Nintendo: "Easy to port" onto Revolution
by Blake Snow 
{ Dec 8th 2005 at 4:45PM }
Despite alleged Revolution
specs released by IGN, Nintendo says it will be "easy to port" third-party games onto the company's next-generation
console. 1up writes: "Even though Revolution won't have the same memory bandwidth as Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the
familiarity with current generation development and tools that Revolution takes advantage of means most companies
shouldn't have much trouble working Revolution into the mix."
Will the graphics be comparable? Nintendo says graphics
will be on par with the 360 and PS3, but some developers are calling the system a
souped up Xbox. Regardless, graphical limitations haven't
stopped multi-platform ports in the past.
Now if we can only figure out how that darn controller shell will work.
[via Slashdot]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
vidGuy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Souped up XBOX? Awesome! Well? Isn't that what the 360 is? ;)
Of course Nintendo want be as powerful, but with a price of $200 or less, they won't have to be. It's actually getting to be quite an old argument...
I'm sure the Rev will provide adequete porting, and quite frankly the 3rd party support is needed. The only problem I see is if the Rev releases "so" far behind the PS3 and 360 that significant downgrades, a-la Resident Evil 4 for the PS2, are necessary, making it a hassle and time consuming to get the port to run smoothly. Nintendo wants to stay cheap, but they have to keep up somewhat, or risk not getting any ports at all.
That's all about hardware, though. The input device will require no change, since the tilt of the controller can act as the 2nd analog stick. Different inputs--- same result. Then, if developers want they can add even more functionality to really make the Rev's version the version to have.
As far as the controller shells, they will allow much more use and a "traditional" style of play for those that want it. Of course, these need to be affordable, somewhere at $20 or less. If they are selling the shells as much as extra controllers, don't expect many consumers to use the shells... and consequently not many developers will use them either.
Kevin @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
If this thing really comes along at $149 or less... Consider me a buyer.
SilverDogg @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
i veeery confused right now =/
but i dont mind it that nintendo says that it will be easy to port games from ps3/xbox360 to rev. that just gives me more reasons NOT to buy them XP.
Martijngamer @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
[a souped up Xbox]
Exactly what the Xbox360 is... what's their point?
amiga_tone @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Why is graphics such a big thing anyway? As long as Nintendo delivers something that will be playable I don't care about graphics. I have confidence that with the quality of the Cibe the next gen machine from Nintendo will have no issues with Graphics at all.
Pretty Obvious @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Yeah right. The 360 has 512mbs of Ram. Easily porting a game that uses this amount to a system thats not even using half is gonna take a hit. Not a slight hit, a major hit. The differences will be much bigger then this generation to say the least, but like Nintendo said - I can be done.
Ben @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
I really don't care what anyone says. For me Revolution and my PC will be all the gaming hardware I will need, seeing that my PC already runs CoD2 better than a 360.
Ise @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Ok people ask "Who cares about graphics?" Well trying playing a video game blindfolded. DUH! And another thing about graphics and the Revolution. They said a while ago that the graphics were going to be comparable to PS3 and Xbox360, but they have no HD support. Someone please explain how that is even possible. And the Revolution might be an easy port, but the question is what developer wants to? I would be so pissed trying to figure out how to map the controls to that stupid Nun-chuk.
gjd @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Ise -- they said there would be no noticeable difference on a Standard Definition TV.
vidGuy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Ise:
A better analogy would be:
"try playing an old game, like NES or SNES!1one!"
which, of course, is fantastically fun. Although it's an imperfect analogy, seeings how PS1 games can be painful to look at now-a-days. I love FF7 and have gone back to play it several times, but sometimes those jaggies... ouch!
DigitalStupor @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
How the hell is a non-hd system supposed to have graphics "on par" with the HD graphics on the 360 and PS3? That doesn't make any sense.
Here comes the march of all the "graphics don't matter gameplay does (and Nintendo knows this)" boys.
Jay @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Comparable? yes. its been said by Nintendo and other developers. Unreal 3 engine can run on the Revolution. so hah to Ise.
