Nintendo's Official Stance on Tech Specs

[score]

From IGN (http://revolution.ign.com/) :

Online reports are shedding new light on the horsepower for Nintendo's next-generation console, codenamed Revolution, and gamers are reacting. Fans who write Nintendo of America about Revolution's power will receive the following official response:

Our competitors would have you believe that the next generation of gaming will be solely defined by high definition graphics. High definition graphics look fantastic, but come at a price. To shine, high definition games must be played on high definition televisions, which aren't cheap. Games with high definition graphics are expensive to develop because they must be developed in both standard and high definition formats. Those development costs are passed on to you in the form of more expensive software. Finally, playing games with high definition graphics requires a system with loads of RAM and costly high-end graphics chips, both of which make it prohibitively expensive for most consumers.

Sharper graphics are certainly part of the next generation. We know that games for the Revolution will look brilliant whether played on a standard television or on a high definition television. However, is that all there is to next-generation gaming? We feel that sharper graphics should be combined with a new way to interface with the game itself. Our controller is a sharp departure from the current standard, to be sure, but it will provide a level of interactivity you can't get currently...

Read the rest here (http://revolution.ign.com/articles/674/674611p1.html)

By the way, check out this 3d revolution controller (http://revolution.ign.com/articles/673/673900p1.html)!

[AbeLincoln]

Games with high definition graphics are expensive to develop because they must be developed in both standard and high definition formats. Those development costs are passed on to you in the form of more expensive software.

So if their games aren't on average about $10 cheaper than the X360's or the PS3's can I call them frauds and liars?

[fushi]

Oh Nintendo * hugs *

[sparkfizt]

I would love to see sony or Microsoft beat nintendo to market with a controller that does pretty much the same thing :P hope nintendo has some iron clad patents ;)

[thecrazyd]

So if their games aren't on average about $10 cheaper than the X360's or the PS3's can I call them frauds and liars?
Well, if they stay at the standard 50, then it will be right. I can't see them charging 60.

[fushi]

So if their games aren't on average about $10 cheaper than the X360's or the PS3's can I call them frauds and liars?
To be quite honest, I'd join you in calling them that, despite being a happy-nappy fanboy through and through. If the lower development costs won't put the end consumer in a better position, I'll be very pissed and will buy a Xbox 360 and a bunch of noname FPS'es just out of spite.

Or not. But I will be displeased. And maybe rummage in the bargain bins for cheaper Gamecube games.

Edit: VVVVVVVV Such an opinion is far more prevalent then most of us would believe (and I'm really happy about it) VVVVVVVV

[ghost]

I may be a small voice in a crowd here, but I actually like the way Nintendo's views on the future of gaming and the direction they are taking the Revolution. That's not to say the others are bad, X360 looks gorgeous and I'm willing to bet PS3 will too. I just don't think that bigger and better graphics are the way to go when faced with the price of diminishing game originality, due to more expensive development costs forcing publishers to take less "risks". I'm going to have all three next-gen consoles, and I'll probably enjoy them all, but despite having not played it yet, Revolution is by far the one I'm most interested in.

[*Legion*]

Good ol' Nintendo. Stood up a whole army of straw men and bulldozed them down.

Just bring us the goods and leave the dumb talk at the door, please.

[Derwin]

there hasn't been any angry "NINTENDO IS DOOMED" replies yet...hmm...something is wrong...or maybe they're lying in wait for page 3...

[JazGalaxy]

To be quite honest, I'd join you in calling them that, despite being a happy-nappy fanboy through and through. If the lower development costs won't put the end consumer in a better position, I'll be very pissed and will buy a Xbox 360 and a bunch of noname FPS'es just out of spite.


They may not be any cheaper, but they will apparently come packed in with caddys that use the controller in different ways which, frankly, is brilliant and fine by me.

So, for instance, Mario Kart will potentially come with a steering wheel caddy which allows you to hook your controller to it and have a fully functioning steering wheel to play the game with with no added cost. Star Fox might come with a flight stick caddy for no extra cost, etc.

The nintendo revolution will own, and the only people who don't see it yet are the ones who have no imagination and can't forsee all the things the controller will be able to do.

[Rirath]

How many times must the argument be made that high powered consoles not only bring jaw dropping graphics, but bigger more expansive levels, less loading, better physics, and generally just expanded ability to a game? Yes, it's harder to develop for, but more complex things typically are. If all console gaming had was a new controller, I'd be a die hard PC-only gamer again.

I'm warming up to the Rev, if it's priced right I'll be quite interested. I'm almost sure to own one sooner or later. But dang it, I wish they'd quit acting like they've already revolutionized gaming when we haven't seen squat yet. And I still can't see what's stopping Sony / MS from making a silly new controller of their own sooner or later. I'm sure not using the ol' Dual Shock when I'm rocking out in Guitar Hero.

[Rirath]

The nintendo revolution will own, and the only people who don't see it yet are the ones who have no imagination and can't forsee all the things the controller will be able to do.

Ya know, I can imagine a heck of a lot of nifty things... that doesn't mean game devs are ever going to get around to making them. Do you really think all these years of clones are going to be shook off by one new controller? Odds are, you'll soon be seeing the same thing, with a new control scheme. I want the console for the few new and innovative games, but I'm not blind to the fact it won't revolutionize squat.

For example, just to apply the same to my own argument:

"People who can't see what a massively powerful console can do other than graphics have no technical knowledge and can't forsee all the things such a system can do."

Doesn't mean we won't see a launch lineup of merely ok to good titles like the 360 currently has. But wait til games like Gears of War start to hit. It'll be the same for the Rev. We'll see a few greats, and a lot 'more of the same'. It's a console, that's all. It still hooks up to a TV, plays games, and uses a controller. It doesn't wash your car.

[Kyle Jones]

Oh Nintendo * hugs *

Well, I'm pretty sure this is sarcastic, but I agree anyway. I've always felt that graphics aren't sheerly polygons and realism. It's about style, it's about artistic pretty-ness. Too me, a game like Windwaker with well done cel-shading and it's own distinct graphical style beats the shit out of a game like Halo in the graphics department, mainly because Halo is generic sci-fi land, but with high polygon counts.

Either way, most people are just going to take this as Nintendo's cop-out, so whatever...

[thecrazyd]

How many times must the argument be made that high powered consoles not only bring jaw dropping graphics, but bigger more expansive levels, less loading, better physics, and generally just expanded ability to a game? Yes, it's harder to develop for, but more complex things typically are. If all console gaming had was a new controller, I'd be a die hard PC-only gamer again.

I'm warming up to the Rev, if it's priced right I'll be quite interested. I'm almost sure to own one sooner or later. But dang it, I wish they'd quit acting like they've already revolutionized gaming when we haven't seen squat yet. And I still can't see what's stopping Sony / MS from making a silly new controller of their own sooner or later. I'm sure not using the ol' Dual Shock when I'm rocking out in Guitar Hero.
I am willing to bet that the only difference graphically will be that it won't support High Def. It should be more then powerfull enough to play everything, just not at high resolutions.

[jBusy]

Ya know, I can imagine a heck of a lot of nifty things... that doesn't mean game devs are ever going to get around to making them. Do you really think all these years of clones are going to be shook off by one new controller? Odds are, you'll soon be seeing the same thing, with a new control scheme. I want the console for the few new and innovative games, but I'm not blind to the fact it won't revolutionize squat.


How many clones do you see on the DS?

[JazGalaxy]

Ya know, I can imagine a heck of a lot of nifty things... that doesn't mean game devs are ever going to get around to making them. Do you really think all these years of clones are going to be shook off by one new controller? Odds are, you'll soon be seeing the same thing, with a new control scheme. I want the console for the few new and innovative games, but I'm not blind to the fact it won't revolutionize squat.


For example:

"People who can't see what a massively powerful console can do other than graphics have no technical knowledge and can't forsee all the things such a system can do."

Doesn't mean we won't see a launch lineup of merely ok to good titles like the 360 currently has. But wait til games like Gears of War start to hit. It'll be the same for the Rev. We'll see a few greats, and a lot 'more of the same'. It's a console, that's all. It still hooks up to a TV, plays games, and uses a controller. It doesn't wash your car.

Which is exactly the point. By making a controller that has the abillity to play thousands of new gameplay types, yet nearly none of the now boring and overused types, Nintendo is forcing developers to create new interesting gameplay designs. By making the console cheap and easy to develop for, Nintendo is making it attractive as well for them as well. By making the console cheap and affordable, Nintendo is making it likely that gamers will buy it. If gamers buy it, it is likely that developers will develop for it.

