Messages

1

Nintendo Gaming / RE: First Mario 128 Shots?

« on: March 06, 2005, 02:40:14 PM »

I can't say they are definately real, but for as many "it's fake!"'s as I've gotten, I haven't found a good rebuttal yet.

As for the dark outlines... That raised my suspicion at first as well... but it very easily could be an artifact of being a digital photo... ESPECIALLY if that photo was taken under less than excellent circumstances.  It's very possible that the screen was dark and that the levels were changed in the photo.  Since digital cameras don't always have the greatest of gamut ranges in the darks, the darkest darks could all be blown out to complete black...or it may be some other artifact of digital photography.  It doesn't necessarily prove that it was cut and paste.

As for the same models and moustache for Mario and Luigi... how the heck can you even tell?  They're so small to begin with!

As for the article "explaining that its all fake"... look at the date of the article.  It was posted in January.  It's referring to the second set of screenshots, which I've already said were fake.  I mean, those ones are obvious.

2

Nintendo Gaming / First Mario 128 Shots?

« on: March 05, 2005, 09:17:08 AM »

I ran across these pictures and I thought they looked interesting.  And when I mean interesting, I mean legit. =)

If you follow the link below, you'll see two sets of pictures.  One set is grainy... obviously not directly lifted from a game.  The second is a bunch of crisp Mario-style hills.  

The first (grainy) set is the only one that looks real to me.  It looks as if someone took some pictures during a Nintendo presentation.  The screenshots look very much along the style of Mario Sunshine, but of some areas that I've never seen before and with a slight difference in the interface (a star or flower in a pocket at the bottom right hand of the screen).  They don't reveal a whole lot, except that we see Luigi, but it's still interesting.  Unless it's an area that I haven't seen of something that has already been released, I would believe these were real.  

I really doubt the second ones are real, though.  They don't really seem to be in the Nintendo style.  The colors are a bit off and the hills look plastic-y.  They'd be pretty easy to fake for anyone with some 3-D modelling software.

Total Video Games- Mario 128 Screenshots?

3

TalkBack / RE: EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...

« on: February 25, 2005, 06:30:48 AM »

This is an article I think I mentioned a while ago on interface design.

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/584/584744p1.html

4

TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...

« on: February 25, 2005, 06:07:27 AM »

>>>It's still useless. It's just a cheap way of combining real world images with an interactive element. Either way it completely takes the possibility of level design away from the game designers. That leaves them with nothing but toy design. They can make some toy that acts a certain way. They could even make AI controlled enemies, but they could not control the terrain because that is defined by whatever you point the camera out. This would be a poor medium for video games as we know them.<<<

You're forgetting that Nintendo has publicly stated that they're not going to be trying to compete with Microsoft and Sony.  In fact their whole "revolution" philosophy suggests that they're not trying to simply make "video games as we know them".  That's been my criticism of horsepower all along.  To say "this new technology can't do this and this and this and this" is beside the point. The question really is, "what COULD it do?"  

As for taking away the possibility of level design from game designers: To judge it by current concepts of level design and the conventions of competition in current games would be beside the point.  One way, for instance, that designers could influence the function and control the players conflict would be to include props along with the game itself.  Perhaps they are things you wear, or things you use.  What if you had to guide Lemmings like creatures through a lego-like world, which you were always rebuilding to lead them in the right direction? People still play Monopoly and Scrabble despite the lack of level design. Something really revolutionary would change the rules, or at least invent new ones, just like video games did in the first place, and like 3D did when that became a feasible technology.  Traditional video games will probably always be there, but that doesn't mean there's not another model out there.

Regardless, I am just as skeptical that this is the technology that Nintendo will be incorporating.  But, I do find it has an uncanny resemblance to the clues that are out there. Nintendo wants to parallel the current model of video games without directly competing with it. Nintendo announced the absence of A & B buttons. (Who cares what they're named anyway? But what if there were *no* buttons?) Nintendo is rumored to be using gyroscopic controllers. Nintendo is rumored to be attaching an Eye Toy like device.  Even if these rumors ended up being completely false, I found it strange that they don't seem to make a cohesive picture- until I saw that video.

Fortunately, whatever Nintendo has up its sleeve, it probably is going to be influenced by Shigeru Miyamoto like their hardware has been in the past.

