Topic: 2-3 Times as powerful as GC true, sez IGN

[nemo_83]

I don't see a relation between next gen graphics and HD resolution; next gen graphics to me are smoother models, lighting effects, translucencies, partical effects, and individual leaves on trees.  Nintendo can do a single core 3.5 ghz CPU, it would cost a third of what the 360 does to make, it would still be simple and compact, and it would be more efficient without the woes of HD hacking framerates.  

I believe Zelda and Metroid of all games in the industry deserve the use of a harddrive the most for open environments.  

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
I don't see a relation between next gen graphics and HD resolution; next gen graphics to me are smoother models, lighting effects, translucencies, partical effects, and individual leaves on trees.  Nintendo can do a single core 3.5 ghz CPU, it would cost a third of what the 360 does to make, it would still be simple and compact, and it would be more efficient without the woes of HD hacking framerates.  

I believe Zelda and Metroid of all games in the industry deserve the use of a harddrive the most for open environments.

Well, actually...

This illustrates how little we actually KNOW... hmmm. All this information from IGN's sources aren't given in terms that describe actual performance. The X360 for all intents and purposes is just a souped up XBox on a standard TV after all. I mean, we suspect that the CPU is finished, but we don't really know anything about it's capabilities, and we know even less about the GPU.

I think a lot of us are actually working off the assumption that when Iwata says that on a standard TV the Rev will look just like the X360 and PS3, he's telling us the truth. And that would include transparencies, partical effects and what-not. As far as we know, the only thing the Rev can't do is output in HD, and play games at 120 FPS.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[wandering]

Well, I'm farily annoyed at ign. We still don't really know how powerful the rev will be....and they've essentially decided to set the tone of the debate by giving the world the impression that the rev will officially be disapointing power-wise, even though they're creating that impression with incomplete, and non-final, information.

Regardless, let's assume that their information is correct, and the rev will only be 2-3x more powerful than the cube. While that would be a risky move (their bet that gamers don't care about high end graphics and HD support may turn out to be false)....as a gamer, I'm not sure I can say I care that much.

I was watching an xbox 360 commercial the other day - and it focused on the sweat that was glistening and coming off a basketball player's body. The trouble is - the graphics just weren't anywhere close to being photo-realistic. So, while I could intellectually appreciate the detail, I couldn't really bring myself to be all that excited about it. Graphics have reached a plateau....and these days I care much more about function than I do about form. For example, let's look at the metroid prime 3 demo that was released. Both the detail and the art were kind of underwhelming - though I have no doubt that the game will look much, much better in those regards when it's released. The thing that impressed me about it was that the scenery seemed to stretch out into infinity everywhere. And that's what excites me about the next gen - the possibility of epic landscapes that put games like metroid prime and wind waker to shame. The possibility of realistic physics, of huge amounts of enemies, of fully destructable environments. And, yeah, if the rev can't handle that, THEN I'll be dissapointed about it's capabilities.

The other thing that excites me about the rev specifically is that I think it may usher in games where graphics truly don't matter. That's the thing I love about the DS - while games on both the gba and the psp all pretty much look the same, on the DS all kinds of truly unique and artisitc visual styles have manifested themselves. It seems that the combination of the DS's lower power point, and it's marriage of 2D and 3D visuals, left devs with a system where they feel free to use the sort of graphics that best benifted their games....instead of graphics that meet an expected standard of technical capability and visual style. And I hope that that's what we'll get with Revoltution. I hope that, while the competition employs boring near-photo-realism (while simultaniously burning away billions of dollars), games on the Rev will employ comic book stylings, SquiggleVision, and all kinds of other crazy and interesting visual styles.

[Rhoq]

Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83


Can you imagine the revolution not being around in three years?  Graphics do matter to an extent; a rehashed Gamecube will not sit well with anyone.  Nintendo has their security, the controller; now they can afford to step up and compete power wise with the competition who is using most of their power on resolution rather than actual AI, physics, or polys.