Halo was mapped out to work on the Rev controller and they had buttons to SPARE. so yea. whilst Halo isn't the most complicated game in the world it shows that FPS games in the same league will run fine on the Rev. with the added satisfaction of thrusting the controller forward to melee instead XD
travis @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
#5 do you even know anything about development or coding in general? Like you have any idea of what it requires to map actions to controls. Youre another disgruntled teenager thats just pissed because Sony is doomed this generation. Why don't you get back to class and learn some catchier phrases then "duh".
SilverDogg @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
ise, wow. the smartest comment ive EVER heard! NOT!
why should it be any hard to config the controllers for the nunchuck or the shellcontroller? or do you mean that it will be difficult to config it for any console at all? ore you on drugs? do you like to eat consoles? do you think hot babes really are hot? yea, i have no idea what im on about either O_o
Alex K. @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
graphics don't make porting hard. if it did, then you could ONLY play Doom 3 on ultra settings.
rodents @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
READ THIS.
nintendo revolution claims to be a souped up xbox
now lets look at "xbox 360"
360= 1 revolution
xbox revolution, no?
Andy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Since the Rev's not HD it's only got 1/4 of the number of pixels to generate each frame. So, really, the only thing that's gonna be holding it back graphics-wise is the number of polys it can throw around which is, IMHO, becoming a mute point these days - how often do you get close enough to a model to see whether the rivits on it are really 3D or just a shader effect?
What I'm more concerned about is the fact that it won't be able to handle Super Awesome Physics(tm), but since devs have already complained how the 360 isn't too good at that either I guess it's a moot point.
Chris @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
for people confused about this HD / non-HD / rev=360 stuff.
Basically a game is build with one set of textures and such for a console (unlike for PC games where your textures and shadows and AA can all be changed) ... so, since the 360 and PS3 play HD, developers can and have to make it run in HD quality, utilizing the power of the unit. The unit has to push higher quality of textures (way higher than SD), therefore your machine is more powerful ... it doesn't change because you use a standard TV, you're still seeing the same graphics an HDTV would see. So in a sense you are wasting all that muscle to watch it on a regular TV. The Rev simply doesn't pack that muscle and instead concentrates it's muscle for what is needed. Since it doesn't need to push graphics to HD quality, it doesn't need the power.
Basically, the extra power in a 360 or PS3 is there to "PUSH" it to HD. Nintendo has decided to cut costs and not make their hardware "PUSH" to HD and focus on game making. All the muscle of the console is used for what is needed, not to carry around huge textures and shadows process it all at 30FPS, when it can easily have lighter equipment display just the same on a standard TV.
I know my explanation can be a bit scrambled since I didn't sit here and pre-write the whole thing into a proper essay.
Lets play a numbers game
lets say the Rev = 100
360 = 150
HDTV = 150
SDTV = 100
The rev has the same power to produce the same graphics on an SDTV as the 360. The 360 has the extra power to do grphics on HD.
and no, you can't concentrate more of the 360s power into the SDTV to make it better, because the game and console are over compensating for those that have HDTVs.
Brock @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
OK, i'm not bashing anybody or anything. But lets look at this with logic. The Big N's system is at most $149, and some have even said as low as $99 (this "next generation" console would be the same price as a the new (four year old) gameboy advance micro). But i digress, here is my question, Nintendo claims they are on par with 360 and PS3 graphically. Does anybody have any idea how this is possible? We all know Nintendo HAS to make money on their consoles because they can't afford to lose money with such a small company. If lower specifications can pull off what Sony and Microsoft can do then everybody is paying 300, 400, and whatever PS3 is going to cost only for High Definition. It just doestn't make sense to me. But then again, why would Nintendo even making a statement like that if they don't care about graphical power?
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Ise:
"And the Revolution might be an easy port, but the question is what developer wants to? I would be so pissed trying to figure out how to map the controls to that stupid Nun-chuk."
You must have been living under a rock b/c some of the BIGGEST developers have shown alot of interest in the Revolution...and already said that they can make current games work on it (EA being one of them.)
