Topic: How much more is there to the Revolution that we don't know?

[Famicom]

Quote
Originally posted by: stevey
"- anything regarding the marketing of the console"

"who are you" with ninja's

I'M SOLD

[IceCold]

Iwata - "something that doesn't have any impact on gameplay".

I'd say there's still something embedded in the console that won't be revealed until Sony finalizes their hardware

[King of Twitch]

Remember the high quality GC monitors they showed but never released? Hmm..  

[MrMojoRising]

I'm sure they don't have any other really exciting things they're keeping from us.  At most I'd say they have some fancy new thing inside the Rev (like a stripped down PPU or something).

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

RevoRevo Mario Paint is probably built-in.

[Ian Sane]

"There's no use in releasing all that info now, since sister and grandpa aren't going to buy an Xbox 360 or a PS3 anyway."

Though those of us who actually play games now might.  But then who cares about the existing gaming market that made Nintendo what it is the first place?

[PaLaDiN]

"Though those of us who actually play games now might. But then who cares about the existing gaming market that made Nintendo what it is the first place?"

You know I highly doubt it's the same market anymore. The existing market has pulled Nintendo down from its position at the top. Try again.

[JonLeung]

I wonder if Nintendo needed to be innovative if the competition hadn't come along (namely the PlayStation, which we all know was an ill-bred spawn from their own attempt to counter the Sega CD, had that actually been any good).  And my guess is not.  At least not more than they needed to keep people interested in gaming at all.  If not for their position in the market, they likely wouldn't have gone for the gutsy Revolution, and every Nintendo console would simply have been a more powerful one.  So in that sense the market has made Nintendo what it is today.

[mantidor]

I think the opposite, Nintendo was in the top with the SNES yet the innovated enormously with the analog stick and the introduction of 3d gaming using it, and they are in the top of the handheld industry, yet they created the DS. I think its a problem inherent to the market, it doesnt matter what you do, the market tends to die slowly unless theres some big thing that shakes it.  

[JonLeung]

Let's hope that the Revolution does shake it up then.

Shake-shake!  Shake-shake!

(Oooh, a Mischief Makers sequel on the Revolution would be pretty hot!)

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo has always innovated with their console.  None of their consoles are just better graphics.  The SNES controller added shoulder buttons which at the time was an idea no one had used before and now it's a standard.  The N64 controller was obviously innovative as well.  The Cube controller I think had the smallest "jump" but it did have the shoulder button "clicks" and the new face button layout.  Nintendo was trying to innovate.

But I think if they didn't get royally spanked with the Cube we wouldn't be getting the remote.  There would be some improvements to the controller, they may even have included motion control, but we wouldn't get such a huge change like we are.  The remote is the result of a company panicking and trying to be distinguish themselves from the competition.  I think Nintendo really doesn't think they can compete (I disagree but they clearly think that) and the remote is the result.  It's such a BIG change and it seems so forced like they were trying so hard to be innovative.  I've noticed Nintendo isn't so great when they TRY too hard to be creative.  That's where the Cube controller's "innovations" and stuff like the water pack in Super Mario Sunshine comes from.

The competition is why we're getting a big change.  But without Sony we still would getting an innovative controller.  It just would be more of an addition to the existing design then a complete overhaul.

A lot of the controller has to do with Iwata being in charge as well.  Had Nintendo never slipped from the top perhaps Yamauchi would still be the boss.

I think Gunpei Yokoi leaving Nintendo (and sadly dying) had a huge effect on Nintendo as well.  With the NES and SNES Nintendo had two big developers that would have influence on the console's design.  Miyamoto is largely to blame for the cartridges as he didn't want load times in his games.  If Yokoi was still around his input probably would have been taken into account too and he might have wanted to go the CDs.  Having two big developers provided more balance.  Plus Yokoi's games were a whole lot less cutesy and happy as Miyamoto's.  The N64 would probably never have been given the "k!ddy" moniker if there was more variety to the lineup which Yokoi could have provided.

