Topic: Editorial: Don't Leave Me Now

[vudu]

Quote
Hardware-wise Nintendo has made a very good console. They just suck at marketing their games and making games that fit the current market trends.

so basically you're saying nintendo has turned into sega?

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"They don't have the technical know-how of either Sony or Microsoft"

BS.  They don't have the marketing know-how of Sony or MS but they easily have the technical know-how.  I don't see any official wireless controllers for the OTHER consoles.  Plus the Gamecube has virtually no load times.  Hardware-wise Nintendo has made a very good console.  They just suck at marketing their games and making games that fit the current market trends.

BS. There's no way Nintendo can expect to out-spec the almighty Microsoft, or the consumer electronics giant Sony, in any prolonged technical-specification war.

Nintendo has always created it's hardware with more emphasis on design/gimmickry rather than gadgetry. Even the Nintendo DS is approaching the more powerful Sony PSP with only the comparative polygon pushing power of an N64 (The PSP is rumoured to have PS2 graphical capabilities). Nintendo can overcome their comparative weakness through excellent design (sticking to long battery life in the GB series, for example) that others somehow miss, or through good games.

But never, NEVER, will you see Nintendo go out there and say, "We have a more powerful system, technically speaking, than our competitors." Why? Because they don't. They may be par for the course, but there's no way they're leading the computational pack. They always emphasis their design, and their games. (Rightfully so)

What does this mean? That while Nintendo may keep up with Sony and Microsoft in the technical prowess competition, we shouldn't be holding our breath for Nintendo to beat either computing/electronics company at their own game. Rather, like the DS shows, we should expect Nintendo to try to render the tech-race issue moot through sheer innovation. That is, we should expect them to survive by being more and more Nintendo, and NOT trying to become a Sony or Microsoft entity.

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[KDR_11k]

1. Unlike Sega, Nintendo manages to sell millions of games still.
2. Nintendo doesn't emphasize tech specs, but that doesn't mean they cannot compete in that area. They know that they'll need enough power (since they're making games themselves  and they know how much their machine delivers in real-life. Let's put it like that: Sony's PMPO easily beats Nintendo's RMS.
3. The DS' dual screen might not exactly grab customers, but it won't scare them away, either (oh, no, this thing has two screens! One screen is much better!). The price point of the PSP, on the other hand, will scare away a LOT of people. And those few who will buy it will spread the word on the battery life. Bad word of mouth and press is the worst case scenario for any device (see: NGage).

[DrZoidberg]

Quote
(The PSP is rumoured to have PS2 graphical capabilities)

lollin', PS2 has Toy Story â„¢ esque graphics.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
They may be par for the course, but there's no way they're leading the computational pack.

Eh, there's actually strong evidence to support that the Gamecube may actually be more powerful than the XBox. I think what you should be saying is that Nintendo knows how to make a technically magnificent console, but they're not as familiar with lying and twisting the specs like MS and Sony do. I think this is quite evident with the simple fact that Nintendo lowballed their own specs- a launch game made in less than 9 months, Rogue Leader, even surpassed them. On the other hand, MS and Sony try to be sensationalist even though what they're saying isn't true.

Also, the PSP won't have PS2 graphics- get that out of your head now before you get dissaponited later on.

[Ian Sane]

"There's no way Nintendo can expect to out-spec the almighty Microsoft, or the consumer electronics giant Sony, in any prolonged technical-specification war."

But they already have done that before (SNES and N64 were the most powerful console available when they were released) and arguably are doing it now.  I agree that they don't focus on making a big all powerful console and brag about the specs but that doesn't mean they can't compete on a technological level because they have.  They've done so with the Cube.  I do agree with you that Nintendo focuses more on game design and innovation I just don't think they should be sold short on the technology front because they are quite competent in that area as well.

I kind it incredibly ironic that Sony is often credited as being a big technological powerhouse when BOTH of their consoles had considerably "weaker" hardware than the competition.  In fact I don't think I have ever been wowed from a technical perspective by either Playstation.  They seem to attract the graphics whores as well despite consistently having relatively crappy graphic capabilities.

[vudu]

i think what he meant to say is there's no way nintendo can out-spec microsoft--assuming nintendo doesn't want to lose $100 to $150 per console sold.  

from what i hear nintendo is losing something like $10 on ever console sold, so components and labor cost roughly $110.  (wait, that's not right.  because i have to assume the retailer want to make money for selling the product.  so it's considerably less than $100.)  microsoft loses between $50 - $75 on every console sold (depends on who you talk to) so if i low-ball it, it costs about $230 to make an xbox.  (again, wrong because i didn't figure in retailer profit.)

so yes, there's no way (almost no way?) nintendo will be able to make a console that is more powerful than the xbox when they spend over a hundred dollars less than microsoft spends for every console.  but if you give nintendo an extra $120 to put into each console, i have faith that nintendo would not fail to impress.

[The Omen]

Just because a console costs much more to make does not mean it's more powerful.  It could mean its not built economicallly, couldn't it?  

