StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hrm. It seems Nintendo learned it's lesson from the N64 here: Bits and processor speeds don't mean shit. They've definately won at least one purchase, and from the look of this thread, quite a few others. Hell, if they do go 99(Either at launch or a few months later), they'll make quite a few sales to folks already with one console, just because it's that cheap by comparison.

Brace for lots of 'Soft and Sony fanboys ranting about how the processor speed isn't enough for Next Gen graphics. Perhaps we'll hear them talk about burst processing too, or other such fun things.

Nintendo is continuing to bet high on this, but this is a move that can only work well.

This is probably why the Revolution isn't doing HD.

This is clearly aiming for those who do not have an HDTV. And do not want to get HD in the near term.

Kudos to Nintendo, this is business genious.

DarkSilver wrote: Nintendo has stated for sometime, that the Revolution wasn't looking to compete against the X360 or the PS3, since thier press conference at E3 2004. They've stressed that point in nearly every interview I've seen since then.

You've still had some people on this board like Praxis claiming that the Revolution might be able to be a wash with the X360 and only slightly less powerful than the PS3.

Personally, I have beleived the "Console Wars" was always about innovation of gameplay in the next generation, not just being able to slap a new face on a old product.

Maybe, but we don't know that is the case yet, all we've got is a handful of launch titles for the X360. Do you really think that Nintendo's launch games for the Revolution will be truly revolutionary? The Gamecube's certainly wasn't, it was merely a graphical rehash of last gen titles, with the exception of Pikmin.

Take the leap from the "16 bit" console days to the "32/64 bit" consoles - where before we were limited to a primarily "2d" path along a "3d" world (in the sense that the game world had it's own internal three dimensions, but we were limited to seeing it in two), we were able to have "true" three dimensional game worlds (Crash Bandicoot, Super Mario 64, Resident Evil). The current generation gave us more realistic physics ingame, more lifelike explosions and effects, etc.

Actually, if you compare the best of the Playstation era titles to the best of the PS2/Xbox titles, you'll see a lot more than that. The gap between PS1 and PS2 was huge graphically.

The next generation, what does it offer us? It doesn't offer us much in the way of new gameplay, it offers us High Definition resolutions. Where is the innovation?

Do you really expect true inovation merely with the launch of a console? Nintendo certainly can't promise that here, not without a single game demonstration to their name. Games come after the hardware, that much has been established already. Hell, most of the X360 launch games are either makeovers of existing Xbox games, ports, longer term ports, or quickies. There isn't a single truly next gen developed game in there. And that is exactly what happened last generation too (with the possible exception of Halo on the Xbox, but that was a truly special case due to a variety of factors).

The fact that the systems are more multimedia centers than game consoles? If I want a multi-media center, I will purchase hardware designed for that, if I want to rip music or surf the web, I will use a computer.

I heard the same crap last generation about the Xbox and the PS2. Very few of the "multimedia" features meant anything and in the case of the X360, none of these multimedia features cost them anything. Neither box is going to be any less of a games machines.

Sony and Microsoft, this generation, has given us hi-def graphics. This isn't something to rave and exclaim worthy of a new generation in my eyes (emphasised to make sure you see it's my opinion).

A gross simplification if I ever heard one. You don't realize the extent of the increase of graphical horsepower between the Xbox and X360 (or the PS2/PS3) and likely won't for a few months yet (although DOA4 might give us an idea). It's not just about HD, that's something that took relatively little horsepower to support.

Nintendo, in this instance, is moving thier console into the next generation, not based on Graphics (which they have already shown with the Gamecube, they can pull off with the very best of them), but which giving us a innovative way to play the games, as well as finding a way to keep the pricepoint down to acceptable levels for both the consumer and the developer.

The difference between the Gamecube and the Xbox was far closer than this data would lead us to believe about the X360 and the Revolution.

Until we see the console in action, we can 'oh' and 'ah' and grumble as much as we all desire, but to outright put down the system without seeing it? Just by going on the limited information we have, and automatically becoming disgusted because it doesn't live up to your expectations?

I'm questioning everyone rejoicing at this information. It's not necessarily a stupid move, but I hardly think it is cause for praise, certainly when graphics had driven the industry since its inception.

I beleive it is a bit premature. But, what do I know. I'm just a guy who likes to play games.

It's amazing how fast Nintendo fanboys can spin this information. Ever since this information was announced everyone has been praising Nintendo for being all about the games, without realizing that they haven't shown off jack shit in this regard. The only thing we've seen so far is a controller, and we still don't know if that is going to be anything but a gimmick.

skyman8081 wrote:This is probably why the Revolution isn't doing HD.

This is clearly aiming for those who do not have an HDTV. And do not want to get HD in the near term.

Kudos to Nintendo, this is business genious.