As for the Nun-chuk...that is only one option for the games. If you would actually do some reearch, you wouldn't look like an ass with that comment. There is going to be a standard "cradle" for the remote as well as the option to use Gamecube controllers.
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"We all know Nintendo HAS to make money on their consoles because they can't afford to lose money with such a small company."
Uhhh...small company? Dude, Nintendo itself has been around for over a 100 years AND is one of the biggest developers/publishers in the industry.
Plus something doesn't need to be big in order to be superior. Look at the Gamecube...its almost as powerful as the Xbox yet it is alot smaller AND (arguably) it is built better.
Ise @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Im glad to see all you nintendo fanboys come to defend your weak system. Face it Nintendo is headed for the graveyard. Gameboys are going to be the only thing coming from Nintendo I would say in the next 10-20 years. Gamecube=N00bcube. Why would you want to play a weaker system anyways. With the processing power of the Xbox 360 AI is much more advanced. The environments are sooo much more complex than your typical run through the forest with a boomerang and a flute games. Nintendo needs some new titles also: Zelda, Metroid Prime, and every variant of Mario+(some sport). Although i have to say that I did like some smash bros. on N64 but overall the future looks dark for Nintendo...an d thats on a SDTV and a HDTV. : P
Brock @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Um... go to forbes.com and look up the company and find the employee count. Then look at Microsofts and Sony's. I guess if you want to argue it's "large" compared to a mom and pop business then yes, it is enormous, but i was comparing them based on the other companies in the exact business/their competition.
Nintendo Employee Count: 2,985
Microsoft Employee Count: 57,000
Sony Employee Count: 162,000
tumor @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
I posted this on another thread but got no answers. I was hoping someone with mad skills like Ise might offer an answer, so I'm posting it here as well.
I have a serious question for all you out there talking about how important HD is. If someone gives me an honest answer, I would really appreciate it.
Ok, here goes. If higher definintion is so important in games, then why have you been playing games on consoles at all this gen? Why not play on computers where 1280x1024 has been common for years and 1600x1200 is not unreachable with current hardware?
Anyone?
Mikael T?vist @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
You couldn't be further from the truth, lse.
Ise @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Hey everyone get pissed!!!!
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Dark? Can you explain to me why MS's Xbox divison is $4 billion in the hole while Nintendo has been making money with a system that is almost equal in power. The gap between the Xbox and the Gamecube is VERY small.
PLUS did MS or Sony get as much praise as Nintendo on their controller? The 360 controller (in regards to a standard controller) is fantastic controller and feel awesome in your hands. But when was the last time you heard respected industry veterans like Hideo Kojima or Peter Molyneux say something like they did when they saw/played with the Revolution controller?
For the record I am not bashing either Sony or MS. I am a big fan of the PS1/2 b/c some of my favorite franchises are on their system...but I'm not "in love" with the Xbox but I can respect what they have done with the industry.
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"If higher definintion is so important in games, then why have you been playing games on consoles at all this gen? Why not play on computers where 1280x1024 has been common for years and 1600x1200 is not unreachable with current hardware?"
B/c the console market is a much bigger market then the PC's. With a console you have a much broader range of game software genres to choose from AND you generally pay less. Sure the resolution might not be as sharp as a PC title, but it doesn't neccessarily make the game worse. With a PC, you not only have to worry about drivers, hardware conflicts, games crashing, etc. but you also only get games for either MMORPGS, RTS/Strategy and FPS. Sure there are titles for other genres but they are generally also ported to consoles which have better controls for those types of games (such as racing or sports games.)
As for #20 (Brock)...you are comparing the ENTIRE company. How about comapring Nintendo game divisons of MS and Sony? Either way having less employees doesn't mean a companies products are inferior. If one company has 50 people who do their job exceptionally well and another has 100 people who do a mediocre job...the ones who do their job exceptionally well will be more successful.
Brock @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
I do agree that there were a lot of games looked close. But there were also games specifically built for the xbox that couldn't run because of hardware restrictions on both other systems. But yes they were close. But the mere gap between Revolution and PS3 is more than workable. I don't think there will be many games easily ported. What will happen is a game built with the least common denominator (revloution) in mind, and then will just uncompress the textures and up the resolution for the other two. A lot of games from EA will end up like that. That's my take. Is that close?