>>>Anyway, Nintendo could use some help, but I'm sure they could be effective without any revolutions except maybe a revolution in their marketing strategy.<<<

As I said, I really doubt that is possible right now.  Marketing happens after the release or just slightly before it.  What Nintendo needs off the bat is developers' interest.  If they don't have enough games at the release, they'll be hurting more than before.  And seeing how "uncool" Nintendo is becoming (I love them, myself), I don't think they could muster that support.  And if they don't have the games at release, I doubt any amount of marketing will help...

...unless they really deliver on this "revolution" thing.

5

TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...

« on: February 24, 2005, 03:22:44 PM »

>>It would be like having a remote controlled car, except you can't watch the real car you have to watch it on a TV. And you can't take it outside because it can only play in the area captured by the camera.<<

I think you're limiting your imagination to what was shown on the demonstration.  As I've already said, this was not a Nintendo demonstration, but rather from a company that does not specialize in gameplay.  Whatever system they have set up is not optimized for games.  The way you package the technology is as important as the technology itself.  I mean, there really was a fine line between an NES and a PC back when.  PC's had more power than an NES, but the NES was built with gaming in mind.  Its video card was optized for graphics, its media was optimized for transportation and some wear and tear, and its input devices were simplified for ease of use.  PC's could always make more powerful games, but that wasn't alwaya the point.  I'm sure if Nintendo were to use such technology as this Augmented Reality, they would adapt it in a similar fashion.

Your criticism of a static screen is probably true.  That probably would make for awkward gaming. But this technology isn't limited to static screens.  We've already mentioned the potential for portable devices to be used as "windows" on a virtual world. I think that is more practical- and I'll bet we see that in some point in time, whether it's from Nintendo or not.

What amazed me was that the technology was out there to have cg worlds interact with the real ones in such a way.  I didn't realise that motion tracking was nearly as sophisticated as that.  I was blown away by the fact that the car could be affected by the force of the actual-world mechanized door, for instance.  I know you don't think so, but I think this could have some interesting applications in the hands of creative people.  To say that this would be limited to something of a "remote control car" is far from true.  Remote control cars can't shoot, transform (in a drastic way, at least), fly, or cast magic spells.   They can't disappear, reappear, or run off a table without being damaged.  Don't forget about actually introducing characters. But who knows.  My point was never about this specific technology anyway, but rather that new ways to interact with games are out there other than a simple gyroscopic controller.

My other point, though, which has not been taken up yet, is that no matter whether computational horsepower is enough for gamers or not, it is not a strategy that Nintendo can survive by right now.  Chances are that Nintendo could not best Sony and Microsoft in the horsepower game. For one thing, Sony has the Cell chip which seems to be the strongest thing out there right now.  Nintendo could incorporate this as well, I guess, but seeing that Sony was one of the developers, I have a feeling the deck is stacked against them.  If Nintendo simply matched the power of their competitors' systems, that would not be enough to lure back developers and gamers.  That would simply re-create the position they were in for the Gamecube.

Obviously this is Nintendo's philosophy for the system- they've said so themselves.  They said that their new system will be more powerful than the Gamecube, but they have purposely downplayed horsepower.  Instead, they have said that they are not trying to compete with Sony and Microsoft any longer, but rather expand the market in a new direction.  And I expect that they will try to do just that. They need to pull off a "Holy S***!!!" moment to keep from slipping further.

6

TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...

« on: February 24, 2005, 09:51:42 AM »

As far as the Half-Life issue, I will have to concede since I haven't played it.  BUT, I think you'll have to admit that any advancement that Half-Life might have introduced is nowhere near the "revolution" that something like that video that I posted would be to gameplay.  

I'm not saying the hardware we're making isn't improving, but that we really can't take enough advantage of it to warrant throwing our old systems into the garbage... THAT IS unless they take advantage of some new way of interaction such as that video.  It's technology that is somewhat accessible:it kind of is a glorified version of Eye Toy, and apparently the technology has been around since the early 90's.  The problem is, until now, computing power hasn't been strong enough to really give it commercial appeal.  Maybe it isn't quite yet, but wouldn't it be something if it was?

I mean, Half Life and Doom may be impressive, but do they really have a "Holy S***!!!" factor?