Let me make this clear so everyone understands: the hardware differences between the Revolution and the X360/PS3 are much greater than simply HD. Both the X360 and the PS3 should be able to utterly bitchslap this hardware even at standard definition resolutions if this information is correct.

I would be dubious of Nintendo's Revolution controller being a gimmick, hell I was... That was until I tried the DualScreen which I had been similary dubious of. If any group could carry it off, I'm pretty sure that Nintendo can.

All Nintendo has to do is be in the same general league as the 360 and PS3, and the low price will carry them. The Neo-Geo had uber graphics for it's era, but nobody fucking bought it because it cost like $600.

As for HD, who gives a shit? I don't know a single person who owns an HDTV.

SirNitram wrote:Hrm. It seems Nintendo learned it's lesson from the N64 here: Bits and processor speeds don't mean shit. They've definately won at least one purchase, and from the look of this thread, quite a few others. Hell, if they do go 99(Either at launch or a few months later), they'll make quite a few sales to folks already with one console, just because it's that cheap by comparison.

The "bits fallacy" is a bit different then discussing the hardware itself.

Brace for lots of 'Soft and Sony fanboys ranting about how the processor speed isn't enough for Next Gen graphics. Perhaps we'll hear them talk about burst processing too, or other such fun things.

Whether or not the hardware is sufficient depends entirely on what developers want to do. However, I would say that it will be difficult to port games from the X360/PS3 to the Revolution on this hardware, even in SD mode.

Nintendo is continuing to bet high on this, but this is a move that can only work well.

It's not going to win them any third party nods without at least close hardware parity which this doesn't give them. Considering this was their biggest weakness last generation (although for different reasons) I'd say it could be a pretty big weakness.

weemadando wrote:I would be dubious of Nintendo's Revolution controller being a gimmick, hell I was... That was until I tried the DualScreen which I had been similary dubious of. If any group could carry it off, I'm pretty sure that Nintendo can.

Oh, I know how good Nintendo is at pulling off high concept stuff like this. But I also know that this is a little far out even for them, especially given that third party devs are going to hate trying to eek out support for it on non-exclusive titles.

The Kernel wrote:You've still had some people on this board like Praxis claiming that the Revolution might be able to be a wash with the X360 and only slightly less powerful than the PS3.

That's because Praxis runs on blind faith more than anything else.

LordShaithis wrote:All Nintendo has to do is be in the same general league as the 360 and PS3, and the low price will carry them. The Neo-Geo had uber graphics for it's era, but nobody fucking bought it because it cost like $600.

As for HD, who gives a shit? I don't know a single person who owns an HDTV.

Just to back this up, the HDTV adoption rates are fairly low in the US.

After a quick googling, the statisitics show that in 2004: 2% of households with an income of less than $75,000 have an HDTV, and 12% of the households above that number have HDTV.[1]

Consumers are heavily influenced by price, Nintendo is probably going to do well this generation.

_____________
1: A study by the Leichtman research group.

The Kernel wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Hrm. It seems Nintendo learned it's lesson from the N64 here: Bits and processor speeds don't mean shit. They've definately won at least one purchase, and from the look of this thread, quite a few others. Hell, if they do go 99(Either at launch or a few months later), they'll make quite a few sales to folks already with one console, just because it's that cheap by comparison.

The "bits fallacy" is a bit different then discussing the hardware itself.

A bit, but it's still reaching the point where discussing software numbers gets academic. We're reaching the practical limits, lifelike graphics. There must be a change in paradigm, and Nintendo is embracing it early. As I say later in my earlier post, it's a gamble, a big one, but I see it as good.

Brace for lots of 'Soft and Sony fanboys ranting about how the processor speed isn't enough for Next Gen graphics. Perhaps we'll hear them talk about burst processing too, or other such fun things.

Whether or not the hardware is sufficient depends entirely on what developers want to do. However, I would say that it will be difficult to port games from the X360/PS3 to the Revolution on this hardware, even in SD mode.

This is quite possible. We'll need to see more to work out on that, but if, as I anticipate, Nintendo is going for different markets than the other two, or going for multiple-consoles(Which would be why they might embrace a 99 price tag), that won't hurt them much.

Nintendo is continuing to bet high on this, but this is a move that can only work well.

It's not going to win them any third party nods without at least close hardware parity which this doesn't give them. Considering this was their biggest weakness last generation (although for different reasons) I'd say it could be a pretty big weakness.

The practical limitations of graphics are being reached. They announced well over a year ago they're not focusing on that anymore. That you think it's news they're abandoning graphics processing for their already stated goal of being affordable, well, it shows you either don't pay attention or think reiteration is fun.

SirNitram wrote: The practical limitations of graphics are being reached. They announced well over a year ago they're not focusing on that anymore. That you think it's news they're abandoning graphics processing for their already stated goal of being affordable, well, it shows you either don't pay attention or think reiteration is fun.

