Did Nintendo FINALLY hit the nail on the head?

[quote name='greendj27']You completely missed my point. The point is you've never played the PS3 and therefore according to Dr Mario Kart can't criticize it. I didn't use the 360 because people have played that. Also, no one knows if the price of the PS3 is gong to be over $500. We won't know for awhile, but you don't seem to mind criticizing that system without ever having touched it yourself.

Basically I just get annoyed when someone throws out the "you haven't played it so you can't criticize it arguement." Face it, we haven't heard anything negative about the PS3 at this point in time either, but the OP is ok with criticizing that to make his point. Why should it be any different with the Revolution?[/QUOTE]

I see your point and I dont remember outright criticizing any other system recently. It really does nothing but fuel a fire and potentially make someone hate the defended system. IMHO its a lose lose situation.

In my opinion it might be easier for a person to criticize Sony because:

1) They normally blow things out of porportion to get attention

2) They are making very big claims (like always) with the next system

Nintendo is saying just the opposite (2-3 times better, lower specs etc) and normally they underestimate their machines.... so Sony becomes the target.

At least thats the way I see how it happens.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']ryanbph

This is just one example of Microsoft "losing ground" you are correct in saying no one is gaining. Maybe even more correct than you realize... I read the OP's comment as Microsofts potential lead is getting smaller.

The exact same thing happened with the dreamcast. In my opinion it would be very close graphically to the PS2 if development would have continued but thats another topic.

The point being that people who would have jumped all over a 360 may now wait (in March when they are potentially more readily available) for the next system.

More and more hype is building for the other machines and a lot of people may wait for a 360 price drop and then be sucked into the hype of the next machine.

So with that being said heres the link of my take on Microsoft "Losing ground"

http://www.gametab.com/news/478712/

Do I believe it... no not really but someone somewhere does and thats what Sony wants.[/QUOTE]
while it is possible people who couldn't get one at launch, and have waited, will wait for a price drop and the other systems to launch before determining. But with over 100 games in development and the huge success of xbox live arcade for indie gaming houses to major companies making studios to make live arcade games, I find it tough to say they are losing ground. Just like when nintendo's zelda or mario brother game comes out, when halo 3 hits, the hype machines will be spinning full speed.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']I see your point and I dont remember outright criticizing any other system recently. It really does nothing but fuel a fire and potentially make someone hate the defended system. IMHO its a lose lose situation.

In my opinion it might be easier for a person to criticize Sony because:

1) They normally blow things out of porportion to get attention

2) They are making very big claims (like always) with the next system

Nintendo is saying just the opposite (2-3 times better, lower specs etc) and normally they underestimate their machines.... so Sony becomes the target.

At least thats the way I see how it happens.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I wasn't referring to you specifically with some of what I posted. I also wasn't trying to criticize Nintendo. I just don't see a problem with people being critical about the system if they think it is lacking in some areas.
 
How realistic do graphics need to get exactly? How crisp does the picture need to get? Although I like shiny new graphics what is it that people really want to see? Live Action Video controlled by a dual shock pad? If I can see the sweat on the head of a football player does it make the game better? I think right now we are at the peak of the immersive game worlds argument. It's obvious most gamers are already immersed in the games they are playing. Shit I was immersed in Zelda: A Link To The Past and that looked like shit by today's standards, and had absolutely no voice acting. Ok HD you have it...what's next? I'm starting to think most U.S. gamers are videophiles and not gamers.
 
I go from seeing my friends HDTV's back to my 27" normal TV just fine. Isn't even LCD or anything, I don't notice that big of a difference unless I put the two TV's on top of each other playing the exact same game.

Cheaper console, cheaper games, less HD = more money for games/etc for me =)
 
[quote name='jkam']How realistic do graphics need to get exactly? How crisp does the picture need to get? Although I like shiny new graphics what is it that people really want to see? Live Action Video controlled by a dual shock pad? If I can see the sweat on the head of a football player does it make the game better? I think right now we are at the peak of the immersive game worlds argument. It's obvious most gamers are already immersed in the games they are playing. Shit I was immersed in Zelda: A Link To The Past and that looked like shit by today's standards, and had absolutely no voice acting. Ok HD you have it...what's next? I'm starting to think most U.S. gamers are videophiles and not gamers.[/QUOTE]

I agree. This is exactly what's wrong with U.S. gaming; too much emphasis on doing the same thing, only better...and by "better," we mostly mean "better graphics, and perhaps refined gameplay."

