Nintendo's Genre Innovation Strategy [Archive]

Nimos

09-17-2005, 08:40 AM

[QUOTE=Varsity]Everyone knows that Nintendo are staying out of the harware power race because they can't keep up with Sony and Microsoft. Lost Garden (http://www.lostgarden.com/) features an essay on Nintendo, their new controller, and exactly why it is so unusual.

Why can't Nintendo keep up ? I mean Nintendo , Microsoft and Sony will use for their next gen consoles IBM cpu's which share the same PPC architecture...
Ati and Nvidia will power their gfx hardware...
The revolution can be as powerfull as Nintendo wants !
And don't forget that we don't even know the exact hardware specs of revolution yet !
The only reason i can think of, for Nintendo to use a less "powerfull" cpu and gfx chip, is keeping the costs down.

Nimos

TrackZero

09-17-2005, 08:49 AM

Everyone knows that Nintendo are staying out of the harware power race because they can't keep up with Sony and Microsoft.

Going with Nimos on this, there's absolutely no reason Nintendo couldn't bump their horsepower up if they wanted to, that's simply not the path they're walking. Why fight for a small slice of an already-decided marketshare when there's a large percentage of the population that's not even being targeted by it? That's just plain stupid and comments like this make you only sound ignorant.

Varsity

09-17-2005, 08:56 AM

They could bump it up, but they don't have the money or friends to compete in any meaningful sense.

thecrazyd

09-17-2005, 09:01 AM

Worldcrafter

09-17-2005, 09:07 AM

I love Nintendo, but they did start this generation in third place. People who play games casually were talking about the 360, and PS3, not the Revolution. I think this deviation from fighting for graphical superiority is a smart move on Nintendo's part. Besides, isn't it about time a game company actually focused on improving the way we play games? I think it's pretty cool that I really want a Revolution, and I don't even know what games are coming out for it. I'm just much more excited about the next generation now. Sure, I'll buy a 360 at some point, but playing the same games with better polish doesn't get me as excited as playing new or old games in new ways. I just hope they release a version of RE5 for the Revolution. That would be a really cool gameplay experience.

if76

09-17-2005, 09:12 AM

I'm not sure about this genre lifecycle. If you look at real-time strategy games, you started out with Command and Conquer, Warcraft, Total Annihilation and a zillion clones. Once the genre started to mature you got games like Darwinia, Pikimin, Black and White, Homeworld, Spore and Rome: Total War. These games show marked innovation that wasn't present in the first few years since the genre was invented.

It's my opinion that 3d games like Ground Control never got too popular is because the interface asked too much of the player. Organizing a massive army in real time is hard enough without having to manage the camera at the same time.

As a hardcore RTS player, the only games I reject are those that don't have the interface conveniences that have been discovered in the recent years. The ability to queue up units, set a waypoint for initial units to start, the ability to select all of a certain type of units by double clicking etc. These conveniences don't fly in the face of innovation but are merely lessons learned in creating a fun RTS.

I think a new spin on a mature genre can do as much for attracting new players as a brand new genre can. The FPS genre was pretty mature by the time Halo came out, but there's no question that the Halo series has turned a myriad of gamers on to first-person shooters. Halo did this with a bunch of innovations: control by analog stick, emphasis on driving cars, limited weapon inventory, recharging shield. I think these innovations were only possible because the FPS genre was mature and not in spite of the fact.

Nimos

09-17-2005, 09:15 AM

They could bump it up, but they don't have the money or friends to compete in any meaningful sense.

So what are you saying is that, Iwata woke up one day, saw the Xbox360 specs and said something in the lines of :
"Oh my God ! Xbox360 uses a powerfull IBM PPC cpu and an equally powerfull Ati gfx chipset ! Ati and IBM in the same console ...whoa , how can we ever compete with that ? Especially when we don't have any money and NO FRIENDS !!! WE ARE TEH DOOM3D !!! so let's spend milions in R&D for some weirdo controller instead ! Oh, wait... "

Worldcrafter

09-17-2005, 09:20 AM

So what are you saying is that, Iwata woke up one day, saw the Xbox360 specs and said something in the lines of :
"Oh my God ! Xbox360 uses a powerfull IBM PPC cpu and an equally powerfull Ati gfx chipset ! Ati and IBM in the same console ...whoa , how can we ever compete with that ? Especially when we don't have any money and NO FRIENDS !!! WE ARE TEH DOOM3D !!! so let's spend milions in R&D for some weirdo controller instead ! Oh, wait... "

I think it was more along the lines of, he was playing Halo2, and thinking, "Jebus H Christ! This would be so much more fun with a more interactive controler. But a mouse and keyboard don't work very well on your lap. Hey, this remote control does! Hmm...

Varsity

09-17-2005, 09:30 AM

JazGalaxy

09-17-2005, 09:37 AM

lol

I am so excited about the new nintendo and I dind't even think I was going to be. The thing is, i've been thinking for a while about how crappy games have become and how the industry needs to cell divide. The games that move units now and the games that I grew up playing are two entirely different animals. Games (what I like) vs. "interactive entertainment" (Which I hate).
Nintendo seems to be trying to go back to gaming as opposed to the other, which is what Sony is pursuing. I could care less about lots of flashy cutscenes. Give me "scores" and "lives" and "stages" any day.

Plus if nintendo makes this a real revolute, we might see developers putting out 5-10-15 dollar games that are smaller and more simple, yet big on fun. I would LOVE to see this. Girls picking up a 9.99 Revolution game at Urban Outfitters when they buy a new pair of shoes would really revolutionize and reivatalize this industry.

Abednigo

09-17-2005, 09:41 AM

The three most ignorant statements of this whole discussion.

1. Nintendo can't keep up (hardware-wise) with Sony or Microsoft.
2. Nintendo has no money.
3. Nintendo has no friends.

You may be able to debate the last one if you are talking about developer support over the last few years. But those other two are just idiotic. While I may not agree with the constant Pokemon games that come out, they sell a crap load of them to keep them rolling in dough. Even if they bowed out of the console race, their GBA/DS sales would keep them afloat for a long time.

And as someone else already said, Sony and MS are aiming for "more power!" as if that's the be all, end all of home consoles. But look at the prices of their consoles. MS from $299-399. PS3 will probably will be around the same. In both cases, from what I've read, they'll be losing money, lots of it. Software is where their profits come in. Odds are the Revolution will be $199 and they'll most likely be making a profit from the hardware as well as the software. I have never heard of Nintendo selling any system at a loss (if someone knows that for sure, I'd like to read the article). As far as I know, they are always making a profit. They have plenty of money.

Personally I think they need to do a little more to not alienate some of their older fanbase (like myself who started playing games with the NES when I was 10), but they are moving forward. And I don't care if they're number one. That might be important to some people, but not to me. As long as I get my fill of Zelda, Metroid and Mario, I'm a happy gamer. They can stay number 3 for all I care. Besides, what does position in the market really mean to the average gamer anyway? So what if you can say, "I have the #1 console in the world!!" Good for you. :rolleyes:

fushi

09-17-2005, 09:46 AM

The games that move units now and the games that I grew up playing are two entirely different animals. Games (what I like) vs. "interactive entertainment" (Which I hate).
Nintendo seems to be trying to go back to gaming as opposed to the other, which is what Sony is pursuing.
Uh, I think it's vice versa. Sony is pursuing the hardcore gamer crowd with their sequels and Nintendo is trying to capture a larger market by releasing software like the DS Brain Training game in Japan.

Worldcrafter

09-17-2005, 09:50 AM

I think he's right in the sense that Nintendo is trying to go back to gaming in its more pure, exporative form, and Sony and Microsoft are trying to push the current model of gaming.

Stupid Fat Hobbit

09-17-2005, 09:51 AM

Varsity

09-17-2005, 09:53 AM

2. Nintendo has no money.
3. Nintendo has no friends.Who said either of them?

Xerxes

09-17-2005, 09:55 AM

You may be able to debate the last one if you are talking about developer support over the last few years. But those other two are just idiotic. While I may not agree with the constant Pokemon games that come out, they sell a crap load of them to keep them rolling in dough. Even if they bowed out of the console race, their GBA/DS sales would keep them afloat for a long time.

:mad: Check you tone cowboy about that Pokemon... I'm still holding out for hope there...

TrackZero

09-17-2005, 10:00 AM

2. Nintendo has no money.
3. Nintendo has no friends.
Who said either of them?

You need to stop posting, NOW. This thread is so dead in the water, as you, yourself JUST FUCKING SAID IT:

They could bump it up, but they don't have the money or friends to compete in any meaningful sense.

There's simply no point in even attempting to make discussion with someone who can't rub enough brain cells together to remember their own comment that they just directly made. Editors should remove this schlep from the front page, IMHO.

Xerxes

09-17-2005, 10:02 AM

What Abednigo said. About the "Nintendo have no money" thing, their current assets are somewhere in the region of (USD) $10 billion. Look here (http://www.nintendo.com/corp/report/FY06_1Qfinancials.pdf). It's not Microsoft numbers, but still...

I guess the assumption is that they are number three of the three. Microsoft is off getting big money from software. Sony is off getting big money from tons of other electronics and movies. Nintendo is pretty much gaming. Hell didn't they start as a card game company. :confused:

Stupid Fat Hobbit

09-17-2005, 10:03 AM

Well, to play devil's advocate for a moment, he didn't actually, technically say "Nintendo have no money". But nobody would be that pedantic... right?

TrackZero

09-17-2005, 10:05 AM

I guess the assumption is that they are number three of the three. Microsoft is off getting big money from software. Sony is off getting big money from tons of other electronics and movies. Nintendo is pretty much gaming. Hell didn't they start as a card game company. :confused:

Sony hasn't been having a good year, actually, if you've been following the news at all:

http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000400052161/

TrackZero

09-17-2005, 10:06 AM

Well, to play devil's advocate for a moment, he didn't actually, technically say "Nintendo have no money". But nobody would be that pedantic... right?

Well he is British, so I'm not going to put anything past him. ;)

MosBen

09-17-2005, 10:07 AM

It seems odd that people here are saying that Nintendo is going to make games that get at some undiscovered part of society that wants to play games but hasn't been interested while simultaneously taking gaming back to its roots. It seems to me that gaming was a rather marginal subculture back in the day and that it's only in the last few years, while games got away from scores and the other conventions of past gaming, that games have started having broader appeal.

Varsity

09-17-2005, 10:08 AM

There's simply no point in even attempting to make discussion with someone who can't rub enough brain cells together to remember their own comment that they just directly made. Editors should remove this schlep from the front page, IMHO.
No money vs. not enough money. You're getting pretty angry, is there something a little close to home going on?