People for some reason think that developers are interested in high tech systems. They're not. They're interested in the user bases that these high tech systems afford them. It's why they continue to develop for the PS2 when the Xbox is more powerful, and why they developed for the PS1 when the N64 was more powerful. If Nintendo can capture the current gaming community by being cheap and affordable, and can capture a new gaming market of players who aren't interested in "badazz!" charachters murdering things to the tune of crappy music and nonexistant gameplay, they will dominate the next generation.

[Rirath]

How many clones do you see on the DS?

Do I really have to answer this? Seriously?
Now, keep in mind this list is NOT saying these are bad or good games, just clones.

Mario 64 DS*
Animal Crossing WW*
Burnout Legends
Snowboard Kids
Tony Hawk Sk8land
SEGA Casino
Mario Kart DS*
Viewtiful Joe
The Sims 2
Metroid Prime Pinball*
Zoo Tycoon DS
Castlevania*
Frogger: Helmet Chaos
Lunar: Dragon Song
Animaniacs
Prince of Persia
Ridge Racer
FIFA
Need for Speed
Sonic Rush*
Whac-A-Mole...

Seriously, going on is pointless. Many of these are GREAT games, but they're not innovative or revolutionary or anything else. They're clones of concepts that's been done before, on other systems, without touchscreens or dual screens. Real 'new and innovative' games like Kirby Canvas Curse are few and far between. And let's face it, anyone who's ever owned a PDA will tell you touch screens aren't new.

*Great games, but that doesn't mean they're not clones.

[Karmakin]

How many times must the argument be made that high powered consoles not only bring jaw dropping graphics, but bigger more expansive levels, less loading, better physics, and generally just expanded ability to a game? Yes, it's harder to develop for, but more complex things typically are. If all console gaming had was a new controller, I'd be a die hard PC-only gamer again.


I actually have doubts of the ability of the 360 to provide that stuff. I like the system, don't get me wrong, and I'm planning to get one for Ninety-Nine Nights. But a major warning bell was set off in my mind on the launch. Maybe it's just rushing games out the door, but maybe it's a poor internal design.

Whatever.

But PDZ going from 50 bots down to 32, really worries me. I worry that the intenal design is more for pumping out graphics than the rest of the things you mentioned.

With the exception of loading and expansive levels of course, these go hand in hand, and I don't believe that the "HD era" can provide these things, at least not more than current gen systems. But that's just my opinion.

[Rirath]

Which is exactly the point. By making a controller that has the abillity to play thousands of new gameplay types, yet nearly none of the now boring and overused types, Nintendo is forcing developers to create new interesting gameplay designs.

See, I disagree. I believe we'll see the same games, simply with a new control method. I also believe we'll soon see a standard controller. Finally, I believe developers won't be forced to do anything.

People for some reason think that developers are interested in high tech systems. They're not. They're interested in the user bases that these high tech systems afford them. It's why they continue to develop for the PS2 when the Xbox is more powerful, and why they developed for the PS1 when the N64 was more powerful.

We also disagree here. Devs, in my experience, are indeed interested in high tech systems /as well as/ low tech ones. It's why they continue to develop for handheld platforms when there are consoles available. But there are specific and complex reasons why people develop for the PS1 or PS2 over the GC, N64, or Xbox. It can be anything from marketing to violence levels, target demographic and genre, or just the oddities of the system. Many devs do indeed like to push the envelope, and many don't.

With the exception of loading and expansive levels of course, these go hand in hand, and I don't believe that the "HD era" can provide these things, at least not more than current gen systems. But that's just my opinion.

It doesn't help that I don't believe many people are quite sure, myself included, what the current gen could really do if bled dry. Could the Xbox do Unreal 3 engine? Could it do Gears of War? I say no way in heck. I believe the stuff we'll see from the 360 not just now, not just in 6 months, but two years down the line will be amazing compared to today's last gen games. I believe today's games don't look amazing simply because of the console they run on, but because expert devs have squeezed every bit of juice from them. It's time to upgrade and expand.

Maybe I'm more inclinded to look at this from a longterm perspective since I typically don't buy a console until at least the first price drop. I did that with my first PS2, then my GC, and finally my Xbox just last year. I also have a long history of PC gaming, where one never expects to see the full kick of an upgrade until at least 6 months.

[BlindSwordsman]

I may be a small voice in a crowd here, but I actually like the way Nintendo's views on the future of gaming and the direction they are taking the Revolution. That's not to say the others are bad, X360 looks gorgeous and I'm willing to bet PS3 will too. I just don't think that bigger and better graphics are the way to go when faced with the price of diminishing game originality, due to more expensive development costs forcing publishers to take less "risks". I'm going to have all three next-gen consoles, and I'll probably enjoy them all, but despite having not played it yet, Revolution is by far the one I'm most interested in.

I have heard many people echo these sentiments. What I think is pretty key is that bigger budgets and originality are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Next generation is certainly no cake walk and we are likely going to see many publishers and developer not do well in this new market place. However, in the end I believe that better games will be the result and HD is a good thing.

[TheBrainKills]

Well, I'm pretty sure this is sarcastic, but I agree anyway. I've always felt that graphics aren't sheerly polygons and realism. It's about style, it's about artistic pretty-ness. Too me, a game like Windwaker with well done cel-shading and it's own distinct graphical style beats the shit out of a game like Halo in the graphics department, mainly because Halo is generic sci-fi land, but with high polygon counts.

Either way, most people are just going to take this as Nintendo's cop-out, so whatever...

I agree with you. After seeing the PS3 video of Snakes 3000 polygon moustache you wonder if they are focusing in the wrong direction. Look at the movie Polar Express, it looked all wrong, they should have used live actors if they wanted a real look.

[RMan]

Ya know, I can imagine a heck of a lot of nifty things... that doesn't mean game devs are ever going to get around to making them.
Sure, but that skepticism should also carry over to the 360 as well, right? I mean, it’s many times harder to take advantage of the 360 to make something new (since it’s basically going to be “make things bigger”) than the Revolution.
Do you really think all these years of clones are going to be shook off by one new controller?
I think it’ll help more than a power increase, without a doubt.
"People who can't see what a massively powerful console can do other than graphics have no technical knowledge and can't forsee all the things such a system can do."
The difference here is that people have already come up with numerous experiences that can be accomplished with the controller, and to date I haven’t heard of even one for the 360 that can’t be done on the Xbox, not one. More power is good, but it doesn’t compare to an actual change like this.
But wait til games like Gears of War start to hit.
If that’s what you feel is the height of what the 360 can do, then please explain how the 360 is delivering more than a graphics upgrade. This is not to say that the game won’t be fun, but come on, there’s nothing we’ve seen besides the graphics that’s not doable on Xbox.

[Rirath]

I agree with you. After seeing the PS3 video of Snakes 3000 polygon moustache you wonder if they are focusing in the wrong direction. Look at the movie Polar Express, it looked all wrong, they should have used live actors if they wanted a real look.

On the other hand, I'll take the graphics of Twilight Princess any day over Wind Waker, myself. Both are nice in their own way, but Twilight Princess makes me say 'wow'. (Though my absolute perfect example of cell shading has become Dragon Quest VIII.)

[Draft]

Too bad that new tech =! just better graphics.

Take a loot at Quake Wars and it's hypertexture tech. Not only does it make the game look amazing, it eliminates draw distance restraint and makes foliage camoflauge actually work.

As much as Nintendo would like you to believe it, a different type of controller is not a magic bullet for innovation.

[Rirath]

Sure, but that skepticism should also carry over to the 360 as well, right?

I actually make that argument myself. Many devs won't take proper advantage of the system and just slap a coat of paint on. It's the reality of gaming. Some, however, will.

to date I haven’t heard of even one for the 360 that can’t be done on the Xbox, not one.

And this is where we differ. The Xbox is a beast of a machine for it's price, but believe it or not there is indeed a limit to a dev's bag of magic tricks. Sooner or later, you've got to upgrade. If not for today or tomorrow, than for next year and beyond. I myself have seen plenty that can't be done on the Xbox without some serious scaling back, Oblivion even, but that's an argument best left for a dev to make.

If that’s what you feel is the height of what the 360 can do, then please explain how the 360 is delivering more than a graphics upgrade.

It's more than a graphics update, but maybe that'll be more apparent when we're all actually playing the game. Maybe not, gamers tend to have short memories and imagination tends to fill in the flaws of yesteryear. But honestly, what do you expect in the first 6~ months of a console's 5 year lifespan?

[thecrazyd]

But honestly, what do you expect in the first 6~ months of a console's 5 year lifespan?
Well, 4 years, but next gen will probably be even shorter.

