Revolution Will Not Support HDTV [Archive]

Evil Avatar

11-10-2005, 12:27 PM

The Xbox 360's going to cost as much as $400 and the PS3 could be even more, but Nintendo's going in the opposite direction with Revolution. This week's Game Over column on CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/10/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/) talks with Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aime about a variety of topics, including Revolution pricing, what went wrong with the GameCube, whether the company is reconsidering its decision not to support high definition video and a redesigned Nintendo DS.

The Revolution will not support high definition video, a marked divergence from the path Microsoft and Sony are taking. And it's not something the company is re-thinking, despite the fervent hopes of some hardcore gaming fans.

"What we'll offer in terms of gameplay and approachability will more than make up for the lack of HD," he said.Loser sez what?

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 12:31 PM

Well...since I don't have an HDTV nor to I plan on wasting $1000+ for one, I think I'll be fine.

Evil Avatar

11-10-2005, 12:33 PM

Well...since I don't have an HDTV nor to I plan on wasting $1000+ for one, I think I'll be fine.

I don't have one either, but I'll still be playing all my Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 titles in the HDTV modes.

Chimpbot

11-10-2005, 12:36 PM

Well...since I don't have an HDTV nor to I plan on wasting $1000+ for one, I think I'll be fine.

I couldn't agree more.
Personally, I couldn't be happier that Nintendo is taking such a hard stance on the "video game consoles are for video games" issue; they're forsaking everything that is essentially unnecessary for a video game console to function properly, which I think is ultimately a good thing.

Will the Revolution be the most powerful console on the market? No, of course not. At the same time, it certainly will be able to push out some wonderful graphics...just not as well as the other two consoles.
I think it will all make sense when the Revolution debuts as the least expensive of the three by a wide margin.
Why bother shelling out $400 on a generic system when you can spend less on an innovative system that can provide both unique and "standard" gameplay? What it lacks in power, it makes up in panache!

ackbrack

11-10-2005, 12:38 PM

I don't have one either, but I'll still be playing all my Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 titles in the HDTV modes.

I hope I'm not showing my utter lack of understanding with this question, but wouldn't you have to own a TV with High-Def capabilities to play games in High-Def?

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 12:38 PM

I don't have one either, but I'll still be playing all my Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 titles in the HDTV modes.

Are there any benefits on running in HDTV mode on a regualry TV? Especially if you're running it through S-Video or Coaxial?

Sense Field

11-10-2005, 12:38 PM

netcraazzy

11-10-2005, 12:40 PM

I think the lack of HDTV support on the revolution has been covered before so no surprise there. As nice as it would be to have at least 720p supported by all 3 next gen consoles I don't think this move is going to hurt Nintendo too much this generation. The majority of consumers will still have standard definition TVs for a while and the typically younger target demographic of Nintendo's systems are even less likely to have a super mega 50" HDTV screen. It's obvious to me that the big N is embracing a "less is more" strategy this generation, lets hope they are onto something and not off their rockers.

jacktion

11-10-2005, 12:42 PM

LiquidRain

11-10-2005, 12:42 PM

if they aren't going to support HD then why the hell are they showing a widescreen hdtv in their press photos for the controler? i can't wait to play my Revolution with two grey bars down the side of my hdtv :(

Last I checked, my copy of F-Zero GX does 16:9 480p.

Just because it's not HD, doesn't mean it can't be widescreen.

JediSanf

11-10-2005, 12:42 PM

Didn't we learn this at TGS? For some reason I'm very unsurprised by this.

joruussuun

11-10-2005, 12:45 PM

I can't say I'm not dissapointed... I have a 46" Samsung DLP HDTV... but I've never had a problem with how Gamecube games looked, and they'll look at least that good.

TheKeck

11-10-2005, 12:48 PM

What it lacks in power, it makes up in panache!

I was completely unaware of the level of panache that will be available in the revolution!

Evil Avatar

11-10-2005, 12:48 PM

Syrinx

11-10-2005, 12:48 PM

I hope I'm not showing my utter lack of understanding with this question, but wouldn't you have to own a TV with High-Def capabilities to play games in High-Def?

Yes you do.

ChaosDent

11-10-2005, 12:52 PM

I don't think it's that stupid a move, Even 2-3 years from now, DVD is likely to remain the best selling movie format.

bapenguin

11-10-2005, 12:52 PM

HDTVs are huge. There are tons and tons of people buying them, and this christmas it's expected to be a huge holiday item.

Not only that, every computer monitor is an HD display, and that is what Evil was referring to. You don't even have to spend 1000 or more on a display, as a nice HD set can be had for <500 bucks.

If this keeps the cost of the revolution down, i'm fine with it. I'll have my 360/PS3 for my HD gaming.

Tennistoad

11-10-2005, 12:52 PM

does it really matter.. Nintendo systems are made for 10yr olds and women in their 20's How many of them have hdtv's????

/plus you'd look pretty stupid playing with your nintendo noob stick

MasterEvilAce

11-10-2005, 12:54 PM

Nintendo isn't trying to be #1 in functionality and options... They're trying to be #1 in terms of, well if everyone is going to buy an Xbox360, they could get a Nintendo Revolution, too, because it's a lot cheaper. I think they're going for the #1 sales spot by being the "second console" in homes that have either an xbox360, or a PS3... and then being the #1 console for the obvious Nintendo market. (The market for kids, and guys who want Zelda/Mario/Pokemon... all those games you can't get on the other consoles.)

So if 500,000 people have xbox 360's
and 500,000 people have PS3s

Nintendo wants those 1 million people to also be able to have a Revolution, along with the 1 million "10yr olds and women in their 20's"

Whether or not Nintendo will be profitable after the class action arthritis lawsuit... I don't know.

Captain Awesome

11-10-2005, 12:56 PM

Not a big surprise? Nintendo stated a while back they werent going to support it anyway. I also think its part of their whole "We want to make game systems" only rhetoric.

They can care less about HDTV and its components and other "all around media" devices and designs. The Revolution will make enough sales to have a steady base for it. I wasn't a huge fan of the cube's small library but the Revolution promises to allow download of Nintendo's whole game library into the console.

That alone is worht the purchase for the console for me. The real question would be if those old classic games would take advantage of the Revolutions graphical powers?

Not that I wont enjoy HDTV high resolution gaming. But I have enough faith in all these consoles settling enough after the dust falls with their fans and other people just interested in "good games"

Tennistoad

11-10-2005, 12:57 PM

Few people have HTDV's? Dude, that is THE big consumer purchase this year now that they are dropping the prices. A console system should have a shelf life of 4 - 5 years. You still think "everyone" will have regular TV's three years from now? Four years from now? Five years from now?

Unless Nintendo is planning on dumping the Revolution for something different in 24 months, this is a really stupid move.

Yeah but last time I checked hdtvs have rca inputs and who cares what your kids games look like anyways? Plus "everyone" aint gonna be running out to by jr an hdtv for his room..

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 12:57 PM

You don't even have to spend 1000 or more on a display, as a nice HD set can be had for <500 bucks.

Please show me one. Not a crappy drop 2 bars of the side of the screen and convert to HDTV.

Personally, I could care less about HDTV. It's wasted money, and I feel that the amount of cash paid does not equal the reward of high definition. I would rather use that cash to invest in something or push myself forward in life. Especially if I'm going to by a $400 console, no way am I going to pay even $500 for a display.

xxBlackCrossxx

11-10-2005, 12:57 PM

does it really matter.. Nintendo systems are made for 10yr olds and women in their 20's How many of them have hdtv's????

/plus you'd look pretty stupid playing with your nintendo noob stick

RE4 and Killer 7 is more hardcore than anything on your xbox. Violence doesn't equal better. I'm sure you and mark rein will be happy "looking" at your games instead of playing them.

Zanzibar

11-10-2005, 12:58 PM

Tennistoad

11-10-2005, 01:01 PM

RE4 is more hardcore than anything on your xbox. I'm sure you and mark rein will be happy "looking" at your games instead of playing them.

Last time I played an Res Evil game I spent more time watching than playing..Get ink save game,,,shoot dog,,,,watch the movie,,,get key,,,YAWN...

DoubleUranium

11-10-2005, 01:02 PM

Not even committing to widescreen 480p is pretty damn weak.

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 01:05 PM

Last time I played an Res Evil game I spent more time watching than playing..Get ink save game,,,shoot dog,,,,watch the movie,,,get key,,,YAWN...

Well, then you didn't play Resident Evil 4, huh?

The Great Gatsby

11-10-2005, 01:07 PM

Loser sez what?

The most ignorant comment ever made. You are such a toolish fanboy.

It'll still have pretty graphics. As long as the gameplay is there, its sold on me.

I don't need to brainwashed into all the bells and whistles I mostly don't need to have a fun time.

GrinR

11-10-2005, 01:15 PM

Mrmblmbmr bars on screen mrlbmmblr HDTV display mmmrblblm graphics BLEH

It's Nintendo, who cares?

Tennistoad

11-10-2005, 01:15 PM

Please find me someone who's not "let's say in the chorus" who plays NINTENDO stuff anymore ok...

/I kidd I kidd I'd poop on it..

Jukey

11-10-2005, 01:18 PM

Personally, I could care less about HDTV
For the millionth time, when you mean "I don't care", you say "I COULDN'T care less", not "I COULD care less". Sheesh! ;)

Yes, yes, I know. You couldn't care less what I think. :)

Evil Avatar

11-10-2005, 01:19 PM

I hope I'm not showing my utter lack of understanding with this question, but wouldn't you have to own a TV with High-Def capabilities to play games in High-Def?

No, not at all.

Both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 will support the HDTV modes on your $200.00 (or less) computer monitor.

The Xbox 360 requires a $54.00 cable and the Playstation 3 has a monitor port right on the back of the system.

Kind of shoots that whole "$1000.00 for a HDTV" theory straight to hell, eh?

UnderHero5

11-10-2005, 01:21 PM

Yeah, this news is pretty old now isn't it? A couple of months at least?

Oh well. I don't really care as I don't own an HDTV and I don't plan on owning an HDTV for a very long time. They have got to drop in price a lot more than they have already, and actually offer something over "slightly more clear" visuals.
Hell, watch standard cable on your HDTV and tell me it looks better than a standard, interlaces television.
My friend has a Sony WEGA HDTV and cable looks like absolute SHIT on it. It looks like a 320x240 mpg stretched to my 1600x1200 desktop.

Granted, some games look a little better, but with the interlacing on a normal television they look just as good only SLIGHTLY more blurry around the edges. I don't see the slight amount of clairity being worth all that money.
If they offer GOOD, LARGE HDTV's for under 500 bucks I'll consider getting one, but as of right now I'm happy with my standard 32 inch tv that cost me literally 50 dollars used.

That said, bring on the Revolution!

Oh, and I'd be willing to bet that the % of peopel who actually own HDTV's compared to normal tv's is less than 5%
I don't have any figures to back that up, but all I know is that out of all the people I know, TWO have HDTV's... and about 3 other standard tv's along side those. And the 2 that have is, one is a retired old man who has a lot of money to spend on tons of gadgets (an entusiest) and the other is a good gaming buddy of mine that spends all of his money on gaming and Transformers (an enthusiest)... normal casual gamers, on the whole, do not, and will not own HDTV's for quite some time. Of course I'd love to see some figured on this. Just because HDTV's are selling better than they ever have doesn't mean the amount of people who own them is growing by that large of a percent. You forget that almost EVERYONE in America own televisions.... and I know damn well, without seeing figures, that most of those ARE NOT HDTV's. Nor will they be in 3 years from now.

AversionFX

11-10-2005, 01:22 PM

does it really matter.. Nintendo systems are made for 10yr olds and women in their 20's How many of them have hdtv's????

/plus you'd look pretty stupid playing with your nintendo noob stick

Nintendo systems are made for kids?

WTF? I can't even think of something to say to that. That is simply just the most retarded thing I have ever read on the internet.

Nite_Moogle

11-10-2005, 01:23 PM

UnderHero5

11-10-2005, 01:24 PM

No, not at all.

Both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 will support the HDTV modes on your $200.00 (or less) computer monitor.

The Xbox 360 requires a $54.00 cable and the Playstation 3 has a monitor port right on the back of the system.

Kind of shoots that whole "$1000.00 for a HDTV" theory straight to hell, eh?

But Evil, who the hell wants to play consoles games at their computers? Or on a 19 inch screen.... 20 inch at best...
In every arguement about consoles I see people say "but I can lpay my console on a big tv while sitting on my couch"...

Kind of defeats the point of a console if you're dragging either the console, or a monitor around and hooking it up near your PC. Otherwise are we going to have a PC monitor sitting in the entertainment centers of our living rooms, sitting 2 feet away to enjoy all the High Def goodness?