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
lol woh...I should have proof read that last post.
I meant:
"How about comparing the game divisons of MS and Sony to Nintendo."
lol
Jack @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"The 360 controller (in regards to a standard controller) is fantastic controller and feel awesome in your hands"
It really depends on how you feel about it, I dont personally like it, I dont find comfortable waving a thing in my hand and plus the anlogue controller attachement looks real uncomfortable to me. I would probably find it awkward since sometimes I would be doing other things while playing, so it would probably affect my gameplay.
Cyberclaws @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
20. Posted Dec 8, 2005, 6:44 PM ET by Brock
Um... go to forbes.com and look up the company and find the employee count. Then look at Microsofts and Sony's. I guess if you want to argue it's "large" compared to a mom and pop business then yes, it is enormous, but i was comparing them based on the other companies in the exact business/their competition.
Nintendo Employee Count: 2,985
Microsoft Employee Count: 57,000
Sony Employee Count: 162,000
Maybe true, but how many of those Microsoft and Sony Employees actually work on the 'gaming' part of their companies?
I plan to hook up my 360 to my comp monitor and get them resolutions myself. Not HD, but definitely more resolution ;)
"...Gamecube=N00bcube. Why would you want to play a weaker system anyways. With the processing power of the Xbox 360 AI is much more advanced. The environments are sooo much more complex than your typical run through the forest with a boomerang and a flute games..."
Stop flaming Nintendo, I am getting a Revo regardless of what the other 'fanboys' say. That's coming from a current 360 owner. You (Ise) embarass all us 360 owners with your 'big dick' approach with our new system. I intend to have the Revo when it comes, Nintendo is a good company and really care about gaming (yeah, wallets too).
Brock @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Jago, you are right. I did compare the entire company, that's all that was available. I compared Nindtendo's entire company, Microsofts and Sony's. So i guess i could cut out Nintendo's advertising devision, PR devision etc, as well as Sony's and Nintendo's but my guess is that Nintendo's would be the smallest. I would be interested in the actual #'s though if anybody has them. Whether or not i know who's doing their jobs better i really have no idea. I will probably get a revolution if they pull off this controller thing and it isn't gimmicky. I really don't like the idea of having to put sensors next to your tv. It reminds me too much of the Nintendo glove and those bars you had to put on your TV. It was inaccurate. I assume technology has improved since then though. We will see.
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"It really depends on how you feel about it, I dont personally like it, I dont find comfortable waving a thing in my hand and plus the anlogue controller attachement looks real uncomfortable to me. I would probably find it awkward since sometimes I would be doing other things while playing, so it would probably affect my gameplay."
I can understand why you might not like waving a controller around but I would hope that you would still keep an open mind. I say that b/c this is something that has never been done before, and just about everyone who has held it and tried it out on a game has said it plays beautifully.
SeriousKriss @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
@ 26 : Actually, if anything, there are more genres available for the PC than on consoles. The only genre that's severly lacking on the PC is 3D fighting games. But you could say the same for adventure games, simulations, MMOs and strategy games on consoles.
And the controls issue just isn't one, there are lots of usb controllers available and even console controllers USB converters.
Sorry about the off topic...
Jay @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
I think I know why the Rev is underpowered. Sure it will make nice games and all that. but maybe I cracked it, along with a million other people who i haven't met yet.
What are critically acclaimed to be the best games ever? the classics. what did the classics have? very little focus on graphics. with Nintendo making the underpowered console they are forcing developers to f**k the eye candy, forget how many polygons a football can have, forget things that DO NOT MATTER WHEN PLAYING A VIDEO GAME. focus on the core of the game. the gameplay. the indescribable essence of gaming. Nintendo are not just making a Revolution console, but a revolution in re-educating game developers to focus on the heart and soul of gaming. Sure, developers may not produce for the Revolution. they will see what is possible with games, how addictive and plain fun they can be and take that to other systems.