PantherModern

09-17-2005, 10:11 AM

As a side note, folks who argue Nintendo should just make games for other platforms is completely missing the point. Nintendo needs to control their hardware platform in order to force innovation to occur in the control mechanisms. Other console manufacturers who rely on the hardcore audiences and standardized genres don’t see this need. They would happily standardize the console platform and make it into a commodity. Microsoft has historically made major comments about having one universal development platform.

The moment Nintendo loses control over their hardware, they lose a major competitive advantage in terms of creating new genres.

Ultimately, this is a really well-reasoned article. To the person who was speaking about the maturation of the RTS genre, I would argue that those innovations in the design and control are exactly what the author was speaking about. A new genre emerged, clones appeared, it became highly competitive and difficult to differentiate the products. So, people TOOK RISKS, stopped doing what others were doing, and innovated. Then those ideas became standardized, clones appeared, and it became hard to differentiate the market. Your argument supports what the author is saying. Nintendo has realized that they started a genre and style of play (hell, several of them) and now they have reached the crossroads where they can be another "me too" company or set themselves apart by doing something new. It's the same move that Apple just made in releasing the Ipod Nano. The Mini was (and remains) the best selling digtal music player in the world. But, clones have appeared (Zen Micro in a variety of colors anyone?) and now Apple is making a seemingly-insane move and taking that player off the market completely and releasing an all-new player that once again sets them apart. It is a business strategy, not a gaming strategy. I, for one, hope they succeed, simply because it will prove that "gamers" aren't just frat boys who love Halo. Cause if that is a "gamer," then I need a new hobby.

TrackZero

09-17-2005, 10:11 AM

No money vs. not enough money. You're getting pretty angry, is there something a little close to home going on?

I love when people try to turn around a conversation to my attitude rather than to responding to their own failure to make valid points. Anyways, this is my last post in the thread, it's obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Heretic Machine

09-17-2005, 10:13 AM

"Can't keep up with the hardware race"? Are you fucking stupid? Did you just get off the newbie boat or somthing? All it takes to keep up with "the hardware race" is money, much like the cold war. They have money. They choose to do other things.

JazGalaxy

09-17-2005, 10:15 AM

Uh, I think it's vice versa. Sony is pursuing the hardcore gamer crowd with their sequels and Nintendo is trying to capture a larger market by releasing software like the DS Brain Training game in Japan.

I'd disagree but it probably has to do with our definition of term "hardcore gamer". I concider myself a hardcore gamer. I've played games all my life, from atari to xbox, I've had most consoles and spend probably 2 or more hours each day just reading about gaming. Problem is, I haven't be spending more than a few hours a month PLAYING games because most of them are boring. Sure there's a Front Mission or an Advanced Wars, or a Halo, or a KOTOR every few months, but mostly games have become self indulgent and easy. my brothers and I used to rent three or so games to play over a long weekend, and now that's alost not even a possibillity. You have devote 2 hours to game just to find out if you like it or not because everybody has to do their stupid self indulgent expository cutscenes. Mostly those games... the metal gear solids for instance... are "interactive entertainment" and what Sony wants on it's console. I hear a lot of things from "hardcore gamers" these days and most of them are things like "why would anybody want their game to be hard?" and things like that. That's not me.

Xerxes

09-17-2005, 10:21 AM

Sony hasn't been having a good year, actually, if you've been following the news at all:

http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000400052161/

I felt the "you've" was directed at me... So to reiterate, THE ASSUMPTION is that they are number three of the three.

I'm not there accountant so I really can't give any numbers at all.
Although it feels safe to say MS trumps them all there... :o

Abednigo

09-17-2005, 10:21 AM

Who said either of them?

Umm, you did.

They could bump it up, but they don't have the money or friends to compete in any meaningful sense.

Ok, so you said, "they don't have the money or friends" and not "they have no money or friends". They sound about the same to me. Besides, it doesn't seem like Nintendo is trying to compete with Sony and MS. Sony and MS are making multimedia machines, like all in one entertainment systems. Nintendo is making a game system. It doesn't seem like they even want to compete.

TrackZero

09-17-2005, 10:23 AM

I felt the "you've" was directed at me... So to reiterate, THE ASSUMPTION is that they are number three of the three.

I'm not there accountant so I really can't give any numbers at all.
Although it feels safe to say MS trumps them all there... :o

It was in response to you saying Sony's making cash, I was just pointing out that they haven't been this year at least. I wasn't taking a shot against you for it, just pointing something out.

PantherModern

09-17-2005, 10:23 AM

It seems to me that gaming was a rather marginal subculture back in the day and that it's only in the last few years, while games got away from scores and the other conventions of past gaming, that games have started having broader appeal.

Are you serious? Seriously? Were you alive for the Nintendo launch? Everybody and his freaking Dog had a Nintendo, and everyone in my house played it. My Mom, my Dad, me, my little sister. Know why? Cause it was easy to pick up and play and hell of a lot of fun. I know without a doubt that my Dad would still be gaming if the consoles served his needs. But you know what? They ARE too complex. He has no interest or energy to take the time to learn button combos and circle strafing. The barrier for entry is just too high for him now. I could tell when I got a Super NES. he tried to play, but I quickly surpassed him because of my familiarity with the controls and my ability to manipulate the buttons. If N can draw my dad back into gaming by making this controller a fun, simple exercise again, then more power to them.

Oh and as far as "gaming wasn't big back in the day." A successful game now sells maybe a million copies. The orginal mario Bros is estimated to have sold 40 million plus-- http://www.gamecubicle.com/features-mario-units_sold_sales.htm

Now I'm sure that that includes ones bundled with the system, but still. Come on. Forget that "gaming got popular with Playstation" BS.

fushi

09-17-2005, 10:27 AM

I read the whole article now. It's like a rewording of the things Iwata has been saying for almost 2 years now. Nicely articulated, but nothing thoughtprovoking that an average hardcore gamer, who follows general market processes in the States and outside of it, wouldn't know already. I give him kudos for writing it all up, though and I agree with just about everything he says. It just that it's seriously redundant.

Oh, and it also contains some absurdities like this:
Niche: A population of hardcore genre addicts provides both the development resources and audience for the continued development of games in the genre. Quality decreases.
Maybe I'm being opinionated, but the quality of the once-popular-now-obscure 2D shooter genre has been increasing to this day thanks to companies like Treasure, CAVE and G.Rev, with additional help from doujin game makers like ZUN and Kenta Cho.
Other console manufacturers who rely on the hardcore audiences and standardized genres don’t see this need. They would happily standardize the console platform and make it into a commodity. Microsoft has historically made major comments about having one universal development platform.
These comments have much more to do with a standardized API for software production and much less with hardware features such as control mechanisms.
Donkey Kong is considered shallow and gimmicky by children playing it for the first time in this modern age. Yet it sported the same core game mechanics that eventually blossomed into an entire genre of highly polished 2D platformers.
Oh Come on.

I also don't get the Dragon Quest example, and the Power Glove was not made by Nintendo.

the Rephr

09-17-2005, 10:30 AM

As it should and not say another word because you and every other troller who hates nintendo would be screaming, " OMFG Xbox 360 motion controller is gunna wipe every body out. NIntendo is doomed." However only the hardcore haters like Zeal and your self have these negative things to say about it.

fushi

09-17-2005, 10:30 AM

Edit: ^^^^
I don't know if that was directed towards me, but FYI, the Revolution will be the first next-gen console I'm getting and the only one for a very long time.

And stop with the "everyone who criticises Nintendo = troller" bullshit.
I'd disagree but it probably has to do with our definition of term "hardcore gamer".
Correct. I misused the term a bit, too, I guess. :)

Maybe replace hardcore gamer with "casual Sony market" and you get what I mean.

Edit: nevermind

Draft

09-17-2005, 10:34 AM

Pack Jack and Fucking Daxter in with the PS2 and it would have 100 million units sold. Don't be dense.

Kelegacy

09-17-2005, 10:39 AM

This place is full of haters and retards. I'll see ya later.

PantherModern

09-17-2005, 10:40 AM

Pack Jack and Fucking Daxter in with the PS2 and it would have 100 million units sold. Don't be dense.

If you'll notice, I allowed for that there buddy. But still, that's 40 million units moved. Whether it is a pack in or not, the numbers still stand. And if I remember right, GT3 was PS2 pack in for a while, and I don't remember seeing it approach those numbers in sales. Even if MS had packed Halo in with every Xbox, they would be hard-pressed to sport those numbers. And since Sony hasn't moved a 100 million PS2's, I don't think that J&D would have hit that mark ;)

Besides, I was making a point about the popularity of video games "back in the day." Not making a point about software sales. If a game could move that many units "in the day," it was a pretty popular segment of society, yes? Not quite so marginalized as some (*cough* Mosben *cough*) would seem to think.

Draft

09-17-2005, 10:45 AM

Varsity

09-17-2005, 10:45 AM

I love when people try to turn around a conversation to my attitude rather than to responding to their own failure to make valid points.
And this is the guy claiming I can't remeber what I just posted...

Edit:"Can't keep up with the hardware race"? Are you fucking stupid? Did you just get off the newbie boat or somthing? All it takes to keep up with "the hardware race" is money, much like the cold war. They have money. They choose to do other things.
And you aren't doing much better. Think. Do Nintendo have as much money as their competitors? Are their competitors willing to use their monetary advantage to beat Nintendo down?

I mean, come on. It's not like I think Nintendo haven't made a brilliant choice. They can't compete on hardware, and the article explains how they can't compete on genre-king software either. Nobody said they are bad at either, just that they aren't good enough.

Draft

09-17-2005, 10:46 AM

This place is full of haters and retards. I'll see ya later.Don't be such a baby.

PantherModern

09-17-2005, 11:01 AM

Saying Mario sold 40 million units and ignoring the fact that it came with every NES is silly. If your point is that games were more popular back in the NES days, I disagree, and the example I cite is that any game packed into the PS2 would have twice the number of units sold as Mario.

Again, didn't ignore it. And can I remind you that Sony didn't pack in Jak and Daxter with system? I guess if we want to, y'know, get hypothetical, we can. But Sony didnt provide any software with that kind of boost. And if you would have, yknow, gone to the link, you would have seen that SMB 3, never packed with a system, mind you, sold 17.8 million copies at a good 50 bucks a pop in the early 90's. Man, those are some really unimpressive numbers there. And gaming sure was unpopular back then. Is there a PS2 game you can name that has sold that many?

Actually, you may find this link enlightening:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best_selling_video_games

And as far as console sales, the NES did move over 60 million units worldwide, and that was at a time when gaming was supposed to be dead, stabbed in the back by crappy Atari games. Yeah, ps2 has sold 80 million, but I know I had to buy 3 cause mine kept breaking. That might be a reason why :)

In any case, now that our pissing contest has continued to an unseen level, I will exit and let everyone retain their own opinions, since no one can seem to have a conversation around here.

