New Revolution info revealed. Got yer salt?

As it is, I think we've hit the problem of diminishing returns. Even with consoles 10x, 20x, etc., more powerful than the current generation, it just doesn't look that much better. I could give a shit if the Revolution is just an Xbox in a SFF case for that reason, it all looks the same to me. I just wish the other guys were playing it a little bit riskier.
 
[quote name='orphicblue']You're absolutely right. But we're talking Nintendo here - we've already got potential for Smash Brothers, Zelda, Mario, Mario Kart, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Star Fox, et al. Every one of these could easily be killer apps.

(Here's hoping for a big Kid Icarus comeback too)[/QUOTE]

That's true Nintendo has most of its own support anyways. It would be an added plus to get a lot more 3rd parties.

I want to preorder ASAP (I'm sure everyone does). I would put $250 for this system, but wow 100 dollars cheaper super nice. I hope nothing would be too expensive like $75 dollars for each game. I wouldn't mind buying different parts for the controller or anything.
 
I'm wondering if with the lower system specs at 2X Gamecube power (which I still don't really believe. I'd bet on the previous mentions of 3X. Then again, I don't know how 2x the gamecube's power would be a bad thing) they will be selling at a loss with the $100-$150 price point. If they move the systems with a profit, at that price tag, they'll have a pretty big advantage. I'm pretty excited for it, and the fact that it won't take a week of work to buy(or if you're the Ps3, maybe more) just sweetens the pot.
 
I can just imagine the crazy smile on Miyamoto's face about the positive reaction to this news.

It would be hilarious to see a $99 launch price with *free* on-line gaming plus games priced no higher than $50 (maybe even a bunch at $40) and Nintendo totally owning MS and Sony.
 
I am rather disappointed by the specs.. no, I wasn't expecting anything anywhere near the 360 or PS2. But the system's barely twice as powerful as a GC? A freakin' 4+ year old GC? Come on... I was expecting it to be a solid 3x powerful than the GC (as Nintendo stated beforehand).

They're taking a hell of a risk here... with such a low price point, they won't have an advantage once their competitors reach that range and they can't lower their price anymore (which, needless to say, will be at least 3-4 years after the Rev's launch). And I hope that games for the Rev are much cheaper than $50... if the team behind CoD2 for the 360 (which is incredibly more powerful than the Xbox) can price a game at $60, then a that same team should be able to deliver a Rev game for $40... or at least I hope so.

At least developers will have ample space for... who knows what. A game without HD support and such weak graphics shouldn't be hard to fit on 4.7GB disc, at least that gives the developer the option to put in tons of extra content.

Here's hoping for a cheap console and cheaper ($40 range) games... otherwise, I don't know if I'll buy a Rev at launch.
 
[quote name='orphicblue']You're absolutely right. But we're talking Nintendo here - we've already got potential for Smash Brothers, Zelda, Mario, Mario Kart, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Star Fox, et al. Every one of these could easily be killer apps.
[/QUOTE]

yes a killer ap for people that already love nintendo, I don't picture the casual gamer as someone that visits online video game sites. Nintendo needs to make the revolution to be the system of choice for the consumers 2nd console, as well as attract non gamers to the scene...a price point of $100 - $150 is a good start, but is that enough. Did the DS really bring in a bunch of the non gaming crowd? I don't know the answers, but I believe Nintendo's president already stated if the revolution doesn't surpass the sales of the cube, it would be a failure. I hope they have the games to make the hardcore happy, as well as draw in the non gaming crowd
 
I'm all about the Revolution now! It seems like the perfect system for my daughter and I to play together. At that price, it can't be beat. Screw the power and all that jazz. We grew up with the Atari, NES, and Genesis and we didn't complain about the graphics sucking back then.

It's even more exciting that small studios and developers might be able to make Revolution exclusives. Anything that encourages creativity should be encouraged at all costs. I plan on picking one up at launch now.

