Author Topic: Something important to know about the Revolution (Read 120777 times)

stevey · « **Reply #350 on:** August 28, 2005, 07:03:29 AM »

"Look at the guts of the machine. Pretty powerful, huh? Legit specs for Revolution have not yet been made public, but we do know the console will be powerful enough to play high-definition games.."

duh.. Who said it wasn't? nintendo dosen't want to wasted money on make game in hd when there less than 1% of people gaming on hd. the ps3 is the one that can't do hd nintendo soo cool that teh revolution dosen't need to but can

KnowsNothing · « **Reply #351 on:** August 28, 2005, 07:08:36 AM »

loooooooooooooooooooooooool

KDR_11k · « **Reply #352 on:** August 28, 2005, 07:30:07 AM »

the ps3 is the one that can't do hd

Do you get a kick out of making false statements like that?

MysticGohan24 · « **Reply #353 on:** August 28, 2005, 11:20:29 AM »

Everytime I read stevie's post a part of my brain dies

Other than that, I'm glad we'll see Rev support 480p, that's good enough for me. But what makes a TV "HD" Truely? The one I have does both 480p and 1080i and is HD Philips 46"

Perhaps Nintendo will support both 480p 720p perhaps and 1080i, although I'm not sure what technically is better in my case, 1080i or 480p?

I understand it has to do with how many lines can be display at a time and refresh rate...? I think I'm close anyway.

But I'm curious about this "Visor" that may or may not come with Rev, what Enhancments will a Steroscopic 3D visor offer?

Intresting... indeed!

BigJim · « **Reply #354 on:** August 28, 2005, 05:49:07 PM »

720p, 1080i and 1080p are considered HD.

But Nintendo denies HD video support, even though the graphics chip and component output could do it if they wanted it to. Why they chose not to support it seems ridiculous.

There's no question to me that 1080i looks better than 480p.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #355 on:** August 28, 2005, 06:27:24 PM »

1) Ninty wants to make sure every gamer is able to get the maximum look out of their console
2) HD is just a waste of resources...OH BOY, I can get rid of a working framerate to put the game in HD, YESSSSSS!

MysticGohan24 · « **Reply #356 on:** August 28, 2005, 07:58:26 PM »

heh, Bill I'd buy that for a $1

yeah, who want's to see a game that dips at 8fps? heh painful..isn't it?

MysticGohan24 · « **Reply #357 on:** August 28, 2005, 08:04:54 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
720p, 1080i and 1080p are considered HD. But Nintendo denies HD video support, even though the graphics chip and component output could do it if they wanted it to. Why they chose not to support it seems ridiculous.

There's no question to me that 1080i looks better than 480p.

heh thanks for clearing that up, but I've wondered what the hell is up with Philips B15 cable? it looks like a VGA jack on a tower. but I don't see that accessory at local stores. It supposed to be an HD Cable, I guess it was Philips version of a DVI port. Oddly, I don't know what devices use that cable. Atleast there's the RGB/ PyBr inputs

BigJim · « **Reply #358 on:** August 28, 2005, 08:16:41 PM »

They're already dipping outside of SD spec so why forbid the OPTION of HD? The only excuse I can think of is that they don't want their *own* art costs to blow up. So to hell with anybody else already developing HD games. It just screws with 3rd parties all the more. Like they needed another excuse to dismiss Nintendo.

Any modern graphics card shows that HD resolutions don't have to be the framerate/fillrate horror that some people are making it out to be. Especially if the power will be anything in the neighborhood of ATI's R520.

SgtShiversBen · « **Reply #359 on:** August 28, 2005, 08:39:59 PM »

The one thing that Matt got wrong though was the backwards compatibility thing. I remember in a mailbag before GDC he stated that Nintendo would never do anything like that....couple of days later he was proven wrong.

I must admit though, that gray splooge does look like what is meant to be a stand.

Truthliesn1seyes · « **Reply #360 on:** September 02, 2005, 08:30:26 PM »

I ran into an interesting thread over at the Gamespot forums and thought it deserved a mention over here.

LINK

What does everyone think of his theory? Is it just coincidence or could there be something more?

The Omen · « **Reply #361 on:** September 02, 2005, 09:03:46 PM »

Quote
1) Ninty wants to make sure every gamer is able to get the maximum look out of their console
2) HD is just a waste of resources...OH BOY, I can get rid of a working framerate to put the game in HD, YESSSSSS!

-------------------------

#1-you can run HD games on standard televisions , so you would have it both ways. Non-hd gamers would never know what their missing, so what's the difference?

#2-Have you seen a finished game run in HD this gen.? It is supposedly very achievable to have it in hd and run smooth as silk. The consoles are powerful enough to do it.

Quote

I ran into an interesting thread over at the Gamespot forums and thought it deserved a mention over here.

LINK

What does everyone think of his theory? Is it just coincidence or could there be something more?

I really like the idea, and all the evidence matches up. But I have to wonder about cost. However, one thing Nintendo is great at is finding affordable methods of improving consoles, and maybe they've found a way to mass produce these on the cheap.(relatively speaking)

I'll say right now, if this is the Revolution, they have won next generation. It will be like Minority Report for damn sake! The fanboy in me hopes it's true.

BigJim · « **Reply #362 on:** September 02, 2005, 09:57:28 PM »

Yippie, more creative theories.