[Rirath]

Well, 4 years, but next gen will probably be even shorter.

I'm aware of the Xbox's and PS2's (NA) launch dates. The Xbox is not dead just yet and won't be until at least well into 2006. There are games scheduled all the way up to mid '06. The PS2 launched in '00 and won't be succeeded until '06, with games more than likely lasting longer. What information leads you to believe next gen will be shorter, exactly?

[thecrazyd]

I'ml aware of the Xbox's launch date, but it's not dead just yet and won't be until at least well into 2006. There are games scheduled all the way up to mid '06. What information leads you to believe next gen will be shorter, exactly?
Nothing of note. Just some multiconsole ports and the like. I think next gen will be shorter because, first, the difference in power is not all that significant. Second, cause Microsoft lives and dies off of the power of their system, and will want to put out an upgrade as soon as possible. Hence why they put out the 360 four years after the original XBox. If not shorter, then certainly not longer.

[Rirath]

Nothing of note. Just some multiconsole ports and the like. I think next gen will be shorter because, first, the difference in power is not all that significant. Second, cause Microsoft lives and dies off of the power of their system, and will want to put out an upgrade as soon as possible. Hence why they put out the 360 four years after the original XBox. If not shorter, then certainly not longer.

Shouldn't it be mentioned sometime around now, just for perspective, just /how/ many Gameboy redesigns and upgrades Nintendo goes through in a given console cycle? :) Not that I have any actual data on this off hand, but it seems interesting.

[TheBrainKills]

As much as Nintendo would like you to believe it, a different type of controller is not a magic bullet for innovation.


And that is why they maintain that it is a combination of power and control.

"We feel that sharper graphics should be combined with a new way to interface with the game itself."

Its the total package they are going for. Online, adequate graphics, better control.

[JazGalaxy]

The concept of draw distance freeing creating new gameplay elements I think is incidental at best.

When you boil away all the graphics inside a game, you're left with it's game design. Sometimes graphics can be a PART of the game design, but usually not. The actual design of the game is what should be fun. Otherwise, no matter how great it LOOKS it will never be fun. This is EA's problem.

I bought Batman Vengance when it was new for 50 bucks. I bought Catwoman at best buy for a dollar during one of their crazy sales. I'm a huge batman fan and both games put me to sleep. Batman Vengance, especially, with it's great graphics, amazing sound, adequate control, and interesting enough story, was a complete and total bore. The graphics didn't help it one iota. The same thing with Catwoman.

You ask if the Xbox can do gears of war? From what I've seen? of couse it can! WOuld it look that good? No. But then what does that matter?

A good example of this is Project Gotham 3 for the 360. My brother picked up that along with Perfect Dark for his 360 when it got it. We hooked it up to my dads flat panel wide screen HD TV over thanksgiving. This is all the bells and whistles the game has to offer. My dad came in and looked at it for a few seconds and said "that looks just like that game Brandon (me) has..." Referring to Fortza for the original Xbox. He couldn't really tell the difference. Is there difference? of course. But once you're driving around the track, it's basically the exact same game. You can't very well focus on background buildings as you're focused on your next turn, and doing so will cause you to lose the race.

Also worth mentioning, is that PG3 is the first casualty of the HD era. The only way you can enjoy the game in all it's next gen glory is if you are playing in the in the cockpit view. The problem is, unless you have a widescreen TV this view is screwed up and almost unplayable. It was built for a widescreen TV. This is the thing Nintendo was talking about by saying that developers would have to design for standard tvs as well as HD Tvs. Games like Quake, as well, are apparently concidered to be UNPLAYABLE on standard TVs.

[ghost]

I have heard many people echo these sentiments. What I think is pretty key is that bigger budgets and originality are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Next generation is certainly no cake walk and we are likely going to see many publishers and developer not do well in this new market place. However, in the end I believe that better games will be the result and HD is a good thing.

I'm not saying that HD is a bad thing, no. Nor am I saying that it is too early to release that tech mainstream in gaming due to the low percentage of people who have HD screens. No, the tech is good and the timing is good. I just don't think that it is a necessity. Also, bigger budgets and originality aren't mutually exclusive, but the people in charge of deciding whether or not an idea is worth putting several million or even billion dollars of development into are less likely to support the ideas that are different, no matter how good of an idea it is. Some they will support, yes, but the odds are fewer and less of them get through. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but the lower the budget, and thus the potential loss, the more likely a game is to be made. I think we may disagree on the definition of "better games". Prettier, yes, more advanced, yes, more complete and thorough, yes. But more clones and expansions of concepts and ideas that have been around and done before hundreds of times, now with higher resolutions and "this new feature", also yes. And I for one would rather have new ideas, after all, if I want to play the old ones, I'll just put the old games in. They're still good.

[RMan]

The Xbox is a beast of a machine for it's price, but believe it or not there is indeed a limit to a dev's bag of magic tricks. Sooner or later, you've got to upgrade.
Sure, but the comparison to imagining what can be done with the Revolution and what can be done with the 360 doesn't hold up. Clearly it is far easier to imagine new things that are doable for the Revolution, and it's also clear they'll likely cost much less to implement than anything new on the 360/PS3, so it's also pretty darn safe to assume that it'll result in more innovation (you'd have to be blind or a hardcore hater not to see/admit to that).

As for the upgrade part, I agree with that, but regarding the 360 they definitely rushed the upgrade severely, but that's another discussion I suppose.
I myself have seen plenty that can't be done on the Xbox without some serious scaling back, Oblivion even, but that's an argument best left for a dev to make.
Again, no doubt the system can do things bigger, but unless that scope results in a change in the experience, it's just an aesthetic improvement. There's nothing I've seen in the Oblivion stuff that's more than a graphical/aesthetic upgrade over what the Xbox can clearly do (from what I've seen, doesn't even look that big, really, just more dense and higher quality).

[Draft]

The concept of draw distance freeing creating new gameplay elements I think is incidental at best.That is wrong.

[RMan]

Hence why they put out the 360 four years after the original XBox. If not shorter, then certainly not longer.
MS will rush their next system if, and only if, they come in second again. Really, their next system should be even easier to make backward compatible (since it'd likely be less different than this one) so that wouldn't bother me as much since it wouldn't be a "forced upgrade" and developers would make 360 titles even deeper into the 720 or whatever's life.

[JazGalaxy]

That is wrong.

I fail to see how. The 256 bit systems had increased draw distance over 128 bit systems, and yet very few games actually put this to work. Rather, it incidently made the games you were already playing look a little bit better.

I've noticed the draw distance playing into Perfect Dark a little bit, and it's neat at times, but it's hardly a gameplay innovation and I'm sure it was a peripheral decision on the part of the design team.

Simply put, if it was important, it could have been done on previous systems.

[Kelegacy]

I like that 3D controller thing. I'm pretty sure I wont have a problem turning the thing sideways to play old-school Nintendo games and such. I can't wait to try this out at a kiosk. I didn't try out the 360 and wont care much about the PS3 either (they do offer more of the same, after all) but I really want to try out this controller when it first hits stores for demos next year.

[TheBrainKills]

That is wrong.

Brilliant exposition!
Almost Zeal like.

[jwbxx]

The nintendo revolution will own, and the only people who don't see it yet are the ones who have no imagination and can't forsee all the things the controller will be able to do.
I would like to believe that also. But there was that thing called game cube that was a mediocre system. It's hard to have complete faith in something when its predessecors was a so so system.

[Kefkataran]

Kudos to Nintendo to sticking to their principle of quality gameplay and cheaper hardware/software over better graphics. Here's hoping the Revolution actually encompasses this.

[DoubleUranium]

This is like arguing religion with Nintendo fanboys. We've seen zero screenshots of an actual game, zero games announced, nothing, but already it's the second coming of Jesus. All they've shown is some controller demos and everyone immediately buys into the hype - to the point where we have people posting here that they think they're going to get a free steering wheel with Mario Kart - gimme a break, a steering wheel for effectively $10 (as part of a $50 game cost). All we hear from Nintendo is excuses for why the system has so little power and so little ram. The Rev specs would be fine if we were planning for only a 2-3 lifespan, which I suppose they can do if the price is low enough. I'm planning on getting good use out of my shiny new consoles for 4-5 years, and in 2010 I expect to see some amazing games in HD.

Whoever mentioned that Nintendo had better have shitloads of patents was dead on, b/c at the end of this all they've got is that controller. If Sony or MS decided that the controller was worth copying parts of (MS can at least use Tilt type tech) then Nintendo's got nothing but an inferior console. When people mention swordfighting games I just laugh. Zero chance of me waving my arm at the TV for a typical 2-3 hour gaming session.