So the N64 could have turned out different and assuming Yokoi would still be alive if he was still with Nintendo at the very least the Rev controller would have had input from Iwata, Yokoi and Miyamoto and thus it might have ended up differently again.  The Rev controller could only come about with a small group of people calling the shots.  If too many people were involved there would be more pressure to plays things safe and be more traditional.

[couchmonkey]

Would Revolution exist if Nintendo had less competition?  I think the answer is yes, but it would exist two or three years further down the road, and it would probably be less radical.

Nintendo believes that graphics are reaching their apex, that's why when the GameCube came out, Nintendo made comments that it expected the Cube to last 7 years (or was it 10?)  Of course, as soon as MS and Sony started announcing plans for their consoles, Nintendo had to change it's mind, but it does suggest that Nintendo didn't think the technology would be ready for another big graphical leap in five years.  And they were right.  As far as I'm concerned, Xbox 360 is pretty, but nothing I'd pay $400 for.

So if Nintendo didn't have so much competition, I think it would be waiting a few more years to launch the Revolution, and the system might be less radical, although you have to remember that Japan is experiencing a gaming depression, and Nintendo thinks America is heading the same way.  A change may be necessary no matter how much competition there is.

[Kairon]

While certainly Nintendo getting nowhere with the Cube marketwise was a factor in their big push for revolutionizing, I don't think it's as big a factor as you make it Ian. Let's not forget that Nintendo was doing just superbly with the SNES, yet they still introduced the analog stick which was, in its own right, a revolution at the time. They also introduced force feedback, during that era which followed the Super Nes' success. So right there we have examples of innovations that Nintendo's thrown in DESPITE coming off of a winning console. Oh, and if you want to count failed innovations, we can lump in Gunpei Yokoi's Virtual Boy too to make it 3 huge innovations not really spurred on by "losing a gen."

But of course, Nintendo here is spurred by the realization that they're stuck, but not only competitively. Nintendo has also been stuck creatively as well. Mario Sunshine, Mario KartD, WindWaker, all imparted some sort of ... "this isn't exactly IT" from Nintendo fans. And I'm willing to bet that Miyamoto knew it. Mario Kart: DD's long dev time is probably an example of a very long nintendo-esque experimentation period that vielded almost no fruits. I mean, even as far back as early Cube Miyamoto was starting to talk about wanting the "joystick and ONE BUTTON" game paradigm that he's come close to realizing with the rev controller. It's amazing to think that EVEN THEN he was toying with the ideals that would later be the revolution.

So we can see that while getting stuck marketwise this generation is certainly a factor, we shouldn't be in doubt of Nintendo's drive to innovate. They innovated amazingly with the N64 coming out of the highly successful SNES, and they've given plenty of hints during the Cube era that show that they were innovating even then regardless of how their console was doing merely because they were feeling constricted creatively and were already thinking ahead to what new boundaries they could open up.

Yes, Competition is good. But it isn't what drives Miyamoto. And in the end, Miyamoto is what drives Nintendo, for better or for worse.

~Carmine M. Red
~Spending Thanksgiving in Mexico!

[mantidor]

I, again, think the opposite, if Nintendo was the market leader, they'll go all the way with their crazy ideas, and the rev probably wouldnt even have a shell. Being beaten down from number one was a good thing in the sense that Nintendo has become more humble and wont make another Virtual Boy again.

And even if you are the market leader, when someone like ms enters the battle, you have to prepare, Im sure that if it wasnt for ms, sony wouldve also waited another year to release the ps3.

oh god and mischief makers revolution would be so awesome!

[Ian Sane]

"Nintendo believes that graphics are reaching their apex, that's why when the GameCube came out, Nintendo made comments that it expected the Cube to last 7 years"

I question if Nintendo really thinks that or if it's just damage control.  Remember they lowballed the revealed Cube specs and everyone thought they were inferior as a result.  So to cover it up they're all "well graphics don't matter, they're peaking anyway."  Plus they don't want to overspend like MS so the Rev hardware isn't going to match powerwise.  So again "graphics have hit their apex" sounds better then the real reason.

