umm last i checked the resolution has VERY little to do with whether a gpu is PS3.0 compliant which is essentially the essense of next generation graphics. To be honest Im completely confused unless of course the rev is not fully directx 9.0 compliant in which case it makes perfect sense. But is nintendo that foolish?!?!? Anyway whether a gpu is PS3.0 compliant or not hase no VERY little to do with its "power" The ability to do advanced texture mapping techniques actually allows less powerful hardware to keep pace with superior hardware. Perhaps the only issue is the textures need to be pushed through the rev. In which case he has a legitimate arguement. Even at sub 480P rez, next gen textures are pretty demanding.

UE3 is pretty necessary for ports, seeing as how it's somewhat the only engine PC developers license these days.

But, if the Rev won't be able to run it, I wonder what it means for non-cutting edge computers.


Also, if HD texturing is the only problem, what gives? If anything the Rev should be able to run faster (or at least as well) since it's a lower res. Saying the UE2 engine is good enough is bunk, unless UE3 games can be ported down easily. Cross-platform releases are still going to be important. So while the UE2 engine might look just as good, it's really damn important for developers to be able to port.

Rein has seemed pretty anti-Rev, anyway. I'm not saying he's an anti-Nintendo fanboy, but he's made a few negative comments without really having any basis for them (he's admitted such each time.) I'd expect it maybe from CliffeB, who seems like a bit of a tool, but not from Mark Rein.

I wouldn't miss Epic's games, which have never appealed to me on the console (or PC, actually, outside of the wonderfulness that was UT), but the UE3 engine is pretty much dominating PC gaming in the next years, is clearly part of the PS3s future, and seems to be integral to the 360 as well.

I think Revolution is capable of running the Unreal Engine 3. My guess will be that Epics VP gets paid to evangelize bad publicity for Nintendo. Seriously, Nintendo's GPU will be done by ATi, it will most certainly be capable of all directx 9 features and more. I don't see why Epics new engine can't run in 640x480 res mode.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/28/revolution-can-handle-unreal-engine-3/

Or maybe he meant that HD games won't be easly ported to Revolution; then again, why would the Revolution need ports when they have a new interface and they could as well get a standard definition game developed with the Unreal Engine 3.

According to Revolution Report as of January this year when they talked with ATI, the "Hollywood" GPU in the Revolution is not reflective of PC technology and was built from the ground up specifically for the console.

http://www.revolutionreport.com/articles/read/254

I'm not sure if much else is known publically at this point. Last year in an interview with Dutch magazine [N]Gamer, senior director of marketing Jim Merrick / Nintendo Europe is quoted as saying: "Regarding the specifications, we will probably never 'release' this information as we feel that it is largely irrelevant."

Wow, talk about holding out false hope. "Unreal Engine 2 is more than enough power for Revo" is a pretty confirming statement. Nintendo has said themselves they aren't pushing graphics on the Revo, and they would look very much like 2x better than the gamecube.

We are not only looking at The GPU but the CPU as well. It's also been stated that the Revo CPU is one core. UE3 is built for multi-cor CPUs both on the PC and console. So the only way they'd put the engine on the revo, is so it can be throttled back to look margonally better than UE2.

I'd say the Vice President of the company is a decently reputable source of what goes on in his own company.

"So the only way they'd put the engine on the revo, is so it can be throttled back to look margonally better than UE2. "

Looks don't matter. Portability does.

If the UE3 engine only looks marginally better than the UE2 engine fine, so long as devs can port their games.

This doesn't seem to be part of Nintendo's gameplan, seeing as how the GC didn't get nearly as many ports, particularly from the FPS crowd, but given how dominant the UE3 engine is already proving to be, it won't help much. Plus the Rev controller looks great for FPS games.

I'll still take my mouse and keyboard, and if a game is console only my 360 in HD, but it does kind of suck for Nintendo.

The first Unreal Engine 3 demo wasn't running on a multicore system.