The Rev could turn out to be a real revolution in gameplay, or it could turn out to be just another gimmick. I'm not buying into anyone's hype about it however. I'll judge the system when it's closer to release and I can evaluate actual games and gameplay. Until then all I'm seeing is rampant fanboyism and hype.

[TheBrainKills]

I would like to believe that also. But there was that thing called game cube that was a mediocre system. It's hard to have complete faith in something when its predessecors was a so so system.

The "Game Cube system" is not mediocre, it is quite powerfull. It is Nintendo's lack of supporting third parties and lack of online strategy that is the problem.

[Kefkataran]

We've seen zero screenshots of an actual game, zero games announced, nothing,

Which is exactly also why it's pretty stupid to be so hardcore against it as so many of the Microsoftians around here seem to be.

All we hear from Nintendo is excuses for why the system has so little power and so little ram.

Why are they excuses? Because they're trying something drastically different from the competition? I'm far from a N-fanboy here, and I do recognize that there's a very definite chance this could flop and crash Nintendo big. But I see no reason to disrespect them for trying to break out of the normal ideas of the console next-gen lifespan thing that we've come to accept.

The Rev could turn out to be a real revolution in gameplay, or it could turn out to be just another gimmick. I'm not buying into anyone's hype about it however. I'll judge the system when it's closer to release and I can evaluate actual games and gameplay. Until then all I'm seeing is rampant fanboyism and hype.

See, that's pretty much my stance on it too. But while you say this, the rest of your post IS full of rampant fanboyism and hype -- just on the opposite, anti-Nintendo stand. I agree that it's not worth really judging till it's out. Why don't you stick to that?

It is Nintendo's lack of supporting third parties and lack of online strategy that is the problem.

Thankfully, at least if the DS stuff is any indication, Nintendo's finally got a good idea that they can and should be doing strong online service. That's one thing I pray is implemented with the Revolution.

[bean19]

The "Game Cube system" is not mediocre, it is quite powerfull. It is Nintendo's lack of supporting third parties and lack of online strategy that is the problem.

Well, it is mediocre in comparison to the others in it's generation, but that isn't saying much. Xbox stands out ahaed of the others technically, but only by a little.

But you're right, there are bigger issues. Very few titles on the system is the biggest, and poor online support is another problem (though not a big one since not all "mainstream" gamers have highspeed Internet).

Now they are not going to be mediocre. . . they're going to be dead last. If they can support the Revolution with a lot of game titles, then I think they will suceed in their niche market. There are people who will get the system no matter what for Zelda and Mario titles, but if they want a bigger audience, they'll need to show us a lot of cool games like they have been doing for the Nintendo DS.

I don't know. . . I'm kind of afraid that they're strategy of being a cheaper and much less fancy system might cause them to lose so much that they won't be able to rejoin the console war in 2010. That would be bad in my opinion because they ARE innovators. . . but then again, I kind of want the next Zelda (after Twilight Princess) to be in HD, so having them go under and become just another game developer would really make getting the few "must have" games they make be less expensive, and probably higher quality.

[Bone]

Do I really have to answer this? Seriously?
Now, keep in mind this list is NOT saying these are bad or good games, just clones.

Metroid Prime Pinball*


I know pinball has been done elsewhere, but Metroid Prime Pinball isn't a clone of any game I've played.

[TheBrainKills]

All we hear from Nintendo is excuses for why the system has so little power and so little ram.

....... When people mention swordfighting games I just laugh. Zero chance of me waving my arm at the TV for a typical 2-3 hour gaming session.


... I'll judge the system when it's closer to release and I can evaluate actual games and gameplay. Until then all I'm seeing is rampant fanboyism and hype.

All we hear from Nintendo are responses from them when some idiot comes out and says they are "bowing out of the console business", and what is their message, don't be a tech whore, wait and play the games then decide.

Your swordfighting comment just shows that developers will have to rethink game design so that waving your arm around for 2 hours isn't all that you are doing. Inevitably some will get it wrong.

All that I am seeing is speculation on a twist to an old formula. And what is wrong with that? Do we need 3 consoles that do the exact same thing?

[BlindSwordsman]

I'm not saying that HD is a bad thing, no. Nor am I saying that it is too early to release that tech mainstream in gaming due to the low percentage of people who have HD screens. No, the tech is good and the timing is good. I just don't think that it is a necessity. Also, bigger budgets and originality aren't mutually exclusive, but the people in charge of deciding whether or not an idea is worth putting several million or even billion dollars of development into are less likely to support the ideas that are different, no matter how good of an idea it is. Some they will support, yes, but the odds are fewer and less of them get through. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but the lower the budget, and thus the potential loss, the more likely a game is to be made. I think we may disagree on the definition of "better games". Prettier, yes, more advanced, yes, more complete and thorough, yes. But more clones and expansions of concepts and ideas that have been around and done before hundreds of times, now with higher resolutions and "this new feature", also yes. And I for one would rather have new ideas, after all, if I want to play the old ones, I'll just put the old games in. They're still good.

I’m not even sure we disagree at all (maybe perhaps slightly). :) I just wanted point out that there can be (in fact there are ;) ) some big budget and very original titles in development for next generation. Unfortunately, in general, the industry tends to lean towards sequels instead of innovation. I am also not sure that bigger budgets or HD will directly correlate to creativity; I feel it is more likely to reduce the number of games made and creativity will stay proportional to what it is now. Less games are a really good thing in my eyes (please keep in mind that I am blind. :p).

I believe there are way too many games being made - i think there were over 250 games released this november and the market cannot continue to support that much product.

[JazGalaxy]

This is like arguing religion with Nintendo fanboys. We've seen zero screenshots of an actual game, zero games announced, nothing, but already it's the second coming of Jesus. All they've shown is some controller demos and everyone immediately buys into the hype - to the point where we have people posting here that they think they're going to get a free steering wheel with Mario Kart - gimme a break, a steering wheel for effectively $10 (as part of a $50 game cost). All we hear from Nintendo is excuses for why the system has so little power and so little ram. The Rev specs would be fine if we were planning for only a 2-3 lifespan, which I suppose they can do if the price is low enough. I'm planning on getting good use out of my shiny new consoles for 4-5 years, and in 2010 I expect to see some amazing games in HD.


The pack in caddys for the Revolution are a fact. Nintendo has said multiple times that it is how it will work. They have also stated that the they will be pack in items with games.

You are an absolute idiot if you think that Sony showing CGI movies bodes better for a console than Nintendo showing controller demos that are actually games and are actually (by all accounts) fun. If nintendo shows simply little controller demos that are fun, why are we NOT supposed to get excited about what that means for gaming?

Nintnedo has also shown tech demos of revolution graphics that are very impressive. This is enough to make us excited about gaming.

The only reason you are NOT excited is because they have released some numbers that you find displeasing. I think there is far more evidence for us to feel the way we do than for you to feel the way you do.

[mister_slim]

How many clones do you see on the DS?
To be fair, almost every game from western developers is basically a port with hacked-in touchscreen control.

[JazGalaxy]

Well, it is mediocre in comparison to the others in it's generation, but that isn't saying much. Xbox stands out ahaed of the others technically, but only by a little.

But you're right, there are bigger issues. Very few titles on the system is the biggest, and poor online support is another problem (though not a big one since not all "mainstream" gamers have highspeed Internet).

Now they are not going to be mediocre. . . they're going to be dead last. If they can support the Revolution with a lot of game titles, then I think they will suceed in their niche market. There are people who will get the system no matter what for Zelda and Mario titles, but if they want a bigger audience, they'll need to show us a lot of cool games like they have been doing for the Nintendo DS.

I don't know. . . I'm kind of afraid that they're strategy of being a cheaper and much less fancy system might cause them to lose so much that they won't be able to rejoin the console war in 2010. That would be bad in my opinion because they ARE innovators. . . but then again, I kind of want the next Zelda (after Twilight Princess) to be in HD, so having them go under and become just another game developer would really make getting the few "must have" games they make be less expensive, and probably higher quality.


I don't understand why nobody listens to them when they say they do not intend to compete with PS2 and Xbox.

Most people who were around during the best years of PC Gaming can tell you that, while they were definately playing "video games", they games they were playing were aboslutely nothing like "console" games. Even now we have some genres that share meaning based on whether you are talking abotu a computer style game, or a console style game. RPGs and Adventure games are two very good examples. Console games were about twitch gaming and PC games were more about immersion, storytelling, and brain challenge. Console gamers didn't like PC games. PC gamers didn't like console games. Some liked both. Indeed MOST had both.

