Revolution Tech Details [Archive]

bapenguin

12-06-2005, 06:05 AM

IGN (http://revolution.ign.com/articles/673/673578p1.html) has uncovered some details from developers regarding Nintendo's Upcoming Revolution Console. Nintendo though, isn't concerned about raw horsepower, but rather concerned with innovation and its controller.

When Revolution was initially unveiled, a Nintendo executive said it would be "two-to-three times more powerful than GameCube." The company never commented on Revolution's horsepower again and we were later told that the initial statement was incorrect. However, according to development houses, that description accurately sums up Revolution's power.

"To be honest, it's not much more powerful than an Xbox. It's like a souped up Xbox," a major third party source revealed to us. "But it's the controller that makes the difference and the controller is really nice."
Souped up XBox? I wonder what their timeline is for the Revolution's lifespan.

Reanimated

12-06-2005, 06:08 AM

Well since they're not doing HD resolutions, I don't think they really NEED a lot of extra horsepower.

I don't care as long as it's cheap and there are great games for it.

jeffool

12-06-2005, 06:11 AM

Yeah, I'll assume that bap's playing devil's advocate and whatnot. I mean, we're talking about a new style of interaction with the games we play. I'm sure that anyone who buys it won't be too worried about the graphics causing it to have a short life.

rein

12-06-2005, 06:15 AM

Souped up XBox? I wonder what their timeline is for the Revolution's lifespan.

That is the way I feel about my 360 at the moment.

Xaerin

12-06-2005, 06:21 AM

You just have to look at the DS to see that graphical power isn't the only deciding factor in success when you have games that utilise the alternative interface in a way that makes it more fun.

bean19

12-06-2005, 06:22 AM

This is a bit disconcerting.

It will probably look okay, but bad compared to other next gane consoles for a year or two, but what happens five years from now.

Why give up on taking larger market share? Maybe positioning themselves to be an innovative poor man's system will work, but I have my doubts. I don't think the console market is the same as the handheld market.

Kelegacy

12-06-2005, 06:23 AM

People who use handhelds aren't overly concerned with graphics (look at the still increasing popularity of the GBA and now DS) if the games are fun, so why should home consoles be any different? I believe the 360 abandoned the still useful powers of the Xbox, so if the Revolution only uses slightly more powerful tech than an Xbox and has the same great Nintendo games, I'm more than stoked. Hardware is VASTLY overrated these days.

Phanto

12-06-2005, 06:25 AM

Well since they're not doing HD resolutions, I don't think they really NEED a lot of extra horsepower.

I don't care as long as it's cheap and there are great games for it.

Agree.

They are not looking to make a power hungry console like 360 or maybe the PS3. What will their get if they do a more powerful console, powerhungry gamers?? or a $126 loss for each console they sold *cough *cough.

Anyway that do not justify the fact that they not integrated "next gen" hardware to the new console.

Doctor Setebos

12-06-2005, 06:26 AM

I don't care as long as it's cheap and there are great games for it.Absolutely. QFT.

Hewie

12-06-2005, 06:27 AM

Mmmm... soup. I like Primo's hearty chicken noodle myself.

jeffool

12-06-2005, 06:27 AM

Why give up on taking larger market share? Maybe positioning themselves to be an innovative poor man's system will work, but I have my doubts.It's not that they're giving up on 'taking a larger market share', just that they're hoping to 'expand the market'. If it works and the get a small fraction of people who aren't playing games, they could easily end up with a much larger market share than they had this time around. And besides, console prices can't go up forever. Eventually someone has to say "this is crazy, let's calm down and wait until the tech gets cheaper." It's high time advances were made in gaming in areas aside from pixel pushing. Hopefully this will work, and convince more developers that it's worthwhile to try new things.

On that point, I fear that if it works, it'll just be another point that we stall on forever. "Look what we can do with these controls, now let's run with that for the next ten years!"

fushi

12-06-2005, 06:33 AM

Souped up XBox? I wonder what their timeline is for the Revolution's lifespan.
it will outlive your first HD-compatible television.

Whatever, I won't be buying a PS3 because Kutaragi looks like a gnome and I don't really like gnomes and Allard is also weird I don't like Moby either.

Abednigo

12-06-2005, 06:41 AM

It was said in another Revolution thread the other day, so I'll say it again...

If it has games that looks a little better than Resident Evil 4, what's the problem?!

bapenguin

12-06-2005, 06:45 AM

It was said in another Revolution thread the other day, so I'll say it again...

If it has games that looks a little better than Resident Evil 4, what's the problem?!

No problem now, or even next year...but 4 years down the road that stuff is going to look like complete ass compared to what we see on a high end PC or the PS3. Of course...it's about art direction as well...but if you look at games from 4 years ago on the PC and compare them to today...it's quite the difference and very few survive the test of time. Think about what you thought the first time you saw that game 4 years ago, "This looks so good!"

Kelegacy

12-06-2005, 06:49 AM

TrackZero

12-06-2005, 06:49 AM

Yeti2005

12-06-2005, 06:50 AM

I'd be pretty pissed if someone told me I had to play my games in 640x480 for the next 4-5 years while my friends are playing in 1280x720 or 1920x1080.

Handhelds don't need amazing graphics because you're playing them on a 3 inch screen. Consoles are usually played on TVs which are obviously a lot bigger.

TKO

12-06-2005, 06:57 AM

Graphic resolutions have got to a point where further improvements are nice, but my no means *necessary* to some people out there (myself included.) And dammit, if they've truly developed a controller that can do mouselook as good as a real mouse, I'll pay for that. Faster loading you say too? No objection here.

And by default they are getting the support of any devoper who feels 360/PS3 develpment has become too rich. Not to mention the traditional Nintendo franchises (I've been out of the loop for a while.. so the next MarioKart, Waverace, FZero will appeal to me.)

Yeah, I've got absolutely no concerns. People say the X-Box is being dumped before its time. It's for this kinda reason the Revolution will still have a good life IMHO.

Vandenh

12-06-2005, 06:57 AM

Thats why a 360 and a Rev is a great combo. :)

Nerv

12-06-2005, 06:59 AM

I'd be pretty pissed if someone told me I had to play my games in 640x480 for the next 4-5 years while my friends are playing in 1280x720 or 1920x1080.
I'm going out on a limb here and suggesting that the majority of people who will be buying the Revolution will also be playing games on a PC/Xbox360/PS3.
As long as the Revolution has a wealth of exclusive titles that must be played, this shouldn't matter.
There's no point in getting a Rev if all you'll be playing is Need For Speed 83 and FIFA/Madden 2007.

Reanimated

12-06-2005, 07:02 AM

Really though, I don't get the obsession with console power & graphics. I mean who gives a shit about flashy graphics if it's taking developers 3-4 years and 50 million dollars to craft quality games with all that flash?

Don't get me wrong, the flash is nice, but in the end games are about gameplay and fun. Revolution is offering something different like the DS does. Just look at how successful the DS has been despite everyone downing on it pre-launch. You don't see many of those people anymore now that the DS has easily outclassed the PSP in terms of number of quality games.

Anyway, the Rev will have plenty of power to do what it needs to do.

NeuroMan42

12-06-2005, 07:09 AM

I have never been dissapointed with Nintendo in the past. Great imaginative games and gameplay win out over hardware. I fully agree that hardware is VASTLY overrated these days.

Karmakin

12-06-2005, 07:09 AM

RE4x3 level of power probably equals Gears of War.

It's not all about graphics. If you think that's all that matters, keep on playing the same old games on the 360...because there's nothing unique yet. (I use the word yet. I'm hoping that Dead Rising is going to be the killer app for me. Now that game looks interesting/innovative/different)

Sorry to bring politics into this..(I'm not..but it's the best comparison). Some people believe that political parties should pander to the beliefs of the voters. Some people believe that political parties should be leaders, and change the beliefs of the voters.

I'm in the latter camp. And really, that's the whole difference.

TKO

12-06-2005, 07:12 AM

Pissed at being stuck with 640x480? Well, you're obviously not the target audience. ..anyone stuck with a standard TV, or less concerned with graphical bling will be happy.

And pay more to develop something to compete with the 360 and PS3? Why? Best chance they have is 1/3 of the pie (optomistic outlook), while losing more money per hardware unit. Going for a chunk of an entirely different pie and earning a profit on the hardware sounds smart to me.