It'll be very interesting to see how this "war" turns out. We might see all 3 systems take a third of the market and diversify the gaming experience. I'll be getting all 3 but I'll be getting Sony last instead of first this time. I'm still debating if I should wait until '07 to get the 360.

It's a great time to be a cheap ass gamer.
 
anyone else think this news is really good for indie devlopers? I've been working with some game development tools lately, and I have recently been thinking of making stuff for the 360 and now this, as long as it is affordable.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'm all about the Revolution now! It seems like the perfect system for my daughter and I to play together. At that price, it can't be beat. Screw the power and all that jazz. We grew up with the Atari, NES, and Genesis and we didn't complain about the graphics sucking back then.


It's a great time to be a cheap ass gamer.[/QUOTE]

First, is anyone else sick of the "It's a great time to be a cheap ass gamer" line?

alright, when i was little i had a nintendo. It was the greatest thing ever. But then i saw what a SNES looked like and i thought wow, those graphics are amazing. In fact, that's all I ever talked about when i had a SNES and my friends didn't. I used to rub in their faces that my console had 16 bits and their's only had 8. My point is graphics DO matter to a certain extent and they mattered a lot back then. But they aren't everything.
 
[quote name='"Point A"'] "Take the clockrate of the CPU and GPU and double it"? Man, what? That doesn't even make sense. The Gamecube CPU was 485 mhz. That would mean that the Revolution chip runs at under a gigahertz. Does IBM even make chips that speed anymore? The slowest macintosh you can buy is running at 1.25 ghz. It doesn't seem like they'd even be saving money by running at anything less than that.

Of course, the funny thing is, if the Revolution CPU was around 1 ghz, then this probably implies that rather than being PPE-based like the Xenon and Cell, the Rev CPU is G5 or POWER5 based. I would actually find this quite interesting, as I could seriously conceive of a 1.25 ghz G5 core outperforming a 3.5 ghz PPE core under the right circumstances. I would be quite curious to see whether this was the case in practice ^_^ [/quote]

[quote name='"Point B"']"Take the clockrate of the CPU and GPU and double it" ....

So if that's all there is to it, why did it take IBM more than a year to develop the CPU and the GPU is still under development at ATi? Given that they're ordering custom fabbed chips, I doubt they're just mildly faster versions of the current chips.[/quote]

[quote name='"Point C"'] on the GPU basically being just a slightly faster version of the GCN's.

The GCN graphics chip was developed by ArtX, a company comprised of members of SGI who originally made the Reality Engine for the N64. Halfway through the development of the new chip for the GCN , ArtX got bought by ATi, but the deal held. Nintendo got its GCN graphics chip, and ATi got the basis of the Radeon graphics card line.

Now the Radeon has been through something like 4 or 5 major architecture revisions since then, and ATi is making the chip for the Revolution again. Do you think they'd use a now 5 year old chip archetecture for their next gen system? [/quote]

Furthermore, Xbox 360 alpha kits were supposedly about 1/4 as powerful as the final unit, but Revolution alpha kits are exactly representative of how the console will perform at launch? The GPU doesnt actually exist yet.
 
After SNES I did not need a new console. The graphics on SNES are plenty good enough for me.

Super Mario World is the most beautiful game ever. I love those colorful little sprites.
 
[quote name='munch']
letter-from-the-editor-20051205040446162.jpg


Matt 'Manboobs' Casamassina[/QUOTE]

What a terrible shirt choice

oh...and I'm buying into this hype BIG TIME. At $99, I could buy the Revolution as Christmas presents.
 