So why is it silly or misguided for Nintendo to say "look, we don't like what these guys are doing to gaming and we want to do something else."?

The more subdivided gaming gets, the better gaming will be, as most PC Gamers of old will probably tell you. THe homogenization of console and PC have left PC gamers without titles in most of their favorite genres. RPG, Adventure, RTS, etc. While, simultaenously, many of Consoles best genre's are also dying as a result.

[vivafletcher]

So I'm supposed to buy the notion that "better graphics potential" isn't everything...but "new controller" is everything?

Oooh, yeah. I'm gonna have to go ahead and...disagree with you there.

Maybe it's me, but I never thought that the current controllers were ruining games. I just want some fun games to play. If Nintendo can't compete in the graphics department, I'm okay with that. I liked the Genesis when it wasn't the best console graphics-wise.

But their gimmick doesn't look any better than anyone else's gimmick. I feel like they're trying to tell me I'm too smart to fall for Microsoft and Sony's hook while they hope I'm dumb enough to fall for theirs.

[JazGalaxy]

So I'm supposed to buy the notion that "better graphics potential" isn't everything...but "new controller" is everything?

Oooh, yeah. I'm gonna have to go ahead and...disagree with you there.

Maybe it's me, but I never thought that the current controllers were ruining games. I just want some fun games to play. If Nintendo can't compete in the graphics department, I'm okay with that. I liked the Genesis when it wasn't the best console graphics-wise.

But their gimmick doesn't look any better than anyone else's gimmick. I feel like they're trying to tell me I'm too smart to fall for Microsoft and Sony's hook while they hope I'm dumb enough to fall for theirs.

If you call a new interface a gimmick, then what ISN'T a gimmick? The reason arcades were so fun during their heyday was because you could go and sit down in an F1 racer and race, or you could pick up a gun and shoot, etc.

When Time Crisis 1 came out for the playstation it's graphics were woefully outdated, yet the game was still mind blowingly fun because it's interface was entertaining. My dad even got it a huge kick out of it because it was difficult easy to learn and fun to play. He couldn't make it past the first level but he spent more time playing that game than any game ever. He even came to me uninvited and asked to play it which si something he never does. Usually he just would sit down when we were playing something and give it a try once or twice before turning it over.

Nintendo is trying to turn that kind of gameplay into a whole market, and I believe that market exists.

People keep trying to suggest that Nintendo's big innovation is "the controller", That's not REMOTELY what they're selling. What they're selling is the interface. it's saying "you can now interact with games in thousands of ways that you previously couldn't. Yeah, that is game enhancing innovation.

[bean19]

I don't understand why nobody listens to them when they say they do not intend to compete with PS2 and Xbox.

Most people who were around during the best years of PC Gaming can tell you that, while they were definately playing "video games", they games they were playing were aboslutely nothing like "console" games. Even now we have some genres that share meaning based on whether you are talking abotu a computer style game, or a console style game. RPGs and Adventure games are two very good examples. Console games were about twitch gaming and PC games were more about immersion, storytelling, and brain challenge. Console gamers didn't like PC games. PC gamers didn't like console games. Some liked both. Indeed MOST had both.

So why is it silly or misguided for Nintendo to say "look, we don't like what these guys are doing to gaming and we want to do something else."?

The more subdivided gaming gets, the better gaming will be, as most PC Gamers of old will probably tell you. THe homogenization of console and PC have left PC gamers without titles in most of their favorite genres. RPG, Adventure, RTS, etc. While, simultaenously, many of Consoles best genre's are also dying as a result.

Read my post again. I said they are going to be dead last in tech specs. . . which is not news, and that they'll need to deliver with good games AND games that are innovative enough to get people out to purchase their system (like they have done with the DS).

I have my reservations on whether or not they can be successful with a home console that is built around such a design, and a prediction that they'll lose out completely if they fail to make really fun and innovative games that pull people in despite lower tech.

They've done it with handhelds, so it is possible that they could do it with home consoles.

Btw, I am just not really listening to the "not competing" spin. They are competing. They are going to be very weak technically, but will try to make up for it with innovative games, an innovative controller, and by being the most affordable.

Also, I wish them luck. I'm not a fanboy of any particular system, but of a bunch of different games. I want all three companies to make it this generation and to make really fun games.

[TrackZero]

So I'm supposed to buy the notion that "better graphics potential" isn't everything...but "new controller" is everything?

Oooh, yeah. I'm gonna have to go ahead and...disagree with you there.


Well, you'd be wrong. This is the literal difference in ideology between the DS and PSP and we all know which of those is more fun. Graphics are not everything, fun gameplay is.

[AversionFX]

Yay Nintendo. I'm pretty sure my first next-gen console is going to be a Revolution.

One, because i love nintendo. Gameplay over graphics for me.

Two, the argument most of you give against nintendo are just completely retarded, and make me less interested in the 360.

[SMES]

If it's $200 or less at launch then I will be getting one on launch day (assuming I can find one)

If it's more than $200, I will get one the day the first 9.0+ rated first-party Nintendo game is released (Mario, Zelda, Etc)

In either case I will end up buying one. Why?

Cause I really don't care about the various debates. I like Nintendo games and I'll be getting one of these systems. If you like Nintendo games you'll get one too. Simple as that. Everything else is just filler.

[Achilles]

Games with high definition graphics are expensive to develop because they must be developed in both standard and high definition formats.That’s not why they’re expensive, they’re expensive because of all the extra detail that goes into everything and the artists that are required to make that detail. Only 2d games would need 2 versions of each graphic. I’m surprised they don’t know this since they don't make a lot of 2d games, on the other hand they don't make any HD games. Well, you'd be wrong. This is the literal difference in ideology between the DS and PSP and we all know which of those is more fun. Graphics are not everything, fun gameplay is.Yeah but the stylus doesn’t make the games better, neither does the microphone or second screen. Just cuz the Rev has a wacky controller doesn't inherently make their game design more fun. In fact throwing out all the standard control schemes that have been refined through the last 20 years will probably result in a learning curve for how developers use the new controller and what works and what doesn't.

[Player 1]

This is like arguing religion with Nintendo fanboys. We've seen zero screenshots of an actual game, zero games announced, nothing, but already it's the second coming of Jesus. All they've shown is some controller demos and everyone immediately buys into the hype..

That's an interesting way of putting it. I'll have to remember that one. ;)

I don't understand why nobody listens to them when they say they do not intend to compete with PS2 and Xbox.

Because nobody outside of Nintendo and Nintendo fanboys believes it. I *gurantee* you'll find the Revolution sold alongside other consoles in stores, catalogues and online listings. The fact that Nintendo happen to release a new handheld around the same time as their 'non' competitor(s) and that they plan to release a new console within 12 months of their 'non' competitors doesn't really suggest a company that's marching entirely to the beat of it's own drum.

Don't believe the hype.

This is the literal difference in ideology between the DS and PSP and we all know which of those is more fun. Graphics are not everything, fun gameplay is.

I also believe that graphics should complement the gameplay, not the other way around. Seeing as we've seen neither graphics nor games for Nintendo's new console I simply can't buy into the attitude of declaring Nintendo making the best next gen games. So many folks are going on as if the Revolution has been spitting out games for years - when we've yet to see ONE proper game showing us Nintendo's promise being realised. I genuinely think people are getting way ahead of themselves.

Additionally, if you forsake all other games for Nintendo ones in the belief that Nintendo are the only people who can make great games.. ..well, you're cutting yourself off from some great, great games.

If you call a new interface a gimmick, then what ISN'T a gimmick? The reason arcades were so fun during their heyday was because you could go and sit down in an F1 racer and race, or you could pick up a gun and shoot, etc.

Actually, you'll probably find that the attraction of arcades during their heyday WASN'T for the novelty of the control but because the games were more powerful and visually impressive. In fact the decline of arcade popularity is directly related to the rise in power of home consoles.

Many current arcade games today can only distance themselves from their console counterparts by employing gimmicks and novelty controllers. Sadly, these gimmicks are not doing enough to save the arcade industry from the march of the polygon-spitting home consoles..

..I think there's some parallels to be drawn from that. Time will tell.

[Mighty Jesus]

Yeah but the stylus doesn’t make the games better, neither does the microphone or second screen.

The games aren't 'better', but there are games that couldn't have been made for any other system. People are hyped for the Revolution because of the possibility of playing entirely new types of games.

[LilAbner]

You can get a HDTV for $500 or less these days.