Japan had this same problem already. The Japanese gaming industry has slowly stagnated, and people grew bored of doing the same thing over and over again. Classic gaming is the #1 seller there, and it's because people enjoy the nostalgia more than they do whatever rehashed/same thing but prettier graphics is on current stuff.

This is exactly why Nintendo is finally getting it: they know innovation, not graphics, will become increasingly important as the graphical margin shrinks...plus, they aren't making consumers without HD feel left out.
 
[quote name='LaseK']I go from seeing my friends HDTV's back to my 27" normal TV just fine. Isn't even LCD or anything, I don't notice that big of a difference unless I put the two TV's on top of each other playing the exact same game.

Cheaper console, cheaper games, less HD = more money for games/etc for me =)[/QUOTE]

My sentiments exactly. I went from a 52 inch HDTV in my parent's house to a 20 inch CRT unit in my apartment and enjoy the games just the same.

Besides, after playing the same game for a few hours, the graphics take a back seat to the gameplay for me. I'll stop playing a game soon after I get bored regardless of how realistic the backgrounds and character models may be.
 
So far this has been a good read. I tend to shy away from these tpyes of posts (uh oh I am stereotyping here)

But good read.

I would like to relate this HD gaming to another similar hobby or two of mine...Say RC cars...

They are a growing hobby and 13 years ago I dumped $1000+ into one. Recenetly dug it out and started looking into the sport/hobby again.

Stuff is considerably more advanced. They have mini versions (1/24th scale) and bigger (1/5th scale) that will eat my old modified truck alive. All of that is cool and I almost bit and bought a mini... The problem and reason I didnt is where the hell can I drive it? I got the RC car originally to race around my back yard and "bash" it for fun. A 1/24th scale while cool that it is so small and fast cant go half the places that my bigger truck would/can go. So for me it kills the fun.

But contrary to my opinion they are selling like hotcakes. They are one of the newest rages in that industry and its exciting for those participants. Its just not a fit for me and my intentions. Kind of like those pocket RC carsthat are the size of a matchbox. Youve seen them at the mall they are smaller than a cell phone and charge in 15 seconds. They are cool with the technology but the fun factor is the expense.

So where I am going with this is eventually things make full circle. The Graphics are getting closer and closer to being as good as it gets. Something else is going to have to come around to rejuvinate the industry. HOPEFULLY one of the big three can find it and maybe its Nintendo. Till then we will be guessing as to what it is.
 
You people are all nuts. HD rules. Good graphics can't save a crappy game but they can make a great game even better.
 
[quote name='javeryh']You people are all nuts. HD rules. Good graphics can't save a crappy game but they can make a great game even better.[/QUOTE]

Way to increase the level of the conversation.

And no one is saying that having HD wouldn't help a game but for some of us, it isn't a major selling point in determining which next gen console we buy.

Honestly, I could care less if the PS3 doesn't have HD support so long as they keep up the strong support for RPG and SRPGs. I'd even prefer that they didn't so the thing wouldn't be so expensive.
 
[quote name='javeryh']You people are all nuts. HD rules. Good graphics can't save a crappy game but they can make a great game even better.[/QUOTE]

Way to increase the level of the conversation.

And no one is saying that having HD wouldn't help a game but for some of us, it isn't a major selling point in determining which next gen console we buy.

Honestly, I could care less if the PS3 doesn't have HD support so long as they keep up the strong support for RPG and SRPGs. I'd even prefer that they didn't so the thing wouldn't be so expensive.
 
[quote name='jkam']WARNING: THIS IS JUST A THOUGHT PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT A CONSOLE WAR THREAD.


The lead that the XBOX 360 has is slowly fading away because they can't get enough systems on the shelves. [/QUOTE]

You are correct- Microsoft is totally screwed. Because they have not sold enough systems and the Revolution and PS3 have totally outsold them....

wait a minute...

WTF?!?!


XBox 360 has sold a TON of consoles with arguably no real "system selling games" to speak of. That's freaking amazing.

