Revolution's graphical abilities to equal competition

Xbox360 and PS3 running at 720p and 1080i for select games. No HD plans for Revolution. Yes Mr. Merrick, there is a difference.

Wow, well, theres a shitload more news then just this little tidbit, like, alot of Nitnendo Wi-Fi news. This was like, the least important of all the news.

http://www.n-philes.com/index.php?id=2005

"difference will not exist"

BIG BIG words. These words will come back and bite Nintendo in the ass if a difference does, in fact, exist. These are definitely interesting times!

There's no chance in hell Revolution will equal 360 or PS3 in a case the size of "3 DVD Cases".

MS carefully designed the 360 care to facilitate as much airflow as possible as well as a water-cooled solution.

ignoring the obvious lack of 720p/1080i video modes.

It's actually a bit larger than 3 DVD cases. If you look at the size of the console, you have to add some inches around a "3 DVD case" sized-box in order for the disc drive and controller ports to fit correctly.

Also, I believe that the translation was "significant" difference.

If there is to be no difference, I doubt that projected Revolution price of $99 is worth a damn now. No way can there be no difference in graphics if it costs a third or fourth of the price of the other ones. Well maybe, if you have to buy a controller for $99 and a power source for $99 and RCA cables for $99...lOl

What the hell does it matter what the games look like? When you start having FUN with a game the graphics melt away.

If graphics mattered, the PS2 would have never survived in a world with Dreamcasts, Xboxes and GameCubes.

But he actually didn't say that. He said that gamers will see not a big difference in terms od graffics in neather the trhee consoles... and that is not even the important news about that interview is all the wi-fi things for revo and ds and the fact that revolution mayl have a sistem like the nintendo DS where you can share play a multiplayer game in many consoles with ony one copy of the game. The fact that people will be able to buy games not released in their region and the possibly videogame trailers and rentals via nintendo online.

I think revolution will have actually less graphical improovment compared to the PS3 and te X360, but the fact that they are not going to suport hi def will make their games run smoother with more poligon count or special fx since they are gonna run on lower resolutions.

Yeah, I think he meant we wont see a difference much in the same way we dont see a difference between GCN and PS2. Yes, there is a difference, a significant one, but to the untrained eye, its still pretty damn close.

it will be like comparing a ps2 to an xbox in terms of difference. The ps2 has a 300mhz processer while the xbox has a 700mhz. Many people will just not see any difference

I wouldn't be so sure about that missing HD quite yet, but even if it is true, it won't really look that bad compared to HD if it just has really good FSAA, high-res textures & normal maps and the works. You don't usually sit that close to TV anyway to notice every single pixel.

And yes, I do have a HDTV and I'm planning to get a 360 so I'm not being biased. Just realistic.

The graphics for all the new consoles should be pretty comparable to one another. The real difference will be software, what is exclusive to that console.

Nintendo has NOT said they aren't doing HD.
They also haven't said they are.

They've said they're considering it. So people are jumping the gun a bit here.

Personally I think they're hedging against HD, knowing damn well that on a normal TV their cheaper system can do anything the expensive systems can, but on HDTV they'll fall behind. I think they just assume HDTV won't catch on as much between now and the next system.

The FCC claims we won't be all-digital for at least 5-10 years, so that's not an unfair assumption, but still a poor decision, I think.

"it will be like comparing a ps2 to an xbox in terms of difference. The ps2 has a 300mhz processer while the xbox has a 700mhz. Many people will just not see any difference"

ugh. that's a lousy attempt.

the CPU in the PS2 and the CPU in the Xbox are no where near compatible to compare Mhz. Its a totally different architechure. You can't even compare AMD and Intel Mhz, let alone Xbox and PS2.

He is probably talking about games in 480i/p. There will not be a difference between the three games running in that resolution on standard TVs. The Revolution will probably have enough horsepower to run in that resolution that can compete with the Xbox360PS3 when they are running on standard TVs.

However since the Revolution is not supporting HD, it is not going to be able to output in 720 and 1080, which is where the difference will be, especially HD TVs that support those resolutions.