[t3g]

I think the Revolution will be successful in its markets where people want a cheap system to pick up and play with themselves or their children. Maybe because I am a little older and in college, but playing video games in social events isn't social. Especially if it is something like the Revolution where people are trying to sword fight or chop onions. Those types of actions are not socially acceptable and the person gets called a dork.

If I am at a party, the last thing that people want to do is play video games or even watch TV. Most arrive at the party around 11 pm, drink alcohol, socialize and flirt for a few hours, get drunk, go to McDonalds at 3 am, then go home by themselves or with a girl. I know some of you have Goldeneye, Halo, or Smash Bros parties, but I doubt you are at the right kind of party. By this I mean talking to people, drinking, and loud music in the back.

It is mainly the nerd or early teen audience that wants to play social video games on a Friday or Saturday night. Granted, there are times when I want to burn a few hours playing a game on a weekend, but I will play on Xbox Live. Maybe the Revolution is setting gaming back a few generations back into the nerd/kid era.

[thecrazyd]

You can get a HDTV for $500 or less these days.
No you can't.

[Achilles]

The games aren't 'better', but there are games that couldn't have been made for any other system. People are hyped for the Revolution because of the possibility of playing entirely new types of games.That's true, the DS didn't remove any functionality when they made their system. In fact they added 2 buttons in addition to all the more widely known features. So its extra features just allowed for more versatility. This isn't the same as the Revolution.What I think is pretty key is that bigger budgets and originality are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Next generation is certainly no cake walk and we are likely going to see many publishers and developer not do well in this new market place. However, in the end I believe that better games will be the result and HD is a good thing.I believe this as well. Games have shown a lot of originality in the past, and I think a good thing to foster innovation is an extremely versatile set of hardware, high power so it gives the developers a lot of room to create their vision and try new things, and a control device that tries to restrict what can be done with it as little as possible.

[jeffool]

You can get a HDTV for $500 or less these days.Hey, great! So I can enter the HD Era of gaming for the low low price of $900! Oh, wait, I mean $800, assuming I don't want actual games. And no way to save progress when I do get games.

I don't even own a GameCube, but Nintendo, if you can save me from this never-ending cycle of spec comparison and instead offer something new, I promise to buy all of your systems from now on.

[TheKeck]

No you can't.

Yes you can. I just checked. Now, maybe not a great HDTV, or the one you want, but I was able to find 4 of them for under $500.

(Not that I care. Don't have one; not planning on getting one any time soon.)

[Dirty Harry]

I think the Revolution will be successful in its markets where people want a cheap system to pick up and play with themselves or their children. Maybe because I am a little older and in college, but playing video games in social events isn't social. Especially if it is something like the Revolution where people are trying to sword fight or chop onions. Those types of actions are not socially acceptable and the person gets called a dork.

If I am at a party, the last thing that people want to do is play video games or even watch TV. Most arrive at the party around 11 pm, drink alcohol, socialize and flirt for a few hours, get drunk, go to McDonalds at 3 am, then go home by themselves or with a girl. I know some of you have Goldeneye, Halo, or Smash Bros parties, but I doubt you are at the right kind of party. By this I mean talking to people, drinking, and loud music in the back.

It is mainly the nerd or early teen audience that wants to play social video games on a Friday or Saturday night. Granted, there are times when I want to burn a few hours playing a game on a weekend, but I will play on Xbox Live. Maybe the Revolution is setting gaming back a few generations back into the nerd/kid era.
While i find your opinion amusing, i would just like to point out the irony of the situation. Your calling gamers nerd and geeks on a nerd video game forum, you certainly dont see waves of teenager girls on these forums do you. Shut your hypocritcal mouth hole.

[bean19]

While i find your opinion amusing, i would just like to point out the irony of the situation. Your calling gamers nerd and geeks on a nerd video game forum, you certainly dont see waves of teenager girls on these forums do you. Shut your hypocritcal mouth hole.

Teenage girls are what make a forum hip?

Btw, I don't think that playing video games makes someone not "cool". . . even if you use the teenage girl definition of the word "cool". Basically, I think "cool" really means "fuckably attractive", and that has way more to do with looks and personality than hobbies.

Then again, if you go to www.hotornot.com and don't immediately filter to just see girls, you will see a bunch of ugly guys who try to artificially raise their score by having their car or guitar in the photo.

[jeffool]

While i find your opinion amusing, i would just like to point out the irony of the situation. Your calling gamers nerd and geeks on a nerd video game forum, you certainly dont see waves of teenager girls on these forums do you. Shut your hypocritcal mouth hole.Heh, relax. Maybe the guy just never had arcades around when he was younger. I mean, I'm not sure why games can't be social in his book. I've never seen a bar without a pool table or darts, save bars where people go to drink in misery during day-time hours. But I'll guess that by the right kind of party with "drinking, and loud music in the back," he means clubbing. Y'know, that's fine for you t3g. But me? I'll never forget the time a girl asked me back to her place to play BG: Dark Alliance II.

[Zulu107]

Well, I'm going with the Microsoft because I'm not into Anime, kids games, etc..and for once an US Based company needs to take the lead in the industry on our own soil because after being stationed in Japan and SE Asia, there is a gap between what we like in the US and what they like.

[Rirath]

I know pinball has been done elsewhere, but Metroid Prime Pinball isn't a clone of any game I've played.

Reminds me an awful lot of Sonic Spinball and various other franchise "adventure" pinballs, myself.
Though having Samus and the Metroid universe instantly makes it that much cooler.

[holycrapper]

talk crap all you want about N, but I still have my first supernintendo(and it works still, despite all the stupid crap i did to it when i was a kid), i picked up 3 working, front load cartridge NES's from goodwill, and i still play goldeneye and mario golf at least once or twice a month on my N64. My first playstation2 was dead in less then a year, my old xbox has been living in the trunk of my car for about 7 months or so now, and in less then a year it developed a hiccup, it makes this wierd bizzing sound when we are playing games, my friend's xbox stopped playing halo2 within a month, and he hardly ever played it, about half of the games he puts in there register some sort of disc error. The track record is really bad for both microsoft and sony as far as thier hardware goes. I know when I pick up my Revolution that there will be no technical problems, and as far as I know, they are the only ones with a physics processor in their system, which is the next graphics card phenonom as far as I am concerned.

[Zeal]

I smell desperation.

[bapenguin]

Well, if they stay at the standard 50, then it will be right. I can't see them charging 60.

Neither are Microsoft (and most likely Sony).

[Cubfan]

I own and love the DS, but I will be the first to admit that the touch screen interface is poorly implemented and even a detriment in many games. I think Nintendo could have have released a single (larger) screen handheld, and succeeded just as well if not more than they have with the DS. So I suppose I'll wait and see how far the Revolution's 'revolutionary' controller will take the system. I think there will be a handful of games that successfully use the new controller, and in most games it will either be tacked-on half-assedly, or ignored altogether. Or maybe there will be a decent number of games that benefit from a good implemenation of the new controls. Least likely, IMO, would be the controller being a smashing success, well-implemented in a vast number of games in the Revolution library. I just don't think that's likely, but who knows?

[thecrazyd]

Neither are Microsoft (and most likely Sony).
Umm... I hate to be the bearer of bad news... but most 360 games are selling for 60 bucks. (http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/homepages/xbox360/default.asp)

[Achilles]

Umm... I hate to be the bearer of bad news... but most 360 games are selling for 60 bucks. (http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/homepages/xbox360/default.asp) Not ones from Microsoft. Microsoft is charging $50 for their 360 games, though you can pay more for them if you want to.
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/product/257537.asp
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/product/258818.asp
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/product/233695.asp

[TheBrainKills]

I smell desperation.

I suggest you shower.

[Zeal]

If most 360/PS3 games start releasing at $50, Nintendo has literally no advantage.

Nintendo also forgot to mention that HDTV prices are falling like a rock. HD is destined to become the standard, and by the time these next-gen systems are in their prime, it WILL be. Once again, Nintendo cannot let go of the past.

Their next system should go back to cartridges, because we all know how right they were with the N64.

[Neverborne]

Everyone who didn't use their X-Box to play DVD's because they didn't want to shell out the $30 for the damn remote control so they could do so, raise your hand.

...That's what I thought.

Same fuckig principle applies to the 360 and $1000+ HD TV's.

[Hellstorm]

I have heard many people echo these sentiments. What I think is pretty key is that bigger budgets and originality are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Next generation is certainly no cake walk and we are likely going to see many publishers and developer not do well in this new market place. However, in the end I believe that better games will be the result and HD is a good thing.