In addition- they are still selling a crap load of systems- can you order a standard $400 system online from all major retailers? (I SAID ALL there fanboys- read)

NO

I think the real answer to this question will be in March...

March of 2007

only then will we know.

And oh- I'm only buying systems that mandate 720p as the bare minimum because my 62 inch DLP that has 1080P inputs KICKS ASS.
 
[quote name='javeryh']You people are all nuts. HD rules. Good graphics can't save a crappy game but they can make a great game even better.[/QUOTE]
totally agree with you. Yeah HD doesn't make the game, but if they game is great, the HD experiance with it just makes it better. Now the next zelda game will probably be great. (now I thougth wind waker was above avg, not great) But if I could play it in HD, wouldn't that make the game better. Now I can understand the fact that not everyone has a hd tv at this point in time. But out of about 15 - 20 friends/couples that I know, only 2 don't have HD. Some are rich, some are poor so it doesn't come down to only the rich have it. If your tv craps out on you, and you want to replace one now adays, most likely it will be an HD one.
 
Regardless of how pretty graphics are, there is a cap to what can be done. HD is much more beneficial to real life things like TV shows and football games--where all the details exist and it's just capturing them more purely. Even if they can get characters' faces in games to look hyper-realistic, the minute their arm has a slight clipping error the suspended disbelief breaks and you're reminded that it's not real, and just a game.

I can understand feeling the need to justify your far-too-expensive TV by saying that Nintendo is wrong for not including HD support. Luckily, that opinion is far in the minority. Without any real HD-DVD option at this point (and like hell I'm rebuying all of my movies for a minor resolution update) and HD cable being pricy in my area and HD Broadcast still a long way off from being standard, HD doesn't make sense. Nintendo can charge far less for their system and make money on each one. That just makes good sense.

I worry about Microsoft's future. They're trying to play both sides. On the one hand, they want to be HD with Sony. On the other hand they want to be somewhat affordable so they include just a normal DVD drive in their new machine. So, while Nintendo will have them beat on the budget side, Sony will be able to captialize on HD much better because they'll have room on their discs to do high resolution textures and models the way they need to be done.

I'm tired of the same-old, same-old. The DS is the greatest thing to happen to gaming since Sonic and Mario were butting heads in the 16-bit era. Give me something new and do it well and I'll be loyal. Microsoft had me last gen with Splinter Cell and Halo. This time it's Nintendo's turn.
 
[quote name='daroga']Sony will be able to captialize on HD much better because they'll have room on their discs to do high resolution textures and models the way they need to be done.
[/QUOTE]

this is what confuses me so much with the 360. in a few years when developers really know how to play with this thing, games are going to be huge, theyll have to be a sacrifice somewhere to fit them on a dvd.
 
My PC has been giving me high resolution graphics for years, nice to know that two of the consoles are finally catching up.

In all seriousness, HD is not special, it is just going to become more widespread than it used to be.

I honestly don't care if Nintendo "competes" with the other two console makers or not. If they are going to offer me a fresh look at gaming and a new way to play, I'm going to pay attention. I don't need to see sweaty normal-mapped football players on a field full of realistically animated grass, I don't need to see the semi-translucent sheen of a human being's intestines in a new next-gen fps when I shoot someone in the stomach.


How much power matters depends on what you intend to do with that power. Supposing that Nintendo can offer a more immersive interface in addition to improved graphics over the last generation, to a gamer like me, this is more important than offering solely improved visuals (and better AI, one can hope.. damn it, someone use the 360's three cores for something like this) with the traditional interface.

I don't want to watch a game that looks like a hollywood special effects reel while holding a traditional controller. If I want to watch a movie, I'll pop in a dvd (or HD DVD or BRD) and sit back on my couch with a bowl of popcorn. I want a game (and an interface) that will put ME in the game and connect me to the character and the environment on the screen in ways that were not previously possible. I don't want to be thinking about my controller and what buttons to press, I want to be the one in the game, not the guy on the couch holding a controller.