Do not underestimate Nintendo. they are a powerhouse of innovation.
Nintendo have forseen the way gaming is going. and basically it looks crap. rehash of the same game (i'm talking Halo 1-99 and the rest, not the same characters in a different game, ie Mario Smash Bros, Mario Kart...) over and over until all you losers want is the same thing with prettier graphics. Nintendo want to change that. they want gaming to be fun again.
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
You forgot 2 words there...
"they want gaming to be fun again FOR EVERYONE."
tumor @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Jago,
"Sure the resolution might not be as sharp as a PC title, but it doesn't neccessarily make the game worse."
I appreciate your response, but your answer tells me that you are NOT one of the people screaming that you have to have the best graphics to have a good game. I understand what you are saying and agree with you, but I want to hear from people like Ise or digitalstupor who seem to think graphics are the most important thing. If thats true, I honestly can't understand why they want to play on a console when PC graphics have been far superior for years.
When people like that talk about HD, they say things like, "once you've had HD, its hard to watch standard TV", or "why would you want an underpowered console", etc. Well, if thats true they shouldn't be gaming on consoles, because the graphics have been 640x480 for years.
The truth is, people play on consoles because they are fun, have games you can't find on PC, and offer a playing mechanic that isn't fully realized on PCs until very recently (IE a good controller).
Well, I say, that all these points will also be valid for the revolution if things work out. It will be fun, have games you cant find on other consoles, and offer a playing mechanic that isnt available on the competition.
For those reasons, I that same people who LOVE graphics, but still play games on consoles, will still love graphics but also choose to play games on the Rev.
I'm not hating on 360 or PS3. I think they are both great and Im excited for them both. I dont have a 360 yet but I plan to get one. Not just for the graphics but I hope they are as nice as people say. However, I will definitely own a revolution. I wont buy it for the graphics although I hope they are a fair improvement over last gen. I will buy it because I think it will be fun in ways the others are not. Likewise, I think the PS3 will be fun in ways the others are not.
Every console has its selling points. If you like them, you buy it. If you dont, you probably won't.
hydrogen_wv @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
People buy consoles for the simple fact that they don't have to worry whether the game will run or not. PC Gamers need to upgrade pretty often, run certain OSes with certain patches and updates, etc.. Console gamers just need to stick in the game and go at it.
Ise is obviously just trolling, so I'd recommend paying him no attention...
The fact of the matter is, a small number of people have HDTVs, and a small fraction of people really care. If I had the money for an HDTV, i'd buy something else instead. So, as long as the revolution is on par with a standard definition TV, good enough... especially for the saved money.
My one irk is that I'm a college kid, which means i'm broke 99.9% of the time. As long as Nintendo doesn't butt-rape me by forcing me to buy a different peripheral for each game i'll be fine. For instance, map multiple peripherals to one game... A shooting game for instance... A gun peripheral, a shell peripheral, or the controller with the seperate analog stick would all work with it. But If I have to spend $20 for nun-chuks, a gun, a shell, a sword, a knife, a fishing pole, a baseball bat, a chainsaw, etc.... I'll be a little flustered. I figure Nintendo will keep this in mind though.
If I was nintendo, I'd make EVERY game work with the stock controller w/ the peripheral thumb stick. So that in essence, peripherals are fully optional.
hydrogen_wv @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Oh, forgot something...
I'm sure there are people out there that graphics are important, but you pay the price for it. Look at it this way... Graphic-philes vs. Audiophiles...
Nintendo = Stock PMP Earbuds
Xbox 360 on HD = $150 Sennheiser (sp?) Earbuds
Some people just have to have the best sound and the best graphics, For the general population though, the stock earbuds are fine, right? You don't see a whole lot of people rockin' iPods with high end earbuds, do ya?
Navstar @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
This all makes since. The Broadway and Hollywood chips are just 2.0 versions of the original Gekko and Dolphin chips used in the Cube. They are 100% binary compatible which is how the Revo can do effortless Cube emulation in hardware (without adding extra chips to the Revo's already svelte profile). And since it's already existing technology, the fab costs are low.