I dunno Denis. Nintendo told you of the Rev specs and you porbably didn't like what you heard. Unless there is some greater rift between you and the guys at NCL, I don't see why Nintendo wouldn't bank roll Two Human and outside of specs you wanting to leave Nintendo.

[Hellstorm]

I’m not even sure we disagree at all (maybe perhaps slightly). :) I just wanted point out that there can be (in fact there are ;) ) some big budget and very original titles in development for next generation. Unfortunately, in general, the industry tends to lean towards sequels instead of innovation. I am also not sure that bigger budgets or HD will directly correlate to creativity; I feel it is more likely to reduce the number of games made and creativity will stay proportional to what it is now. Less games are a really good thing in my eyes (please keep in mind that I am blind. :p).

I believe there are way too many games being made - i think there were over 250 games released this november and the market cannot continue to support that much product.

The industry is do for a shake-out or mini-crash. It needs to readjust. I agree with you on that.

[swiftdraw]

Everyone who didn't use their X-Box to play DVD's because they didn't want to shell out the $30 for the damn remote control so they could do so, raise your hand.

...That's what I thought.

Same fuckig principle applies to the 360 and $1000+ HD TV's.

*raises hand* I use it as my DVD player. It works a lot better than my parents $70 GE piece of crap. Oh, and I won a HD LCD monitor for my computer, so I can play the 360 (when I get the money to get on) in HD! Yesterday was a good day.... :D

I've a completely different set of expectations for the Revolution than I do for the other two next-gen consoles. 360 and PS3 I expect tradtional console gaming and awesome graphics. Revolution I expecting budget prices, new, intresting ways to play games, and maybe even new types of games. If the Rev can satisify those expectations, I'll buy one and be content.

[tfc]

isnt this the system with the "remote" controller ?

[PSyMastR]

isnt this the system with the "remote" controller ?
You really got to get with the times dude. Seriously.

[RMan]

That’s not why they’re expensive, they’re expensive because of all the extra detail that goes into everything and the artists that are required to make that detail.
Yea, I thought this was a little silly too, like they had a marketing guy paraphrasing from a developer or something, because it’s just not true.
Because nobody outside of Nintendo and Nintendo fanboys believes it. I *gurantee* you'll find the Revolution sold alongside other consoles in stores, catalogues and online listings.
Yea, and when I go onto a car lot, I’ll find trucks next to cars and most people would say they don’t compete with each other. When you go to buy an Eclipse, do you get upset that it doesn’t have 4WD, space to carry plywood sheets, or even the amount of horsepower you expect in a truck? Just because the truck and the car may compete for a particular consumer’s money doesn’t mean they are designed to have competing features, and it’s completely fair to say they don’t compete with each other, and most people accept this without yelling at the car manufacturer and calling them a liar.

Another thing you guys should keep in mind, it’s clearly true that the Revolution isn’t as impressive in terms of what it can do graphically compared to the other two, but it’s definitely unfair to say it’s not technologically advanced. In terms of it’s input capability, it’s FAR more advanced than the 360 or PS3, it’s just weaker in terms of it’s output, so how “good” the technological advancement is on any system depends on what part of the system was most lacking and in need of advancement. Personally, I definitely think they made the right choice (although skimping as much as they have on the RAM still bothers me, seems silly not to put more RAM in), but regardless, it’s clearly unfair to just call it a technologically inferior system, that would be only part of the story.

[Neverborne]

*raises hand* I use it as my DVD player. It works a lot better than my parents $70 GE piece of crap. Oh, and I won a HD LCD monitor for my computer, so I can play the 360 (when I get the money to get on) in HD! Yesterday was a good day.... :D

That's one.

[Lutheran]

If most 360/PS3 games start releasing at $50, Nintendo has literally no advantage.

Nintendo also forgot to mention that HDTV prices are falling like a rock. HD is destined to become the standard, and by the time these next-gen systems are in their prime, it WILL be. Once again, Nintendo cannot let go of the past.

Their next system should go back to cartridges, because we all know how right they were with the N64.

I dunno , Resident Evil 4 on my GC looks to me better then quite a few of the xbox 360 HD titles I have rented and played on my 51" HDTV.. Anyway what I don't understand is why some of you insist on bashing Nintendo when they are saying they want to be the 2nd unit in every hardcore gamers home and the only one in non hardcore players homes..In essence they are saying we know we won't compete for a lot of the hardcore players money and we aren't going to bother trying. Its not like they are saying hey the other systems will stink , go with us instead. I know why Zeal bash's them as he is just a worthless moronic troll with not a lick of sense but I am stumped on some of the rest of you. Just because some people are psyched about the Revolution doesn't mean the rest of you who aren't need to reel us back in to reality.. We will find out soon enough if the new controller is crap or is the next big thing.

[Player 1]

Yea, and when I go onto a car lot, I’ll find trucks next to cars and most people would say they don’t compete with each other. When you go to buy an Eclipse, do you get upset that it doesn’t have 4WD, space to carry plywood sheets, or even the amount of horsepower you expect in a truck? Just because the truck and the car may compete for a particular consumer’s money doesn’t mean they are designed to have competing features, and it’s completely fair to say they don’t compete with each other, and most people accept this without yelling at the car manufacturer and calling them a liar.

I think you're giving the consumer far too much credit when suggesting they'll instantly appreciate the difference between a next-gen Nnitendo console and a X360/PS3. People know about vehicles - and they tend to purchase them based on a mental criteria of getting a tool to do a job. Consoles/luxury items don't fit into that mindset. Additionally, it's not OK to go to a car showroom and say "I don't know what I want, but I want a vehicle" but it IS ok to go to an electronics store and say "I don't know what I want but I want a console". The difference is historic - the retail sector will define who's competing with who - not the manufacturers.

In fact, you have multiple boxes that play games and media being released within a few months of each other. One made by Nintendo, one by Sony, one by Microsoft. How are they NOT competing with each other?

The only way you can explain how they're not competing is to regurgitate Nintendo hyperbole and press statements. If you truly believe every word to be quoted by a company's PR and marketing people as they launch a new system then you're playing right into their hands.

Have any of you heard the story of The Emperor's New Clothes? This farce is remarkably similar..

[Zeal]

The simple fact is this:

Whether or not Nintendo wants to compete with Sony or Microsoft is irrelevant, because they will be. And whether or not they want to label their system a console is irrelevant, because it will be.

Either way you look at it, this is direct competition and there's nothing Nintendo can do about it.

Everything they're spewing is public relations bs; same with Microsoft and Sony. Anyone who believes Nintendo will revolutionize videogames with a single controller is in for a rude awakening.

Especially when it tanks in America.

[bean19]

Yes, Nintendo will be competing, but not necessarily for the same customers. If I had children under the age of 10, I'd probably get them whatever system Nintendo rolls out even though they are not well supported with lots of games.

Nintendo games often have good offline multiplayer which lets a lot of kids play at once. It's affordable, and a small number of titles each year (2 to 3) are excellent. Also, the hardware has been the most hardy. Less worry about the kids screwing up the drive tray, etc.

Now they have a system that will be nearly a whole generation behind it's competitors technologically, with a fancy new controller that will open up new forms of gameplay. This is exactly the same strategy they used for the DS, and if they make a large number of innovative and fun titles that take advantage of the new device like they have done with the DS, then the Revolution WILL be everyone's "other" system.

Basically, they are the underdog that nevertheless finds a way to make money and I respect them for that. Sony and Microsoft will probably lose around a billion dollars on the first 10 million consoles shipped, and the number will most probably rise to about 1.5 billion by the time they stop losing money on the consoles (they will be making up a lot of this as they go with the sale of games and accessories - accessories are 100% profit and games are about $10 profit each, so they need to sell $100 in accessories and 5 games to early adopters before they break even). Nintendo probably doesn't have 1.5 billion to throw at a new system launch, so they are innovating and trying to reach a new market. Sony may not have this kind of money either. . . and Microsoft might literally buy supremacy this generation if they don't mind taking a hit to their cash.

Meanwhile, Nintendo will ship with a console that makes money, accessories that make money, and games that make money. They'll be in 3rd place again but they'll still be profitable, and could even maintain their place as the "budget/for kids" console if they successfully innovate in the way they have done for the DS.

[Nite_Moogle]

Ganked this from digg. Nintendo might not be as dumb as they look.

http://www.playbomb.com/2005/12/11/124/nintendo-displacement-mapping-patents-discoverec/

[bean19]

Ganked this from digg. Nintendo might not be as dumb as they look.

http://www.playbomb.com/2005/12/11/124/nintendo-displacement-mapping-patents-discoverec/

I'm no expert as I've only taken enough 3D art classes to realize that I do not want to be an artist (lots and lots of work even to get the most simple returns).

