entities but the player will exploit that.
You're looking at about 4-5 capitol ships on the rebel side, maybe 50+ ties and more than a dozen rebel ships, all with models far more complex than in the world of Pikmin, and all moving in action.
Don't forget LODs. Do you really think that tie fighter that's drawn as five pixels on your display has a few thousand polygons? Only the immediate surroundings of the player need that much detail, the rest simply uses LOD models* that can go down as far as 1% of the original polycount (the BF2 modder help says 4-5% for vehicles, for example). Now that's not a problem if you can get your points of interest spread out far enough (like the ocean in Windwaker) so you don't have to handle that many of 'em at full detail but in something like Pikmin all hundreds or thousands of them can be on screen at once and taking up significant screen space each.
Well, on top of that, IGN just gave us clockspeeds, not anything else on the chipsets, which makes judgements of worth by non-enthusiasts even less factually sound.
No, Matt said quite clearly that this thing is just a slightly upgraded GC CPU. The architecture is ancient, if you wanted to make a somewhat modern chip out of it you'd throw it away and build a new one from scratch (adding some legacy operations to make it backwards compatible). You can tune a Trabbi all you want, it's not going to become a Mercedes.
I can't see the difference without scrutinizing images between RE4 and many 360 games (not all, of course). The jump from this gen of consoles to the next gen is so trivial compared to the days of SNES > N64 that next-gen can't solely be decided on horsepower anymore.
RE4 had very limited player freedom and as such could use a lot more trickery than, say, Oblivion. On the XCircle you could do a game on the level of RE4 without nearly as much effort. Once you do put in the effort it becomes a lot more.
I think everyone should just see these 'next-gen' as if they were handhelds for a second:
Rev would = DS, alternative input method and processing power split between visuals and control method. designed around creating new types of games.
That comparison would be more valid if the GBA was a portable N64 in terms of power.
*= In Doshin The Giant it's very obvious, you can see villagers change from being sprites with two frames of animation to 3d models with fluid animation.
Post by: animecyberrat on March 31, 2006, 09:11:16 AM
I am not alone if the next gen system doesnt look next gen then its not as good as the others. Games do make the system and if the games dont look good that does hurt thier overal appeal.
Hearing that GC did Resident Evil 4 does not comfort me much, because as good as it looks, 360 already has games that look better, and they are just the start. I want Revolution to look BETTEr than resident Evil 4 not as good as. Every GC game could have looked like that if they had put in the effort. Less RAM is going to hurt a lot also, and I dotn care about undercloking and crap like that, the CPUs speed has little to do with how well it performs, same with GPU, its about what images it can display on screan and what effect etc it can do with those images. now I am not a graphics whore, but has not Nintendo fanboys always claimed Nintendos superior graphiocs every generation as a reason for liking their system, now all of a sudden REV is going to have weaker graphics and now its graphics dont matter, grow up.
Graphics DO matter, they are all that makes a great game but they DO HELP make a great game. I dont care about HD much cuz I dont see hwo its going to benefit games at all, but smother animations, mroe detailed characters and more lifelike enviromnets always improve games. I dont want ugly games that dont wow me, GC over N64 was a huge wow, but GC to REv soudns more like comparing GC to Xbox. Now that doesn not change myf aith in Nintendo because I do think Rev will look decent enough but if tehre are gorgeous games on the competitors systems that arent possible on rev than yes its going to make a differnce.
Post by: jasonditz on March 31, 2006, 09:12:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Dirk Temporo
Question to someone who understands all this: Would Rev be powerful enough to run games such as Gears of War, and Unreal Tournament 2007? (Note, I am not saying they'll be on Rev, but if push came to shove, could the Rev do it?)
The short answer is, probably not.
Mark Rein has already gone on record as saying the Rev is probably not going to be a target for Unreal Engine 3 (which is what both of those games are running on).
I don't know that this means it necessarily can't theoretically run it at all, but if the specs from IGN hold, I would guess it wouldn't be able to in any meaningful way.
OTOH, since the Rev isn't support HD at all, it's still very likely that a game designed to take advantage of the hardware could do everything that games like that can do on an Xbox 360 in 480p mode.
Post by: jasonditz on March 31, 2006, 09:22:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: animecyberrat
dont want ugly games that dont wow me, GC over N64 was a huge wow, but GC to REv soudns more like comparing GC to Xbox.
So what's the game on the Xbox that looks as good as RE4?
This right here is exactly why I'm annoyed at the way IGN leaked these. I'm fine with them reporting the specs, but Matt's ignorant Apples to Oranges comparison of CPU clock speeds is spilling over into tons of people's views of the system.
The fact of the matter is, RE4 looked great, and even the worst case scenario of the Rev is more than a little better in every conceivable way than the Cube, so a game made with a comparable amount of care and attention to detail is going to look more than a little bettter. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say at some point, there is going to be a Rev game that visually slaughters the average title on the 360 and the PS3. That's not to say the average sloppy third party Rev title won't look worse, but when Nintendo or one of their key 3rd parties like Capcom or Namco sets their mind to it, they're going to blow us away with what this system to capable of.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 31, 2006, 09:29:31 AM
Post by: Jensen on March 31, 2006, 09:33:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Yep. Question is why would they choose not to take that approach, instead crippling their hardware's ability to run native software?
For the same reason the Game Boy Advance Micro and the DS don't run Game Boy Color Games... Size and Cost.
Post by: Kairon on March 31, 2006, 09:38:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11kQuote
Nonsense. There are many script-AI algorithms that take more CPU than others without implementing real AI. Pathfinding, for example. Pikmin tend to get stuck on simple obstacles. Raph Koster said that 90% of the CPU load on Everquest servers is just simple pathfinding for the monsters. Especially if you want the AI to dynamically assess a situation and use the terrain to its advantage you'll have to use CPU power for that. Or you could try marking everything in the level with helper entities but the player will exploit that.
Don't forget LODs. Do you really think that tie fighter that's drawn as five pixels on your display has a few thousand polygons? Only the immediate surroundings of the player need that much detail, the rest simply uses LOD models* that can go down as far as 1% of the original polycount (the BF2 modder help says 4-5% for vehicles, for example). Now that's not a problem if you can get your points of interest spread out far enough (like the ocean in Windwaker) so you don't have to handle that many of 'em at full detail but in something like Pikmin all hundreds or thousands of them can be on screen at once and taking up significant screen space each.
How can you relate an MMO to what we're talking about here? Not only does an MMO have to simulate an enormous simultaneous persistant world, but it does all this OFF of your computer. Sure, 90% of the server load is pathfinding, but when you can run WoW on an 800 mhz Pentium 3 computer, obviously none of that has to do with the cpu in the client side machine. And I doubt any client side machine will ever need to simulate as much as an MMORPGs server needs to.
You've convinced me that AI routines are not independent of the cpu, but we still have no idea how cpu intensive they are, using terrain as cover or not, (because, all the MMORPG example does is show that MMORPG servers have a tough job), ESPECIALLY as they relate to the as-of-yet unmeasured strength of the Rev's cpu. Probably if the X360 has a hundred different characters it has to keep intelligent simultaneously, then I'd agree that the Rev couldn't do it. But even something like Oblivion, with it's supposed so-many-npc-s-have-real-lives thing going on strikes me as little more than Zelda:MM daily npc routines with more spit and polish.
And this brings us to the epicness of battles. I guess you'd call a game like Ninety-Nine Nights epic right? Huge fields of thousands of warriors. Well, you see what good that is when you plow through hundreds upon hundreds of them at a time with the application of a few button presses. There is a definite limit to how much of anything you want on the screen before they either be trivialized through gameplay or players learn to handle the visual bombardment by developing multiple complex eyes and enlarged occipital lobes.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: BigJim on March 31, 2006, 09:52:14 AM
Ignore specs for a second. Most developers will tell you that GameCube = Xbox. If Xbox can do it, GameCube can do it. (It was the PS2 that was the bitch to work with because it needed optimizations that the others didn't.)
If GameCube = Xbox, then GameCube + 50% = Significantly better than Xbox.
We can't put a quantitative value on it yet, but we know it's better. I know we're used to 2x, 10x, whateverx, performance increases each generation, but that amount of performance boost isn't necessary anymore when you're reaching a point of diminishing returns (especially if you're not doing HD.) There would be some nice things they could do, like add more shaders, but whose to say what the final hardware will add yet, if anything. Matt says no, but we'll see.
So just ignore the paper stats and keep the above equation in mind.
"Would Rev be powerful enough to run games such as Gears of War, and Unreal Tournament 2007? (Note, I am not saying they'll be on Rev, but if push came to shove, could the Rev do it?)"
As mentioned above, probably not. UE3 is geared towards high-end equipment and multi-core environments. But I think he did say the Unreal Engine 2 would work for Revolution. Unreal Engine 2 was used for UT2004, Splinter Cell, XIII, Americas Army, etc. It's not bad by any means.
Here's a UE2 page: Unreal Engine 2
If you want to see what's possible on the next-gen systems, compare the UE2.x and UE3 visuals on that site. Sure UE3 is a lot better, but I'm not crying over UE 2.x. I think this is the best way we have right now to compare their capabilities.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 31, 2006, 10:33:05 AM
Your home console doesn't have to simulate as much but it'll have to do it on much less power and using more complex AI scripts (MMO monsters are DUMB). I've heard devs talk about AI scripts that didn't make it into the final game because the system couldn't handle them. Less CPU means dumber entities, especially when we're talking about the numbers seen in Pikmin and the like.
But even something like Oblivion, with it's supposed so-many-npc-s-have-real-lives thing going on strikes me as little more than Zelda:MM daily npc routines with more spit and polish.
Zelda had a less dynamic environment, you couldn't e.g. kill a mayor and see the town plunge into disarray. Okay, so I'm not sure if Oblivion does that either. But take X. That simulates an entire universe on your local system. It has to use simplified simulations for things far away that greatly alter the behaviour.
My favourite example for system power is crowds. Ten people on a street aren't a crowd. Having to push through a crowd chasing someone isn't possible on current-gen consoles. Worst case would be a game where you have to pick out robots or aliens (Frog blast the vent core!) looking like humans out of a crowd (think Bladerunner). The robots would have minor differences to the humans, perhaps even limited to the shaders used on the skin. That'd require being able to render MANY people at once AND giving them enough details for such minor imperfections to become visible.
Crowds change the game dynamic a lot. You could scatter the crowd by firing your weapon into the air but you might alert enemies to your presence or not be able to pick out the guy you're chasing between all the running people.
Big Jim: I don't think that Revolution could even handle Unreal Tournament 2004. Don't point at Unreal Championship, that's downscaled.
Post by: Caliban on March 31, 2006, 10:50:21 AM
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on March 31, 2006, 11:20:06 AM
You can see the concept at work thanks to a flaw in Rogue Leader. TIE fighters fly in formation, with all the members simply following the leader. Unless you fire on the leader, they won't react to you, so you can learn which member is the leader and pick off all his wingmen without much effort (unless you're a particularly bad shot, in which case the one you're shooting at will eventually break off when the script gets around to making a check for that, or whatever causes it). Fire on the leader, however, and he and the group will start trying to evade you.
The pikmin didn't have any noticeable pathfinding at all. Even rudimentary pathfinding would have worked better than their simplistic beeline approach, which suggests that there wasn't any effort put into the task for us to judge. The pikmin had no self-preservation tendencies, either. In fact, the only evidence of AI I can think of is their single-minded pursuit of nectar. I'd say the almost total lack of AI for the pikmin was pretty clearly an intentional part of the game design. Maybe that was because the AI would have been too expensive, but I doubt that.
Post by: Strell on March 31, 2006, 12:00:34 PM
Wait til E3 people.
Damn.
Post by: trip1eX on March 31, 2006, 12:39:57 PM
Personally I can live with it. The new controller intrigues me more than the better graphics. I really think the controller will be put to even better use in traditional games than the DS touchscreen.
Post by: IceCold on March 31, 2006, 12:50:24 PM
QuoteEven though the jump from the GBA to the DS is more than from the Cube to the Revolution, the difference in visuals between, say, the PS3 and the Revolution will be MUCH less noticeable than the difference between the PSP and the DS.
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: RiskyChris
What is next gen? I think it involves the whole package, not just hardware specs. The controller is truly next-gen (moreso than any other controller in the past).
The DS is a "next gen" handheld because it combines innovation with functionality.
The DS was both, let's admit that. The system is *much* more powerful than the GBA was, its predecessor, while also adding in the extra screen that it has to deal with.
Plateau.