Graphics DO make some impact. The leap from PS1 to Dreamcast was the biggest 3D leap, in my opinion. The biggest thing I hope the Revo has is normal mapping (and thus, the ability to run the Unreal 3 engine), which seems to be the biggest eye-candy improvement this next generation offers.
Games like RE4 show that the Cube has a lot of power on its own. I don't have any fear of a system that "only" has twice that graphics horsepower.
Mark in Austin @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
n00bCube?
I'd bet that Nintendo's audience is comprised of a good chunk of us older gamers, gamers who don't really care about what's cool or mature or colorful and bright. Meanwhile, PS2 and 360 strive to provide as many monotonous blow-em-up games as possible to young men needing reassurance about their manliness.
Don't worry too much, 360 fanatics.. the hair will begin to grow down there one day, and it will get bigger eventually.. people just grow at different rates..
Just go back to Halo Clone #73 :P
Jordan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
I just think we should all wait till we actually see a screenshot and some actual gameplay, because if we are going to continue to speculate on what things can do, no one has truly seen what ps3 is capable of either, no actual gameplay has been displayed, etc. etc., let's reflect on the e3 when all the previous consoles came out, microsoft says hey, xbox can do 300 million polygons per second, sony says, ps2 can do like 200-250 million polys per second, but nintendo says they can do 10-12 million per second, and people screamed at how nintendo gc was going to look like crap, etc. etc., but we all know that they didn't look as bad, and that companies were comparing totally different techniques of measuring poly counts. Nintendo has never been one to brag about their graphics capabilities, look at the current hardware specifications, xbox is a 733mhz pentium, ps2 is a 285 or so mhz processor, and gc is at around 485 mhz, but yet we all saw ps2 pull off resident evil 4 on that hardware??? yes revolution will probably not look as good as playstation 3 or xbox 360, but how much did that make last gen? or the gen before that? sheer numbers are not always what proves what system is the best overall or what games a system gets, i just say wait and see what it shows and then compare, because we won't know what the system can really do, cause all the inside 3rd party developers have been shown themselves are generic figures, and have not actually explained any technical features or poly counts or any other specifications for that matter. time will tell, but let's not forget how much of a difference ps2 and xbox really were from each other, other developers like the final fantasy creator, molyneaux, hideo kojima, EA, Ubisoft, and others have seemed positive, and i don't think nintendo is going to waste lots of money developing something that people will look at and say, "wait a minute, my gamecube, ps2, or xbox looks just as good, or something like that," this is 5 years after the previous system and it isn't supposed to come out for almost a year, E3 is far from here, people like to cry foul, or whine, or complain, or dis other systems if they get the slightest glimpse of a flaw or an advantage, competition in the market is making this market great, so we as consumers don't lose more of our hard-earned money than we should
Brock @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Yes, we do not know EVERY specification. But we do know that nintendo claimed to have ps3 and xbox 360 graphics. How is that possible at $150 OR $99 MICRO price?? I do not know. And yes there is a lot of speculation, but it is hard to write off more than 7-15 inside sources all claiming close to the same thing. The general concensus: it is "a jacked up xbox360" or "almost twice as powerful as gamecube" or variants close to this. why claim "on par graphics" when "graphics don't matter?"
Brock @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Yes, we do not know EVERY specification. But we do know that nintendo claimed to have ps3 and xbox 360 graphics. How is that possible at $150 OR $99 MICRO price?? I do not know. And yes there is a lot of speculation, but it is hard to write off more than 7-15 inside sources all claiming close to the same thing. The general concensus: it is "a jacked up xbox360" or "almost twice as powerful as gamecube" or variants close to this. why claim "on par graphics" when "graphics don't matter?"
Drakslave @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
It is just like how Nintendo did not want to jump on board with Online gaming, they don't think see that it isn't popular now and that it is expensive. I think they will do it when the market as a whole is ready for it. They aren't going after a niche market. Even the people will HDtvs will be able to play revolution games and enjoy it. Who really wants to pay $60 for a game? Not me, no way.
