Topic: Saturo Iwata: revolution graphics as good as competitors

[Caterkiller]

If you'd like to ride something in a platforming Mario game i'd say there should be Yoshi's to replace vehicles. Each with a different ability like in Super Mario World.  But there should be plenty of variety with the 10+ colors to help you get to secret areas or make certain parts easier and so on and so forth.

[KDR_11k]

Too much variety just overcomplicates the game. Look at SMB3's "variety" of powerups, suits and assorted stuff.

[Caterkiller]

That was too much for you? I loved all the different things you could become with the suits and powerups. The different suits and abilities weren't required to beat the game, so there was no problem with over complication, well for me at least.

[KDR_11k]

I found them to be pointless. Because the suits were so hard to get I would never use them.

[Ian Sane]

"I don't think the Revolution's (graphics) will be inferior in any fashion to Xbox 360 or PS3. Even if you look at Zelda on GameCube - I don't think that looks inferior to what the competition is touting as 'next generation' visuals."

Oh yeah.  THIS sounds super.  Zelda probably does look comparable to first gen Xbox 360 games but "first gen" is totally different from anything released later.  He's comparing Xbox 360 launch games to the absolute best looking Gamecube game.  That's very shortsighted.  At the time I thought Conker's Bad Fur Day looked on par with a PS2 game but PS2 games released mere months later killed it visually.  So yeah Twilight Princess looks comparable now but it won't next year and even less and less as the years go by.  That's just how it is.  Plus Nintendo has to realize that graphics aren't the only issue.  Better hardware also means smoother framerates and more characters on screen.  Imagine 500 Pikmin on screen at once.  That can't be done without a boost in hardware and it's not just visually related.

Of course there are no plans for Pikmin right now so I guess that point's moot.  But we get a new Luigi game.  Wahoo.

[pudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"I don't think the Revolution's (graphics) will be inferior in any fashion to Xbox 360 or PS3. Even if you look at Zelda on GameCube - I don't think that looks inferior to what the competition is touting as 'next generation' visuals."

Oh yeah.  THIS sounds super.  Zelda probably does look comparable to first gen Xbox 360 games but "first gen" is totally different from anything released later.  He's comparing Xbox 360 launch games to the absolute best looking Gamecube game.  That's very shortsighted.  At the time I thought Conker's Bad Fur Day looked on par with a PS2 game but PS2 games released mere months later killed it visually.  So yeah Twilight Princess looks comparable now but it won't next year and even less and less as the years go by.  That's just how it is.  Plus Nintendo has to realize that graphics aren't the only issue.  Better hardware also means smoother framerates and more characters on screen.  Imagine 500 Pikmin on screen at once.  That can't be done without a boost in hardware and it's not just visually related.

Of course there are no plans for Pikmin right now so I guess that point's moot.  But we get a new Luigi game.  Wahoo.

I have to agree.  Nintendo's big on saying how they want to innovate and be unique/creative with the Revolution but the thing is, like Ian said, more power under the hood allows for more creative freedom and flexibility.  For one, having more powerful CPU's can allow more advanced physics (which I believe can open the door for incredible gameplay opportunities focused around it).  Also one could look at the amount you can have on screen as a determaning factor in how much interactivity can occur.

[KDR_11k]

Ian: Do you think Iwata knows how the later gens of Rev software look? He can only compare first-gen Rev to first gen X360.

Besides, there's no way TP looks comparable to e.g. Unreal Tournament 2007 or Gears of War.

pudu: What should more advanced physics simulate? Accurate destruction of vehicles and characters? Unlikely because the gameplay effect is too severe, it would be uncontrollable how many hits a target could take (even roughly) and most vehicles would become unusable with even the slightest damage, never mind that you'd have to alter the animations for characters with missing parts. Destroying buildings? Well, the current gen can handle that (Black? Red Faction?) so I don't think the Rev will break a sweat there. Liquid dynamics are still too far away (not even movies use them if it can be avoided, they eat so much power) so you still won't see flowing water simulated. Some objects like characters cannot be subjected to a full physics simulation or you'd have to do what robots can't after decades of research: Implement a proper bipedal motion system that will account for terrain shapes and imbalances. Since the player wants the character to follow the movements of his analog stick exactly too much simulation would only hurt the controls. You can't control the characters body completely so the program has to fill in the gaps. And we're nowhere close to doing that.

The only thing I see as useful is large crowds, imagine a game in the Bladerunner universe (or some derivative thereof, there are so many) where you'd have to pick the replicants out of a crowd, with a scanner that would tell you where they are but also attract the attention of any replicant within radius and you'd have to look for suspicious behaviour if you don't want to give away your identity. The GC did Pikmin, the Rev should be able to do crowds.