If the console truly is so lacking in ram (AND still has no harddrive forcing you, requiring you whether you have a wifi enabled modem or not, to buy Nintendo's overpriced wifi peripheral to be able to conect your console to your PC to eat up its harddrive to save your downloads; thankyou Nintendo, I almost lost faith in your ability to one up the connectivity blunder from the GameCube) it equals Nintendo having their controller stolen from them and mass marketed by MS and Sony in five years on the big stage.

*Warning - the following is a "Bobby's Dead", season-long dream sequence*

Could it be that the Revolution might not be Nintendo's true next gen-console, but a "fourth pillar"?

Just like how Nintendo keeps insisting that the DS is the "third pillar" and a next-gen successor to the GBA is on the horizon What if the Revolution is to the GameCube what the DS is to the GBA?

The DS and Revolution, respectively, might just be a massive experiment that Nintendo is trying out to see what new ideas work on their hardware and push gaming technology into another direction. I have a feeling that the Revolution is no more that an transitional console and that Nintendo's real Next-Gen gaming machine might come along, 3 years down the road (which by-the-way is the same estimate that had been given for the next GameBoy, if the DS proved to be successful).

Sony has already stated that they are hoping that the PS3's life cycle could be a full decade before introducing the PS4. While Microsoft hasn't really commented on what's after the 360, I think it will be on the market no more than 5 years before the XBox3 comes out.

If Nintendo can introduce a console more powerful than the PS3 in the Fall of 2009, it would gve them the advantage over both the PS3 and the 360. This console would also incorporate the features which proved to work on the DS & Revolution as well as traditional control methods truly making it a "complete gaming experience".

I know this might be a little far-fetched but - one can dream, can't he?

[kirby_killer_dedede]

Yeah, I read this...disappointing (though I am happy they finally decided Rev deserved its own channel)...

And the thing it said about Hollywood, I'm not sure if I understood that, but aren't they saying that Hollywood has yet to be revealed?  How can they judge graphics without knowing anything about the GPU?

I know I'm buying a Rev no matter what...but dear God does Nintendo like digging themselves in holes.  Last gen (GameCube) supposedly weaker graphics were one of the reasons that did them in, now that it really does have weaker graphics...

[majortom1981]

First off. the developers dont have the finished gpu and dont even know what the finished gpu can do .


Second off the article even states that they are absically using gamecubes with more memory and rev controller functionality.

they even said its a glorified xbox. How do you know that . Power pc chips are the equivalent to amd chips they run things faster at a slower clock rate then intels p3 series as what is in the xbox.

How can you possibly say how fast the rev will be when you dont have the gpu and the finished cpu in your hands?

also they dont even mention the developers company.

it could be there dogs cousins brother who gave them thast info . they could have even made it up to have content for there rev section.

there was no facts in that article.

[Strell]

Hehe, the Xbox 360 is a souped up Xbox.    

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Well, I'm farily annoyed at ign. We still don't really know how powerful the rev will be....and they've essentially decided to set the tone of the debate by giving the world the impression that the rev will officially be disapointing power-wise, even though they're creating that impression with incomplete, and non-final, information.

This isn't a problem if you actually read the article...

I personally don't see how this report and the information it contains are a problem.  We still have no numbers with the exception of a ballpark for RAM.  Even if worse scenario, Nintendo were to repackage a Gamecube with the functionality of the controller, the new modes of play have the potential to be worth the price of admission.  The Gamecube is pretty capable - I've never been playing a game where a developer fully took advantage of its capabilities and been underwhelmed or disappointed.  The Revolution will be more capable than the GCN.  What is the problem?
P.S. I would be interested to know what developer made the comment about the souped up Xbox, since the logical inclination would be compare it to the Gamecube.  Xbox is able to do HD as well, so again it'll be fine.

