Support NeoGAF

[Gahiggidy]

ehh... shaders schmaders.


What most bugs me about Nintendo's GameCube grafx is the low-poly look of some of its characters and objects... ie. Mario's shoesin SMS, the bent stem on the Pikmin. And don't get me started on the habit of using sprites in place of actual 3D modesl.


To me... hihg-res textures layered on top of low poly environments and characters have a "hollow look". I'd much prefer modest texturing on top higly detailed modeling.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It has improved with the DS where games are relatively cheap - and that was pretty much their point of change. So we'll see.

Uhm... GBA releases seem to peak (looking at EBgames new releases list) around $29.99 while most DS games seem to peak at $34.99-39.99 with the occasional bunch of titles hovering around $29.99.

I'd say the prices have increased there too.

 

[BorkBork]

One thing they bypass going with the download model is that there is no cartridge costs (like with the NES classic series), which SHOULD cut down prices significantly. However, as Experiment said, Nintendo's not known for cheap software, and I have a feeling they'll milk prices for as much as they can get away with it.

 

[Gahiggidy]

You guys are off-topic.

 

[pgtl_10]

I read a post from a user on the GAF which talked about graphics. He wonders why we care about graphics so much in video games. The driving force behind video games is to interact. We press buttons, move analog sticks, dance, wave our hands(eye toy), and even punch with a glove which in turn alowss objects on the screen to perform various functions for our enjoyment.

Over the history of video games, the interaction between us and games has remained constant. Whether you play an RPG, sports game, FPS, RTS, tournament fighter, or even a game show game like Jepordy Sports Edition(I use to own it for Genesis), we still interact in some form. This interaction in many ways help inspired people to play games in the first place. The ability to be the hero rather watching the hero in the movies is something that intrigues us. Video games gives us one the closest chances will ever get to actually acheiving such fantasies.

For some reason however graphics have been a driving force in the game industry. Many of us want prettier games. This strange paradox is unique to the game industry. Music fanatics don't care about specail effect when they list to a song they care about how the song sounds, movie fanatics don't look for sound as much as they look for visual performance, yet in the video game industry graphics are a driving force that at times interaction takes a back seat. This phenomenon may have resulted from over the years graphics have been a primary way to expand our interaction with games. We can do things now in games that could have not been done on the NES. The shift from 2D to 3D opened the doors to new ways to interact. Graphics for a long time was sufficient to create new ways to interact. Thus the goal of interact became synonamous with graphics and in gamer's minds interaction fell out of the rader.

By giving interaction a back seat games start to become stale. The game industry abadons its true roots so we can have pretty pictures. It makes no sense and some of us start to say that the graphics get boring after a while or there is nothing specail in them. People start to say the games are the same as last generation only prettier. There might be a game that sticks out in originality but most games seem to lack the feel the SNES games had. We have abbadon interaction from our minds yet it is interaction that soul of video gaming itself. By belittling it we ignore the main reason why the game industry started in the first place.

Nintendo Revolution is suppose to bring something new to the table but in reality the core driving force behind the Revolution is not new at all. Nintendo wants us to interact with games differently. Nintendo is indeed trying to go back twenty years as they claim they want to do. What Nintendo might not realize however is that while games were simpler to play twenty years ago, the ability to simply interact with a game was in itself a very powerful force and the Revolution attempts to bring such force back into the driver's seat. Nintendo is attempting to retap into the heart and soul of the gaming industry INTERACTION.

I give credit to the user on GAF who made think of gaming in a way I didn't put much thought of before. Some of the information he wrote in his post such the reference to music and movies is reflected here. This post however is written most by me.

 

[kablooey]

I read a post from a user on the GAF which talked about graphics. He wonders why we care about graphics so much in video games. The driving force behind video games is to interact. We press buttons, move analog sticks, dance, wave our hands(eye toy), and even punch with a glove which in turn alowss objects on the screen to perform various functions for our enjoyment.

Over the history of video games, the interaction between us and games has remained constant. Whether you play an RPG, sports game, FPS, RTS, tournament fighter, or even a game show game like Jepordy Sports Edition(I use to own it for Genesis), we still interact in some form. This interaction in many ways help inspired people to play games in the first place. The ability to be the hero rather watching the hero in the movies is something that intrigues us. Video games gives us one the closest chances will ever get to actually acheiving such fantasies.

For some reason however graphics have been a driving force in the game industry. Many of us want prettier games. This strange paradox is unique to the game industry. Music fanatics don't care about specail effect when they list to a song they care about how the song sounds, movie fanatics don't look for sound as much as they look for visual performance, yet in the video game industry graphics are a driving force that at times interaction takes a back seat. This phenomenon may have resulted from over the years graphics have been a primary way to expand our interaction with games. We can do things now in games that could have not been done on the NES. The shift from 2D to 3D opened the doors to new ways to interact. Graphics for a long time was sufficient to create new ways to interact. Thus the goal of interact became synonamous with graphics and in gamer's minds interaction fell out of the rader.