[KDR_11k]

Omen: You mean that as in "PS2 is the most expensive"?

[vudu]

omen - it's not impossible, but chances are if two very capable entities set out to build a something (in this case, a video game console) and company A has a price point twice as high as company B, chances are company A's product is going to be more capable than company B's.

does that mean it's better?  no.  

[Kairon]

Do you guys seriously envision a future where Nintendo puts out a console generally accepted as more technically capable than Sony or Microsoft?

Nintendo's concentration on game design (whereas both Rare and Factor 5 are technologically-minded), coupled with Sony's and Microsoft's firm presence in the computational and electronics field, coupled with Sony and Microsoft's enormous corporate resources... means that Nintendo cannot expect to simply produce a more powerful system. Why do you think Nintendo has been trying to emphasize innovation or creativity over better graphics recently? They know they cannot survive a dragged-out console war if the only determinant is technological capability (and by extension, computational power).

I'm not in any ways saying that Nintendo isn't capable or that it's competitors haven't made mistakes that lessen their efficacy (So what if the PSX was less powerful than the N64? Nintendo didn't have a technical comfort with the CD format while Sony did... that's why Nintendo had to collaborate with Sony on the PSX in the first place: Nintendo couldn't make a CD based system). What I'm saying is that if Nintendo tried to stand toe-to-toe with Sony and Microsoft in a tech war, they'd be on the losing end.

With that in mind, they can only succeed in being more unique and creative (the DS, for example), and instead of challenging Sony or Microsoft on tech specs or whatnot, they must merely remain as up-to-date as possible in that field while at the same time distinguishing themselves as only Nintendo can: through gameplay innovation.

They can only survive by acting like Nintendo, but remaining competitive with their opponents while not becoming clones of them.

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I kind it incredibly ironic that Sony is often credited as being a big technological powerhouse when BOTH of their consoles had considerably "weaker" hardware than the competition.  In fact I don't think I have ever been wowed from a technical perspective by either Playstation.  They seem to attract the graphics whores as well despite consistently having relatively crappy graphic capabilities.

Oh god, I agrere with you sooo much. For some reason, the PS2 has a certain graphical style/quality throughout most/all of its games that I can't stand! ...Same for the DC too...

[vudu]

Quote
Why do you think Nintendo has been trying to emphasize innovation or creativity over better graphics recently? They know they cannot survive a dragged-out console war if the only determinant is technological capability (and by extension, computational power).

i was thinking it was because gameplay is more important than graphics.  it's not that nintendo can't complete in the graphics department, it's that sony and microsoft can't compete in the gameplay department.  that's just me though.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
Do you guys seriously envision a future where Nintendo puts out a console generally accepted as more technically capable than Sony or Microsoft?

There's a difference between being generally accepted as having the more technically capable console and actually having the more technically capable console. MS and Sony may be very technically capable companies, but Nintendo released a product that is more advanced than Sony's and at the very least on par with Microsoft's- that's certainly nothing to scoff at.

And don't think that just because Nintendo regards gameplay as a higher priority than graphics that Nintendo ignores making games with good graphics. Nintendo still recognizes the importance of having a good looking game, they just don't think it's MORE important than having solid, creative, or innovative gameplay. Gameplay isn't ALL that matters to Nintendo, but it's what matters MOST.  

[Kairon]

I'm certainly not criticizing Nintendo on these grounds. In fact, it's because of these grounds that I grow to appreciate Nintendo ever more, whether or not I can walk up to a PS2 Fan and claim "My system has as many third parties as yours does."

I'm just saying that, all things taking into consideration, Nintendo's path doesn't lie along traditionally challenging Sony or MS where their strengths lie. I don't doubt Nintendo's commitment to technology, indeed, I see technology as a major part of Nintendo because they've tied in innovation into their hardware design as well (especially in terms of input devices and controllers). I'd be the first in line to argue that the GC is technically superior than the PS2.

But whether or not Nintendo is up to par technically is NOT the issue. The issue is that Nintendo cannot hope to gain ground by merely getting into a slugging match with Sony and Microsoft on technology specs. In the long run, Nintendo just isn't the type of company that would win that meaningless competition.

And that's really just a sub issue of my major idea that Nintendo cannot hope to survive/compete by merely emulating their opponents: they must also continue the very traditions which make them Nintendo after all: a commitment to quality game design at the expense of all else, a faith that they'll be rewarded marketwise for their unique vision, as opposed to punished for taking the road less travelled.

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[vudu]

when has nintendo ever attempted to "emulate its opponents"?

nintendo was in the video game industry before sony or microsoft, and i don't recall nintendo ever attempting to compete based on meaningless hype.  

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
But whether or not Nintendo is up to par technically is NOT the issue. The issue is that Nintendo cannot hope to gain ground by merely getting into a slugging match with Sony and Microsoft on technology specs. In the long run, Nintendo just isn't the type of company that would win that meaningless competition.