Post by: ShyGuy on March 31, 2006, 01:04:41 PM
Post by: Nephilim on March 31, 2006, 01:57:26 PM
I do think CPU power has something to do with the AI
you just have to look at the AI triggers in Condemned for 360 compared to F.E.A.R for PC
Condemned you walk parst a trigger 90% of the time, activating them to lunge/shot or wait a few secs to lunge/shot
while FEAR is pretty complex but yet simple, but they react to sound from footsteps, shots, they dont just shot you, they can stalk you and call squad members
same engine and made , world of difference in AI
then again, wouldnt suprise me if sega asked them to dumb it down, to keep it up with there high level quality control
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 31, 2006, 05:24:32 PM
Post by: jasonditz on March 31, 2006, 05:29:30 PM
Post by: animecyberrat on March 31, 2006, 06:29:47 PM
I am not saying Rev will look worse then RE 4, thats stupid, but I am saying re 4 isnt that much greater than a lot of games on Xbox. I just woudl like my system to be the best visualy possible, every gen Nintendo has had pretty much the most powerful system available or have been very close to the copetition, but now they are soudning liek they are going to be very weak. and better than re4 still doesnt impress me if its supposed to be Next Gen, the dieah of Next Gen has always been the visuals get better, adn as great as RE 4 and Spartan and MEtroid Prime and Quake and Doom all look this gen they still have lots of roiom for improvement. I see that so far 360 has made some leaps over this gen, its just that the games suck so nonone cares about how pretty they look.
Post by: Talon on March 31, 2006, 06:42:16 PM
Post by: jasonditz on March 31, 2006, 06:47:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: animecyberrat
better than re4 still doesnt impress me if its supposed to be Next Gen, the dieah of Next Gen has always been the visuals get better, adn as great as RE 4 and Spartan and MEtroid Prime and Quake and Doom all look this gen they still have lots of roiom for improvement.
I think that's where the "better" part of "better than re4" comes in.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 31, 2006, 10:08:37 PM
Post by: Galford on April 01, 2006, 08:31:53 AM
I was hoping to see a 1Ghz+ CPU with a GPU of 6 Megs of 1T-Sram bolted to it.
WTF is Nintendo thinking???
I will use this news as an excuse to drink...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 01, 2006, 10:12:03 AM
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE
SCULLY DON'T OPEN THAT DOOOOOOOR
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 01, 2006, 11:29:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
How much does IGN pay this man?
I'm sure he has another job or two...and might live with his parents.
Post by: odifiend on April 02, 2006, 06:38:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: vudu
How much does IGN pay this man?
I'm sure he has another job or two...and might live with his parents.
He probably gets donations from sponsors too - He really pushes tech.
Post by: Artimus on April 02, 2006, 08:07:23 AM
This is all so tiresome.
Post by: jasonditz on April 02, 2006, 08:25:12 AM
If he's ignorant about what the facts mean, he really ought to either
a) Just report the facts without his ignorant commentaries
or
b) Find someone who understands what those specs would mean and ask them.
To me, what he did is akin to the first person finding out the US was going to invade Afghanistan having no idea where Afghanistan was, and then in his news article he starts speculating about what it's going to mean having all those US troops in southern Africa.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 02, 2006, 10:16:20 AM
Post by: Guitar Smasher on April 02, 2006, 12:21:59 PM
Post by: MysticGohan on April 02, 2006, 12:54:20 PM
Post by: Artimus on April 02, 2006, 01:25:20 PM
Jason, Matt is very well aware of the comparisons and their issues. He went into great detail about that issue on IGN Weekly this week. Perhaps the original article was a little poorly done, but nothing more.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on April 02, 2006, 01:40:23 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 02, 2006, 01:48:59 PM
It reflects poorly of HIM. HE has been the IGN Nintendo Console editor for over a half-decade. HE is supposedly the guy with the info and the deeper understanding of what the "info" means. Normally we'd expect a person of his position to deliver this news in a responsible manner -- c'mon, he's led us to believe he's able to do so over the past half-decade.
Why "correct" your article, then save the "detailed" explanations for a separate piece of writing? Did he really write what he meant? Why couldn't there be just one solid article?
It's to stir things up and increase site traffic.
Post by: MysticGohan on April 02, 2006, 02:27:18 PM
Nothing makes sense. Eh, Artimus...?
Post by: Kairon on April 02, 2006, 02:36:23 PM
The only things that don't make sense are the naive "dream scenarios" people play around with in their heads.
~Carmine M. Red
Post by: trip1eX on April 02, 2006, 02:54:17 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 02, 2006, 03:27:50 PM
The controllers are probably X-PENSIVE.
Post by: MysticGohan on April 02, 2006, 03:59:19 PM
Apparently it's from the video IGN did the otherday, in one segment Peer was talking to matt about the Rev specs, both have been letting out a snicker or two, Behind Matt Cassamia is a a sheet of paper with writting on it, if you look closely it say April Fools something about Revolution etc. So apparently this was indeed and Joke on matt's part, and those specs are Fake.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 02, 2006, 04:05:40 PM
Can't even do things on the correct date, sheesh.
Post by: Guitar Smasher on April 02, 2006, 04:41:45 PM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on April 02, 2006, 04:45:13 PM
here are the 3 of the clearset pics that someone else already captured
It says "1. April Fools Revolution Tech Specs Story"
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1 Wed March 29, 2006 10:14 PM
APRIL FOOLZ!!!!!!
I can't believe you all fell for it. hahahah Matt got you all, on an early april fools joke!!! haha its a joke........ right?
Post by: MysticGohan on April 02, 2006, 04:50:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
April Fools is not about March 31st Jackasses.
Can't even do things on the correct date, sheesh.
heh, they normally don't update on fridays, go fig:P
Post by: Artimus on April 02, 2006, 04:54:56 PM
It's not fake.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on April 02, 2006, 05:09:01 PM
If you want the story to spread and increase weekend traffic you would need to post the story b4 the weekend. If he waited until Saturday to post the Fake Rev Specs then nobody would heve believed him and the story wouldn't have gotten much attention.
This way he gets everyone on the internet in an uproar(this thread is how many pages long?), everyone talking about Matt C. & IGN, and everyone checking IGN over the weekend to validate the info. Not to mention this will also advertise their new weekly internet show.
You've been had, get over it, hold your head up high, no one is gonna think less of you for falling for an early April Fools joke, alot of people did, so you're not alone.
Post by: MysticGohan on April 02, 2006, 05:29:17 PM
Post by: Pale on April 02, 2006, 05:41:37 PM
Post by: MysticGohan on April 02, 2006, 05:42:49 PM
atleast we know Matts Crazy
Post by: Artimus on April 02, 2006, 05:57:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
Artimus, I have already explained why they would start their April Fools joke on Thursday.
If you want the story to spread and increase weekend traffic you would need to post the story b4 the weekend. If he waited until Saturday to post the Fake Rev Specs then nobody would heve believed him and the story wouldn't have gotten much attention.
This way he gets everyone on the internet in an uproar(this thread is how many pages long?), everyone talking about Matt C. & IGN, and everyone checking IGN over the weekend to validate the info. Not to mention this will also advertise their new weekly internet show.
You've been had, get over it, hold your head up high, no one is gonna think less of you for falling for an early April Fools joke, alot of people did, so you're not alone.
There's no such thing as an "early April Fools joke." If this story isn't true then it should be called what it is: a lie. And Matt should be fired.
Post by: MysticGohan on April 02, 2006, 06:05:56 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 02, 2006, 06:30:57 PM
In comedy timing is everything. So pulling an April Fools prank two days before April Fools isn't funny or clever or anything but dumb.
"Ha ha. I fooled you with reasonably believable information two days prior to the one day of the year where you suspect everything is a prank. What a genius trickster I am."
I'm going to pull a April Fools joke in November. No one would EVER guess if I did it then.
Post by: Artimus on April 02, 2006, 06:32:06 PM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on April 02, 2006, 06:42:21 PM
Quoteplease lock it, and leave it on the curb for the garbage man too.
Originally posted by: Pale
Can I lock this garbage?
Some people can't accept that they have been had by a stupid prank just because it was pulled before they would have expected it to be pulled(which is probably why it was done that way in the first place). Get over it.
The joke is over with now and this discussion should be too.
Post by: Artimus on April 02, 2006, 08:02:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1Quoteplease lock it, and leave it on the curb for the garbage man too.
Originally posted by: Pale
Can I lock this garbage?
Some people can't accept that they have been had by a stupid prank just because it was pulled before they would have expected it to be pulled(which is probably why it was done that way in the first place). Get over it.
The joke is over with now and this discussion should be too.
There still isn't proof this is a joke...At best there's a very blurry video that even if it does say what people think, still doesn't prove this is a hoax.
Let's not forget a whole mailbag and video-section were devoted to this. Let's also keep in mind that if these specs are significantly lower than the real ones then Nintendo would NOT be impressed. And considering Matt's close ties to Nintendo, it just makes no logical sense.
It seems to me people just don't want to accept that these ARE real, which ALL the facts point to as being true.
Post by: wandering on April 02, 2006, 08:22:09 PM
Quote
There still isn't proof this is a joke...At best there's a very blurry video that even if it does say what people think, still doesn't prove this is a hoax.
Right. The video could be the thing that's a joke. Especially since it also mentions VR and such, which ign never reported on.
The one thing that makes me think the specs could be the joke is the fact that the mods on the ign forums forced all discussion of the rev specs into one thread. Now, in your average (good) forum, that wouldn't be unusual, but, on ign, having 20 different threads on the same topic is pretty standard.
...Dunno. Just seemed suspicious.
Post by: Artimus on April 02, 2006, 08:27:14 PM
Post by: MysticGohan on April 02, 2006, 08:52:33 PM
Post by: IceCold on April 02, 2006, 09:27:25 PM
Post by: MysticGohan on April 02, 2006, 09:32:22 PM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on April 02, 2006, 09:33:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
And he said something about the DS Lite or Brain Training being on Oprah..
That is a genious idea, and one that Nintendo already has in motion. If they want to capture the Non-gamer & the female market, Oprah has the 30+ female crowd brainwashed. All she has to do is demonstrate it on the show and that would = 1+ million sold that week.
Post by: Mario on April 02, 2006, 09:34:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
And he said something about the DS Lite or Brain Training being on Oprah..
That would be the smartest thing NOA has ever done, which makes it hard for me to believe this..
Post by: wandering on April 02, 2006, 09:41:37 PM
Yeah, yeah, Barin Training isn't technically a book. But 'the computer' wasn't technically a man, either...and that didn't stop it from being a Time magazine Man of the Year.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on April 02, 2006, 09:53:16 PM
Post by: BigJim on April 02, 2006, 10:14:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wanderingQuote
There still isn't proof this is a joke...At best there's a very blurry video that even if it does say what people think, still doesn't prove this is a hoax.
Right. The video could be the thing that's a joke. Especially since it also mentions VR and such, which ign never reported on.
The one thing that makes think this could be an april fool's joke is the fact that the mods on the ign forums forced all discussion of the rev specs into one thread. Now, in your average (good) forum, that wouldn't be unusual, but, on ign, having 20 different threads on the same topic is pretty standard.
...Dunno. Just seemed suspicious.
Exactly... At least the video (and the list) would make sense since THAT was released on April 1. The to-do list itself can be a joke.
What exactly is so unbelievable about those specs, seriously, and what are people expecting? Are folks either expecting 360 specs or do people think they need some multi GHz machine to push graphic detail they won't be able to see on an SDTV?
Post by: MysticGohan on April 02, 2006, 10:23:34 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on April 02, 2006, 10:41:55 PM
They are unbelievable because even bottom-of-the-range equipment is specced higher than that, never mind that he claims both chips use architecture that has been obsolete for years now (CPU upgraded GC CPU, GPU doesn't support shaders). Oh and of course that the RAM is split into two blocks with different size but identical behaviour. Either Nintendo crippled themselves with legacy support even more than Windows 95 or those specs refer to a quickly hacked-together alpha devkit. If it's indeed a devkit you would have to compare it to those Macs MS sent out.
Post by: Kairon on April 02, 2006, 11:13:13 PM
Quote
They are unbelievable because even bottom-of-the-range equipment is specced higher than that, never mind that he claims both chips use architecture that has been obsolete for years now (CPU upgraded GC CPU, GPU doesn't support shaders). Oh and of course that the RAM is split into two blocks with different size but identical behaviour. Either Nintendo crippled themselves with legacy support even more than Windows 95 or those specs refer to a quickly hacked-together alpha devkit. If it's indeed a devkit you would have to compare it to those Macs MS sent out.