"Let's not forget that Nintendo was doing just superbly with the SNES, yet they still introduced the analog stick which was, in its own right, a revolution at the time."

The N64 controller didn't replace what was already there though.  The entire SNES controller except the select button was present in the N64 controller.  It still had a d-pad and L&R triggers and at least four face buttons arranged in a similar fashion.  It was more of an evolution.  It took what was there and added something incredibly significant and innovative to it.  The Rev controller is trying to replace what's already there.  That is significantly different then what the N64 controller was doing.  Adding stuff is usually fine but removing stuff is largely frowned upon.  If the analog stick bombed Nintendo could go back to using the old controller design on the N64 with no problem.  They can't do that with the Rev.  If the remote bombs unless they include the shell with every controller they're screwed.  They can't go back to the old way because they've removed too much.  That's a big risk and I doubt that would do something like that if they were more certain of their future.  Nintendo's goal is to get back on top by completely changing the whole console market.  They would never go that far if they were still number one or even a competitive number two.

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Nintendo believes that graphics are reaching their apex, that's why when the GameCube came out, Nintendo made comments that it expected the Cube to last 7 years"

I question if Nintendo really thinks that or if it's just damage control.  Remember they lowballed the revealed Cube specs and everyone thought they were inferior as a result.  So to cover it up they're all "well graphics don't matter, they're peaking anyway."  Plus they don't want to overspend like MS so the Rev hardware isn't going to match powerwise.  So again "graphics have hit their apex" sounds better then the real reason.

Can you argue that graphics are peaking, Ian?  Nintendo is a company, and like all companys, things they say should be taken with a grain of salt.  But can you say that the increased amount of money Microsoft spent on the xbox resulted in much improved graphics over the 'inferior' gamecube?  Even the nextgen xbox360 is not that much improved.  Graphics are peaking, period.  I'm not saying Nintendo should have ass it, but there is a point of lowered returns on an investment.  What is the sense in putting a 300 dollar chip that improves graphics but that consumers are only willing to pay 50 dollars for?

[Ian Sane]

"Can you argue that graphics are peaking, Ian?"

They kind of are but graphics aren't the only reason to improve hardware.  AI, physics, framerate, the amount of character you can have on screen, etc all benefit from improved hardware.  You know the epic battles in the Lord of the Rings movies where thousands of individual characters are all doing their own thing?  That was controlled by some AI programming stuff.  Until I can play a game that features battles like that with thousands (hell I'd settle for hundreds) of AI controlled characters battling like that with me in the middle of it ther is still a need release newer consoles.  In Nintendo's case their refusal to embrace online gaming on the Cube alone necessitated that they make at least another console.

[Epitaph]

Ive been dooing some reasearch and it apears that theres alot of interesting 3d technology out on the market. Head mounted displays or virtual reality head sets are really dropping in price and you can see some for as cheap as 800$. These are not mass marketed products and if you think about if if they were the price could be significantly dropped.

Also interesting is that the company that helped make the virtual boy had a head mounted display that projected a image in mid air or it apeared to float in mid air. Im not compleatly understanding the details of it. It was created by reflection technology that from what I can deduce no longer exists but its product private eye is very well reseached on the internet.

On top of these there are numerous new advancement in led's, crt's, lcd's that this technology uses. The more I think of it the more realistic the idea of some big announcement seems true.

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Can you argue that graphics are peaking, Ian?"

They kind of are but graphics aren't the only reason to improve hardware.  AI, physics, framerate, the amount of character you can have on screen, etc all benefit from improved hardware.  You know the epic battles in the Lord of the Rings movies where thousands of individual characters are all doing their own thing?  That was controlled by some AI programming stuff.  Until I can play a game that features battles like that with thousands (hell I'd settle for hundreds) of AI controlled characters battling like that with me in the middle of it ther is still a need release newer consoles.  In Nintendo's case their refusal to embrace online gaming on the Cube alone necessitated that they make at least another console.