You're kidding right? Practical limitation of graphics being reached? Who told you this? Graphics have a long ways to go and we haven't even started on raytracing, NURBS, true physics, etc.

The Kernel wrote:

SirNitram wrote: The practical limitations of graphics are being reached. They announced well over a year ago they're not focusing on that anymore. That you think it's news they're abandoning graphics processing for their already stated goal of being affordable, well, it shows you either don't pay attention or think reiteration is fun.

You're kidding right? Practical limitation of graphics being reached? Who told you this? Graphics have a long ways to go and we haven't even started on raytracing, NURBS, true physics, etc.

Fight Night Round 3 looks pretty fucking close to real-life to me. I'm not touching physics(It's a seperate question which'll require innovation in completely different ways). But Nintendo has declared they won't chase the increasingly diminishing-returns realm of graphics this time. I can't blame 'em much. The much-heralded upgrade for Halo on the 360 was antialiasing which a casual glance can't see.

LordShaithis wrote:All Nintendo has to do is be in the same general league as the 360 and PS3, and the low price will carry them. The Neo-Geo had uber graphics for it's era, but nobody fucking bought it because it cost like $600.

As for HD, who gives a shit? I don't know a single person who owns an HDTV.

600 dollars in what.. 1994 or 5? Console gaming has become more of a serious hobby. And the SNES came out IIRC at 299, the base cost of an X-BOX 360 unit. I'm not looking too brightly at the PS3 with it's possible 699 pricetag, but 299/399 for an X-BOX is not overly expensive. HD is also not the only capabilities the current gen brings to the table.

weemadando wrote:I would be dubious of Nintendo's Revolution controller being a gimmick, hell I was... That was until I tried the DualScreen which I had been similary dubious of. If any group could carry it off, I'm pretty sure that Nintendo can.

The Dual screen /is/ a gimmick. It may be different, but like blowing on the DS, it brings no better enjoyment of a game than a good control scheme. I can't see how a remote control with attatchments can change console gaming so much. It may be an interesting sidenote, like light guns were, but it won't 'revolutionize' much of anything.

Seriously though. The biggest appeal of the Revolution is it's ability to play 10 and 15 year old games. That's not going to let it compete directly with the 360 and PS3. Instead, by going the low cost route, they place themselves as a 'seperate' class. So a person may buy say.. a 360 or PS3, AND a Revolution if they're so cheap.

The Kernal wrote:

Dark Silver wrote:I beleive it is a bit premature. But, what do I know. I'm just a guy who likes to play games.

It's amazing how fast Nintendo fanboys can spin this information. Ever since this information was announced everyone has been praising Nintendo for being all about the games, without realizing that they haven't shown off jack shit in this regard. The only thing we've seen so far is a controller, and we still don't know if that is going to be anything but a gimmick.

I'll conceed all previous points - due to your higher knowledge of the subject material than my own - except for the above quote.

Perhaps, clarification is in order.

When I stated it was a bit premature, I meant in this generation. So far we have but one next-gen console out, and it's not even seen a full month in circulation as of yet. While I have stated the most we've seen in so far in the next generation is the talk about high definition graphics, it may not be the end all of it.

I am making no claim and holding it as the end all and be all for any of the consoles, until such time as they are out and played and we have had time to see what they are capable of.

While I will admit of being a fan of Nintendo's work and thier my previous statement may have sounded fanboyish, it was not my intent.

The Kernel wrote:

SirNitram wrote: The practical limitations of graphics are being reached. They announced well over a year ago they're not focusing on that anymore. That you think it's news they're abandoning graphics processing for their already stated goal of being affordable, well, it shows you either don't pay attention or think reiteration is fun.

You're kidding right? Practical limitation of graphics being reached? Who told you this? Graphics have a long ways to go and we haven't even started on raytracing, NURBS, true physics, etc.

I think practical limitations in this case does not refer to physics, but rather the ability to make meaningful content. There's only so far you can effectively go on texture detail, polycount, etc, before the improvements become barely distinguishable.

SirNitram wrote: Fight Night Round 3 looks pretty fucking close to real-life to me. I'm not touching physics(It's a seperate question which'll require innovation in completely different ways). But Nintendo has declared they won't chase the increasingly diminishing-returns realm of graphics this time. I can't blame 'em much.

I see no evidence of diminishing returns as of yet. Try watching Final Fantasy: TSW or Advent Children and tell me that graphics is hitting a wall. Both of those games could be done identically on a game console in real time with the proper hardware. There is no technological limitation preventing this.

The much-heralded upgrade for Halo on the 360 was antialiasing which a casual glance can't see.