[quote name='munch']First, is anyone else sick of the "It's a great time to be a cheap ass gamer" line?

alright, when i was little i had a nintendo. It was the greatest thing ever. But then i saw what a SNES looked like and i thought wow, those graphics are amazing. In fact, that's all I ever talked about when i had a SNES and my friends didn't. I used to rub in their faces that my console had 16 bits and their's only had 8. My point is graphics DO matter to a certain extent and they mattered a lot back then. But they aren't everything.[/QUOTE]


I'm the exact opposite. I remember getting an SNES and not really noticing a major change in the graphics. I was young then. Looking back now of course I can see the difference. But all I care about is that the games are fun

I do agree graphics make SOME difference, but when I consider Super Metroid, Super Mario World, Tetris Attack, Contra, Tecmo Super Bowl, Baseball Stars, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 2 & 3 (SNES), the entire Sega Master System quirky collection (especially their sports games), Worms Armageddon, all the Mario's and how could I leave off the greatness that was and is the original Zelda - I have to say, gameplay so far out-ranks graphics as to make them an afterthought in my assessment of a game. For me, the vast majority of today's "beautiful" games fall short of these classics, all of which would have very poor graphics compared to what we have today.

I've played HUNDREDS of BEAUTIFUL games with poor gameplay and never said to myself "Well, the game was no fun, but it sure looked pretty so I'm glad I spent XYZ hours playing it".

On the other hand, I have played a number of games whose graphics were highly sub-standard (especially compared to today's monster systems) but gameplay was fantastic - and I have NEVER said to myself "Well that game was extremely fun but because the graphics sucked I regret spending XYZ hours playing it."

I'm disappointed that people put so much weight on graphics only because selfishly I wish that game companies couldn't get away with releasing beautiful games that aren't fun. It's like people buying cars because they're pretty. Never mind there are only 3 wheels on it and it runs on a lawn-mower engine - it looks like a BMW! You know if car companies could get away with it they would, and why expect game companies to be any different? I'd rather them spend the bulk of their time on gameplay and if they have time, work on perfecting every little sprite at the end. My 2 cents...
 
[quote name='munch']First, is anyone else sick of the "It's a great time to be a cheap ass gamer" line?

alright, when i was little i had a nintendo. It was the greatest thing ever. But then i saw what a SNES looked like and i thought wow, those graphics are amazing. In fact, that's all I ever talked about when i had a SNES and my friends didn't. I used to rub in their faces that my console had 16 bits and their's only had 8. My point is graphics DO matter to a certain extent and they mattered a lot back then. But they aren't everything.[/QUOTE]


I'm the exact opposite. I remember getting an SNES and not really noticing a major change in the graphics. I was young then. Looking back now of course I can see the difference. But all I care about is that the games are fun

I do agree graphics make SOME difference, but when I consider Super Metroid, Super Mario World, Tetris Attack, Contra, Tecmo Super Bowl, Baseball Stars, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 2 & 3 (SNES), the entire Sega Master System quirky collection (especially their sports games), Worms Armageddon, all the Mario's and how could I leave off the greatness that was and is the original Zelda - I have to say, gameplay so far out-ranks graphics as to make them an afterthought in my assessment of a game. For me, the vast majority of today's "beautiful" games fall short of these classics, all of which would have very poor graphics compared to what we have today.

I've played HUNDREDS of BEAUTIFUL games with poor gameplay and never said to myself "Well, the game was no fun, but it sure looked pretty so I'm glad I spent XYZ hours playing it".

On the other hand, I have played a number of games whose graphics were highly sub-standard (especially compared to today's monster systems) but gameplay was fantastic - and I have NEVER said to myself "Well that game was extremely fun but because the graphics sucked I regret spending XYZ hours playing it."

I'm disappointed that people put so much weight on graphics only because selfishly I wish that game companies couldn't get away with releasing beautiful games that aren't fun. It's like people buying cars because they're pretty. Never mind there are only 3 wheels on it and it runs on a lawn-mower engine - it looks like a BMW! You know if car companies could get away with it they would, and why expect game companies to be any different? I'd rather them spend the bulk of their time on gameplay and if they have time, work on perfecting every little sprite at the end. My 2 cents...
 
I rented the Super Nes and the first game i ever played for it was Super Castlevania. What struck me the was most improved was not the graphics, but the sound. It jumped from bleeps and blips, to quasi-orchastra style music score. Next thing I noticed were the graphic improvement, better sprites, multiple moving planes. Good times, good times.
 
