-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Revolution Thanksgiving 2006
- Thread starter stone128
- Start date
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
moku said:
Weren't you the one who said you took days off when a new Zelda came out and in fact did wait in lines?
No, I'm not. What I am saying is that Nintendo are not stupid. Saying that a system which is completely different than anything attempted before and that is made by a company thats is successful in almost all of its new ventures is gonna fail because the GC "failed" is retarded, though.BlueTsunami said:
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
ghostface said:
I didn't say it failed but it IS one of the most lackluster consoles i've seen in a while. The fact that Nintendo has memorable mascot first party games is what kept it afloat.
I commend what they did with the DS but if the Revolution doesn't do well, I suggest Nintendo stick to their other specialty.....handhelds.
I really like Iwata's direction with the company, but I'm not too sure about this. If the graphics are as good as Xbox, I don't know how many people would go out and buy it when it is right next to an xbox 360 or PS3, both of whom will (by that time, i hope), have insane graphics.
I still want to try that controller out though
I still want to try that controller out though
BlueTsunami said:
They'll sure take your suggestion, just send them a letter , telling they should go third party and everything will be better for the gaming industry and that they should also release their handhelds under Sony and Microsoft and everything will be perfect for the
gamers .R.I.P nintendo. /end sarcasm.
AndoCalrissian
Member
Well, you know, there's that whole thing where nobody has seen the graphics chip. Oh, and that 2-3x current generation more than describes Xbox 360's entire launch lineup.koam said:
Aika'svyse
Banned
It'll be interesting to see how the general public and Nintendo fanboy differ on this matter.
methodman said:I really like Iwata's direction with the company, but I'm not too sure about this. If the graphics are as good as Xbox, I don't know how many people would go out and buy it when it is right next to an xbox 360 or PS3, both of whom will (by that time, i hope), have insane graphics.
I still want to try that controller out though
The people NIntendo is trying to court weren't wooed by the Xbox or the PS2 (or the Gamecube) for that matter. So I submit to you, do graphics matter at all to THOSE people?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Emotions said:
/begin trying to explain that I didn't say for Nintendo to go 3rd party
I didn't say for them to go third party
/end trying to explain that I didn't say for Nintendo to go 3rd party
With that out of the way. I would rather send an email.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
When it comes to Nintendo if I hear one developer saying "We'll tell you when we see it" and another saying "We've seen it and it's not that good"--the latter is probably BSing about having seen it.
That said, I fully expect it to be less powerful than the other consoles. Nintendo DS has been kicking ass and Nintendo can't hear the word "underpowered" over the noise of all the money falling out of their stuffed pockets.
Low price, functional performence, fresh approach, simple interface, backwards compatible... yeah, that is highly appealing to me. I don't care if it's successful as long as it's good, I mean there are still plenty of sweet Dreamcast games I never got around to.
That said, I fully expect it to be less powerful than the other consoles. Nintendo DS has been kicking ass and Nintendo can't hear the word "underpowered" over the noise of all the money falling out of their stuffed pockets.
Low price, functional performence, fresh approach, simple interface, backwards compatible... yeah, that is highly appealing to me. I don't care if it's successful as long as it's good, I mean there are still plenty of sweet Dreamcast games I never got around to.
Mashing said:
I know what you mean, but as a gamer I find it hard to admit that Nintendo (one of my favorite Developers) is going to have a huge disadvantage (graphically) compared to the competition. But at the same time, maybe the controller will be enough for me to feel the "next-gen" feelings I feel with my Xbox 360 (well, only in PGR3 so far, but I don't like sim/arcade racing games, Pick one or the other damnit!). Also, I feel that if Nintendo is able to present their product in a way where "THOSE" people will be able to pick up the controller and be like, "WOW!", and not the AniHawk "WOW... That fucking sucks!" I could see Nintendo expanding the Market and if Nintendo does accomplish this, you guys who are so criticizing and feel that "catering to a different market" is not a good idea are stupid.
For one reason: More market growth means more people buying other consoles, and meaning better games for us, the gamer. So if this works out for Nintendo, I hope they can sucessfully accomplish the idea of "catering to a different market" so that market will be, in essense, Gamers.