You're kidding right? It's not an upgrade at all! It's a backwards compatibility that happens to add high res and AA as a plus, just like a graphics card on the PC does. Would you complain if you bought a 7800GTX for your PC and it didn't make a 5 year old game look better besides higher resolutions and AA? When Halo 3 comes out, THEN you can make a comparison.

Nephtys wrote: I think practical limitations in this case does not refer to physics, but rather the ability to make meaningful content. There's only so far you can effectively go on texture detail, polycount, etc, before the improvements become barely distinguishable.

I agree. I just disagree that it has been reached until photorealism is availible.

The Kernel wrote:

SirNitram wrote: Fight Night Round 3 looks pretty fucking close to real-life to me. I'm not touching physics(It's a seperate question which'll require innovation in completely different ways). But Nintendo has declared they won't chase the increasingly diminishing-returns realm of graphics this time. I can't blame 'em much.

I see no evidence of diminishing returns as of yet. Try watching Final Fantasy: TSW or Advent Children and tell me that graphics is hitting a wall. Both of those games could be done identically on a game console in real time with the proper hardware. There is no technological limitation preventing this.

It's a practical limitation. Namely, how much you want to spend. I'm sure we could sell a game console equivilent to the parallel computers hooked up to render that stuff... but do you really want to pay five digits for a game system?

The Kernel wrote:I agree. I just disagree that it has been reached until photorealism is availible.

Photorealism is actually more complex than just hardware. The ability to make content is a massive issue. Especially in the case of people, there are many ways to spot a fake that throws your disbelief way off.

How can they get away with so little ram, are they putting some unholy amount on the processor something?

InnocentBystander wrote:How can they get away with so little ram, are they putting some unholy amount on the processor something?

They can't deck out the processor THAT much, and maintain a price like that. The most likely explaination is that they'll use pretty much more comparable hardware to the last gen (X-Box 1 analogue?). Since remember that consoles don't need as much hardware as a PC to do the same stuff... um. Didn't the Bbox1 have only 128mb ram?

Nephtys wrote: It's a practical limitation. Namely, how much you want to spend. I'm sure we could sell a game console equivilent to the parallel computers hooked up to render that stuff... but do you really want to pay five digits for a game system?

It's a question of time, do I really need to inform you that although clock rates have slowed down, transistor doubling and parellelism have not? An X360 is still more powerful than a parallel computer cluster of a few years ago, it's just a matter of squeezing enough transistors into a machine, which we haven't seen a limit on yet.

The Kernel wrote: Photorealism is actually more complex than just hardware. The ability to make content is a massive issue. Especially in the case of people, there are many ways to spot a fake that throws your disbelief way off.

Which is why dev times on quality games have increased. But it will still happen, how do you think movie companies produce the models and textures for their CG movies?

The Gamecube managed to get away with so little RAM, as did the previous generation because of one thing (it looks like to me): their not using hi-def resolutions for thier graphics.

Please, someone with more knowledge correct me if I'm wrong, but the primary reason the PS3 and the X360 have 256mb and 512mb respectivly, is because of the 720i, 1020i and 1020p resolutions they offer, higher resolutions requires more system resources, thus the need for more RAM to go with thier processors.

By sticking with standard resolutions avialable on regular televisions today, they bypass this concern, and are able to keep the pricepoint of the system down.

The Kernel wrote:

SirNitram wrote: Fight Night Round 3 looks pretty fucking close to real-life to me. I'm not touching physics(It's a seperate question which'll require innovation in completely different ways). But Nintendo has declared they won't chase the increasingly diminishing-returns realm of graphics this time. I can't blame 'em much.

I see no evidence of diminishing returns as of yet. Try watching Final Fantasy: TSW or Advent Children and tell me that graphics is hitting a wall. Both of those games could be done identically on a game console in real time with the proper hardware. There is no technological limitation preventing this.

*SPEW* The Spirits Within? Advent Children? Games?!?!

I'm sorry, I had to record that for posterity. The keyboard'll need a wash.

I'm not going to argue it can't be done. But there are diminishing returns; the difference between the SNES and the N64 was huge, the Playstation and the PS2? Not so much.

The much-heralded upgrade for Halo on the 360 was antialiasing which a casual glance can't see.

You're kidding right? It's not an upgrade at all! It's a backwards compatibility that happens to add high res and AA as a plus, just like a graphics card on the PC does. Would you complain if you bought a 7800GTX for your PC and it didn't make a 5 year old game look better besides higher resolutions and AA? When Halo 3 comes out, THEN you can make a comparison.

Gosh, you talking about holding on for a while? I'm fine with waiting. But the differences so far isn't much. And as I said, this is nothing new.

Hopefully IGN is just bullshitting everyone. I doubt ATI and IBM would spend so much time developing the same parts only with better cache and clockspeeds. Mark Rein sure as hell won't be porting UE3 to this dude