By giving interaction a back seat games start to become stale. The game industry abadons its true roots so we can have pretty pictures. It makes no sense and some of us start to say that the graphics get boring after a while or there is nothing specail in them. People start to say the games are the same as last generation only prettier. There might be a game that sticks out in originality but most games seem to lack the feel the SNES games had. We have abbadon interaction from our minds yet it is interaction that soul of video gaming itself. By belittling it we ignore the main reason why the game industry started in the first place.

Nintendo Revolution is suppose to bring something new to the table but in reality the core driving force behind the Revolution is not new at all. Nintendo wants us to interact with games differently. Nintendo is indeed trying to go back twenty years as they claim they want to do. What Nintendo might not realize however is that while games were simpler to play twenty years ago, the ability to simply interact with a game was in itself a very powerful force and the Revolution attempts to bring such force back into the driver's seat. Nintendo is attempting to retap into the heart and soul of the gaming industry INTERACTION.

I give credit to the user on GAF who made think of gaming in a way I didn't put much thought of before. Some of the information he wrote in his post such the reference to music and movies is reflected here. This post however is written most by me.

*applause*

 

[Gahiggidy]

I read a post from a user on the GAF which talked about graphics. He wonders why we care about graphics so much in video games. The driving force behind video games is to interact. We press buttons, move analog sticks, dance, wave our hands(eye toy), and even punch with a glove which in turn alowss objects on the screen to perform various functions for our enjoyment.

Over the history of video games, the interaction between us and games has remained constant. Whether you play an RPG, sports game, FPS, RTS, tournament fighter, or even a game show game like Jepordy Sports Edition(I use to own it for Genesis), we still interact in some form. This interaction in many ways help inspired people to play games in the first place. The ability to be the hero rather watching the hero in the movies is something that intrigues us. Video games gives us one the closest chances will ever get to actually acheiving such fantasies.

For some reason however graphics have been a driving force in the game industry. Many of us want prettier games. This strange paradox is unique to the game industry. Music fanatics don't care about specail effect when they list to a song they care about how the song sounds, movie fanatics don't look for sound as much as they look for visual performance, yet in the video game industry graphics are a driving force that at times interaction takes a back seat. This phenomenon may have resulted from over the years graphics have been a primary way to expand our interaction with games. We can do things now in games that could have not been done on the NES. The shift from 2D to 3D opened the doors to new ways to interact. Graphics for a long time was sufficient to create new ways to interact. Thus the goal of interact became synonamous with graphics and in gamer's minds interaction fell out of the rader.

By giving interaction a back seat games start to become stale. The game industry abadons its true roots so we can have pretty pictures. It makes no sense and some of us start to say that the graphics get boring after a while or there is nothing specail in them. People start to say the games are the same as last generation only prettier. There might be a game that sticks out in originality but most games seem to lack the feel the SNES games had. We have abbadon interaction from our minds yet it is interaction that soul of video gaming itself. By belittling it we ignore the main reason why the game industry started in the first place.

Nintendo Revolution is suppose to bring something new to the table but in reality the core driving force behind the Revolution is not new at all. Nintendo wants us to interact with games differently. Nintendo is indeed trying to go back twenty years as they claim they want to do. What Nintendo might not realize however is that while games were simpler to play twenty years ago, the ability to simply interact with a game was in itself a very powerful force and the Revolution attempts to bring such force back into the driver's seat. Nintendo is attempting to retap into the heart and soul of the gaming industry INTERACTION.

I give credit to the user on GAF who made think of gaming in a way I didn't put much thought of before. Some of the information he wrote in his post such the reference to music and movies is reflected here. This post however is written most by me.

Ok, great.. but what does that have to do with Mario's blocky shoes?

 

[Any1]

I read a post from a user on the GAF which talked about graphics. He wonders why we care about graphics so much in video games. The driving force behind video games is to interact. We press buttons, move analog sticks, dance, wave our hands(eye toy), and even punch with a glove which in turn alowss objects on the screen to perform various functions for our enjoyment.

Over the history of video games, the interaction between us and games has remained constant. Whether you play an RPG, sports game, FPS, RTS, tournament fighter, or even a game show game like Jepordy Sports Edition(I use to own it for Genesis), we still interact in some form. This interaction in many ways help inspired people to play games in the first place. The ability to be the hero rather watching the hero in the movies is something that intrigues us. Video games gives us one the closest chances will ever get to actually acheiving such fantasies.

For some reason however graphics have been a driving force in the game industry. Many of us want prettier games. This strange paradox is unique to the game industry. Music fanatics don't care about specail effect when they list to a song they care about how the song sounds, movie fanatics don't look for sound as much as they look for visual performance, yet in the video game industry graphics are a driving force that at times interaction takes a back seat. This phenomenon may have resulted from over the years graphics have been a primary way to expand our interaction with games. We can do things now in games that could have not been done on the NES. The shift from 2D to 3D opened the doors to new ways to interact. Graphics for a long time was sufficient to create new ways to interact. Thus the goal of interact became synonamous with graphics and in gamer's minds interaction fell out of the rader.