Ati might have said that the GPU is being built from the ground up. But hey, that is what they have said each generation of video cards. Between the 9k and the X1k models, the only difference is speed. They both support directx 9(Even though X1k series hace directx9+ features). Ati said the X1k were built from the ground up. What I'm trying to say, is that even though GPUs get built from the ground up, basically there's only directx or opengl. That is where middleware tools like epics engine come into play. If the Unreal Engine 3 requires directx9 or directx9+ then the Revolution in theory would be able to support the engine.

what he is saying is that the unreal 3 engine was designed for games that are run at high resolutions. Sorry, but 720x480 is not a high resolution. These days on PC's even 1024x768 is starting to be the bare minimum. If the engine is desinged to map textures and render polygon's at higher resolutions, in the case of HD, 1280x720 & up then yes, it may "work" with the revolution, but what he is saying is due to the low resolution, the visual quality would be no better than anything the Unreal 2 Engine could do.

Don't get me wrong, but what kinda shitty engine doesn't have scalable resolution?

UE3, that's what.

Of course, you have to be a graphics whore for this to matter, I'm still getting a revolution, Unreal was never that great anyways.

Doesn't surprise that he still thinks this since he was bashing the Revolution late last year @ IGN Live. It's kind of pathetic that he is almost opposed to have his companies engine work on the Revo.

seeing as the revolution stresses gameplay over graphics again and again, i really fail to see how this matters much. UE2 and custom engines will work just fine. ports will also be quite hard on the revolution, considering its significantly weaker system....all we will see will be dumbed down graphics from its more graphically capable cousins.

For me, i rather have more innovation than time spent on pretty graphics. If i want that,instead of gameplay, i'd buy one of the big two.

After talking with the Epic Games President personally, and hearing his, well, distaste for the Revolution, I would definitly say your not going to see Epic doing anything with it...

...now as for a 3rd party working on it, that's different...

Funny how people are writing off the Revolution despite not seeing what it is capable of (including Mark Rein.)

Mark Rein is simply vice president of the company, he's had very little to do with the innerworkings of actual software coding for so long now I doubt he's even considered capable to speak on such things. To state that the engine won't run on the revolution because it's not in "high definition" sounds like someone who knows absoultely nothing about software coding. My guess is he is just a pr guy and all pr guys have more mouth than knowledge. And that mouth serves who ever is footing the bill and I can tell you that regardless of whatever happens, you are gonna find that more microsoft money goes into his pocket than any other company. You can logically infer what that means so I'll leave the rest up to you.

"For me, i rather have more innovation than time spent on pretty graphics. If i want that,instead of gameplay, i'd buy one of the big two"

Exactly.
Its time we stop daydreaming about the graphical power of Revolution.
Nintendo has stressed many times that it wont be as powerfull as the competition. This doesnt meant that it wont be able to handle the engine atall. The final dev kits arent out yet anyway.
But even if it could, the lack of HD would make the graphics look much worse. Nintendo doesnt want to enter the same "battlefield" as Sony and M$, they're gonna play by their own rules.

We should expect revolution to deliver a different experience based on the innovation the new controller brings. For graphical might, we should choose one of the other beasts.

This man has bashed the rev ever since he new what its name was. Calling the controller a gimmick even though he admits to never have been near one. It would ofcourse not benefit the rev not to be able to run the u3 engine, I wouldn't miss games made by this idiots company though, sales are gonna disagree however. I wouldn't take his word for anything, or anyones word for that matter who carries an xbox360 in his backpack....

http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=25

See this, says that ue3 is for gamecube, if is for gamecube can be for revolution.

Ridiculous and I don't believe it for a second. I'd never play a UE3 game, Unreal stopped being good a long time ago. But to say that it won't run in non-HD modes? smells like BS really. People will be playing the UE3 engine in 640*480 on their PC's. hell, it could run at 320*200. thats the thing with engines. they're graphically scalable!
makes me laugh.

"I think Revolution is capable of running the Unreal Engine 3. My guess will be that Epics VP gets paid to evangelize bad publicity for Nintendo."

Sit back and look at what you wrote. Do you REALLY believe that? You give even Nintendo fanboys a bad name.

The console simply isn't powerful enough. It really is as simple as that. Get over it and get over yourself.