Rakael

12-06-2005, 07:15 AM

Watch it Reanimated, some rabid Sony fanboy will start spouting off about how great the PSP is and pull figures out of their ass to prove its outselling the DS and Nintendo is PWNED.

I'm with most people on this though, who gives a damn about horsepower? If you want that, you have three other options, including the pc, which are going to be more than powerful enough for even the most hardcore graphics whore. The Rev will probably be great fun to have, and a lot of people who have the other consoles will also own a Rev.

I also don't understand this need to keep comparing the Rev to the 360 and PS3. Nintendo has stated over and over that they are removing themselves from direct competition with Sony and MS. They are seeking to be the second console in homes, or the one console in what would be an otherwise game-less household. No the Rev is not going to be as powerful as the other two, but then again its not really competing with them either, and will undoubtedly have some fantastic games that make it worth buying. Well, that is if the current Nintendo track record holds.

Blade

12-06-2005, 07:16 AM

Abednigo, Reanimated, and Xaerin = on the right path.

PSP is a powerhouse compared to DS hardware-wise, but at this junction I'd suggest the DS in a heartbeat over the PSP. Just for the price factor alone, nevermind the games.

RE4 showed us what GameCube could do at 30fps with almost no slowdown.. if any. If the best looking GCN titles are 2-3 times better looking than RE4, color me impressed when the Revolution debuts at $199-249 with full backward-compatibility.

You also have to question.. how is Revolution faster than GameCube?

For example, what if it has a lower polygon throughput than Xbox 360 but has more bandwidth for texturing and normal mapping? Or vice-versa? See where I'm going with this? I speculate that the Revolution might be better at one major aspect of rendering.

I don't think it'll be easy for Nintendo or Sony to win this generation given X360's lead.

bapenguin

12-06-2005, 07:16 AM

I look at games that were recently created on ancient PS2 hardware (Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Dragon Quest 8), hardware that launched almost SIX years ago, and I don't worry about how the Revolution games will look in 4 or 5 years.

Ok...but when the PS2 was released it was cutting edge. What we are looking at here is if you'd be playing PS1 games today.

The hardware Nintendo is going to release next year a "souped up" version of 4 year old hardware. So in 4 years, it'll be 8 years old.

Games Released in 1997:
Grand Theft Auto (the original)
Quake 2
Final Fantasy 7
Mortal Kombat 3
Virtua Fighter 2

btw: All this said, I still plan on grabbing a Revolution at launch (depending on the games of course) but to the common consumer graphical appearance is the first impression and the most important impression with video games.

I would imagine that Nintendo's marketing department will come out with some great stuff and concentrate on the expierence rather than the system.

baz

12-06-2005, 07:17 AM

360 + Rev = my next gen consoles... now I'm halfway there

They really do seem to make a good combo.

see colon

12-06-2005, 07:24 AM

the comments in that "article" were written by devs who don't have final revolution dev kits, or final specs. in fact, none of them have even seen the final specs for hollywood. their comments have some weight, but nothing they say can be taken as 100% factual in regards to the final rev spec.

if revolution does come out and is just a little more powerfull than the xbox, with no high def support but sVGA support (at least 800*600) i think i'll be pretty content.

Nite_Moogle

12-06-2005, 07:27 AM

It all looks so good on paper... Nintendo goes in with a less expensive system so they can get people to pick it up instead of its overpriced competitors. It's an edge they'll need to get people to try out their new controller, and if they get a great reaction to the controller it may sell more Revos than Sony or Microsoft want to even consider. If it works it'll undoubtedly change the video game industry forever in the same way the analog stick did.

So why do I have this feeling in the pit of my stomach that says my Revo library is going to be 95% first party games?

see colon

12-06-2005, 07:34 AM

Ok...but when the PS2 was released it was cutting edge. What we are looking at here is if you'd be playing PS1 games today.

The hardware Nintendo is going to release next year a "souped up" version of 4 year old hardware. So in 4 years, it'll be 8 years old.

the difference here is that ps1 wasn't the most powerfull console of it's generation. imagine what a souped up n64 could do. if you removed the bottlenecks that held back most n64 games (tiny texture cache, nintendo crippling the RCP in the dev tools, not enough fill rate) you'd have dreamcast quality pretty easily, and probably even better in some cases.

ChaosDent

12-06-2005, 07:39 AM

Ok...but when the PS2 was released it was cutting edge. What we are looking at here is if you'd be playing PS1 games today.

The hardware Nintendo is going to release next year a "souped up" version of 4 year old hardware. So in 4 years, it'll be 8 years old.

That is completely illogical. If the revolution hardware is more powerful than 4 year old hardware by any measure then it is not, by admission, equivalent to said 4 year old hardware. Taken at face value, "2-3 times more powerful" stands between 1 and 2 cycles of Moore's law, which can easily place it 3 years ahead of the Gamecube.

mrbandersnatch

12-06-2005, 08:00 AM

The way I look at this is that my PC was about graphically equal to the XBox when it launched. 18 months down the line and my PC was WELL ahead of the XBox (9700 I think). Now, since Im confined to 12x10 on my PCs monitorS, my PC (6800GT) is just a tad less powerfull than the 360 but 18 months down the line? My PC (9900GTX, Quad core?) will be ***** all over the 360 AND the PS3!!

The Rev though? If the new controller works out the way I hope it will, AND the titles appear that are FUN; The Rev will still be attached to my TV and played by me and the kids, and will remain there because it is offering something DIFFERENT than just a "cheap graphical upgrade". 3x as powerful as the GC for < £150 with a great selection of titles that I havnt played (I dont own a GC)?

Done deal. :p

askheaves

12-06-2005, 08:01 AM

RandomViolence

12-06-2005, 08:04 AM

I'm trying to figure out why, with very little improvement in the base console, they're releasing a console at all? If the major improvement is the controller... why don't they release a kickass peripheral set instead for their Gamecube? Far as I can tell, the port the controller plugs into is sufficient for bongo drums, dance pads, fishing rods, and standard controllers. They'd save themselves an assload of money.

That's a terrible marketing move considering the status of the Gamecube right now. Why not hype something to oblivion and call it the Revolution to get peoples' curiosity piqued instead?

JazGalaxy

12-06-2005, 08:08 AM

Nerv

12-06-2005, 08:12 AM

So why do I have this feeling in the pit of my stomach that says my Revo library is going to be 95% first party games?
Because in a perfect world, 95% of all Rev games will be exclusive.
Like I said earlier, cross platform games could kill the Revolution.

TrackZero

12-06-2005, 08:15 AM

I often hear "PS2 is the best because it's graphics are waaaaaaayyyyyy better then xbox and gamecube!"

Heh, I always have to keep from laughing when I hear that. Then try not to get all serious when I explain that no, no, it's the worst.

TrackZero

12-06-2005, 08:17 AM

Because in a perfect world, 95% of all Rev games will be exclusive.
Like I said earlier, cross platform games could kill the Revolution.

Or save it. As most multiplatform titles these days are no more than sequels or generic clone titles. There's a growing industry backlash against that type of content, and it means the Rev would not be affected by it, and could be viewed as a breath of fresh air.

Rakael

12-06-2005, 08:22 AM

It is suprising when talking to "civilians" instead of chatting here with the "gaming elite". No, I'm not being sarcastic either.

Over the weekend the wife and I went to a party, where I got into a conversation with about four of five different people on the next gen of consoles. Poor fools had NO CLUE what was going on, and every single one of them was waiting for the PS3, because it will "blow the shit out of everything, just like the PS2!". While I'm no MS fanboy, I explained to them that the 360 was a fantastic console and not to overlook it due to some misguided loyalty, also pointing out that I myself would love to have one.

Needless to say, I didn't change any minds.

Opty

12-06-2005, 08:28 AM

Reanimated

12-06-2005, 08:32 AM

Yeah, 90% of the people I talk to don't know shit about HDTV.

XenonCJ

12-06-2005, 08:41 AM

Why would Nintendo spend millions of dollars on a new graphics chip just for it to be slightly more powerful than the Xbox? I mean, they could spend a smaller amount of money and get that. So, if it is just "slightly more powerful than the Xbox" then it probably has some extra goodies attached: Shader Pipelines, more memory, etc.