By giving interaction a back seat games start to become stale. The game industry abadons its true roots so we can have pretty pictures. It makes no sense and some of us start to say that the graphics get boring after a while or there is nothing specail in them. People start to say the games are the same as last generation only prettier. There might be a game that sticks out in originality but most games seem to lack the feel the SNES games had. We have abbadon interaction from our minds yet it is interaction that soul of video gaming itself. By belittling it we ignore the main reason why the game industry started in the first place.

Nintendo Revolution is suppose to bring something new to the table but in reality the core driving force behind the Revolution is not new at all. Nintendo wants us to interact with games differently. Nintendo is indeed trying to go back twenty years as they claim they want to do. What Nintendo might not realize however is that while games were simpler to play twenty years ago, the ability to simply interact with a game was in itself a very powerful force and the Revolution attempts to bring such force back into the driver's seat. Nintendo is attempting to retap into the heart and soul of the gaming industry INTERACTION.

I give credit to the user on GAF who made think of gaming in a way I didn't put much thought of before. Some of the information he wrote in his post such the reference to music and movies is reflected here. This post however is written most by me.

Well, the real reason their going this route is not for some holier than thou "love of the game" mentality. The real reason is that they no longer can compete on the scale that its competition can and remain profitable.

It's not the love of the game that has pushed Nintendo in this direction, it's the love of money that has, or at the very least the want to continue as a console maker. Cause when it's all said and done there is more money to be made in the direction that Sony and MS are heading in.

But it does sound better the way you say it.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I read a post from a user on the GAF which talked about graphics. He wonders why we care about graphics so much in video games. The driving force behind video games is to interact. We press buttons, move analog sticks, dance, wave our hands(eye toy), and even punch with a glove which in turn alowss objects on the screen to perform various functions for our enjoyment.

Over the history of video games, the interaction between us and games has remained constant. Whether you play an RPG, sports game, FPS, RTS, tournament fighter, or even a game show game like Jepordy Sports Edition(I use to own it for Genesis), we still interact in some form. This interaction in many ways help inspired people to play games in the first place. The ability to be the hero rather watching the hero in the movies is something that intrigues us. Video games gives us one the closest chances will ever get to actually acheiving such fantasies.

For some reason however graphics have been a driving force in the game industry. Many of us want prettier games. This strange paradox is unique to the game industry. Music fanatics don't care about specail effect when they list to a song they care about how the song sounds, movie fanatics don't look for sound as much as they look for visual performance, yet in the video game industry graphics are a driving force that at times interaction takes a back seat. This phenomenon may have resulted from over the years graphics have been a primary way to expand our interaction with games. We can do things now in games that could have not been done on the NES. The shift from 2D to 3D opened the doors to new ways to interact. Graphics for a long time was sufficient to create new ways to interact. Thus the goal of interact became synonamous with graphics and in gamer's minds interaction fell out of the rader.

By giving interaction a back seat games start to become stale. The game industry abadons its true roots so we can have pretty pictures. It makes no sense and some of us start to say that the graphics get boring after a while or there is nothing specail in them. People start to say the games are the same as last generation only prettier. There might be a game that sticks out in originality but most games seem to lack the feel the SNES games had. We have abbadon interaction from our minds yet it is interaction that soul of video gaming itself. By belittling it we ignore the main reason why the game industry started in the first place.

Nintendo Revolution is suppose to bring something new to the table but in reality the core driving force behind the Revolution is not new at all. Nintendo wants us to interact with games differently. Nintendo is indeed trying to go back twenty years as they claim they want to do. What Nintendo might not realize however is that while games were simpler to play twenty years ago, the ability to simply interact with a game was in itself a very powerful force and the Revolution attempts to bring such force back into the driver's seat. Nintendo is attempting to retap into the heart and soul of the gaming industry INTERACTION.

I give credit to the user on GAF who made think of gaming in a way I didn't put much thought of before. Some of the information he wrote in his post such the reference to music and movies is reflected here. This post however is written most by me.

The wrong idea is IMHO, that ONLY a change in controller's input can lead to games that are enjoyable again... as if no enjoyable games could be made without and advancements in processing power could not be useful.

The Revolution's Remote and features will enable a different way to interact with games and it will most likely provide some very fun experiences just like EyeToy has and will continue to do (even better as the time goes on and more advancements are done on the Camera technology and the software algorithms for motion detection in games fronts), but to think that only those elements are enough and there will be NO impact on games themselves (besides simply prettier graphics as in more polygons, more effects and shinier surfaces) coming from the leap in processing power the next-generation consoles provide... is IMHO wrong.

We want great interaction between us the players and the game world and we want to feel this interaction, we want the game to take into account our actions in minute detail and have our actions reflect realistically (realistically... I should say consistently with the game world's physics/rules) in the environment and with the other characters in the game world. We want to see dynamic environments, populated of autonomous entities, alive constructs that interact with each other and with us and their surroundings. And let's not kid ourselves: there is no one who LOVES texture aliasing, edge aliasing, single digits frame-rate, pop-up, uber blurry textures, etc...

You won't be able to get that on a Commodore 64, you won't be able to fully do that on a PlayStation 2, on an Xbox or a GCN or at least not to the level that the next-generation of consoles will allow you to do.