[mantidor]

Its so nice how ign does it again! its crappy journalism is already putting the Rev under bad light, but the best part is that its based on a rumor when things like the final GPU arent even in dev's hands. What I hate the most is that Matt does mention those facts, but doesnt give them the importance they have "oh yeah the final specs arent even finalized, but the Rev is underpowered!! they told me!"

[Artimus]

This isn't crappy journalism and if this makes you see Rev in a bad light then that's Nintendo's fault. Get over whatever problem you have with IGN.

[ShyGuy]

Well, the #1 rule of journalism is accuracy, I guess we will see if Matt's words still hold up in the coming months.

[pudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
This isn't crappy journalism and if this makes you see Rev in a bad light then that's Nintendo's fault. Get over whatever problem you have with IGN.

First I'd like to say that I do read IGN regularly and have respect for Matt but as far as his coverage of the revolution  thus far I'm not very impressed. I also am pretty PO'd on his previous PSP-loving talk in the DS mailbags, among other such things.  But anyway, back on subject.   How many times has Matt pounded into everyone's head the graphics aren't going to be too hot?  Seems like every chance he gets he does but there is no real good facts to back it up.  Then he decides to open the rev channel and guess what?  He finds another way to bring us some "news" on revolution and to everyone's surprise it focuses on the revs lack of power.  I think this is just getting a little old and he needs to get over it...at least until he gets some actual specs and screens from actual games.  We really have no clue about these devs, who they are, how what they are working on will compare to the final dev kits, etc etc  Also, we don't know what Matt used and didn't use in that article as far as what they said.  I guess what I'm saying is until we get some actual hard facts and quotes actually connected to names look at this article as perhaps Matt simply trying to prove his long-winded argument (or whatever you want to call it).

[odifiend]

Dude, Matt frigging prefaced the article with statements like bear in mind developers pretty much have GCN dev kits and Hollywood's details haven't been fully disclosed.  In spite of not knowing everything to know about the Revolution, he is reporting what he has been told - journalists do that too.  People like to be kept up to the minute...
EDIT:
pudu, meh to your theory.  I can't see Matt making this up.  Nintendo has been saying crap that has pointed to this all along.  Matt likes tech and often sides with it but generally pretty impartially - you can't deny that the PSP is technically better than the DS or the Xbox360 looks good in HD.  I like it that he is not a raving fan boy.  I'm reminded of a letter where somebody wrote in saying something to the effect of DS is destroying PSP in sales and the letter's author expected Matt to go cry in the corner for saying that he liked the PSP and its launch line up.  Matt was like the DS has games now and most PSP releases are movies, not the desired effect of the letter.  I can't believe how ridiculous Nintendo fans can be when somebody shows appreciation to Nintendo's competitors.

[Dirk Temporo]

What's bugging me is that this is exactly what the EGM article did. It's just a bunch of anonymous "developer comments" from people who, for all we know, don't even have the Rev Dev Kits yet. You'd think if they really wanted some weight to their comments, they'd let their name be included.

[pudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
Dude, Matt frigging prefaced the article with statements like bear in mind developers pretty much have GCN dev kits and Hollywood's details haven't been fully disclosed.  In spite of not knowing everything to know about the Revolution, he is reporting what he has been told - journalists do that too.  People like to be kept up to the minute...

Hmm you have a point.  He did give disclaimers and explain the situation.  The fact of the matter is though that a lot of people are going to see this as cold hard facts unfortunatley.  I guess I don't like knowing someone what already has him mind made up on how inferior the Rev is just put together a bundle of annonymous quotes hower he wanted to make his theory look better.  I did read his letter from the editor, which again focuses on system power vs unique controls and he seems more realistic but is still saying the same old, "the controller will make up for the shoddy graphics" bit.

[KDR_11k]

I don't trust news sites that claim to have "exclusive information", especially the kind that fits their agenda. I'll consider the Rev's specs "unknown" until we see some solid evidence these claims are true (leaked spec sheets, screenshots of games, etc).