Smell the hypocrisy in the air! Hmm... lets think back not but a few weeks ago maybe a month, a spokesman from World of Warcraft slammed consoles and game console players. Presenting the arguement that COnsole gamers are not ready for the experience of World Of Warcraft on the 360 because they are to ridged in how they want to play a game.

Fast Forward to GDC and you get Mark Rein going Nintendo can't use the power of the Unreal Engine 3 on its new system. In other words consoles must suit themselves for PC high power requirements but they don't have to work with in console peremitters, but this doesn't suprise me, about the PC market. It has always been happy with creating games that are graphically impressive but forces their consumers to have to catch up to them, rather than creating graphically impressive games on exsisting hardware. Of course game consoles do the same but I couldn't have hoped to play a game Like Ninja Gaiden on my computer. For several reason, one it wasn't an average pc community game (FPS, MMO, SIM) and my computer graphics card couldn't hope run it.

That being said I don't see this kind of news as being bad news for nintendo, I think this is the kinda of news that makes nintendo stick to its guns about being innovation first graphics next. Anyone who develops for the Nintendo Revolution knows that what they must create has to be more than pretty pixels or the game just won't sell; that alone peeks my interest. You want a graphics beast to play UE3 engine and Direct X games like Crysis build a PC. You want games that will look good and be high on game play for more than 1yr buy a console.

And this is a trend I don't see changing since to just run Windows Vista on your PC you need special requirements for that PC, that are quite expensive for the market today. This plan works for PC gaming if you want great graphics you make the computer to get great graphics, so why should they change what works for them when it comes to the console market. I me it is obvious we the gamers must change for them cause they are paying us to play...? And there is Nintendos whole point right there, and that is why I really don't care that the Revolution can't run their graphical power house engine.

I've been looking and looking at the metroid prime 3 video (the only visual clue we have) and made a couple of graphical conclusions:

There is self shadowing
There is soft shadowing
There is Normal Mapping
There is Specularity
There are Bloom lighting effects
There is depth of field
There is all the regular current gen stuff

What's the siginificance? I reckon these effects cover the majority of effects that make drastic appreciable difference to graphics. The only other ones I'd consider making a huge difference would be sub-surface scattering (and to a lesser extent the associated diffuse volumetric lighting), perhaps real scene reflections (which can be faked) and vector based motion blur. Everything else takes a lot of power for little visual benefit (where most people can tell a difference). This includes oh so 'noteworthy HDR and HD graphics'. HDR is sufficiently faked in 2D bloom effects as even seen in games like Shadow of the Colossus, and render resolutions take proportionaly more power while not increasing believability 1 iota (is the News any less believable on SD as HD?).

What's interesting is that I believe all of the effects I mentioned could be performed in hardware on Gamecube Texture units, which weren't as flexible as genuine pixel shaders, and therefore not DirectX9 compliant (not that that's relevent to Nintendo), but still clever enough to do these things. In fact the Metroid video was rendered on GC development hardware so it's not suprising. For those who weren't impressed by the video at the time, remember that it was 6 months into development, with 18 months to go: most of the artistic assets had yet to be made. But the point is the underlying technology was there. Given the time since then, I wouldn't be suprised to find they have a way to fake or run simplified sub-surface scattering and other effects even if the Revolution doesn't support real hardware shaders. This means direct versions of Unreal3's graphics engine won't run, but visuals could be comparable enough to make you happy. It's certainly more capable than Unreal 2 as he put forward.

Moreover Unreal 3 is (as someone else mentioned) middleware designed to ease game development. This includes animation, scripting, level design etc. Much of this has no bearing on the system at all and could be applied equally to Dreamcast or N64

Most my point has been covered already. But I'll just add this, from the perspective of a casual gamer that may not know what a pixel shader is. This take Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 1 remake, Metroid Prime, Rogue Squadron, Smash Brothers, Zelda, F-zero and any other graphically impressive Gamecube game you can think of. Now double the graphic power of that (in theory). Is there any reason to complain really?