Doesn't make much sense to me.
HD is not all it's cracked up to be.

Evil Avatar

11-10-2005, 01:24 PM

The most ignorant comment ever made. You are such a toolish fanboy.

Why? Nintendo was already the "loser" of this generation of console systems. They are in third place worldwide (and here in the United States) and now they are positioning themselves to outright fail with the next generation by using a non-standard controller (I wouldn't call a DVD remote much of an innovation.) and by not supporting the kinds of features next generation gamers are going to be looking for.

It isn't much of a leap to assume that they are going to lose again this generation - and lose badly, to the point where it will significantly impact their ability to continue to do business - if they keep on the path they are headed.

AversionFX

11-10-2005, 01:25 PM

Why? Nintendo was already the "loser" of this generation of console systems. They are in third place worldwide (and here in the United States) and now they are positioning themselves to outright fail with the next generation by using a non-standard controller (I wouldn't call a DVD remote much of an innovation.) and by not supporting the kinds of features next generation gamers are going to be looking for.

It isn't much of a leap to assume that they are going to lose again this generation - and lose badly, to the point where it will significantly impact their ability to continue to do business - if they keep on the path they are headed.

Apparently the concept of "innovation" is lost on you.

LiquidRain

11-10-2005, 01:25 PM

I think it's a bad idea. They should have. There's no trying to defend this one.

However, the games are the deciding factor for me. Sure, Zelda Revolution won't play at 720p. But what the hell will I care? It's Zelda. I'd play that at 480p as long as it's still a damn fine game.

/ignore Tennistoad

Anyone who says RE4 lacked action needs to be hit with the cluebat, and it's obvious by your constant "junioring" of Nintendo that you're the kind of person that gives this site it's "pro XBox anti Nintendo" reputation.

And Evil Avatar's constant badgering. His debatable definition of innovation aside, he makes good points. Unfortunately he nor the Nintendo fanboys will be proven right until after we see how the Revolution does, and so the system war wheel shall spin on.

UnderHero5

11-10-2005, 01:26 PM

The load time comment intruiges me. Load times are one of the things that keep me away from playing my Xbox and GC more than I do. If the Revo lacks HD quality graphics but loads lickety split they're going to have a good point in their court.

It seems that Nintendo hates load times. I can't think of any Nintendo (first party) games that have "long" load times. I mean the longest I've seen is like 2 seconds on the GCN...
Hopefully they keep that up with the Revolution.

HumpYourWay

11-10-2005, 01:26 PM

Heretic Machine

11-10-2005, 01:28 PM

Loser sez what?

"We have fun games, you have Perfect Dark 0."

Nessus

11-10-2005, 01:28 PM

1. This isn't news.

2. Personally I don't care cause I'm not getting an HD set. It will probably hurt Nintendo a bit, but no more than the lack of multiplatform games will.

3. We still haven't maxed out standard definition. I have yet to see a photorealistic standard definition game. Most of the time on PC games I find when you switch to an insanely high resolution the game starts to look really sterile and empty.

I actually always liked that about consoles as apposed to PCs, because even with lesser hardware the standard definition console hid some of the limitations that were highlighted by high resolution PC settings, such as low polygon models and bad texturing. I remember thinking "Wow" when I first saw the Quake III environments and then subsquently being very disappointed upon seeing the character models. And until Doom3 all the character models in FPS games I saw were underwhelming. Can't count the number of times I saw soldiers with elbows that looked like they could stab you.

Yes all of that's becomming less of a problem but we still haven't reached photorealism with SD, let alone HD. Personally I'd rather a SD photorealistic game than a HD game that shows obvious signs of graphical limitations.

No, it's not entirely an "either or" situation, but higher resolutions do require more processing power. Dunno if it will continue to be an issue, but we're already reading reports of 360 games running at 30FPS. I thought we'd be well into 60FPS for every game by now.

In any event I probably just sound like a Nintendo apologist. But really, if we already know the Rev will have the lesser hardware of the three, it seems unlikely that they are going to fool anyone by running their games in HD. I'd rather they spend the remaining horsepower trying to max out standard definition than trying to compete on the level of machines designed primarily around graphics.

HumpYourWay

11-10-2005, 01:29 PM

"We have fun games, you have Perfect Dark 0."

Yeah right... because PD0 is the only game getting released on X360? :eek:

Hmmm, wait:

"We will have Resident Evil 5, you will have that stupid sex toy/controller thingy"

Evil Avatar

11-10-2005, 01:30 PM

But Evil, who the hell wants to play consoles games at their computers? Or on a 19 inch screen.... 20 inch at best...
In every arguement about consoles I see people say "but I can lpay my console on a big tv while sitting on my couch"...

Well, since you are reading this site on a PC, I'll jump to the conclusion that you might be in a position to play Xbox 360 games or Playstation 3 games on your PC monitor. It is certainly a cheaper option than springing for a $1000.00+ HDTV.

But, even if we put that aside, go back to my earlier comment about longevitiy of the system. HDTV is the hot consumer product right now, it won't be long before you can't even buy a regular TV any more - they will all just be HDTV by default and the prices on those TV's are going to be dropping big time over the next year. I've been hearing that they are going to drop down into the $600 - $700 range this year before Christmas and will be even lower before next Christmas.

With that in mind is is really short sighted to drop support for what will soon become the standard kind of TV consumers are buying.

Yeti2005

11-10-2005, 01:31 PM

RMan

11-10-2005, 01:34 PM

Dude, that is THE big consumer purchase this year now that they are dropping the prices... Unless Nintendo is planning on dumping the Revolution for something different in 24 months, this is a really stupid move.
Well, by your own admission, likely the main reasons people are buying them now is the low price. They weren't buying them up when they were expensive, they're buying them now because it's the new TV (I mean, what TV isn't an HDTV these days), not because they demand the higher resolution. The useful point is that since the higher resolution isn't a huge selling point for consumers, why would the lack of it on the Revolution be a huge detractor (I mean, MS and Sony will call it spawn of Satan because of it, but in the real world consumers clearly aren't that phased by it).

And the idea that just because the HDTVs will sell hot this year, that in 4 years even half the households will have them (much less not buy the Revolution because it doesn't fully support it) is just silly. It will take a LONG time for them to phase out the standard TVs. Although HD would have been nice, not having it isn't close to a singificant hit beyond what marketing can make of it.

Schnoogs

11-10-2005, 01:35 PM

To those of you who don't own HDTV's you clearly own PC's which have high res monitors.

There's always a means of playing something in higher resolutions. I plan on using my widescreen LCD monitor which does 1080p.

So no you don't have to drop 5K for some shitty looking plasma TV.

This will hurt my decision to support Nintendo. I have a DLP front projector and several 1080p capable displays...why on earth would I want to play the Revolution when my years of playing PC games has spoiled me in regards to playing games at HDTV resolutions.

High res isnt just a bell and whistle for many, many, many gamers it's essential. Nintendo just doesnt get it...they should do like Sega and concentrate on what they do best.

TrackZero

11-10-2005, 01:36 PM

Few people have HTDV's? Dude, that is THE big consumer purchase this year now that they are dropping the prices. A console system should have a shelf life of 4 - 5 years. You still think "everyone" will have regular TV's three years from now? Four years from now? Five years from now?

Unless Nintendo is planning on dumping the Revolution for something different in 24 months, this is a really stupid move.

HDTVs will be on the rise through this generation, but I'd be quite surprised if they pass 50% market penetration before the next console gen comes. The rev will still do 480p widescreen, which is a good compromise.

ackbrack

11-10-2005, 01:38 PM

No, not at all.

Both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 will support the HDTV modes on your $200.00 (or less) computer monitor.

The Xbox 360 requires a $54.00 cable and the Playstation 3 has a monitor port right on the back of the system.

Kind of shoots that whole "$1000.00 for a HDTV" theory straight to hell, eh?

Understood.

I'll have to disagree with you on the "$1000.00 for a HDTV theory" being shot straight to hell, though. Using a monitor is clearly a fiscally sensible way to go about it, but for some people, like me, it's not possible or practical. But, that's beside the point of this thread and is solely a matter of opinion and preference.

Drinking_Buddy

11-10-2005, 01:39 PM

The Revolution will be televised, just not in HD......

UnderHero5

11-10-2005, 01:40 PM

Well, since you are reading this site on a PC, I'll jump to the conclusion that you might be in a position to play Xbox 360 games or Playstation 3 games on your PC monitor. It is certainly a cheaper option than springing for a $1000.00+ HDTV.

But, even if we put that aside, go back to my earlier comment about longevitiy of the system. HDTV is the hot consumer product right now, it won't be long before you can't even buy a regular TV any more - they will all just be HDTV by default and the prices on those TV's are going to be dropping big time over the next year. I've been hearing that they are going to drop down into the $600 - $700 range this year before Christmas and will be even lower before next Christmas.

With that in mind is is really short sighted to drop support for what will soon become the standard kind of TV consumers are buying.

I don't disagree that this may not be a good move by Nintendo. Hell, the more support and options a company gives, the better (as long as it's not at a huge $ cost). But I'm just saying, the thought of everyone, or most people owning HDTV's within a FEW YEARS is absurd. It's quite simply NOT going to happen. It takes quite a few years for everyone to upgrade a standard like that. Look at CD's and DVD's... CD's started out in the early 80's and didn't really catch on in popularity until the mid 90's!! It was similar with DVD's... I mean they still sell cassets/players/VHS/VCR's.
HDTV's are still in their infancy, they are not going to catch on overnight. People are not going to upgrade in a matter of a few years. I still know MANTY people with 20 year old televisions!!! Hell, the TV in my parents living room is a good 12 years old, and I'm damn sure they aren't going to buy an HDTV any time soon. MOST people simply don't care! It's just the enthusiest/people who have to have the best of everything that are buying HDTV's.

The vast mahority of people are not going to upgrade that quickly.
Hell, I'm a BIG gaming entusiest and I honestly don't care about HDTV's.

And I already explained my point about playing on a PC monitor, Evil.

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 01:46 PM

EvilBob46

11-10-2005, 01:49 PM

Last time I played an Res Evil game I spent more time watching than playing..Get ink save game,,,shoot dog,,,,watch the movie,,,get key,,,YAWN...

The award for the silliest comment in the thread so far goes to *drumroll* Tennistoad. It amazes me that, despite a release on the Cube and PS2, RE4 just completely passed some people by.

divinechaos

11-10-2005, 01:49 PM

Just because the loosers/kids/NinFans here cant afford an hdtv they think hdtv is useless?!?!
Maybe I have to rethink my standpoint... hmmm, lets see.
Yeah I hate it when I have to play my PC games in high resolution. I wish I could set them to 480p... No wait! Better yet to 480i. Who needs games in high resolution.... The games might look crisp and clean... screw that!!! SCREW THAT FOR GOOD!
HDTV? For me to poop on!!!

Some people seriously gotta let go of the "nintendo is kiddie" argument. Why is it so kiddie? Did u miss earlier posts about RE4 and Killer7? Your the one who's acting like a kid by calling other people losers 'cause they cant/wont buy a HDTV. No one said that HDVT is "uselss", it just isnt really important when you'll b playin a game like Zelda or Metroid.
For the record: i love ALL video game systems, i just happen to be a nintendo whore.

dr_wily

11-10-2005, 01:50 PM

This "I dont care because I'm not getting one" bullshit is annoying and ignorant.

once HD comes the standard then what? I totally agree with Evil.

I may be a nintywhore, but im also a visualwhore, a tvwhore, and a widescreenwhore.

I just got myself a hdtv, and with this news who knows if they are even going to do widescreen? OR EVEN 480P?

It will probably be on a per title basis (SUCK), and I think as time goes on as people buy tvs (yes even you 16 year olds when you get jobs, or you college folks when you graduate) people will be looking into actually making use of their new toy, and the Rev will not be one of them.

jacktion

11-10-2005, 01:52 PM

Nintendo is taking a small strategic risk by not including the upper levels of hi-def. They have intimated that it will support at least what the 'cube does, i.e. 480p. The payoff will be that games will be much cheaper to make and the system will be much cheaper to sell and people will be able to play it with cheaper equipment like a normal tv. It is true that HDtv is the inevitable path of the future but currently it is still a small percentage. at the beginning of 2005 hdtvs were in 20% of the homes.
http://www.jupitermedia.com/corporate/releases/05.10.06-newjupresearch.html
And it has been acknowledged that they have had a slow start.
With the slight reduction in resolution, Nintendo will be able to get comparable visuals to its opponents consoles with less resources and time in development.
Costs are skyrocketing with future hidef games requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. In order to resist a world where the only company that can afford to make game is EA, Nintendo is trying to keep games available to regular people.