If you're going to sell a piece of hardware for a mass market price and not bankrupt yourself, then yeah, it'd have to be cheap to make. It's said that Sony took 5 years to actually turn a profit on the PS2 if you take into account it's real R & D costs. The XBox lost Microsoft $6 billion over it's entire lifecycle. It's said that the X360 costs anywhere from $500 to $900 to make, then sells for a huge loss for Microsoft. Now, not only does Nintendo not have anywhere near as deep pockets as Sony or MS, but they're asking gamers to buy the Revolution IN ADDITION TO the PS3 or X360, and at the same time trying to get non-gamers like grandmas and parents to see the system as an appealing "lifestyle choice" impulse buy.
The only thing that leaves a big question mark amongst all of this is the RAM set-up. Sure, there's the comment that the external RAM is as quickly accessible as the internal RAM, but that still isn't reassuring. I would like to know how exactly that RAM configuration came about and how that hampens an otherwise non-complicated development process.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on April 02, 2006, 11:39:39 PM
Now, the GameCube and the XBox sold roughly the same amount of consoles worldwide, about 20 million units, with the XBox selling a little more. If Nintendo had released the XBox, they would've gone practically bankrupt. But if the XBox and GC had such similar numbers, how did Nintendo actually endup MAKING money instead of losing all their savings? Sure, they had the handheld business, but another huge factor is that the GC didn't cost Nintendo money everytime they sold one.
Let's face it, all it takes is one fiscally irresponsible bomb to financially erase Nintendo. All their savings wiped out in one XBOX-esque hardcore-gamer-pleasing venture and Nintendo would be ripe to be bought out wholesale and lose any possible control over their own future and their own vision of what videogames can become. With that sobering teetering-on-the-edge-of-failure thought, it makes perfect sense that Nintendo declines to compete in a high-stakes graphics hardware war when they believe that such an endeavor is a dead-end of diminishing returns.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Deguello on April 02, 2006, 11:59:57 PM
Quote
There's no such thing as an "early April Fools joke."
This is not true. As a recent example:
"On March 29th, 2006 95.5 WBRU, an alternative rock station in Providence, RI announced that they were being bought out, and would cease operations by 5 PM on Friday, March 31st. Soon after WBRU went off the air, Buddy FM, a parody of the Jack FM radio format, began broadcasting random pop and techno music along with occasional pre-recorded station bumps until a mock takeover was staged by WBRU DJs at 12:16 PM on April 1st. The prank continued in some form until roughly 4:09 PM, April 1st."
Post by: KDR_11k on April 03, 2006, 03:21:52 AM
Kairon: Noone's saying Nintendo should buy top of the line hardware, however they traditionally haven't made anything this bad either. Look at the Gamecube. Small, cheap, profitable and nowhere near as underpowered as this in comparison to contemporary hardware. Hell, even if they went for a lower price with the GC it wouldn't end up as bad as this simply because this thing seems to be composed of stuff so old you'll have to pay extra just to have them dig out those ancient blueprints again. It wouldn't have killed Nintendo to go with modern architecture. I'd gladly pay 50€ more for the system if that means more RAM than this, i.e. larger environments and less frequent loading (plus better streaming). RAM can kill a gameplay concept. In other words: Expensive tech does not enable new gameplay but cheapening out on it certainly disables some gameplays.
Let's face it, all it takes is one fiscally irresponsible bomb to financially erase Nintendo.
That'd have to be quite a big bomb. The XBox was designed to establish a market presence at all costs. Nintendo wouldn't do that. But Microsoft's losses stem mostly from inefficient tech and stupid business decisions (causing higher component costs), not from overly high specs. Nintendo could have built a system with one PPE instead of 3 (though a vector helper unit would certainly be useful for all this direct interaction with objects the controller promises), maybe 64MB SRAM and 128 MB DRAM or something like that and a modified version of the R520 midrange version (or something roughly comparable), it wouldn't outdo the XC but it'd cost MUCH less and provide more than adequate performance for most tasks. Should be doable for 200$.
Post by: mantidor on April 03, 2006, 05:26:10 AM
Not saying that this is a joke or not. Maybe the joke was on Matt.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 03, 2006, 05:38:11 AM
If you want to put your jokes on other days around 1. April you just end up alienating your readers that think you're not reliable for an unknown timespan before and after 1. April. I think some serious publications have a "no April's Fools" policy, i.e. they don't make those jokes because quite frankly they aren't funny and they just make people question everything you say.
Post by: Strell on April 03, 2006, 05:53:42 AM
But I will say this - if this ends up being a "joke" set 3 days early, I will never go back to IGN.com. Ever.
This sort of juvenile bs can damage Nintendo's reputation. Even if it is refuted later on down the line, fanboys and other clueless people will continue to talk about "omfg 729 megaherts" forever. And since Nintendo has already said they'd bypass releasing specs, I fail to see how this is anything other than a ruse to get visitors to IGN. If I were in Reggie's shoes, I'll haul down to their offices, take Matt's name, and kick his ass.
Obviously the average consumer didn't see this news, and frankly, won't care. So it's not a widespread thing. But it is still potentially damaging enough.
Besides, I'm sick of how IGN doesn't update for sometimes days on end, and even then the "news" is useless. At this point I'd rather just get news from PGC.com and Kotaku. Especially if this "joke" ends up being a joke, I will erase them from my bookmarks and urge others to do the same.
Post by: mantidor on April 03, 2006, 06:16:41 AM
I dont see this numbers as something terrible, whether a joke or not, give me screenshots and more importantly video footage, because thats all I'll believe, and everyone should do the same if the have any memory about what happened with specs released from all three console manufacturers this generation.
Post by: Artimus on April 03, 2006, 07:37:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
I stopped going to IGN ages ago for what I think its a more valid reason, the overall anti-nintendo bias from Matt's own section to the whole site. The "successful launch of the psp" and the "lackluster launch of the DS" articles were just one of many, many examples. Nothing has been more entartaining than ign (and actually the whole gaming media) having to eat their own words regarding the psp vs ds battle.
Matt has more than once admitted how wrong he was (including in the now infamous 'list' video). He's also the most pro-Rev guy on the internet right now (with any sort of power).
And they up date daily about 95% of the time. Sometimes there's just nothing to update for Rev. DS is almost always updated.
And yes, an 'early' April Fools Joke is a lie, not a joke. Because if we start doing them on March 29, why not March 28? Or the 25th? If 3 days is funnier than 1, then surely six days is funnier than 3! We'll basically have to not trust any news stories for like the entire second half of March.
Post by: MysticGohan on April 03, 2006, 07:49:56 AM
The Problem with Matt is he admitts too little and far far too late when he's wrong, and it really hurts his creditability as an editor to be able to forsee thing's, obviously he was wrong about the PSP vs. DS debacle, and now singing a different tune. A year ago you couldn't get him to shut up in the mailbag without him bringing up the PSP for god knows what pointless reason.
Post by: Kairon on April 03, 2006, 08:04:40 AM
This is why I'm not claiming that the Rev will be as good as the PS3 or X360. At the same time though, we don't have any real foundation to say that the hardware is incapable of competent effects, nor that it represents a real miserly move on Nintendo's part. For example, people are gravitating towards a $200 price point for the Revolution launch. But what if additional hardware like you wish for bumped up the cost to $250? After all, no one has factored in the bluetooth licensing, built-in wireless technology, dual-media-compatible disc drive, OR the very thing that Nintendo claims was the most expensive thing for them to create: the controller. Throw all those factors together and you can see how the $200 price point starts to look very tight.
Of course, we don't know for sure. We should wait for the official launch price, both the controller's AND the console's, as well as hardware analysis from groups that open up the real hardware and calculate price. And, like people keep reiterating, we should also wait for screenshots and videos and gameplay feedback before we declare the hardware to be dirt cheap, inadequate, or incapable.
~Carmine M. Red
~Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on April 03, 2006, 08:06:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MysticGohan
Actually, Craig Harris runs the DS Channel, not Matt. Rarely will you see an update on GC or Rev unless it's Recycled news from earlier.
The Problem with Matt is he admitts too little and far far too late when he's wrong, and it really hurts his creditability as an editor to be able to forsee thing's, obviously he was wrong about the PSP vs. DS debacle, and now singing a different tune. A year ago you couldn't get him to shut up in the mailbag without him bringing up the PSP for god knows what pointless reason.
Again, you're saying random things that are hyperbolic at best. He received a ton of letters about the PSP thing and the debate went on. He wasn't just inserting random comments.
Also, I know very well Craig Harris runs the DS channel. Mantidor said IGN, not Matt. And the Rev/GCN channels are updated when there IS news. Often the main cover story doesnt' change but the actual news articles do. And Rev has been updating at least 4/5 days for the past month or more. Look at PGC's rev news, they'd update once a week at best (because news is slim). Matt generates a LOT of good content to keep the site updated. If you think IGN never updates then compare them to PGC. You'll see they update more.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 03, 2006, 09:10:23 AM
No shaders means no shaders. Same architecture means same architecture. What's so hard to understand about that? If you think shaders are just bloom and other lensflare-like effects you're sorely wrong, shaders are used to implement skin shaders , for example, that are set to rectify the biggest problem with realtime graphics at the present: Characters that look like they are made of concrete or plastic (Doom 3's plastic look can be done without real shaders). Oh and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what 88MB RAM means.
For example, people are gravitating towards a $200 price point for the Revolution launch. But what if additional hardware like you wish for bumped up the cost to $250?
Then the machine costs 250$. If they can't get reasonable specs at 200$ like they did before they're doing something wrong. Because they managed to build a next gen console for 200$ all the past generations, why can't they repeat that? Because they chose style (small console, slot loading drive, ...) over substance?
Reggie put it best: Next-gen graphics are the cost of entry. If they don't deliver that they're shooting themselves in the foot, even moreso if these specs are merely chosen to enable backwards compatibility. I'd gladly give up that feature if it meant better Rev games because ultimately the Rev games will be the only thing truly unique to the system. And I'd really hate to see games that would be perfect with the rev rod leave or get cancelled because the rev hardware can't support them.
Post by: Kairon on April 03, 2006, 09:42:34 AM
Quote
Next-gen graphics are the cost of entry. If they don't deliver that they're shooting themselves in the foot, even moreso if these specs are merely chosen to enable backwards compatibility. I'd gladly give up that feature if it meant better Rev games because ultimately the Rev games will be the only thing truly unique to the system.
Ah, but here's where you make the leap that I can't follow KDR. Yes, no-shaders means no shaders, but by no means do you have anywhere near a full feature set on the Revolution's capabilities, nor do we have any information on whether there are workarounds available on a hardware basis. I'm perfectly willing to claim that the Rev is incapable of competent graphics, I'm perfectly willing to claim that it will be non-exceptional or even mediocre, but only once I have information that amounts to near irrelevant clockspeeds, a single note on a missing feature, and contrasting statements on architecture. (Matt claims it's an extension of Flipper, ATI in a previous interview said that that they did not take Flipper and merely add on some things.)
And the X360 was slated to have 256 MB of RAM before they got feature creeped upped to 512 MB just to one-up Sony. That number would be significantly lower if they didn't need HD textures. 88 MB, one-third of MS' HD-logged amount.
The thing is KDR, I'm perfectly willing to call the Rev an underpowered machine. Hell, the NES was an underpowered cost-cutting razor-thin-featureset of a machine! But I will not call it an underpowered machine until we can fully evaluate just how much of that "underpoweredness" appears in the games. I don't care what the specs are if the games on screen don't show any significant defects to those of us who AREN'T videophiles.
Oh...and one last thing. I didn't spell this out fully in my last post, but I will now. Nintendo's major cost issue for the Rev is not their backwards compatibility or the size of the thing, or the blue LED light even. Iwata said the thing that was exorbitantly expensive was the controller. And especially considering how gyroscopic hardware has never been in mainstream consumer hands anywhere near this level before, I'm starting to guess that the Rev controller is actually THE most expensive part of the Rev... It's starting to look more and more a really direct trade-off between the controller's innovation and possible blue-ocean non-gamer appeal and the hardware capabilities of the system.
Lol. Not only did Nintendo blow their entire R & D budget on the revmote, but their entire manufacturing budget as well!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: jasonditz on April 03, 2006, 10:18:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
For example, people are gravitating towards a $200 price point for the Revolution launch. But what if additional hardware like you wish for bumped up the cost to $250?
Then the machine costs 250$. If they can't get reasonable specs at 200$ like they did before they're doing something wrong. Because they managed to build a next gen console for 200$ all the past generations, why can't they repeat that? Because they chose style (small console, slot loading drive, ...) over substance?
What if, however, what Nintendo is offerng is a reasonable spec for this generation, and what Microsoft and Sony are doing with their machines is akin to what Philips and Panasonic were doing in the early 90's, bring machines to market that are just way higher spec than can be produced for a reasonable price... Microsoft is taking an absolute bath on hardware costs on the 360s, and the real version STILL costs $400... analysts are saying the PS3 will be even more pricey.