#1 it's made for kids*. So they are spending the money to make it cheap to produce, and slightly better than the GC.
#2 kids don't have hdtvs
#3 parents don't want to buy high end shit for thier kids that they will instantly break or forget about
#4 if it's made cheap parents that don't want thier kids to touch thier new XBox360 might have money for a cheap Revolution to shut the kids up...

*kids = 4-14 year olds

Kelegacy

12-06-2005, 08:43 AM

#1 it's made for kids*. So they are spending the money to make it cheap to produce, and slightly better than the GC.
#2 kids don't have hdtvs
#3 parents don't want to buy high end shit for thier kids that they will instantly break or forget about
#4 if it's made cheap parents that don't want thier kids to touch thier new XBox360 might have money for a cheap Revolution to shut the kids up...

*kids = 4-14 year olds

If it's made for kids and I'm 25, I guess I cant or shouldn't play it? Darn.

And I wouldnt want my kids touching my 360 either. They might get 3rd degree burns.

XenonCJ

12-06-2005, 08:46 AM

XenonCJ

12-06-2005, 08:49 AM

If it's made for kids and I'm 25, I guess I cant or shouldn't play it? Darn.

And I wouldnt want my kids touching my 360 either. They might get 3rd degree burns.That's not really my point, I'm just talking about it from a design perspective. Just because it's made for kids, doens't mean that simple minded adults won't enjoy it!

j/k I think there will be a lot of fun to be had (for all ages) on that console actually. But will I buy it? Probably not...

Nin10dude

12-06-2005, 08:52 AM

IMHO, Xbox 360 on a Standard Definition TV doesn't look much better than a souped up Xbox. I'm not made of money, and although I'd love to have the Revolution support HD, and have an HDTV, I'm never going to hve an HDTV for atleast 4-5 years, so, it doesn't really bother me for now.

They're using beta kits, with the Hollywood not even complete. A souped up Xbox sounds good...

Morrolan

12-06-2005, 08:53 AM

Heh, I always have to keep from laughing when I hear that. Then try not to get all serious when I explain that no, no, it's the worst.
I don't even try to discuss games with my non-gamer friends. I just say "yeah, that's pretty sweet when that dog kills the guy and brings you back his gun, I guess Dead to Rights really IS the best game ever" and let it ride. ;)

Bone

12-06-2005, 09:15 AM

You just have to look at the DS to see that graphical power isn't the only deciding factor in success when you have games that utilise the alternative interface in a way that makes it more fun.
I felt this way and argued on this side before, but after seeing the limitations for games like Burnout DS, I'm starting to notice the effect of "horsepower not being important to Nintendo".

At some point, limited horsepower limits the possibilities for your games, and hence limits your gameplay.

That said, I'll still be first in line for a Revolution.

Nin10dude

12-06-2005, 09:34 AM

I felt this way and argued on this side before, but after seeing the limitations for games like Burnout DS, I'm starting to notice the effect of "horsepower not being important to Nintendo".Yes, that's true, but what can we do with the Xbox 360, gameplay wise, that wasn't possible on the last generation of consoles?

Magnanimous Gnome

12-06-2005, 09:35 AM

I don't really like gnomes

*cries*

but to the common consumer graphical appearance is the first impression and the most important impression with video games.

That's just not true at all. The best selling games have NEVER been the ones with the best graphics. Never. Roller Coaster Tycoon anyone? The Sims? Grand Theft Auto?

Does it seem fishy to anyone else that 3-4x the power of the Gamecube now equals "slightly better than Xbox"? I think we should stop the graphics speculating until we actually see the system at E3.

Besides, as others have said, graphics really don't matter, at least not cutting edge ones. If someone wants the prettiest visuals and the most over the top productions (ie EA games and the like), let them buy the 360, the PS3, or the PC. Why should Nintendo try to appeal to the same damn market?

As others have said, the mass market - ie 99% of people out there, don't know anything about hardware anyway. I had a guy the other day seriously going on about how the Xbox 360 could store full games on the harddrive. He fully believed that he could rent games, rip them to the Xbox 360 HD, and then just play them forever. Out of the box. When I bought my Xbox back in 2001 I was told by a Target employee that the system also played PC games. These people only believe what they are told - they don't actually look at the specs and really notice differences.

Yeah trying to expain even the most simple "gaming knowledge" to non-gamers is like talking to a brick wall. I explained to my parents just the other day (looks at watch to verify it's 2005 again) how CDs and DVDs are actually different...

I get frustrated at things like this as well, but when you really think about it, these views are pretty elitist. I personally don't know shit about cars, and I can't stand it when some "car guru" talks down to me and treats me like an idiot. Different people are knowledgable about different things.

crashedout

12-06-2005, 09:37 AM

Maybe they should call apple and get together on this. Both companies aim for a niche market and do very good. Would I have a Rev all by istelf, no but along side a 360 or ps3 heck yeah.
I am just pissed that I have to fall back 480p. That looks like ass upscaled on lots of hdtv's. I just don't get the opinions that most of you won't have an HDTV, you can get HDTV's for under 500 and most people buy a new tv within five years. The rev does not need to do 4xAA or anything but at least have 720p. Who am I kidding, as long as the games are good I will buy it, even if I only get one game every six months.

see colon

12-06-2005, 09:38 AM

I'm distressed at news like thisthat forgets to mention that tech demos for the revolution have already been released and look no less impressive than Microsofts or Sony's. (Sony's REAL stuff anyways.)

http://bitdaemon.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=493&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Let me also add that if most xbox games and gamecube games don't use the full power of their respective systems, why do you think every game is going to take full advantage of the 360 or PS3s facilities? I dig the 360, but I have yet to play a game on it that couldn't run on Xbox with a slight graphical hit.
pictures in that thread aren't from revolution tech demos, they were taken from a computer animation festival.

i've played an xbox 360 both on an HD display and an SDTV. games like DOA3 and ninja gaiden (solid tech and good art direction) hold their own against xbox 360 games on the SDTV. in fact, playing doom3 for xbox and quake 4 for 360 on an SDTV shows how close things can get. but then again, i don't think any dev is scrating the surface as to what can be done on 360.

I felt this way and argued on this side before, but after seeing the limitations for games like Burnout DS, I'm starting to notice the effect of "horsepower not being important to Nintendo". At some point, limited horsepower limits the possibilities for your games, and hence limits your gameplay.
while i agree with this on the most part, Burnout DS actualy has most of the gameplay elements from the series intact, but minus the graphics. it's hard to admit sometimes how important graphics are, and how they change your perception of quality gameplay. take RE4, for example. if the game was ported to the DS with gameplay intact but ps1 quality graphics (i'm not saying it's possible, this is hypothetical) it wouldn't recieve the praise that the GC and PS2 releases did.

Magnanimous Gnome

12-06-2005, 09:41 AM

I just looked at those tech demos, or whatever they are, in that forum thread. Most of them are the same old thing, but that top image (the blue and white one) is just amazing. Here's hoping that someday more games sport stylish visuals like that - actual art direction!!! Too many games look the same, and it makes me sad. :(

Yes, I'm one of those people who LOVED the look of the Wind Waker.

LiquidRain

12-06-2005, 09:42 AM

It's unfair to say that in 4-5 years the Revolution will look like PS1 games did to us today. It will look worse, surely, but the early 3D graphics just looked ugly compared to today: minimal texturing, few details, nothing like facial expressions (in-game), basic lighting, blocky character models, etc. Those games didn't really look good in the first place if you ask me. I would say a fairer comparison would be to look at the best the Dreamcast had to offer. To me, the best a DC had to offer looks to have somewhat blurrier textures, lighting not as good as today's, and some chunky environments - obviously's not today's hardware, but by no means bad or ugly.

Also, as somebody else mentioned, 2-3x power of the Cube does not equal a "souped up Xbox". IGN's just fanning the fanboy wars to make sure they get page views or seem like they're "in the know". Wait for E3 until we finally know.

PantherModern

12-06-2005, 09:45 AM

I just don't see how 2-3 times what I thought was a 485Mhz processor core (not counting co-processor junk) in the Gamecube is just slightly better than the 733Mhz P3/Mobile Celeron that was in the Xbox. I mean, isn't this new one supposed to even be Dual core? What the hell? Are they commenting on the graphics chip that hasn't been finalized?

TheKeck

12-06-2005, 09:59 AM

The Iron Weasel

12-06-2005, 10:16 AM

I just don't care about Rev hardware anymore, I really don't, I just want some cool new games that can't be done on other systems, I'll have my 360 for those "regular" games and Rev for "crazy" games.