[couchmonkey]

As for the validity of the article...I trust it, and I think those who don't are just wishing IGN will be wrong.  It's true that the missing chip could turn things around, but given Nintendo's approach to the Cube (create a well-rounded system with no bottlenecks and no over-powered components) that seems unlikely.  Edit: but yes, we should take the info with a grain of salt, and even Matt is trying to tell us that by saying that the dev kits aren't final.

From a strategic standpoint for Nintendo, I think everything the company is doing makes sense: less power won't matter to the non-gamers Nintendo wants to reach, and a low price will help.  A later launch date also makes sense since Revolution is not being designed to compete head-to-head with the other consoles, and top-quality launch games will be a must to prove the system's controller is really great.  From a hardcore gamer's standpoint, I think this news is mostly bad, the only silver lining is that Nintendo won't charge us an arm and a leg like the competition.

Someone said they'd rather see Nintendo launch earlier with less impressive games - I disagree.  I think a good launch lineup is crucial for this console because Nintendo needs to sell the concept early.  If Nintendo can't prove the idea is cool early on, people will lose interest and it won't matter how great the later software is.  Someone might try to use the DS as a counter example, but the DS is the follow-up to the industry-leading Gameboy while Revolution is the latest in a line of consoles that are shrinking in popularity.  

[mantidor]

Yes, I have a problem with ign's game sections, theyve managed to become masters of mixing opinion with news, and when you read their articles you just have no damn clue which one is which. This should be put into a rumor section if anything, its just vague quotes up in the air, but guess what? is the front page article.  

[Rhoq]

Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor

This should be put into a rumor section if anything, its just vague quotes up in the air, but guess what? is the front page article.

I think part of the problem is that IGN launched this "Revolution" channel a bit prematurely. As much as we all wanted it, there really is no need for one yet because, realistically, we still know next to nothing about the system.

Matt had stated a few times over the last few months that his plan was to launch "IGN Revolution" before the end of 2005 but part of the hold-up was that he wanted to wait until there was more concrete information about the system - hardware and software. Months later, and the only knowledge we've gained about the Revolution is that the once mysterious controller looks like a TV/VCR/DVD remote and will allow the user to interact with games in a way currently not achievable on the current line-up of game consoles. We know that it will allow us to download classic games from the NES, SNES and N64 - acting as a virtual console. We also know that it will be backwards compatible with current GameCube software.

Most (if not all) of the technical specs are purely speculation. Aside from the codenames of the CPU and GPU we know nothing else, except for what anonymous sources (supposedly developers) are reporting to the gaming media.

With the exception of Super Smash Brothers and Metroid Prime 3, no games have officially been announced. We know that new Zelda and Mario games are in development for the Revolution, but nothing else has been confirmed from thrid party developers.

Usually, when IGN reports a rumor, they label it as such. Matt was smart to pad the information with the following paragraph, before continuing on with the story:

"Readers are advised to make two notes before continuing with this article. The first is that developers are still working with incomplete Revolution hardware. Most studios are, in fact, developing on "GameCube-based kits," according to major software houses we spoke to, which have asked to remain anonymous. The second is that developers are still without final specifications for Revolution's ATI-developed graphics chip, codenamed Hollywood."

Now, I know that IGN has made some big blunders in the past (like the Factor 5/X Box/Star Wars Rogue Squadron series rumor), but Matt has always appeared, to me anyways, as being cautious. I don't believe that he would have published a story like this if he didn't trust the anonymous source(s) he received his information from.

[Ian Sane]

"But whether they'll say, 'Okay, let's do something completely original for it,' that's the other question because it could be quite expensive to do that. Not as expensive as doing a PS3 or Xbox 360 game. But if you're a third party and you want to do cross platform, if you're doing a game on 360 you can do it on PS3 or PC using the same assets and that does make it a bit easier."