While ICO was still going to be a very nice looking game on PSOne, especially for PSOne's standards, it is undeniable how the move to PlayStation 2 enabled Team ICO to get clsoer to their vision (as they said themselves) and the growing expertise and familiarity with the PlayStation 2 platform enabled again Team ICO to bring us Shadow of the Colossus as its creators wanted it to be. Now Team ICO, by Fumito ueda's words, seems eager to jump on the PLAYSTATION 3 platform. Why ? Because he cannot wait to abuse of normal and offset maps and ultra-high polygons environments and filling fields with useless instances of the same model while having particle effects just popping all around the environment for no reason, but to show they can do it ? Is Kojima happy about developing on PLAYSTATION 3 because he just could not wait to bump-up the graphics of MGS 3 and re-release it on the new paltform as-is ? No. Both teams see the new platform as a big set of tools (raw processing power is one of them) and they both have a story they want to tell, an experience they want to make the player part of and a way they want their creation and their users to interact with each.other: then they take all the tricks-'n-tools the new machine can do and forge their vision with them.

Untalented or not too experienced developers might see the new consoles as a chance to simply wow people with graphics: others might find meaningful ways to use what is given to them.

 

[capslock]

The wrong idea is IMHO, that ONLY a change in controller's input can lead to games that are enjoyable again... as if no enjoyable games could be made without and advancements in processing power could not be useful.

The Revolution's Remote and features will enable a different way to interact with games and it will most likely provide some very fun experiences just like EyeToy has and will continue to do (even better as the time goes on and more advancements are done on the Camera technology and the software algorithms for motion detection in games fronts), but to think that only those elements are enough and there will be NO impact on games themselves (besides simply prettier graphics as in more polygons, more effects and shinier surfaces) coming from the leap in processing power the next-generation consoles provide... is IMHO wrong.

We want great interaction between us the players and the game world and we want to feel this interaction, we want the game to take into account our actions in minute detail and have our actions reflect realistically (realistically... I should say consistently with the game world's physics/rules) in the environment and with the other characters in the game world. We want to see dynamic environments, populated of autonomous entities, alive constructs that interact with each other and with us and their surroundings. And let's not kid ourselves: there is no one who LOVES texture aliasing, edge aliasing, single digits frame-rate, pop-up, uber blurry textures, etc...

You won't be able to get that on a Commodore 64, you won't be able to fully do that on a PlayStation 2, on an Xbox or a GCN or at least not to the level that the next-generation of consoles will allow you to do.

While ICO was still going to be a very nice looking game on PSOne, especially for PSOne's standards, it is undeniable how the move to PlayStation 2 enabled Team ICO to get clsoer to their vision (as they said themselves) and the growing expertise and familiarity with the PlayStation 2 platform enabled again Team ICO to bring us Shadow of the Colossus as its creators wanted it to be. Now Team ICO, by Fumito ueda's words, seems eager to jump on the PLAYSTATION 3 platform. Why ? Because he cannot wait to abuse of normal and offset maps and ultra-high polygons environments and filling fields with useless instances of the same model while having particle effects just popping all around the environment for no reason, but to show they can do it ? Is Kojima happy about developing on PLAYSTATION 3 because he just could not wait to bump-up the graphics of MGS 3 and re-release it on the new paltform as-is ? No. Both teams see the new platform as a big set of tools (raw processing power is one of them) and they both have a story they want to tell, an experience they want to make the player part of and a way they want their creation and their users to interact with each.other: then they take all the tricks-'n-tools the new machine can do and forge their vision with them.

Untalented or not too experienced developers might see the new consoles as a chance to simply wow people with graphics: others might find meaningful ways to use what is given to them.

I'm sorry, all I heard was 'boo hoo hoo we don't have the revmote!'

 

[Gahiggidy]

I'm sorry, all I heard was 'boo hoo hoo we don't have the revmote!'

 

[AndoCalrissian]

The wrong idea is IMHO, that ONLY a change in controller's input can lead to games that are enjoyable again... as if no enjoyable games could be made without and advancements in processing power could not be useful.

The Revolution's Remote and features will enable a different way to interact with games and it will most likely provide some very fun experiences just like EyeToy has and will continue to do (even better as the time goes on and more advancements are done on the Camera technology and the software algorithms for motion detection in games fronts), but to think that only those elements are enough and there will be NO impact on games themselves (besides simply prettier graphics as in more polygons, more effects and shinier surfaces) coming from the leap in processing power the next-generation consoles provide... is IMHO wrong.

We want great interaction between us the players and the game world and we want to feel this interaction, we want the game to take into account our actions in minute detail and have our actions reflect realistically (realistically... I should say consistently with the game world's physics/rules) in the environment and with the other characters in the game world. We want to see dynamic environments, populated of autonomous entities, alive constructs that interact with each other and with us and their surroundings. And let's not kid ourselves: there is no one who LOVES texture aliasing, edge aliasing, single digits frame-rate, pop-up, uber blurry textures, etc...

You won't be able to get that on a Commodore 64, you won't be able to fully do that on a PlayStation 2, on an Xbox or a GCN or at least not to the level that the next-generation of consoles will allow you to do.