Revolution will have graphics = Xbox 360 and PS3
or the Revolution will be more affordable than Xbox 360 and PS3. Take your pick Nintendo, you can't have both.

Smiling Politely is right, if any of you would have paid attention to the news about the Revolution, you would have heard Iwata and Miyamoto say "There is very little difference, on a standard TV."... On an HDTV, there will be a big difference, but seriously, how many people really have an HDTV? The HDTV market is small. The majority of people won't be able to tell the difference.

I hate to burst peoples bubbles, but its true. If you have a PS 3.0 GPU wit decent fillrate and bandwidth, then graphically they can compete to the casual and untrained eye. Gears of War was first shown at E3 of 2004 and looked almost exactly the same. Considering that the revolution will likely be about as graphically powerful as that setup, then the unreal 3.0 engine and other uses of normal and parralax mapping will definitely allow them to compete. not in HD though.

YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PS2 AND XBOX GRAPHICS UNLESS YOUR BLIND. PS2 HAS NO WHERE NEAR THE GRAPHICAL EDGE THAT XBOX HAS. UNLESS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SHITTY 3RD PARTY GAMES.

Actually, the gamecube has graphics that are better than a PS2 and almost on level with Xbox, (cross platform games are great to compare with) and it costs a dungload less than PS2/Xbox (while N actually manages to make a profit on console sales, touchez Sony/MS hardware designers), so I'm wagering that they can make a low cost system with great graphics so long as, like they have in the past, they put all their design and system resources into GAMING. I already have 3 dvd players, a computer with 400gigs of HD space for movies and music, so I don't need another "entertainment" console, I need a GAMING console.

We're already going to be getting Nintendo Wifi for free (nintendo-published games at least), as well as download and play on the Rev, as well as freaking Metroid Prime 3 with the wand, so I'm feeling pretty pleased with N so far. I'm gonna be saving for a console, not a 3 grand TV, so HD means nada to me, and if I REALLY want, I'll hook it up to a KVM switcher so I can play through my 19inch LCD computer screen.

I honestly don't care about the graphics on the revolution. What nintendo is doing with the way we interface with games is truly going to "revolutionize" gaming for the better, i can't wait. I've been playing games since i was 3 years old (23 now btw) and very few games have actually made me laugh or even smile out of enjoyment of playing the game. Kirby's game on nintendo was the first one in a reallllly long time to do that. The one before that was super smash bro's, and before that mario 64. NO ONE can beat nintendo in pure enjoyment of playing the games, and i'm not a nintendo fan boy, i dont own a gamecube or a DS merely becuase there aren't enough games to keep me intrested on those systems. But the few that i do play are usually great experiences.

The revolution is really small, not because it won't be powerfull, but because it won't include all those Multimedia crap options that the Xbox1.5 and the PS3 will have.

still, i'm getting a PS3 ;)

Ok wth...who stole my name? :-P

"There's no chance in hell Revolution will equal 360 or PS3 in a case the size of "3 DVD Cases"."

You obviously have no seen side-by-side shots of Gamecube and Xbox games. The Gamecube is more then capable of holding it's own...now if only more companies would have taken advantage of it :-(

"a diffence will not exist"

it's a pity you can't say the same thing about the size difference between the Rev consoleand the others...you have your little wee Revolution...your gigantic george foreman griller...and your big futuristic looking suitcase...Nintendo owns.

btw mike:
There's no chance in hell Revolution will equal 360 or PS3 in a case the size of "3 DVD Cases".

look at the size difference between the psp and the PS2,and yet they look identical graphically.

the other thing is all the first round games are only taking advantage of 1 of the cores in the Xbox360 and probably the PS3, they just dont have multicore game engines out yet.. So Nintendo will be pretty comparable in the beginning.

Today's "irrational capitalized post" award goes to B...

How difficult and expensive would it be to implement hd? Wont the revolution be capable of outputting 720 progressive scan... That wouldnt look too bad.

"look at the size difference between the psp and the PS2,and yet they look identical graphically."