I think this shows a huge flaw in Nintendo's plans.  Okay Rev games are cheaper to make.  That's great.  BUT that only really applies if the game is exclusive.  The Rev doesn't fit into multiplatform plans.  You can't port to it or from it easily.  So now third parties have to choose between making a game for one platform or paying a little bit more to make a game for three platforms.  And who is going to make an exclusive game for a Nintendo console?  That's the last place console.  That's the biggest risk.  The other platforms are all safer bets and you can make one game for ALL of them.  Nintendo's strategy of offering lower development costs is good in theory if they were allowing you to make basically the same games for a lower price.  But they made it an "either or" situation and nine times out of ten third parties are going to pick PS3/X360/PC.

I'm not keen on the November date either.  I'll agree that typically that's a good time to launch but Nintendo doesn't have any feasible way to fill the gaps until then.  This is EXACTLY the same crap that hurt the Cube.  The last N64 game was released like in May and Nintendo for all intents and purposes didn't exist until the Cube launch in November.  That drought damn near killed the Cube right from the start and the post-drought killed it for good.  Nintendo hasn't learned ANYTHING if they're making this incredibly stupid mistake again.  All the same mistakes are here.  De-emphasising hardware specs and taking their sweet time giving developers the real scoop bit them in the ass on the Cube but they're doing it again.

They're betting the farm on the controller.  They aren't realy fixing or improving anything.  They've got their nifty controller and they're relying entirely on it to save their ass.  Nintendo is showing up for a race late, unprepared, and out-of-shape.  But this time they've got rollerskates on so they think they'll do better.

Maybe IGN isn't being entirely accurate with this but that's too bad.  Nintendo brings this crap on themselves with their idiotic secrecy.  If you always talk about how hardware doesn't really matter and hide your specs everyone is going to assume you've got weak hardware.  Even if this is blatant false rumour mongering Nintendo has brought all this negative press on themselves by not speaking up and telling us how it really is.  

[Bill Aurion]

but given Nintendo's approach to the Cube (create a well-rounded system with no bottlenecks and no over-powered components) that seems unlikely.

Their approach gave them a system that easily held itself graphically against the PS2 and XBox...People just seriously need to be patient and stop assuming baseless crap...

They're betting the farm on the controller. They aren't realy fixing or improving anything. They've got their nifty controller and they're relying entirely on it to save their ass. Nintendo is showing up for a race late, unprepared, and out-of-shape. But this time they've got rollerskates on so they think they'll do better.

Um, what?  So "improvement" means adding High Dollar and basically doing everything Sony and MS do?  (ex. not making a profit)  How hilarious this is...

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane

I think this shows a huge flaw in Nintendo's plans.  Okay Rev games are cheaper to make.  That's great.  BUT that only really applies if the game is exclusive.  The Rev doesn't fit into multiplatform plans.  You can't port to it or from it easily.  So now third parties have to choose between making a game for one platform or paying a little bit more to make a game for three platforms.  And who is going to make an exclusive game for a Nintendo console?  That's the last place console.  That's the biggest risk.  The other platforms are all safer bets and you can make one game for ALL of them.  Nintendo's strategy of offering lower development costs is good in theory if they were allowing you to make basically the same games for a lower price.  But they made it an "either or" situation and nine times out of ten third parties are going to pick PS3/X360/PC.

A little more?  Some of the budgets on today's video games are in excess of 8 million dollars - and rising.  I think you are downplaying that fiscal decision.  It very well might be cheaper to develop for the Revolution, reportedly more similar to current gen's technology - technology about which developers already have a working knowledge, than to sink thousands just to understand how to even push a PS3 or Xbox360 and then millions on a game just to have it flop.  PS3 support is constantly being dropped on the pretext of it being much harder to develop for than the Xbox360.
Who is going to develop an exclusive game for a Nintendo console?  Surely you jest.  Nintendo doesn't make FPSes, but it is the most obviously ready-to-flourish genre on the Revolution.  The third party that swoops in and makes an FPS that is good enough could make the next Halo or GoldenEye.
EDIT: crippling grammar  

[BigJim]

Ever since the N64 developers took a "wait and see" attitude with Nintendo. As a result I think support will be inevitably weak from the start with Revolution. Unfortunately. It's what we learn in the next year, at E3, and soon after launch that will likely sway big 3d party game development decisions.... for games that'll launch a bit later in its first and second years.