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 03, 2006, 10:32:00 AM
They cannot afford to lose money on console sales like Sony and MS do. Either they could try again, in futility, for their next gen console which would likely be graphically inferior to their competitors' anyway to do the exact same stuff they did last generation, or they could do what they're doing with the DS and move the market out from under the competition.
Pepsi did it, Apple did it, and it works like a goddamn charm.
The current market of gamers has already made its decision when it comes to their gaming tastes? Then FIND A NEW MARKET!
There's a REASON why elderly couples in Japan are buying DSes, a market segment which was among the LEAST likely to pick up a portable console.
There's a reason why game developers are hesitant to leave out Rev support right now, even ones which haven't developed on a Nintendo console in two generations. They don't want to be left behind in case the Rev takes off. That right there says to me that Nintendo is going in the right direction.
Nintendo needed something new and different, not GC2. Sony and MS are trying to do everything they can to snuff Nintendo out by using as much of their billions of dollars as possible to push the graphical standards higher, even if it means losing money on hardware development, something they know Nintendo cannot afford to do. Nintendo is doing exactly what they need to do to survive: instead of pushing the graphics higher, they're pushing the market out from under Sony and MS by taking gaming in new directions.
I can understand skepticism, but the reality is, the GC2 would have been Nintendo's undoing in the home market and anyone who understands the market has no choice but to agree.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 03, 2006, 11:01:24 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 03, 2006, 02:06:12 PM
I don't know what these SPECS mean in the scheme of game design and what it will allow and disallow.
I don't know even if these SPECS are real.
All I do know is that I have enjoyed Nintendo created games and hardware more than any other company...and I have never been disappointed with Nintendo's consoles they have created.
So, I will wait and see. If these Specs are real, I will judge the system on its value and its games nothing else. If these Specs are false I will not have wasted energy and emotions stressing on the unknowns.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 03, 2006, 02:30:00 PM
I would agree but that's just because the Cube was one of the most botched consoles I've ever seen. It was like if there was a wrong way to do something Nintendo always did it. I'm not very keen on the blue ocean strategy but I've never asked for Gamecube 2. A traditional console doesn't have to be Gamecube 2 or N64 3. Nintendo still hasn't made a 3D console that hasn't been handcuffed by REALLY questionable, and in some cases just outright dumb, decisions. In fact I'd argue that with the Rev that they still haven't. Anyone asking for a traditional console from Nintendo isn't asking for another Gamecube. They're asking for Gamecube DONE RIGHT and that's a big difference.
Gamecube 2 would undoubtably fail. Competent Gamecube that isn't an exercise in screwing up? I think something like that always has a chance provided it's marketed well and the company making it isn't bleeding money (ie: Sega).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 03, 2006, 02:36:26 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 03, 2006, 02:59:13 PM
Dumb decisions. I've covered it a million times. I consider the Cube's "failure" to be the result of doing lots of lots of things poorly and as a result having the image of a really inferior console. Most of it is small stuff like tiny memory cards and demo discs being distributed in every oddball way imaginable but the tried and true methods the competition uses. Some of it is bigger stuff like no online or baiting and switching the most obvious killer app ever with a cartoon. The biggest chronic problem was poor marketing. Though probably the biggest goof up was launching with a flagship title that could be beaten in a weekend and then after the initial launch period having months go by with nothing. And then when the big Mario game finally shows up having the worst commercial ever made promote it. Rushed products and a lack of innovation (let's release ANOTHER Mario spinoff!) were issues too.
I don't think anyone but a complete fanboy can look at the Cube as say "Nintendo did everything right but still couldn't do it". I saw the whole thing as a rather half-assed effort from a company that realized way too late that they weren't the market leader anymore and thus couldn't just assume people would buy their console because they were Nintendo.
Post by: MaryJane on April 03, 2006, 03:10:22 PM
1. Xbox was SOOO much more advanced than the GameCube. Yet in the real world there graphics were comparable.
2. Last(technically still This-)-Gen ps2 was the weakest graphically... did it matter? No. what mattered is what always matters, the games! ps2 had them, now with Rev, the exclusives are going to off the charts compared to prev-gens (previous, just making up a new word :p ) and that's where it's going to count imo, who delivers the best experience.
3. I don't even know what the big argument is about... how many times did Ninty say they were going to big graphically weaker? WOW big surprise they're graphically weaker.
4. E3 can't come soon enough, then we can have facts to argue about instead of speculations. Everyone loves a good (progressive) argument.
5. I thought I told you I was born to win. Everybody loves a winner.
Post by: WesDawg on April 03, 2006, 03:35:12 PM
Quote
Though probably the biggest goof up was launching with a flagship title that could be beaten in a weekend and then after the initial launch period having months go by with nothing.
I've been wondering about this. The XBox360 made this exact same mistake with its launch, but I've yet to see any articles complaining about it. Not saying that to say people are unfair to Nintendo, but its interesting. I think it has something to do with "public" (aka media) perception. The 360 wasn't really seen as the dawn of the next era of console gaming, and as such, people haven't been that disappointed in the lack of titles available for it. After all, next gen doesn't really start until this November, so why should we expect a boatload of titles for the console yet. Something along those lines.
Either that or the lack of consoles and lack of games mirrored each other so well it just seemed natural.
Post by: Artimus on April 03, 2006, 04:22:44 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 03, 2006, 04:47:46 PM
I, for one, don't want to go over everything [EVERYTHING] another million times.
Post by: TMW on April 03, 2006, 05:19:09 PM
Post by: Artimus on April 03, 2006, 05:25:12 PM
Guess we can indeed lock this thread, as there is no issue with its veracity.
Post by: jasonditz on April 03, 2006, 06:10:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I don't think anyone but a complete fanboy can look at the Cube as say "Nintendo did everything right but still couldn't do it".
Who ever does everything right? I can think of at least one major mistake every system has made:
Xbox: Spent a lot of money on getting some very mediocre exclusives (Oddworld). Subsidized the hell out of their hardware to make sure it was technologically well beyond the competitors, but the games didn't really look superior.
Gamecube: Besides the ones you mentioned, got Square on board and then had them make a connectivity title of very limited appeal.
PS2: Dreadful launch lineup. Unrealisticly high theoretical specs that were never realized in the real world. Hyped a hard drive attachment at launch which didn't appear for years and was largely unused
GBA: Poor visibility in original design. Most of the early first party titles were souped up SNES ports
DS: Miserable launch lineup with few games that took advantage of unique hardware. Long post-launch drought with few meaningful titles
PSP: Poor battery life. Uninteresting software lineup.
What's with all the negativity though, how about the things they did right?
Xbox: Bought Bungie. Seriously, if Bungie stays independent and Halo becomes a Mac title that's later ported to the PC, the Xbox is a distant 3rd. Brought together a cohesive online strategy before anyone else.
Cube: Finally started working closely with major 3rd parties. Brought Square back into the fold. Cheapest launch price. Managed to transition over to discs from carts without sacrificing load times.
PS2: Got the best 3rd party lineup. Launched before its competitors.
GBA: Wide variety of top notch software titles, single cart multiplay. Later iterations of the hardware correct visibility problems
DS: Incredible software library after the post launch drought. Seemless online experience. Affordable system. Unique titles with approachable interface introduce games to a whole new audience. Elderly people renting DS systems from hospitals!
PSP: Sleek design makes it one of the first portable systems that seems genuinely "cool". UMD compatibility will probably be a blessing in another 6-12 months when all those retailers finally abandon the platform and you can start getting them cheap.
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on April 03, 2006, 07:28:53 PM
Sure, Microsoft subsidized their hardware, but for a first time player to outsell, even by a little, an established market leader in its first generation (Nintendo) in the most important market in the world! You can't brush that aside. Microsoft could afford to subsidize it's hardware, can you really hold that against him when the result was (arguably) easier to develop for? The fact that they were losing money didn't matter to the gamer buying the hardware, and honestly that's all you need to care about. (Nintendo's case is different, of course, they don't have $40bb+ USD in the bank).
As for Sony's mistakes - pissing off developers with cruddy initial devkits, lackluster launch (remember the ign PS2 vs. DC video? I still might have it somewhere around here), no HDD and no service comparable to Xbox Live - they were arguably more than offset by their being the market leader and having more games that appeal to more people.
Nintendo, however, didn't have that Microsoft's luxury of money or Sony's luxury of being market leader. They could not afford to screw anything up, but did anyway. Sure, they did some things right, like get closer to third parties, switch to disc media, etc.
But it simply wasn't enough for them to make significant market share inroads. Stupid problems like:
1.Failing to market big games (especially Rogue Leader at launch)
2.Having a flagship color that would have gone over well in ancient Rome but nowhere else.
3.Launching with memory cards that were rendered useless for some (sports games)
4.Promoting sparkling innovationy (though useful) links(GC-GBA, LAN) as a (percieved) replacement of online support
5.Lack of many compelling third-party exclusives (the deals fell through, and when they did, they wren't succesful because of problem #1.
6.Lack of demo disks
7.Stupid placement of Z button and no corresponding 'Z2', making it have less buttons than the competition and leading to some inferior ports.
8.To an extent, lack of DVD playback (I don't think this was too key).
9. Serious game droughts that none of the other consoles had to suffer. No excuses for this one.
And no, SSBM 3weeks after launch is not a valid argument. That the game didn't come out at launch and was not the flagship launch title (Rogue Leader/Luigi) was appalling. The fact that it remains to the this day the most sold game on the system, and was never topped by anything (not even Zelda, Mario, or Metroid) is also unfortunate.
None of Sony's or Microsoft's mistakes were this wide-ranging or egregious.
And fanboys: don't think Nintendo is blind to all this (especially not NOA). The Rev fixes alot of these idiocies - we now have online in a big way, the console is modeled after one of the most successful pieces of electronics of the new millennium, memory cards are a non-issue, demos could and prolly will be downloads, controller is a complete wild card (in a good way). We're even getting DVD playback.
May not be perfect, but shows that they aren't in a complete bubble, like in the beginning of the GC era. Who knows? Maybe the advertising'll get back on track too.
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 03, 2006, 07:57:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Great post Smash, to add a bit to it, I personally believe taking the market in a different direction is what console gaming needs. Let's face it, if Xbox 360 is any indication, the console market is morphing into a cheaper alternative to updating your PC, you get the same games, but you don't need to worry about upgrading. That is not how gaming started, even in the N64 vs PS1 era, console and PC gaming provided different experiences. Now days that started to melt together, and consoles are becoming cheap multimedia computers. With revolution, Nintendo has a chance to get back what I feel was lost, and that is unique gaming experiences not found anywhere else.
More and more, I find this is the case. There are rumors that WoW will come out on the 360 because it makes for a cheap PC instead of a $2,000 alienware.
As for the GC2 argument, I don't even mean the failings of the GC. Even if Nintendo had done the GC era flawlessly, I don't think it would have worked out for them because this was the generation where "mature" meant the absolute most to many insecure gamers.
This coming gen, Nintendo is blurring the lines so badly that it's not going to matter. If Bob Ross is releasing a painting game on the Rev, then something has changed. His game is going to the PC and the DS and Rev. His game, for all intents and purposes, does NOT sound at all like a console title. If Nintendo has succeeded in pushing the boundaries of what counts as console-saleable material, then the whole "mature" argument becomes irrelevant because they're suddenly no longer vying for the money of insecure young men who are afraid to play Nintendo games because they have a stigma of being aimed at children.
When I say GC2, I mean more of trying to convince 3rd parties to support their console when they clearly don't want to, more of trying to make their games look as good as possible for the graphic whores, and more of being perceived more and more as a non-entity in the gaming world any longer.
With the Rev, Nintendo is making WAVES. They already have 3rd party support like the GC never saw in its heyday, even 3rd parties which abandoned the cube OR the N64 are coming back.
When I say that this is the move Nintendo NEEDED to make, I don't think it's an observation so much as a goddamn FACT. The Rev will probably break the kiddé stigma when it launches with a melee-combat game where you use the Revmote to chop people's heads off. After that, all they have to do is design the best damn games they can, making the system a popular alternative to what will appear as overpriced and archaic designs like the PS3 and 360, just like the DS has done to the PSP (and now the DS is a goddamn epidemic in Japan).
This is all they could have done: the market rejected them last gen, so they're forging a new market. Yamauchi, as much as I think he was too demanding for his own good, forged the console market with Nintendo and it looks as though they aim to do it again.
Quote
Originally posted by: BiLdItUp1 May not be perfect, but shows that they aren't in a complete bubble, like in the beginning of the GC era. Who knows? Maybe the advertising'll get back on track too.