Graphics are def not everything. But who would of thought that the GC could pull off games like RE4, Metroid Prime, and now the new Zelda. They say it's only 2 times as powerful as the GC but they also said that the GC was half the power of xbox and ps2. RE4 on GC looks just as good or better than any Xbox game. I just think now it's all talk. When i see the games then i can form an opinion. I hate specs!!! Just show me some games. Guess we will have to wait until E3 for that. May just seems so far away....
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Furthermore, Xbox 360 alpha kits were supposedly about 1/4 as powerful as the final unit, but Revolution alpha kits are exactly representative of how the console will perform at launch? The GPU doesnt actually exist yet.[/QUOTE]

They're referring to documentation supplied by Nintendo to developers. Obviously, developers need to know what kind of power they will eventually have access to.

What I'm really excited about is the possible $149 or maybe $99 price point. I'm gonna buy one at launch if that's the price.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']
On the other hand, I have played a number of games whose graphics were highly sub-standard (especially compared to today's monster systems) but gameplay was fantastic - and I have NEVER said to myself "Well that game was extremely fun but because the graphics sucked I regret spending XYZ hours playing it."

I'm disappointed that people put so much weight on graphics only because selfishly I wish that game companies couldn't get away with releasing beautiful games that aren't fun. It's like people buying cars because they're pretty. Never mind there are only 3 wheels on it and it runs on a lawn-mower engine - it looks like a BMW! You know if car companies could get away with it they would, and why expect game companies to be any different? I'd rather them spend the bulk of their time on gameplay and if they have time, work on perfecting every little sprite at the end. My 2 cents...[/QUOTE]

I do have to agree on this.

People tend to care about gameplay after the graphics. The first thing they see "Oh that looks nice". It's understandable to base some thought into graphics, but yea.. solely basing on that seems totally "just like America/Japan/Europe anywhere else".

/begins small rant
Everything is somehow based on looks. It's so much like human nature to want to look good, from airbrushed model to buildings and apparels. It's like this example "would you want comfort or class (clothes to wear) when you walk outside?" For me I pick comfort any damn day, but the majority of the world would pick class (okay countries that have the money to be able to nice or something) something that looks good. I only think a minority of people don't ACTUALLY care on how they look, whether it is being "scrubby" or "nice sweats". And it goes for gaming, except there shouldn't be a minority of people who pick gameplay over graphics. I think there's more people to it. But yea I have to say as long as you can play it and look at something nice, you should be set.
/end

People can make judgements all that want on graphics, but you can only improve so much anyways. Sure it's not up to the "almighty 360 or PS3", but Nintendo has a good aim for what should matter. Hopefully the Rev or whatever they want to call it, better be up to that gameplay angle.

Oh yea Nintendo, although they didn't get the number one feature in their system, they have the advantage economically to what matters most in everything: its low price range. I think in more of "cheaper units sell more>expensive pretty things less selling" since not everyone can go out and buy $500 dollar systems, but whatever works works.
 
The one problem I see with this is the fact that elsewhere on the IGN site they're stating that Nintendo is talking of a Thanksgiving 2006 release. Depending on when the PS3 came out, that could be either a huge mistake or a huge advantage. If the PS3 comes out in the summer, it gives people enough time to get over the initial hype of the PS3 and also time to save up for the Revolution (which, if it's $99, won't be that hard). If PS3 release at the same time of the Revolution, I think Nintendo is done.
 
[quote name='munch']First, is anyone else sick of the "It's a great time to be a cheap ass gamer" line?

alright, when i was little i had a nintendo. It was the greatest thing ever. But then i saw what a SNES looked like and i thought wow, those graphics are amazing. In fact, that's all I ever talked about when i had a SNES and my friends didn't. I used to rub in their faces that my console had 16 bits and their's only had 8. My point is graphics DO matter to a certain extent and they mattered a lot back then. But they aren't everything.[/QUOTE]


What's the problem with my tagline??? I don't have the crazy or cool quotes. I just have something I came up with myself that I think captures my identity here on the website. I've saved myself a lot of money since I've found this site and I'm grateful. I'm optimistic about very few things on this world but cheap ass gaming has me feeling good right now. Although I'm glad someone notices my tag line, I wish they would share my enthusiasm for cheap ass gaming. If you still don't like it after all this, suck these muthafucking nutz. Peace out.


