Revolution graphics barely better than GameCube's

by Dan Choi { Nov 30th 2005 at 12:32AM }

The January 2006 issue of EGM features some more ammunition in the ongoing console flame war with reports that early Nintendo Revolution graphics are "barely better than those on GameCube."

From the Rumor Mill [all bolded text is Q's]: "Visually impaired

The Q hates being the bearer of bad news, but it comes with the territory (at least that's what the rumormonger handbook says). During a recent powwow with a few well-known gamemakers, some discussed their hands-on time with early Revolution development kits. OK, here it goes: According to those fellas, the graphics that Nintendo's next-gen system can produce are barely better than those on GameCube. Hey, sounds a lot like Xbox-Xbox 360."

That last line is a good reminder that we saw similar visual issues with 360 games early in development as well, and quite a few of those titles turned out decently in the end (for launch titles). Of course, if you're working with graphics hardware only 2-3 times more powerful than the GameCube's, don't expect a miracle in the graphics capabilities, especially with alpha or beta SDKs. The Revolution may get hyped to kingdom come, but there's a reason why screenshots aren't being released to the public until next year. Temper your launch expectations, and we should all rest a little easier… till E3 rolls around, that is.

[Thanks, aztech]

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

Xeres @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Even if graphics are only slightly better than those seen on the GameCube, I do not care. It is gameplay what matters and Revolution gameplay will improve massively on current generation consoles as well as 360 and PS3.

That is what counts. Plus GameCube graphics are excellent anyway, just take a look at Resident Evil 4.

Gary Larson's publicist @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Your comments: Hmmmm. Interesting. I really hope the graphics are at least nearly on
par with what Microsoft and Sony have to offer. If not, many will ignore the system and
write it off strictly on that.

Most of us know that the Rev's true strength will be in its (potentially) revolutionary
gameplay and the big N's back catalog.

I personally don't care if the graphics don't quite measure up to Sony and MS... I just want
to play games... and Nintendo should deliver in spades on that front with the little I
know about the system.

Time will tell.
--------------------

threefingeredlouie @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

I don't care if it shows 15 pixels per square foot-just get rid of that stoopid hairball controller!!

Will @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

I have heard this so many times "Its way better" "Its not way better" I have given up and I will just wait to see what it looks like firsthand at E3.

jago @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Looks like someone who thinks that holding a remote control is too hard.

This is of course only a rumor and all of it is RUMOR until the unveiling in May (or if something is leaked.)

/waits for all the Xbox fanboys to start saying that graphics are more important then gameplay

fa_pa @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

ha! who needs graphix anyway? lets get back to the roots: text adventures rock! and maybe the rev has enough power for antialiased text!

Mullinator @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

"That last line is a good reminder that we saw similar visual issues with 360 games early in development as well, and quite a few of those titles turned out decently in the end (for launch titles)."

Considering how long developers have probably had any specifications and hardware for this I wouldn't be surprised if they simply havn't taken full advantage of it yet.

Andy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

The biggest difference between current gen titles and next gen titles as far as graphics are concerned is normal mapping. As long as Nintendo puts out a console that can handle that there shouldn't be a problem, no matter how many polys it can throw around.

*crosses fingers*

michaelk @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

I don't care about graphics. Just make the games fun to play.

Seroth @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Yeah. It's only a rumor, so I'm taking this "info" with a grain of salt.

However, even if it's true, I'm not really that disappointed. Maybe the graphics won't look as good, but it'll still be more powerful than the Gamecube. You know how awesome Shadow of the Colossus was on the PS2, despite it's framerate problems? I'm sure the Revolution could handle a game like that...at 60 FPS.

We see amazing looking games like Gears of War on the Xbox 360...but when seen in motion, the framerate sucks. I'd rather have fluid-looking games in motion than pretty still screenshots.

SID SPACE @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Does anybody really expect Revolution's graphics to be its selling point? Personally, I will buy one regardless of the graphical capabilities. I currently own a Gamecube and am satisfied with its visuals, I expect Revolution to be no different. When the time (and worthwhile titles) comes I will look toward purchasing a PS3 for stunning graphics. Different systems have different selling points, resulting in different strengths and weaknesses. That's why no one system is "the best" (except in the eyes of a fanboy of course).