In one of Iwata's interviews, he mentioned that they're cooking up some REAL marketing for this gen, saying that they didn't have the right angles to play up the DS how they wanted but that now they have some excellent ideas for pushing the Rev.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 03, 2006, 11:52:01 PM
No. The XBox had slightly larger specs, the difference between the PPC and IA32 architectures made up for that easily. However, the "Rev"'s CPU is 1/4th as powerful as one X360 core (the Xenon CPU has a simple architecture but it's still on par or above the ancient chips used in the GC), the X360 as three of them. While more cores don't give a linear increase they certainly add SOMETHING.
2. Last(technically still This-)-Gen ps2 was the weakest graphically... did it matter? No. what mattered is what always matters, the games! ps2 had them, now with Rev, the exclusives are going to off the charts compared to prev-gens (previous, just making up a new word :p ) and that's where it's going to count imo, who delivers the best experience.
Actually I think the Dreamcast was the weakest platform. But these specs put the Rev at N64 level in the comparison.
Still, the specs and that Ati contradiction (modified Flipper vs. completely new GPU) really sound like these are the specs of a preliminary devkit. The XC's alpha devkit was 1/3rd as powerful as the final product (according to MS's claims), if that ratio holds true here the Rev would be quite an adequate system (while still having specs that can't cost THAT much).
Post by: Mario on April 04, 2006, 12:54:46 AM
That looks good. Apparently something on hardware one hundred billion times more powerful than that is going to look bad though.
Post by: thejeek on April 04, 2006, 12:59:21 AM
Quote
That looks good
But it doesn't. It was adequate *at the time*. Expectations are way higher now. I don't want slightly better than the GC. I'd have settled for 2-3 times better but the specs we're discussing appear to push no more than 1.5x as many pixels. If that's really the level of improvement then I doubt I could tell the difference between Revolution and GC graphics. I want the controller but I don't need another Gamecube - I've already got one. I want a new system that is better than the old one in all its aspects - including the visual quality of the games. I don't think that makes me inadequate - I'm just not a masocist. I don't want to return to the 80's - it was bad enough the first time around - I had highlights in my hair and stonewashed jeans for fucks sake...
Post by: nemo_83 on April 04, 2006, 01:13:44 AM
nintendroughts, nothing so dry on this earth
Post by: Mario on April 04, 2006, 01:29:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thejeekQuote
That looks good
But it doesn't. It was adequate *at the time*. Expectations are way higher now. I don't want slightly better than the GC. I'd have settled for 2-3 times better but the specs we're discussing appear to push no more than 1.5x as many pixels. If that's really the level of improvement then I doubt I could tell the difference between Revolution and GC graphics. I want the controller but I don't need another Gamecube - I've already got one. I want a new system that is better than the old one in all its aspects - including the visual quality of the games. I don't think that makes me inadequate - I'm just not a masocist. I don't want to return to the 80's - it was bad enough the first time around - I had highlights in my hair and stonewashed jeans for fucks sake...
Alright.. we're speaking totally different languages here. If something looks good to me, i'm not gonna change my mind about that in 5 years.
Post by: thejeek on April 04, 2006, 01:43:19 AM
Quote
Alright.. we're speaking totally different languages here. If something looks good to me, i'm not gonna change my mind about that in 5 years.
Really? Maybe we are talking different languages - part of playing games for me is being excited and suprised by the improving experience. I like to play a new game and be swept away by the look of it. Something that impressed the hell out of me five years ago doesn't have the same effect any longer - I've seen it before and I've seen other stuff that's technically more impressive.
If technology was not moving forwards, then I might feel differently - I can appreciate the artistry in wringing something good out of limited technology - but whilst we're being spoiled by the onrush of technology towards more and more detailed worlds, with more options for interaction with more characters and better physics, I don't want to be stuck playing stuff where the artists' creativity was hampered and corners forced to be cut because of tight fisted penny pinching by the console manufacturer - especially when a few quid extra spent on the CPU + GPU would buy twice the power :-(
Post by: MaryJane on April 04, 2006, 05:23:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
1. Xbox was SOOO much more advanced than the GameCube. Yet in the real world there graphics were comparable.
No. The XBox had slightly larger specs, the difference between the PPC and IA32 architectures made up for that easily. However, the "Rev"'s CPU is 1/4th as powerful as one X360 core (the Xenon CPU has a simple architecture but it's still on par or above the ancient chips used in the GC), the X360 as three of them. While more cores don't give a linear increase they certainly add SOMETHING.
2. Last(technically still This-)-Gen ps2 was the weakest graphically... did it matter? No. what mattered is what always matters, the games! ps2 had them, now with Rev, the exclusives are going to off the charts compared to prev-gens (previous, just making up a new word :p ) and that's where it's going to count imo, who delivers the best experience.
Actually I think the Dreamcast was the weakest platform. But these specs put the Rev at N64 level in the comparison.
Still, the specs and that Ati contradiction (modified Flipper vs. completely new GPU) really sound like these are the specs of a preliminary devkit. The XC's alpha devkit was 1/3rd as powerful as the final product (according to MS's claims), if that ratio holds true here the Rev would be quite an adequate system (while still having specs that can't cost THAT much).
Correction: The Xbox was hailed as being so much more powerful.
I thought the dreamcast was a prev-gen system? They were still making games for it with GC, PS2, and Xbox games? I didn't know that, but it doesn't detract from my point. Games are what matters. The rev is seeing tons and tons of love from developers let's just hope that translates into tons and tons of quality titles.
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
This coming gen, Nintendo is blurring the lines so badly that it's not going to matter. If Bob Ross is releasing a painting game on the Rev, then something has changed. His game is going to the PC and the DS and Rev. His game, for all intents and purposes, does NOT sound at all like a console title. If Nintendo has succeeded in pushing the boundaries of what counts as console-saleable material, then the whole "mature" argument becomes irrelevant because they're suddenly no longer vying for the money of insecure young men who are afraid to play Nintendo games because they have a stigma of being aimed at children.
When I say GC2, I mean more of trying to convince 3rd parties to support their console when they clearly don't want to, more of trying to make their games look as good as possible for the graphic whores, and more of being perceived more and more as a non-entity in the gaming world any longer.
With the Rev, Nintendo is making WAVES. They already have 3rd party support like the GC never saw in its heyday, even 3rd parties which abandoned the cube OR the N64 are coming back.
When I say that this is the move Nintendo NEEDED to make, I don't think it's an observation so much as a goddamn FACT. The Rev will probably break the kiddé stigma when it launches with a melee-combat game where you use the Revmote to chop people's heads off. After that, all they have to do is design the best damn games they can, making the system a popular alternative to what will appear as overpriced and archaic designs like the PS3 and 360, just like the DS has done to the PSP (and now the DS is a goddamn epidemic in Japan).
This is all they could have done: the market rejected them last gen, so they're forging a new market. Yamauchi, as much as I think he was too demanding for his own good, forged the console market with Nintendo and it looks as though they aim to do it again.
Preach it teapot!! Smart you are. Seeing future you might be. Anyways I agree with you.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on April 04, 2006, 07:49:29 AM
Post by: Mario on April 04, 2006, 08:02:19 AM
Quote
Really? Maybe we are talking different languages - part of playing games for me is being excited and suprised by the improving experience. I like to play a new game and be swept away by the look of it. Something that impressed the hell out of me five years ago doesn't have the same effect any longer - I've seen it before and I've seen other stuff that's technically more impressive.
True, that can happen regardless of power though. I've been playing Killer 7 recently, and it blows away a lot of what i've seen before in the same way I think you're talking about. Though the thought of Pikmin 3 looking like an ultra realistic garden with individual raindrops falling etc. is a pretty cool one. My judgement of "next gen graphics" has been pretty clouded a lot as well with all the unimpressive looking Xbox 360 and PS3 screenshots i've seen, so far i'm just seeing more zombies, more trees, lots of shiny stuff, no life.
Post by: zakkiel on April 04, 2006, 08:18:52 AM
Post by: thejeek on April 04, 2006, 08:27:46 AM
Quote
True, that can happen regardless of power though. I've been playing Killer 7 recently, and it blows away a lot of what i've seen before in the same way I think you're talking about. Though the thought of Pikmin 3 looking like an ultra realistic garden with individual raindrops falling etc. is a pretty cool one. My judgement of "next gen graphics" has been pretty clouded a lot as well with all the unimpressive looking Xbox 360 and PS3 screenshots i've seen, so far i'm just seeing more zombies, more trees, lots of shiny stuff, no life.
I haven't actually played Killer 7 but the video I've seen of it did look artistically innovative and I totally think the industry needs more of that sort of thing. On the other hand, I think more horsepower can only make it easier to implement lateral thinking graphics - and surely more versatile shaders have got to help?
I think Pikmin would benefit from a larger more immersive world - not neccessarily more 'realistic' graphically but more stuff on screen, more reactive environment, better AI - all of which needs both more grunt both CPU and graphics.
Finally, I would agree that the stuff on Xbox 360 and what's been demo'd for PS3 is just more ultra-real 'maturity' for the immature and that's not what I want, but I think having a more powerful console is a prerequisite for larger, more complex environments and the specs that started this thread are barely more powerful than the GC and not sufficiently powerful to enable significantly larger worlds and more complex behaviours.
Post by: jasonditz on April 04, 2006, 08:31:49 AM
System one is a very pedestrian 16-bit fare, with a variable speed CISC cpu that tops out at 3.58 Mhz but for practical purposes rarely goes over 2.68. This system sports 128 MB of system ram, and 64 KB of Vram. It pushes about a million pixels per second generally, at maximum 15 bit color
Now, another system (system two) comes out at virtually the same time aiming for the high end market. It also uses a 16 bit CISC processor, but it's clocked at 15.5 Mhz, features 1 MB of total RAM (and offers an optional upgrade to 2.5 MB). It supports much higher resolutions than system one, full 24 bit color, and can push 4-6 times as many pixels per second.
Then along comes system three (about a year and a half later) with an eye on competing with system two (they consider system one so weak that it's not even worth looking at). They go with a 32-bit RISC processor clocked at 12.5 Mhz (by far the strongest of the three) and it sports a math coprocessor. It comes with 2 MB of system RAM and 1 MB of VRAM. The dual video coprocessors match the 24-bit color of it's competitor at the same high resolutions, but it claims upwards of 36 megapixels per second.
Looking at it, we can see system one is grossly underpowered compared to the other two. Oh, sure, they were a lot cheaper, but with those inferior specs they better be.
System one: $199 at launch
System two: $399 at launch
System three: $699 at launch
Post by: thejeek on April 04, 2006, 08:40:30 AM
Post by: Kairon on April 04, 2006, 09:41:50 AM
And KDR, take the supposed specs and triple them and you practically have a single core X360, before the e-peen contest with RAM that went on between MS and Sony. I believe that the Rev won't be interpreted as a generation behind the X360 and PS3, I believe that it will compare graphically a little worse than the GC did to its competitors, but not enough to matter to the mainstream consumer.
How can either of us prove our opinions (for that is what they are) to each other? Simple: We wait till games come out, and real world, not imaginary, consumers react to them.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ShyGuy on April 04, 2006, 10:08:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Look at Oblivion, and then say that again.
I played Oblivion for about half an hour last night, and I'm not overly impressed. The technology is impressive, but the implementation of the graphical style leaves a lot to be desired.
Your hand carrying the weapon is misshapen, the emperor looks like a burn victim, The armor doesn't match the lighting on your face, and the animations are mediocre.
I guess it just goes to show, no matter how much tech you throw at a game, you need good artists to make it look fantastic.
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 04, 2006, 11:31:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon How can either of us prove our opinions (for that is what they are) to each other? Simple: We wait till games come out, and real world, not imaginary, consumers react to them.
Well said.
Now if only people would follow this advice, this forum would be much, MUCH better off.
Post by: trip1eX on April 04, 2006, 11:46:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuyQuote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Look at Oblivion, and then say that again.
I played Oblivion for about half an hour last night, and I'm not overly impressed. The technology is impressive, but the implementation of the graphical style leaves a lot to be desired.
Your hand carrying the weapon is misshapen, the emperor looks like a burn victim, The armor doesn't match the lighting on your face, and the animations are mediocre.
I guess it just goes to show, no matter how much tech you throw at a game, you need good artists to make it look fantastic.
Yeah I felt about the same way. It's not a polished game by any means.
Post by: WesDawg on April 04, 2006, 11:53:06 AM
Quote
1. Xbox was SOOO much more advanced than the GameCube. Yet in the real world there graphics were comparable.
No. The XBox had slightly larger specs, the difference between the PPC and IA32 architectures made up for that easily. However, the "Rev"'s CPU is 1/4th as powerful as one X360 core (the Xenon CPU has a simple architecture but it's still on par or above the ancient chips used in the GC), the X360 as three of them. While more cores don't give a linear increase they certainly add SOMETHING.