Now, I'm not saying that Nintendo is going to bring us this with their Revolution, but I certainly see the potential for removing another barrier between the player and the game. Here's hoping they make the most of that potential :)
 
[quote name='daroga']Regardless of how pretty graphics are, there is a cap to what can be done. HD is much more beneficial to real life things like TV shows and football games--where all the details exist and it's just capturing them more purely. Even if they can get characters' faces in games to look hyper-realistic, the minute their arm has a slight clipping error the suspended disbelief breaks and you're reminded that it's not real, and just a game.

I can understand feeling the need to justify your far-too-expensive TV by saying that Nintendo is wrong for not including HD support. Luckily, that opinion is far in the minority. Without any real HD-DVD option at this point (and like hell I'm rebuying all of my movies for a minor resolution update) and HD cable being pricy in my area and HD Broadcast still a long way off from being standard, HD doesn't make sense. Nintendo can charge far less for their system and make money on each one. That just makes good sense.

I worry about Microsoft's future. They're trying to play both sides. On the one hand, they want to be HD with Sony. On the other hand they want to be somewhat affordable so they include just a normal DVD drive in their new machine. So, while Nintendo will have them beat on the budget side, Sony will be able to captialize on HD much better because they'll have room on their discs to do high resolution textures and models the way they need to be done.

I'm tired of the same-old, same-old. The DS is the greatest thing to happen to gaming since Sonic and Mario were butting heads in the 16-bit era. Give me something new and do it well and I'll be loyal. Microsoft had me last gen with Splinter Cell and Halo. This time it's Nintendo's turn.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like someone doesn't own an HDTV yet. :D I don't need HD gaming to justify my purchase - every TV show I watch already does that for me. I've never had so much as a second of buyer's remorse and I've owned my HD plasma for over 2 years now. It was worth every penny. What I don't understand is why people are resisting HD so much when it is clearly the future of visual entertainment. You (not you specifically daroga, just "you" in general) sound like my grandfather bitching about having to buy a DVD player because VHS has been phased out and he can't really tell the difference.

If history has taught us anything, there isn't a cap on technology and there is always room to improve. We aren't even close to hitting the wall regarding graphics. I anxiously await the day we jump from 2D televisions to 3D projections and other cool crap like that. Bring it!
 
[quote name='javeryh']Sounds like someone doesn't own an HDTV yet. :D [/QUOTE]

Nope, I personally don't own one yet. I'll probablyl be buying an HD LCD TV this summer after I get married, but my father owns one (a nice, huge HD projection TV). I can tell the difference, certainly, but is it worth it to pay $30/mo extra for cable? Nope. Is it worth it to spend another $200 or $300 on a gaming console? Nope.

The point really isn't is HD gaming worth it, it's is Nintendo's approach a good idea. Not having HD is only a small factor in that, and if that alone keeps you from playing their next console, you probably need your head examined. If you're content to play the same stuff you've been playing since the PS1, that's cool. For me though, it's game differently or don't game at all.
 
Sure graphics can get better, as will TV technology.

I think what a lot of people are saying is that they dont matter in relation to GAMING. HD IS clearly the future of visual entertainment. But I dont think that by itself...is really that big of a deal.

I think an odd analogy would be like if they invented a new kind of paper that would make image quality and text much better in books. And then accordingly, people would tell me that this visual advancement which is the future of BOOKS, somehow makes...STORIES...Better.
 
[quote name='daroga']Nope, I personally don't own one yet. I'll probablyl be buying an HD LCD TV this summer after I get married, but my father owns one (a nice, huge HD projection TV). I can tell the difference, certainly, but is it worth it to pay $30/mo extra for cable? Nope. Is it worth it to spend another $200 or $300 on a gaming console? Nope.

The point really isn't is HD gaming worth it, it's is Nintendo's approach a good idea. Not having HD is only a small factor in that, and if that alone keeps you from playing their next console, you probably need your head examined. If you're content to play the same stuff you've been playing since the PS1, that's cool. For me though, it's game differently or don't game at all.[/QUOTE]
your basing your comments on a lot of assumptions. First off, you might not feel that the extra $30 (isn't that high for me) a month isn't worth it. That is your opinion. Also while in theory the controller sounds awsome. I will be getting one, but that doesn't mean that they will change the way we play.