[kirby_killer_dedede]

Zelda's graphics underwhelm me.  As much as the game will be fun to play, RE4 is lightyears ahead (in graphics), Ian.

And just a side note, RE4 looks only a bit under par with the first actual gameplay video of the PS3, Gundam.

Edit: Typo.

[couchmonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
"I don't think the Revolution's (graphics) will be inferior in any fashion to Xbox 360 or PS3. Even if you look at Zelda on GameCube - I don't think that looks inferior to what the competition is touting as "next generation" visuals."

"even" is the keyword, remove the last sentence if you are that worried.

But why is Nintendo always qualifying its statements about graphics?  Saying, "remove the last sentence if you are that worried", is the same as saying, "take the quote out of context".  If the system is as powerful as the others, Nintendo needs to say, "Revolution will be just as powerful as the PS3 or the Xbox 360."  Instead it keeps saying something like, "We think the graphics will look good, graphics aren't that important anyway."  It's not reassuring.

I admit, I agree that the power increase we're seeing next-gen is not that important.  Pretty graphics are nice, and I'll be a little sad if Nintendo isn't up to par with the others, but I don't believe there will be a big impact on gameplay.  Using the example of controlling 500 Pikmin: it lifts some slight limitations, but it wouldn't be anything like the completely new style of gameplay that the first Pikmin introduced.  To me, none of the demos shown so far have shown any really good applications of large scale character numbers, they're mostly eye-candy.

I guess what it comes down to is that I'm sick of wondering.  I don't really care if Revolution is less powerful than the other next-gen systems as long as it offers more power than the current systems, I just wish I knew one way or the other.

[Spak-Spang]

Nintendo doesn't look at technology as the sole proof of graphics, but the artistic creation created with the technology.

It is not shortsighted...it is idealistic.  Seriously, You can argue that there are several Super Nintendo games that are much prettier artistic creations than anything on the PS2 or Xbox now.

That being said, looking at Zelda the artistic visuals are quite on par with the first generation games for the Xbox 360 and PS3.  It won't be on par with second or third generation but guess what...the Revolution isn't a gamecube, its an new system that will be capable of much more than the Cube is capable now.  In other words saying a Cube game can't compare to future X360, and PS3 games is stupid because its not designed to.

The quote doesn't mean that we will be definately getting equal technology with the next generation, in fact I think it points the opposite way.  I think it says we won't have the most advanced, but we will be affordable and our graphics will look similar to what is offered by the competition.  You may not even be able to notice a difference.  And you know what...that is fine with me.

I still want affordable gaming.  That is more important to me then cutting edge.

I am just glad Nintendo is starting to get their guys out there and starting to get aggressive with the interviews.  I think Nintendo needs to continue this each month releasing more tidbits of information each time.  Next month I would love them to show a single screen from Smash Brothers Melee...and "accidentally leak" a new character.

[Spak-Spang]

KDR:  Your post about phsyics and the future generations reminded of some things.

Man can not re-create reality.  What I mean is whenever we try to create something that follows all the rules of our world it fails.  It either looks fake (animation is a good example of that) or it fails to accurately represent reality and our brain catches the mistakes.

The reason this happens is because reality has too many variables.  No physics chip, engine, program can take into account all the variables neccessary to create this world.  we can't even accurately and reliably manipulate physics and reality perfectly in this world.  Because, we can't take into account every variable that could happen.  

I believe in alot of ways the advancement of technology is pushing us backwards.  We used to understand this fact, and we created a balance that our brains accepted.  Animation worked because it didn't have to simulate reality.  

Now we are taking our games and are trying to make it a perfect micro-reality of our world and it will fail.

I hope all games next generation don't go this direction.  I don't think they will...but I do know several will.

[KDR_11k]

Where's the difference between "looking fake" and "being able to see that it's not real"?

The physics simulation our brain runs is much simpler than what we see in games but it can handle destruction easily. I think the only parts of physics that look wrong to us are 1. the lack of any destruction/deformation and 2. incorrect mass parameters. Perhaps 3. simplified joint limitations and lack of elastic force on dead bodies but you don't notice the bodies much anyway (at least in BF2 I never noticed an unbelievable death, as opposed to UT2003). You don't need to simulate quantum effects and bring the simulation on a level where you could perform experiments in a game and use the results in reality but it works good enough to fool the user into thinking that stuff is real.

I really don't see how this quote here means anything about the Rev being weaker, Iwata just isn't the kind of guy who'd claim the Rev is the geatest thing since sliced bread and will have absolutely realistic graphics and be ten times as powerful as the competition.