Michael Coderre @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

This kind of screams of FUD, especially considering Nintendo's more recent comments on the graphic capabilities of the Revolution (on par with PS3/360) and the power of the GameCube this generation. I don't trust EGM and I don't trust rumor sites, so I have no reason to buy into this.

One of the things I don't like about Joystiq is its tendency to play into misconceptions (kiddy!) and blatant favoritism (positive editorial slant on the 360, negative on the PS3 and Revolution). Of course, no site is completely objective and I don't hold it against anyone here. Still, a spade is a spade, and stories like this kind of bug me.

ish @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

we'll be hearing this one over and over

jopojelly @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

whoa whoa, "rumor mill","flame war"...not reliable sources i say.

And also...the quote says: �Visually impaired, the graphics that Nintendo�s next-gen system can produce are barely better than those on GameCube." -- Obviously if someone is visually impaired, the revolution graphics and gamecube graphics look similar, heck, a visually impaired guy might barely notice the difference between NES graphics and the GameCubes graphics.
Actually the fact that the visually impaired person can notice any difference shows the quality of the revolutions graphics.

--well, maybe i missinterpereted...heh

KidRichard @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Look, I know there is something to be said about graphics, but please, look at it this way: The better the graphics, the more people needed to render said graphics, the more money you'll need to shell out to catch a glimpse of said graphics. Yah, graphics can be pretty to look at, but I'm a poor student and I can't afford the price of video games as it is.

Also, when you're making a hasty retreat from a poorly planned ambush in some game (doesn't matter which game, its an example) are you really stopping to admire your reflection in the rippling pond? Heck no! You're too busy trying to save your neck.

I have to commend Nintendo for one thing, at least, and that is that they have the balls to try something new. Every second generation of hardware has had something new, while each in between improves upon the previous. NES era introduced the fun sprite based games while SNES era improved it. Playstation/N64 era introduced 3D environments, and PS2/XBOX/GCN improved upon that concept.

To be right honest, I don't want to see just another improvement, I want to see something new. If online content and better graphics are all that the XBOX 360 has going for it, then that better be some damn good online content.

Awesome-O @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

well it doesnt really matter, hardly any cube titles looked great even though it was more powerful then the ps2. the RE games (especially RE4 ;)) looked kick-ass but nothing really looked great and i expect the same with the revolution

Buddy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

The graphics on all three next generation systems will be roughly the same. This has been said over and over again by the companies themselves. How many times do we have to beat this horse?

To say "the graphics that Nintendo�s next-gen system can produce are barely better than those on GameCube. Hey, sounds a lot like Xbox-Xbox 360." is a compliment to how advanced the graphics on the original Xbox were, and how much of a leap they'll be for the PS2 which lagged behind. Look at the difference in graphics on EA's Madden from this year on the 360 to last year on the Xbox (based on the PS2) for a comparison between this and last generation.

The graphics from the PS2 to PS3 are improved. The graphics from the Xbox to the Xbox 360 are improved. The graphics from the Gamecube to the Revolution are improved.

Nuff said.

Dan Choi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Michael C.: we've posted quite a few articles about the hardware problems experienced by 360 owners and Microsoft's troubles selling the Xbox in Japan. Are those posts representative of a "positive editorial slant"?

jopojelly: "Visually impaired" was the in-bold heading for the Revolution rumor, not a part of the first sentence which followed. I'll add an extra space to the original post if it helps with the interpretation. =)

Kenofthedead @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

It reminds me of the rumour of how the Gamecube wouldn't be as powerful as the PS2.

Funny how that turned out.

Nmaster @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Last I heard, most development is still being done on GameCube hardware, not the Revolution stuff...

Besides, even if it's only 2-3 times more powerful graphically: think Resident Evil 4 times 3. Is that really that bad?

Hachi_roku @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Ppl keep talking about RE if I am right all resident evil games had prerendered backgrounds so if RE4 was like the others then its not that great graphics wise.

SetupWeasel @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

1up hates Nintendo. EGM owns 1up.

By the transitive property, "Q" should shut the fuck up.

Imp @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Early dev kits were slightly better than the Gamecube, and Broadway was only JUST finished.

okey

SID SPACE @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Hachi_roku: I'm guessing you haven't played RE4, but take it from me: I have played RE1,2, and 4 and, although RE1 and RE2 had pretty backgrounds, they were prerendered. RE4 is not prerendered. Yet it still manages to look as good, if not better than previous installments of the series. If you want proof, just go look at some of the gameplay trailers on IGN.