I have the DS, it is great, but most of the games that utilze the touchpad, aren't fun imo. The games for the DS that I have are nintendogs, castlevania, the attorney game and the surgeon game. Those were all great, but mario games usually don't interest me, and I plan on picking up animal crossing, but for me, looking at 3 - 4 games in over a year that I find fun, and change the way I play, isn't worth getting all hyped up over.
As I stated in an earlier post, it comes down to games. Yes nintendo's first party games will most likely be great, but there history indicates they don't make them that often, and a lot of them are rehases ie mario party, mario cart, etc....last years e3 commercial looked interesting, but a cooking game? While it may be fun, and may even teach me some interesting receipes, untill I see some final versions of games, that are fun to play, please stop the how they are changing the way we play. Yes other developers might have stated positive things about it, but many 3rd parties said great things about the DS, and where is the innovative games for the DS from 3rd parties?

And to answer your question yes what nintendo is doing is a great idea, but they need to back it up a hell of a lot better then what they have done with the cube.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Going from 480p to 1080i is like going from black & white TV to color. It's that drastic.[/QUOTE]

Hehe, if you didn't say it, I was... I bought a Sony HDTV 2 1/2 years ago and have yet to actually feed it anything above 480p. I'm starving for content, which is why I will get a PS3 most likely at launch. My cable doesn't have HD and I'm in an ex-urban area so broadcast HD will be weak at best. I really want some HD gaming (I've seen the difference in stores), but am not interested in a single Xbox360 title at this time (I had the opportunity to purchase one 2 days ago with store credit at GR but declined).

But on a big HDTV set, normal games can sometimes give you headaches, especially if they aren't even 480p. This is noticeably worse on PS2 games than GC games, and particularly on older ones (Jak & Daxter), but also some new ones (Psychonauts). But most of the Nintendo first party games with Pro Scan look pretty damn good even on a 51" HDTV. So I'm not too worried about the Revo. I would have liked HD, but I'll just get a PS3 for that. Nintendo has ceded the high end to the other companies, and that's fine.

Edit - just reading the comments about people saying HD is good for TV, sports, etc, but not games. I disagree considerably, and in fact almost think the opposite. I would be very grateful to get rid of the "jaggies" in my games. I don't notice those in regular TV so much (as, obviously, the signal is more smeared due to its analog nature), but sometimes it is all I can look at in otherwise gorgeous games (like DQ8, etc). If the resolution could be pumped up to 1080i without any additional polygons, textures, etc, games would look much better in HD.

One more edit - I grew up with an Atari (none of this '2600' crap, it was just 'Atari') and Colecovision so I'm hardly spoiled on great graphics. The NES was a new fangled high-res device to me when I first saw it :D.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Sure graphics can get better, as will TV technology.

I think what a lot of people are saying is that they dont matter in relation to GAMING. HD IS clearly the future of visual entertainment. But I dont think that by itself...is really that big of a deal.

I think an odd analogy would be like if they invented a new kind of paper that would make image quality and text much better in books. And then accordingly, people would tell me that this visual advancement which is the future of BOOKS, somehow makes...STORIES...Better.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't have said it better myself. Well put.
 
i dunno about anyone else, but it gaming for me comes down to fun. Being able to see HD trees in the background of a driving game doesnt really effect it. Sure it can help but its not necessary. If you were a true gamer you had 8bit fun back in the day with a nes and you didnt need, surround sounds, hd graphics, 70 inch tvs to enjoy the game. You enjoyed it because it was fun to play. I dont really care what comes out as long as I have fun playing it. I am most likely goin to buy 2 systems, a Rev and either a 360/PS3. I know the Rev will have fun new games, and I know the other 2 will have more of the same but fancier. There is nothing wrong with more of the same if you enjoy it. Everyone just needs to chill till all 3 are out then everyone can start bitchin, or at least till E3
 
Games should be games, not crazy lifelike simulations. Graphics don't make an ounce of difference to a game. As for the HD thing, not including HD support is not the smartest thing to do, but focusing only on HD is even worse.