You must remember that in the beginning Nintendo was supposed to go online, so I don't think it would have been that ridiculous for the Cube to stick around for another 2 or 3 years.  But yes, definitely, Nintendo needs at least one other console, now.
AI, physics and framerate, characters on screen do benefit from improved hardware, yes - but Ian could anyone ever sell you on those things by themselves?  Could you see yourself buying a brand new console because 30 more people could appear on the screen without slow down or because wind unsettles even eyebrow hair?  I think the answer is no...  These things really don't affect gameplay at all or significantly.  I mean it would be cool to say, yeah all those people in the background are really 'there' actually fighting, but i mean how does that affect your main character?  What good does it matter that 2 miles in the background, AI is actually controlling a fight or that the fight is scripted?  This is past the point of diminishing returns - that level of detail adds nothing, in fact it is detrimental because companies will be distracted by the detail and neglect game play.

EDIT: spelling

[Ian Sane]

"These things really don't effect gameplay at all or significantly."

The hell they don't.  How could you play Pikmin on the N64?  You couldn't.  It would never be able to handle 100 characters on screen at once like that.  What about Half-life 2?  Does not the physics in that game play a big part in how it plays?  Graphics don't affect gameplay.  These are the very things that DO.

"Ian could anyone ever sell you on those things by themselves?"

Depends on the game.  And I think that applies to the general public as well.  If you showed a game like the battles in Lord of the Rings where the screen is just cluttered with guys fighting then you could sell it.  I'm not talking about guys 2 miles in the background.  I mean like guys in your face every way you look.  You and 1000 allies fighting 1000 enemies.

Or change it up and imagine a car chase game where you chase someone though a city with a realistic amount of cars.

[odifiend]

In general, hardware might limit you - but today's hardware for the most part does not.  My point which perhaps I wasn't clear about is, we are at a point right now, technologically we could go higher but is the cost to both the consumer and company worth it?  It is easy to be cynical about it but really think.  Pikimin was my mental reference for on screen characters.  So would you pay 300-400 dollars to have 30 more on-screen characters?  Double the O-SC?  No doubt the effect to the games were huge when the AI, physics, etc... were first implemented years ago, but now we are just talking about slight upgrades.  What is the difference between controlling 100 pikimin and 200 pikimin?  There would barely be any.  Even with a keyboard, the precision you could control the pikimin with would be fun-kill confusing at its most precise.
1000 allies and enemies?  I'm sorry but WTF?  Unless your TV is a 200 in or you have an aerial shot, these enemies could not even be portrayed on screen.  And then what is the sense?
"Or change it up and imagine a car chase game where you chase someone though a city with a realistic amount of cars."
That wouldn't be any fun if there was any realism in the game... or it is the dead of night - which video game consoles now can already handle.

[couchmonkey]

I think that even the level of gameplay innovations being allowed by more powerful systems is decreasing.  Ian's points:

Higher framerates: Framerates will never be perfect as long as developers put more emphasis on graphical flair than smooth gameplay.   Perfect Dark 0 still runs at only 30 FPS and most GameCube games could run at 60 FPS if they just downgraded the graphics.  See Mario Kart: DD!!

More characters on-screen: There is one good application for this, and that's online gaming.  I think PD0 allows 32-player battles as opposed to Halo's 16.  Pretty good.
For one-player games, I'd say look at Pikmin, Burnout 2, and Star Wars: Rogue Leader.   None of these games would benefit very much from having even more action on screen, I was already accidentally running into stuff all the time in those three games.  Adding more action to the screen at this point is more of a graphical treat than an actual gameplay improvement.

Better physics:  Maybe it's just me, but I don't have a problem with the physics in current videogames.  I hear that Half-Life 2's physics are really impressive, but hitting stuff with other stuff can only get so realistic before it stops improving the game.

Better AI: This is one thing that I think really stands to improve in current videogames, especially in complex RTS games.  The Pikmin could stand to be a bit smarter, for example.