The general consensus amoung casuals & non-gamers alike is that Nintendo doesn't make powerful hardware anyways. So why should Nintendo try to go for people like this with expensive/powerful hardware when they're not gonna believe that it's powerful. The ultimate example is that the general masses *still* believe the PS2 is more powerful than the GCN. So again, why should Nintendo try to convince these people with "power" when most people don't know a GigaByte from a GFLOP?
To add, the people Nintendo are going for are the non-gamers who not only don't know the difference...but also really don't care about the differences. Seriously, if they cared about graphical prowess then wouldn't past powerful systems have made them gamers by now? Nintendo's "hook and draw" isn't the graphics 'cos people consider them "less" than big bad Sony & Microsoft. So...they're going for a new hook...a draw that doesn't really require ultra loss-leading power.
And moreover, since they're not in the graphical prowess "olympics" with their competitors & the public doesn't believe Nintendo is a tech-impressive company, why go for HDTV resolutions either? It'll save software/hardware development time/money/effort and make the system easier to program for & ultimatly profitable for Nintendo.
Revoltuion will be quickest to peak performance (good looking games right away), ideal for casuals, be the perfect secondary "complimentary" system and it'll also be the quickest to the magical $99 pricepoint. New curious control methods, with cheaper hardware and plenty of simple software (easier controls, retro downloadables) make it the perfect system for entry level gaming. A whole new market (low-end) that's been on the verge of blooming for a while now will pretty much belong to Nintendo and those who support them.
To add, the people Nintendo are going for are the non-gamers who not only don't know the difference...but also really don't care about the differences. Seriously, if they cared about graphical prowess then wouldn't past powerful systems have made them gamers by now? Nintendo's "hook and draw" isn't the graphics 'cos people consider them "less" than big bad Sony & Microsoft. So...they're going for a new hook...a draw that doesn't really require ultra loss-leading power.
And moreover, since they're not in the graphical prowess "olympics" with their competitors & the public doesn't believe Nintendo is a tech-impressive company, why go for HDTV resolutions either? It'll save software/hardware development time/money/effort and make the system easier to program for & ultimatly profitable for Nintendo.
Revoltuion will be quickest to peak performance (good looking games right away), ideal for casuals, be the perfect secondary "complimentary" system and it'll also be the quickest to the magical $99 pricepoint. New curious control methods, with cheaper hardware and plenty of simple software (easier controls, retro downloadables) make it the perfect system for entry level gaming. A whole new market (low-end) that's been on the verge of blooming for a while now will pretty much belong to Nintendo and those who support them.
Gaia Theory
Member
I think that Drinky might be the only one in this thread that is making any sense at all...
As for this ridiculous debate, here are my thoughts:
Revolution is said to be underpowerd compared to competitors in the graphic department.
People think this is a horrible travesty and that Nintendo is fucked.
Revolution is said to offer a brand new way to interface with our games, developers are excited, as is much of the media that has had a chance to try it. Some have said that games played with 'dualshock' style controllers immediately feel dated after having tried to Revolution controller.
People think this is a horrible travesty and that Nintendo is fucked.
So what? Nintendo has slightly inferior graphics but an absolutey superior control interface (while untested and new to the market and gamer, will by all accounts (from those that have actually had a chance to try it) change the way we play games).
Sony and MS have slightly superior graphics but absolutely dated and (been there, done that) control interface that (unless some developers know of another way to use a dpad/analog stick and buttons) offer the same type of interaction we have all come to know (and love) in our games.
What does all this mean? It looks like Nintendo has successfully guaranteed itself (at the very least) these things:
1)Second system status for many an Xbox 360 owner of PS3 owner.
2)Trailblazer/Pioneer/Innovator status as a company
3)A much less expensive console than their competitors
As an aside, I would also like to note that HD, and way more horsepower in general will absolutely not stand up to stereoscopic 3D images.
Okay fine, disregard that last part! :lol
As for this ridiculous debate, here are my thoughts:
Revolution is said to be underpowerd compared to competitors in the graphic department.
People think this is a horrible travesty and that Nintendo is fucked.
Revolution is said to offer a brand new way to interface with our games, developers are excited, as is much of the media that has had a chance to try it. Some have said that games played with 'dualshock' style controllers immediately feel dated after having tried to Revolution controller.
People think this is a horrible travesty and that Nintendo is fucked.
So what? Nintendo has slightly inferior graphics but an absolutey superior control interface (while untested and new to the market and gamer, will by all accounts (from those that have actually had a chance to try it) change the way we play games).