While ICO was still going to be a very nice looking game on PSOne, especially for PSOne's standards, it is undeniable how the move to PlayStation 2 enabled Team ICO to get clsoer to their vision (as they said themselves) and the growing expertise and familiarity with the PlayStation 2 platform enabled again Team ICO to bring us Shadow of the Colossus as its creators wanted it to be. Now Team ICO, by Fumito ueda's words, seems eager to jump on the PLAYSTATION 3 platform. Why ? Because he cannot wait to abuse of normal and offset maps and ultra-high polygons environments and filling fields with useless instances of the same model while having particle effects just popping all around the environment for no reason, but to show they can do it ? Is Kojima happy about developing on PLAYSTATION 3 because he just could not wait to bump-up the graphics of MGS 3 and re-release it on the new paltform as-is ? No. Both teams see the new platform as a big set of tools (raw processing power is one of them) and they both have a story they want to tell, an experience they want to make the player part of and a way they want their creation and their users to interact with each.other: then they take all the tricks-'n-tools the new machine can do and forge their vision with them.

Untalented or not too experienced developers might see the new consoles as a chance to simply wow people with graphics: others might find meaningful ways to use what is given to them.

The same thing can be said about the revcon then. You can't entirely write one or the other off, because then everyone is a hypocrite. The Revolution controller can be used for shallow, quirky game types, just as it can be utilized to create a deeper game experience. To everyone who says that controllers now are fine, I can just as easily say that graphics now are fine.

I think Nintendo is simply trying to strike a balance between graphics and control. They recognize that an advance in graphics and processing power is expected and important, but whose to say it's more important than the way you interact with the game? Shouldn't we be also examining the future of the controller? Do I want to play Tennis here in snowy, dismal Minnesota with a great racket, or play it in beautiful, sunny Hawaii with a racket lacking all of its strings? Ideally, I'd like to be able to combine the two.

There's nothing wrong with improving graphics, physics, and artificial intelligence. Physics and AI are two areas where games will improve the most over the course of the coming generation. They're just not the only areas to improve, and controllers have been mostly overlooked since 1996. Nintendo is not completely writing off graphics and processing power, they're just not focusing on them entirely.

Nintendo is clearly positioning themselves as a companion console. When gamers look at the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 they are seeing a lot of crossover between the two consoles. Yes, different titles on each, but ultimately they look very similar and have very similar types of games, albeit beautiful ones. Nintendo is stepping up and saying, "Hey, we improved our graphics a little bit, and are giving you this other, unthought of way to interact with your games. Give it a shot."

I want that.

 

[Shogmaster]

ehh... shaders schmaders.


What most bugs me about Nintendo's GameCube grafx is the low-poly look of some of its characters and objects... ie. Mario's shoesin SMS, the bent stem on the Pikmin. And don't get me started on the habit of using sprites in place of actual 3D modesl.


To me... hihg-res textures layered on top of low poly environments and characters have a "hollow look". I'd much prefer modest texturing on top higly detailed modeling.

You can at least count on doubling the polygon output over GC (going by 2x clockspeed for the procs), but something tells me that you'd be dissapointed unless you see X360 level polycount or more...

My gut says (because it will be still limited to the 3MB of the eDRAM for frame buffer) you shouldn't expect more than a 333MHz SM1.x GPU cranking out about 25~50 million polygons per second in game.

 

[Gahiggidy]

I hope you're wrong.


btw, what is the 36o polygon count? In game?

 

[Shogmaster]

I hope you're wrong.


btw, what is the 36o polygon count? In game?

Shader heavy games I reckon will end up somewhere in the 100M to 200M territory, but if you tone down the shader complexity, no reason why games can't reach the 500M triangle set up limit of the Xenos.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I'm sorry, all I heard was 'boo hoo hoo we don't have the revmote!'

That is not my problem, you need to learn that forum posts need to be read before you submit replies to them .

 

[Panajev2001a]

The same thing can be said about the revcon then. You can't entirely write one or the other off, because then everyone is a hypocrite.

Who wrote the other off ?

It is implicit if we talk about it not being the "only" way, that such an idea can surely be ONE way to push things forward. A more powerful GCN together with the Revolution new Remote controller won't push the industry backwards IMHO.

If their idea becomes such a success that SCE and MS implement a very similar idea, in addition to EyeToy like solutions (which SCE has... obviously... and which MS will copy soon), the industry will have been pushed forward.

Think about it, if they can show the industry this changes games so much and so positively that the idea of using such a remote (a similar one of course based on similar technology) ogether WITH the raw performance of the Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 will be disliked ? Heck, I'd welcome it any day. I like the EyeToy, I like new ideas that change the way we interact with games, I like less when someone wants to base their offering exclusively on that feature hoding back all the other features of a console that I really like (still, I know that when I will have set funds aside for it, Revolution should be something I really look forward to get [probably will import the US model since I have several american GCN games and unless they restrict the connection to their NES/SNES/N64 download service from European IP addresses... it should work with the 130-150 Watts Transformer I use with my american Xbox... hey isn't Revolution supposed to be ultra low-power ?]) .