Wasn't it shown that these screens are a bunch of fakes, (that is, not from the Revolution at all.)?
Yup, they were taken from some 3d artists site gallery or something.

Then again i was sold on the thought of online Super Smash Bros. and Mario Party when i first heard about the Revolution in anycase.
Smash Bros Online = FUCK YEAH!, Mario Party Online = Groan. (IMO)

bardockkun

12-06-2005, 10:16 AM

If Neo Geo can make a system that runs on 2D graphics only for about 20 years with games such as Twinkle Star Sprites and Metal Slug. Then i can survive on a Nintendo console with Nintendo quality games and "new" gameplay.

Then again i was sold on the thought of online Super Smash Bros. and Mario Party when i first heard about the Revolution in anycase.

TheKeck

12-06-2005, 10:17 AM

pictures in that thread aren't from revolution tech demos, they were taken from a computer animation festival.

Oops, should have finished reading the thread.

see colon

12-06-2005, 10:21 AM

that's ok. evem misinformation contains information, even in the literal sense.

TheKeck

12-06-2005, 10:22 AM

I don't even try to discuss games with my non-gamer friends. I just say "yeah, that's pretty sweet when that dog kills the guy and brings you back his gun, I guess Dead to Rights really IS the best game ever" and let it ride. ;)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Over Thanksgiving, a couple of my, I guess, cousins-in-law were talking about some video game. Taking interest, I was like, "what are you talking about?" And they responded "oh, a video game." I felt like I was just punched in the face. Of course I knew that, I wanted to know WHAT game they were talking about and such. As the weekend progressed, they had other little conversations about the 360 and whatnot. It was painful to listen to their rudimentary understanding.

OK, I'm an elitist pig, but aren't we all?

TheKeck

12-06-2005, 10:23 AM

that's ok. evem misinformation contains information, even in the literal sense.

But.... I didn't spread any misinformation. I just pointed out that those screenies weren't from the revolution after you already had. :)

RMan

12-06-2005, 10:23 AM

No problem now, or even next year...but 4 years down the road that stuff is going to look like complete ass compared to what we see on a high end PC or the PS3.
These were the same criticisms leveled against the PS2 compared to the Xbox. Clearly the best looking Xbox games do look slightly better than the best PS2 games, but not by enough to make a difference. Since I’ve seen this one played out many times before, I’ll believe you when I see it come true (which means I won’t :)).
but to the common consumer graphical appearance is the first impression and the most important impression with video games.
Although I can’t deny the importance of a first impression, I would argue that these days most people’s first impression is made by the marketing, which often doesn’t even feature the game’s footage. In the end, even if the first impression is made by how the game looks and not how the viewer is told they look, most people will not be able to tell the difference when the time comes.

see colon

12-06-2005, 10:33 AM

TAlthough I can’t deny the importance of a first impression, I would argue that these days most people’s first impression is made by the marketing, which often doesn’t even feature the game’s footage. In the end, even if the first impression is made by how the game looks and not how the viewer is told they look, most people will not be able to tell the difference when the time comes.
what about the second imporession. look at all of trhe people drooling over the killzone (ps3) video, even though the first game was mediocure by most accounts.

Dr Quincy

12-06-2005, 10:55 AM

Achilles

12-06-2005, 11:19 AM

It was said in another Revolution thread the other day, so I'll say it again...

If it has games that looks a little better than Resident Evil 4, what's the problem?!Of course to play RE5 you'll need to get a PS3 or 360.

RE4 will look outdated by the time that comes out.

Handhelds are different. Graphics still matter, a lot, more than most people think. But what kind of graphics you use on a handheld is extremely important. They have to be colorful and iconic because the screens are so small. People expect a different experience from a handheld, namely smaller, less complicated gameplay. If they wanted it to look like a console game they'd go play a console game. Which is kind of the problem with the revolution, people are already playing a console, if the experience is different enough than it'll be its own thing, if it's not and this rumor is true than it'll just be a weak looking console.

TheBrainKills

12-06-2005, 11:20 AM

As has been stated in a previous thread, 480p console visuals have not been maxed out yet. Take a DVD like Toy Story or Shrek and play it on a HDTV and you can see what 480p is capable of.

bean19

12-06-2005, 11:29 AM

This is going to be absolutely brilliant! A console with reasonable hardware specifications which won't cost the sort of prices to develope for which are pushing indie devs out of the console market? Well there's an idea. Cheaper games? More games? Games with truely innovative gameplay? Downloadable games?

This. Is. The. Future.

Or. . . you know, a company going for the "cheap" market of parents who don't know anything about consoles and think any of the new systems will be equally awesome.

Here is my only problem with the Gamecube and Nintendo really. . . NOT ENOUGH GAMES. Sure, they make about 1 to 3 "must have" exclusive games/year, and maybe 5 (counting those 1 to 3 in the 5) games that are worth playing a year. They simply never produce the same number of great titles as the other systems.

So. . . now we learn that all those few exclusives will be delivered on hardware that uses a neat controller, is inexpensive, and is only a short step above current generation hardware (that is now 5 years old).

Maybe it will work out for them. . . but then again, it might not. It doesn't sound like they are going to be close enough in competition graphically with their competitors to compel many parents to spend the $150 - $200 on a new console. . . I can just see someone's Mom saying, "These games look just like the ones you already have. Why should we spend all this money?"

I won't be buying one unless and until there are great games for it, and considering the poor game support for the system, I might even just choose to wait each year for all 1 to 3 of the "must have" games to be out then rent a system and the games for a week or two and save some money.

Achilles

12-06-2005, 11:33 AM

Yes, that's true, but what can we do with the Xbox 360, gameplay wise, that wasn't possible on the last generation of consoles?People asked the same thing when the PS2 came out and when the PS1 came out. Give it a year. It’s hard for game designers to get all innovative with the new tech before the hardware’s final.

Usually you get some experimental ideas at launch worked into traditional gameplay, like Kameo for example. But expect some next-gen ideas with NNN. Sure it plays a bit like KuF but KuF was ahead of its time and didn’t have the power to really do what it was trying to do. PDZ is also giving the cover mechanic a shot, but it'll be refined a lot in Gears and following that.

The whole "It's been 2 weeks, where's the next gen gameplay?" is exceptionally impatient. Where was the game that really showed off what the DS could do? Nintendogs that came out 6 months later, and that’s a handheld so it has a much smaller dev cycle.

CapnBob

12-06-2005, 11:42 AM

The whole "It's been 2 weeks, where's the next gen gameplay?" is exceptionally impatient. Where was the game that really showed off what the DS could do? Nintendogs that came out 6 months later, and that’s a handheld so it has a much smaller dev cycle.

What are you saying? Some of launch titles for the 360 have been in development for upwards of 4 years. So we should expect Next Gen gameplay for the 360 when the sequel to the 360 is released?

AversionFX

12-06-2005, 11:53 AM

I look at games that were recently created on ancient PS2 hardware (Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Dragon Quest 8), hardware that launched almost SIX years ago, and I don't worry about how the Revolution games will look in 4 or 5 years.

EXACTLY. I personally have played the mentioned three, but MGS3 was easily one of the prettiest and most detailed games I've ever played. And the game was also awesome, so.

RE4 looks beautiful, too. And it's also a great game. For a system that is apparently not the overachiever for graphical power, it sure does a great job of making a good looking game.

With that said, I'm not the least bit worried about what the lifespan is.

Gameplay > Graphics, anyway.

anclunn

12-06-2005, 11:57 AM

The whole "It's been 2 weeks, where's the next gen gameplay?" is exceptionally impatient. Where was the game that really showed off what the DS could do? Kirby:Canvas Curse

Fixed.

This is going to be absolutely brilliant! A console with reasonable hardware specifications which won't cost the sort of prices to develope for which are pushing indie devs out of the console market? Well there's an idea. Cheaper games? More games? Games with truely innovative gameplay? Downloadable games?

This. Is. The. Future.

Indie development? Really, where's that information comming from? Cuz honestly, and open Revolution Development kit would be the most kick ass thing ever. But I haven't heard anything to that effect. Or is this just rumor?