I dunno about "identical" but theyre sort of close...the PSP is about 20-30% less powerful then the PS2.

'On an HDTV, there will be a big difference, but seriously, how many people really have an HDTV?'

Damn... I have HDTV. Oh, well, I'm still gonna get the Rev. Maybe Nintendo will allow people with HDTV to have their Revs modified, although they might have to chip in a few extra bucks.

'There's no chance in hell Revolution will equal 360 or PS3 in a case the size of "3 DVD Cases".'

Technology these days. If a PSP can have nearly the same graphics as a PS2, then I think the Rev is possible to have graphics that are nearly the same as the PS3 and the 360. Let's wait till we see some screenshots, then we can bitch about how many polygons each system can push. I honestly don't give a damn about the graphics, I just want to see some games, now!

Posted Oct 31, 2005, 3:17 PM ET by Scott

Xbox360 and PS3 running at 720p and 1080i for select games. No HD plans for Revolution. Yes Mr. Merrick, there is a difference.

-------------------

Nice try, but that has nothing to do with the actual GRAPHICS.

You have to care about the graphics on revo. Good graphics improve gameplay experience, gives the game good atmosphere, and brings the characters to life. If the graphics are shitty the gameplay is shitty. For example: Picture A movie having a excellent storyline, but bad acting, it would ruin the movie.

(off topic) my friend said that shenmue 1 for Dreamcast has better graphics than tony hawk's american wasteland for xbox. plz give me your opinion so i can shut him up.

Some one mention the size of Rev and its power. I guess this person didnt realize that the Gamecube was the smallest this Gen and was on par with Xbox, which was phisically the largest system. If you think about it the GamCube is eccentialy the same dimenssion of 3 DVDs however it is spaced out differently.

If Xbox was so huge and now the 360 is smaller and managed to get out more power why cant the Revolution get out more power in relatively the same size.

"30. Posted Oct 31, 2005, 4:21 PM ET by b
You have to care about the graphics on revo. Good graphics improve gameplay experience, gives the game good atmosphere, and brings the characters to life. If the graphics are shitty the gameplay is shitty. For example: Picture A movie having a excellent storyline, but bad acting, it would ruin the movie."

Some smartass is using my screenname. I didn't write this.

"19. Posted Oct 31, 2005, 4:06 PM ET by B
YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PS2 AND XBOX GRAPHICS UNLESS YOUR BLIND. PS2 HAS NO WHERE NEAR THE GRAPHICAL EDGE THAT XBOX HAS. UNLESS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SHITTY 3RD PARTY GAMES."

And someone is using a "quite similar" nickname to mine.

Just for the record, this is 'b', the one that will definitely buy a Revolution, very likely a PS3, and last (but not least) a 360.

I'm doubtful about the price everyone has been guessing. Remember when the first news of the Gameboy micro came out? Everyone was guessing $50 and thinking it would be cool for that price.

If graphics are up to par, and there is more innovation, then there is no reason for Nintendo to leave money on the table. The price might be more like $249 to $349.

Well,if graphics don't matter then remember that next time you cry "Xbox1.5!" *tear*

Oh wait,360 graphics kick all kinds of ass,nevermind.

I'm sure the Revolution will be great too.I don't expect it to look like the 360/PS3 anyway,never did.

Hey, I would love to have a HDTV, but the fact is that they are too expensive. Maybe not for the smaller CRT ones now, but the nicer flat panel ones are still up there. A lot of people will be able to afford a next gen console before they can afford a nice HDTV. So how many people will be willing to pick up one with there next gen console? Especially if they don't have any off air or cable HD video? I would imagine I'll be playing whatever system I get on my 20" Toshiba anyway. Besides Nintendo have been a lot more factual with there news than either Microsoft or Sony. I have no reason to not believe that I'll be able to tell much difference on my little tv. Besides I like the fact they they aren't trying to impress you with video showing what there games SHOULD look like when they are finally running on final hardware. That means that they aren't trying to trick you or hype you up. When you finally see Revolution media it will be exactly what you get. No demos or pre-renders or bullshots...what you see is what you get. That does one thing for me. It establishes trust. I trust Nintendo, I can't say the same for either Sony or Microsoft.