Maybe you rich people out there can laugh at the rest of us who don't have thousands of dollars to waste on a hi def tv but I have to pay to put food on the table for my kids. I have to save for their education. I appreciate what Nintendo is doing for real people. You elite can have your PS3 that requires a second job to pay for. I already have a second job to pay my mortgage. I'll be busy watching my little ones racing mario karts and saving Zelda.

Captain Awesome

11-10-2005, 01:53 PM

Last time I played an Res Evil game I spent more time watching than playing..Get ink save game,,,shoot dog,,,,watch the movie,,,get key,,,YAWN...

Ignorance is indeed an easier route for most people.

You're missing out then if you think thats what it is. RE4 for the gc is the reason I gave the franchise a try again and I was glad i did. Visceral gameplay and insane fights. Probably one of the best looking console games I have encountered.

The crap I went through to unlock "everything" >_<

ackbrack

11-10-2005, 01:55 PM

But, even if we put that aside, go back to my earlier comment about longevitiy of the system. HDTV is the hot consumer product right now, it won't be long before you can't even buy a regular TV any more - they will all just be HDTV by default and the prices on those TV's are going to be dropping big time over the next year. I've been hearing that they are going to drop down into the $600 - $700 range this year before Christmas and will be even lower before next Christmas.

With that in mind is is really short sighted to drop support for what will soon become the standard kind of TV consumers are buying.

I know the article I'm posting is about market penetration of television service and not about the actual television technology, I think the two are tied together. If you're not interested in digital cable you're probably not interested in buying an HDTV. If what the article below says is "true" (as far as predictions about the future can be true), it doesn't seem like an all HDTV/digital future is set in stone.

Cable's final frontier: People who want less (USA Today article) (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2005-11-07-cable-wanting-less_x.htm#)

EternalGamer

11-10-2005, 01:57 PM

I have a new HD TV that was purchased for the next gen consoles and yet it doesn't bother me one lick that the Revolution will not support it. I think Nintendo is going about this a very smart way. They seem very sincere about wanting to try something different and not just a direct competition. I agree whole heartedly with those that argue we simply do not need three identical systems to play identical ports on. The 360 and PS3 will easily cover that high end eye candy market. I'm expecting something different from Nintendo.

Dan

Psunami

11-10-2005, 01:59 PM

Here's one way to look at this.

If only 20% of all American homes will have an HDTV by the end of 2005 that means that by the end of next year 80% of all Xbox 360 owners will be (EvilAvatar excluded :) ) playing their games in 480P/I.

Now, it is true that Microsoft will have the capability to put HDTV gaming into more peoples hands with this new generation of consoles, but I don't see why people are mocking Nintendo for providing the best graphics that their console will offer to everyone, rather than only to a portion of their userbase.

I'm a multiple HDTV owner and I'm not happy about this decision in any way, but if this is a way for them to keep their costs down and provide the console to more peoples homes, more power to them.

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 02:00 PM

This "I dont care because I'm not getting one" bullshit is annoying and ignorant.

It's not bullshit and ignorant. If the majority of the consumers are not getting one because they don't care, then it becomes a very valid point. Why increase the load on an already not that amazing processor and pump the price up a bit for an option that only a select few will enjoy?

reptilezero

11-10-2005, 02:00 PM

you won't understand why hd is better until you compare soul calibur 2 on the xbox running on a normal tv vs a hi definition tv. the details that pop out of the bacground are just amazing. there is no reason for nintendo to not support sd and hd.

HumpYourWay

11-10-2005, 02:02 PM

Some people seriously gotta let go of the "nintendo is kiddie" argument. Why is it so kiddie? Did u miss earlier posts about RE4 and Killer7?
Two brutal games dont prove anything. Is that an american thing that brutal content proves something is not child stuff?
There is nothing more childish than nintendo fans and that especially includes the grown up nin fans.

No one said that HDVT is "uselss", it just isnt really important when you'll b playin a game like Zelda or Metroid.

Oh really? So the graphical improvement a game like Zelda made from its first installement to Ocarina of Time is also not important? You just make no sense!

EternalGamer

11-10-2005, 02:02 PM

Tennistoad

11-10-2005, 02:03 PM

Ok you GC boys win... I will go to my friends and borrow(take) their kids GC and rent and try R4.. While im at it I'll try mario Tennis and the other adult game mario Kart.

51|RandoM

11-10-2005, 02:04 PM

No, not at all.

Both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 will support the HDTV modes on your $200.00 (or less) computer monitor.

The Xbox 360 requires a $54.00 cable and the Playstation 3 has a monitor port right on the back of the system.

Kind of shoots that whole "$1000.00 for a HDTV" theory straight to hell, eh?

...not really, unless you like playing console games on 19" or smaller LCD panels...

Go large and you're spending big bucks, just like a television.

I've got 4 different displays sitting around that handle hd resolutions---and I don't care that the revolution isn't going to output them. 480p is enough for me. The graphics controller in the revolution will do much better than that, so I wouldn't be amazed to see at least 720p.

When somebody starts talking about HD support, they really need to clarify their definition of HD, and which particular HD resolutions they're referring to.

Kelegacy

11-10-2005, 02:04 PM

Heretic Machine

11-10-2005, 02:05 PM

Look, I'm not saying that this doesn't suck, and I am getting an HDTV this year so it is a tad annoying... But honestly, it's one of the features I care least about. So fuck it. The PS3's lack of an online plan and the 360's huge price are much bigger detractors than some dumbass HDTV support that I won't even be thinking about while playing the game.

EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget that Live is a overpriced Gamespy that is only getting customers because Microsoft can monopolize the online market of the XBOX. If the exact equivalent to Live existed on the PC, no one would subscribe to it. NO ONE.

I have more concerns about the shitty DS wi-fi support than HDTV.

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 02:07 PM

Oh really? So the graphical improvement a game like Zelda made from its first installement to Ocarina of Time is also not important? You just make no sense!

Your argument is poor. The upgrade from Zelda to Ocarina had to do with character models, environments, and gameplay. There will be graphical enhancements, just as there was with Windwaker when Zelda came to the cube.

We are talking about a RESOLUTION upgrade, which will not happen. It will look a fuck ton prettier though, to be sure, and it will play at 480. An analogy of the NES jump to N64 is beyond stupid, it's retarded.

Kelegacy

11-10-2005, 02:08 PM

High res isnt just a bell and whistle for many, many, many gamers it's essential.

Then these people should be marginally ashamed to call themselves "gamers".

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 02:08 PM

Ok you GC boys win... I will go to my friends and borrow(take) their kids GC and rent and try R4.. While im at it I'll try mario Tennis and the other adult game mario Kart.

It's on PS2, do you not have one of those?

bapenguin

11-10-2005, 02:10 PM

Here's one way to look at this.

If only 20% of all American homes will have an HDTV by the end of 2005 that means that by the end of next year 80% of all Xbox 360 owners will be (EvilAvatar excluded :) ) playing their games in 480P/I.

That math doesn't work at all. If every person that gets an XBox 360 is from that 20%, then 100% have HD games.

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 02:11 PM

High res isnt just a bell and whistle for many, many, many gamers it's essential.

Have any numbers on that? As far as I'm concerned the people on this board are hardcore games, technologically savvy, and represent a small portion of the gaming population. And already there is a rift between HD and SD. Think casual gamers give a shit? Or highschoolers who get an Xbox360 for christmas? Think their parents are going to buy and HDTV? Hell, my mom wouldn't even get an S-Video TV because they were too expensive.

Tennistoad

11-10-2005, 02:11 PM

It's on PS2, do you not have one of those?

No I gave that up for an xbox 2 years ago.. But in order to keep the Nintenwar going I have to use the GC for this one...

I'll say one thing about the revolution though..It will be really fun to pat pichachu with that noob stick..

51|RandoM

11-10-2005, 02:13 PM

The way a game looks, with or without HDTV support, doesn't reflect how a game plays. The big 2 seem to be focusing on graphics and multimedia capabilities, while Nintendo is leaning towards the actual games. I have no problem with no HDTV support. It might have been nice, but this choice is not a nail-not even a small one-to be nailed into the big N's theoretical coffin.

The whores need to get their penises out of the HDTV sockets.

I think we all agree that great gameplay > graphics.

What people are asking Nintendo is "Why do you feel that the two are mutally exclusive?" I am a Nintendo fan, but when you ask yourself that question, it becomes quite obvious that their stance is purely marketspeak.

They're indirectly implying that because the other two consoles are so focused on horsepower and functionality, that they won't have great games. They have to imply that indirectly, because if you say it out loud it is obviously ridiculous.

I don't even know why nintendo bothers making anything besides portables and software anymore. Stick with the gameboy stuff and then make your console titles multiplatform. Imagine if you could play zelda on any of the big three consoles... and then think about how many copies of zelda they would've sold? It isn't like anybody is making signifcant margin on hardware anymore, indeed, the other two players eat part of the manufacturing costs, especially the first couple years.

On the other hand, looking at how these things are being priced out, I can see the revolution being the console everybody has, even if it is sitting next to their 360 or ps3---which is how Nintendo wants to drive software sales, instead of going multiplatform.

thecrazyd

11-10-2005, 02:13 PM

No I gave that up for an xbox 2 years ago.. But in order to keep the Nintenwar going I have to use the GC for this one...

I'll say one thing about the revolution though..It will be really fun to pat pichachu with that noob stick..
You are a fucking troll and you should be ashamed of your sad little existense.

divinechaos

11-10-2005, 02:13 PM

Two brutal games dont prove anything. Is that an american thing that brutal content proves something is not child stuff?
There is nothing more childish than nintendo fans and that especially includes the grown up nin fans.

Oh really? So the graphical improvement a game like Zelda made from its first installement to Ocarina of Time is also not important? You just make no sense!

1)yes, brutal content isnt for kids. I wouldnt have a 5 year old kid playin RE4.

2)The Four Swords was a top view zelda game like the old ones, and it still kicked ass, not cause of the graphix, but cause of the gameplay. Nintendo has said that their games wont have much of a graphical difference compared to the 360 or PS3. Windwaker was a cell-shaded game and it still kicked ass. Im not sayin that graphix dont matter, im sayin that if u have good gameplay to back it up, then you are set.

Tennistoad

11-10-2005, 02:15 PM

ouch hit a nerve there huh?

divinechaos

11-10-2005, 02:16 PM

Your argument is poor. The upgrade from Zelda to Ocarina had to do with character models, environments, and gameplay. There will be graphical enhancements, just as there was with Windwaker when Zelda came to the cube.

We are talking about a RESOLUTION upgrade, which will not happen. It will look a fuck ton prettier though, to be sure, and it will play at 480. An analogy of the NES jump to N64 is beyond stupid, it's retarded.

Couldnt have said it better.

*for Tennistoad* whats with u and calling the rev controller a "noob stick"? Do u not know what it actually does?

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 02:16 PM

I'll say one thing about the revolution though..It will be really fun to pat pichachu with that noob stick..

Or to cut him open with a virtual sword. Hellz ya boiii!

51|RandoM

11-10-2005, 02:16 PM

I can't believe people are actually trying to justify this move. Yes gameply matters more than graphics but graphics do help create atmosphere and help immerse the player in the world.

For those of you who think HDTVs aren't going to "catch on" within the next few years, take into account the govt has mandated that broadcasts be solely digital by 2009. That means HDTV is most likely going to be the standard by then.

don't confuse digital tv with HDTV, they're not the same thing...

There will be many homes that end up with a d-a converter box, just to watch dtv on their current analog sets.

51|RandoM

11-10-2005, 02:20 PM

Ok you GC boys win... I will go to my friends and borrow(take) their kids GC and rent and try R4.. While im at it I'll try mario Tennis and the other adult game mario Kart.

Anybody ever notice that those who like to play the 'mature games' card against Nintendo are also those who seem to lack it themselves?

I consider 'mature games', at least when talking about consoles to be an oxymoron.

Kelegacy

11-10-2005, 02:22 PM

I can't believe people are actually trying to justify this move. Yes gameply matters more than graphics but graphics do help create atmosphere and help immerse the player in the world.

For those of you who think HDTVs aren't going to "catch on" within the next few years, take into account the govt has mandated that broadcasts be solely digital by 2009. That means HDTV is most likely going to be the standard by then.

The games will still have great graphics. We are talking about a resolution upgrade, not completely enhanced bit-graphics. HDTV support would not make the PS1 look like the PS2. Instead, things will be a bit crisper and vibrant with HD, but they wont be new, better graphics.