[Spak-Spang]

What I mean is that either

1)It is fake.  The Physics although good just don't represent the real world accurately and therefore our brains make note about it...BECAUSE the game/animation/art whatever is trying to fool it into believing its real.

2)The other is that the physics are really good and can fake us out into believing its accurate but something just doesn't feel right about the images or games.  It Appears Fake, yet you can't put your finger on it.  This mostly happens in animation and less in games.  

See I agree that our brain actually does less physics simulation...but its because our brain doesn't have to simulate physics...it is constantly interacting with physics every day.  Its like trying to counterfeit money.  The experts don't study the counterfeits, they study real money and they know it so well they can easily spot the fakes.  

Our brains know our reality so well that anything trying to fool us into believing it is our reality feels fake.

But, if you stop trying to imitate reality you can create something our brain accepts as plausible and "real" even though it is obviously not.  

[KDR_11k]

No, our brain knows so little it constantly mispredicts the outcome of real events. We know very little about the physics that happen in games, most of our "knowledge" comes from movies. What throws you off is of course the imagery itself, games just don't look like reality.

[GoldenPhoenix]

To start off, what is the point of these debates, it appears people are drooling over anticipation of attacking Nintendo before the specs are released on Revolution. I can understand the comparison between Zelda and the next generation systems, because Iwata is right especially now days, there is little difference graphically between new consoles. In fact since N64 I haven't seen anything that was a drastic step above it the following generation, not like the SNES and the N64 or SNES and PS2. Power under the hood is mattering less and less, especially if you want to focus solely on games (since PS3 and Xbox 360 will be "mult media" consoles they require more power, it is common sense).

Going back to Zelda TP, I have been more impressed with the graphics than RE4 since the game is more expansive than RE4 was, and thus requires to spread out the graphical joy a bit more thus leading to less detailed enviroments and enemies. They are two different games that require two different graphical schemes due to their game design! That is like saying a fighter for GC is better looking than any other game, well of course, they do not require expansive enviroments and can focus on a smaller one giving a noticeable graphical flare.

[nemo_83]

In response to the Mario Kart thing.  I look at it like this.  Before Mario Kart there were four Mario Bros games, after there has been an installment of Kart on every Nintendo platform while Mario and Luigi got split up in the console games, along with Donkey Kong, now Peach, and Wario.

What I am suggesting is a large 3d world from which you access semi nonlinear courses for racing on foot, in vehicles, and on animals.  The karts for example would usually be optional and mostly used when just roaming around the Kingdom which would be vast so you wouldn't want to run everywhere.  You would want an air ship, an animal, or a kart.

I have a few key kart designs I would like to see too.  There should be single rider as well as dual rider karts.  There should be karts similar to the lawnmower racers.  There should also be karts like bar stool racers.  And lots of **** jokes because they're plumbers.





next gen graphics, here, must read article, click me or suffer my white fire

[KnowsNothing]

nemo, I don't want to sound harsh, but I will; all of your ideas are terrible

That's a nice article, but it only concerns the PS3 and 360.  One of the only things that we know about the Rev is that it will use similar architecture to the Gamecube (I don't know the technical terms, and I won't pretend that I do).  Nintendo is stressing the fact that the Rev will be easy to develop for, and I think this will have a really big impact on third parties.  With the GC companies don't feel it's worth it to bring games to the system, but with the Rev the ease of development probably will.  In fact, if all goes according to plan, the Rev will probably see just as many third party titles towards launch compared to the competition, and even more later on.  If the Rev makes a splash, a dev may put a game out for the Rev and then feel it's not wrorth the hassle to bring it to the 360 or the PS3.  I'd like to see the system's roles flip-flop like that.  

[nemo_83]

try constructive criticism next time.


And the Cube's ease of development didn't help Nintendo any.  Here is a quote from an experienced programmer.

"Given two programmers of equal talent writing code for Xbox and GameCube to do the same task, I think that the GameCube programmer will produce faster, more efficient code in the majority of cases, but not in all cases."

[OptimusPrime]

Yowzers...good article and it scares the cr ap out of me. Puts all the other doomscenario-articles in a more believable perspective.
GameCube's ease maybe didn't help this gen because the difference wasn't big enough, now that difference is going op with roughly 100-150% (presuming the rev is as easy to work for as the GC, Nintendo never lies you know) in difficulty and lot more in manpower and financial costs. next gen it could make a big difference with smaller teams (anyone noticed that a lot of DS-games under the publishment of Nintendo are being made by small teams nobody ever heard about...let's try moving that over to the Rev) and smaller publishers.
You could get a similar effect as on the DS where the smaller devs and publishers tried their luck on it and are now turning heads and getting attention.