I don't think that is accurate Joystiq. Nintendo has said that on a *Standard* TV the graphics won't look noticeably different. Right now they say they won't do HD, but they haven't fully ruled it out just yet. The Revolution *WILL* work on an HDTV, of course, it has 480p out (I think, is that the number?), so it'll look good, but not HD good. For instance, DVDs these days -- they look fantastic on HDs, but they're not HD content. In fact, I think they might even be 480p just like the Revo.

This was a conscious choice -- Nintendo has said that they want the Revolution to be cheap, small, and quiet, and *EASY TO DEVELOP FOR*, which means not HD. It'll still look good, just maybe not as good as PS3 or 360 on a full HD setup.

b (#29 or thereabouts) - "If the graphics are shitty the gameplay is shitty. For example: Picture A movie having a excellent storyline, but bad acting, it would ruin the movie."

Right idea, absolutely wrong analogy. I don't know why you changed "graphics" to "acting" because that just makes no sense. Leave it graphics -- are you honestly saying that a movie can't be good and would be ruined if the visual quality isn't superb? Have you heard of Citizen Kane? One of the greatest movies ever and decades old. Or what about 12 Angry Men? Awesome story, very enthralling without all the whizbang special effects and explosions. Your analogy basically shows why visual quality takes a back seat to a compelling story.

"You have to care about the graphics on revo. Good graphics improve gameplay experience, gives the game good atmosphere, and brings the characters to life. If the graphics are shitty the gameplay is shitty. For example: Picture A movie having a excellent storyline, but bad acting, it would ruin the movie."

Then how do you explain Tetris, or the original Pokemon games?

are they still planning on no HD? if so, this is a moot point...

M$ has been in the console business for a short time, that is why their consoles are less efficient in terms of size. I think the reason ps3 is gonna be big is because it has to support blu-ray and regular dvd and all sorts of new console 'monkey business'. The revolution just goes to show nintendo's experience in the field of home gaming console development. Their system will take advantage of new smaller technologies and be on par with other systems graphically and at a lower price (my guess being $249.99) With less crap inside they are moving away from ps3 and microsoft trying to provide a media center and are providing a game center instead.

The revolution will cost alot less and will be on par graphically because it is not a media center, it is a gaming center.

Well, i said it before, but i'll ask again, isn't rendering power directly related to the resolution you're outputting (and for that matter frame rate), at least when you calculate everything on a per pixel basis?

In this sense having 3 times the resolution (as the 360 does) means requiring 3 times the power to perform the same image effects (effects are usually now achieved by a number of pixel shader calculations made for every pixel in multiple passes). And doesn't requiring 3 times the power mean you need 3 times the silicon (at the same clock speed)? Taking silicon overheads into consideration maybe it's more like twice as much, but it should mean that if they used a similar GPU architecture to say the 360 then Nintendo can use a chip that costs Half The Price and produce graphics that look identical on 96% of televisions (everything standard definition)?

On the other hand Sony haven't mandated any such high resolution talk to their devs, though the support is there. This means that, assuming the PS3 does the same shader ops as the 360, a developer could concentrate those effects into more layers per pixel, producing graphics that look '3 times as good' as 360 on 96% of televisions. Of course the claims are that the PS3 does twice the shader ops of 360 of similar complexity (due to architectural differences), so in theory a 480p PS3 game could look up to 6 times as 'good' as a 720p 360 game.

Really, this mandate by Microsoft for developers to always support 720p is inflexible for them and a gift for Nintendo (and depending on how 'poserish' they want to look, good for Sony too).

Unless of course i'm wrong about the whole per pixel calculation thing. Can anyone correct me with an explaination if i am wrong?

Didn't N say that the REV would only be 2-3 times as powerful as the GC?