Nite_Moogle

11-10-2005, 02:23 PM

Saying the GC is a "kid's" system is really quite silly. I don't give a damn how cartoonish the graphics are as long as the game is fun to play. Besides, if you've ever played Smash Bros with anyone, you know full well that the language generated by that game could hardly be considered appropriate for a 8 year old.

Xboxes and PS2s are not "adult" gaming sytems because their flagship titles aren't bright and cheerful and able to be embraced by anyone of any age. The PC is an adult gaming system. The proof is in the pr0n.

TheBrainKills

11-10-2005, 02:23 PM

Tennistoad

11-10-2005, 02:23 PM

*for Tennistoad* whats with u and calling the rev controller a "noob stick"? Do u not know what it actually does?

Yeah I know what it does and I also remember reading from the Nintendo press release that they wanted to make something that people who don't play games could pick up and instantly be using easily...aka noob stick..lol

Man I'm not feeling the love in this thread.. rip nintendo a bit and BAM I'm like an uneducated troll dumbF#$%, sorry I stopped playing a series of games after the first 2 left me bored.

Kelegacy

11-10-2005, 02:24 PM

Anybody ever notice that those who like to play the 'mature games' card against Nintendo are also those who seem to lack it themselves?

I consider 'mature games', at least when talking about consoles to be an oxymoron.

You have to be more mature to play a "kiddie" game as an adult than to play a "mature" game as a teen.

Achilles

11-10-2005, 02:27 PM

Not even committing to widescreen 480p is pretty damn weak.Yes, yes it is.

We already knew that they wouldn't support HDTV. If they don't want to support my TV that's fine, I won't support them unless they come out with something really compelling, and so far they haven't shown anything.

And whoever says HDTVs are something only rich people can buy, if you spend $1000 on your computer, you can certainly cough up the money for a better TV. Sure you can use your computer as a word processor or whatever other excuse, but that's not why you're buying a new one. You’re buying it because games look prettier on it, just like they will on an HDTV.

RMan

11-10-2005, 02:27 PM

They're indirectly implying that because the other two consoles are so focused on horsepower and functionality, that they won't have great games. They have to imply that indirectly, because if you say it out loud it is obviously ridiculous.
I don't think this is true at all, I mean, how could they do anything different from Sony or MS, say they think it's a better idea, and not make this "indirect implication" of which you speak? In the end, it’s all about cost. MS could have smacked 1G Ram into the 360, but there was a point where they decided that the benefit to the games would not outweigh the cost, so they stopped at 512M (so would you say that MS indirectly implied that 1Gig of ram is bad for games?). Nintendo has determined that HD was not worth the cost, clearly if they would have gotten it for free then we wouldn’t be having this discussion, but they haven’t said or implied in any way that higher resolutions are bad, just that what the 360 and PS3 are sacrificing to get it isn’t worth it (or at least it’s not worth it for Nintendo). Whether or not this is true is completely subjective, but I haven’t seen anything suggesting that the other systems will suffer for the greater power/resolution, just that they won’t benefit as much as the Revolution will with it’s approach (which I currently think is true).

divinechaos

11-10-2005, 02:30 PM

Heretic Machine

11-10-2005, 02:36 PM

For those of you who think HDTVs aren't going to "catch on" within the next few years, take into account the govt has mandated that broadcasts be solely digital by 2009. That means HDTV is most likely going to be the standard by then.

w00t! I hope you realize that the original date for that conversion was 2000. They are going to bump it up until the TV stations tell them they are damn well ready to do nothing but digital.

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 02:44 PM

And whoever says HDTVs are something only rich people can buy, if you spend $1000 on your computer, you can certainly cough up the money for a better TV.

No, I can't, I already spent my $500 on a computer. $500 that I didn't put towards an HDTV. Saying because you can afford A you can afford B is stupid.

Yeti2005

11-10-2005, 02:45 PM

The original conversion was supposed to be 2007. They pushed it back to 2009 and alotted a few billion to make it happen.

http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,123136,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 02:49 PM

Yea, there is no love for uneducated troll dumbfucks, now grow up, get a GC and dont be so fucking close minded.

To be fair he wasn't trolling. He was being mildly sarcastic and expressing his opinion, something we are all entitled to.

pacmanfever

11-10-2005, 02:57 PM

Well, since you are reading this site on a PC, I'll jump to the conclusion that you might be in a position to play Xbox 360 games or Playstation 3 games on your PC monitor. It is certainly a cheaper option than springing for a $1000.00+ HDTV.

so if i buy an xbox 360 or ps3, i can finally play games on my computer monitor!

it occurs to me that somebody should start making games for computers, since i already have one of those hooked up to my monitor. i'm just thinking that might be more convenient for those times that i wanna play on an 18" screen.

midrael

11-10-2005, 03:02 PM

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. At the moment, HDTV is just slight eye candy and hasn't appealed to me in the slightest. Considering your average family isn't going to think "Oh I should just attach my console to the computer monitor to gain HD," I imagine most average families with limited income will not be considering HDTV just yet either.

My guess is they're probably guessing it'll take longer than Sony and MS believes it will take for HDTV penetration. That being the case, it probably makes more sense to not include it and allow for the Revolution to potentially undercut the other consoles on price, rather than include it for a small market and reduce the potential buy-in because of cost.

They're already taking a chance with the new controller. Lower cost will increase the number of people that will take that chance. It's a pretty good strategy from where I'm sitting.

Heretic Machine

11-10-2005, 03:11 PM

The original conversion was supposed to be 2007. They pushed it back to 2009 and alotted a few billion to make it happen.

Afraid not, they were talking about this shit in the 90's.

fitbabits

11-10-2005, 03:15 PM

Loser sez what?

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Mario, Princess Peach, Luigi, Pokemon, Yoshi et al - that's one of the funniest things I've read in ages!

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 03:16 PM

Afraid not, they were talking about this shit in the 90's.

Are you saying they were talking about HDTV in the 90s? Please, show me this "talk" you speak of, as of now I call you a fabricator of truths.

Heretic Machine

11-10-2005, 03:19 PM

Are you saying they were talking about HDTV in the 90s? Please, show me this "talk" you speak of, as of now I call you a fabricator of truths.

I can't pull up a news program from 7-9 years ago.

CapnBob

11-10-2005, 03:21 PM

Yeah I know what it does and I also remember reading from the Nintendo press release that they wanted to make something that people who don't play games could pick up and instantly be using easily...aka noob stick..lol

Man I'm not feeling the love in this thread.. rip nintendo a bit and BAM I'm like an uneducated troll dumbF#$%, sorry I stopped playing a series of games after the first 2 left me bored.

Technically, it's your grammar and attitude that mark you as a trolling idiot. The run-on sentences and use of outmoded netpeak such as "lol" and "noob" tend to dispel any pretense of education or maturity that you would like to establish.

You've also made several hilarious logical gaffes, such as asking whether people who don't enjoy Nintendo games will regularly play Nintendo games or complaining that continually "ripping" on a particular topic will net you a reputation as a troll.

I find it especially amusing that you take umbrage at the assertion that you don't know what you're talking about and then you try to defend your actions by claiming willful ignorance. Bravo! You seem to have irony coded directly into your DNA.

51|RandoM

11-10-2005, 03:22 PM

The transition is DTV, not HDTV. I suppose saying it again won't do anything, but I gotta try once more.

DTV and HDTV are two different things.

While it is likely that HDTV will piggyback on the DTV transition, it isn't part of the mandated process, nor is it a technical requirement.

...do me a favor and stop confusing the medium with the content.

Tennistoad

11-10-2005, 03:28 PM

Technically, it's your grammar and attitude that mark you as a trolling idiot. The run-on sentences and use of outmoded netpeak such as "lol" and "noob" tend to dispel any pretense of education or maturity that you would like to establish.

You've also made several hilarious logical gaffes, such as asking whether people who don't enjoy Nintendo games will regularly play Nintendo games or complaining that continually "ripping" on a particular topic will net you a reputation as a troll.

I find it especially amusing that you take umbrage at the assertion that you don't know what you're talking about and then you try to defend your actions by claiming willful ignorance. Bravo! You seem to have irony coded directly into your DNA.

Whoa don't piss off the guy from Yale.

Achilles

11-10-2005, 03:28 PM

No, I can't, I already spent my $500 on a computer. $500 that I didn't put towards an HDTV. Saying because you can afford A you can afford B is stupid.If you had $500 to spend on a better computer, than you had $500 to spend on a better TV. You just bought a computer with it instead. I'd reckon though that you have more than just the money you used to upgrade your computer. But hey, maybe not, maybe you only get $500 spending money every 4 years. If this is the case you should find a better job.

KSmitty

11-10-2005, 03:30 PM

Do you guys have friends and family members who are not gamers? I know a couple dozen people who own consoles and consistently play games. About 5 of them know what component video is...that's right I said component video. The existence of RF mods for consoles should remind everyone of the way the industry caters to Joe Consumer.

I really am sorry that those HDTV owners/enthusiasts will not be able to put all the bells and whistles on their new toy (which is always fun!) but this will not break the Revolution. It will be a detractor for a portion of the videogame consumers out there, but overall the general public will always outweigh the enthusiast.

-K

kickmybum

11-10-2005, 03:35 PM

I play PC games 99.9% of the time, so if I have 1 console in my house, it will probably be whichever one is fun, inventive and completely different than the games I play all the time on my PC. Also, because I play PC games 99.9% of the time, I don't see myself paying 400+ bucks for the other .1%. Nintendo is cheap, it'll do just fine.

Schnoogs

11-10-2005, 03:36 PM

Then these people should be marginally ashamed to call themselves "gamers".

Right dude...that would be like saying people who prefer Dolby Digital to stereo should be ashamed to call themselves fans of movies.

Technology plays a huge part in the experience...it dictates the level of immersion and in the case of gaming once you've grown accustomed to higher resolutions going back to low res seems pointless.

Console gamers for the most part seem to be very naive about this...where as PC gamers, who are generally more technologically savvy, expect a higher level of features.

Non HD material is simply substandard. I play DVDs on my DLP at 120" and it looks like ASS compared to HDS content. It's just an inferior experience...much like cassettes when compared to CDs or records.

The funny thing is that many of you would never choose a cassette tape over a CD but you then trivialize the importance of higher resolution.

Schnoogs

11-10-2005, 03:41 PM

Are you saying they were talking about HDTV in the 90s? Please, show me this "talk" you speak of, as of now I call you a fabricator of truths.

You're joking right?

They we're selling HDTV's in the 90's you fool...what planet do you come from?

i aint yer pa

11-10-2005, 03:42 PM

Loser sez what?/Nintendo fanboy on

I do believe a wise man once said, "Second Place is the first loser"

/fanboy off

pacmanfever

11-10-2005, 03:42 PM

The funny thing is that many of you would never choose a cassette tape over a CD but you then trivialize the importance of higher resolution.

as a counter point, i would rather have a cassette tape by my favorite artist than a CD by an artist i didn't care for.

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 03:43 PM

If you had $500 to spend on a better computer, than you had $500 to spend on a better TV. You just bought a computer with it instead. I'd reckon though that you have more than just the money you used to upgrade your computer. But hey, maybe not, maybe you only get $500 spending money every 4 years. If this is the case you should find a better job.

Ha ha! I really should. But the fact of the matter is, when I have the money to spend, I'm not going to put it into an HDTV, I just don't think it's worth it. I can still play my games on my TV. And since the 360 can play on a monitor, well, that's just freakin' awesome. If I had $1000 I would put it into an IRA (yes, I'm only 22, but I don't want to be fucked), or invest it in some other form. Or, actually pay off my student loans (yea right).

The thing is, I can still play games on a normal TV, I don't think it's essential to upgrade. Yea, I would like an HDTV, but it's not worth the cost in my eyes. When it comes down to $200, then I might just get one. But only maybe.

laggerific

11-10-2005, 03:43 PM

Fzero was sweet...but man, this shakes my faith a bit...I was looking forward to playing some lightgun games in HD. Ah well...still...I thought FZero was sweet...and if they can get a resident evil game in native 16:9 mode, then that is enough for me...RE4 was one of the greatest games ever...and I think they could do some fun stuff with the new controller...although I guess I am happy that the 360 will have a HD RE...

AversionFX

11-10-2005, 03:44 PM

Right dude...that would be like saying people who prefer Dolby Digital to stereo should be ashamed to call themselves fans of movies.

Technology plays a huge part in the experience...it dictates the level of immersion and in the case of gaming once you've grown accustomed to higher resolutions going back to low res seems pointless.