2. Last(technically still This-)-Gen ps2 was the weakest graphically... did it matter? No. what mattered is what always matters, the games! ps2 had them, now with Rev, the exclusives are going to off the charts compared to prev-gens (previous, just making up a new word :p ) and that's where it's going to count imo, who delivers the best experience.
Actually I think the Dreamcast was the weakest platform. But these specs put the Rev at N64 level in the comparison.
Still, the specs and that Ati contradiction (modified Flipper vs. completely new GPU) really sound like these are the specs of a preliminary devkit. The XC's alpha devkit was 1/3rd as powerful as the final product (according to MS's claims), if that ratio holds true here the Rev would be quite an adequate system (while still having specs that can't cost THAT much).
I've been wondering that too. I don't mind the Rev having less power than the other two, but this seems a little too low. This processor is around the power range of a PowerPC G4 which have about 1/3 to 1/5 of the power of DualCore Intel or PowerPC chips. A comparable Pentium 3 runs about $50 for the normal consumer nowadays (I don't have any idea where you can buy PowerPC chips that aren't add-on boards). A dual-core pentium chip, on the other hand, runs about $200 for the cheapo ones, whereas a non-dual P4 can be had for $100-$150.
All that to say, it just seems TOO low. Forget dual-core junk. They could tack $50 onto the price and put a nice little 3GHz P4 in there and the whole world would be plenty o' happy.
Post by: MaryJane on April 04, 2006, 01:03:03 PM
Maybe... just maybe when you're playing a game that requires physical exertion and mental fortitude you'll be so busy enjoying yourself you'll forget that ps3 has better graphics, and makes a better bookshelf.
Maybe... just maybe I'm going to use my name
till I forget how pointless these freakin threads are! So the rev is weaker... what the hell are we gonna do about it? NOTHING. We're going to take it like good little boys and girls taking their medicine. Maybe you won't like, but it's good for you. kwitcherbitchin.
Post by: zakkiel on April 04, 2006, 01:23:46 PM
QuoteLadies and Gentleman, we have our new Nintendo marketing slogan! Watch it take the world by storm as people release they should think of video games as medication to be painfully choked down!
We're going to take it like good little boys and girls taking their medicine. Maybe you won't like, but it's good for you. kwitcherbitchin.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 04, 2006, 01:33:19 PM
We could, I don't know, not buy the Rev. This is entertainment and if a console maker isn't delivering at a level someone expects them to they don't have to take it. So "deal with it" is NEVER a valid point regarding something like this. People didn't deal with Nintendo sticking with cartridges, they just didn't buy an N64. Maybe in reality it shouldn't matter but if consumers think it matters then it matters, PERIOD.
So it's not just a matter of "if you don't like it, tough". If major games are released on the PS3 and the X360 but NOT the Rev because of the hardware difference then it matters. If multiplatform games always look the worst on the Rev it matters. It matters because it can potentially negatively affect public opinion which affects sales which affects market share which affects third party support which affects game selection. So "just deal with it" isn't acceptable. Nintendo's been telling people to deal with shortcomings for a while now and that's why they're in last and that's why there's nothing to play on the Gamecube right now.
Post by: thejeek on April 04, 2006, 01:41:42 PM
Quote
We could, I don't know, not buy the Rev.
Absolutely. I dunno what else I'm gonna buy instead though if it turns out to be a disappointment - nothing on the 360 or PS3 interests me but I also don't want to pay twice to buy what is apparently just another Gamecube - if that's all it is then I want to be able to buy a Rev controller and games for my existing GC. Otherwise, If I've got to shell out for a new console then it had better be a noticable improvement than what I've already got...
Post by: MaryJane on April 04, 2006, 01:51:07 PM
Something tells me, I don't know what it is, but something tells me that every person who posts in the forum is going to buy a revolution. if you didn't care about why make millions of millions of long winded posts about it??
What I'm saying is Nintendo is in charge of the revolution, whatever they decide to put, or not put in it, there's nothing we can do about it.
I hear Sony has this new thing out where if you tell them there's something about their system you don't like... like the fact that it's fugly, expensive, the controllers look homosexual, and weighs a ton, they'll build you a custom one to suit your specific needs.
Sorry I forgot April fools passed already.
THIS IS THE BUSINESS/REAL WORLD!! GROW UP!
as much as we'd like to, we don't make decisions, we merely influence them. that's my point. the rev is final for Nintendo it's what they're going with, nothing you can do will stop it. you don't like it don't buy it. I doubt they'll shed a tear or give you one thought.
I can garuntee the success of the Revolution... how you ask? simple, if you average the sales between the gamecube and DS you have a succesful system. Couple that with the buzz it's created around the development community, and you have a success. If only the people who bought a gamecube buy a rev, you still have a success. what more do you want Nintendo knows video games.
Not screaming at you in particular just saying, seriously, if you don't like the rev whats the point of trying to convince fanboys like myself who will buy anything Nintendo (well almost, I didn't buy a Virtual Boy, for that matter I didn't buy an NES or SNES they were given to me on the same day, cuz I grew up poor, but that's life) that it's not a good system?
Hmmm, just thought of something... NEW TOPIC. woop woop.
Post by: Kairon on April 04, 2006, 01:53:39 PM
"What Nintendo, you don't make games that appeal to me anymore as a consumer? Well then, I'm not buying your console. Just deal with it."
What could be more sensible than that?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on April 04, 2006, 01:58:46 PM
So in other words since we can't do anything about anything Nintendo does we shouldn't give our opinion on it. Well then let's just get rid of the forum because there's no point discussing anything about Nintendo whatsoever because our opinion, positive or negative, won't affect anything.
This is a forum. A topic comes up and we discuss it and share our opinions.
There are a lot of people here who seem to just want a Nintendo fan club where we all take turns talking about how great Nintendo is and any negative opinions are to be kept to oneself.
Post by: jasonditz on April 04, 2006, 02:02:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Maybe in reality it shouldn't matter but if consumers think it matters then it matters, PERIOD.
Very true. On the other hand, do the consumers who think it matters... matter?
The late teens who froth at the mouth for uber specs probably wouldn't have bought the Rev even if it had identical specs to the PS3 because of Nintendo's reputation for being teh k1dd13. Your core audience (the people who owned the Cube) probably aren't going to care too much, so long as you give them the games they want.
And the audience your hoping to grow into... the non-gamers. They probably care a lot more about price and approachability than they care about whether the jerseys on the Madden players look shinier on the Xbox 360 or if each individual droplet of sweat is perfectly rendered with realistic physics on the PS3.
If you want the non-gamers on board, you need to price the system as nearly an impulse buy. The DS is the sort of thing most people could just see, decide they want, and grab off the shelf. The PS3 is going to be the sort of thing most people would have to save up for.
Post by: MaryJane on April 04, 2006, 02:06:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"What I'm saying is Nintendo is in charge of the revolution, whatever they decide to put, or not put in it, there's nothing we can do about it."
So in other words since we can't do anything about anything Nintendo does we shouldn't give our opinion on it. Well then let's just get rid of the forum because there's no point discussing anything about Nintendo whatsoever because our opinion, positive or negative, won't affect anything.
This is a forum. A topic comes up and we discuss it and share our opinions.
There are a lot of people here who seem to just want a Nintendo fan club where we all take turns talking about how great Nintendo is and any negative opinions are to be kept to oneself.
There's a difference between discussing it, and repeating over and over the same thoughts with different words.
I'm a little disappointed the rev is weaker than the competition. However, I knew it was going to happen already. So now that it's "official" why repeat what was said when Iwata said the first time that it was going to be weaker? That's my point, there's nothing we can do, we've discussed it at length, why all the bickering??
Post by: WesDawg on April 04, 2006, 02:58:09 PM
And it has very little to do with graphics, and a lot more to do with what a system can do. Will the Rev be able to handle hundreds of enemies on screen at once? Will the Rev be able to improve AI over what we've seen previously? Will ports to the Rev have unusually long load times over their counterparts? Or is every Rev port not only going to have drastically reduced graphics, but hundreds of enemies removed, portions of levels cut out, and AI who makes it hard not to win?
I'm all for the controller, but I don't want gimped games on the system. Face it. Ports are important. Often times they're fun, and they save me a ton of money because I only have to buy one system.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 04, 2006, 02:59:20 PM
Quote
If multiplatform games always look the worst on the Rev it matters
Sounds like the PS2 to me, and we all know how much that hurt its success!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 04, 2006, 03:06:53 PM
So far I have not been impressed at all with my Xbox 360 (yes I own one), sure it has some good games like Kameo, but most are not unique console experiences. I know people brag up Oblivion, but guess what? I have it for PC, same with GRAW when it comes out in a couple of months for PC. My guess is that PS3 will have unique experiences, but also be inundated with PC and console ports too. With the Revolution, there is potential to truly craft a new experience with every game if the developer chooses.
Post by: IceCold on April 04, 2006, 03:32:32 PM
QuoteI think you mean the original Xbox, right?
Even the graphics I do not believe will be that different from its competition on a standard TV, maybe around that of PS2 compared to Xbox 360.
Post by: MaryJane on April 04, 2006, 03:43:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: WesDawg
The reported specs, which aren't in any way official from what I've heard, are more than a little below what the competition is offering. They're way way WAY below it. Iwata said that they weren't going to be the most powerful, but he also said that their console wouldn't look that much different when viewed on SD TV's. This IGN report goes directly against that.
And it has very little to do with graphics, and a lot more to do with what a system can do. Will the Rev be able to handle hundreds of enemies on screen at once? Will the Rev be able to improve AI over what we've seen previously? Will ports to the Rev have unusually long load times over their counterparts? Or is every Rev port not only going to have drastically reduced graphics, but hundreds of enemies removed, portions of levels cut out, and AI who makes it hard not to win?
I'm all for the controller, but I don't want gimped games on the system. Face it. Ports are important. Often times they're fun, and they save me a ton of money because I only have to buy one system.
The specs IGN released show that the rev doesn't look just as good on an SD tv as ps3 and 360?? screenshots please, and don't forget to use the 360's version of King Kong.
And the specs aren't official, not to mention I don't think anyone with a finalized dev kit would take the risk of leakin info, they're much too large of companies. Let's say that the specs released are only 75% of what the Revolution can actually do that means CPU 972MHz and GPU 324MHz. but who cares? read the article carefully, look at the specs of the of xbox compared to GC and then the actual graphical comparison. (No need to tell me that the number IGN weren't based on dev kits but insider info on the cpu and gpu themselves. and therefore make my percentages irrelevant)
Quote
IBM's "Broadway" CPU is clocked at 729MHz, according to updated Nintendo documentation. By comparison, GameCube's Gekko CPU ran at 485MHz. The original Xbox's CPU, admittedly a different architecture altogether, was clocked at 733MHz. Meanwhile
Quote
Revolution's ATI-provided "Hollywood" GPU clocks in at 243MHz. By comparison, GameCube's GPU ran at 162MHz, while the GPU on the original Xbox was clocked at 233MHz.
would Nintendo really make a system that couldn't compare to a system the gamecube compared with? or is Microsoft such a computer based company they know how to trump up big numbers to make themselves look better? The rev is underpowered yes. will it be significant? get back to me at e3.
Post by: Jensen on April 04, 2006, 04:23:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
No shaders means no shaders.
I believe it said no new shader architecture. The GC used a lot of shaders way before I say them on PC games.. mostly blurred backgrounds and refractive stuff. But, personally, I care more about how stuff is modeled than how realistic the fake bumps on its surface are.
Quote
For example, people are gravitating towards a $200 price point for the Revolution launch. But what if additional hardware like you wish for bumped up the cost to $250?
Then the machine costs 250$. If they can't get reasonable specs at 200$ like they did before they're doing something wrong. Because they managed to build a next gen console for 200$ all the past generations, why can't they repeat that? Because they chose style (small console, slot loading drive, ...) over substance?
Not to mention a few other minor things.... A sensor bar/wand (sounds pretty next-gen to me), built in WiFi ($100 accessory for the 360), 512mb built in memory and an SD slot (which also means they can't subsidise the cost of the console with a mandatory overpriced proprietary memory card), the controller will also be somewhat more expensive. Maybe the "other secret" costs money too?
Anyway, each successive jump from NES -> SNES -> N64 -> GC was much larger in opening up possibilities than a GC -> 360 jump is. So Nintendo felt that it was important to make a jump in something other than raw power.
Post by: Nephilim on April 04, 2006, 08:49:05 PM
Huge mainstream games like unreal tourament had them too
Post by: jasonditz on April 04, 2006, 09:06:59 PM
I don't care.