Dr. MK's example is perfect.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']

Dr. MK's example is perfect.[/QUOTE]

I totally disagree. A reader gets sucked into a book by the actual text, not the appearance of the text. With a game, there is storyline, character development, gameplay/controlls, visuals, and audio that can suck a person into the realm of digital entertainment. I totally agree that HD isn't going to automaticallly make gaming better, but it can make it a better experiance. Take for example medal of honor the first one on the ps2. Solid game, i loved playing it. Now take a look at Call of Duty 2 on the xbox 360. The visuals and audio are a lot better. Sitting in front of my tv with surround sound, it brings on a rush when you encounter german forces. The controls fit in very well with the controller, and the enemy AI is vastly improved over previous ww2 shooters. It is a perfect example of taking a great game and adding the HD experiance to it. If a game is going to suck, it really doesn't make a difference if it is in HD or on a regular tv, but if you have a great game, it can make a better experiance to some out there playing it with dolby digital 5.1 surround sound and HD 720p visuals.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I totally disagree. A reader gets sucked into a book by the actual text, not the appearance of the text. With a game, there is storyline, character development, gameplay/controlls, visuals, and audio that can suck a person into the realm of digital entertainment. I totally agree that HD isn't going to automaticallly make gaming better, but it can make it a better experiance. Take for example medal of honor the first one on the ps2. Solid game, i loved playing it. Now take a look at Call of Duty 2 on the xbox 360. The visuals and audio are a lot better. Sitting in front of my tv with surround sound, it brings on a rush when you encounter german forces. The controls fit in very well with the controller, and the enemy AI is vastly improved over previous ww2 shooters. It is a perfect example of taking a great game and adding the HD experiance to it. If a game is going to suck, it really doesn't make a difference if it is in HD or on a regular tv, but if you have a great game, it can make a better experiance to some out there playing it with dolby digital 5.1 surround sound and HD 720p visuals.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.
 
Let's just sum up the arguments:

If you love HD, you think games should support HD.

If you don't particularly care about HD, you don't care if games support HD.
 
[quote name='botticus']Let's just sum up the arguments:

If you love HD, you think games should support HD.

If you don't particularly care about HD, you don't care if games support HD.[/QUOTE]

That's a fair summary except you should add that people who don't care about HD are either mental, blind, too poor to currently afford a HDTV or kidding themselves. :D
 
[quote name='botticus']Let's just sum up the arguments:

If you love HD, you think games should support HD.

If you don't particularly care about HD, you don't care if games support HD.[/QUOTE]

You want me to start another one then?

If the Revo controller proves to be a hit, what stops Microsoft and Sony from developing similar controllers for the X360 and PS3? Seems completely feasible to me and if I'm thinking of it, I can guarantee that Sony and Microsoft are already pursuing the possibility in some manner.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']You want me to start another one then?

If the Revo controller proves to be a hit, what stops Microsoft and Sony from developing similar controllers for the X360 and PS3? Seems completely feasible to me and if I'm thinking of it, I can guarantee that Sony and Microsoft are already pursuing the possibility in some manner.[/QUOTE]

Simple - Intellectual property rights. If Nintendo has secured a number of patents that covers the technology beind the controller (either through holding the patents themselves OR by gaining exclusive licences with those parties who hold needed patents), Sony and M$ will need to come up with alternative means to create a similar product.

IF the claims detailed in the patents that Nintendo holds are broad enough, it may actually be impossible for Sony and M$ to create a similar product themselves.

Should that be the case, their only choice would be to 1) Wait 17 years for the patents to expire, or 2) Pay Nintendo licensing fees for rights to create a similar product. Pfft, as if Nintendo will let that happen.

In summary, it is possible for Sony and M$ to create a similar product but it will be more difficult than it was for Nintendo since neither of them have any kind of patents in that area, and more than likely more costly.

And trust me in my arguments - I've written my undergraduate thesis and my master's thesis on nanotechnology and intellectual property. So I know my shit.
 
I realize that they would have to work around Nintendo's intellectual property rights, but I believe they'd be able to do it if they thought it was going to make a difference in selling their consoles.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']I realize that they would have to work around Nintendo's intellectual property rights, but I believe they'd be able to do it if they thought it was going to make a difference in selling their consoles.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention that if they could do that they would take away that differentation that Nintendo was striving for.

I have no idea if Sony or Microsoft would actually want to do that, but it might be worth it to them.
 
[quote name='greendj27']Not to mention that if they could do that they would take away that differentation that Nintendo was striving for.