Console gamers for the most part seem to be very naive about this...where as PC gamers, who are generally more technologically savvy, expect a higher level of features.

Non HD material is simply substandard. I play DVDs on my DLP at 120" and it looks like ASS compared to HDS content. It's just an inferior experience...much like cassettes when compared to CDs or records.

The funny thing is that many of you would never choose a cassette tape over a CD but you then trivialize the importance of higher resolution.

Good man.

I think it's absolutely retarded that you people get so retardedly rabid over features, and then call yourselves gamers. I thought the point of being a gamer was being diehard about the videogames, not their specs? When the fuck did gaming become a beauty contest and not about the actual games? The whole argument that "graphics have to be good to immerse you in the game" is complete BS.

My reasoning for that? I've got a pretty good reason to believe that a whole lot of you were pretty saddened when Crono got killed. Or when Dekar got "killed." Or countless other moments from the great games throughout gaming's early (and in my opinion, best) days.

fitbabits

11-10-2005, 03:46 PM

Are you saying they were talking about HDTV in the 90s? Please, show me this "talk" you speak of, as of now I call you a fabricator of truths.
From Consumer Electronics Association (http://www.ce.org/Press/CEA_Pubs/958.asp).

1998
• First DVD players available.
• DVD-ROM, DVD-RAM, DVD-R and DVD+R formats introduced.
• The DVD-Audio format agreed upon.
• CD-Recordable decks first sold.
• The first HDTV sets sold at retail.
• The first consumer flat-screen, gas plasma TVs are available.
• First HDTV satellite broadcast demonstration.
• TV manufacturers and cable operators agree on IEEE-1394 (FireWire) with 5C copy protection.
• Super-fast DSL Internet access using plain phones lines made available.
• The first global satellite phones and pagers sold by Iridium.
• The first 2.4 GHz cordless phones marketed.
• Clarion and Microsoft unveil the AutoPC.
• The Electronic Industries Association renamed the Electronic Industries Alliance.
• MPEG 4 digital video compression technology adopted.
• Special Interest Group (SIG) for Bluetooth wireless data communication standard formed.

Schnoogs

11-10-2005, 03:47 PM

as a counter point, i would rather have a cassette tape by my favorite artist than a CD by an artist i didn't care for.

Thank god in the case of DVDs and CDs pretty much everything worth listening too or watching made the transistion....so the point is moot

Regardless higher resolution graphics are essential for such genres as first person shooters...it further reinforces the illusion of reality...games are simulated reality and reality looks silly when there's aliasing and blockiness.

ÜberJumper

11-10-2005, 03:51 PM

as a counter point, i would rather have a cassette tape by my favorite artist than a CD by an artist i didn't care for.

As a counter counter point, I'd rather have a CD of my favourite artist, than a cassette tape by my favourite artist.

Those of you without HDTV are missing out. HDTV to regular TV is like DVD to VHS.

If you spend any amount of time watching TV, you owe it to yourself to get an HDTV.

If you're Canadian, and love hockey, dudes, TSNHD is fan-fucking-tastic. Just got TSNHD activated yesterday by Shaw, and holy shit watching the detroit vs LA game felt like I was at the rink.

Achilles

11-10-2005, 03:55 PM

Good man.

I think it's absolutely retarded that you people get so retardedly rabid over features, and then call yourselves gamers. I thought the point of being a gamer was being diehard about the videogames, not their specs?All those horrible features getting in the way of good games. What game for the Revolution should the direhard fans be most excited about?

AversionFX

11-10-2005, 03:59 PM

All those horrible features getting in the way of good games. What game for the Revolution should the direhard fans be most excited about?

To be honest, I haven't been keeping up with much of the games of the new generation of games. I just find it absurd that "gaming" has evolved like this. I would like to know why graphics mean more than the games, which is obviously the message being given by almost everyone here. When did gaming become more about pretty graphics, and less about a good game?

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 04:00 PM

Thank god in the case of DVDs and CDs pretty much everything worth listening too or watching made the transistion....so the point is moot

Regardless higher resolution graphics are essential for such genres as first person shooters...it further reinforces the illusion of reality...games are simulated reality and reality looks silly when there's aliasing and blockiness.

Simulated reality is contextual to the time and equipment and what counts as simulated reality changes as the technology and representation changes. Reality can be "simulated" in a PSOne game or a PS2 game, it really doesn't matter that the graphics are crap on one and awesome on another.

Also, games are not about simulated reality. They are about visual images that correspond with the hand movements or whatever it is you use to interact with them. On the most basic level they are nothing but patterns, and you memorize patterns to manipulate images on the screen. I have never run around a city with my thumbs or fired a gun at the push of a button. Also, there are abstract games, such as Rez or Frequency, or even Advance Wars which represents very little of reality.

I would say that games are more along the lines of visual patterns that coordinate with physical movement and we interpret them to the level of a reality. Did you know that many older people could not see Mario when the game first came out? It just looked like a dot. My grandparents have a difficult time interpreting a 3D space represented on a 2D field (a game). We actually see patterns and the like and instantly interpret them as a reality of sorts, which is not dependant on resolution.

RMan

11-10-2005, 04:02 PM

All those horrible features getting in the way of good games. What game for the Revolution should the direhard fans be most excited about?
I think his point was don't condemn the system for the lack of a minor feature without playing or even seeing the games, which is what many of the fanboys here are doing.

RMan

11-10-2005, 04:05 PM

When did gaming become more about pretty graphics, and less about a good game?
About the time MS decided they were unhappy with Xbox's market penetration and had no other idea how to push a new system.

DaXIthR

11-10-2005, 04:08 PM

I'm not a luddite - duh (I'm here aren't I?).

But I'm not in the market for a HDTV right now. I enjoy my games and movies, but being a full-time grad student means making sacrifices. If the option is between an HDTV sooner and putting off the purchase of consoles for a long time...or vice versa, I'll go with the latter.

That said, I'm hella excited about the Rev. Not a surprise Ninty isn't HiDef this coming generation. But I'd be shocked if the system after the Rev. isn't HD-compliant.

If money wasn't an issue and I could just choose which of the three upcoming I could enjoy with all their bells and whistles - in complete glory - no doubt, it'd be the Revolution,

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 04:08 PM

All those horrible features getting in the way of good games. What game for the Revolution should the direhard fans be most excited about?

To be terribly honest, I'm just excited about the forms that games can take from the Rev controller. What games should we be excited about? Besides the staples (Super Smash, Mario, Zelda) I really don't know. Is it foolish to get excited about a system without knowing the games that you claim are going to be amazingly innovative? Probrably, but I'm excited about the possibily of innovation.

What games are you excited about on the 360/PS3? Aside from Oblivion I haven't seen anything to get excited about. Although the prospects of DMC4, Halo 3, and any other killer app are exciting, I haven't seen any hard core evidence which is what a lot of the nay sayers of the Rev seem to want.

Schnoogs

11-10-2005, 04:12 PM

Simulated reality is contextual to the time and equipment and what counts as simulated reality changes as the technology and representation changes. Reality can be "simulated" in a PSOne game or a PS2 game, it really doesn't matter that the graphics are crap on one and awesome on another.

Also, games are not about simulated reality. They are about visual images that correspond with the hand movements or whatever it is you use to interact with them. On the most basic level they are nothing but patterns, and you memorize patterns to manipulate images on the screen. I have never run around a city with my thumbs or fired a gun at the push of a button. Also, there are abstract games, such as Rez or Frequency, or even Advance Wars which represents very little of reality.

I would say that games are more along the lines of visual patterns that coordinate with physical movement and we interpret them to the level of a reality. Did you know that many older people could not see Mario when the game first came out? It just looked like a dot. My grandparents have a difficult time interpreting a 3D space represented on a 2D field (a game). We actually see patterns and the like and instantly interpret them as a reality of sorts, which is not dependant on resolution.

This post is the epitome of not only an incorrect interpretation but the greatest attempt at over analyzing something.

Wow...just speechless.

nonchalance

11-10-2005, 04:23 PM

Maybe you rich people out there can laugh at the rest of us who don't have thousands of dollars to waste on a hi def tv but I have to pay to put food on the table for my kids. I have to save for their education. I appreciate what Nintendo is doing for real people. You elite can have your PS3 that requires a second job to pay for. I already have a second job to pay my mortgage. I'll be busy watching my little ones racing mario karts and saving Zelda.

You said it so I don't have to.
Hell, my TV is still only 51cm, or 19" to those who haven't caught onto a decent measurement system.

jwbxx

11-10-2005, 04:24 PM

I disagree donkey kong is way better than mortal combat.

genocidalrobot

11-10-2005, 04:26 PM

i'm still picking up a Revolution, hdtv doesn't mean shit to me.

Goronmon

11-10-2005, 04:33 PM

I'd love to have an HDTV. I doubt its gonna happen soon, but thats besides the point.

That said, this doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I'm excited for the XBox 360 in a "its a new console" kinda way, but whenever I stop and think about it, I get less excited when I realize that they games are gonna feel about the same as they have for the last few years.

IMO, the Rev. is the only system that looks to be capable of bringing a new gaming experience to the table.

Achilles

11-10-2005, 04:34 PM

To be terribly honest, I'm just excited about the forms that games can take from the Rev controller. What games should we be excited about? None really, they haven't announced any. But I'd point out that you're not excited about games, you're excited about a hardware feature; the controller. Some people want to think that the controller is a much more valid hardware feature than the 360's more powerful hardware, device connectivity, and its support of HDTV, all of which are also hardware features. I'd say it is to them. But clearly to a number of people that's not the case.What games are you excited about on the 360/PS3?Resident Evil 5, Call of Duty 2, Oblivion, Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect, Gears of War, Ninja Gaiden 2, and Project Assassins are the ones that I'm most excited about. Though there are probably 2 dozen others that I'm only slightly less excited about like Ninty Nine Nights, Chromehounds, DOA4 and Huxley.

Schnoogs

11-10-2005, 04:44 PM

RMan

11-10-2005, 04:50 PM

Give me a break people...you find me a gamer who actually prefers lower resolution if given a choice.
Did anyone actually argue that?

thecrazyd

11-10-2005, 04:51 PM

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 04:52 PM

Some people want to think that the controller is a much more valid hardware feature than the 360's more powerful hardware, device connectivity, and its support of HDTV, all of which are also hardware features. I'd say it is to them. But clearly to a number of people that's not the case.
Well, the controller is part of the experience of a game. So getting excited about a different part of a game other than aesthetics really is a valid thing to do. Possibly I just value thing differently than you do?

Resident Evil 5, Call of Duty 2, Oblivion, Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect, Gears of War, Ninja Gaiden 2, and Project Assassins are the ones that I'm most excited about. Though there are probably 2 dozen others that I'm only slightly less excited about like Ninty Nine Nights, Chromehounds, DOA4 and Huxley.

And at most these are only concepts so far. They are based on videos that you've seen, that barely show gameplay, or they're sequels that are based on previous gameplay mechanics (or more of the same). So either you know what the game is going to be like because you've been there, done that, and expect it to look prettier. Or, you have about as much clue as I do towars the Rev and it's controller, which is just a pretty picture and some videos that don't neccessarily conclude anything.

nonchalance

11-10-2005, 04:52 PM

I don't think there's a gamer in the world who if given a choice to play the SAME game at 320x200 or 1920x1080 wouldnt pick the HD resolution.

That's not the question, though.

The question is:
Would you pay an extra US$100 (or AU$200) to play your games in 720p, or would you rather save that money for games and play in 480p?

Kelegacy

11-10-2005, 04:52 PM

This whole "You're not a REAL gamer if you want higher resolution" is pretty silly. If you're actually suggesting that it's ubsurd to want to be able to CLEARLY see the gaming elements than you must be of the same group that tolerates slang and ebonics over proper english.

I didn't mean how you interpreted it. I meant that if you look at a console not supporting HDTV as a dealbreaker, then you should be flogged for calling yourself a true gamer. We've gone FOREVER without HDTV and had millions of hours of fun. We all know, or should know, that an increase in resolution will not instantly make a game better. People that pine away, forgetting the Revolution because it doesn't support HDTV resolutions, because it wont look as "sharp" as the Xbox or PS3...I pity you. Obviously simple aesthetics are more important than the fact that the machine will play excellent games.

The Revolution will still be capable of a high-quality image. The current systems look good on nice televisions for crying out loud. HDTV is a small, small, SMALL drop in the bucket of videogame utopia.

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 04:55 PM

This post is the epitome of not only an incorrect interpretation but the greatest attempt at over analyzing something.

Wow...just speechless.