How many villagers are chasing after you in the first town in RE4? 10, 15 maybe? All running beautifully in standard resolution with a smooth framerate. You still felt that fear didn't you, especially when the Chainsaw guy came after you, jumped over the fence and broke threw a window to kill you. That's on Gamecube.
Ps2 is not as powerful as gamecube in many respects. Capcom said themselves that porting RE to PS2 presented problems because of limitations in the hardware. But it got ported and it runs beautifully on PS2.

Look at the models in Metroid Prime as well as the environments. Drop dead gorgeous. One of the most impressive diplays of graphic capability this generation bar none....on gamecube. I play UT, Quake and other games on PC and I couldn't help but be impressed. Give me an environment that's twice as detailed and twice as large, am I going to complain?

Last example, I say this all the time, the models in Rogue leader are so good that at the time of the Gamecube's launch, rumors spread that Factor 5 used actual models from the Star Wars films for the game. Factor 5 later said that wasn't the case but the point is the models in a 9 month developed, launch title that was built from a N64 3D engine and upscaled for the Gamecube was good enough to run side by side to Industrial Light and Magic's work in an actual Star Wars film. On Gamecube.

Keep that UE 3 engine son, it's not the only way to make impressive graphics...

Epic's writes software graphics/game engines.
Nintendo makes a machine that allows developers to deviate from Epic's core business.

Any self-respecting profit-oriented corporation will twitch at Nintendo's disruption.

One would wonder if third party developers will shy away from having to port new games from the 360, PC, and PS3 to old engines...?

So accourding to Rein's comment people with ps3s and 360s but without HD TVs won't be able to play UE3 games? Riiiiiiight

Fly, no thats not what he said.

Re-read the article, go take a shower and then come back to appologize for beeing technically ignorant.

If the engine is worthwhile to begin with, it is also portable.

Mark Rein is just sour over Nintendo for whatever reason.

Whether its because he was a a Sega fanboy when he was a kid, or Microsoft gives him ten grand every time he can sling crap, or something else entirely.

What will be truely hilarious is the fact that the Revolution has a decent chance of coming out on top as the best FPS platform in decades, and his company missed the boat to capitalize on it because of some stupid childish grudge.

People say the "Rev is about 2x as powerful as GCN" all the time, and even Nintendo has said that, but I really wonder what the hell that means.

I mean, I take a look at X-box 360 games and they look about 2 times as good as an X-box game to me. I'm just wondering how someone generates a multiplier for how many more times "good" something looks.

Engines like UE3 are supposed to be completely scalable, so it doesn't make any sense that it wouldn't be able to run on a Revolution, when I bet I could probably run a game on my 3 year old PC, and not in hi-def.

Here's a question, though. Supposedly it takes a lot of system resources to pump out the high definition graphics. If that is true, then does that mean if Rev is not pumping out HD graphics, it may be able to make up for it with effects, and look comparable to the other next gen systems(if they weren't on an HDTV). Basically, since it isn't high def, is it possible that Revolution may be able to have a polygon count, or whatever, comparable to the other systems?

I'm guessing probably not, and it isn't really that important to me, but I am curious.

Unless the specs have changed, I think the issue has more to due with the Revolutions paltry amount of ram for all the texture layers than processor speed. The Rev only has twice as much ram as the Xbox and a quarter of the PS3/360, and you either need to set some of that aside for streaming or just have really long load times.

I don't trust any of the BS that comes out of Mark Rein mouth. He hates Nintendo for some lame ass reason and when ever he gets a chance he bashes them. Epic Game needs to stop using Mark Rein for their PR.

Every time Mark Rein opens his mouth it gives me one more reason to Not use the Unreal Engine.

I hope someone else at Epic Game comes out and says "What the hell are you talking about Mark Rein? The Unreal Engine 3 will work with the Revolution.

Enough with the "innovation or graphics" line. This is not an issue of one or the other. Any system can "innovate" and create compelling games. In fact, powerful systems can be more innovative than weak systems, given the increase in resources with which to work. Power is not just about making a game look prettier.