However, I'm familiar with displacement mapping, and I'm fairly sure they do not have a patent as it is pretty much a part of all the 3D art applications and has been for some time. Also, these are by no means light on system resources. Basically it is a grayscale texture layer that has a Z axis.

Basically a lot of pixels means that the hardware must draw each of the pixels. Displacement mapping removes the polygons, but then the texture that shows "depth", a layer of gray that rises out from the polygon object like your hand beneath one of those office paperweights with all the pins.

It's impressive technology, but I haven't studied it to see if it causes more slowdown or less. Using my college's old Macs and the 3D Art applications that are generalized isntead of optimized for gameplay, ANY rendering takes a ridiculously long amount of time. We're talking enough time to get up and go fetch dinner.

However, it is not Nintendo's exclusive technology either. From looking at the patents, it seems that they are patenting processes to optimize it. . . but it is really hard for me to say because I'm a novice. . . not an expert.

When I learned about this in class, I wondered why no one had used it in shooters to dynamically create bullet entry wounds. The bullets could push against the displacement map.

My guess is that this is because displacement mapping, like normal mapping is all about optimization. They are probably just rendering the end result, and doing this "on the fly" wouldn't be practical.

If someone who is an artist wants to enlighten my ignorance, I'm more than willing to learn. Just replying with what knowledge I do have in order to raise the questions.

[Hellstorm]

I like how everyone knows for sure the end power of the Rev's GPU. The only thing that is known for SURE is that it is a custom version of the R520 GPU. Which is not exactly LAST gen technology AFAIK. Seeing as how the 360, PS3, AND the Rev will all support PS 3.0+, I wouldn't say it's last gen tech.

[Nite_Moogle]

If they're patenting it, it's probably for exclusive use in the Hollywood GPU that is being kept under wraps for no real apparent reason. MS and Sony weren't out to hide their GPU specs at all. This is the only reason I can come up with right now of why they'd be doing it.

[RMan]

The difference is historic...
Everything you said was either irrelevant, or just based on how things have been in the past. We know that consoles have always been the same, that doesn't mean they have to be the same in the future.
How are they NOT competing with each other?
The same way that the cars don't compete with eachother. The same way that a can of chili doesn't compete with a can of tuna fish, the same way that Lord of the Rings doesn’t compete with The Matrix, the same way any product in the same category but with different properties as another doesn’t compete with it because it appeals to a consumer in a decidedly different way. Again, this is not difficult for consumers to understand, or anyone not consumed by their irrational hatred for Nintendo.

[RMan]

My guess is that this is because displacement mapping, like normal mapping is all about optimization.
Yes, advanced displacement mapping is FAR more time consuming than bump mapping (and requires tools and high quality models to generate maps, unlike bump/normal mapping which can get away with simpler methods). With modern hardware, to make it effective the hardware pretty much has to do it, no amount of clever rendering code will make it work well for finely detailed stuff. If they effectively pull it off, it’s a cool technique though, but traditionally the promise of it has always been far more exciting than any practical application of it. If they do pull it off though, to actually use it effectively (like in the pics from that link) you still have to make very high detail models that are rendered onto low detail ones, so if developers use it that much it’ll be pretty similar development costs to the “HD content” costs they want to stay away from.

[Nite_Moogle]

If they do pull it off though, to actually use it effectively (like in the pics from that link) you still have to make very high detail models that are rendered onto low detail ones, so if developers use it that much it’ll be pretty similar development costs to the “HD content” costs they want to stay away from.
But won't doing that make it theoretically possible to port things to the Revo that might also be developed for the 360 or PS3 and get a comparable graphics turnout?

[RMan]

But won't doing that make it theoretically possible to port things to the Revo that might also be developed for the 360 or PS3 and get a comparable graphics turnout?
Yes. However, I'd currently be very skeptical that they've really pulled that off, first off it's not exactly a "clever" thing like the controller, everyone’s been working on that one for years. Secondly, ATI’s doing their GPU, and this type of thing is really the domain of the GPU, not so much the rest of the system, and although ATI could have been working closely with Nintendo on implementing a patent that Nintendo owns, I doubt it. I’m just guessing here, if ATI or Nintendo says definitively (IOW, they SAY it, not just imply it) that it’s there, then it likely is, but for now I just doubt it.

[Player 1]

Everything you said was either irrelevant, or just based on how things have been in the past. We know that consoles have always been the same, that doesn't mean they have to be the same in the future.

Well, EXCUSE me for not basing my statements on wild speculation about uncertain things that haven't happened yet. You're right - gazing into your crystal ball is far more likely to yield a realistic outcome than bothering with silly concepts like history, market trends and facts.

The same way that the cars don't compete with eachother. The same way that a can of chili doesn't compete with a can of tuna fish, the same way that Lord of the Rings doesn’t compete with The Matrix, the same way any product in the same category but with different properties as another doesn’t compete with it because it appeals to a consumer in a decidedly different way.

All of those are, essentially, marketed as the same things and sold to the same customers: those wishing to buy a car, eat food, watch a movie. They may appeal in a different way, but they are aimed at the same consumer. They are competing products.

Now, a car isn't competing with a tin of tuna nor Lord of the Rings. They all satsify different consumer demands. Your example PERFECTLY demonstrates what competing products are - pairs of products that aim to satisfy the same consumer demand. You can argue technicalities but the overall picture remains the same. You just refuse to accept it in favour of regurgitating Nintendo PR.

Again, this is not difficult for consumers to understand, or anyone not consumed by their irrational hatred for Nintendo.

None of this is difficult for anyone whose grasp on simple logic hasn't been blurred by the need to stand between their preferred box of circuits and any form of criticism directed at it.

Really - your argument just highlights what a loose grip on real-world mechanics you have. Venture outside the gaming bubble you live in and see the truth.

I'm not saying anyone's DOOMED, I'm just keeping my head out of the clouds.

[RMan]

Now, a car isn't competing with a tin of tuna nor Lord of the Rings.
I never suggested they did, but again, if Starkist launches their new line of tuna fish, and you say "OMG, this thing has absolutely no beans in it at all!!!!", then Starkist says "We are not competing with Hormell, this is tuna fish!", then you'd call them a liar? Well, you might, but most people wouldn't (most people wouldn't be infuriated or baffled by the concept of eating something that’s not chili). Clearly you have made up your mind that Nintendo is somehow misleading you, and no amount of logic will sway you, so I'm not going to waste any more time on you, this was mostly for the other people watching that may believe you're silly anti-Nintendo rants anyway.

[Player 1]

You can argue technicalities but the overall picture remains the same. You just refuse to accept it in favour of regurgitating Nintendo PR.

Saves me having to re-type it. :rolleyes:

[bean19]

I never suggested they did, but again, if Starkist launches their new line of tuna fish, and you say "OMG, this thing has absolutely no beans in it at all!!!!", then Starkist says "We are not competing with Hormell, this is tuna fish!", then you'd call them a liar? Well, you might, but most people wouldn't (most people wouldn't be infuriated or baffled by the concept of eating something that’s not chili). Clearly you have made up your mind that Nintendo is somehow misleading you, and no amount of logic will sway you, so I'm not going to waste any more time on you, this was mostly for the other people watching that may believe you're silly anti-Nintendo rants anyway.

Except in this case, they are both selling tuna fish.

One is premium tuna fish with high-definition vegatable oil, and the other is eaten with an innovative spoon. ;)

[Rakael]

Except in this case, they are both selling tuna fish.

One is premium tuna fish with high-definition vegatable oil, and the other is eaten with an innovative spoon. ;)

Slick. Not that I agree with everything you say, but that was just slick.

[RMan]

One is premium tuna fish with high-definition vegatable oil, and the other is eaten with an innovative spoon. ;)
Hehe, and MS would have you believe there is no spoon :). Time will tell how different it is, but I'm sure getting tired of the same old food (although tuna is still good).

[Ravenlock]

The more I hear about Revolution and Nintendo's attitude about it, the happier it makes me. If it weren't enough that the console was set to be cheaper than everybody else's AND be backwards compatible with GC, N64, etc etc etc etc, they've also got their heads firmly in the right place as far as I can tell regarding the graphics, the controller, etc.

The possibilities of that controller *excite* me, much more than extra polygons or bump mapping. Doom III's shadows were very pretty, and the gameplay was awful. For the last 15 years we've watched companies fight each other to make games LOOK better. Nintendo continues to focus their efforts on finding ways to make games BE better.

Heck, this is liable to get me all misty.