I think the creator of that thread was cherry picking comments to find comparisons. I don't believe hologram projection is close to affordable yet, much less interactive ones. Consider the limited scope of gameplay it would provide. It's little more than a novelty that would get old very quickly.

It also doesn't make using Gamecube dev kits very relevant considering the new visual format. Notice how the holograms only display objects. What about backgrounds? What about playing in a lit room? A holographic unit would be even more restrictive than a console (re: Reggie's comments about not being tied to a TV anymore)

Truthliesn1seyes · « **Reply #363 on:** September 02, 2005, 10:27:35 PM »

I'm just bored so bare with me here lol. What if the background was displayed on a tv and all objects on the holo display? The background would then be.... in the background lol, and the holo display will show all abjects so it would give it more depth in a way. I have no knowledge of the tech so this could be labeled as creative thinkin lol.

The Omen · « **Reply #364 on:** September 02, 2005, 10:48:02 PM »

Quote
It also doesn't make using Gamecube dev kits very relevant considering the new visual format. Notice how the holograms only display objects. What about backgrounds? What about playing in a lit room?

How the hell do I know? If you read the comments, they almost sound exactly the same, between Nintendo and whatever the companies name is. I'm not saying it's a definite, but it's obvious by the statements Nintendo has made there is something very different than we're used to .

BigJim · « **Reply #365 on:** September 02, 2005, 11:43:18 PM »

Quote
What if the background was displayed on a tv

The hologram could get wiped out due to the brightness of the TV over shining it. If 3D were the goal, a visor would be cheaper to create the same effect (a 3D object interacting with a background).

Quote
How the hell do I know?

I wasn't directing the questions at you pointedly, I was just asking the new questions this would create.

The only similarities I see in the comments are "new" and "paradigm." I just don't see the connection. To me it's a very reaching theory.

IceCold · « **Reply #366 on:** September 03, 2005, 06:43:20 PM »

Oh right, it was in Minority Report that he had the images in front of him and he moved them around etc by touching them, wasn't it?

Just another day of rumours about the controller. Although I admit, we haven't had one for a long time. We'll see it when we see it, and no sooner.

Truthliesn1seyes · « **Reply #367 on:** September 04, 2005, 04:37:59 PM »

Ran into 2 blogs that I've followed since they were first introduced, they just got recent updates and I thought would be worth sharing. They aren't far out their with thier claims but as usual, nothing should be taken as truth. Here's the links

supposed tech analyst

Game developer working on next gen games

Also, ran into this strange yet interesting site over at the Gamestop forums. I have to give it a proper read through later on becuase as I skimmed through it right now, it was just a bit confusing. Anyway here's that link

Nintendobox

mantidor · « **Reply #368 on:** September 04, 2005, 05:56:32 PM »

Theres just TOO MUCH FAKES! >_< we probably have alrady seen the real Rev and we missed it among all this crazyness.

EDIT: Ive been wondering, do any of this blogs are negative towards the Rev? all say its going to be awesome, but theres not a single one who says that the Rev is fine but not as revolutionary as Nintendo has been claiming, or is it?

nickmitch · « **Reply #369 on:** September 05, 2005, 05:28:52 AM »

Well, what is there to hate against? With the lack of info there can't be too many "I noe teh truth! Teh rev is teh weeker tjan teh ps3!!!111" threads.

And that 3rd link was bonkers.

pudu · « **Reply #370 on:** September 05, 2005, 12:35:41 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Theres just TOO MUCH FAKES! >_< we probably have alrady seen the real Rev and we missed it among all this crazyness.

EDIT: Ive been wondering, do any of this blogs are negative towards the Rev? all say its going to be awesome, but theres not a single one who says that the Rev is fine but not as revolutionary as Nintendo has been claiming, or is it?

If you want to see one just ask Matt from IGN to start it. He's probably the most negative/pesimistic person I know in regards to the Rev. I know he's a Ninty fan and fans can be the biggest critics of all but sheesh.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #371 on:** September 05, 2005, 12:51:09 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
EDIT: Ive been wondering, do any of this blogs are negative towards the Rev? all say its going to be awesome, but theres not a single one who says that the Rev is fine but not as revolutionary as Nintendo has been claiming, or is it?

Those would definitely be fakes...

Artimus · « **Reply #372 on:** September 05, 2005, 01:06:24 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: pudu
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Theres just TOO MUCH FAKES! >_< we probably have alrady seen the real Rev and we missed it among all this crazyness.

EDIT: Ive been wondering, do any of this blogs are negative towards the Rev? all say its going to be awesome, but theres not a single one who says that the Rev is fine but not as revolutionary as Nintendo has been claiming, or is it?

If you want to see one just ask Matt from IGN to start it. He's probably the most negative/pesimistic person I know in regards to the Rev. I know he's a Ninty fan and fans can be the biggest critics of all but sheesh.

You must not have met Ian yet.

mantidor · « **Reply #373 on:** September 05, 2005, 06:33:03 PM »

I prefer Ian over Matt a million times

ThePerm · « **Reply #374 on:** September 05, 2005, 07:08:44 PM »

matts just mad because he cant play it on hd on the company's tv

News:

Author Topic: Something important to know about the Revolution (Read 120777 times)