Andrew @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

The real question is: Who gives a shit?

The XB 360 was soley a next-gen console because it was 'supposed' to have better graphics, so people criticized it on its one next-gen feature which was lacking. The gameplay has inherently stayed the same for the 360, nothing new has been contributed to the console. You'll still get the same stupid mainstream FPSes and RPGs as well as the Racing game and the platformer.

Our good friend, the Revolution, isn't banking on graphics but gameplay. Which is, by the way, 4 billion times more important than graphics.

I suppose if you're one of those drones who buy Madden games every year then I suppose this is important since you only play games for their impressive polygon count and pixel shading techniques.

For the non-drones of us, this isn't really important. Graphics just drive up the cost of hardware, reducing the console's chance of sales. I'm sorry people, I play for gameplay, not graphics, the controller will be the best thing to come along to videogaming. People will sell their 360s and buy the Revolution.

I plan on getting one, and so should all of you.

Seroth @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

"Ppl keep talking about RE if I am right all resident evil games had prerendered backgrounds so if RE4 was like the others then its not that great graphics wise."

Haahaha...RE4 like the others...good one.

Nin10dude @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Personally, I don't think graphics better than the this current gen have really any usefullness at all. I mean, we can see what we're doing fine... Why else would we need better graphics?

redford227 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

This may have been mentioned in earlier comments, but EGM, to me at least, has become exceptionally critical of Nintendo. Their report on the REVO controller was prety sour in my view, and Im not even that big of a nintendo fag. The game reviews are usually okay, but previews and news stories about nintendo are written extremely critically and almost angry.

And that rumor mill guy is almost ALWAYS wrong on the important stuff.

jago @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Uhh...you been living under a rock dude? RE4 didn't have pre-rendered backgrounds...it was all real-time.

Forshor @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Couple of points here:

Their dev kits. 360 dev kits ran 3X as slow as the final hardware. Plus right now, the Gamecube IS the dev kit. So ofcourse they look O.G.

Also, the difference of power it takes to render a scene at 480p compared to 720p is huge. Then when you add hi-res textures, more polys - the amount of horsepower required ramps up exponentially. So to power a game with all those upgrades will actually need a system around 10x the horse power, not 3X.

It's simply easier to wait out Moore's Law until next gen and then your next console will be 8x more powerful (2 gens since release of console 2x more powerful than the one before).

Bendji @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Nothing new here ! We already know that the development of Revolution games has started on Gamecube kits !!! So it's not a surprise ! Besides, developers are just maybe using old gamecube games just to find out how to use the "freestyle controller" ( like it was shown at the TGS 2005 )... Nintendo already claims several times that they are not impressed so far with X360 or PS3 graphics, so just wait and see... We are all going to "WOW" the 9 may 2006 !!!!

Michael Coderre @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

"We've posted quite a few articles about the hardware problems experienced by 360 owners and Microsoft's troubles selling the Xbox in Japan. Are those posts representative of a "positive editorial slant"?"

No, they're not. They're evidence of a great, topical blog. As are stories praising Microsoft and the 360 for what it most definitely gets right. It's just that I'm seeing too many 360 puff pieces and too many FUD volleys at the competition not to say something. I can understand the excitement around the recent 360 launch and some of the lingering questions about the competition, but I guess I just prefer the more detached and balanced material I bookmarked this place for.

"...but there�s a reason why screenshots aren�t being released to the public until next year. Temper your launch expectations, and we should all rest a little easier�"

Then again, I'm almost positive you toss firebombs like this just to get all us fanboys in a tizzy.

NiNtEnDoWaRrIoR. @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

jim merrick said:a �difference will not exist� between the Revolution and its competitors in terms of graphical ability...

Satoru Iwata said:"If you are just going to compare the spec sheets and spec numbers, Revolution may not have an equal or higher number as the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360. But the fact of the matter is that if people are going to connect our machine and their machine to an ordinary TV set at home and try to compare the differences, I really don't think that they can tell such a huge difference between the machines.

Therefore EGM is a load of CRAP!!!!!
and they also failed at life.