EDIT:

edit: Ok, youre point is that games didn't get popular with the PSX. Yes, I agree the Nintendo was very popular, but not as popular as the PSX. Remember, they've had almost 20 years to move those 40 million units. I know it's hard to believe, but I bet you could find some new in box NES systems if you looked hard enough.

All true, and your point is valid. As I hope mine is in some respects. I am certainly not saying that gaming hasn't gotten more popular, simply saying that it wasn't "a marginalized subculture." Gaming has had a presence for quite a while. The market just needs to keep growing, and the easiest way to do that is to get non-gamers. It is MS's plan, and it is N's plan. It's a sound decision. Please consider all of my snarkiness void.

Rirath

09-17-2005, 11:13 AM

I look forward to the day when I can visit EA and not see "Nintendo" and "Innovation" side by side, for a change. It's like "ironic" and "Alanis Morissette".

/troll

Magnanimous Gnome

09-17-2005, 11:37 AM

ElectricMonk

09-17-2005, 11:37 AM

this guy has some ideas but like any 'analyst' he misses the boat somewhat. according to his theory once titles reache niche status innovation is punished, when it couldn't be more the opposite. take shmups for example, ikaruga, einhander, r-type delta, are some of the genre's best and most innovative

in fact shmups are the only genre that i can think of that has reached niche status and stayed there, many 'new gamers' are being found through classic arcade remakes in the form of online games.

Draft

09-17-2005, 11:43 AM

2D fighters also. The genre is clearly niche at this point, but some of the latest entries are also the best. Street Fighter 3: Third Strike, Street Fighter Alpha 3, Mark of the Wolves, etc, etc.

TrackZero

09-17-2005, 11:57 AM

This is a great, well thought out essay on the game industry and what makes Nintendo tick.

Too bad the elites at EA had to ride in on their huffy bikes and pick the post apart, completely missing the point.

Sometimes it's hard to see the post for the poster, it shows why people shouldn't put so much flamebait in their submissions. If they're going to act childish in that regard, they can expect people to miss the content for the way it was delivered. If they expected a serious discussion, they should treat it as such in the first place.

thecrazyd

09-17-2005, 12:01 PM

Meanwhile, ElectricMonk and Draft continue to miss the entire point.

JazGalaxy

09-17-2005, 12:13 PM

A couple of things...

Nintendo is actually known for it's billion dollar coffers. It has more money on hand than Sony, especially since Sony's PS department is operating in such a way as to cover the losses of it's other departments. Simply put, Nintendo is in a much better position to take chances and aggressively seek the success of it's system than Sony is. Sony is a giant ship that is already going full steam ahead and will not alter it's course. Ninendo is a smaller more manueverable craft that has a lot of tricks up it's sleeve and has shown that it is willing to use them. It will be hard to stop Sony's momentum, but if NIntdo does something wiley and pulls it off, Sony will blow up good.I don't forsee any minor shifts this gen. It will be big.

Also... recently I've been playing a lot of console games and found them.... boring. Not boring in the "oh I don't like videogames way" but boring in the "this game should be good but it has absolutely no soul" kind of way. I just got Catwoman from Best Buy for .99 cents for example. The graphics are great, the sound is passible, the voice acting is well done, and the control, for what it is, works well enough. And yet the game is absoulute no fun. It's as though they were so concerned about making it "sell" that they forgot to add in the fun. The basic underlying structure of the "game" is crap. For thsi reason I'm psyced baout the revolution. completely psyched.

holysin

09-17-2005, 12:50 PM

Maybe they're underhyping the revolution's capabilities just like they did it before.
They said the gamecube wouldn't be so powerful, but look at resident evil.

or maybe they just want to cut costs.

Liquidize105

09-17-2005, 01:12 PM

I see too many hardcores, part-time trolls, and wannabe diviners in here.

Better park it dudes. Take a chill out. Revolution's coming, so is DNF, as unbelievable as it sounds. When it does and it's good, people forgive and forget.

Find some other way to spend your Sat. morning. I'm out.

bobbler

09-17-2005, 01:45 PM

They could bump it up, but they don't have the money or friends to compete in any meaningful sense.

Surely you don't believe that?

Nintendo as a whole has about as much money as Microsoft's Xbox division and SCE to waste on their next generation platforms (this is the comparison people should be making). People seem to forget that just because Microsoft and Sony are huge companies it doesn't mean that they are willing to spend all their money on a small portion of their respective company. Nintendo always has quite a few billion in cash (6-8billion) on hand to do whatever they want. Nintendo could spend 1 billion on R&D for a new CPU, and get a contract with ATI or Nvidia for a new GPU. Nintendo does things a little differently because it works so well profit wise.

(Oops, didn't realize this thread was so long... silly me).

mister_slim

09-17-2005, 01:47 PM

As a hardcore RTS player, the only games I reject are those that don't have the interface conveniences that have been discovered in the recent years. The ability to queue up units, set a waypoint for initial units to start, the ability to select all of a certain type of units by double clicking etc. These conveniences don't fly in the face of innovation but are merely lessons learned in creating a fun RTS.
And all those interface improvements make control better, if you know them. And they aren't particular obvious and intuitive. Someone who has never played an RTS before will not benefit, and will in fact be punished for not knowing something the designers took for granted. A fun RTS for you is a traumatic RTS for someone who hasn't spent a lot of time learn all the genre quirks.
this guy has some ideas but like any 'analyst' he misses the boat somewhat. according to his theory once titles reache niche status innovation is punished, when it couldn't be more the opposite. take shmups for example, ikaruga, einhander, r-type delta, are some of the genre's best and most innovative

in fact shmups are the only genre that i can think of that has reached niche status and stayed there, many 'new gamers' are being found through classic arcade remakes in the form of online games.
2D fighters also. The genre is clearly niche at this point, but some of the latest entries are also the best. Street Fighter 3: Third Strike, Street Fighter Alpha 3, Mark of the Wolves, etc, etc.
Well, if innovation was rewarded wouldn't we be seeing those games on the bestseller charts?

51|RandoM

09-17-2005, 01:51 PM

Nintendo = fun, always has, probably always will. They must be doing something right, they're able to produce the hardware at a profit while still remainining a competitive force in the industry.

Sony is turning into the USSR of the MS vs. Sony videogames coldwar, and will probably bankrupt themselves with that particular arms race.

Draft

09-17-2005, 01:57 PM

Well, if innovation was rewarded wouldn't we be seeing those games on the bestseller charts?Umm, I guess?

Those games aren't really innovative, they're refined.

Opty

09-17-2005, 02:05 PM

A few ideas on peripherals (not mine: I don't know where they originally came from, but they're floating around):

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1711/wheel20dr7eq.th.jpg (http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wheel20dr7eq.jpg)

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6834/gun7ns8gl.th.jpg (http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gun7ns8gl.jpg)

Kelegacy

09-17-2005, 02:10 PM

Sony is turning into the USSR of the MS vs. Sony videogames coldwar, and will probably bankrupt themselves with that particular arms race.

Huh? Repeat please? In the battle of MS vs Sony consoles, you think Sony will kill themselves to beat Microsoft? Where were you this past generation when the PS2 had sold more than 75 million consoles, to the Xbox's 20 mil. I don't think Sony going anywhere anytime soon.

Danin

09-17-2005, 02:17 PM

Whoever came up with those is awesome.

Magnanimous Gnome

09-17-2005, 02:27 PM

Sometimes it's hard to see the post for the poster, it shows why people shouldn't put so much flamebait in their submissions. If they're going to act childish in that regard, they can expect people to miss the content for the way it was delivered. If they expected a serious discussion, they should treat it as such in the first place.

If he really was trying to flame in the original post, then shame on him. I, however, didn't see any flamebait there. I think some people here are just so tightly wound over the console wars that they will take almost ANYTHING as flamebait.

Nintendo has said that they will not be trying to compete with Sony and MS hardware wise, and I think this is what the thread-creator was getting at.

I really don't think any of it is worth arguing anyway. I'm sure the Revolution will be comparable to the other two machines. Besides, nothing we've seen from the other two machines has been that impressive anyway.

Zeal

09-17-2005, 02:49 PM

This man is right. Nintendo cuts off the hardcore and loyal base and reaches out for younger audiences. Diehard Nintendo fans don't seem to realize that Nintendo no longer cares about their age group, which is 20s-30s.

That is why I laugh at how religiously Nintendo heads defend them. Nintendo could care less.

Heretic Machine

09-17-2005, 03:01 PM

I really don't see how you can say that Zeal. What makes you think they don't care about my age group? We are their core audience. I hate to break this to you, but 11 year old lil'Jimmy doesn't give a fuck about Viewtiful Joe or Windwaker. He wants to play GTA and Halo.

Just because their games aren't full of graphic violence and sex, doesn't mean they're aimed at younger audiences. Just wider audiences.

Selar

09-17-2005, 03:04 PM

The FPS genre was pretty mature by the time Halo came out, but there's no question that the Halo series has turned a myriad of gamers on to first-person shooters. Halo did this with a bunch of innovations: control by analog stick, emphasis on driving cars, limited weapon inventory, recharging shield. I think these innovations were only possible because the FPS genre was mature and not in spite of the fact.

I know this post was early on, but I'm coming back to it.

Goldeneye (c. 1997) had control by analog and a recharging shield. I'm not really keen on the limited weapon inventory in Halo, and I'm not sure I'd call it an innovation. I'll give you the heavy use of vehicles though, I guess.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy a good game of Halo. But please don't call it innovative. Polished, yes. Innovative, no.

Kelegacy

09-17-2005, 03:12 PM

I know this post was early on, but I'm coming back to it.

Goldeneye (c. 1997) had control by analog and a recharging shield. I'm not really keen on the limited weapon inventory in Halo, and I'm not sure I'd call it an innovation. I'll give you the heavy use of vehicles though, I guess.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy a good game of Halo. But please don't call it innovative. Polished, yes. Innovative, no.

Agreed. Halo was not innovative, though I cant remember if driveable vehicles were in a game before that or not. I think a PC gamer could clear that up for us.

On the PC, the Halo was a fairly standard run and gun game, one that was mired in repetitive level design in the mid to later stages of the game, though there was plenty of fun to be had. On the consoles Halo was the popular successor to Goldeneye, meaning that it was the first console FPS to attract such a wide audience, especially for multiplayer. Fun does not equal innovation.

Draft

09-17-2005, 03:45 PM

Oh let's not drag Halo into this.

...

Too late.

Goldeneye did not have recharging shields. It had a life bar (which you could never recharge) and armor you could pick up.