Sony and MS have slightly superior graphics but absolutely dated and (been there, done that) control interface that (unless some developers know of another way to use a dpad/analog stick and buttons) offer the same type of interaction we have all come to know (and love) in our games.
What does all this mean? It looks like Nintendo has successfully guaranteed itself (at the very least) these things:
1)Second system status for many an Xbox 360 owner of PS3 owner.
2)Trailblazer/Pioneer/Innovator status as a company
3)A much less expensive console than their competitors
As an aside, I would also like to note that HD, and way more horsepower in general will absolutely not stand up to stereoscopic 3D images.
Okay fine, disregard that last part! :lol
Sathsquatch
Member
I have been vocally skeptical of the value of the Revolution controller for a while now, but I always thought that they could do something cool with it. The thing that has always bothered me about the revolution is that Nintnendo acts like it needs to lose the processing power. It could have had both.
Nintendo grossly underestimates the impact that processing power/graphics power can have on gameplay. Sure, games can be fun on less powerful hardware (like on the DS), but processing power is necessary for a lot of games.
Take Burnout on the Nintendo DS. The developer, apparently, could not replicate the Burnout experience on the DS. It couldn't have traffic. The crashes were less thrilling because they couldn't rival the experience on other gaming platforms that Burnout appears on. The DS might have the edge overall over the PSP, but that is largely because of the console-like pricing model and Sony's inability to convince developer's to create original games for a platform that is just as expensive to develope for as current gen consoles. If the DS were powerful enough, we could have a good burnout game (and other games that require processing power) AND things like Nintnendogs on a single handheld.
I always hated how Nintendo designs hardware for their own needs at the expense of third party developers. Nintendo might not need a lot of processing power for their games, but other developers probably do. If Nintendo wanted to provide a cheap platform to develop for, they could have done a download service like XBLA.
Nintendo grossly underestimates the impact that processing power/graphics power can have on gameplay. Sure, games can be fun on less powerful hardware (like on the DS), but processing power is necessary for a lot of games.
Take Burnout on the Nintendo DS. The developer, apparently, could not replicate the Burnout experience on the DS. It couldn't have traffic. The crashes were less thrilling because they couldn't rival the experience on other gaming platforms that Burnout appears on. The DS might have the edge overall over the PSP, but that is largely because of the console-like pricing model and Sony's inability to convince developer's to create original games for a platform that is just as expensive to develope for as current gen consoles. If the DS were powerful enough, we could have a good burnout game (and other games that require processing power) AND things like Nintnendogs on a single handheld.
I always hated how Nintendo designs hardware for their own needs at the expense of third party developers. Nintendo might not need a lot of processing power for their games, but other developers probably do. If Nintendo wanted to provide a cheap platform to develop for, they could have done a download service like XBLA.
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
I think you are absolutely right. Nintendo is trying to three things:methodman said:I really like Iwata's direction with the company, but I'm not too sure about this. If the graphics are as good as Xbox, I don't know how many people would go out and buy it when it is right next to an xbox 360 or PS3, both of whom will (by that time, i hope), have insane graphics.
I still want to try that controller out though
1. Separate itself from the competition
2. Create new gameplay
3. Bring in new/old audiences
So what can they do with graphics to satisfy all of these things? Some type of 3D. It's cheap, exciting, doesn't require a lot of power and it totally changes gameplay. It's probably the best candidate to draw in people who have never played games or haven't played them in a long time. Think about the radical departure that the controller is from traditional games. We know there is still one more secret to be revealed. True 3D is just as much of an impact as the controller is and they are both made for each other. Why isn't anyone talking about the GPU? Maybe they haven't seen it or maybe they're under NDA and can't talk about it. Below are a bunch of quotes by Dreamaster taken from the Revolution Blog that broke the Jim Merrick leaving NOE story:
Dreamaster said:
Where's Dennis Dyack when you need him? All of these are reasons to support my claim. How much more of a paradigm shift can you have than true 3D? Also there's a quote somewhere that stated multiplayer Revolution games would be shared with one copy of a game similar to the DS. Nintendo's pushing wireless, they were talking to eMagin, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. There's some speculation fer ya!
Letter to Elise
Banned
wait...what?
~l2e
AndoCalrissian
Member
Yes, but we're never likely to see another leap from generation to generation again as we did from the SNES/Genisis to PSX/Saturn/N64, and then from those to PS2/Xbox/GCN.Sathsquatch said:
What's coming out on a next-gen console that can't be done on a current one, sans graphical improvements?