Achilles

12-06-2005, 12:03 PM

What are you saying? Some of launch titles for the 360 have been in development for upwards of 4 years. So we should expect Next Gen gameplay for the 360 when the sequel to the 360 is released?Being in development on a system that's not at all similar to the power of the final system doesn't let you experiment in the same way with new types of gameplay. What if a Revolution game was in development on the Game Cube, that wouldn't do them much good in developing new ways to use the controller. They'd have to either go with what they were doing, which would play like a Game Cube game, or throw it all out and add time to their development, which would mean it wouldn't be a launch title.

Usually a developer can work in one or two new ideas (the start menu for NBA Live 360, the HUDless golfing interface for Tiger Woods, the massive battles in Kameo, etc.) But the big gameplay changes show up later after people get more time to experiment.

anclunn: Kirby was not a launch title. Not sure if you were implying that or not. Nintendogs used voice recognition as well as they stylus to interact with the dog, which up till that point was something that had only been done on the PC. Either way, neither were there on launch day.

TheDudeOnTheCouch

12-06-2005, 12:09 PM

Bottomline, I believes: Revolution will focus on being just plain fun. Games will definately be geared to really implement the controller in new and innovative ways. Not so much "better" then any other console, but definately different in its implementation.

Cheap console? I think I just heard all the soccer moms of the world let out a cheer in unison.

see colon

12-06-2005, 12:10 PM

The whole "It's been 2 weeks, where's the next gen gameplay?" is exceptionally impatient. Where was the game that really showed off what the DS could do? Nintendogs that came out 6 months later, and that’s a handheld so it has a much smaller dev cycle.
feel the magic did a pretty good job showing what the DS could do at launch. and the mario 64 minigames also made good use of the touch screen.

CapnBob

12-06-2005, 12:52 PM

Usually a developer can work in one or two new ideas (the start menu for NBA Live 360, the HUDless golfing interface for Tiger Woods, the massive battles in Kameo, etc.) But the big gameplay changes show up later after people get more time to experiment.

That's not what I was asking. Obviously nobody could really experiment with the DS until they had the proper hardware to develop on, and you were pointing out that development for a console takes much much longer than a less-than-a-year dev cycle for a handheld game, so I was trying to gauge how MUCH longer. If they have to wait until they have the final hardware before they can really start on something groundbreaking AND the games are taking an increasingly long time to develop AND the hardware generation cycle continues to shrink, at what point in a system's life do you think it's acceptable to expect something that really uses a new console system properly?

I ask because, whether intentional or not, your logic implies that we will reach a point where we can never truly expect to feel like we're getting a "next-gen" experience. And maybe that's not far off... There may be an application for the law of diminishing returns here.

rein

12-06-2005, 12:57 PM

Why are the bad 360 games looked at right now as "first gen" titles and can look like ass and it is ok? Yet, alpha Revolution games already spell doom? BTW, the original article even states "But it's the controller that makes the difference and the controller is really nice." and all we get here is a Nintendo is fucked attitude because there graphics are going to be crap? (even though they are going to be better than they were this generation) yes, let's all forget about game play. :(

Nintendo's problem is not about their hardware. Even if you consider their hardware inferior, their problem is with perception. This is what happened this morning when I was at work. It happens a lot!

Customer: My son wants a PS2 or an Xbox.
Me: What type of game does he like to play?
Customer: Do you have Mario on either?
Me: No, but we do have it on the Gamecube, it is a Nintendo property so it is for their system only.
Customer: Oh, he wanted Mario or Zelda, do you have Zelda?
ME: Yes, but it is on the Gamecube also. Would you like to pick up the Gamecube instead? It is cheaper, comes with a free game right now and it plays all of the Nintendo properties like Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong and Pokemon.
Customer: No, I will take the PS2. Do you have anything like Mario on the PS2?
Me: :( ......

The conversation went on a bit longer and he bought the PS2 with a Sly Cooper title and a few others.

I know Nintendo no longer wants to be number one. Ok, fine. They still can't just sit on their ass and hope to be number two or even around forever. People like Nintendo games. I get asked all of the time for Mario on PS2 or Xbox. What Nintendo needs to do is start a hype machine. They need to stop being so conservative with their marketing and presentations at trade shows. Does anyone really think that the average (non gaming) parent sits around giving a fuck about how many processors are in their kids games system? All they hear is their kid say he wants a PS2 and Mario. They go out armed with this information. Nintendo needs to get off their ass's and make Nintendo a house hold brand again. I remember a time that a lot of people thought all games were Nintendo.

bapenguin

12-06-2005, 01:09 PM

That's not what I was asking. Obviously nobody could really experiment with the DS until they had the proper hardware to develop on, and you were pointing out that development for a console takes much much longer than a less-than-a-year dev cycle for a handheld game, so I was trying to gauge how MUCH longer. If they have to wait until they have the final hardware before they can really start on something groundbreaking AND the games are taking an increasingly long time to develop AND the hardware generation cycle continues to shrink, at what point in a system's life do you think it's acceptable to expect something that really uses a new console system properly?

I ask because, whether intentional or not, your logic implies that we will reach a point where we can never truly expect to feel like we're getting a "next-gen" experience. And maybe that's not far off... There may be an application for the law of diminishing returns here.

I think it's more of developers learning about the final hardware and learning tricks, increasing what they can do with it. While it does take longer to develop right now...there are things on systems which make it easier. For instance a standardized engine like Renderware saves a ton of time to develop for. So once Renderware creates a next gen engine a lot more games can utilize it, tweak it, and create games faster. Even things like the new programming tools Microsoft has for the 360 which from what I hear make development quite a bit easier.

The diminishing returns things works on development too. Maybe that first gen game on the 360 took 3 years to make. But the followup might only take half as long because they are 1) more familiar with the hardware 2) have a good base to work off of.

see colon

12-06-2005, 01:16 PM

Customer: My son wants a PS2 or an Xbox.
Me: What type of game does he like to play?
Customer: Do you have Mario on either?
Me: No, but we do have it on the Gamecube, it is a Nintendo property so it is for their system only.
Customer: Oh, he wanted Mario or Zelda, do you have Zelda?
ME: Yes, but it is on the Gamecube also. Would you like to pick up the Gamecube instead? It is cheaper, comes with a free game right now and it plays all of the Nintendo properties like Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong and Pokemon.
Customer: No, I will take the PS2. Do you have anything like Mario on the PS2?
Me: ......
i've had this same conversation when i worked in videogame retail. it's rediculous. and it's not just for nintendo stuff. i had guys asking for gran tourismo on xbox and halo on ps2, and when i pointed out that sony and microsoft owned those franchises, and said "we've got [ps2 or xbox] in stock right now if you want one of those" and got the reply "[ps2 or xbox] sucks, why would i want one of those."
how can a platform suck if it has the games you want on it? i've always found people who think they can only have one console were wierd. owning all 3 current platforms actualy saved me some money in the long run because i would take advantage of platform specific sales and price drops. for example, ebgames currently sells GTA:VC used for $7 on ps2 and $14 on xbox.

Zeal

12-06-2005, 01:22 PM

Looks like more bad news for Nintendo.

Achilles

12-06-2005, 01:35 PM

Why are the bad 360 games looked at right now as "first gen" titles and can look like ass and it is ok? Yet, alpha Revolution games already spell doom?I don't think 360 games look bad. In fact they look really really good, especially compared to past consoles. At worst they look identical to the last gen (Tony Hawk), at best they look better than a high end computer game.

Achilles

12-06-2005, 01:39 PM

I ask because, whether intentional or not, your logic implies that we will reach a point where we can never truly expect to feel like we're getting a "next-gen" experience. And maybe that's not far off... There may be an application for the law of diminishing returns here.Like I said, give it a year and there will be a few games that couldn’t have been made gameplay wise on previous systems. The games already look next gen and they’ll look moreso by next year. What you seem to be implying is that if there isn’t a launch title that’s next gen in every way than we’ll never get one.

see colon

12-06-2005, 01:40 PM

I don't think 360 games look bad. In fact they look really really good, especially compared to past consoles. At worst they look identical to the last gen (Tony Hawk), at best they look better than a high end computer game.
the problem with that is that last generation you didn't see ps2/xbox/gc games that looked like ps1/n64/sat games. at least not for launch titles. there were some ps2 games that looked worse than DC games here and there, but that's a bit different.