Halo is not an innovative game. It is a refined game. It takes elements from other FPS games and improves upon them. It had, and still has imo, the best vehicles of any FPS game. It had excellent AI. This is something people who bash Halo generally ignore. Yes, you end up running through a bunch of very similar rooms. But it doesn't really matter, because the enemies are always fun and challenging. The recharging shield and the two weapon limit are not what I'd call innovative, but they sure lend Halo its own distinct feel.

To refer to the game as a standard run and gun is to sip the haterest of all the haterade.

And yes, games before Halo had vehicles. But again, imo, Halo's were the most fun to drive (ok, I'm mainly referring to the Warthog, but you gots to give it up for the Warthog.)

edit: why the fuck are we talking about Halo jesus christ.

El-Rodente

09-17-2005, 03:45 PM

that makes sense with the whole fable: good and evil thing

went into KOTOR 2 and others, mostly on xbox though

Deathwave

09-17-2005, 03:59 PM

No money vs. not enough money. You're getting pretty angry, is there something a little close to home going on?

The only thing hitting close to home, is the realization that you are one stupid fuck. You don't even remember what you posted in this thread, who cares what you have to say. Go get some sleep, you are way out of your league.

ElectricMonk

09-17-2005, 04:00 PM

Well, if innovation was rewarded wouldn't we be seeing those games on the bestseller charts?

I don't think a game has to be a best-seller to be successful, it just has to make a profit

a lamborghini diablo has a lot of innovation, and it's not a best seller, and i would consider it a success because there's no car i desire more

Draft

09-17-2005, 04:01 PM

The only thing hitting close to home, is the realization that you are one stupid fuck. You don't even remember what you posted in this thread, who cares what you have to say. Go get some sleep, you are way out of your league.Varsity's a bit of an odd chap, but he's clearly smarter and a hell of a lot more pleasant than yourself.

fushi

09-17-2005, 04:02 PM

Revolution sucks Jaguar rules

Kelegacy

09-17-2005, 04:18 PM

To refer to the game as a standard run and gun is to sip the haterest of all the haterade.

And yes, games before Halo had vehicles. But again, imo, Halo's were the most fun to drive (ok, I'm mainly referring to the Warthog, but you gots to give it up for the Warthog.)

edit: why the fuck are we talking about Halo jesus christ.

Okay, enough Halo talk. I wasnt the one who brought up Halo in this thread. But one last tidbit before we stop: it is my belief that Halo (on the PC) did little to differ itself from the rest of the FPS flock. So I call it a standard FPS (run and gun) as a result. I still believe it wasn't a "standard" game on the consoles, but for the PC, yes. But whatever, to each his own.

Let's get back into the Nintendo hating/defending now. Let's call each other fags and refuel the debate, shall we?

Draft

09-17-2005, 04:24 PM

Don't tell me what to do.

You fag.

rein

09-17-2005, 04:47 PM

And you aren't doing much better. Think. Do Nintendo have as much money as their competitors?

Why not compare what Nintendos game division has vs the competitors game division?

51|RandoM

09-17-2005, 04:50 PM

Huh? Repeat please? In the battle of MS vs Sony consoles, you think Sony will kill themselves to beat Microsoft? Where were you this past generation when the PS2 had sold more than 75 million consoles, to the Xbox's 20 mil. I don't think Sony going anywhere anytime soon.

Where was I? I was on the sidelines watching them get less profitable every day, and eventually showing a loss in that division.

...maybe you missed that...

You might also have missed that they only had one profitable division in the entire company last quarter...and that was a financial something or other back in Japan.

Microsoft a) has endless bags of money, and more importantly, b) are generating even more bags of money at a constant rate.

If you think Sony has a chance of matching Microsoft's burn rate, or level of commitment, you really need to think again.

All that said, there is more to the game than who throws the most money at a problem, as Nintendo proves over and over again.

bapenguin

09-17-2005, 05:02 PM

Ok, the conversation turned sour here...but on the original point. Nintendo CAN keep up in the hardware race, but Nintendo said that better graphics aren't going to help. They said the hardware race was the problem with today's gaming platform and chose to focus on something else, control. It was stated at E3 the Revolution would be something like 5x more powerful than current generation hardware. XBox 360 is something like 13x and PS3 like 15x. I'm sure that could all change, but those were the numbers floating around at E3 time.

CapnBob

09-17-2005, 05:35 PM

It just struck me that one could make a musical analogy to this article. If Nintendo was a band, they'd be constantly experimenting with new styles and doing little riffs off other styles with each subsequent album. The sound would be easy to remember but the style would be hard to categorize, and so they would always be around but rarely break into the pop charts. Microsoft and Sony would be large music labels, banking on long-established pop genres. In this analogy, you could say that Nintendo may have started with Rock and Roll but have moved onto other things, while developers like Bungie and Rockstar (no pun intended) are the Linkin Parks and the Papa Roaches.

Incidentally, I'm not sure who would get most pissed at me for this analogy, but chances are that if you aren't offended in some way then you're probably one of the people I'm making fun of. That should keep my bases covered.

Danin

09-17-2005, 05:58 PM

while developers like Bungie and Rockstar (no pun intended) are the Linkin Parks and the Papa Roaches.

Except talented.

Kamalot

09-17-2005, 06:43 PM

I don't think Sony going anywhere anytime soon.
People said the same thing about Atari and Sega.

thecrazyd

09-17-2005, 06:58 PM

Xerxes

09-17-2005, 07:05 PM

Do you really want them to innovate?
Take a gander at the people i guess acting like they are actually playing with it...
http://gametrailers.com/player.php?id=7643&type=mov

I mean at one part in the beginning, my thought was "Iron Chef the Game?!?!" - O_o

Zeal

09-17-2005, 07:07 PM

Logically speaking, I think it's safe to say Sony will dominate the console industry for a few more cycles. This isn't a threat to Microsoft, however, as their long term plan includes engaging Sony on a generational timeframe.

By the end of this concole cycle, I expect Microsoft and Sony's market penetration to balance out. Sony might have a slight lead in the end.

As for Nintendo, I unfortunately forsee them falling futher into obscurity and maintaining their niche status. Distant third place.

The controller is too little, too late.

Orphiuchus

09-17-2005, 07:24 PM

Except talented.
And I dont stab myself in the ear when I hear them.

Achilles

09-17-2005, 07:44 PM

5 bucks says the Revolution will be roughly comperable hardware-wise to the 360 and the PS3. That is to say, if it is less powerfull, it will be very slightly so. Remember last gen when everyone was saying the same thing about the GameCube? Nintendo always low balls their numbers, while the other companies outright lie about theirs.I'd wager that it’s significantly less powerful than the 360, but a bit more powerful than the current Xbox. (maybe a 1.6Ghz proc, single core 2.4 Ghz max), and has weak graphics card that is pretty good at surface properties. Alternatively it's a compact version of the Game Cube.

Heat and space wise unless they use laptop components they’re just not going to be able to make it powerful as small as it is. And using laptop components you could dry your hands on the heat being pushed out the back of it even if it’s got a mediocre laptop video card and a decently high end single core proc.

Could they have made it as powerful as the other two? Probably somewhere in the ball park I’d reckon yeah they could have, but interactive experiences isn’t a market they want to compete in, they want to make simpler games with a higher profit margin.

Xerxes

09-17-2005, 07:45 PM

Zeal, believe in the pokemon...

Lint of Death

09-17-2005, 07:51 PM

Those concept designs Opty posted are an amazing demonstration of what might be possible with the Nintendo Revolution, not to mention some of the more relevant items in this thread. They pretty much proved to me that I want a gaming system geared in favor of innovation.

Because I was born at a time that essentially prohibited me from playing Duck Hunt, I haven't gotten to play any games with a sort of lightgun controller (at least not at home). An introduction of that technology to next-gen, online multiplayer shooters would make for a highly entertaining system that emphasizes aiming skills far more than even a keyboard and mouse.

I just hope that I can get one of those N64-style control stick add-ons with a longer cord. The nunchaku seems too short for a setup that requires one to wave half the controller around like a madman.

EDIT:

I just thought of something else! Spore uses revolutionary techniques to generate animations for custom models. Perhaps Nintendo Revolution titles could take advantage of that. Imagine a game where the sword-wielding hero, whose shape and appearence can be heavily customized by the player, swings his weapon exactly as you direct him to. Maybe even bring it online to play against other people.

That would be so cool.

Dracula-X

09-17-2005, 07:53 PM

Except... those numbers are total bullshit, and it can not be catagorized like that. I said it before, and I will say it again: The Revolution will be comperable hardware wise to the other consoles.
Based on that gut feeling you wave with authority, or what? :)

I've not seen any details that would lead us to one conclusion or another, we just know it will be more powerful than the cube (according to Iwata), and that should be good enough for anyone whether it turns out to be as powerful as the 360/PS3 or not. The PS2 clearly didn't have the muscle the Xbox did, but it didn't hurt it any and the developers made do anyway. So we can remain positive.

Regarding whether or not Nintendo can play in the arms race, I personally don't think so, and I don't think it has enough money to do so. To put it in perspective, Microsoft alone has sunk in $12 billion dollars into the Xbox since 2000 (Bloomberg story, 16th), just to struggle with 3rd and 2nd place with ample hardware. We can only fathom what 360 R&D added to that. People think that because the gaming division managed to profit some odd quarters that they actually made money, but that never even touched the massive black hole of a money pit they sank into it and keep on losing.

Nintendo might have a healthy cash reserve but it really doesn't look like they can afford to gamble it - which is wise, they shouldn't. They have played the market in shrewd fashion and it has served them well, and they'll likely continue in this regard. The DS is vastly underpowered compared to the PSP, but is no less fun because of it and the sales speak for themselves (was that diplomatic or what!? :)). This is what Nintendo does best and it shouldn't change it's philosophy, if it intends to not go the way of Sega. I expect (as does the industry) the Revolution to be significantly cheaper (analysts expect a price of 19,800yen, or about $180US), and for that we simply aren't going to get comparable hardware/power. I have no doubt that games will be comparable, some visually, and most on a fun level, and that's what is important, something the Nintendards seem to lose sight of or not be content to admit.

I expect Sony to maintain dominance, but perhaps losing share to Microsoft, levelling the playfield between them moreso.

I think Nintendo is in good shape, and I'm down for a revolution myself.

(Apologies for the long post)

Zeal

09-17-2005, 08:03 PM

The Revolution is simply too small to offer graphics equal to those of the 360 and PS3. Unless Nintendo has invented some kind of revoluitionary cooling technology, you're gonna see graphics slightly better than Gamecube's. I stand by this.

This is also the entire reason Revolution has a controller like that. They're not going to be able to match the visuals, so they've resorted to providing a 'unique' gameplay experience.

thecrazyd

09-17-2005, 08:31 PM

The Revolution is simply too small to offer graphics equal to those of the 360 and PS3. Unless Nintendo has invented some kind of revoluitionary cooling technology, you're gonna see graphics slightly better than Gamecube's. I stand by this.