 

[cybamerc]

you shouldn't expect more than a 333MHz SM1.x GPU cranking out about 25~50 million polygons per second in game.

Unless something has changed the GPU should be SM2.0+. 50 mpps in game isn't so bad btw... I'm sure there are Xbox 360 games that push less than that.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

The Revolution will probably be 25-35 million pps. Of course, I have nothing to base that on but I think its going to be marginally better than Xbox. Going by the name Hollywood, I think the difference is that the Revolution will be excellent at special effects but with lackluster amounts of polygons.

pgtl_10: I see what you are saying but better graphics is a product of technology. If 128 bit graphics were possible when Nintendo entered with the NES, then it would have been 128 bits. Its not about pretty pictures, its about emulating reality. Graphics have also improved many genre over the years. Racing games is a strong one. So are Sports. These games were tough to do with 8 and 16 bit graphics but were well done in 32, 64, and 128 bits.

To say these games don't have an interaction in favor of pretty pictures? Ha, please. They have more interaction than ever. Games are really sophisticated in their interactions now, its easy to see why its a "pretty picture." I know you couldn't play MGS3 on the NES.

Revolution is Nintendo's attempt to tear down the industry and reconstruct it to their liking. Something that Nintendo themselves was responsible for. Nintendo made the push towards better graphics and sound with the SNES. Their bragging with SGI workstations with the Nintendo 64 was legendary. Nintendo used to really care about how powerful their machines were. Its only after they got their asses beat that they started this 'alternative' path.

 

[Version 3.0]

Nintendo used to really care about how powerful their machines were. Its only after they got their asses beat that they started this 'alternative' path.

Ain't that the truth. I guess having 3 powerful machines in a row get stuck in the public perception as being weaker than their inferior competition got to them. What Nintendo never understood was, that perception was THEIR fault just as much as the bullshit PR from SEGA/Sony.

 

[Y2Kev]

Unless something has changed the GPU should be SM2.0+. 50 mpps in game isn't so bad btw... I'm sure there are Xbox 360 games that push less than that.

:lol :lol

I enjoy your comedy and I would like to sign up for your newsletter. Even if you are right (which I'm sure you are with Tony Hawk and the like), your malicious intent is just so transparent.

Going by the name Hollywood, I think the difference is that the Revolution will be excellent at special effects but with lackluster amounts of polygons.

Reminds me of that whole PC era where polygons were rarer than gold and everyone relied on advanced texturing and effects. Trying to think of some games...Quake 3 keeps popping into my mind but I know that can't be it...

 

[wazoo]

Now Team ICO, by Fumito ueda's words, seems eager to jump on the PLAYSTATION 3 platform. Why ?

What other choices do they have ??

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

What other choices do they have ??

The PSP. Then again, their software doesn't seem suitable for handhelds.

Reminds me of that whole PC era where polygons were rarer than gold and everyone relied on advanced texturing and effects. Trying to think of some games...Quake 3 keeps popping into my mind but I know that can't be it...

Its just my guess that it will have low polygons but with high amounts of texturing and effects but I stand by it. Its the only reason I could see the name justified in being called Hollywood. I know it seemed that way for the Game Cube. The system had a lot of nice effects like the water effects in Mario Sunshine for example.

Ain't that the truth. I guess having 3 powerful machines in a row get stuck in the public perception as being weaker than their inferior competition got to them. What Nintendo never understood was, that perception was THEIR fault just as much as the bullshit PR from SEGA/Sony.

Nintendo doesn't really do well when it comes to handling competition. Their best moments were when they were unopposed or had an overwhelming majority of marketshare. They fold like sheets otherwise.

 

[Thraktor]

With a 640 x 480 screen at 60Hz, and a theoretical perfect LoD system (impossible, I know, but bear with me), you only actually need a console to push 18.4 million pps, one poly for each pixel shown, before you're computing redundant polygons. Given more realistic LoD talents of good developers, I don't see why a console capable of, say 35 million polys per second, wouldn't be powerful enough to run perfectly smooth games in 480p. So long as Nintendo goes for about that target with polygon pushing (and it is only about 2-3 times the number you see in-game on the GC), then I do think they're making the right decisions, by not making the GPU redundantly powerful. The same goes with textures, as the limited resolution puts a cap on how much texture power the console needs. Lighting and effects, however, are a different story, and I hope that Nintendo realises that SD doesn't give them license to skimp in this area, but without a full spec sheet for the GPU (and, to be honest, actually seeing the games in motion), we really don't have any idea of how this'll pan out.

 

[Panajev2001a]

With a 640 x 480 screen at 60Hz, and a theoretical perfect LoD system (impossible, I know, but bear with me), you only actually need a console to push 18.4 million pps, one poly for each pixel shown, before you're computing redundant polygons.

Sigh... the # of pixels at NTSC resolution * 60 fps idea will never die .
.

Just look outside your window . (hint )

 

[Panajev2001a]

What other choices do they have ??