A prime example is Oblivion. The radiant A.I. is one of the elements of the game that create a very immersive environment. That takes a lot of horse power to pull off, more than was available on the Xbox 1 and, I would be willing to wager, more than will be available on the Revolution. There you have innovation made possible BECAUSE of increased system power, not because Bethesda waived the magic "innovation" wand at the game and made it "fun".

The closest that I can get to making sense out of these "Nintendo = innovation" posts is this: with a weaker system, Nintendo will have to innovate to stay afloat. Going up gainst better looking games, the only chance Nintendo has is to release products that can overcome inferiority from a hardwere perspective. Nintendo is forced to put out games that are head and shoulders above the competition from a gameplay perspective. The best that they can hope for is that developers for the other two systems are content to rely on graphics alone to carry the day.

But...

What is to keep Microsoft and Sony from releasing games that are just as innovated as Nintendo's? Nothing but choice. They can release games that match Nintendo's innovation, as Nintendo certaintly has not succeeded in cornering the market on "innovation". MS and Sony developers can also release games that are superiour due to hardware constraints on the Revolution. How is that something to be excited about?

I distinctly recall Rein's earlier comments on the Revolution at an earlier interview. He sounded pretty asinine - like a complete tool.

The original Unreal was a work of genius; we'll all admit that. Unreal Tournament has been a decent multiplayer FPS experience, I'll grant. But everything else? Garbage. Even the list of games that have used their engine - with the exception of the original Deus Ex and possibly Splinter Cell, the rest of those games are all trash. Ah, and Duke Nukem Forever is supposed to be using Unreal's tech. This speaks volumes to me, personally.

Why should anyone be worried that Unreal Engine 3 isn't going to be on the Revolution? If the games all suck, then it's really no loss at all.

I develop cross platform game engines (ie "middleware"). This guy's statement makes little sense.

"HD" is just an acronym for "high def" which is a "cool" way to say "high definition" - a phrase invented by marketing to sell something old as something new. Nothing beyond the expected incremental advances in technology has occured to warrant the birth of this new term. Consider that "HD" is now used to describe everything from televisions to storage media (and now, apparently, game engines). The fact that he has latched onto this "HD" phrase as the primary point of his argument betrays ignorance, and an attempt to paint the reasons for a decision as something else by using a technological sounding scapegoat. Rest assured that the reasons behind this decision has nothing to do with limits on UE3 scalability, or the power of ATI's chip, or the Revolution's RAM, or hardware configuration, etc.

Remember when Doom 3 and Half life 2 were impossible to port to the Xbox? What about RE4 on PS2? How the tech behind donkey kong country was supposed to be impossible on SNES hardware? The list goes on, and will continue to go on.

-Josh

I don't think the radiant A.I. is as intensive as you believe. I used to work on similar goal-based A.I. projects, though not for games, and they are not that intensive. Items like a robot vacuum cleaner have similar(though I'm sure not as complex) goal-based routines where their happiness levels increase based on the amount of dirt it picks up, and it finds ways to pick up the most.

While using the AI so extensively with the Radiant A.I. system in a game is quite innovative, I think something similar probably could have been done in any of the prior generation systems. You are right that Nintendo doesn't have some sort of monopoly, and that it isn't an either/or thing with power and innovation, but I disagree with your assumption that greater power is required for more innovation. Sure it is, comparitively, with something like an X-box and an NES. The X-box can simply do more and different things the NES could never do, but with the current next-gen systems coming out, I doubt their individual power could make any significant difference in how much they can innovate.

I pretty much dont play epics games, IF i do play epics games its only for onetime and the rest of the game collects dust on my dvd rack. If the rev cant do unreal engine maybe its because the lack of ram the rev has but I dont know any of the revolution specs. To be honest i dont care what Mark Rien says about the rev, he can hate nintendo along as he wants as other average Americans do espicially those that play playstation only. I do belive the rev will have great graphics and great gameplay. Nintendo lost 2 console wars already and both consoles were superior then the competetion and the n64 lost against the ps1 and the gamecube lost against the ps2. Nintendo knows that graphics alone wont make you win, its gameplay that wins which is true espicially with the competetion against the DS and the psp which we all know the DS is farahead the psp in global sales. You can say that nintendo has won the console wars interms of having the best graphics with the n64 vs ps1 and won the console wars in terms of graphcis against the ps2 and the xbox. But its really gameplay taht wins and thats were the ps2 had won. either way im still buying a rev, if the rev is graphically inferior my guess it will probably sell more.