This is also the entire reason Revolution has a controller like that. They're not going to be able to match the visuals, so they've resorted to providing a 'unique' gameplay experience.
Wanna put some money on that? I stand by my five buck wager. It will be roughly comparable.

Achilles

09-17-2005, 08:37 PM

Wanna put some money on that? I stand by my five buck wager. It will be roughly comparable.Loser contributes $5 to Evil's site?

Orphiuchus

09-17-2005, 08:54 PM

Its not like anyone is even coming close to using all the power of even this generation of consoles, why would the suddenly use all of the next? The revolution will look fine, its still very powerful hardware, and the only time its limitations will come into play is 4 or 5 years down the road.

Rirath

09-17-2005, 09:07 PM

I would say people are indeed using the full power already, unless you honestly think Oblivion would play just swell on the Xbox, or that Zombie game on the PS2. Even Nintendo is probably going to pushing some limits with Twilight Princess.

Kelegacy

09-17-2005, 10:07 PM

The Revolution is simply too small to offer graphics equal to those of the 360 and PS3. Unless Nintendo has invented some kind of revoluitionary cooling technology, you're gonna see graphics slightly better than Gamecube's. I stand by this.

This is also the entire reason Revolution has a controller like that. They're not going to be able to match the visuals, so they've resorted to providing a 'unique' gameplay experience.

Did someone sell you a baggie of pubic hair, telling you it was marijuana? You must be smoking something pretty foul to believe what you just said.

Zeal

09-17-2005, 10:45 PM

Why is the 360 liquid cooled and why is the PS3 the size of a planet? Heat. Why do they run so hot? Because their graphic processors are fast and powerful.

Heat and space wise unless they use laptop components they’re just not going to be able to make it powerful as small as it is. And using laptop components you could dry your hands on the heat being pushed out the back of it even if it’s got a mediocre laptop video card and a decently high end single core proc.
This guy also gets it, but that's because he's using common sense. Nintendo fanboys don't do that, even when Nintendo themselves have said they're not pushing the hardware.

Visually, it's not going to be able to compete with either console.

Royal Fool

09-17-2005, 10:59 PM

The Revolution is simply too small to offer graphics equal to those of the 360 and PS3. Unless Nintendo has invented some kind of revoluitionary cooling technology, you're gonna see graphics slightly better than Gamecube's. I stand by this.

Size =! Graphical power. Not to mention that part of the Xbox 360's innards are designed to house an optional hard drive.

Simply put, Nintendo could have chosen to go the way of Sony and Microsoft and design a console that would match (Or surpass?) theirs in terms of graphical power. But they preferred not to, as the article that in the original post points out so thoroughly. Instead they are trying to create new experiences, new genres that we haven't typically seen on consoles.

This is also the entire reason Revolution has a controller like that. They're not going to be able to match the visuals, so they've resorted to providing a 'unique' gameplay experience.
Oh, so they first designed the console itself, and then they realized that it would not stand up to the competition and created the Revo controller to compensate? :)

Zeal

09-17-2005, 11:09 PM

Oh, so they first designed the console itself, and then they realized that it would not stand up to the competition and created the Revo controller to compensate? :)

I don't know if you were trying to be sarcastic or what. Instead of developing a console to graphically compete with 360 or PS3, they chose to focus on what they refer to as innvoation. A unique or different gameplay experience is what the console was designed for, not processing power or graphics. Nintendo has said this many times.

The question is whether or not their new controller can stand up to 360/PS3's big-budget productions. For example, MGS4 and Halo 3, both of which will look unreal.

If the controller fails to catch on, Nintendo will have nothing to fall back on. Graphically, they won't be able to compete with such games.

Achilles

09-17-2005, 11:11 PM

Size =! Graphical power. Not to mention that part of the Xbox 360's innards are designed to house an optional hard drive.Both those statements are incorrect. The 360's hard drive is mounted externally, like a battery pack that clips onto the top of it. At first I thought it was internal as well but it turns out that it's just really small.

And size certainly does determine power when you're talking about something that's as big as 3 DVD cases stacked on top of each other. Without the ability to dissipate the heat it simply can't run hot which means it can't be powerful. What Zeal's saying is correct. You have to understand that it’s going to be barely bigger than the DVD drive itself, and last I heard the Revolution still runs on electricity, where's the heat going to go? The cooling unit for the 360's CPU is almost twice the height of the Revolution, think about it.

I don't know why Nintendo fans bother arguing it'll be powerful instead of just saying "It doesn't need to be powerful to do what I want."

Danin

09-17-2005, 11:16 PM

It doesn't need to be powerful to do what I want.

Zeal

09-17-2005, 11:17 PM

Oh wait, this just in. The Revolution is composed entirely out of nanomachines. It runs as fast as 10,000 Cell processors.

Scource: Nintendo Power

Achilles

09-17-2005, 11:30 PM

It doesn't need to be powerful to do what I want.Thank you Danin! :P

Seriously, argue the thing's strengths guys. I don't think I'll like the rev but if you do it's because you're excited about playing unknown games with a completely new interface. Roll with that and try not to sound like you're in denial. Oh wait, this just in. The Revolution is composed entirely out of nanomachines. It runs as fast as 10,000 Cell processors.

Scource: Nintendo PowerI read an article on IGN that says it runs on faith. The more you believe in the power of Miyamoto the better the games look. (sorry, couldn't resist)

Rirath

09-17-2005, 11:34 PM

If the controller fails to catch on, Nintendo will have nothing to fall back on. Graphically, they won't be able to compete with such games.

They'll always have something to fall back on: the fans. Nintendo can just keep going. If all else fails, they'll play the price point to the point where you just can't help but own one, like the GC and DS, if only for a few titles.

I miss the old Nintendo myself, before they became obessed with doing something 'new' and getting the 'casual gamer'.

Zeal

09-17-2005, 11:34 PM

Thank you Danin! :P

Seriously, argue the thing's strengths guys. I don't think I'll like the rev but if you do it's because you're excited about playing unknown games with a completely new interface. Roll with that and try not to sound like you're in denial. I read an article on IGN that says it runs on faith. The more you believe in the power of Miyamoto the better the games look. (sorry, couldn't resist)
Good, goooood....

I can feel your anger.

feeble

09-18-2005, 12:38 AM

If the Revolution has the same power has the GameCube, i have no problem with that.

Theoretically, since it hasn't been confirmed. the Revolution should be about 3 times more powerful then the Gamecube.
The revolution has only one core, and the custom made ATI card is meant to be quite impression especially since it was designed to go into the console it self.

Using generic laptop/computer parts to describe consoles is pointless, especially since they are designed to do two completly different things.

Why dont we all wait till the console is out, or when dev kits start being taken apart.

Bushido

09-18-2005, 12:51 AM

Achilles

09-18-2005, 01:06 AM

Using generic laptop/computer parts to describe consoles is pointless, especially since they are designed to do two completly different things.That's true, I only mentioned them to demonstrate how much heat something that small usually generates. I have no doubt it'll output better graphics than a laptop of equal strength. Good, goooood....

I can feel your anger.I can feel your anger.… It gives you focus … makes you stronger.Hey I just heard that the dark side of the Force is a gateway to many powers that some may consider to be... unnatural... like procedural mapping and stuff.
(the Emperor freakin' rocks btw)

NELS

09-18-2005, 02:56 AM

Why do arguments about videogame systems always boil down to graphical power? Am I the only one that is completely content with where the graphics of this generation are? I mean I honestly don't care if I can see every wrinkle of a man's face in complete high resolution, if the gameplay isn't good.

What I am trying to get at is a two hundred dollar gaming system (talking about the speculation of Revolution) versus a four hundred dollar gaming system, that in the end basically do the same thing, what is the reason to buy the four hundred dollar gaming system. Nintendo is actually playing this generation extremely smart in that they are giving people a reason to buy their system over Xbox360 or PS3 (besides the speculated price difference). And if the "remote" controller doesn't work for the developers fuck it use the GameCube controller. I applaud Nintendo for actually trying to breathe new life into a stale (in my opinion) industry.

Just my 2 tho...

Zeal

09-18-2005, 03:08 AM

The graphics argument is as old as time. Allow me to put it into perspective for you.

1. Having good looks does matter.
2. Having a lot of money does matter.
3. Having a big dick does matter.
4. Having good graphics does matter.

See, when paired with those unspoken, yet obvious truths, you begin to get the idea. Not matter how hard people try to dismiss the reality, graphics matter, naturally. The truth must be accepted in all things, good or bad.

NELS

09-18-2005, 03:17 AM

Saying it three times doesn't ALWAYS make it so.

You can never tell me that graphics matter to ME as that was what I was arguing. You see I was trying eliciting a response from someone that believes that graphics matter and was hoping against hope they would actually have some kind of argument to stand on, but no what I got was an analogy to the size of your dick. Why do I even get my hopes up?

Achilles

09-18-2005, 03:50 AM

You can never tell me that graphics matter to ME as that was what I was arguing. You see I was trying eliciting a response from someone that believes that graphics matter and was hoping against hope they would actually have some kind of argument to stand on, but no what I got was an analogy to the size of your dick. Why do I even get my hopes up?Your previous argument is, in my opinion the way Revolution fans should be arguing. Instead of claiming things that aren’t true (the rev is as powerful as the 360), you’re claiming that the games that you want to play don’t need a graphical beast that can real time render FMV quality graphics. And they don’t probably, if you say so I’ve got no reason to doubt you, but I’ll let you know why graphics matter to me.

I see games as an interactive experience on par with movies. To that end I like vast expansive and immersive games created with as much artistry as I can cram into my eyes. I love looking at a world sometimes as many as 80 artists came together to make as life-like and intricate as possible. I’m the kind of guy who will shine a flashlight on a wall so I can see how the surface properties react, or look at a sweeping field and want the clouds to cast shadows and the grass to move in the wind. To me graphics are the world I’m playing in, and in the same way as I don’t want to walk around all day with sunglasses on and pull the detail from the real world, I enjoy playing games with as much detail and fantasy-realism as I can find.

So there’s my logic, not really an argument.

Deathwave

09-18-2005, 03:57 AM

Varsity's a bit of an odd chap, but he's clearly smarter and a hell of a lot more pleasant than yourself.

Someone who has a signature of another poster calling someone a n00b. Oh yeah, you know just who, and what, is intelligent.

Varsity can't even remember what he posts. Yeah, see, I already said that. And, I do remember it. At it's very core, does that not make me automatically smarter than Varsity?

As to pleasant...I bet you are Jesus fucking Christ himself, right?