I don't think it is. If you believe that video games are a simulation of reality then you have serious mental problems. The only simulations of reality should be "simulators". Aside from that you are playing incredibly complex pattern games. Since when can you fly in a robot? Is that reality? Do ninjas fight horde after horde of monsters in reality? What is reality about video games? Absolutely nothing. Only now are we even beginning to see real world physics in games, which are ever present in reality.

And it's not an over analyzation, it's only the breakdown of some incredibly complex components. Look at the basis of video games. Pong is nowhere near a reality simulator, it is visual patterns that coordinate with physical imput to create visual reactions. No reality involved.

EDIT: Also, if you truly believe it is a misinterpretation please post a rebuttle as to why you believe so.

midrael

11-10-2005, 05:01 PM

I don't think there's a gamer in the world who if given a choice to play the SAME game at 320x200 or 1920x1080 wouldnt pick the HD resolution.

This whole "You're not a REAL gamer if you want higher resolution" is pretty silly. If you're actually suggesting that it's ubsurd to want to be able to CLEARLY see the gaming elements than you must be of the same group that tolerates slang and ebonics over proper english.

Give me a break people...you find me a gamer who actually prefers lower resolution if given a choice.

I think you're right in that any gamer, if given the choice, would choose to play at a higher resolution.

However, HDTV is not something completely accessible to the general masses. I, like others have mentioned here, simply do not have the money to upgrade my television. The transition, while significant and certainly observable, simply doesn't justify the current cost in my opinion (emphasis on my opinion). As someone else said, if I had $500, I would rather pour that money into a computer upgrade than a television upgrade. Why? We're talking the difference between clearer picture on a tv or all around improved computing performance.

Right now, Nintendo is faced with presenting innovation in a very admittedly uphill battle. They have a completely new way to game. However, they have to get the general public to try it. In an increasingly competitive market where they are not the #1 console manufacturer, they have to do what they can in order to make their system more attractive to the public.

In this instance, as I see it, they had a choice. Include HD support, raise the cost of the system, and reduce the number of people that will risk the money to purchase a system with a new style of gaming, thus reducing potential positive word of mouth. OR reduce the cost of the system, make the system more affordable (especially if they don't come to market during the holiday season), and hope the reduced cost makes the console an easier risk for the public to accept. I imagine they took the latter road.

LilAbner

11-10-2005, 05:05 PM

$1,000+ for an HDTV? Not. Got my Samsung 30" widescreen HDTV for $775....and you can get 'em for less now. Booyah.

ECM

11-10-2005, 05:08 PM

The games will still have great graphics. We are talking about a resolution upgrade, not completely enhanced bit-graphics. HDTV support would not make the PS1 look like the PS2. Instead, things will be a bit crisper and vibrant with HD, but they wont be new, better graphics.

This bears repeating a few dozen times till some of you finally 'get' it.

kizke

11-10-2005, 05:11 PM

$1,000+ for an HDTV? Not. Got my Samsung 30" widescreen HDTV for $775....and you can get 'em for less now. Booyah.

I am a gamer in college. I can't afford HDTV. In fact, I don't know anyone my age who has access to an HDTV.

Granted I've become EXTREMELY jaded about the ps3 and 360, mainly because we're just going to be getting the same games but with higher price tags and better graphics, but...that's for another thread.

Look...here's what I think it means. If graphics and physics and Madden mean so much to you, then go get a ps3 or 360. Bon voyage. Have fun; I'm sure you will.

I, however, have been gaming for about eighteen years now and the only console that excites me is the Revolution. Graphics be damned; at least it's something absolutely new and fresh. All I care about is gameplay and fun, and I know I'm not alone. If your biggest priority is graphics, I can wholeheartedly say you are superficial and you are missing the entire point of video games.

I get the feeling this post is gonna draw a lot of flaming, but so be it.

Achilles

11-10-2005, 05:41 PM

Well, the controller is part of the experience of a game. So getting excited about a different part of a game other than aesthetics really is a valid thing to do. Possibly I just value thing differently than you do?I think you probably do, but isn't what the game looks like as much a part of the experience as how you move your guy around on the screen? And at most these are only concepts so far. They are based on videos that you've seen, that barely show gameplay, or they're sequels that are based on previous gameplay mechanics (or more of the same). So either you know what the game is going to be like because you've been there, done that, and expect it to look prettier. Or, you have about as much clue as I do towards the Rev and it's controller, which is just a pretty picture and some videos that don't necessarily conclude anything.Actually I can play Cod 2. And yeah the others I'm excited about because of their game concepts, features, art and what has been released for them. The Revolution has none of these for any of its games because it has no games that have been announced. Now it's great to be excited about the possibility of the controller, but some people, not saying you, are saying that games matter more than graphics as a defense of the Revolution's decision not to support HDTV. But they can't point to any games to be excited about for the Rev. Of course having compelling games is more important than having great graphics. But show me one compelling sounding game for the Revolution.

Achilles

11-10-2005, 05:48 PM

All I care about is gameplay and fun, and I know I'm not alone.Rock on. Which gameplay feature are you most excited about when you think about the Revolution? What is the controller going to be used for that you really dig on?

RMan

11-10-2005, 06:10 PM

Rock on. Which gameplay feature are you most excited about when you think about the Revolution? What is the controller going to be used for that you really dig on?
BTW, is this a real question, or sarcasm? IOW, do you actually not see how cool it can be?

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 06:17 PM

But they can't point to any games to be excited about for the Rev. Of course having compelling games is more important than having great graphics. But show me one compelling sounding game for the Revolution.

True, the battle cry that Nintendo Rev has better gameplay has not merit, and alot of people shout it without thinking. But I believe the Rev crowd can see that Nintendo has a track record for innovation and genre invention, and with a controller that defies anything experienced it's easy to jump to conclusions. I'm excited about the prospects of gameplay that can arise. And while Sony and MS will have amazing gameplay on their systems, alot of them are reiterations of an original formula that worked whilst Nintendo is pioneering on a new front.

I'm bored of the games here, and I like it when something new is offered. That's not to say I won't pick up a 360 (I def won't pick up a PS3, fuck Sony) and play those amazing first party reiterations. But I am way more excited about the possibilities that a simple change in the controller can offer.

Of course, in the end, we're argueing about nothing, and really only time will tell. Both the Revolution and it's games as well as any PS3 game are nothing but mere fantasy at this point.

Savok

11-10-2005, 06:17 PM

I'm not reading all this so I don't know if it's been said, but...

Think about what the Rev's wand thing does, it's akin to a light gun in some ways in that it's very interactive with what you see on the TV. Now, HDTV is in widescreen, can we see the problems with support for multiple displays yet?

Achilles

11-10-2005, 06:18 PM

BTW, is this a real question, or sarcasm? IOW, do you actually not see how cool it can be?I don't know how cool it could be. It's so different from what I've used before that I can't immagine reasonably what it would be like to play a game with it. I can assume the best; that it's flawlessly precise and the games will do everything right when implementing it, that my arm won't get sore and that it'll work well with my TV, but at that point the experience of the Rev's controller is just my invention rather than something based on fact. I pretty much know how Oblivion will play, same with Ninja Gaiden. They'll probably add some stuff but I don't have to imagine things like how I'll have to make my guy move forward.

So yeah it’s a partially rhetorical, but partially serious question. You can swing it like a sword, what kind of gameplay should this translate into that interests you? You can make Mario jump by raising and lowering the controller, how’s that make Mario more fun? A first person shooter could be played with it. How do you turn your character's head? Move the controller to the side of the screen? I don't find that to be better than a mouse and keyboard or analog sticks. But is that what really excites people who are defending the Revolution's gameplay?

nonchalance

11-10-2005, 06:23 PM

But show me one compelling sounding game for the Revolution.

The FPS that uses the controller as a lightgun, while the joystick in the other hand is used for movement. The first one will be a Metroid FPS, but hopefully a bunch of others will pick it up - if LucasArts picks it up and makes a new Jedi Knight, in which we alternate between controller as lightsaber and controller as gun, I will dance. I'm sure some RPG developer will pick it up for a similar effect, though.

The RTS that uses the controller as an improvement over the mouse. Battalion Wars Revolution, I'll call it for the moment.

The next editions of the following games: Zelda (real swordfighting), Mario Tennis, Mario Kart and Mario Baseball.

Whatever the guys who came up with Electroplankton come up with when they're handed this thing. Theremin?

Warioware Home Console Revolution Edition should also be pretty awesome.

And mostly, I'm looking forward to a dreamworld in my head where the most creative developers around the world start coming up with new game concepts, and putting them out on Revolution.

Achilles

11-10-2005, 06:24 PM

Of course, in the end, we're argueing about nothing, and really only time will tell. Both the Revolution and it's games as well as any PS3 game are nothing but mere fantasy at this point.True that. I'm just trying to get some people in this thread to stop acting like the Revolution will some how have the gameplay higher ground. We won't actually know what the games are like till they start showing them off, which I guess will be at E3, unless that's behind closed doors only.

The Iron Weasel

11-10-2005, 06:25 PM

Am I the only one that hopes metroid doesn't turn into an FPS? We have enough of those already...and this is comming from a FPS junkie.

nonchalance

11-10-2005, 06:31 PM

Oh, and I'm also really looking forward to being able to play games with my four-year old (she'll be four by then, anyway).

She can play mouse games, but she can't understand the PS2 or GC controllers at all.

Tyrant

11-10-2005, 06:32 PM

Schnoogs

11-10-2005, 06:34 PM

That's not the question, though.

The question is:
Would you pay an extra US$100 (or AU$200) to play your games in 720p, or would you rather save that money for games and play in 480p?

No, that IS the question...keep in mind this thread has spawned numerous points and I'm addressing a particular post that said that higher resolution has nothing to do with the gaming experience.

nonchalance

11-10-2005, 06:34 PM

Basically, lightguns don't work on HDTVs. They don't work on non-CRTs in particular and I recall issues with people being unable to use lightguns 1080i CRT HDTVs...

It doesn't use lightgun technology.
It works on gyroscopes and motion-sensing, not dependent on returned light.

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 06:35 PM

True that. I'm just trying to get some people in this thread to stop acting like the Revolution will some how have the gameplay higher ground. We won't actually know what the games are like till they start showing them off, which I guess will be at E3, unless that's behind closed doors only.

If it's behind close doors I will be extremly pissed.

Schnoogs

11-10-2005, 06:35 PM

I don't think it is. If you believe that video games are a simulation of reality then you have serious mental problems. The only simulations of reality should be "simulators". Aside from that you are playing incredibly complex pattern games. Since when can you fly in a robot? Is that reality? Do ninjas fight horde after horde of monsters in reality? What is reality about video games? Absolutely nothing. Only now are we even beginning to see real world physics in games, which are ever present in reality.

And it's not an over analyzation, it's only the breakdown of some incredibly complex components. Look at the basis of video games. Pong is nowhere near a reality simulator, it is visual patterns that coordinate with physical imput to create visual reactions. No reality involved.

EDIT: Also, if you truly believe it is a misinterpretation please post a rebuttle as to why you believe so.

It's hilarious you mention Pong...why don't you just argue my point for me.

Next!

trip1eX

11-10-2005, 06:37 PM

Eh for some games hdtv doesn't matter much. If they can do 480p and put some aa in there it will look pretty good. I mean folks didn't seem to mind much that their consoles look worse than pcgames.

Also even if families have an hdtv they probably don't have two of 'em. And alot of kids and older folks like myself don't play on the nice living room tv often because other family members aka the wife and son use it alot.

Achilles

11-10-2005, 06:40 PM

Assuming that part of the revolution controller works the way I think it does, which would be like that of a lightgun, there's probably more to the "eh, we just don't wanna do HD this generation" stance.

Basically, lightguns don't work on HDTVs. They don't work on non-CRTs in particular and I recall issues with people being unable to use lightguns 1080i CRT HDTVs...which can be had for less than $500US, for those of you who don't believe that HDTVs can be obtained for less than a grand. Of course, this possibility implies that the Revolution, or at least the controller, will be unplayable on non-CRTs.The revolution actually has two sensors that go on the side of your TV though, so that probably won't be a problem.

nonchalance you give some good reasons why the revolution might be cool. And Nintendo's probably very happy to hear that your daughter will be able to play it since that's what they're going for (people who don't want to or can't use regular controllers but can point at stuff). I'm much more skeptical that all of that stuff will actually be an improvement over what we have now, but those are the possibilites of the system... all of which would not be harmed by being in 720p! :P

nonchalance

11-10-2005, 06:48 PM

all of which would not be harmed by being in 720p! :P

Except that if it cost me AU$500, as Xbox360 will, I wouldn't buy it. Not for some time, anyway.