Letter to Elise
Banned
AndoCalrissian said:
IMO physics is the next battlefield.
~l2e
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Letter to Elise said:
Bingo Bango
AndoCalrissian said:
Physics and more advanced AI
Sathsquatch
Member
Oblivion. The developer posted on this very forum that you couldn't do oblivion on a current gen system without making it a substantially different experience. I think he used the example of radiant AI being impossible on current gen hardware, and I doubt procedural forests would be possible on a current gen console. Therefore, the way you interacted with characters and the game world itself would be different.AndoCalrissian said:
Like other people have mentioned, physics are also an import part of games now. In oblivion, someone cut some ropes holding some logs in place at the top of a hill. The player saw some enemies at the bottom of the hill and cut the ropes. The logs rolled over one enemy, killing him. The other enemy jumped over the logs and attacked the player.
Without adequate processing power, the game couldn't have the physics to let the player do something inventive to beat the enemies like that and the game wouldn't have the AI to know that it should jump over the logs. Dynamic, unpredicatable game worlds are substantially different (and generally better) than static worlds full of scripted sequences.
That's just a game coming out in like 4-6 months from now. The next generation will last 5-7 years (most likely).
AndoCalrissian
Member
The animation needs a lot of work, but it looks alright.methodman said:Oblivion looks so fucking sweet, But imagine it with a Rev Controller! Why must you make me feel this way Nintendo...
BTW, I'm buying Oblivion the day it comes out
Anyway, what I'm getting at here is that every generation developers make these sweeping statements about how gameplay in the next generation is going to be so fundamentally different given all the power they'll have. And what do we get... the same games again and again. I love Metal Gear Solid, but there wasn't a huge advance in MGS2 from MGS1. I love Zelda, but there wasn't a huge advance from OoT to WW.
And now, we do indeed have diminishing returns. The leap in graphics from PSX to PS2 is not as huge here, and it will likely never be that big again.
Mashing said:
And I submit that Nintendo isn't going to bring these people into the fold. People that don't play video games aren't going to be wooed by a new, dumbed down control mechanism, as they could positively not care. The virtual console aspect is something that might appeal to those that gamed when they were younger, but not at a $200 pricetag. There are two places for them to go: (1) complete bargain bin, low frills and low cost a la Atari controller that plugs right into the TV or (2) go with what's perceived as the best or most popular. Revolution will not meet either requirement, Revolution am bomb total. The middle of the road never wins. See: PSP (for now). Can't compete in the kids' handheld gaming market, can't compete in the teen/young adult MP3 player market. See: 89 Octane gasoline. Really, what's the point of it? 87 or 93 ftw.
It will sell to those that would buy the GameCube successor anyway. It's not going to win back many old fans, and it is not going to introduce gaming to the unwashed masses. It will just continue the trend of selling less than the system before. At least that's what I found out when I got my DeLorean up to 88 miles per hour.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
AndoCalrissian said:
AndoCalrissian said:
I know its your opinion and all but if the above pictures isn't a big jump in visuals...then i'm wondering what you were expecting.
Gaia Theory
Member
Blue, you missed Ando's point.BlueTsunami said:
He meant that the gameplay in MGS1 to MGS2 didn't see a radical difference, nor did OoT to WW.
The graphics between generations obviously did see improvements, and that will likely always be the case.
Looking at the shots you provided of MGS1 and MGS2, you can certainly see the argument that better graphics can enhance the actual gameplay though. There is definitley a level of interactivity present in MGS2 that was just not possible in MGS1. Then again, the reason for that difference isn't entirely graphics based.
Odyssey said:
Why are all your responses filled with so much hate?
It's like this, if you buy a product from a company, do you always feel such a connection to that company? To the point of feeling hatred at any subsequent decision they make on where the company or product line you bought, are heading? Sheesh
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
I personally think that Metal Gear Solid 2s biggest advance over MGS for the playstation was the First person view camera. It added another layer to the MGS gameplay. I can also pick off different areas of gameplay that made MGS2 leaps and bounds better than MGS. With those additions it also made MGS2 more immersive.
Drinky Crow said:
Drinky, you just sparked a thought in my head.
What if Nintendo is going to try something REALLY different this time around... somewhat staggered system updates?