NELS

09-18-2005, 04:04 AM

Your previous argument is, in my opinion the way Revolution fans should be arguing. Instead of claiming things that aren’t true (the rev is as powerful as the 360), you’re claiming that the games that you want to play don’t need a graphical beast that can real time render FMV quality graphics. And they don’t probably, if you say so I’ve got no reason to doubt you, but I’ll let you know why graphics matter to me.

I see games as an interactive experience on par with movies. To that end I like vast expansive and immersive games created with as much artistry as I can cram into my eyes. I love looking at a world sometimes as many as 80 artists came together to make as life-like and intricate as possible. I’m the kind of guy who will shine a flashlight on a wall so I can see how the surface properties react, or look at a sweeping field and want the clouds to cast shadows and the grass to move in the wind. To me graphics are the world I’m playing in, and in the same way as I don’t want to walk around all day with sunglasses on and pull the detail from the real world, I enjoy playing games with as much detail and fantasy-realism as I can find.

So there’s my logic, not really an argument.

Wonderfully put, I think I can see where you are coming from with this. I can agree that graphics play a part in games, but it’s not a deal breaker for me. The difference of Revolution and the Xbox360 (based on speculation again), is not going to be severe enough for me to judge anything on graphical power. I think more of the artistry (to me at least) in a videogame is the interactive part, getting the game to respond well to what the gamer wants to do. This is far and bye to me the most important thing to me, easily trumping everything else.

So I guess what I am asking is the difference in graphics going to hamper some artist from getting their full vision out. I do not believe so.

Edit: Thanks by the way.

Achilles

09-18-2005, 04:56 AM

So I guess what I am asking is the difference in graphics going to hamper some artist from getting their full vision out. I do not believe so.That's an interesting discussion, and I'm not sure what kind of graphics the Rev will have either so it's hard to really talk about at this stage, but comparing the Xbox to the 360 I'll try to make my case.

Really it’s the difference between playing a game and watching a movie. Even if the artistry in a game is amazing, if the system doesn’t have the power to convey the mood and emotion of the characters and setting to you, something is lost that could have been there. We don’t notice it for the most part these days because what can be done has been very similar for the last 4 years. But if you go back further, the PS1 could never convincingly convey facial expression, especially subtle ones, so they had to hit you over the head with it in a stylized way that wasn’t as effective. It’s the difference between talking to something that looks and acts very much like a person in Half Life 2 and reading a dialog box while looking at the practical icon of Cloud Strife in Final Fantasy VII.

A lot of people became attached to Aeris, which is why her death was so memorable to everyone. There were several subtle tricks they played to ensure this (namely making her your only real healer which almost guaranteed that you’d come to rely on her), but just think of how much more it would have hit people if when they interacted with her she had all the subtle features and mannerisms of a real person that the player unconsciously became accustomed to, and then suddenly lost. It allows the connection to be more immediate and stronger than having to read 10 hours of text to understand why you care about this person and understand how she acts. A certain way she smiles or holds her body which reminds you of someone you know is something that could only be managed through better graphics, and has an artistic impact that you simply can't achieve otherwise.

I’ve got a bit of experience with hand-helds and while trying to create a world you can use simple tricks, music, and good art to give the player the idea that there’s wind, or that it’s cold outside. But the more fully the artist can flesh out the details of the world through better graphics the more the player really begins to feel it. Instead of getting the idea that it’s cold outside, the mood and feel of the world is pervasive. When people begin to look for subtle things they're used to seeing in real life and then see them in the game as well, it allows the artist to mess with those things to help make their fantasy world more real.

We don’t know what something like the 360 or the PS3 will really do for gaming yet, but I expect it will be as hard to go back to playing games with the Xbox’s graphics as it is to go back and play a 3d game on the PS1 or N64. Everything will look fake, flat, and iconic.

Or maybe there won’t be that big a difference, but that's my take on it :)
My, this got fairly long didn't it.

NELS

09-18-2005, 05:46 AM

I just think that doesn’t truly hamper the artists. Perhaps if Square made Final Fantasy 7 for the Xbox it would have been easier to get the gamer attached to Aeris, but they managed just fine on the Playstation. If you are really dedicated to getting your vision through you will find a way. But I guess by saying that I am agreeing that in ways it can hamper the artist. But I also believe that the main reason facial expressions and other subtle hints to human emotion were never fully realized in videogames, is due to the laziness of developers. It wasn’t in their vision to do this. If Square truly wanted to show you facial emotions from Aeris, they could have through FMVs. It was obviously not a priority to their vision, or they could have made it work. I mean the Xbox has plenty of power to orchestrate at least the most rudimentary facial emotions, but how many games actually utilized the Xbox’s power for it? We still got most emotions through voices or text.

For the sake of argument let’s just say Dreamcast is to PS2 as Revolution is to Xbox360/PS3, I think that is a fair assumption on the given information. Dreamcast didn’t fail because of its graphics. It failed due to bad word of mouth, and lack of 3rd party support (similarities arise, damnit). The PS2 was the least powerful console of this generation, and it still won the generation war by a landslide. It had advantages but at the end of the day, did its disadvantage hamper it at all? If a developer really wanted its game to come out for the PS2 he could make it happen. I mean look at God of War, obviously one of the better looking games for the PS2, they knew they were releasing the game for the PS2 so they full utilized the tool in front of them. The end result was a game that could stand with the best looking games of this generation. So I am just trying to say that the Revolution should not be counted out due to its graphical limitations.

It is really hard to string cohesive arguments together this late (or early if your an optimist).

Achilles

09-18-2005, 06:13 AM

For the sake of argument let’s just say Dreamcast is to PS2 as Revolution is to Xbox360/PS3, I think that is a fair assumption on the given information. Dreamcast didn’t fail because of its graphics ... So I am just trying to say that the Revolution should not be counted out due to its graphical limitations.

It is really hard to string cohesive arguments together this late (or early if your an optimist).You're right, and I'm all hopped up on caffeine too :P

I think the first bit I quoted is where the key lies. If it really is the difference between the PS2 and the Dreamcast than it's not a big deal, I agree. But if it's the difference between Ico and Jumping Flash the Revolution begins to fall behind in the kinds of worlds it can create. I personally think it'll be closer to the difference between the Xbox and the 360 than the PS2 and Xbox just based on its size and the fact that they say it'll only be 3 times more powerful than a Game Cube instead of 10 or more times more powerful than an Xbox like the 360 is (it really is too, people are going to be floored by it when they get it hooked up and start seeing it in motion on a 40+" 720p screen).

Regarding Aeris; even though they could do some facial animations with FMV in FFVII, and did to an extent, it couldn't be there every time you looked at her, and it couldn't be in every reaction she had to what you were doing in the way that it could be if it were done like HL2. Other good modern examples of attachment are Ashley in RE4, who was made more real by her reactions to what was going on, and the girl in Ico who was made more real by her amazingly crafted animations and subtle behaviors that couldn't have existed on the SNES for example. I'd think of a better example but my brain's going to slide out my ear and I've still got a ton of work to do. Time to break out the Rockstar.

Now not every game will do these things with the art. In fact it'll probably be the case that extremely few will, maybe 5 a year out of all the games that are released. But those 5 will be the reason for the whole generation to exist. Come to think of it this will be true of the Revolution as well. Most games won't make good use of the new controller but the very few that do will really show why someone should own one; because you can't get that experience somewhere else.

It keeps on being a good discussion though, thanks.

Lon Lon Rabbit

09-18-2005, 07:05 AM

A lot of people became attached to Aeris, which is why her death was so memorable to everyone.

Aeris dies?!
I HATE YOU!

Achilles

09-18-2005, 07:08 AM

Aeris dies?!
I HATE YOU!Shoulda played it 10 years ago bub, you deserve what ya get! ;)

Nimos

09-18-2005, 07:16 AM

The Revolution is simply too small to offer graphics equal to those of the 360 and PS3. Unless Nintendo has invented some kind of revoluitionary cooling technology, you're gonna see graphics slightly better than Gamecube's. I stand by this.

Both those statements are incorrect. The 360's hard drive is mounted externally, like a battery pack that clips onto the top of it. At first I thought it was internal as well but it turns out that it's just really small.

And size certainly does determine power when you're talking about something that's as big as 3 DVD cases stacked on top of each other. Without the ability to dissipate the heat it simply can't run hot which means it can't be powerful. What Zeal's saying is correct. You have to understand that it’s going to be barely bigger than the DVD drive itself, and last I heard the Revolution still runs on electricity, where's the heat going to go? The cooling unit for the 360's CPU is almost twice the height of the Revolution, think about it.

This is all speculation, we don't have the slightest clue about Nintendo's heat dissipation technique for the revolution. Here is an argument for you guys : iMac G5 . Apple managed to squeeze, a super hot G5, DDR-2 memory modules, a 9600 pro, a 7200 rpm (!!!!) sata hard drive AND a freaking 17 inch wide tft screen in a depth size of 3 dvd boxes.
And let's not forget that we don't even know the nm's of the cpu and ati's 3d accelerator : smaller nm size for these chips means lower temperatures.

Nimos

Kamalot

09-18-2005, 07:33 AM

The Revolution is simply too small to offer graphics equal to those of the 360 and PS3. Unless Nintendo has invented some kind of revoluitionary cooling technology, you're gonna see graphics slightly better than Gamecube's. I stand by this.

This is also the entire reason Revolution has a controller like that. They're not going to be able to match the visuals, so they've resorted to providing a 'unique' gameplay experience.
How about, "They CHOSE to not try and match the visuals".

Nintendo could have put out a big, expensive box just like everyone else.

They chose not to.

Instead, Nintendo game us an awesome new 3D control device to reach into the game world.

It has never been done beofre, and it is awesome.

Kamalot

09-18-2005, 07:42 AM

Xerxes

09-18-2005, 07:49 AM

Yeah kamelot but that chart of yours isn't based on statistical numbers... I mean some stuff we can't see which retarded but still...

Example: PGR2 used 10,000 polygons on each car, PGR3 has 80,000; 40k on the interior and 40k on the exterior, not to mention the landscape is much improved.

Kelegacy

09-18-2005, 08:19 AM

And so far, None of the 360 movies or stills I have seen look anything like 10x more powerful than the Xbox. They all look about 3x more powerful anyway.

http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=88883&postcount=37

3x is being generous in some cases.

Smoke and mirrors, misdirection, shenanigans... Why won't the PS3 campaign be a straight shooter? -Me

Xerxes, you put a quote from yourself in your own profile? Into yourself much, are we?

Selar

09-18-2005, 08:24 AM

Guys, please stop saying 3x more powerful this and 5x more powerful that. It doesn't even make sense. What's 3x more powerful? CPU speed? GPU speed? Texture fillrate?

