Revolution's graphical abilities to equal competition

I am sick of people saying that they don't have money for a $3,000 HD TV. You can get a decent HD TV for under $500. People are willing to throw down that much money for something they will play on a TV but not that much for a TV. It doesn’t make much sense to me. For under $1000 you can get one hell of a TV. You won’t be able to hang your TV on the wall like a Rembrandt but it will have a better picture and save you money.

Kids are calling the Xbox 360 Xbox 1.5 and it gets annoying. It seems that people are forgetting that the PS3 will look about the same as the 360. The Revo will not support HD (they said that they will support 480P but may not support any higher.)

I am a fan of good games but I also want my games in HD. I don't give a rats ass about BC I have played most games that I wanted to play when they came out. It would be cool though if the Revo took the BC one step further and added new levels to games of the past but I am not going to spend money on games that I played the shit out of 5-20 years ago. Retro is a fad for “newbie gamers” that either were living in a cave the last 5-20 years or were not born yet. I still play an old game now and then but only about 5% of my gaming is with games more then 5 years old.

Posted Oct 31, 2005, 5:45 PM ET by darryl

"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.

-----

So you have programmed and have access the PS3, Revo and the 360?

I doubt it. Why are you using your personal opinion as fact? Also how can you make any judgment what so ever about the internal engineering of 3 systems that are not even on the market yet and 2 of the systems are still in a beta form?

Forget the NDA for a moment, if this guy can comment on the graphics then so can I. What I saw of the Revolution demos (not the tech demos) was nothing short of incredible. As for HD output; I wouldn't worry. After all if the Rev can connect to a monitor then HD is given especially when most monitors native resolutions are at least 1024x768. Welcome to the hype train.

Maybe it was just the projector they used, but they had the Cube/Rev Controller tech demos playing once, with its obvious GC resolution. And after the Rev which had a much higher quality image. It was just amazingly sharp and the textures where phenomenal.

Can't we just wait until we see the games before we make judgement calls based on 4 word statements, “difference will not exist”.

Also, great graphics and HD quality video output doesn't make great games. Great game design does.

I love fanboys!!!

But seriously, the Rev might have graphics on par with PS3 and 360. People just seem to believe that it won't because the Gamecube lost (barely) this gen even though the graphics were better than PS2.

But hey, what the hell do I care, I'm getting it no matter what along with a PS3 and 360.

Woot, bring on next-gen!!

"There won't be any significant differences in the graphics of Revolution compared to Xbox 360 and PS3."

I could have told you this years ago. In fact, let me go on record as saying Revolution2, Xbox3, PS4, and DreamCast2 ;) will also not be significantly different in hardware power. Certainly the consoles will not be equal, but the differences will not be significant enough to make much of a difference in the long run. Nintendo would miss out on potential ports if their system was drastically inferior. Historically, Nintendo has made more effecient use of the hardware, like in the GameCube. They just didn't dump a bunch of computer parts into a PC case and lose 4+ billion dollars over the system's lifetime. Nintendo has done well in the graphical capability department without needing to hype the hell out of the specs to sell systems.

I don't see the massive Sony marketshare being effected by the fact the other consoles are more powerful. No different this time around. Sony will probably maintain dominance in the market and it doesn't matter how powerful the Xbox360, PS3, or Revolution is. They will all be very similar.

Only delusional fanboys actually thought the Revolution would be outclassed graphically.

Of course, since Nintendo went on record as saying they did not agree with where MS and Sony were going with their games (same game, updated graphics)... so it follows that Nintendo must be going with GC-esque graphics..right?

Of course not. Nintendo learned from the DS success that if you make your system easy to develop for and cut costs (no HD) where acceptable, you can get a big installed base and the games can sell cheap (since you have multiple profit streams) and everyone wins.

The headline for this 'article' just shows that Joystiq got wrapped up in the 'Revolution will have GC graphics' BS.

would you all please SHUT UP

thank you

PHANTOM RULEZ!!!

The Revolution will be just as powerful as the PS3 and Xbox 360. It will also be 1/4 the size and retail for only $29.99. Dont forget it can also bake cookies and wash you car every sunday afternoon!!

I think what Nintendo is trying to say that it will match the same graphical effects and texture qualities of XBOX 360 and PS3, but at the standard resolution.

The reason that XBOX 360 and PS3 need so much power is because they making HD resolution a standard in all their games, which requires much higher hardware requirements.

Nintendo by removing HD can alleviate the burden of needing a console as powerful as xbox 360 or PS3.

A PS3 runs at 1080p, not i-interlaced and it uses blu-ray discs (25-54Gb)

Huh!? there will be a difference, mark my words!