Don't laugh, yet... if it's true that the Revolution is quite radically underpowered when compared to the PS3 and 360 -but- that it might well "hold its own" for the first few years, a dirt cheap Revolution ($99-$150) could sell very well. True, there's no HD support, but that probably won't become a mass market problem for... a few years.
2008 rolls along. 2nd/3rd year of life for the PS3 and 360. Nintendo does something unique... they release an "upgraded" Revolution, capable of HD graphics (only with newer games, of course) and with higher specs all around, making it easily match the PS3 and 360. At this point, however, costs have dropped enough for Nintendo to sell it for... $99.
Crazy? Well, not as much as you might think... if Nintendo can get people to buy a new system for $99-$150 that is generally comparable (to the average consumer) to the higher powered systems for the first two or so years, they'll be okay. After a few years pass, release a moderately price "upgraded system" capable of playing all old Revolution games -and- new, impressive titles.
Nintendo's done nearly the same thing in the handheld market (remember the Game Boy Color?) -- releasing a system capable enough at the time and at a very good price, then releasing an upgrade with the same low price point a few years later.
Yes, Nintendo would risk alienating their userbase, but new games COULD be made to run on both the Rev and the Rev SP. All retro titles would still work... and, quite frankly, you'd pay less than a 360 or PS3 launch user paid for a similar experience.
Gaia Theory
Member
Worst Idea I Have Ever Had AwardDavidDayton said:
DavidDayton said:
I can see this working, but at the same time, no-one in the console world has tried anything like this. Nintendo alienated a lot of N64 gamers from Majora's Mask and Perfect Dark (not exactly sure if it was Required for this, but i think it was), by having that Ram Pack. But if you're right about the price, I can see this being a really, really effective way to approach the market.
Lighting Gels
Member
They'd selll the conroller as a GameCube add-on.
If no major enhancements I can't see the point of a new console.
Maybe GameCube 'label' is all wasted, maybe.
If no major enhancements I can't see the point of a new console.
Maybe GameCube 'label' is all wasted, maybe.
Well this sucks. I guess next-gen Zelda won't be the epic game I imagined.
Oh and revolution in November = Twilight Princess in summer 2006? Damn I hope not.
The dumbass posts nothing but MARIO ZELDA AM DEAD NOBODY AM CARE LOL MATURE FTW in every thread possible.
Oh and revolution in November = Twilight Princess in summer 2006? Damn I hope not.
methodman said:
The dumbass posts nothing but MARIO ZELDA AM DEAD NOBODY AM CARE LOL MATURE FTW in every thread possible.
AndoCalrissian
Member
I 100% agree with that, but that's just the evolution of the series. Not any sort of technological advancement that was impossible on the first PlayStation.BlueTsunami said:
Chrono said:
Hold on, I tackle the PSP where appropriate from time to time, too.
And, for the record, I do believe Mario and Zelda have seen better days for everyone that's not a dyed in the wool Nintendo gamer, but I'm not one to call for more "mature" games from Nintendo, either. Production values of this decade, sure, but there's nothing wrong with publishing only E and T games (ask EA).
Gaia Theory
Member
I will say this (despite having no idea what Nintendo is up to with Revolution):
Nintendo has never released an underpowered CONSOLE to market save for the NES (MasterSystem had it beat in the spec department).
SNES, N64, Gamecube - all hold their own when compared to their closest competitors.
Revolution will be no different.
Food for thought: Considering the complete lack of REAL information in the article provided by IGN that is causing all this ruckus - why the need for developer anonymitity?
Did any of these anonymous developers actually break NDAs by revealing to Matt what little they did? I highly doubt it.
Nintendo has never released an underpowered CONSOLE to market save for the NES (MasterSystem had it beat in the spec department).
SNES, N64, Gamecube - all hold their own when compared to their closest competitors.
Revolution will be no different.
Food for thought: Considering the complete lack of REAL information in the article provided by IGN that is causing all this ruckus - why the need for developer anonymitity?
Did any of these anonymous developers actually break NDAs by revealing to Matt what little they did? I highly doubt it.
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
They merged the threads (damnit) but I still think you will win. I forgot the best fanboys on this board would rather scratch their eyes out then let something go.quetz67 said:I bet it will be 9+ pages
Oh and Gitaroo Man has it pegged at 12 pages, so we'll see.