That I completely agree with- Nintendo isn't the kind of company that will push specs, and hence has no clue how market in the way that Sony and MS have. Nintendo takes a much more honest and modest role- while Sony and MS were vastly inflating their specs, Nintendo actually lowballed their specs.

Quote
when has nintendo ever attempted to "emulate its opponents"?

He's not saying Nintendo is trying to emulate their opponents, he's saying that option is not open to Nintendo. Nintendo can't emulate their opponents because they use entirely different methods to attain the same results. Similarly, Nintendo's opponents could not emulate them.  

[Kyosho]

Quote
MS and Sony may be very technically capable companies, but Nintendo released a product that is more advanced than Sony's and at the very least on par with Microsoft's- that's certainly nothing to scoff at.

the Nintendo console uses the older ATI chip, whereas the MS console uses the souped up GForce.  From the texture capabilities i've seen, i'm sure Nintendo has the capability to be graphically excellent in its own regard, but when compared to the Xbox, it will always be slightly edged out.

Quote
But whether or not Nintendo is up to par technically is NOT the issue. The issue is that Nintendo cannot hope to gain ground by merely getting into a slugging match with Sony and Microsoft on technology specs. In the long run, Nintendo just isn't the type of company that would win that meaningless competition.

A lot of the console comparison is meaningless competition, but it's what sells to developers and buyers, and will always be reflected in the quantity/quality of games.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
the Nintendo console uses the older ATI chip, whereas the MS console uses the souped up GForce.

Wrong- the Gamecube does not use an ATI chip at all. ArtX is the company that designed Flipper, and they were bought out by ATI shortly before actual production of the Gamecube began (which is why you see the ATI sticker on your Gamecube). It's ArtX's contributions that ATI incorporated into their newer Radeon video cards. In any case, I think the Gamecube has shown in games like Rogue Leader, Rebel Strike, Wind Waker, Twin Snakes, and now Resident Evil 4 that is every bit as good as the XBox when it comes to texturing. In fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Gamecube can do 8 textures per pass as opposed to the XBox's 4. Read this- it's a very good explanation of why the Gamecube is at least as powerful as the XBox.  

[Kairon]

While tech specs are certainly important in marketting, My point is that competing forely for the most technolocigically advanfce system is not a battle in which Nintendo can expect to come out on top when it's up against companies like Microsoft or Sony.

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[mouse_clicker]

I know that, I was simply pointing out some errors Kyosho had in his post.

[Kyosho]

read the article, and if anything it's only using numbers.  There simply is not enough PROOF in the games that says the GC hardware is better overall.  Also to mention, all the multi-console games i've seen, Xbox comes out as the best looking.  Perhaps it might be because developers like the Xbox's architecture better, but nevertheless there still is not enough evidence.  Until developers start regularly SHOWING the proclaimed TRUE power of the GC, then opinion stands as is, despite how many critics that disagree.  Should I believe in actual images or critics? You try and make the logical assumption.

[KDR_11k]

I know a person who, by means of mediocre/crappy third-party games deducted  that the GC is a lot weaker than the PS2. Is this the case? No.
I'd guess the coding interface for the Box is just easier to use (or more exactly, they are used to it) than the GC's devkit and therefore those cheap third-parties can easier take advantage of it. And GC dev-budgets tend to be lower as well.

What we definitely know is that the GC can draw distortions and reflections at minimal performance loss. Look at the crystals and the water in FFCC, for example. Sega either didn't manage to do the same on the XBox or it has a higher performance impact, whatever it is, the Box didn't have distortions in PSO for that reason. I hope those "fast distortions" become more common soon, especially on the PC. They'd be really useful for a lot of things. Especially things like Superweapons in games like UT.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
Should I believe in actual images or critics? You try and make the logical assumption.

Images often lie- look at Resident Evil remake and Resident Evil 0. Both games look incredible, but that is almost entirely because nearly all of the backrounds are prerendered, which leaves polygons and whatnot to put towards the character models. Halo 2 works upon the same principle- it uses less polygons than Halo, but because that frees up power to bumpmap quite literally everything in the game it looks a lot better than its predecessor. Just because a game looks better doesn't mean it's more advanced. Technically speaking, Rogue Leader and Rebel strike are the two most graphically advanced console games to date. They both push more polygons with more effects at a higher and more consistant framerate than any other console game period- I believe the only exceptions are Aquanox and Auqanox 2 for the PC.  

[KDR_11k]

(Halo 2 looks f###ing ugly. Not because of the tech, but because of the usage. Didn't anybody tell them that those hand painted normal maps look messy as hell?)

Images can be deceiving. Especially since we're playing with subjective perception. What one person considers better the other considers worse. For example, I'll go out and say that Prime and FFCC look waaay better than UT2004 (or Halo, for that matter). Does that mean the Gamecube is more powerful than my 1.8 GHz machine? Or do the specs mean my machine is more powerful, even though the results look worse and have a lower framerate?