Nintendo has said they will do 480p; they haven't confirmed for certain that they will or won't be capable of 720p or 1080i (the former more likely than the latter). Nintendo's point was that they found (they claim) that only 1% of their user-base even had a TV capable of 480p, let alone 720p. Ironically, 90% of Nintendo's first party games have 480p support (all the way back to the GC's launch)...far more than the other two systems. Sony's HDTV support for the PS/2 has been pathetic, while Microsoft's has been generally inconsistent (but impressive when done correctly).

Part of the reason that Nintendo is being tight-lipped is the device is still in construction. Using dedictated hardware, the Revolution could still be fairly powerful. They didn't tout the 'cube's power, but it rivals the Xbox. With the right deals, Nintendo could produce a box that's close in power and significantly lower in price; how? I'll tell you: by not including stuff the device doesn't need. No multimedia extensions, no DRM hardware, no cell processors, no required connectivity with other devices from other company divisions or corporate partners, etc. Nintendo doesn't have to worry about connectivity to USB devices, connecting to a UPnP server, enforcing DRM restricitons or any of a host of other tasks that Sony and Microsoft are attempting. Nintendo isn't competing directly in that space; if I want an all-around media-hub, the Revolution will NOT be that box. If I want a box to interface with my iPod or PSP...again, wrong manufacturer.

Nintendo's strategy avoids the butter-eating contest that Xbox 360 and PS3 are engaged in; Right now, I'm planning on getting a Revolution and probably a 360. Sony really needs to come to plate with some honest to goodness content, and a self-indulgent Metal Gear Solid docudrama is not what I'm talking about.

Oh! #1 You forgot tell that PS3 run at 120FPS too!

big dick 8":

Shenmue is really freakin amazing! The character models are incredible and the world is huge, deep, interactive and full of life. Your friend may be right, especially when it comes to the texture quality in the Dreamcast.

kilthechair: I'm no expert, but afaik, it's not a 1:1 relationship. A lot of things factor into graphic power: buswidth, aperature, memory size, chipsets, feature sets and more. If a chipset includes some new features that make a particular type of rendering faster, for example (say support for trilinear filtering) then the same resolution can pump out more impressive effects.

One strategy that it sounds like Nintendo is counting on is that the Revolution will be fairly similar on the dev-kit side to the Gamecube, making development easier. This might be possible; imagine if RE:4 is a kick-off point for development on the new platform. If the Revolution launches with developers who have several years of development on a platform under their belts, then the games will look much better even if the hardware isn't as powerful, because the developers will understand what the hardware is capable of.

It should also be pointed out that Nintendo almost always underplays the capacity of their hardware. The cube was supposed to be much weaker than it actually is. I don't think the Rev will be able to match either the 360 or PS3 for pure, raw power; but I think it'll still be able to push the pixels.

We're now coming to the point where the turnaround time to develop the game is the limiting factor, not the hardware, I think.

I also doubt that there will be "no difference" with the Revolution's graphical capabilities when compared to the PS3 or Xbox360. However, there's a small chance that the difference won't exist.

But even if this Nintendo rep is exaggerating the graphical capabilities of a console, this isn't the first time this has happened (though it might be the first time that Nintendo has exaggerated, I don't know).

"The ps2 has a 300mhz processer while the xbox has a 700mhz."

Yeah but the Pentium 3 processor is junk. The PS2 uses a MIPS processor and other custom co-processors. You can't just compare clock rates and conclude one platform is better.

The xbox (version 1) is a PC with a general-purpose CPU. The xbox 360 is a different beast, though they're still using general-purpose CPUs, unfortunately. I'm certain the rev will be a better designed system then the 360 regardless of specs. From an engineering point-of-view, ps3 is 1st, rev is 2nd, and 360 is 3rd. In my (not humble) opinion.

"Yeah but the Pentium 3 processor is junk"

Hey Darryl:

You do realize that the Pentium 3 architecture is what is in a Pentium M? Also, you are of course aware that Intel's roadmap shows they are abandoning the Pentium 4 and sticking with the Pentium 3, right?

But you knew all that when you just bodly clamored that the Pentium 3 is junk.