Achilles

12-06-2005, 01:49 PM

the problem with that is that last generation you didn't see ps2/xbox/gc games that looked like ps1/n64/sat games. at least not for launch titles. there were some ps2 games that looked worse than DC games here and there, but that's a bit different.So some developers are slackers and did direct ports from the old systems. They’ll be rewarded with terrible sales. What does that mean for the 360’s capabilities? And Blue Stinger wasn’t so great speaking of last gen’s launch titles.

see colon

12-06-2005, 01:54 PM

Achilles

12-06-2005, 02:10 PM

while blue stinger was a stinker, i doesn't look like a ps1 or n64 game, either. the models and environments are crap, but the effects give it the next gen look it needs. that and mip maped bilinear filtering.The difference between it and late day 64 games wasn't that large. It was cleaner, sure, but that's about it. It seems like people are desperate for some proof that 360 games won't look better than last gen's games. But after playing the thing for the last 2 weeks or so, I can't see how anyone can't tell the difference between Kameo and Mario Sunshine for example. And it’s not a small difference either.
Blue Stinger http://media.dreamcast.ign.com/media/010/010200/img_1150223.html
Zelda 64 http://media.ign64.ign.com/media/000/000437/img_1199281.html

rein

12-06-2005, 02:46 PM

RMan

12-06-2005, 03:03 PM

It seems like people are desperate for some proof that 360 games won't look better than last gen's games.
Well, I'm sure there are haters that feel that way, but I think a large part of the negative reaction is the natural result of MS's marketing campaign. Not saying they took the wrong approach, since they didn’t have a clever hook like Nintendo, the only way they could push their system was based primarily on hardware specs/power. When you talk about your system being vastly more powerful than the current consoles and focus so heavily on it’s graphical prowess, the common consumer can’t help but expect a vast improvement in how the games look. I don’t think the average consumer understands that a 5X more powerful system won’t result in 5X better graphics, something MS actually likes in terms of generating hype but will obviously result in some disappointment when the final product is experienced. You should also consider that you likely place a far greater importance on graphics and technical prowess than most consumers, which is a common trait among many early adopters of new technology such as this.

Achilles

12-06-2005, 03:09 PM

You should also consider that you likely place a far greater importance on graphics and technical prowess than most consumers, which is a common trait among many early adopters of new technology such as this.That might be true, but visuals help sell any product from iPods to refrigerators. People like stuff that looks good, whether they know that's why they like it or not.

I think in the same vein many people here are placing far greater importance on their controller than the average consumer will. Folks here have been playing games with the same type of controller for years, new gamers haven’t, and might not be as interested in a whole new kind of controller.

mister_slim

12-06-2005, 03:13 PM

I felt this way and argued on this side before, but after seeing the limitations for games like Burnout DS, I'm starting to notice the effect of "horsepower not being important to Nintendo".
Take a look at Black and what kind of destructable environments can be done on the PS2. I personally wonder what Criterion could do if they actually worked on a DS game.

mister_slim

12-06-2005, 03:17 PM

PDZ is also giving the cover mechanic a shot, but it'll be refined a lot in Gears and following that.
What do you mean by "cover mechanic"? Like Second Sight?

Achilles

12-06-2005, 03:34 PM

What do you mean by "cover mechanic"? Like Second Sight?Never played Second Sight, but Kill.Switch did it as well. Problem is it has never really been done well before. In PDZ you lock into it, and then unlock yourself from it. In Kill.Switch you could only use it in certain places, and your guy only had a couple ways to stand, which sometimes resulted in you being shot anyway. I think later next gen shooters will end up a lot more dynamic than they are now by refining these ideas, for example if Too Human can pull off really good melee combat in a shooter, that will be a big deal.

anclunn

12-06-2005, 03:40 PM

I can't wait till the generation gaps between consoles becomes like 10 years instead of 5. That would make me so happy, cuz then Indie development for systems could really become plausible, plus there would actually be a reason to have a new generation, rather than the stupid marketing gimmick that is HD. Waoh! It's HD! It's like a PC game and shit. WOOOOAH! Hey check this out! I can play online! It's like a PC game. WOOOAH! And check this out, there's this controller with a hardrive and upgrades you can buy! It's like a PC! WOOAH!

Also with the whole graphics not matterign thing. Okay graphics so DO matter, but realism doesn't. See we all want good graphics, it's just that those graphics don't have to all try to look as close to reality as possible. Hey cell shading and alternative art styles are cool ideas. How about giving them a bit more use?

RMan

12-06-2005, 03:53 PM

People like stuff that looks good, whether they know that's why they like it or not.
No doubt true, but it has to look WAY better before they can tell, much less care.
Folks here have been playing games with the same type of controller for years, new gamers haven’t, and might not be as interested in a whole new kind of controller.
I suppose what you're saying is the new controller won't be enough to pull non-gamers in? Well, time will tell, but I think gamers really underestimate how many "potential players" are uninterested in games because of the controller either directly, or indirectly. A few interesting examples...

The Mouse: Would computers be even remotely as popular without a mouse? IMO, no, the internet would not be anywhere near as popular as it is now, and computers would have far less applications geared to the home user, which is the greater market these days. The Revolution controller clearly has as much potential to change games and open new markets as the mouse did, especially considering how promising (or not promising) the mouse looked before applications were actually designed around it. Also, just like the Revolution controller, the mouse was not only more approachable for many people, but allowed applications that would be all but impossible without it (pretty much any art application).

DDR Max: Now, try to imagine being introduced to the concept of DDR Max before having seen it or played it. Without a doubt, at least 9 of 10 people asked how fun this game would be after having it described to them would say it sounds utterly stupid, especially among traditional/conditioned gamers. The experience offered by this game could absolutely NEVER be accomplished with a standard controller, it is almost a genre on it’s own, and owes it’s entire success to the controller. Now, think about how much more successful this game could have been had the controller come standard on the system, and how much more broad it’s audience could have been. DDR Max also required a pretty large amount of faith by it’s developers, since I’m sure they had to invest some serious time and effort developing the controller and software before the experience could be realized (a commitment that won’t be required of Revolution developers).

Another interesting point related to the DDR Max example, there’s an element that I’ve been looking forward to for some time, and something that many traditional gamers assume is a negative. I WANT to move when playing a game. Some of the most fun experiences I’ve had playing games have been when I’m moving around (like arcade skiing games, DDR Max, Arcade shooting games, etc.). Not only does it produce more adrenaline, but I find it more immersive/interactive. The message from many gamers here seems to be “I want interactive entertainment, as long as that interaction requires the movement of no more than six fingers!”. I mean, come on, is it so hard to imagine there are people out there that just don’t find current games interesting enough, and truly want something new?

Achilles

12-06-2005, 04:15 PM

No doubt true, but it has to look WAY better before they can tell, much less care.

The Mouse: Would computers be even remotely as popular without a mouse?

DDR Max: Now, try to imagine being introduced to the concept of DDR Max before having seen it or played it.On average many games sell better on consoles than they do on the PC. The mouse is a big deal for applications but I don’t think there are many gamers out there that would use a mouse but not a controller for gaming.

I think DDR’s a good example, it gives people a new experience that’s centered around their new controller. A lot of peripherals are like this, like Donkey Konga for example. Usually they don’t sell as well as say, Splinter Cell, but that could be just because the controller usually makes the game cost more, and only one game uses it, so it’s not really an investment.

It’s not hard to imagine there are people out there that want something new in the way of control. What I’m saying is that it might not be people who have only been gaming for a generation or two. I think a lot of the people here who are extremely excited about the Revs controller have been gaming since the SNES or NES days. To someone who has never played games before they're counting on the rev's controller to be less intimidating and have shorter learning curve. Maybe this will be the case. I don't think it's a lock.

The real test to me is if the new Super Smash Brothers uses it, or if it uses some kind of add-on that effectively makes it like a standard controller. If their biggest game needs a peripheral to play the way they want it to, than they probably should have made whatever that is their standard controller, and kept the dvd remote mouse as a peripheral.