I played the 360 today at Walmart, and I gotta say... meh. I have totally been for the 360. I have my preorder in and I have been awaiting it's release anxiously, but I just wasn't very impressed by it. Maybe the next wave of games will be worth it, but I'm honestly thinking of getting my money back and waiting until the PS3 is released to decide which way to go.

The only thing that has truly wowed me has been the new NBA 2K. That game looks incredible from the videos and it's what convinced me to put down my preorder, but I'm startin to feel like it's not enough. Madden doesn't look so great to me and that would have been a big selling point (damn exclusivity... I want an NFL 2K 360 in the worst way), and I played the demo games and thought... where's the rest of the graphics? Seriously, it was a difficult realization to make, but I am officially not excited about it anymore. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, though. I want to love the 360... I really do.

#22 sounds logical. I mean,really. Without all of that multimedia stuff that some of us aleady have, the Revo could be graphically on par with the other two. This is basically a system built for nothing but gaming. So, with that in mind, the machine would also be good with graphics since games and graphics would be the main thing in the system. It really makes sense #22.

Cheer up bucko, at the very least you can use your nice new xbox controller on a PC where you'll always have the best graphics, even if the best is only 'meh'.

If it makes you feel any better, we're all in the same boat

Sad, ain't it.

It's going to be funny when all the consoles have games that look exactly alike. But the Revolution is going to have a kick ass control scheme.

For the record, I'm buying all 3 systems, so don't give me any crap.

"62. Posted Oct 31, 2005, 9:03 PM ET by b
It's going to be funny when all the consoles have games that look exactly alike. But the Revolution is going to have a kick ass control scheme.

For the record, I'm buying all 3 systems, so don't give me any crap."

Stop using my nickname, asshole! God, damn it.

> The reason that XBOX 360 and PS3 need so much power is because they making HD resolution a standard in all their games, which requires much higher hardware requirements.


Not everyone has HD, and Microsoft is totally pushing HD a little too much. Most will probably play games in standard resolution, giving everyone an equal footing.

OK, joystiq, HELLO

"> The reason that XBOX 360 and PS3 need so much power is because they making HD resolution a standard in all their games, which requires much higher hardware requirements.


Not everyone has HD, and Microsoft is totally pushing HD a little too much. Most will probably play games in standard resolution, giving everyone an equal footing."

Why is this guy STILL posting with my nickname? Why won't you ban him as you wanted to do with me for ridiculous reasons?

All this talk about size matters. I've seen a GCN push more polys than a current gen X-box. Yes its true. Their are some games that the little cube beats the cock-box at. I've give you the link but its lost in the G4TV forums somewhere. (hey, fanboys with no life, want to find that for me?)
As for HD well even the US government says we won't be ready for HD until sometime in 2007 but possibly not until 2009. Sure somepeople will have the $$ to buy a $3000+, 91 inch TV thats all HD ready but thats the same family that will buy all 3 consoles.

If the Rev is similar at all to the GC in comparison, it will have satisfactory graphics. And minimal load times, the ps3 will probally be just as bad for loading as the ps1&2, and the 360 will be somewhere in between. I don't know about anyone else but I enjoy games alot more when I'm not waiting 2 minutes for the next level to load. Graphics wise I don't see why the Rev wouldn't be able to compete. Look at the dreamcast, shenmue 2 has graphics that rival the latest ps2 games and its pretty wimpy in comparison

#50, why buy an HDTV when my current 3 TV's are working just fine? It all has the same programing, and the FCC supposedly isn't selling off the analog signals till '09. Even then, I would still have quite a while till everthing is HD.

Heck, the new DVD types (HD and Blu-Ray) are kinda being rushed, seeing as VHS is just starting to be phased out.

For most of the world, there is just no reason to get an HDTV.

"Why is this guy STILL posting with my nickname? Why won't you ban him as you wanted to do with me for ridiculous reasons?"

Your nickname is one fucking letter, b. Not even Microsoft could bribe enough judges to protect THAT name.

Hey B, sorry to tell you but B isn't a username, it's a letter of the alphabet, it's not like your nickname is original and someone copied it. Get over it dude.