Personally, I think Nintendo still should have supported at least 720p. Anything above that is a waste anyway.

I want to say graphics don't matter, but after playing Shadow of the Colossus last night, I have to change my tune. Once clean, crisp, realistic graphics have been had...it's hard to go back to gritty looks.

Of course...the DS manages to be fine in my eyes, where the PSP doesn't do it for me.

In any case, is Nintendo really looking for games that would need UE3? They do run a risk if they aren't included in a lot of the multiplatform titles. I guess Ninty will need to do an outstanding job of providing games. Innovation is good and all, but they can't forget that a lot more is expected from a console than from a portable.

This is rather entertaining. Epic put out a few games on the PS2, even though it was clearly and without an argument pitiful when stacked up against the Gamecube and Xbox. I guess when it comes down to install base, they'll figure out how to make their engines work. If the Rev takes a tasty market share, it is guaranteed that this touted UE3 will show up on it.

As for power = innovation, why didn't the Xbox take the lion's share of innovation while the PS2 sat around and never did anything new?

@32, Good to see someone else who gets it. High definition is just an advancement of what we have today; it's not some second coming of Television. Definition is just the amount of detail shown or heard in the case of sound (i.e. how well "defined" the image or sound is). High Def is just a relative term indicating a definition better than what currently exists. Not that it's bad, but it may not be worth the hype on the same old TV shows/movies/games:

Dude1: Dude, checkit! It's Hi-Def!
Dude2: But it's the same boring TV tripe.
Dude1: Yeah, but now it's tripe... on widescreen!

I'll pick gameplay over "graphics for the sake of graphics". Afterall, it's not as though the Rev's graphics will be bad anyway. GCN showed exceptional graphics in Metroid Prime 1&2, RE4, et al. Since the Revolution is bound to be better, even if just twice as much, I think that's good enough and at a decent - and not high-end PC - price. Couple this with innovative gameplay, and it's worth it; the DS has shown that alternative gameplay can infact be mainstream and not just a subculture of gaming.

As for Mark Rein, I believe he just has a thing against Nintendo. His several comments, including here on this video http://media.cube.ign.com/articles/661/661405/vids_1.html betray this.

On the by, with the whole power vs. innovation thing: Even though developers are free to innovate on alternate platforms (say, xbox or ps), they will be limited by the control scheme. Even if they realease peripherals (eye toy, guitar hero), there are only certain ways those perihperals can be used.

With the controller for the Rev, the marketplace will eventually see a plethora of new games... pretty much something for everybody. Most of the best games for the DS will never, ever be possible in the current iteration of PSP (at least not till they go touchscreen). Developers who want to innovate, for example, will steer towards the machine that allows them to do so with the least amount of risk.

I applaud Nintendo for spending most of their resources on controller innovation. This generation, it certainly did come at a cost. The other two console manufacturers decided to invest in horsepower, and that's fine for them.

But at this point, I guess only time will tell what ends up happening.

"I'd never play a UE3 game, Unreal stopped being good a long time ago."

Really now...you'd be surprised by how many games use the Unreal Engine. Plus the UE is a lot more customizable (and looks nicer) then the id software developed engines IMO.

Innovation dosen't require a new control scheme. Remember the Revo's controller while, DIFFERENT, is limiting in it's own way.

Honestly, if you want the lion's share of Innovation this past generation, it came from the PS2. Eye Toy, Guitar Hero, Ico, Shadow Of The Collosus, Katamrai Damacey. The Only Truly Innovative games on the cube, were probbably RE4, Pikmin, 4 swords and DK's Jungle Beat.

Innovation is in Software. The MGS series is Innovative, compelling and fun, and has always been Damn Beautiful. Innovation is in the design of the software. Be it from UE games, or anywhere. Splinter Cell was an innovative and compelling game, that benefited from it's advanced lighting.