And I'm not sure much of it will be better - but it'll be different, it'll be interesting, and it'll be good, and that's more interesting to me than the extra polygons or support for a TV I can't afford.

Achilles

11-10-2005, 06:50 PM

If it's behind close doors I will be extremly pissed.This is something that hasn't really been discussed before, but I imagine it probably will be either in booths with bouncers outside each one, or behind closed doors. The controllers are wireless so they'd have to tether them, which would totally suck because it's all based on pointing and positional stuff. They're all wi-fi, so if you have too many units in the same place they could interfere with eachother. You have to stand a certain distance from the screen to really have it be practical (a foot away as with most kiosks won't cut it). For these reasons I see Nintendo having a very challenging E3 ahead if they want to show their stuff on the floor.

One more thing to think about; the rev will probably be a better experience the larger the TV the user has because there’s more area to point at, kind of like having a bigger mouse-pad. But larger TVs need to be high-def you start to really notice it. I think Hi-def would really benefit the Rev so I hope the games are at least 480p

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 07:00 PM

It's hilarious you mention Pong...why don't you just argue my point for me.

Next!

If you have a point, argue it. Essentially right now you are saying "I'm right and you are wrong!" If you cannot express yourself, maybe you should try drawing a picture.

RMan

11-10-2005, 07:09 PM

I pretty much know how Oblivion will play, same with Ninja Gaiden.
Keep in mind it’s far less about how to make old gameplay (which has been restricted by the lack of a controller like this), but more about how to make new experiences. This is something that the unimaginative folk like Mark Rein simply can’t grasp. In truth, it’s really not going to make traditional gameplay any better, because traditional gameplay has been honed and refined to work with traditional controllers. It won’t make inferior gameplay better, any more than putting your audio tapes on CD will make them sound better, but something created on CD quality media will.
You can swing it like a sword, what kind of gameplay should this translate into that interests you?
Uhh, gee, how about swordplay that’s not entirely based on unintuitive, predefined attacks, but rather realistic physics and user defined swings? I’d like to avoid sounding condescending, but come on, this one should be quite obvious.
You can make Mario jump by raising and lowering the controller, how’s that make Mario more fun?
I doubt it would, but that’s a silly control mechanic.
A first person shooter could be played with it. How do you turn your character's head? Move the controller to the side of the screen?
Sure, why not?
I don't find that to be better than a mouse and keyboard or analog sticks.
Kinda hard to say that without trying it, don’t you think? If you’d never used a mouse, and someone described it and said that would be a better way to play a shooter than the revolution controller, you’d likely call them an idiot.
But is that what really excites people who are defending the Revolution's gameplay?
No, it's all the stuff that's NOT what we've played 10,000 times, like sword fighting, Boxing (I’d easily buy the system for just this one), Golf, Table tennis, Fishing (not my thing, but some like it), FPS (I think they’ll be much better with this controller), interesting melee weapons like whips, pole-arms, morning stars, games like Monkey-ball (could do punching attacks). Racing games that involve delicate balancing operations like Skiing and Motorcycle racing could be far more fun.

I think it’ll be much fun right off the bat, but what’s going to be even better is when people get a chance to play it they’ll start to realize there are experiences we just haven’t been able to do with old controllers. I mean, think about a simple application that just lets you sculpt stuff, giving you tools and different types of materials you can mold into whatever you want (with the online thing, many people would have fun with that). After all, it doesn’t have to be a traditional game to be engaging entertainment. It’s such a dramatic step over what we have now that it’s hard for me to imagine the possibilities (and I consider myself pretty imaginative), but some of these real obvious things should be enough to make all but the most pathetic MS/Sony sellouts get excited about the Revolution.

This next statement is not directed at you, but anyone who still doesn’t get it. If you’re thinking about the controller, and you think it sucks simply because you can’t figure out how to play <Current Gen Game X> exactly like you always have, then you’re lost, you’re hopeless, you will never enjoy anything new until someone shoves it down your throat. You are so heavily conditioned that you make Pavlov’s dog look like Da Vinci. In short, you’re weak, and you need to stick with the Xbox 1.5, it’s clearly the system you’re looking for.

Achilles

11-10-2005, 07:26 PM

Uhh, gee, how about swordplay that’s not entirely based on unintuitive, predefined attacks, but rather realistic physics and user defined swings? I’d like to avoid sounding condescending, but come on, this one should be quite obvious.

Kinda hard to say that without trying it, don’t you think? If you’d never used a mouse, and someone described it and said that would be a better way to play a shooter than the revolution controller, you’d likely call them an idiot.It's kind of hard to say that it's better without a game that even sort of resembles it to use as an example.

You had a well worded explanation as to why you're excited about it. But all of it boils down to possibilities and how you imagine it'll work. I don't have to worry about that with current systems. I hope you get what you're looking for out of the Rev though. I'm just not going to be interested in it till I see a game show me why I should be excited about it. I don’t care if it’s an original idea or not, I’m not going to support their new controller till they show me gameplay that looks compelling.

For the sword fighting thing, I've thought quite a bit about that because I'd really like someone to make a Kendo simulator. However the problem is that naturally the most effective way to 'swing the sword' would be to just shake your wrist as fast as you can, so I'm no longer certain that it will be something interesting to do. Even with something that has been around as long as the standard controller hardly any game has ideal controls and it seems like the Rev will be something more difficult to make ideal controls for than the current setup.

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 07:32 PM

It's kind of hard to say that it's better without a game that even sort of resembles it to use as an example.

Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall
In Daggerfall you swung your sword with your mouse, and the direction that you swung your mouse was the direction you swung your sword. Across for a slash, forward for a thrust. You could slash from the top or the bottom, it was pretty fun. Think about this on a Rev control. Your analog stick would move you forward, backwards, and strafe left and right. The stick would move your head, and when you pressed the a button the motion on your hand would then control the sword, but with infinite more control than a mouse.

On the note of FPS with the remote: It will be fun, but ultimately the mouse will reign. The mouse uses absolute position while the remote will use relative.

RMan

11-10-2005, 08:00 PM

It's kind of hard to say that it's better without a game that even sort of resembles it to use as an example.
Can’t say definitively, but I’m confident it will be. Unless it has some issues not disclosed, I think it’s pretty easy to imagine how it’ll work.
I'm just not going to be interested in it till I see a game show me why I should be excited about it. I don’t care if it’s an original idea or not, I’m not going to support their new controller till they show me gameplay that looks compelling.
If you’re excited about a higher resolution over the possibilities the Revolution controller hints at, then you’re one of the weak sub-dog types I mentioned above and should be ashamed of yourself, but if you’re just skeptical of anything before you get to play it, then that’s cool.
However the problem is that naturally the most effective way to 'swing the sword' would be to just shake your wrist as fast as you can, so I'm no longer certain that it will be something interesting to do.
Well, it’s true that the controller would weigh less than a sword, so a better experience would be offered by a heavy sword attachment, but I think you’re still trying to hard not to like it. Although it can never be perfect since it can’t offer the feedback that a sword contact would, the game can still make it quite necessary to swing the sword properly. Basically, the force applied through moving the sword through the air would translate to more power on the sword swing, so simply twitching the controller might create more hits, but they’d have no power. This force would also be applied to sword clashes, causing the greater hit to recover faster.
Even with something that has been around as long as the standard controller hardly any game has ideal controls and it seems like the Rev will be something more difficult to make ideal controls for than the current setup.
This depends on the game, the sword fighting example, for instance, would be far easier to implement with the Revolution controller because a deep sword fighting experience for the traditional controller would take a bunch of well tweaked, pre-defined macro attacks with arbitrary rules instead of the intuitive control the Revolution would allow.

agentgray

11-10-2005, 08:00 PM

Somehow, I don't see how Mario 3 in HD would be all that great.

RE5 on the otherhand...

According to Evil, Nintendo might be number three here in the States, but there is another major video game society or two on this planet where it is not.

I'm not a fanboy by any means, but I do, collectively, have the most fun on the gamecube...most games, collectively again, you can just pick up and play for a couple minutes. After the kids go to bed it's Xbox time baby.

To each his own. Nintendo is going to fill a niche that the other two won't.

Xbox will have your whizbang.
Sony will have your DRM. :D (Amazing how that antisentiment was lost real quick)
Nintendo will always have Mario.

Kelegacy

11-10-2005, 08:08 PM

No, that IS the question...keep in mind this thread has spawned numerous points and I'm addressing a particular post that said that higher resolution has nothing to do with the gaming experience.
It makes a game look a bit sharper. Other than that, what does it have to offer the gaming experience? The gameplay is exactly the same. I played HL2 on a lower resolution and I experienced all of the fun others did.

I watch grainy porn sometimes. While HD porn would look nice, in the end I still get the same satisfied outcome as the next wanker.

Achilles

11-10-2005, 08:09 PM

Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall
In Daggerfall you swung your sword with your mouse, and the direction that you swung your mouse was the direction you swung your sword.Oh I did play me some Daggerfall. About 500 hours of Daggerfall actually. I had a boat with one of every type of rose on the lower deck collected from all over the world, and I eventually found the Orc headquarters as well as the Necromancer’s coven by simply walking across the world and exploring. I was a dagger user so when I got in combat I’d just rub the mouse on the pad as fast as I could, and that’s where my worry came from with sword fighting games on the Revolution now that you bring it up.

Even so if they said Oblivion was coming to the Rev I'd have a good idea how they'd use the controller and I think that might be compelling. But they haven't so it's not something I can look forward to realistically. The best I can do is hope that someone else makes a game that is similar to it.

I see what you’re getting at, but basically he’s saying “how can you say it’s not better having never tried it?” to which my response is “how can you say it’s better having never tried it?”. The answer is the same, "I can't." I'm just skeptical and he's hopeful. I list my reasons for being skeptical and he listed his reasons for being hopeful and that's about all we've got.

Dabombpizza

11-10-2005, 08:16 PM

I see what you’re getting at, but basically he’s saying “how can you say it’s not better having never tried it?” to which my response is “how can you say it’s better having never tried it?”. The answer is the same, "I can't." I'm just skeptical and he's hopeful. I list my reasons for being skeptical and he listed his reasons for being hopeful and that's about all we've got.

Agreed. I'm glad we're not slobbering about it.

nonchalance

11-10-2005, 08:26 PM

What a nice ending to a thread that looked like a flamewar.

Let's all have a hug.

Nessus

11-10-2005, 08:37 PM

Why do people keep mistaking the Rev's technology with a light gun?

It doesn't just detect a point on the screen like a mouse, it detects the orientation of the remote, even if it isn't pointed at the screen. It will work with any screen because the position sensors are independant of the display.

sol740

11-10-2005, 09:42 PM

Few people have HDTVs. If you are rich and don't mind paying the extra money for a feature that you can't use, then get a PS3. I'll save my money and get a Rev and play it on my good old Wega. With the money I'll save I can get a crack whore for several days.

And the Rev will support progressive scan, which is like baby hi-def. It just won't go up to the 1080 like Xbox and PS3.

Are your serious ? Rich people ? Few people own HDTV's ? Wow man time to catch up to the times. HDTV's are more affordable than ever and they are selling more and more each year. I own 2. It makes a huge difference. I'm not rich, but I'm not broke either. I'm probably damn close to smack dab in the middle class. I think its a mistake to neglect HDTV owners. And as far as " the games " argument goes ... yes its all about the games ... but I for one am getting a little tired of the same old franchises rehashed gen to gen after 20 or so years ...

thecrazyd

11-10-2005, 09:48 PM

but I for one am getting a little tired of the same old franchises rehashed gen to gen after 20 or so years ...
Even if the gameplay is totally different? How about all the 360 and PS3 titles that will be rehashed between gens, and probably play exactly alike? Who cares if Mario is on the screen if the game you are playing is totally unlike any you have played before? Nintendo franchises it's mascots, Sony and MS rehash.

Player 1

11-11-2005, 12:37 AM

Didn't we learn this at TGS? For some reason I'm very unsurprised by this.

Why yes. But Nintendo non-news is always something for games sites and kids to get frothy about. I'm sure the next press release will remind us of how it uses electricity as a source of power (that's special Nintendo electricity, not evil Sony or Microsoft electricity).

And lo, an 18 page forum thread shall appear on all gaming communities to argue over things we've known for months.

Regarding the whole "HDTV, so what?" stance. I can't say. I'm in the UK, it costs me the equivalent of $500 to get a decent 28" TV. HDTV won't be coming to my place anytime soon (paypal donations welcome).