I don't know... maybe they could choose to make another PSTwo game for starters ?!? It is not like the platform won't get support for at least 2+ years from now and they have announced that PLAYSTATION 3 features backward-compatibility with PSOne and PSTwo games.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Panajev2001a,

Could you please do me a favor and spell out how the hardware in the Revolution, despite the low raw specs, will produce some amazing graphx. Alot jerks are going around dissing the Revolution's hardware without knowing what they are talkign about (and its bumming out). I'd LOVE IT if you could put the smackdown on these anti-nintendo jerks and show them how, in detail, the Revoltuion's efficiency and cutting-edge-low-cost hardware will more then keep up with the competions.

Do it.

 

[kablooey]

Revolution is Nintendo's attempt to tear down the industry and reconstruct it to their liking. Something that Nintendo themselves was responsible for. Nintendo made the push towards better graphics and sound with the SNES. Their bragging with SGI workstations with the Nintendo 64 was legendary. Nintendo used to really care about how powerful their machines were. Its only after they got their asses beat that they started this 'alternative' path.

I think it's a combination of what you and pgtl have said. Nintendo used to use superior technology as a way of differentiating itself from its opponents. However, it's true that at the moment, simply upgrading their hardware to the level of PS3 and X360 isn't going to provide enough differentiation for them to hold onto their market. They absolutely had to do something unique, or no one would care about their system enough to buy it.

 

[Shogmaster]

Unless something has changed the GPU should be SM2.0+. 50 mpps in game isn't so bad btw...

Before the IGN news, I would have agreed with you that Rev GPU would be at least SM2.0, but ever since IGN leaked Rev GPU having only 3MB of eDRAM, I don't see a reason why anything beyond SM1.x will be done for Hollywood. There's just no toom for 640x480x32 (or even 16) + HDR and AA in that tiny space.

I suppose they could be employing scratch pad tiling like Xenos, but at 90nm and smaller, it would have been far simpler to add couple more MB to the eDRAM.

I'm sure there are Xbox 360 games that push less than that.

Sure! There are at least a dozen games in XBLA that I can think of. :lol

 

[elostyle]

I would personally not count on SM2.0.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

I think it's a combination of what you and pgtl have said. Nintendo used to use superior technology as a way of differentiating itself from its opponents. However, it's true that at the moment, simply upgrading their hardware to the level of PS3 and X360 isn't going to provide enough differentiation for them to hold onto their market. They absolutely had to do something unique, or no one would care about their system enough to buy it.

Yes. This is a whole new Nintendo. Nintendo always made it about the games but they always tried to have a powerful system too. With Revolution, Nintendo said, "Fuck it" and here it is. Game Cube was a games only machine but I think that the graphics were on par with PlayStation 2 and a little worse than the Xbox. I'm fine with that if the price matches it. $149 is the most I'll spend on this machine. I have a feeling though that Nintendo is going to push a $199 tag on the machine.

I'm not going to pay a lot of money for a system that offers relatively little.

This is Nintendo's big jump. I think they must think its the NES situation all over again. They were an outsider then with the wasteland of Atari and Coleco products. It was a machine that came out of left field at a cheap price that offered much different ways of playing games. Back then, the games were simple and very arcade-centric. Nintendo's games were more suited for home.

I can see why Nintendo is taking this path with Revolution. Its their way of recreating another NES. Although the industry is much different 20 years ago than it is today. I don't think this NES like revival is going to go as well as Nintendo is planning.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Before the IGN news, I would have agreed with you that Rev GPU would be at least SM2.0, but ever since IGN leaked Rev GPU having only 3MB of eDRAM, I don't see a reason why anything beyond SM1.x will be done for Hollywood. There's just no toom for 640x480x32 (or even 16) + HDR and AA in that tiny space.

I suppose they could be employing scratch pad tiling like Xenos, but at 90nm and smaller, it would have been far simpler to add couple more MB to the eDRAM.



Sure! There are at least a dozen games in XBLA that I can think of. :lol

How much does 1MB of eDRAM cost?

 

[bigNman]

I dont think Nintendo give a stuff about HDR lighting. Rev will probably have lots of nice shadows as standard but not something as expensive as HDR.

 

[Gahiggidy]

I dont think Nintendo give a stuff about HDR lighting. Rev will probably have lots of nice shadows as standard but not something as expensive as HDR.

How much does HDR cost?

 

[Version 3.0]

Nintendo doesn't really do well when it comes to handling competition. Their best moments were when they were unopposed or had an overwhelming majority of marketshare. They fold like sheets otherwise.

Well, their big strategy has always been to rely on the games. Big mistake in today's market.

 

[bigNman]

How much does HDR cost?

I mean performance wise. But im no expert so guess we just have to wait and see.

 

[elostyle]

Well, their big strategy has always been to rely on the games. Big mistake in today's market.

Good move in tomorrows market. Mark my words!

 

[AniHawk]

Why are you all still here when you can be voting?

 

[malek4980]

Why are you all still here when you can be voting?

My vote is useless, everyone knows who's going to win the Canadian federal election, and every election until I die.

Oh you mean the videogame thread.

Rev won't do HDR, seems like a waste of the limited resources the machine will have even if it could pull it off.