I am another who dosen't believe in Graphics OR Gameplay, like you can't have one without the other. I don't think the wheel has to be rebuilt to make innovation in gameplay.. and I don't see it from a company who's biggest happenings of late is releasing ports and sequals, stealing Apple's Marketing completely, and retro-fitting a bunch of games to remind us how they used to rock in the 80s.

I just need to see something origonal from Nintendo.

"Unreal Engine 3, in a nutshell, allows developers to create graphically powerful titles with less-than-expected computing power."

Read the complete article at CNN Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/24/commentary/game_over/gdc_epic/index.htm

"Innovation dosen't require a new control scheme. Remember the Revo's controller while, DIFFERENT, is limiting in it's own way."

The same argument can be made for the standard controller setup as well. It's funny how you write off the Revolution remote but then in the next paragraph you say that the "Eye Toy, Guitar Hero" are innovative. Do you know WHY they are innovative? The Eye toy was an interactive camera and Guitar Hero had its Guitar "controller."

If you are going to make the argument that only innovative stuff appears on the PS2 then that is a flat out lie. I have 3 words for you "DK Bongo Drums." DK Jungle Beat and the equally awesome Donkey Konga.

I Can understand being a fan of a system but at least try to be consistant instead of being biased to one system.

"Remember when Doom 3 and Half life 2 were impossible to port to the Xbox? What about RE4 on PS2? How the tech behind donkey kong country was supposed to be impossible on SNES hardware? The list goes on, and will continue to go on."

Yes, but take Donkey Kong Country off the list. The graphics for that game could have been done since the beginning. It's just that the SOURCE of the graphics weren't thought of.

All DKC did was take pre-rendered backgrounds and save it as a bitmap.

The only difference it made on the Super Nintendo is that the sprites WEREN'T made pixel by pixel but rather have the models captured into sprites.

The only thing about the SNES that Donkey Kong Country pushed is the color palette buddy. There were no technical boundaries other than that.

Impossible? HA! I wonder who was dumb enough to believe that.

Has Mark Reign been drinking more since his anti-nintendo incident?

More horsepower under the hood = more innovation is a retarded comment. The DS doesn't even come close to the power of next gen consoles. DS doesn't innovate? The PS1 didn't innovate against the 64. What about Saturn? Or Sega Genesis?

Innovation comes from the talent of the developer. Look at Metroid Prime Hunters against Goldeneye Rogue Agent on DS. EA should refund the two dollars they made on that trash of a port to anyone who bought it and pay an additional 30 bucks just for GP.

Publishers don't care about innovation, they care about the bottom line. If the game happens to innovate and sell like hotcakes, great. But it's all about the bottom line. Everything EA has published for the DS has been absolute garbage.
That's why I don't mind that the Revolution isn't going to have the same power as the other two consoles. It's going to be cheaper at retail and I trust Nintendo to demonstrate how great the rev mote can be and what the Rev can do in general.
For anyone that doesn't believe that, go play Goldeneye on the DS and then play Metroid Prime Hunters. Case Closed.

Anyone thinking Mark's comments have anything to do with rev's specs is dead wrong. I mean, honestly, if he hasn't seen the specs himself how can he know if the machine will be able to run it or not? sound to me he pulled a "I think this although i don't know" comment again.


And @ the guy talking about MGS. You couldn't be more wrong. Asides of the cool story, which i dig, the metal gear games have been the same thing ever since it arrived to the ps2, with minor enhancements done to subsistence.

Not to get too far off topic here, regarding innovation, check out Loco Roco for the PSP which recently made an appearance at GDC 2006. It's pretty unique and highly addictive.

Geez, fanboys are spouting "innovation" just to defend a console that isn't out yet. Shut up and let the games speak.
There was only ONE game using the Unreal 2 engine on the GC- Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six. Why should we expect more of a 200 buck ripoff?
Proprietry engines hardly survive. Most franchises use exsisting/ improved code, or middleware. Face it, UE3 is gonna be BIG on the console business and anyone using it exclusively (for example Big N) for the Rev would have a hard time because tada, they've never used it.