I have no idea if Sony or Microsoft would actually want to do that, but it might be worth it to them.[/QUOTE]

Fair, but suddenly their new control scheme enters the realm of peripheral instead of a core component.

And if we look at the success record of peripherals in the past - if consumers have to pay for it the thing will almost surely fail.

"So bundle it with future units."

But then you leave out the early adaptors and potentially lose support.

The situation for Sony and M$ in this situation is dicey, at best.
 
[quote name='jkam']WARNING: THIS IS JUST A THOUGHT PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT A CONSOLE WAR THREAD.

I think Nintendo finally hit the nail on the head. They have talked about gaming and what they think it will need so on and so forth. After them being wrong a few times it seems to me they hit the nail on the head this time. Why?

The lead that the XBOX 360 has is slowly fading away because they can't get enough systems on the shelves. A lot of the games are being pushed back as development times will continue to be longer until they can take advantage of the new hardware. Gears Of War is a game people were drooling over at launch and ebgames now has it coming out around 7/01/06. Graphically the games out now are only a bit better than the XBOX. I'm sure over time a lot of this will change but it puts them at less of an early advantage.

The PS3 will most likely suffer from the same types of problems that the XBOX360 is facing. Shortages of consoles and longer development cycles.

Now here comes the revolution. Almost a polar opposite of the 2 more powerful machines. The difference however will be in its content. Most developers are hitting their stride with the PS2, XBOX, and Cube. So now take that development add a little more horsepower and graphic capability and you'll get some really sweet looking games. Not only will development most likely be fast it will have the knowledge of the 5 or 6 years that the Cube was around. They could also keep their game costs down.

Obviously Nintendo needs to have a few things to really give it an edge. Get Zelda, Mario, Metroid, and Smash Bros. ready at launch like has been rumored. Have more than enough consoles on the shelves. Just like the DS give us free Wi-Fi and a nice interface to use it. Old school content will be an added bonus. Prove your point with the new controller....like you did with the DS. Give us both options....new controller + old controller similar to the DS (stylus/d-pad).

A lot of people and companies talk about the future of gaming being HD. The thing is I can't play HD. I can however play Zelda. So how does High Def = the future of gaming?

THOUGHTS???[/QUOTE]

I 100% agree. Although I really would like HD support from the Revolution, I understand what you're saying... it shouldn't be the main focus. HD isn't what makes gaming, games are what make gaming, and if the DS is any indication of the Revolution then Nintendo is bringing it.
 
Why's everyone so thrilled about HD? It's not that special. I'm so used to sitting here with my 1920x1200 monitor that even your precious HD is low res to me. At this point the difference your precious technology makes compared to what I'm used to is so insignifigant as to be pointless.
 
[quote name='Ecofreak']Fair, but suddenly their new control scheme enters the realm of peripheral instead of a core component.

And if we look at the success record of peripherals in the past - if consumers have to pay for it the thing will almost surely fail.

"So bundle it with future units."

But then you leave out the early adaptors and potentially lose support.

The situation for Sony and M$ in this situation is dicey, at best.[/QUOTE]

To be honest, at this point I doubt Microsoft and Sony have plans to do it, but I'm sure they have considered it once they see how the Revolution sells. If it does well, the chances of a clone by either of these companies is more likely.
 
[quote name='Sporophyte']Why's everyone so thrilled about HD? It's not that special. I'm so used to sitting here with my 1920x1200 monitor that even your precious HD is low res to me. At this point the difference your precious technology makes compared to what I'm used to is so insignifigant as to be pointless.[/QUOTE]

If resolution is so pointless, why are you bragging about your high resolution. That's not a very good argument.
 
The point isn't that resolution is pointless. The claim has been made that the difference with HD is like the difference between black and white and color, which just straight up isn't true. If increased resolution is the biggest reason to game, why bother with games on consoles at all? The tech for displays on computer monitors has exceded HD capabilities for quite some time now. If people wanna get into a penis-length debate over resolution, HD simply isn't gonna hold up.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']And here I thought we already had a forum for N fanboys.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that people on this thread are saying "Nintendo is going to r0x0r Sony and M$ solely because it's Nintendo" - we're arguing about the difference in the philosophy that Nintendo is using in their next generation system.