I did research on that video since the last post.  Apparently the technology is called either "Total Immersion" or "Augmented Reality".  The video seems to be from a company called "T-Immersion". (http://www.t-immersion.com).  There's a community of people trying to promote this technology at http://www.augmented-reality.org/.  In 2000, there was some sort of conference (I believe it was in Brazil??) surrounding this technology and a Nintendo rep was attending.  Sony supposedly has some interest in this technology too.  So the gaming companies are definately looking at it.

The possibilities sound really interesting.  I also ran across a story of a city-wide Augmented Reality version of Pac Man, where several players wandered city streets collecting CG power pellets.  I'm sure Augmented Reality is not the only way to improve gaming experience.  I'm still disappointed that Virtual Reality seems to be somewhat dead right now.  I always thought it was a good idea, but needed the processing power to back it up.  The Virtual Boy was too limited to make good use of it, and I'm afraid it's failure convinced many people that Virtual Reality didn't make for good games. But other unheard of ideas have to be sprouting, too.  The question would be, though, how versatile is any new format and how many possibilities will excite developers.  I'm somewhat skeptical that the DS is as versatile as it needs to be.  

Whether or not this technology is yet feasible for use in consumer electronics, I don't know.  But if it really is an extension of the Eye Toy idea, then why wouldn't the next generation be as much of an improvement as the N64 to the Gamecube?  And doesn't that sound like it's putting the advanced computing power to better use?  Traditional gaming won't die, and it will be improved upon, but I fully understand Nintendo's wanting to be an innovator.  There's so much more possibility than we're exploring right now.  It's all a risk.  It could make or break Nintendo.  But if they're being as daring as they say they are, then I'm glad someone is.  I just think the video game industry is just being limited by its imagination right now.

Look up "Total Immersion", "Augmented Reality" and for more interesting talk "Augmented Reality +Nintendo".  There's talk.

7

TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...

« on: February 24, 2005, 06:29:04 AM »

That video that I was talking about:

http://sonix.sdv.fr:8080/ramgen/arte/tracks/20040603/immersion.rm


As I said, I'm doubtful this is really from Nintendo as the place that I found this said it was. Perhaps someone who can speak French can translate the video.  But regardless, I think this shows what a revolution REALLY could look like.

8

TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...

« on: February 24, 2005, 06:20:44 AM »

>>Doom 3 is not all that new of an experience, but Half-Life 2 is We don't see valve rushing to port that to current consoles. The minimum spec for that is a 1.2 Ghz CPU (with 2.4 recommended). There are definitely gameplay scenarios that simply won't work on current hardware due to lack of processing power. ... Half-Life 2 neatly defeats your entire hypothesis.<<<

Perhaps... but I'm doubtful that the advancements are as integral as you suggest.   Ultimately, I can't answer that question since I haven't played either.  Hardcore gamers and techies get overly excited over every litte advancement, citing things as "more realistic water dynamics!!!" as creating a whole new game experience.

There's always be descrepancies between gaming platforms in a generation.  Furthermore, computer games and arcade games have traditionally been much more powerful than their console counterparts until just recently.  Half-Life and Doom are just taking up the tradition again.  But to think that they're really the only PC games that are so tricky to port should show you that we're reaching a technological/creative plateau - or at least matching our imaginations with the technology.  Look at the differences between the three major platforms now.  There aren't many (with the exception of good online support, which I think will change gameplay more than it is right now).  Programmers comment on how easy it is to port games between all three machines.  Arcade games can't look and behave all that much better than their little console brothers.  That's unprecedented!  And I think that's indicative the technology maturing, being able to do almost anything we want it to.

Everything that was mentioned in the article can already be done... to a smaller degree.  But the improvements that can be made in these areas are not as significant as the jumps from Atari to NES to SNES to N64 to Gamecube.  I think that graphics, AI, and physics will always be improved, but that's obvious.  I don't think any of that will enhance gameplay all that much in the near future.  A doubled or tripled polygon count isn't a fraction as significant as the jump from 8 - 16 bit color.  Back then, that was lightyears difference.  At a certain point, you just get diminishing returns.   I simply think that the current generation's lifespan should have been extended until those improvements were more significant.

Now on the "revolution" end, I saw two things that got me more excited for gaming's future.