But when HD is in almost every home, the cost to develop games in HD will be drastically lower and then it will be the time to put that into games. Console companies should put in technologies that will let the users have an enjoyable experience but not increase the price in order to do so.
jago @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"So i guess i could cut out Nintendo's advertising devision, PR devision etc, as well as Sony's and Nintendo's but my guess is that Nintendo's would be the smallest."
Why would you but them out? They are as much apart of the development process as the development team. If publishers didn't have advertising and PR departments, next to no one would know about the game.
Either way a company doesn't need to be bloated with employees in order to make better products.
"but yet we all saw ps2 pull off resident evil 4 on that hardware??? "
Yea that is tue but they weren't identical. Models on the PS2 had to be reduced, textures had to have their quality reduced thus leaving washed out textures. Don't believe me? Look around the net and you'll find comparisons people have done...there is a big difference.
Also...Jordan? Learn to use "." (periods) and paragraph breaks.
GSK7 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Well, I dont know why everyone gets so riled up about the graphics. Yes HD looks AWESOME but you know that the graphics on Revolution are still going to be amazing--just not AS good as HD. But enough on that.
For those who think that Nintendo lost the last console race and is going to the graveyard with the Rev, think again. Despite what the mass media is telling you, Nintendo pwned the last console race--selling more systems than Sony AND Microsft combined. Now yes, the GCN did sell poorly and Nintendo didn't win the home console race but when you add up all their sales of the GBA, GBA SP, GBM, DS, and GCN, they sold more units worldwide than either competitior combined. Nintendo dominated the current-gen and they know it. Don't believe me? Go look it up, the numbers are out there. Thats not just fanboy talk.
And Nintendo continues to lead the pack. As we speak, the DS continues to reign over the PSP--selling 6 million units over 4 million PSPs.
Nintendo isn't going to go away any time soon.
Brock @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Yes Big N "pwned" the "console" race last generation. This is obviosly true because there was no competition from any major companies. And don't count things like wonderswan and other crap handhelds that weren't backed. I will admit they KILLED gamegear because of it's horrendous batterlife and crappy screen brightness. But Gamecube did not do well in the home console race, yes very true. Why? Because they were challenged the the market was the realist and ultimatum for defining the better products.
The PSP came out only 8 months ago, and the first by either sony and microsoft to enter this market. Wait till sony has 6 generations of handhelds and then we can compare them. The reason Nintendo has done so well with the handheld is because
1)They are very cheap, and more affordable for the parents of their customer base
2) All of their handhelds were backward compatable with the previous generation (an option sony does not have right now)
3)they were the only option up until 8 months ago.
Lastly, high definition is a great commodity. More scanlines, dots per inch, and crystal clear colors add a lot. But a revolution will still look good played on an HD. Here is what won't be good. It is uncomfirmed yet but accepted for now that the graphics chip is based off of an ATI codenamed R530. An R530 is the X1600 serious of ATI graphics chips. There are 3 models but we will give nintendo the benefit of the doubt and say they are basing theirs off of the highest one available. This is a 90nm architecture with Shader Model 3 support running at 590mhz with 256mb or onboard ram (i don't even think nintedo is putting that much on it). This is pretty good considering it will only have to push out television resolutions. But then compare it so Microsofts liquid cooled R520 running at 1,500mhz with 512 mb of GDDR ram running at 625mhz. Microsoft did make changes to this though. Correct me if i'm wrong but i think they sacrificed some speed to add 3 times the pipelines though. The PC based XT has 16 pipelines while the Xbox as something like 48.
PS3 is running off of Nvidia's last generation hardware known as 6800's. The only catch is though, it will be two of them running (or the equivalent thereof if they change it to conserve space). This means it is running faster than their current top of the line 7800GTX as well as ATI's X1800 XT (they are pretty much equivalent trading the throne depending on which of them the game was developed with). That puts it faster than anything available on the market right now. Correct me if anything i said was wrong.
As for the processor, that is for another date and time.
Jago @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"Lastly, high definition is a great commodity. More scanlines, dots per inch, and crystal clear colors add a lot."
But the game will still play the same...regardless of whether or not you play it in HD or not.