It's a great time to be a cheap ass gamer.
 
[quote name='depascal22']What's the problem with my tagline??? I don't have the crazy or cool quotes. I just have something I came up with myself that I think captures my identity here on the website. I've saved myself a lot of money since I've found this site and I'm grateful. I'm optimistic about very few things on this world but cheap ass gaming has me feeling good right now. Although I'm glad someone notices my tag line, I wish they would share my enthusiasm for cheap ass gaming. If you still don't like it after all this, suck these muthafucking nutz. Peace out.


It's a great time to be a cheap ass gamer.[/QUOTE]

Present them.
 
Perhaps at around $150 they will hit a sweetspot between price and performance. Being a casual gamer I don't really want to drop $400 for a console.
 
I was intrigued before, but I think I am officially "sold" on the Revolution now. This may very well be the first system I ever buy at launch.

And after skimming this thread, it's obvious that I'm not alone in my sentiments. It's funny how a lot of us seem to have gone through the same thought process while reading that article. First I was thinking "hey, I might go for this when it hits $200." Then they announce the alleged price of $150 or less and I was like "holy crap, well count me in!"

This will be sweet. I am especially looking forward to the games that will let you hold a remote control in each hand. And it will be nice to know that my wavebirds won't go to waste. I'll definitley want a 360/PS3 as well but I'm taking a "wait and see" approach with those.
 
I don't think there is anything Nintendo can do to tap this so-called "casual gamer" group. the Revolution might be different but I think most people aren't going to see it and think, "You know what? I've never bought a console or video games before but I think I'll buy this." I just think that these types of people are about one out of 1,000 or less. The only difference I think it will make is maybe my dad will try it if he is over my house or something because it's unusual but he will never in a million years go out and buy one.
 
Developers concentrate on making great looking graphics because its hard to look at screenshots and vids and get a sense of the gameplay. People dont walk by a game kiosk in a store and go 'wow, that game looks like it plays great'.

First impressions are based on looks. How do you buy clothes, shoes, a toaster? If theyre warm and comfortable and make great toast thats great, but they initially attracted you because they look good. Same deal with a girlfriend/boyfriend, you dont know at first if someeone is going to be your best friend and soulmate, you just think they look good. Its the same thing with games.

That said, I dont think theres anything wrong with the way gamecube games look, and the prospect of something thats 2 or 3 times more powerful is very exciting to me.

The 360 may be 100X more powerful than the Xbox, but the games dont look 100x better. Like others have said, its diminishing returns. Sure these 360 games are merely first gen launch tiltes, but to me they look good enough. RE4 for the cube looks amazing to me. I dont have HD flatscreen tv, and probably wont for at least another 2-3 years. Thats where I think alot of the 360 and PS3's power will be spent, processing those super high-res images.
 
Old people, no. I can see them buying it for the grandkids, or playing along elsewhere, but not just for themselves...unless of course the games are really well aimed at age groups and include Bingo, Solitare and Matlock.

Girls i could see being a new breed of gamer though. (Attention female CAG's: I mean the sterotypical "games are for dorks!" girls) I know that Nintendogs changed the perception of some girls i know, and yet again, with the right software and advertising, Revolution could do the same thing
 
[quote name='SpottedNigel']Old people, no. I can see them buying it for the grandkids, or playing along elsewhere, but not just for themselves...unless of course the games are really well aimed at age groups and include Bingo, Solitare and Matlock.