You can't really compare computer systems in that way.

civx

09-18-2005, 08:35 AM

The XBOX360 is 10 times more powerful than the XBOX which is 100 times more powerful than the NES which is 20 times more powerful than your microwave which is only 70 times more powerful than your couch.

NOW!

The Revolution is only twice as powerful as the gamecube which is 300 times more powerful than your average sponge which is about 3 times more powerful than a rock.

The PS3 on the other hand is 15 times more powerful than the PS2 which is 1.5 times more powerful than the dreamcast which is 5 times more powerful than the n64.

So you see guys, everything works out in the end!

MusicToEat

09-18-2005, 08:38 AM

I would argue that the reason so many people became attached to Aries was the fact that she WASN'T incredibly detailed and life like. Not sure if you've heard of Masahiro Mori's "uncanny valley (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102086/)" paradox, but he noticed in his robotics expeirments in the 70's that when the robots were stylized and vague people found them "cute" and became attached to them. When they became too realistic however they started to be repeled. The closer they got to lifelike, the more you noticed the little things that weren't there.

Many of the new hyper realistic games look like puppets at best, and animated corpses at worst. The answer to that is not to make them even more realistic, because you're NEVER going to get them exact, but to realize where the threshold is. I think WoW and EQ2 are good examples of this. While not the only factor, I was more attracted to WoWs art style, because it was more stylized. It wasn't hyper realistic, and because of this I could add my own imagination to the character to fill in the gaps. Were as in EQ2 I just noticed all the things that were "wrong". I think a hyper realistic FF VII would have had as much emotional impact as the Final Fantasy movie. That failed, imo, because it was too realistic. It was like watching reanimated corpses for 2 hours.

True, more power and better graphics are not bad things, but they're certainly not the end all be all. I have a feeling that this next generation, they'll really start to be a hinderance. Art directors are going to have to walk the "uncanny valley" tightrope. You're starting to see the problem arise this generation already.

civx

09-18-2005, 08:39 AM

We're not even close to uncanny valley.

Xerxes

09-18-2005, 08:42 AM

Xerxes, you put a quote from yourself in your own profile? Into yourself much, are we?

Indeed we are, or are we?
:p :confused: :p

Harlan Hoyt

09-18-2005, 12:44 PM

I have to disagree with the argument that more realistic graphics make for a more engaging attachment. You should read Scott McCloud's book Understanding Comics to see what I mean. The more simplified and abstracted something is, the easier it is to become engaged with -- you are able to project yourself into the blank, as opposed to something that, the more specified it becomes, the more it excludes individual interpretation.

Also, I agree that the more realistic things become, the creepier it starts to be. Graphics will never be able to convey the spark that humans have, and the closer you got to it (but miss), the more apparent it will become. By Achilles' argument, the Final Fantasy movie should be the be-all, end-all of animated entertainment because it was so realistic. Personally, I thought it was a terrible movie (and I think that for the most part its success [or lack thereof] would bear me out). I mean, can you honestly tell me that you found Final Fantasy more engaging than Spirited Away or Grave of the Fireflies? The iconic, simplified style of those films allows us to come far closer than the photo realistic, distant style. The closer you come, the further you have to go. I think it's an unbridgeable gap.

If the argument is that, graphically at any rate, the Xbox 360 will allow for more immersive, involving games because it allows for greater verisimilitude in rendering humans, I would have to disagree with you in the strongest terms. Personally, I found Wind Waker one of the most immersive, involving games I've ever played because of the art style. Give me stylized any day.

Achilles

09-18-2005, 02:51 PM

Also, I agree that the more realistic things become, the creepier it starts to be. Graphics will never be able to convey the spark that humans have, and the closer you got to it (but miss), the more apparent it will become. By Achilles' argument, the Final Fantasy movie should be the be-all, end-all of animated entertainment because it was so realistic. Personally, I thought it was a terrible movie (and I think that for the most part its success [or lack thereof] would bear me out). I mean, can you honestly tell me that you found Final Fantasy more engaging than Spirited Away or Grave of the Fireflies? The iconic, simplified style of those films allows us to come far closer than the photo realistic, distant style.We don't have games that look like Grave of the Fireflies or Spirited Away either. Or Toy Story for that matter. Realistic is a catch-all for more subtle detail, movement and whatnot. If you try for photo realism yeah you're going to fail unless it's a racing game. But the FFVII tech demo could have done everything I was talking about and that was hardly photo realistic, it was fantasy-realism.

There's the thought going around that you can't make something that's better than it looks now unless people try to make it look like real life. And that facial expressions and whatnot can't be in a game unless the characters look exactly like real people. But go watch some anime, those are stylized characters who react and emote and look way better than anything that could be done in real-time on a current gen console. Just because a character can react like a person doesn’t mean they need to look like a photograph.

How compelling would Grave of the Fireflies been if each character you were looking at was a 12 pixel high sprite and you had to read everything in portraited dialog boxes. Would you have sat through the whole movie? Or would it have lost so much of its mood that it wouldn’t have been worth it?

By the way the characters I was referencing from Half Life 2 weren't photo realistic, they were stylized. If it can work there than it can work elsewhere, you uncanny valley crowd.

Zeal

09-18-2005, 03:32 PM

How about, "They CHOSE to not try and match the visuals".

Nintendo could have put out a big, expensive box just like everyone else.

They chose not to.

Instead, Nintendo game us an awesome new 3D control device to reach into the game world.

It has never been done beofre, and it is awesome.

Do you even read my posts.

feeble

09-18-2005, 03:46 PM

Lon Lon Rabbit

09-18-2005, 03:47 PM

Shoulda played it 10 years ago bub, you deserve what ya get! ;)
Heh I played it through, just trying to lighten the mood of the thread before Zeal gets here.
...too late.

mister_slim

09-18-2005, 04:17 PM

Logically speaking, I think it's safe to say Sony will dominate the console industry for a few more cycles. This isn't a threat to Microsoft, however, as their long term plan includes engaging Sony on a generational timeframe.
Well, Sony and MS are both planning to turn their game consoles into media hubs, so who knows how long they will dominate gaming (did anyone else take a look at the MS TGS keynote, btw?).
The Revolution is simply too small to offer graphics equal to those of the 360 and PS3. Unless Nintendo has invented some kind of revoluitionary cooling technology, you're gonna see graphics slightly better than Gamecube's. I stand by this.
That's kind of true, but if you compare the size and the power of the PSTwo to the Xbox, the Xbox is not 20 times as powerful as the PS2.
Really it’s the difference between playing a game and watching a movie. Even if the artistry in a game is amazing, if the system doesn’t have the power to convey the mood and emotion of the characters and setting to you, something is lost that could have been there. We don’t notice it for the most part these days because what can be done has been very similar for the last 4 years. But if you go back further, the PS1 could never convincingly convey facial expression, especially subtle ones, so they had to hit you over the head with it in a stylized way that wasn’t as effective. It’s the difference between talking to something that looks and acts very much like a person in Half Life 2 and reading a dialog box while looking at the practical icon of Cloud Strife in Final Fantasy VII.
That's a good example of where progress should be taking us, but it hasn't that much to do with hardware power though. That's going to be all about the developer. Look at Jade Empire, for example. Bioware had the best hardware and no shortage of resources, but their facial animation is poor and disturbing. Meanwhile, Wind Waker, or even Skies of Arcadia (on the DC), is able to convey the character's personality and emotions, without looking autistic.

DoubleUranium

09-18-2005, 04:31 PM

I'm on board with Zeal on this one. This has nothing at all do with either debate that the Revolution is either a gift from almighty god himself, or another damn cutesy kidde game machine. The quality of the graphics on the Revolution will be inferior to the PS3/Xbox 360 no matter how much you may not want that to be true. It's simply a matter of cost. Everyone agrees that MS & Sony lose money on each machine sold. Everyone conjectures that Nintendo never loses money on any system sold. Therefore, using ATI & IBM chips, MS can produce a console for $299 (at a loss no less, and this version without the cost of a HD) and somehow, magically, Nintendo, also using IBM and ATI chips, can produce a system that sells for $199 (profitably) that is just as powerful as the 360. I guess somehow the ATI & IBM engineers just don't like MS and gave them more expensive and less powerful chips, while Nintendo gets smaller, more powerful, cooler running chips for less money. Logic people, logic.

That being said, the Revolution could more than make up for it with the controller and a fantastic game library. You can tell who the fanboys are declaring the Revolution to be the greatest system/innovation of all time when they have yet to see one single actual game for the system. Mockups and demos don't count. There are equally rabid fanboys on the other side who hate Nintendo for being Nintendo. I have no idea if I'll like the Revolution or not. I've never played with one, nor do I know someone who has and that's all that matters to me. It's purely conjecture. I do know one thing that makes me sad about it though - it's going to suck in 4 years still seeing the damn black bars and 480i, or maybe 480p at best coming out of the Rev on my HD set. Those who own an HD set understand what I'm saying there.

feeble

09-18-2005, 11:51 PM

You can tell who the fanboys are declaring the Revolution to be the greatest system/innovation of all time when they have yet to see one single actual game for the system

I dont get this nintendo fanboy calls. I guess there no XBox or PS3 fanboys in this thread, that could also explain people hating the controller without even having ago.
I cannot tell which is worse.

If the controller is not a new idea or innovation for controllers, then what is it? I havent seen a controller like this put out as the main controller that will be used for a console yet.

It may look like a tv remote, but is that really a problem if it works and feels comfortable when using it to play a game.
Read just about any review out there atm of reporters that have actually used the controller and most of the comments are possible and full of excitement.

the only thing im worried about is the batteries in the remote, i god damn hate batteries that dont come with a charger and need to be replaced and taken out.

RMan

09-19-2005, 07:51 AM

I don’t think the Revolution will be as powerful as the others, I’d say generally half as powerful is a safe bet. However, half as powerful may equate to 3 times less expensive (heck, it’s closer to 6X less expensive for retail processors) for their costs. Half as powerful will also equate to almost no noticeable difference in the game’s graphics. Heck, right now the PS2 is considerably less powerful than the Xbox, and has less features, but there’s still standout titles like God of War and Black that prove that the technical difference is fairly inconsequential in practice and the developer is by far the primary factor. The power difference between the Revolution and the PS3/360 likely won’t be nearly as big as the difference between PS2 and Xbox, so it’s unlikely that it’ll make any noticeable difference for the average player (esp. since it made little difference in this one).

IMO, as long as Nintendo can get one well funded and artistically talented developer to make a game with content on par with the big budget stuff being made by the other two, they can quell the fears of the less knowledgeable folk that actually think the mild power shortage will actually make a significant difference. I don’t think they’ll have a problem doing that, the next trick is getting the word out effectively, because I think Sony and MS will throw an unbelievable amount of money at marketing, so much so that they could convince a lot of people the world was flat if that’s what they wanted to do.

mister_slim

09-19-2005, 10:24 AM

IMO, as long as Nintendo can get one well funded and artistically talented developer to make a game with content on par with the big budget stuff being made by the other two, they can quell the fears of the less knowledgeable folk that actually think the mild power shortage will actually make a significant difference.
If Retro can get Metroid Prime 3 out by Christmas '06, with online play and taking full advantage of the controller, this could get interesting.