ANYBODY PLAY THE 360 IN PERSON W/ HD???? Doesn't make hardly any difference, except the fact that you CAN SEE ALL THE JAGGS!!!!!! I've played it several times cause i work right next to a flippin' eb games, and i don't understand why microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot with mediocre playable games in stores, i can't tell you how many times i've watched someone say,"gosh, my friend's computer can do that," or, "this isn't that big of a difference" those aren't my quotes, those are several other gamers quotes. Why are you going to have KING KONG playable when the console versions look almost as good!?? Seriously, and show me an xbox game that looks that much better than RE 4??? on GAMECUBE or PS2 for that matter!!!! it's all in the programming people, just cause you have high definition, doesn't mean it will look that much pretty if you don't encorporate good Anti-aliasing techniques or textures, it's all in the developer's hands, and trust me, nintendo might just have a few good ones in their back pocket

I've played the 360's version of Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty 2 on my PC with almost all the settings maxed out (AMD64 3500+, 1gb ram, geforce6800) and I still think the 360 looks a little better. The textures looked good and it had a good framerate. I plan on buying all 3 systems and I do have an HDTV and the higher resolution does make a difference. Just play a pc game at 800x600 and then at 1024x768, it makes a difference. I really hope the Rev will support at least 720p. True they are saying that HD wont really be a widespread standard til 2007 or 2009 but consosoles are usually around at least 4-5 years. The Rev will be coming out in 2006. That gives its estimated death around 2010-2011. A time when HD will be a standard. As in more people will have HDTVs then standard def TV. Each year there is a huge jump in the % of people with an HDTV. Go into an Ultimate Electronics and try to buy a standard def TV. They just dont really have them anymore. It would be a huge mistake for Nintendo to not at least support HD

If Nintendo really thought their games looked as good then why haven't they showed any of them off? It's because they don't look as good. I think they believe that people will be initially turned off by the lack of graphics that can't compare to what MS and Sony are showing and they want the controller to be the focus of everyone's attention right now. I'm sure that the Nintendo first party rev games look exactly like GC games. Why? Because Nintendo's games don't use all the fancy graphic tricks that realistic looking games like Splinter Cell or Metal Gear use on the other systems. Mario on the GC doesn't really look much different than he did on the N64 because he is a simple cartoony character. No amount of polygons, normal mapping, bump mapping, parralax mapping, ray tracing, per pixel lighting etc will make a difference in a Mario game or any Nintendo game for that matter. Only a third party developer will push the system to where we can compare the graphics to 360 and PS3 similar to how RE4 is the GC game everyone brings up when comparing graphics on the current gen.

That depends on the next incarnation of Zelda, and of course in Metroid.

BTW. I've been looking at the 3 second clips of MP3 and i can tell you that while they don't show much, we can deduce that it's capable of:
Soft Self Shadowing
Lighting Bloom
HDR (though it could be the camera.
Depth of field
Early Normal maps (some of Samus's suit appears to have it while some doesn't - also the ground looks better than bump maps)
Advanced partical and volumetric fogging effects
per pixel lighting using at least a phong lighting model
specularity
environment maps (not full on reflection)
Depending on whether it's in engine or just animation, it may have destructible geometry.

Some Stuff it doesn't have:
motion blur
radiosity/diffusivity/any really advanced volumetric and pixel level lighting stuff.
procedural texture stuff
lensing effects (kinda depends on the context)
Genuine reflections
Displacement maps (crazy ass maps)

In my opinion all you need to make things look really cool (in stills) are:
Motion Blur
Normal mapping
Bloom lighting
Decent shadows
Decent texture resolutions (texels usually smaller than pixels)
Decent specularity
Reflections are nice but tricks are good enough
And if anyone could do it in hardware, sub-surface scattering does wonders.

The rest adds realism, but not the kind of boosts that make the extra power needed worth it.
So long as it handles some decent geometry (and the backround indicate it probably can), then this early engine is on its way to what's needed. Yes I know it doesn't look like Gears of War yet. But bear in mind the stage of development, the art assets look incomplete and they show us a really restricted view, then the engine (and what revolution) looks well on its way to delivering.

I think if nintendo could get away with it they would just given us the download service and the ability to use that controler for the GC instead of making a new system.

I dont think graphics need to get any better than they already are. a game is a game. it shouldnt try to imitate life compltley. if anything they should get worse. i hate the fact that games take so damn long to make.
thats why i like the idea that revs download service could be hacked for the use of homebrew. there are alot of good games on newgrounds imagine if some of those people had the opportunity to make the game more immersive and be able to distribute it around the world quickly and for ass cheap.

i dont know. im rambling. its like 3 am.

When was the last time you bought a game for the graphics? I can't tell you when I did and I bet many of you are the same. I am a long time gamer with plenty of games and systems and all that I have learned is that what makes a game great is how much fun you have while you are playing it. This is independent of the graphics of the game. High polygon counts can't hide bad gameplay. I can't wait for new types of gameplay, all the games coming out these days are the same thing and I'm sick of it. Sign me up for a revolution(and probably a 360 for the media center stuff).