Girls i could see being a new breed of gamer though. (Attention female CAG's: I mean the sterotypical "games are for dorks!" girls) I know that Nintendogs changed the perception of some girls i know, and yet again, with the right software and advertising, Revolution could do the same thing[/QUOTE]

I hope you are right. I think there is great potential with the Revolution. I will be buying it at launch (like every other Nintendo system) but my expectations have shifted. I'm looking at it as a complimentary system to either the 360 or PS3 (or maybe both!) and not something that I should be comparing to the latest and greatest.
 
Regardless of what they release I will buy it like the video game buying fool I am. I always buy all the systems and pc stuff so I will not miss a single great video game experience.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I hope you are right. I think there is great potential with the Revolution. I will be buying it at launch (like every other Nintendo system) but my expectations have shifted. I'm looking at it as a complimentary system to either the 360 or PS3 (or maybe both!) and not something that I should be comparing to the latest and greatest.[/QUOTE]

I agree to a point. For me, the 360 isnt to promising FOR ME (have to point out opinions for others...) in the games department...the style and front end are very, very well done, but that alone doesnt deserve $400+ from me. PS3...i honestly have NO clue of what the hell they are doing. The REVO will probably be my sole next-next-gen systems for quite some time. The prospect of new experiences (love my DS) and all the games I love playing (yep, i'll pay for the classics and the new ones) all in one system really does make it my "all in one" system of choice.

That baing said...If Phantasy Star Universe gets continued on one of those other 2 systems, i will follow in a heartbeat. One of the few series thats actually a system seller for me.
 
a $99 launch console..... very very appealing in my eyes, but hopefully it wont be a stripped down pile with a corded controller
then a $200 package, wireless wonder like other companies seem to be doing

ill be keeping my eyes open for info

thanks all for the updates :whistle2:D
 
The price point sounds low. I would expect it to be around $200 upon launch.

I think almost everyone is missing the whole idea of the revolution though. We already know it won't be a graphical powerhouse. However it will be a GAMING POWERHOUSE.

I see it as a machine with more content than any other system right off the bat.

Here's why:

We will get old school games in downloadable form. There's the possibility for them to create updated graphics to older games as well make them online compatible.

For every single this game won't work with this controller argument we have use of gamecube controllers plus the shell idea. I realize the XBOX 360 controller is a little different than the current xbox one but has it really changed that much? Sony could get away with using the playstation 1 pad (dual analog) forever. So basically the gamecube controller could be used for any 3rd party game as well.

New content revolving around the new controller. I see the new controller as the DS's touch screen. Yeah weird and somewhat gimmicky but could work well if done right. You know Nintendo will do a good job with it. The main thing is that (just like the DS) it doesn't HAVE to be the only way new games are played on the system....I think developers will have their choice to either use it or a gamecube controller.

Online: Yeah this isn't new but Nintendo has the right idea with the DS. If they carry over what they have started from the DS we will indeed be in good shape. Online Smash Bros., Metroid, Zelda? and all for free? Count me in.

Free downloadable demos? I always thought Sony was smart to constantly give out PS1+2 demos in the form of discs. Now nintendo can do it online without the need to press discs. They could also do DS demos as well as Revo ones.

DS - REVO connectivity....yeah it failed on the Gamecube for the most part but with the DS and REVO both being wireless a lot of the hassle of the GBA - Cube connection will be nixed. Not groundbreaking but won't be such a pain in the ass.

Smaller developers will find a new home. If they can't afford to do an xbox 360 or PS3 game they might be able to do it on the Revolution.

There are some more things I think need to happen:

Get third parties to offer up their old games in downloadable fashion as well. I can't imagine any company not wanting to offer older games at no cost to them and begin making them money a second time around.

Get third parties back on board. It seems that some developers are excitied about the REVO but they need to get everyone interested.

Push the price point.

Have top titles ready at launch.

Just like the DS I see the Revolution being a machine all about content rather than being about raw horsepower.
 
[quote name='jkam']Get third parties to offer up their old games in downloadable fashion as well. I can't imagine any company not wanting to offer older games at no cost to them and begin making them money a second time around.