Seriously, the reason I bought my Gamecube wasn't for the improved visuals in games like Rogue Leader, it was because they stopped supporting the Dreamcast. Likewise, I bought the Dreamcast because they stopped making games for my Saturn. And the only reason I even bought the saturn was because it was getting really hard to find Sega CD games.
Its not that the new graphics aren't impressive, it's that I flat out don't care. So long as poor graphics don't get in the way of gameplay, I could frankly give two shits whether they're dramatically improved. If Sega was still making Genesis and Sega CD games, I'd probably never have thought about replacing it.
I've never bought a system because of the graphics... it's always because the previous system stopped being supported, or in the case of my transition from NES to Sega Genesis, because the first system kept breaking and I wanted a more reliable one.
Post by: wandering on April 05, 2006, 01:19:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Cause the GC didn't get anywhere close to it and I know what to expect from such a small increase in processing power and RAM because I know what difference it makes on my PC.
Wouldn't the difference be different, though, in a normal-res console versus a high-res PC?
Quote
Originally posted by: IanSane
the Cube was one of the most botched consoles I've ever seen.
I think you're confusing the cube with the saturn.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
This is a forum. A topic comes up and we discuss it and share our opinions.
There are a lot of people here who seem to just want a Nintendo fan club where we all take turns talking about how great Nintendo is and any negative opinions are to be kept to oneself.
When will people learn that this forum would be much better if everyone agreed with me 100% of the time?
Post by: KDR_11k on April 05, 2006, 04:41:03 AM
Depends on your definition of highres, I play Quake 4 at 800x600 for no particular reason. Never mind that the higher the load on a system the more you notice increases in performance.
Post by: MaryJane on April 05, 2006, 05:47:38 AM
I have to say however, that as long as Nintendo didn't release something weaker than the cube, that got no developer lovin, I wouldv'e bought whatever they released. Just because I know when it comes down to games, although they may be few and far between, the games themselves are always top-notch. Graphics are a distant third in importance to me.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 05, 2006, 07:23:08 AM
Post by: Rhoq on April 05, 2006, 07:47:40 AM
I was playing Lego Star Wars on my 'Cube a few weeks back and I became annoyed that since LucasArts had decided to stop supporting the GameCube following the disappointing sales of Star Wars: Rebel Strike - Rogue Squadron 3, there were some great Star Wars games that I missed-out on. I decided that it was time for me to break my one console "rule" and pick-up a second system. I went with an XBox.
I'm still not impressed with the XBox 360, and quite hoestly, I refuse to spend that kind of money on a console. Anyways, I got a great deal from a seller on Craig's List (an XBox, 2 controllers, 8MB memory card, 3 games and DVD playback kit for $100).
I am enjoying the Xbox immensely and I am still showing my GameCube the love and attention it deserves. XBox Live is awesome and I can't wait to see what Nintendo will do with the Revolution's on-line service. The graphics on the XBox are very good, as are the 'Cube's. I have no problem with the Revolution looking marginally better than my XBox or GameCube (though I'm sure the difference will be more than just marginal).
At the same time, since Nintendo is going after a different audience and is hoping that the Revolution might start a whole new gaming market, there is really no way it will be able to compete (hardware-wise) with the XBox 360 or the PS3 since they will be complete different from one another. Just like how the Nintendo DS and Sony PSP are so different that there is really no fair comparison between the two, the situation with the Revolution and it's "competition" will be pretty much the same. Everyone will be trying to compare the Revolution to the PS3 and XBox 360 but the playing field will never be level.
Anyways - because of this, I have decided that I will own 2 consoles this upcoming generation. Since I already own an original XBox, the logical choice would be that I pick-up a 360 once the prices become reasonable (ie. $249 or less) so I could take advantage of the backwards compatibility. BUT, I have decided to wait until both the PS3 comes out to make my final decision.
Whichever I decide to get (PS3 or XBox 360), the Revolution will be sitting right next to it.
Post by: Artimus on April 05, 2006, 08:12:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
It is funny, some of my favorite games of all time were not considered graphically impressive, they just accomplished what needed to be done. These games include games like Super Mario Sunshine, SM64, Zelda: Wind Waker, Kingdom Hearts I and II, and of course the many games I enjoy for SNES and NES.
Both SM64 and WW are considered very graphically impressive... (SM64 less so now, but at the time it was)
Post by: WesDawg on April 05, 2006, 08:13:43 AM
These Rev specs and the 360 are nowhere close to each other though. If you think that its gonna play 360 games in low resolution, you're deluding yourself.
And that's why I don't think they're real specs. They're some dev unit specs that someone stupid leaked. Maybe someone not even in development, but just some guy they threw an old dev kit to when a new one was released by Nintendo. I doubt we know what the real Rev's specs are until the console is released and someone opens it up to look inside.
Post by: Artimus on April 05, 2006, 09:38:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: WesDawg
Sorry if I came off sounding... upset in that earlier post, but I think its a bit ludicrous to take these IGN specs and say, "Look at the GC and XBox. The GC was supposedly weaker, and yet their graphics were about the same." The GC and the XBox were speced about the same CPUwise. The XBox had more RAM and a HardDrive. The Cube had much faster RAM from what I remember. In the end, they were about equal. Any comments about which was more powerful were pure Microsoft PR.
These Rev specs and the 360 are nowhere close to each other though. If you think that its gonna play 360 games in low resolution, you're deluding yourself.
And that's why I don't think they're real specs. They're some dev unit specs that someone stupid leaked. Maybe someone not even in development, but just some guy they threw an old dev kit to when a new one was released by Nintendo. I doubt we know what the real Rev's specs are until the console is released and someone opens it up to look inside.
The XBOX's CPU was 733MHz and the GCN's was 485MHz and something. Those numbers are NOT "about the same." It evened out because of architecture, but the actual numbers weren't the same. And the XBOX is powerful. Not a ton, but it is the most powerful of the three systems.
You also underestimate Matt's contacts. These are not based on ONE person who doesn't work with the system. They're based on numbers from several sources, actual developers.
Post by: capamerica on April 05, 2006, 09:57:09 AM
The Xbox 733Mhz Chip was a modified Intel Pentium 3 chip, The GameCube 485MHz chip on the other hand was a modified IBM G3 chip. Just like when your compairing PC to Macs you have to do the same thing when compairing the Xbox to the GameCube. The G3 chips were Double the speed of a Intel P3 chip so to get the correct number to compair a G3 chip to a Intel P3 chip you have to multiply it by 2.
So in correct terms the GameCube's small 485MHz chip was equal close to a 970Mhz Pentium 3. Which acttually kicks the Xbox's 733Mhz chips butt.
edit: Opps said Pentium 4 insted of Pentium 3 =P
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 05, 2006, 10:04:43 AM
Post by: Deguello on April 05, 2006, 10:18:22 AM
Quote
They're based on numbers from several sources, actual developers.
O RLY? Who? IGN has been burned before by unnamed sources for their rumors.
Quote
And the XBOX is powerful. Not a ton, but it is the most powerful of the three systems.
You know it's funny people keep saying that because MS had ads saying that too. and then it kept getting repeated because HEY their numbers are higher that those other guys' numbers. But last time I checked, the actual game this generation that pushed the most polygons with the most effects at 60 fps was Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike, followed by Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader. Seems to me there has been a mislabel. This isn't opinion. This is fact. These are the two most technically advanced games this generation.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 05, 2006, 10:19:35 AM
Post by: Strell on April 05, 2006, 10:22:54 AM
Post by: Artimus on April 05, 2006, 11:45:04 AM
Post by: Magik on April 05, 2006, 02:50:28 PM
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on April 05, 2006, 03:03:54 PM
It is useless to talk about this stuff right now. E3 is in two months, by then, we should have our info, unless Nintendo goes completely mental. In any case, I don't give a crap about specs anymre, I just wanna have a good time. I'm outa here.
Post by: OverHeat on April 05, 2006, 03:04:19 PM
I wonder, if you own a Hi-Def set, how /bad/ Rev games will look?
Guess we will all just have to wait and see, huh?
Post by: zakkiel on April 05, 2006, 03:44:40 PM
Post by: OverHeat on April 05, 2006, 04:31:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
who knows.
Exactly.
Post by: MaryJane on April 05, 2006, 04:52:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BiLdItUp1
E3 is in two months, by then, we should have our info, unless Nintendo goes completely mental. In any case, I don't give a crap about specs anymre, I just wanna have a good time. I'm outa here.
E3 is next month isn't it? January, February, March, April, The Month we've all been waiting for, June, July, The month I was born in 22yrs ago, The month school starts, October, November, The month where all you think about is christmas and new years.
Oh I just can't wait for E3(insert Lion King music).
Post by: Guitar Smasher on April 05, 2006, 07:15:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
who knows. Maybe Nintendo is deliebrately spreading rumors of extremely low specs so they can announce better ones and beat the expectations game.
Yeah, and screw the developpers? Nice try, though.
Post by: Nile Boogie on April 05, 2006, 07:45:29 PM
This madness must stop! Does anyone here know just how many _pu's The Nintendo Concept has? Really? Are you sure? Some people are saying CPU/GPU/PPU. 6-weeks or 3 pay checks or 2 baths or 1 date from now, the truth will be told. "Always in motion the future is."
And remember "there are other specs".
Post by: jasonditz on April 05, 2006, 07:49:06 PM
Post by: Rhoq on April 06, 2006, 05:07:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: OverHeat
I wonder, if you only were to own a regular TV, if all the system's graphics will look similar...I wonder, if you own a Hi-Def set, how /bad/ Rev games will look? Guess we will all just have to wait and see, huh?
The Revolution will look the same on a High Definition TV as it would on a Standard Definition TV.
Post by: mantidor on April 06, 2006, 05:29:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
I'll never understand why some people just can't accept obvious reality when all the actual facts agree with it.
Thats the thing, there are no facts, a fact would be a screenshot or video footage, all we have is numbers that dont mean anything by themselves, numbers that we arent even sure about because they arent official.
Post by: thejeek on April 06, 2006, 06:05:32 AM
Quote
Thats the thing, there are no facts, a fact would be a screenshot or video footage, all we have is numbers that dont mean anything by themselves, numbers that we arent even sure about because they arent official.
Absolutely - I don't see why something leaked on IGN is being treated as the gospel truth here. How many different sets of leaked specs have we seen so far, three? four? more? If we simply treated the most recently encountered numbers as verified fact we'd have believed some really weird stuff over the last couple of years...
Post by: Kairon on April 06, 2006, 07:11:02 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on April 06, 2006, 07:22:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thejeekQuote
Thats the thing, there are no facts, a fact would be a screenshot or video footage, all we have is numbers that dont mean anything by themselves, numbers that we arent even sure about because they arent official.
Absolutely - I don't see why something leaked on IGN is being treated as the gospel truth here. How many different sets of leaked specs have we seen so far, three? four? more? If we simply treated the most recently encountered numbers as verified fact we'd have believed some really weird stuff over the last couple of years...
Show me the 'three or four' spec sheets the have reported, please. Links only.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 06, 2006, 07:30:43 AM
Post by: thejeek on April 06, 2006, 07:30:59 AM
Quote
Show me the 'three or four' spec sheets the have reported, please. Links only.
Three different reported sets of specs, with provenance about as reliable as the specs currently under debate, picked at random from the first page of Google results:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050923-5344.html
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9485
http://www.vgescape.com/features/83/nintendo-revolution-specs
Post by: Kairon on April 06, 2006, 07:46:16 AM
One is specifically stated as an unconfirmedand sourceless rumor, another was posted by a blogsite that heard it from someone who wrote in to that blogsite, and the remaining one of those reports is based on the posts of "Han Solo," who claimed that he worked for Factor 5 even though Factor 5 stated it had no connection with him whatsoever.
All of those reports and their sources lack the acceptance, history, and public possibility of failure that the IGN report carries.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: thejeek on April 06, 2006, 07:51:25 AM
Quote
All of those reports and their sources lack the acceptance, history, and public possibility of failure that the IGN report carries.
That's a matter of opinion - I'll believe it when it's independantly verified somewhere reputable...
Post by: Kairon on April 06, 2006, 07:54:45 AM
*ahem*
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: thejeek on April 06, 2006, 07:58:18 AM
Quote
Are you implying that IGN is irreputable?
I dunno about implying - I pretty much straight out said so. Is it reputable? I actually don't wanna pick a fight here - I never read IGN and I'd got the impression that it was sensationalist and biased - but if the consensus here is that they can be trusted on this then I guess I'll go along with that.
Post by: Kairon on April 06, 2006, 08:08:06 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@al.com
Post by: thejeek on April 06, 2006, 08:10:19 AM
Quote
That's why one theory we've heard so far is that IGN may not be lying, but that they're reporting based on development kits which may or may not represent the final product.