Easy port-ability matters, but I believe "fit" with their demographics matters too. If the Rev controller proves to be a hot platform for FPS's or survival horror games, that's going to open some new doors. Early execution on Nintendo's part will be crucial here. E3 will be very important (to developers just as much as gamers). They need to prove their case like Mario 64 did for 3D gaming.  

[Ian Sane]

"So 'improvement' means adding High Dollar and basically doing everything Sony and MS do?"

No.  Improvement means addressing the stuff that you screwed up last time around.  Nintendo isn't doing that.  This isn't about HD or what Sony and MS do.  This is about learning from your mistakes and fixing the things that hurt you and had no real reason to occur.  It isn't part of Nintendo's vision to leave us with virtually nothing to play until November.  That's just a big f*ck up, plain and simple and any successful company would try their hardest to avoid that after it already bit them in the ass.

I'm starting to think Nintendo is either too stubborn to admit their wrong or they're too stunned to even notice what they do wrong.

[JonLeung]

Remember when, until a generation ago, it was all about "bits"?

When the Sega Genesis came out, it was a big deal that it was 16-bit.  People saw the NES as technically inferior, being 8-bit.  So when the Super NES came out, it was all about the 16-bitness.  I think the Turbo GrafX-16 got its number from being 16-bit, or at least pretending to be - didn't it really have two 8-bit processors?

I admit to not knowing much about what is being referred to here (the bus? some sort of cache?  I dunno) but most people seem to see this as a doubling of power per generation, whether or not it's entirely true.  If that's how they see it, what's so wrong with the doubling or tripling "power" of the Revolution over the GameCube?  You're getting an expected jump or even better!

Sure, the next-gen Xboxes and PlayStations claim to be multiple times "more powerful" than its predecessor.  Didn't someone say the PS3 was 35 times more powerful than the PS2?  If you think about it, 32 times is already twice to the power of five - and 35 or whatever is even more - so shouldn't that kind of power be reserved for at least five generations later, like the PS7?  And while the graphics are better on the PS3, can you really say it's 35 times better?  How do you quantify that?

Anyway, we had the 8-bit ones, the 16-bit ones, then 32 and 64.  Everyone knows the PSX did better than initally predicted, triumphing over the N64.  If not for the FMV sequences, anybody should be able to visually tell that the PSX was inferior to the N64 even without knowing that they were 32- and 64-bit.

It's not about power.  The PSX and PS2 were inferior, technically, to their competition.  And yet Sony is the market leader.  Not knowing what to do to maintain their hold, the simplest idea is to make the PS3 the most powerful.  They're going to wow everyone with graphics.

But since we know that graphics and power aren't everything, the Revolution has a chance.  It's not going to be ugly.  The key here is the controller (and it's backed up by other unique things like the back-catalogue download service, and the always-exclusive Nintendo franchises).  Nintendo's going to make this console inexpensive so that it continues to have high returns.  They just need to dispel the belief that a lower price point means an inferior console, but I think they can do that by showing off the controller more and presenting it as separate from the soon-to-be-traditional consoles.  It's true that they're going to be competing for the same dollars as Sony and Microsoft, but if the controller is all that it's cracked up to be (and if people can stop being stubborn and give it a try) then I think less graphical power than the rest is a minor concern.

Sure, we would want things to look better than the competition.  And some of us would be willing to pay more for it, if only they would offer it.  But hey, it's just the way Nintendo is.