Get third parties back on board. It seems that some developers are excitied about the REVO but they need to get everyone interested. [/QUOTE]

These go hand-in-hand. Nintendo should say to companies like Konami, Capcom, EA, etc.: develop some exclusive Revolution games and in return we will list your back catalogs on our download service and we won't take a percentage or charge a fee to you out of the money made off of the old games.
 
[quote name='javeryh']These go hand-in-hand. Nintendo should say to companies like Konami, Capcom, EA, etc.: develop some exclusive Revolution games and in return we will list your back catalogs on our download service and we won't take a percentage or charge a fee to you out of the money made off of the old games.[/QUOTE]

Damn, that's actually a great idea. Except not Capcom, since they are fuckers about the whole "exclusitivity" thing.

Capcom> OH LOOK, 360 CASE IS GRAY, NOT BLACK. NOT SAME THING ROFLOALFOLM

/I lie, gimme exclusives capcom :(
 
The only problem i see with Revolution and 3rd party clasic games is that a lot of those companies have already signed on with Gametap. No clue on exclusivity, but there just has to be problems somewhere
 
[quote name='SpottedNigel']The only problem i see with Revolution and 3rd party clasic games is that a lot of those companies have already signed on with Gametap. No clue on exclusivity, but there just has to be problems somewhere[/QUOTE]

They most likely signed non-exclusive license agreeements. I can't imagine a scenario where a major publisher would give an unproven company exclusive rights to IP for any length of time. If Nintendo wanted exclusivity for their download service (to compete with Xbox Live, for example) they could do so with a carve out for Gametap since agreements might already exist. I don't think it would be too much trouble to do.
 
Who said the Cube was half the power of the XBox and PS2?

The Cube is more powerful than the PS2 and slightly less than the XBox. Stupid common impressions.
 
At this point, I find myself far more excited about Nintendo's console than anything Sony or Microsoft are doing. I know it won't be my only console, but Nintendo has essentially cemented it's spot as ONE of the consoles I'll own next generation. And unless PS3 launches with something impossible to resist...well, perhaps the Revolution will be the only next-gen console I own for awhile.
 
[quote name='Blind the Thief']At this point, I find myself far more excited about Nintendo's console than anything Sony or Microsoft are doing. I know it won't be my only console, but Nintendo has essentially cemented it's spot as ONE of the consoles I'll own next generation. And unless PS3 launches with something impossible to resist...well, perhaps the Revolution will be the only next-gen console I own for awhile.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. They've proven the critics wrong with the DS. It's an amazing gaming machine with simply unbelievable games. I've enjoyed DS games more than anything I've played on Xbox/PS2/GC. And that's saying something, Ninja Gaiden is amazing.
 
I have high hopes for the Revo. I always wonder just what developers can do to impress, and then out of nowhere, games come out that I never even imagined. The remote is going to be a freakin blast, and I have faith in developers to create some amazing games. Classic games on the Revo is nothing to me since emulation has spoiled me, unless they can tie in the remote to make them more playable.
 
I love how people criticize developers for focusing far too much on graphics and compromising gameplay.

Just wait when they start making new games on this controller. It will spawn far more gimmicky crappy games than graphics ever have.

So I guess the summary is that Nintendo is moving more towards the joystick plugin type games that are user accessable and use cheap parts =)
 
[quote name='Zoglog']Just wait when they start making new games on this controller. It will spawn far more gimmicky crappy games than graphics ever have.[/QUOTE]
Just like the DS, right?
 
[quote name='Zoglog']So I guess the summary is that Nintendo is moving more towards the joystick plugin type games that are user accessable and use cheap parts =)[/QUOTE]

Cheap parts? Nintendo systems and hardware are by far the most robust systems on the market. While PS2s and Xboxes were crashing and having DREs, I have heard surprisingly few stories of GCs breaking down.

You go enjoy your 360 and its HD graphics. Come back when you're bored of looking at pretty pictures and want to play more innovative games that arn't ports.

Seriously, why do you come in these threads and troll without saying anything really worthwhile? Please - go away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top