RMan

12-06-2005, 04:19 PM

It doesn't sound like they are going to be close enough in competition graphically with their competitors to compel many parents to spend the $150 - $200 on a new console. . . I can just see someone's Mom saying, "These games look just like the ones you already have. Why should we spend all this money?"
Hehe, you think parents are compelled by comparative graphics when purchasing gifts for their kids? Parents buy the gifts their kids want, and kids want primarily what others/media tells them to. If you think what kids want is driven by product research rather than hype and game selection, then I think you’re vastly overestimating the average child. This is the mistake that Nintendo made with the Gamecube, they focused purely on the system price, and while that matters, what matters much more is the games (and pumping money into marketing). They just didn’t have the games, first party or not, to make people want the system, and if people don’t really want it then it doesn’t matter how low the price is. This time around they’ve definitely got potential for big love, and that’s something that the Gamecube didn’t have, it had not one special feature, and arguably no killer game.

RMan

12-06-2005, 04:20 PM

RMan: Why do you say DDR Max? I've never seen someone refer to it like that.
That was the first one I played, for some reason that's the name that sticks in my head, I guess I can just say DDR.

RMan

12-06-2005, 04:54 PM

The mouse is a big deal for applications but I don’t think there are many gamers out there that would use a mouse but not a controller for gaming.
I was referring to the mouse’s effect on software and the computer industry, not it’s effect on games. My point was that there were many great ways the mouse altered the way we use computers, and few of them would have been obvious even to the developers of the mouse. Ultimately I don’t think you’ll ever get a poll to accurately tell you how much a player or potential player wants a new controller, because they need to see the fruits of that controller before they can really understand it. I can guarantee you, few people back in the day would have said “Gee, I want a computer, but the keyboard isn’t good enough, we need a pointing device for smooth 2D control before I’ll be interested.” Few people could grasp what doors the mouse could open up to software developers.
Usually they don’t sell as well as say, Splinter Cell, but that could be just because the controller usually makes the game cost more, and only one game uses it, so it’s not really an investment.
Yea, peripherals have typically done poorly, as have the products that rely on them, DDR is one of the few really successful ones (even then, would have done poorly without the arcade version, but still, the controller and the experience it brings to the table is clearly valid). Peripherals have always suffered from the chicken/egg paradox (can’t sell a controller without game support, and nobody will develop a game for a controller with no userbase), that’s why being the standard controller was essential.
What I’m saying is that it might not be people who have only been gaming for a generation or two.
Yes, this will likely be the least responsive group. However, the unique thing about this place in history is we now have an older generation that grew up on games, an immense consumer group, really, and they’re the ones that have the bulk of the money. It’s not hard to imagine a great response from this group, those that would like something new, and can be turned on by more pure and simple games and the nostalgia of playing classic Nintendo games. It’s certainly a big variable, but the potential market for Nintendo’s product is actually staggering, but it really hard to tell how big the market is since no product is currently tapping it.
The real test to me is if the new Super Smash Brothers uses it, or if it uses some kind of add-on that effectively makes it like a standard controller.
Umm, well, I’ll try to sugar-coat this one, but if the real test of their controller for you is how well it mimics an existing game, then I think you’re still very much missing the point. Even this, though, would likely make little difference to you, I have a feeling that you, and many others, will only be interested when you see that one game that shows you what you’ve been missing.

Achilles

12-06-2005, 05:54 PM

Umm, well, I’ll try to sugar-coat this one, but if the real test of their controller for you is how well it mimics an existing game, then I think you’re still very much missing the point. Even this, though, would likely make little difference to you, I have a feeling that you, and many others, will only be interested when you see that one game that shows you what you’ve been missing.It is important that Zelda, Smash Brothers, Metroid, and other Nintendo franchises can have their gameplay adapted/changed/evolved to use the revolution's new controller without a peripheral add-on and still be fun. I'm looking at this from a realistic point of view. Nintendo's biggest strength has never been selling their original IP concepts, it's been selling its big name franchises. If their franchises don't benefit from the new controller, than they probably shouldn't have made it the thing that the system ships with.

I get where you're coming from with the theory of all these new ideas that are going to be spawned from this thing, and that's the real selling point. But I think their old franchises are probably going to be their most anticipated titles as they have been in the past.

bardockkun

12-06-2005, 05:55 PM

Only problem i'm thinking of for the Revolution is the add on controllers with the main remote. Like how game developers are given (and encouraged) creative freedom to make add ons to the remote.

Revolution maybe cheapest, but i'm hoping it doesnt get to the point where you need to buy like 5 more different controller add ons to play games. Especially if its for something like one extra button or something.

Also did anyone read the Gamespot article on how Miyamoto says there's another "hidden" feature about the Revolution controller that he's yet to reveal? I hope it isn't "If you turn it sideways, it's an NES controller!"

RMan

12-06-2005, 07:17 PM

But I think their old franchises are probably going to be their most anticipated titles as they have been in the past.
Sure, known IPs generally create the most anticipation (hype and IP recognition are all the player has before a product's release), but adapted game mechanics just aren't what the Revolution is about. I've no doubt these old IPs will be important commercially, but their mechanical replication on the new system shouldn't be a test of the controller/system's worth.

see colon

12-06-2005, 08:26 PM

The difference between it and late day 64 games wasn't that large. It was cleaner, sure, but that's about it. It seems like people are desperate for some proof that 360 games won't look better than last gen's games. But after playing the thing for the last 2 weeks or so, I can't see how anyone can't tell the difference between Kameo and Mario Sunshine for example. And it’s not a small difference either.
Blue Stinger http://media.dreamcast.ign.com/media/010/010200/img_1150223.html
Zelda 64 http://media.ign64.ign.com/media/000/000437/img_1199281.html
not only was it cleaner, but it had particle effects and lighting that was noticibly better. check out these shots, for example:
http://media.dreamcast.ign.com/media/010/010200/img_1147847.html
http://media.dreamcast.ign.com/media/010/010200/img_1147844.html
regardless, your point is moot. blue stinger was an anomoly in the DC's library. soul caliber was the best looking fighting game on a home system to date, sega's 2k series sports games were the best looking on a home console to date, house of the dead (another title i find lackluster IRT visual impact) was the best looking lightgun game to date. the list goes on and on.

i'm not a "hater", i think the xb360 is a fine platform. in fact, i'd put money on it matching or exceeding the market share of PS3 (not alot of money, mind you). but the launch titles (especialy activision's titles that don't have duty in the title) are genaraly lackluster and smack of last generation. good thing DOA4 is right around the corner.

ChaosDent

12-06-2005, 08:35 PM

Sure, known IPs generally create the most anticipation (hype and IP recognition are all the player has before a product's release), but adapted game mechanics just aren't what the Revolution is about. I've no doubt these old IPs will be important commercially, but their mechanical replication on the new system shouldn't be a test of the controller/system's worth.

I disagree, Nintendo is very good at reinventing franchises and creating meaningful and high quality spin-offs to expand into an existing genre or create a new genre. The Mario series should really spawn the flagship title showcasing exactly what the system can do, and why it is important, just as it did for the NES and N64.

I will agree with you in respectfully disagreeing with Achilles though, Nintendo has sucessfully introduced a great many new franchiseable IPs in the last 5 years. Pikmin, Wario Ware and Nintendogs are all surely going to carry over into the next generation; not to mention sucessful western introductions with the Advance Wars, Fire Emblem and Animal Crossing series among others.

RMan

12-06-2005, 08:54 PM

I disagree, Nintendo is very good at reinventing franchises and creating meaningful and high quality spin-offs to expand into an existing genre or create a new genre.
I agree, perhaps I didn't state the point well enough. Nintendo's IPs will be important, but not necessarily the game mechanics that have been used in the past. So, the new versions of titles like Super Smash Bros may hold little importance, because it may not shine on the platform, but the IP which made SSB work will undoubtedly be used on the system (which is itself a conglomeration of IPs they've continually built).

DriveALW

12-06-2005, 10:21 PM

Smash Bros Online = FUCK YEAH!, Mario Party Online = Groan. (IMO)

Completely agree. Nothing worse than watching someone else move around an imaginary game board.

mister_slim

12-07-2005, 09:35 AM

I suppose what you're saying is the new controller won't be enough to pull non-gamers in? Well, time will tell, but I think gamers really underestimate how many "potential players" are uninterested in games because of the controller either directly, or indirectly. A few interesting examples...
Katamari Damacy is another interesting example. People who haven't been playing games much or at all tend to pick up on the controls quicker than regular gamers. Katamari may map input to action very elegantly but people who have become accustomed to standard game control schemes often seem to have a mental block.

Magnanimous Gnome

12-07-2005, 01:30 PM

OK, I'm an elitist pig, but aren't we all?