One was an article (I think it was on Gamespot) talking about new ways to interact with games.  One of the coolest ideas I had ever heard was about taking a portable machine, attaching a camera to the back, giving it motion tracking capabilities, and turning that portable into a "window into a new world".  It would project CG objects into your real environment.  So, you and a buddy could both have one of these devices, jump around your living room, and see CG zombies enhabiting the space between you through these devices!  Ninendo won't be releasing yet ANOTHER handheld yet but...

I saw this incredible video demonstration.  After hearing about that new Nintendo patent, it seemed to fit together somehow.  A few men set up a table with random objects on it (a toy castle, legos, etc) a camera, and a monitor.  A live video feed was being fed into the monitor with the room that they were standing in, but inside this room, on the table, were CG created elements.  There was a minature CG car that was able interact with the objects on the table.  It seemed to drive over the legos, and even be pushed back the force of a mechanized door on the toy castle.  Helicopters could wander the space.  One of the men demonstrated how he could hold a virtual gun, and twirl it around like a cowboy.  It was kind of like a really elaborate Eye-Toy.

Now, I don't know where this video came from.  Someone said that it was indeed from Nintendo, although I have very serious doubts.  But it made me wonder... could Nintendo be working on a similar technology?  That cryptic "Touching is good, but...." statement seemed to strangely fit.  

9

TalkBack / RE: EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...

« on: February 23, 2005, 12:10:31 PM »

It seems that people are pessimistic in regards to Nintendo's "revolutionary" new direction, but  I am holding out hope.  The only Nintendo machine that I've owned that I have been terribly disappointed with so far was the N64.  That entire generation was crappy, IMHO. I hated the Playstation even more. The technology was not yet ready to create an engaging world for me, although I guess the N64 was necessary in a stepping-stone sort of way.  

The problem was, Nintendo dropped the ball with Sony.  The Playstation used CD's and gamers and developers were attracted to that.  Sony lured all of Nintendo's allies away from them, and they've never recovered.  The question is, how do they get those developers back?

Sony is now the video game king for two generations.  I think they're well established as the dominant force in "traditional" games, and Sony's not going to lose its 3rd party interest like Nintendo did if everyone plays by the same rules.  There's nothing to trip them up like that horrible decision to stick to cartridges that I think was ultimately the N64's downfall.  CD's were just inherently more "cool".  FFVII's dramatic splash was enough to cement CD's superiority in people's minds.  The 32/64 generation was an upheaval; the way we played games was dramatically changed, and Nintendo (although arguably the force that caused it to happen- remember the Playstation was originally a Sony/Nintendo collaboration) couldn't predict how things would play out.

However, this next generation will be easier to predict.  Nintendo is right in that the only thing that will be different in the XBox2 and Playstation 3 will be the graphics... and some more mundane things like expanded online gaming (which is very important, but already available in some degree).  The current generation has played itself out, and I think the new systems are coming out way too early.  They won't offer any big advantage over their predecessors.  I don't even think the graphics will be much better.  Doom 3 is state of the art and looks amazing- and that sells, but it's not all that unfamiliar of an experience.  Even the upgrades which the article described (better AI, better lighting, better physics) are neglible.  Gamers aren't simulating turbulence and drag on computer generated airplanes at home.  They're playing games.  As cool and impressive as realism can be, it's starting to enter the realm of diminishing returns.  We can largely match our imaginations now.  The new systems will do much better than Doom graphically, and I don't think that such a meager improvement is worth the upgrade.

People will buy XBox2's and Playstation 3's simply because they are newer and because developers will move to the new platforms as well.  Nintendo realises that, although the Gamecube can reasonably achieve whatever gameplay needs programmers and gamers may have, it will be rendered artificially obsolete on the basis of newer machines being out there.  They can't ignore this new generation, as superficial and artificial as it is, but they will be stomped out of the industry by their cooler, sleeker young competitors if they play the traditional rules.  Furthermore, I think gamers will get bored with the next few generations if they don't offer a distict advantage to their predecessors.  I mean, even if they were largely graphical upgrades, such as the difference from the NES to the SNES, the difference was monumental compared to today.  Nintendo needs their innovative iPod, and very obviously are trying to mimic the success of that device.  We'll see what that means soon, I guess.