Mephy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Gotta love half-truths.
Saying "early development kits" without knowing what's in them should prove something right there, considering most alpha kits were nothing more than slightly-improved Gamecube kits.
It's just Quartermann trying to incite yet another flame war. YAY.

r3tard101 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Lots of 360 games back in May looked like crap and look how they turned out. And these are just early stuff developers are working with. Wait until E3. I still expect Revolution to make my jaw drop(graphics-wise) than the 360 did!

BS @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

None of the games for the Gamecube even came close to using the cube's graphics hardware to its fullest, so even a 2-3x increase in hardware capability would be an impressive visual difference if developers utilize all the revolutions capabilities.

dj @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

What an asinine "rumor" from a biased magazine.

PS2 < Gamecube & Gamecube < Xbox; we all know that. X360 < Revolution & Revolution < PS3 based on the release schedule of these 3 consoles. Even though the Revolution is probably going to come out after the PS3 (which would negate the above logic), Sony designed the PS3 to be an uber powerful machine and Nintendo didn't. So the X360 came first and the Revolution will be more powerful than it (to probably the same minimal degree that the Cube and Xbox are) but less than the PS3. Whatever.

With that said, I don't know anyone that simply bought a game based on graphics and even if the gameplay sucked, continued to play it. Really, if the game sucks, it sucks, no matter how pretty it looks in 480p, 720p, 1080i, or whatever.

Dan Choi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

"'...but there�s a reason why screenshots aren�t being released to the public until next year. Temper your launch expectations, and we should all rest a little easier�'

Then again, I'm almost positive you toss firebombs like this just to get all us fanboys in a tizzy."

Ah, perhaps my intentions were not too clear with those lines. What I meant was that we can't expect great graphics out of early dev kits, rather than flamebait stating Nintendo's got something to hide until 2006. Sorry if that came across badly. Thanks for what praise you gave, however, Michael. We do what we can, but feedback helps.

Hachi_roku @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Seeing as how GC n Rev use the same architecture all they would have to do is make direct ports of indevelopment games and improve the visuals kind of like Eternal Darkness, or Too human since Gamecube is pretty much like X360 as GPU,CPU go. So that solves the launch game lineup, and maybe the graphics thing.

Mullinator @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Well I think it is pretty clear that this little bit of information means absolutely nothing right now and the previous statements by Nintendo saying that graphically there won't be much of a difference between the consoles still stands.

Clearly it is a rumour and even if it were confirmed true then chances are like everyone has said since they are so early in development and are using Gamecubes often for testing, it is perfectly understandable that right now "barely better" than a Gamecube would be about right. Add to that the fact that early in development the Xbox 360 had the same problems and I think most people can rest easy.

Shapyi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Basically Nintendo got me into video gaming and even though I buy Sony consoles I am still a huge Nintendo fan. Basically if Square-Enix and Konami supported Nintendo and not Sony, I'd say screw Sony. A lot of people say that Nintendo has no idea what they are doing, they keep dropping the ball, etc. But is that really the case? Maybe those people should consider how the video game market has changed since the N64 and PlayStation days.

PlayStation marketed games to the 19 year old age group (as seen in the G4TV Icons about PlayStation). Although there were mature rated titles they weren't nearly as bad as the ones today. The average video gamer could play a N64 game or PlayStation game not because of its violence and mature content, but because the game play was fun and solid.

Nintendo refuses to change their strategy of marketing to every age group, which many hardcore Nintendo fans praise them for it. With their new console, rather then improving graphics (which is expensive for the company and consumer), they want to change the way games are played.

What will the battle between Xbox360 and PlayStation 3 boil down to? PlayStation 3 only has Japanese game developer support over the Xbox360. Wow, it has slightly better graphics. Does that really matter? Whats the point of seeing every blade of grass, every dynamic shadow, dynamic lighting, double anti-aliasing, 120 fps, super hi-def, when the game play remains the same as it was 5 years ago? All the Xbox360 and PlayStation 3 are taking what has been done on PlayStation 2 and Xbox but doing it with better graphics and HD. And thats a reason to spend $ 299-399 on Xbox360 or $ 400-500 on a PlayStation 3 over $200-250 for Nintendo Reovution that offers change over how games have been played for years? Why set the trend that better graphics = better game when its not the case.

Something that should be thought about. Thats my opinion anyway.