That seems most likely to me - it requires no deliberate malice from IGN but stil allows me to believe the specs are not accurate...
Post by: Kairon on April 06, 2006, 08:18:34 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: thejeek on April 06, 2006, 08:24:44 AM
Grrr. I dunno - I'll just have to wait for actual hardware and then we'll all see I guess.
Post by: Artimus on April 06, 2006, 08:43:03 AM
Post by: Rhoq on April 06, 2006, 08:46:09 AM
If it really were an April Fool's gag, I think it would have been revealed by now. We've known for a while now that the Revolution specs would be pretty underwhelming, compared to the XBox 360 and PS3. A lot of people refuse to accept it. Compared to the GameCube, and knowing what that system is already capable of, why should there be any doubts that the Revolution will be plenty powerful for what it's set to accomplish?
I'm guessing that the Revolution will look slightly better than the original XBox. I see absolutely nothing wrong with graphics of that caliber. The graphics will definitely be "good enough". The current non-gamers & average casual gamers will not care enough and, the truth is - the difference won't be all that drastic, especially when compared to PS3 and 360 on standard definition monitors. As it had been suggested earlier in this thread, at the very worst - the Revolution will the next-gen equivalent of the PS2 in terms of visuals.
Post by: SgtShiversBen on April 06, 2006, 09:13:55 AM
I'm just being overly optimistic, but hell...if Sony can "wow" us with their price point, then I see no reason for Nintendo to do the same.
Post by: Artimus on April 06, 2006, 09:39:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: SgtShiversBen
What if this is a ruse set up by Nintendo themselves to make people think that they have sh1tty specs, then at E3 "wow" us?
I'm just being overly optimistic, but hell...if Sony can "wow" us with their price point, then I see no reason for Nintendo to do the same.
Because price is entirely Sony's choice and they can make it whatever they want. You spend months (years) building specs and developers need them to build on. You can just raise your specs like you can lower a price.
Let's be realistic...
Post by: Dirk Temporo on April 06, 2006, 09:44:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
another was posted by a blogsite that heard it from someone who wrote in to that blogsite, and the remaining one of those reports is based on the posts of "Han Solo," who claimed that he worked for Factor 5 even though Factor 5 stated it had no connection with him whatsoever.
I fail to see how that's any less reliable than "a very trustworthy developer told me that these are definitely the specs."
Post by: Magik on April 06, 2006, 10:06:37 AM
Post by: Michael8983 on April 06, 2006, 10:17:53 AM
So if the REV graphics end up falling in between this coming generations and the last I honestly don't think anyone but the most scrutinizing of graphics whores will notice or care.
If Nintendo has its way people are going to be talking a lot more about HOW you play games then what they look like this time around.
Post by: thejeek on April 06, 2006, 10:25:34 AM
And give the 360 time - I think good developers will be able to wring a bit more out of it than just-in-time-for-release EA good-enough-is-good-enough-ware. (not that I'm pro 360 - I've never knowingly paid money for a Microsoft product)
Post by: MaryJane on April 06, 2006, 11:06:11 AM
Anyway, this reputable source couldv'e done the same, and is waiting until E3 to say, FOOLED YA! Then again, Nintendo has always known how to do a lot with a little, so you can't really bank on the specs until we have comparative proof, which will also be hard seeing as how, judging from some developer comments, exclusives are gonna to be numerous for each system.
Post by: Artimus on April 06, 2006, 12:01:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJane
It could be an april fools joke! Just cuz its the 6th doesn't mean anything, last yr for an april fools joke I told one of my professors that I had a testicle removed, I never told him otherwise until I ran into him this january and he told me about a counseling group he was a part of and that I should go, he was pretty pissed when I told him the truth, especially since I couldn't stop laughing when I told him.
Anyway, this reputable source couldv'e done the same, and is waiting until E3 to say, FOOLED YA! Then again, Nintendo has always known how to do a lot with a little, so you can't really bank on the specs until we have comparative proof, which will also be hard seeing as how, judging from some developer comments, exclusives are gonna to be numerous for each system.
Since this is a joke, I'll pretend its real.
HA! Good joke! That guy must've been so surprised! LOLZ!
And as for these numbers being wrong because of dev kits, here is where they are from:
Quote
Obviously, Nintendo is unable to take the same approach with game studios, many of whom are currently working with Revolution development hardware and in possession of finalized system specifications.
Meaning they can go up, and perhaps will, but not significantly.
Post by: animecyberrat on April 06, 2006, 05:16:40 PM
I jsut want to reply to this because i want to remind everybody that even the what three games on the GC that did have mind blowing graphcis on par or better than Xbox you seam to forget all the otehr that dont look as good. The rev might be mroe powerful than GC but you know if devs are using souped up GC dev kits its possible that a lot will just make games that look like Gc games only slightly better. I hear people shout RE 4 all the time, yeah but in five years thats ONE GAME that looks THAT GOOD! I have plenty of games that look fantastic but I see many games that are prots that look BETTER on Xbox than GC and even then I still see many Xbxo games that could look better. Even takig 360 into account, sure the games dont look (most right now) a lot better than this gen they still DO have noticable differences.
YOu can not argue that Revolution is going to have mind blowing graphics compared to ps3 when Nintendo already stated they wont look as nice. Also just cuz Rev is capable fo games betetr than RE 4 do NOT get your hopes up that games will look better than that right off the bat, or even that good. Nintendo is shouting on top of thier lungs graphics arent as important and are going to show that when rev launches. NOW I do expect it to be better than this gen but it will make a differnce to me and thousdans maybe millsions of people if it doesnt look enough better to warrant the upgrade. I am already wanting a 360 beasue of 2 games, if the rev cant compare to those two games I will seriously consider passing it up until it can. Now I want a rev at laucnh for the VC and I will surely like to see Smash Bros online blwo me away cuz I expet it will look good, but I will be coparing it to 360 as will a lot of other peopel who just dont have the money to get more than one system.
Anywyas sorry for long rant (and this wasnt all emant to wards to rohq I just quoted your post cuz it was convineient) but I hd to get some of that unsaid stuff out there.
Post by: Michael8983 on April 06, 2006, 06:11:00 PM
But that's what Sony and MS fans said about their consoles this past generation.
That even if the graphics didn't look better than the Gamecube's, the consoles were more powerful in other ways. Better draw-distances, more enemies on screen, etc . . . There was that whole "emotion engine" thing Sony fans were always talking about. The XBox's hard-drive was suppose to be a major advantage allowing for games that would never be possible on the competition. But did any of it really make THAT much of a difference? Not as far as I can tell.
Most games aren't going to require a few hundered enemies running around on screen. Consumers aren't going to notice if you can see just a little further into the distance on the 360/PS3 version of a multi-platform title than on the REV version.
Most of the extra power is ultimately going to go towards things that most games don't need and most consumers aren't going to notice. Especially if they happen to lack an HDTV.
There may be games on the PS3 and 360 that won't be ported to the REV (or be ported with bad results) because of the technical limitations but there will certainly also be a lot of REV titles that will rely on the new controller that won't be possible on the PS3 and 360. So I think it will even itself out in the end.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 07, 2006, 01:02:38 AM
Quote
The rev might be mroe powerful than GC but you know if devs are using souped up GC dev kits its possible that a lot will just make games that look like Gc games only slightly better.
Sounds an awful like many of the launch games for 360. That is besides the point, I think in this discussion we tend to forget that large, and expansive enviroments chalk full of amazing AI will only come to pass if the developers spend alot time and money into a game's development. Most of the time it isn't due to limitations or superior hardware, but what the developer is willing to put into the game.
For example on Xbox 360, I think the only game with expansive enviroments with decent AI (not brilliant by any means) is Oblivion, there really is no other game besides that example. GRAW doesn't really count because it is pretty limited in what it's engine is trying to do. Kameo had big enviroments in places, but it lacked intelligent AI. Also, as someone who tries to keep their PC upgraded every couple of years, I can definately say that the vast majority of PC games do not act much differently than those made for previous generation graphic cards. Sure the graphics may be slightly slicker, but it is nothing to write home about unless you play a game with condensed enviroments allowing for more graphical "oomph" like Quake 4 and Doom 3.
I do think Revolution can handle expansive enviroments with "Complex AI" but it will have to take willingness of a designer. From what I've gathered the Ram gap isn't as huge, considering a big chunk of 360's is used for HD, and that the ram itself is slower. We'll see though, but I still feel that people will be relieved once the games are shown.
Post by: thejeek on April 07, 2006, 02:34:29 AM
Quote
That is besides the point, I think in this discussion we tend to forget that large, and expansive enviroments chalk full of amazing AI will only come to pass if the developers spend alot time and money into a game's development. Most of the time it isn't due to limitations or superior hardware, but what the developer is willing to put into the game.
Fair enough but some developers on GC did put in the effort. Anyone like to hazard how far something like Metroid Prime pushes the GC hardware? I don't think there was much scope for, say making the areas between doors in MP any larger, or for having more enemies or more complex enemy behaviour - I think that MP is almost certainly pushing up against real hardware limits, not limitations in the imagination of or lazyness on the part of the developer
Hence, will we see games that feature significantly larger more open environments than those in Metroid Prime on the Revolution? It has considerably more memory, but does it have the grunt to actually simulate and display worlds noticably larger or more detailed than MP?
Post by: trip1eX on April 07, 2006, 04:27:39 AM
On the pc, Half Life probably had better AI than Half Life 2. And it came out 6 years earlier.
'AI' is misleading tho. AI is so far below playing a human as it is that any improvements in it are really be neglibible.
And really it comes down to difficulty. CAn you beat it or not? Is it too easy, too hard or just right? Sure the guy might just be standing there and not moving realistically, but when all is said and done it's about you taking him down before he takes you down isn't it? It's about the game being challenging without hitting either extreme. I think that's more important than how realistic the 'AI' is.
Let's face it too that in some games if 'AI' was realistic than you'd have the whole frickin' building or planet after you any time you fired a shot. In many ways AI will probably never be realistic. If it is then every bad guy in the game will come fight you in the first 5 minutes.
****
YOu've got more memory in the Rev and from the sound of it your cpu and gpu are 50% faster worst case . Everything else being equal that translates to bigger worlds in all games if they want to go that route.
I have say tho that bigger worlds doesn't mean better worlds. There's room for games with big huge worlds, but I don't think there's room for every game to be massive. Massive isn't better. IT's just bigger.
I think for the most part we're already at the limit for how big games can be. I don't mean technically, but practically speaking. The bigger you make a game world the less polished it's going to be. The less the gamer will notice that it's bigger. And the more resources it takes just to have it that size. And there's a graphical tradeoff with the bigger worlds. You won't have as much detail and objects on the screen with a bigger the world.
******
Now here's another observation about graphics. And that's once you start to get people and buildings and vehicles and objects looking like the real thing then you're going to start to hit a point of diminishing returns in the realism dept. A point where it takes more and more horsepower and more and more man power (artist power) than ever to get less and less improvement than ever. I think that's where we are now or we're close to it. There's always room for improvement, but honestly it's not like the old days where we weren't even close to having real people look like real people. We basically were there this last gen and this gen we'll definitely be there imo. I'm just wondering more than ever how much the market can stomach buying a slightly better looking version of the same game when the old version looks pretty dam good as it is.
Post by: MaryJane on April 07, 2006, 07:16:13 AM
Post by: animecyberrat on April 07, 2006, 08:57:12 AM
Post by: Knoxxville on April 10, 2006, 11:05:55 AM
Post by: ThePerm on April 10, 2006, 11:21:01 AM
Post by: zakkiel on April 10, 2006, 04:52:28 PM
QuoteTrue, but there's a lot more disparity between the rumored Rev specs and the competition's than there was last generation, and there's also the advent of integrated rigid-body physics which eats up a tremendous amount of CPU power. Since physics is becoming increasingly popular in FPSs (one of the anticipated major genres on the Rev) and also often does a lot more for a sense of immersion and realism (and definitely gameplay) than simply graphics, it doesn't make much sense for Nintendo to foreclose implementing it.
That even if the graphics didn't look better than the Gamecube's, the consoles were more powerful in other ways.
Post by: animecyberrat on April 12, 2006, 04:38:14 PM
I still maintain that teh rev will kick ass and will sell like hotcakes, but I still personaly have that unsetling feeling that it wont be as impressive visualy as the other 2, ut at least it looks as though Rev will have a good chance of getting decent and nice looking exclusives so that settles one part of the fear, knowing that despite the less powerful graphics devs willl still take time to fully utilise its potential.
Anywyas just random thoughts I had that wanted to share ont his subject.