 

[Gahiggidy]

What is HDR and why does it require so much of the resources?

 

[capslock]

Nintendo doesn't really do well when it comes to handling competition. Their best moments were when they were unopposed or had an overwhelming majority of marketshare. They fold like sheets otherwise.

Kinda like the DS vs. PSP?

 

[Timbuktu]

What is HDR and why does it require so much of the resources?

I'm assuming that we're talking about High Dynamic Range Image (HDRI) so it's related to Image-based lighting (IBL), which by Alias' definition 'takes the light (and light color) represented in an image you provide to illuminate the scene. An HDRI image has an extra floating point value associated with each pixel that is used to define the persistence of light at that point. A high-dynamic range image is like several images with different exposures combined to show the full range of light (highlight and shadow). In fact, some HDR images are created by compositing several standard images of varying (bracketed) exposure in a special HDR application. This is required to simulate the wide range of available light in a single image -- an HDR image.

To understand the concept of High Dynamic Range (HDR) images, first think of a cathedral in which bright light spills in through an open door and illuminates part of the interior, except for some of the darker corners. If you were to enter the structure, your eyes would adjust to compensate for the excess or lack of light so that you can see properly.
HDR images have a greater capacity to describe light accurately (by way of floating point numbers) because they store the amount of light (rather than just color) represented in a pixel. This prevents 'blown out' or extremely dark areas in an image that your eyes compensate for in the natural world.'

All I know is that in Maya, you need to use Final Gather and Global Illumination to produce lighting with HDR images.

 

[Gahiggidy]

I'm assuming that we're talking about High Dynamic Range Image (HDRI) so it's related to Image-based lighting (IBL), which by Alias' definition 'takes the light (and light color) represented in an image you provide to illuminate the scene. An HDRI image has an extra floating point value associated with each pixel that is used to define the persistence of light at that point. A high-dynamic range image is like several images with different exposures combined to show the full range of light (highlight and shadow). In fact, some HDR images are created by compositing several standard images of varying (bracketed) exposure in a special HDR application. This is required to simulate the wide range of available light in a single image -- an HDR image.

To understand the concept of High Dynamic Range (HDR) images, first think of a cathedral in which bright light spills in through an open door and illuminates part of the interior, except for some of the darker corners. If you were to enter the structure, your eyes would adjust to compensate for the excess or lack of light so that you can see properly.
HDR images have a greater capacity to describe light accurately (by way of floating point numbers) because they store the amount of light (rather than just color) represented in a pixel. This prevents 'blown out' or extremely dark areas in an image that your eyes compensate for in the natural world.'

All I know is that in Maya, you need to use Final Gather and Global Illumination to produce lighting with HDR images.

...and this HDR stuff will be exclusive to Nintendo Revolution?

 

[DrGAKMAN]

CUBE-MAPPING!

Edit:
HEY! Remember when Miyamoto said that they planned on keeping the GCN going for 7+ years?

Also note they never released the final peripheral for the GCN that plugged into the Seriel Port #2 (the small one with the rounded off edge (cord?) and no power connections (peripheral was self powered?)).

 

[koam]

Nintendo used to really care about how powerful their machines were. Its only after graphics no longer brought in new experiences that they stopped caring

*fixed*

 

[Shogmaster]

How much does 1MB of eDRAM cost?

3MB of 1T SRAM eDRAM is slightly more than 25 million transistors on GC (out of 51 million total for Flipper), so 1MB of eDRAM would be less than 8 and a half million transistors.

Next gen console GPUs will be clocking around 300 million transistors (Xenos is 330 million including it's EDRAM, and RSX will be around 300 as well) on 90nm process. Even if the logic part of Hollywood was double the size of Flipper, adding 3 more MB of eDRAM into Hollywood would still result in a svelt 102 million transistor GPU. That's only around the third of the size compared to Xenos and RSX!

BTW in comparison, a small SM3.0 budget desktop Radeon such as the X1300 has four pixel pipes, two vertex pipes, runs faster than 400MHz, and weighs in at 105 million transistors. Even when you add 6MB of eDRAM to that, you would still have only about 150 million transistors, which is less than half of Xenos and RSX. The news that they are still giving us only 3MB of eDRAM tend to make me think that the rest of Hollywood is not gonna be even X1300 calibur in performance since they are not even willing to invest few million transistors for increasing eDRAM count.

But then again, perhaps final Rev design is so small (even smaller than the 3 DVD case design shown back in E3) that even a X1300 level GPU would be running too hot for the cramped space.

All this to me points to Hollywood being not much more than a flipper+ with couple of new thrown in features and not an entirely new design that can handle shader model 2 or 3 properly.

 

[elostyle]

My bet is on a radeon mobile evolution.

 

[elostyle]

My bet is on a radeon mobile evolution. Shader 2 and 3 are anything but certain now. Actually rather unlikely.

EDIT: You guessed it, this was supposed to be an edit.

 

[Gahiggidy]

How about this card? >>>> Radeon® X1800

 

[Shogmaster]

How about this card? >>>> Radeon® X1800

Now I know you are just being a douche and playing around. :lol