Raydeen @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

I don't believe it, the Rev will be powerful or Nintendo would not even bother to release it.

anonymous coward @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

This is crap.

Even the shittiest current ATI graphics chips are more than slightly better than the GC hardware. ATI would've had to go out of their way to produce something (new) as bad as this article is indicating.

Even if Nintendo totally cheaps out, the Revolution will be many times faster than the GC.

Ed @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

The thing that bothers me most about this horrible sounding post is the sentence "The Revolution may get hyped to kingdom come..." The Revolution, in its current form, is receiving no hype and it doesnt not appera that this will change in the coming months. The media has taken great joy in watching the once industry leader sell less and less consoles of each new generation system - I don't think that suddenly the tides will turn and an influx of positive new media feedback will begin pouring in.

As a Nintendo nut myself I see this next generation as a purely uphill battle for Nintendo. There will be abosulutely no previous generation boost whatsoever. In this manner, I do not see how the media will at all aid Nintendo is pulling of what would essentially be an industry first - a trailing company regularly reporting horrid sales and returning to a respectable place in the sales war. The only person genuinely concerned, as it sounded in that statement, that the Revolution might receive positive and "hyped up" news, is someone who is a strong supporter of a better-placed console or gaming company; namely, the Xbox or Playstation series, who appears they have something to lose. That is to say, this comment is made purely out of being scared.

Regardless of that fact, this statement, which followed with "there�s a reason why screenshots aren�t being released to the public until next year" really turns what is essentially a complete rumour into someone's opinion being stated as fact. That's not great for journalism at all, let alone create a positive image of Joystiq for the people who come here looking forward to news on Nintendo with integrity and optimism.

All in all, this article drips of bias against Nintendo. I suppose this is nothing new (although I have seen a good share of pro-Nintendo and anti-competition articles, be they far less regular) and we might just have to put up with it a bit longer, until Revolution proves itself. And yes, the non-stop Xbox 360 blogathon was horrible. Time will of course tell that not only doesn't everyone care about this system, but that most people don't too.

Dan Choi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Ed, EGM printed what they printed, and I wrote what I wrote, but do you think I'm really that biased against Nintendo? I'm simply reporting what's out there. As for your specific concerns, here's what I can say:

1) The 360 marathon occurred first because the 360 launched first. Expect something similar when the PS3 and Revolution finally arrive.

2) You didn't get the gist of that screenshot comment either? Hope my follow-up comment helps (basically, it's too early for the public):
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000240070302/#c631611

3) The Revolution is NOT receiving any hype? Nintendo might not be releasing much information officially, but the lack of info is the fuel that fires the imaginations of speculative fans everywhere. (Witness the pandemonium occurring prior to the big controller reveal at TGS.) Gaming media is pretty enamored of the thing, if I'm not mistaken. Do you seriously think the generation that grew up with Mario in the gaming press wants Nintendo to die off? Sources, please?

The 13th Duke of Wybourne @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

Unfinished game running on early hardware in 'doesn't look that great' shocker!

Whatever next?

James Montagna @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

We're just going to hit a brick wall at some point with the graphics anyway. They will get so good, that they can not be improved any more than what they have reached. It is dumb to get too far ahead with graphics for this reason.

Actually, if the Revolution has the same (or better) graphics than the Xbox 360, it would be wonderful. Developers would have a much easier time working on the games for it than they would for, say, the PlayStation 3. :)

Jay @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM

This is complete BS, its easy to see why. Firstly Nintendo said that the "2-3 times more powerful than GC" was a lie, its past that. they've announced as much.
also 2-3 times better than Cube graphics. um. I dont know about people here but take Twilight Princess or Prime and make that twice or three times better looking. 3 times the texture wonderfulness, 3 times the polygon count, 3 times the AA. and Nintendo said that its better than that :)

Dev kits are also updated Cube kits. developers know how to make a cube game look good (Resident Evil 4 etc). they know the tricks of the Cube kits so thats
' going to be a HUGE boost for Rev visuals and CPU trickery. it probably means that games won't increase in graphical niceness like the Xbox 360 and PS3 will; it will already be at its peak or close enough.
In theory the Rev will have the best graphics at launch. Remember, Nintendo have been working on this since 2002. they themselves know what they can produce and so will all of Cube developers.

I call BS on this. just by the theory - no rumours.