I was feeling particularly diplomatic when I made that comment about elitism yesterday. I totally understand the frustration that comes from speaking with a non-gamer, or even a casual one.

Also did anyone read the Gamespot article on how Miyamoto says there's another "hidden" feature about the Revolution controller that he's yet to reveal? I hope it isn't "If you turn it sideways, it's an NES controller!"

They talked about that at TGS, so that's not the hidden feature, don't worry. :p

If their franchises don't benefit from the new controller, than they probably shouldn't have made it the thing that the system ships with.

But I think their old franchises are probably going to be their most anticipated titles as they have been in the past.

You're right in that the old IPs are going to be very important, but I think you greatly underestimate Nintendo's ability to reinvent their franchises. They have already shown to the media how Metroid Prime 3 can greatly benefit from this control scheme. They've said that Twilight Princess will be the last Zelda title in the vein of Ocarina of Time, and you can be sure that Mario will evolve appropriately.

Just look at what happened when the N64 brought Nintendo into 3D. Mario and Zelda made stellar transitions, and even though Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time were obviously Mario and Zelda titles, they were both highly changed from their predecessors. The same thing happened when Metroid entered 3D on the Gamecube - still Metroid, but vastly evolved.

The core mechanics of the IPs stayed, while the gameplay underwent large (and good) changes. I don't see why the Revolution would be any different.

Achilles

12-07-2005, 03:44 PM

You're right in that the old IPs are going to be very important, but I think you greatly underestimate Nintendo's ability to reinvent their franchises. They have already shown to the media how Metroid Prime 3 can greatly benefit from this control scheme. They've said that Twilight Princess will be the last Zelda title in the vein of Ocarina of Time, and you can be sure that Mario will evolve appropriately.

Just look at what happened when the N64 brought Nintendo into 3D. Mario and Zelda made stellar transitions, and even though Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time were obviously Mario and Zelda titles, they were both highly changed from their predecessors. The same thing happened when Metroid entered 3D on the Gamecube - still Metroid, but vastly evolved.

The core mechanics of the IPs stayed, while the gameplay underwent large (and good) changes. I don't see why the Revolution would be any different.Of IGN’s top 10 reasons to buy a Revolution instead of a 360 they had Zelda, Metroid, and Super Smash Brothers. So I think we’re safe in assuming that, even though they do come out with some cool new franchises (Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Nintendogs), they still get most of their punch from the classics.

I totally buy into the fact that they can reinvent them to use the new controller. My big question is if they will. Metroid is a good example. It needs an attachment to work. Maybe the attachment will come with the system, maybe it won’t. But if Mario, SSB, and Zelda also need an attachment they should have rethought their controller a bit so their main franchises would work with just it.

Again, not trying to tear the Revolution down (referring to the other thread). But I like debating with fans like you and RMan exactly what they're doing and how people feel about that. It's certainly a more interesting discussion to me than 60 posts of "power doesn't matter, that will mean they'll be able to concentrate on the gameplay!", with 2 posts by Zeal or somebody saying effectively "LoL", and 40 posts of people telling him to shut up.

Magnanimous Gnome

12-07-2005, 04:28 PM

Oh, I hear you there. A lot of the threads on this site quickly degenerate into nothing but blathering.

I'm pretty sure that attachment (the nunchaku or whatever) will come with the system, as well as each extra controller purchased. Most sites that have previewed the system have stated this, although I wish we had more official confirmation. I completely agree that having to buy many attachments would be silly - something I definitely would not support.

I agree that their main IPs are going to be a big focus, I didn't argue that. I do believe though that IPs like Pikmin and Animal Crossing will grow in popularity, and could possibly join the ranks of Metroid, Zelda, and Mario. Pikmin in particular - it seems very well suited to the new controller.

mister_slim

12-07-2005, 04:56 PM

I totally buy into the fact that they can reinvent them to use the new controller. My big question is if they will. Metroid is a good example. It needs an attachment to work. Maybe the attachment will come with the system, maybe it won’t. But if Mario, SSB, and Zelda also need an attachment they should have rethought their controller a bit so their main franchises would work with just it.
The attachment will come with the system. It's essentially part of the controller, just detachable.

Metroid kind of bothers me. I loved the game that resulted from building the design around the GC controller and the camera control limitations of a typical controller, and I can't help but think that some of that magic will be lost by moving to the Revolution.

Mario seems promising, on the other hand. The controller would make the return of the bouncing fireball possible and would allow intuitive platforming more along the lines of the original 2D Mario games.

SSB who knows? Revamping the game around the new controller would be quite a task, and game balance is really important to the franchise. Sakurai seems like the right person for the job, though.

Zelda I don't really feel like speculating about. I think that franchise would be most severly changed by the controller.

Achilles

12-07-2005, 05:32 PM

The attachment will come with the system. It's essentially part of the controller, just detachable.I think it would be a good idea to include it with the system. I haven't heard for certain that they will but I'll take your word for it.

It's an interesting question about the feel of Metroid being changed. I'd personally like more freedom in movement and looking, but a lot of people really liked the lock-on thing from Prime.

Hopefully we'll see a return of some of the franchises that were killed this gen like Star Fox and F-Zero. Both those games would easily lend themselves to just the controller. More easily than the ones that are drawing the most attention now.

mister_slim

12-07-2005, 05:52 PM

It's an interesting question about the feel of Metroid being changed. I'd personally like more freedom in movement and looking, but a lot of people really liked the lock-on thing from Prime.
For me, it wasn't so much the lock-on aspect as how it focused gameplay on weapon choices and tactics and especially on avoiding enemy attacks. For example, double jumping sideways and screw attacking into an enemy, which really wouldn't be feasible with a typical FPS control scheme. In most FPS games the challenge is to hit your opponent, in MP the challenge is to avoid their attacks.

TKO

12-08-2005, 03:22 AM

Hopefully we'll see a return of some of the franchises that were killed this gen like Star Fox and F-Zero. Both those games would easily lend themselves to just the controller.
Okay, fair enough comment on Starfox (and such a shame that one was ruined, BTW. There aren't enough space-shooters around. The N64 one still rocks.) But I'm puzzled what you thought was wrong with F-Zero on the Cube. I was never a massive fan of the game in general (I'm prefer WipeOut), but F-Zero on the Cube seriously impressed me, and my brother (who owns the Cube, and is the F-Zero fan of the family.)

TrackZero

12-08-2005, 05:41 AM

Achilles

12-08-2005, 11:47 AM

Okay, fair enough comment on Starfox (and such a shame that one was ruined, BTW. There aren't enough space-shooters around. The N64 one still rocks.) But I'm puzzled what you thought was wrong with F-Zero on the Cube. I was never a massive fan of the game in general (I'm prefer WipeOut), but F-Zero on the Cube seriously impressed me, and my brother (who owns the Cube, and is the F-Zero fan of the family.)Hey I'm not saying it was a bad game. I haven't played it so I wouldn't know. But Game Cube owners for whatever reason decided to kick it in the teeth this time around. It sold less than 100,000 in the first three months. That's tragic. Star Fox Adventures actually did much better than it did.

see colon

12-08-2005, 12:46 PM

for me, being an fzero fan, the GC version was missing something, and i honestly can't tell you what it was. charm or soul, maybe. i don't know. also, even though you'd be cruising along at blistering speeds, i never got the sense of speed i got from previous titles.

star fox armada had similar issues. it was like a souless version of the 64 release with better graphics.

but to be fair to nintendo, they didn't make either of those games. they only published them.

TrackZero

12-08-2005, 01:45 PM

RMan

12-08-2005, 01:57 PM

I totally buy into the fact that they can reinvent them to use the new controller. My big question is if they will.
My bet is it'll be kinda half and half, the ones that work with new mechanics will be reinvented, the ones that don't will have more classic releases (I do think they'll have some kind of attachment for "standard" control mechanics with the system). No matter what, some of the IP will also be used to create new titles, in standard Nintendo fashion (really, the way they spread around their characters is just like Disney, they'll use them extensively in sometimes weird ways).

Honestly, as much as people may hate me for saying this, I think the best initial use of it may, in fact, be a Mario Party game. It'd be an excellent way to showcase various interesting mechanics for the controller (without having to make any single mechanic a basis for a 5M+ game) and once again exploit pretty much all their IP. Also, if it's well implimented, it'd go a long way to proving how intuitive the controller is/can be.