But, you know what? I reckon it's one of those things that'll become something a gamer won't do without. Remember pixellated textures versus mipmapped ones? It's just cosmetic. But would you ever go back? (DS owners need not answer this). How about losing your mousewheel? What about stereo or 5.1 sound - would you lose that and go back to mono?

I think, here and now, HDTV won't be a must have. But give it a year and those that have it would never opt to be without it.

Now, as a gamer, whether that's important is neither here nor there. As a selling point to your average, superficial consumer? Well, it'll make a difference. Besides, if they've just blown a wad on upgrading to HDTV they'll not fret about spending $$$ on luxury items and will most probably want something to show of their HDTV features.

I think it's safe to say that Nintendo are focusing on a profit rather than revenue financial model.

blackzc

11-11-2005, 02:24 AM

If you own a HDTV and a Cube that has the component outs you will understand that this is not that big of a deal. Out of 40 Cube games that I own 75% are 480p widescreen. They still look great and I don't think I would miss 720p all that much. As long as they keep 480p widescreen as an option I am happy. Create bigger worlds with no loading screens please.

^
This post for the win.

When i hear about HD on the PS3 and 360 i think of all the PS2 games that had great graphics but crap framerates, the same thing is going to happen agin. Bad framerates should have been gone forever with the current gen but GTA-SA was far from smooth. It may even be worse next gen if all the developers are screaming U3ER H1 D3F!! so they can sell more games. HD has got to tax the shit out of a CPU.

baz

11-11-2005, 04:32 AM

bapenguin

11-11-2005, 05:09 AM

Even if the gameplay is totally different? How about all the 360 and PS3 titles that will be rehashed between gens, and probably play exactly alike? Who cares if Mario is on the screen if the game you are playing is totally unlike any you have played before? Nintendo franchises it's mascots, Sony and MS rehash.

Here's a serious question. I'm not sure if you've seen the Revolution video from TGS or not, but on it they showed a lot of games being "played" with the controller. Quite a few of those titles were titles that were already out today. For instance, they showed a woman laying on a couch playing Mario Brother (you could tell by the jumping sound) with the remote. She was flicking her wrist and generally enjoying herself. Does playing the game this way, with that controller create a totally different game? Is anything REALLY that different?

Lets look at a console driving game. You can play this game with a controller, using the analog sticks to steer, accelerate, etc. You can also play it with a steering wheel add on. Using pedals, etc to control. These are 2 vastly different control methods. Do they change the game expierence at all? I see both sides here, yes and no. Yes, it provides a more sim like expierence, and probably a more accurate control method. But it doesn't change the game at all, it doesn't change how it functions.

Also, it's been said time and time again all the flailing and sword playing and whatnot shown in that video is NOT how the controller works. The movements of it have to be very subtle. So while it sounds like it should be a more accurate control method, and a different style of a control method, are you going to have "more fun" because of it?

I'm sure we'll see some "unique" titles that come out, that make use of the controller in some way that unique and fun. We've seen titles on the DS like Trauma Center and such that use the DS screen quite well. But the majority of the titles really aren't that different. Most are games that have been done before, and that have used other methods of control and have been just as if not more successful.

I'm curious to see what Nintendo brings, I'm not bashing them either way. We've really seen NOTHING from this console yet besides the controller itself and the possiblities. But leaving it SO open to interpretation sets up for dissapointment.

bapenguin

11-11-2005, 05:10 AM

^
HD has got to tax the shit out of a CPU.

Sure it does. But last Generation wasn't DESIGNED for HD. This generation (well PS3 and 360) are being designed from the ground up to support HD.

Worldcrafter

11-11-2005, 06:54 AM

I play all my games on my computer monitor, and don't even own a tv any more, so I really couldn't care less. As long as the games are fun to play, I'm sure the developers will be able to crank out pleasing graphics. And when I want to play a console geared towards graphics, that's what the 360 is for. For me, it feels like the Revolution and 360 are both going to be great consoles, but they are getting to that status through different means.

Also, it's been side time and time again all the flailing and sword playing and whatnot shown in that video is NOT how the controller works. The movements of it have to be very subtle. So while it sounds like it should be a more accurate control method, and a different style of a control method, are you going to have "more fun" because of it?

Now that's just silly. It's better for a device to be very sensitive/accurate, because a developer can always write software to account for all that extra information the device provides, and make the device less sensitive. However, it's a lot harder to make a device more accurate and sensitive through software. I'm sure if a developer wanted to make a sword fighting game like in that video, they could write some code to manage it.

see colon

11-11-2005, 07:00 AM

I have a HDTV that does 720p. I'm completely stoked that the all xbox360 games are going to support 720p, and a little bit miffed that the rev wont. However its definately not a deal breaker for me, I'll be picking both up at launch. At least I better be picking up the mofo 360 at launch, Game better not screw my pre-order over.
a few misconcepions people have about the xbox360 is that it'll always be 720p. it'll always output 720, but the internal rendering may be lower, then upscaled for performance reasons. PGR3 is rumored to do just that.

some misconceptions in this thread...

all sVGA monitors are HD
not technicly. HD has set resoltions, like 720p and 1080i. i own over 15 monitors and only one supports any interlaced modes, and none support 1024*720

revolution won't have widescreen games
sega saturn had widescreen games (nights and panzer dragoon come to mind), as did ps2 and GC at standard def resolutions. i'm sure it'll be there.

everyone is assuming because nintendo says they won't support HD means the maximum resolution for revolution games is 480p. maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. maybe nintendo doesn't support the HD interface, but do support SVGA. there were rumors that revolution might support multiple viodeo outputs with VGA support right out of the box.

bapenguin

11-11-2005, 07:15 AM

a few misconcepions people have about the xbox360 is that it'll always be 720p. it'll always output 720, but the internal rendering may be lower, then upscaled for performance reasons. PGR3 is rumored to do just that.

Wrong. for one it can actually output a bunch of resolutions, among them is 1080i and 720p. 720p is the minimum required resolution to support and render at. The system will actually scale down to 480p.

score

11-11-2005, 08:02 AM

Also, it's been said time and time again all the flailing and sword playing and whatnot shown in that video is NOT how the controller works. The movements of it have to be very subtle. So while it sounds like it should be a more accurate control method, and a different style of a control method, are you going to have "more fun" because of it?

I believe that this is entirely dependant on the developer. If they want to develop a game with sword slashes they will be able to do so...

see colon

11-11-2005, 08:26 AM

Wrong. for one it can actually output a bunch of resolutions, among them is 1080i and 720p. 720p is the minimum required resolution to support and render at. The system will actually scale down to 480p.
some press (with dev kits) are reporting that PGR3 runs at 30FPS at a resolution of 1024*600 internaly, scaled to whatever resolution your output is set for. nba 2k6 is reportedly 1024*576. this is done to fit the entire frame plus AA in the 10MB frame buffer and avoid tiling.

my previous statement "it'll always output 720p" was meant to say that the option would be there, not that it was a locked output resolution.

Demo_Boy

11-11-2005, 08:40 AM

HDTV is realy cool, 720p looks super sweet. Ultra.

But I'm not buying a console that needs hidef to make the games look like the devs want it to. I can't afford to replace my 31 regular tv with a HIdef of equal size.

Meanwhile the Rev has that cool controller.

I'm hot on Rev.

RMan

11-11-2005, 09:14 AM

For instance, they showed a woman laying on a couch playing Mario Brother (you could tell by the jumping sound) with the remote. Does playing the game this way, with that controller create a totally different game? Is anything REALLY that different?
It seems you're making a bunch of assumptions based on a promotional video, clearly they can't show final games since they don't have them yet, using existing titles as backdrops for hinting at how the controller works is fine. Assuming that the games will all be like what we have now but with the new controller based on prerelease promotional stuff like this is just silly.

As stated before, the controller doesn't magically create new experiences, it allows new experiences to be created.
Do they change the game expierence at all? I see both sides here, yes and no.
I'm not sure you could ever say no to this one, you're input device is a crucial part of your experience, switching between a thumbpad and a wheel would assuredly change the experience, the question is how significantly and if it's for the better. I think since we've had the same basic input device for so long many have forgotten how much of a difference a change in it can make.

The movements of it have to be very subtle.
Please post the firsthand account of this limitation, I'd certainly be less excited about it if it had such limitations, but I haven't seen anything indicating this.
We've seen titles on the DS like Trauma Center and such that use the DS screen quite well. But the majority of the titles really aren't that different.
It's entirely likely that the same will be true of the Revolution, but I'm still more excited about the promise of some new titles than the virtual guarantee that there won't be any.
But leaving it SO open to interpretation sets up for dissapointment.
Well, this is most certainly true, it may have some real issues that aren't obvious or disclosed, time will tell. Still, I'd much rather risk disappointment than embrace banality.

bapenguin

11-11-2005, 10:05 AM

It seems you're making a bunch of assumptions based on a promotional video......
Please post the firsthand account of this limitation, I'd certainly be less excited about it if it had such limitations, but I haven't seen anything indicating this.

Right, I'm merely using the video as an example. That's all we have to go on. It was more to illustrate a point then to be fact.

As to the second point I believe there were accounts from both IGN and 1UP regarding the controllers use. Both mentioned that while using it in games they tended to "overuse" the motion of hte controller, and they needed to settle down and only use slight motions of the wrist, not actual full arm motions.

Beelzebud

11-11-2005, 10:20 AM

My nephews, whith their 20 inch TV, will not care that the Revolution does not support HD.

RMan

11-11-2005, 10:30 AM

Both mentioned that while using it in games they tended to "overuse" the motion of hte controller, and they needed to settle down and only use slight motions of the wrist, not actual full arm motions.
Ahh, well, the impression I got from that is that the USER needed to use more subtle actions because the applications were more sensitive than they first assumed. Like another poster said, if the application was not designed for subtle movement then this wouldn't be a problem. IOW, a sword fighting game could use the full range of motion, or slight movements to get the job done, that's up to the game. I'm sure many of the demonstrations they had were designed to highlight the basic functionality and sensitivity (sensitivity would be an obvious concern and I’m sure they wanted to point out that it was sensitive enough that you didn’t have to wave it around). This is just a modest user acclimation, not a “problem” with the hardware.

dr_wily

11-11-2005, 11:34 AM

hmm.. i cant see how hdtv support would really cost that much more.. i mean instead of a component input you have hdmi? maybe if they are thinking of scaling back their processor or something, but shoot most games today run like gangbusters at 800x600 and 1024x760 on non bleeding edge cards. And cheapie video cards have HD support, so im just not following their reasoning

didnt they say before that the prerev specs were still quite powerful, even near to what the 360 and ps3 can do?

shoot it would probably affect their console cost by like 5-10$..

seems a no brainer to me

RMan

11-11-2005, 01:10 PM

hmm.. i cant see how hdtv support would really cost that much more..
Well, I think the idea is that beyond the basic technology, supporting the higher resolutions would require at least twice as much GPU power, frame buffer ram, etc. I'm sure it's much more than just the connectors.

Achilles

11-11-2005, 02:39 PM

Any game that lets the 360 upscale it will be very obvious. I’m not sure if FFIX still does it, but last I checked that was the only one. For a short time some other games were letting the 360 upscale them to 720 instead of rendering them at 720, but now they’re all rendered at 720 with the possible exception of FFIX as far as I know. Certainly all the ones that people are going to buy are, including PGR3 will be rendered at 720, not upscaled.

mister_slim

11-11-2005, 02:45 PM

I don't know how cool it could be. It's so different from what I've used before that I can't immagine reasonably what it would be like to play a game with it. I can assume the best; that it's flawlessly precise and the games will do everything right when implementing it, that my arm won't get sore and that it'll work well with my TV, but at that point the experience of the Rev's controller is just my invention rather than something based on fact. I pretty much know how Oblivion will play, same with Ninja Gaiden. They'll probably add some stuff but I don't have to imagine things like how I'll have to make my guy move forward.
Yay! Let's go over this again!

Modern camera control maps the eye to the right analog stick. Push up to lock up (or down). Push left, right, etc. The revolution camera control is 'point where you want to look'. One of the nifty things your body has already mastered is pointing at and tracking a moving object. Doing so with your thumb mediated by a thumbstick is not very intuitive.

Currently, interaction with objects is handled by contextual, yes/no actions. Hit the A button to interact. Interactions have to be very simple, because there's a limited number of buttons. Attempts at more sophisticated interaction, such as Morrowind or the last Pitfall, run into the limitations of buttons and sticks. Meanwhile, the Rev controller can directly map your 3D hand movements into the game.

Sure, it's just potential, but as someone who understands how strongly game design is formed by the potential of the interface (and, as the DS shows, the designer's understanding (or lack of) of the interface) I get excited when I consider what could be done with the controller.