I'm less interested in MP3 if they change the controls, but it would certainly appeal to more people.

Magnanimous Gnome

09-19-2005, 02:00 PM

Bone

09-19-2005, 02:29 PM

Why is the 360 liquid cooled and why is the PS3 the size of a planet? Heat. Why do they run so hot? Because their graphic processors are fast and powerful

You really have no idea about anything. How big was the Gamecube? Was it not more powerful than the PS2 and almost on par with the Xbox, visually (don't give me opinions, go by reviews of games released on all 3 consoles)? While you have a couple of valid points in heat dissipation, you overgeneralize just about everything else in your argument. The size of the Revolution (which is still just a display unit, I haven't seen any official lockdown of that design yet) is really not that important.

Not to mention your only purpose is to spew more hate at Nintendo, not contribute to any real argument here.

Achilles

09-19-2005, 03:19 PM

How big was the Gamecube?Twice as big as the Revolution! (was that a trick question?) The internals of the GC were about as large (if not larger) as the interals of the PS2, if you look half the PS2 was taken up by an empty hard drive bay. The Xbox was bigger because it used pretty much off-the-shelf parts and had a hard drive in it.

But the Revolution is really, really small, not Game Cube small, like half of a PSTwo small.

Kelegacy

09-19-2005, 03:29 PM

Half of the PStwo? You smokin' crack? That'd be nearly as thin as a CD case.

Achilles

09-19-2005, 04:05 PM

Half of the PStwo? You smokin' crack? That'd be nearly as thin as a CD case.It's not thinner, it's about twice as thick, but every other dimension is smaller. It's not half the size, you're right, but as a comparison to show just how small the thing is:
The PS2 Slimline is
230mm x 28mm x 152mm
The Game Cube will be smaller than 3 DVD cases, which is
190mm x 45mm x 135mm
Keep in mind Nintendo has said that the real version will be smaller than the prototype. Do you still think it’ll be powerful?

Bone

09-19-2005, 04:15 PM

Wait, you're saying PS2 slimline. Compare the Gamecube with the original PS2 and that comparison doesn't stand. I would say that the PS2 (original) and Gamecube were roughly the same in size, while the Xbox was considerably larger. The point is, smart hardware design can shrink existing, modern technology into smaller cases (duh)... re: Ipod Nano.

Zeal's argument was simplistic, saying the Revolution was smaller and so it couldn't stack up. I was just trying to show that the Gamecube's visual power had little to do with its size. Consider that the size of the PS2 slimline is nearly half that of the original, yet it performs the exact same tasks.

Also, while Nintendo has said this or that about the final console, I will reserve judgment on that when the actual device is available for review. We can assume it will be more powerful than the Gamecube, and less so than the PS3 or Xbox2, but beyond that it's guesswork. I personally don't think Nintendo would cripple their system- the things they've said about graphics not being everything to them means, to me, that they will make it look nice but that isn't where all their research is going.

Mainly, I think Zeal is determined to knock the Nintendo no matter what information comes out, unless that information says "we are making an exact hybrid of the PS3 and Xbox2".

Kelegacy

09-19-2005, 04:41 PM

Power doesnt really matter to me anyway. My PS2 got more use this generation--far more--than my Xbox. While it's nice to have junk in the trunk, I think the real seller will be the innovative games that Nintendo will hopefully create for the controller. I dont really care that softshadows will be present in the next gen, nor billions of holyshit particles or supercumhot geometry, dickslick antialiasing, or reacharound CPU power. In a small way, I think graphics have hurt gaming--or at least attracted more focus than they should. I love pretty stuff, but graphics always come secondary to me.

I have the utmost faith that Nintendo will please me with quality game experiences this round, just as it has with every other console it has released. Their non-focus on the best hardware tech (when they obviously COULD have, Nintendo has deep coffers contrary to what some of you may think about the N-apocalypse coming) is a sign that they are attempting something different than the other megacorp hardware makers. That should be cause for celebration alone.

Achilles

09-19-2005, 04:46 PM

Zeal's argument was simplistic, saying the Revolution was smaller and so it couldn't stack up. I was just trying to show that the Gamecube's visual power had little to do with its size. Consider that the size of the PS2 slimline is nearly half that of the original, yet it performs the exact same tasks.

Mainly, I think Zeal is determined to knock the Nintendo no matter what information comes out, unless that information says "we are making an exact hybrid of the PS3 and Xbox2".Well that's probably true, it is Zeal after all, he seems to be part of the Dark Side. :P

But consider that the reason is the PS2 slimline (what I was calling the PSTwo) came out 4 years after the PS2. Usually the first round of technology is larger and the second is smaller. The Rev is starting out just plain small.

The Rev can't be as powerful as the 360. It's too small to run hot, and too cheap to use fast parts.

Not even Nintendo is saying that it will be powerful, in fact they're saying that it won't be able to display in 720p or 1080i. And the makers of Metroid Prime also said they expect MP3 to look a bit better than MP2 'the same sort of improvement you saw between MP1 and MP2'.

I know some fans want their console to compete graphically with the PS3 and Xbox 360, but Nintendo doesn't, and that's the kind of system they're making. Something small, something simple, with a strange controller that they expect to appeal to non-gamers. The next step when these fans see the final games is denial ("It does too look as good as Gears of War!"), and then finally blame. ("The developers are lazy, that's why the games don't look as good."). But more reasonable fans will just accept that the games won't look as good but it doesn't matter because they get to control Mario by pointing at the screen.

Bone

09-19-2005, 06:24 PM

Achilles

09-19-2005, 06:41 PM

I also know that it is releasing almost 6 months later than the other consoles- wouldn't that give them time to shrink the technology according to your argument above? Considering that Nintendo has been at this for two or three times longer than Sony or Microsoft, I'll honestly expect their technology to be a bit more polished (compare the rate of broken Gamecubes with Xboxen and PS2s and see what I mean).

I won't be in denial about the Rev, at least not until I see what it can do. If it is as underpowered as you say, I hope the gameplay is enough to keep it viable as a gaming platform. So far the possibilities of the control scheme seem to make me think it will be.The Rev will be coming out at the same time as the PS3 (christmas '06), I don't think they could reduce the size by that much, and even if they did it would probably still cost in the area of $400

I wouldn’t say the Rev is going to be underpowered, it's powered just fine for what it's trying to do, it just can’t be as powerful as the 360. Part of the reason Nintendo products function so well is because they use parts that aren't cutting edge.

I can see why hard core gamers can’t understand why Nintendo would make a system that isn’t meant to produce cutting edge graphics. But folks should watch the Nintendo press announcement on the rev’s controller again. They say it all there, that their market for the Revolution is people who are too scared of technology to pick up a controller.

Kelegacy

09-19-2005, 07:20 PM

Your point is valid if the Rev is as underpowered as you say. I haven't seen a dev kit. I also know that it is releasing almost 6 months later than the other consoles- wouldn't that give them time to shrink the technology according to your argument above? Considering that Nintendo has been at this for two or three times longer than Sony or Microsoft, I'll honestly expect their technology to be a bit more polished (compare the rate of broken Gamecubes with Xboxen and PS2s and see what I mean).

I won't be in denial about the Rev, at least not until I see what it can do. If it is as underpowered as you say, I hope the gameplay is enough to keep it viable as a gaming platform. So far the possibilities of the control scheme seem to make me think it will be.

Oh, the gameplay will keep it a viable platform. I don't think graphics truly matter with a large portion of the gaming world, contrary to popular beliefs. Look at the GBA and how popular the damn thing is. There isn't much competition on the market, but the little 16-bit thing sells games like crazy. Also, those new plug and play systems that house Pacman and other atari-gen games have sold pretty well. People are looking for fun, not something that is necessarily cinematic quality. These people are casual gamers and hardcore alike. I've been gaming about 21 years (I was 4 when I started w/Donkey Kong) and I still don't care how a game looks as long as it is fun. Plus, the Revolution sports a nifty new way to play a console game. The Revolution will still have more than enough power to toss out some very pretty games, but it might not be able to compete with the other powerhouses. They could have thrown cutting edge hardware into the machine, but what for? A gaming system is meant to play games, to have fun. The other systems are going for a more multimedia experience. Nintendo has always been founded on fun and games. The other two can have their DVD players, High Def, and other junk. Nintendo wants to focus on games, and that's what I want in a gaming company.

Kamalot

09-19-2005, 09:08 PM

Do you even read my posts.
Not if I can help it, but gawd, they're everywhere! :D

Kamalot

09-19-2005, 09:12 PM

Look at the GBA and how popular the damn thing is. There isn't much competition on the market, but the little 16-bit thing sells games like crazy. Also, those new plug and play systems that house Pacman and other atari-gen games have sold pretty well.
From what I read, those little pre-packaged systems out-sold all other game systems this past holiday season. Retro gaming is HOT business. Nintendo, by selling their Revolution with the ability to play old games, is selling a super versioin of those all-in-one systems. Additionially, it will be able to play GameCube games as well as the new Revolution "3D magic wand" games, all for a lower price than the other consoles. Sounds like a deal to me!

Nessus

09-20-2005, 12:52 AM

I look at it this way:

The Rev will be more powerful than the original Xbox.

The original Xbox was able to run a game like Chronicles Of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay.

If the Rev can "only" produce visuals that are slightly better than Butcher Bay (or Resident Evil 4 for that matter) I will be more than happy.

Magnanimous Gnome

09-20-2005, 09:53 AM

I dont really care that softshadows will be present in the next gen, nor billions of holyshit particles or supercumhot geometry, dickslick antialiasing, or reacharound CPU power.

Um, excuse me while I go change my shorts.

Achilles - The Revolution and PS3 are scheduled for different releases. The PS3 is supposedly coming out this March/April in Japan, while the Revolution probably will not see Japanese release until this next fall, and then a US release a month or two later. There is quite a bit of time between the release of the two systems.

Achilles

09-20-2005, 10:32 AM

Achilles - The Revolution and PS3 are scheduled for different releases. The PS3 is supposedly coming out this March/April in Japan, while the Revolution probably will not see Japanese release until this next fall, and then a US release a month or two later. There is quite a bit of time between the release of the two systems.That's not a large enough time difference to shrink technology. You don't see the PS3 being significantly smaller than the 360 either. Also with no playable games to show for themselves yet, I really doubt that the PS3 will be launching any time before fall of 06.