Some think that HD isn't all that important, while others do. It just seems that those who support Nintendo's decision for a new interface (not necessarily better as we have yet to have any 1st-Hand experience) at the expense of HD are more vocal than those who support Sony and M$'s decision.

Besides, I am pretty sure that there are a number of CAGers whose opinions about Nintendo have changed as the concept of the Revolution has sunk in and the possibilities disucssed civily - from abject confusion to mild curiosity to support. Even those who felt "burned" by the GC are showing support.

So it's the philosophy we're arguing about - not the companies themselves.
 
The question I've been wondering about: how long before Microsoft and/or Sony rip-off Nintendo's idea(s) that go along with the Revolution? This Gen? Next gen? Didn't take Sony too long to jump back on the long-forgotten analog-stick bandwagon once Nintendo reintroduced it with the N64.
 
I think the low price will really be huge. It may cause many people (myself included) to buy a Revolution as their first console and then choose between PS3 and Xbox 360 as their second, just because it'd be too fucking expensive to buy both of 'em.

Now, if Nintendo can finally get some third party support and erase the months-long gaps between good games that we saw with GCN, there would be no need to buy anything else. I'm not yet confident that will happen, so I'm still planning on getting one of the other consoles too. GCN had it's awesome titles for sure, but it didn't have the steady stream of fun games PS2 had. We can debate whether HD matters and how good the controller will be and all that, but what it all boils down to is what console has the most fun games. That's the reason why NES, SNES, both Playstations, and the GBA all killed their respective competition, and I doubt that pattern will change this gen.
 
You people going on and on about HD

Geez

My Infocus X1 projector has a rez of 800x600 in 4:3 (which is how I game).

Do 720p xbox games look better? Yes.
Do they look much better than 480p games? No.

And I'm running a 100" screen.

480p is fine. As long as there's no deinterlacing going on, the games look pretty good. Frankly, I would rather have seen more Antialiasing and less resolution.
 
[quote name='Sporophyte']The point isn't that resolution is pointless. The claim has been made that the difference with HD is like the difference between black and white and color, which just straight up isn't true. If increased resolution is the biggest reason to game, why bother with games on consoles at all? The tech for displays on computer monitors has exceded HD capabilities for quite some time now. If people wanna get into a penis-length debate over resolution, HD simply isn't gonna hold up.[/QUOTE]


Funny you should mention penis length because size is the main reason most people don't care about the resoultion of a computer monitor. It's the same reason that no one would care if i could make a display that was a higher resoultion than a computer monitor but was only 5" across.
 
[quote name='jkam']You kind of missed my whole point in the statement. HIGH DEF is not a game you can play. It doesn't change anything in gaming. A great game in black and white is still a great game. A shitty game in HIGH DEF is still a shitty game. You wouldn't play your SNES emulator on your PSP if the only reason you were playing was for an HD picture. If Tetris DX was in HD would it be a better game?[/QUOTE]

Yeah that true. All because a game looks good doesn't always mean It has good gameplay. The Madden football game on the Xbox 360 looks good but it was all that amazing.
 
[quote name='javeryh']You people are all nuts. HD rules. Good graphics can't save a crappy game but they can make a great game even better.[/QUOTE]

I have a 65-inch HDTV in my basement we game on. We also game on our 52-inch big screen upstairs. Playing it in HD or non-HD doesn't make the game any better or worse for us.
 
[quote name='javeryh']You had me until the HD part. The revolution would be PERFECT if it had HD support and its omission is a HUGE oversight, IMO. I'll still be buying one so I guess Nintendo doesn't lose out on my sale but HD is not only the future of everything (not just games), it is the present.[/QUOTE]
I don't really agree. HD is not important for me yet. It won't be for about 5 years, hence the NEXT next generation. Nintendo has the right idea.
 
[quote name='ryanbph'] I totally agree that HD isn't going to automaticallly make gaming better, but it can make it a better experiance. Take for example medal of honor the first one on the ps2. Solid game, i loved playing it. Now take a look at Call of Duty 2 on the xbox 360. The visuals and audio are a lot better. [/QUOTE]
But you're still just doing the same thing... shooting people using the same controller we've always used. Game-wise, its no better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top