Reality's Fringe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']
[/QUOTE]
Don't forget the LUCID DREAM.
Don't forget the LUCID DREAM.
Revolution Specs
- Thread starter Ikohn4ever
- Start date
SpottedNigel
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
I wanted to make the Blast Processing joke...
One thing people need to remember here is that Nintendo is the king of compression and if they find compression tricks to make the graphics signifigantly better than what would be expected from the chipset I would not be surprised.
Ryan what XBox games come to mind to blow one away on the Box in terms of this mid and high level graphically stuff you speak of? Riddick looks like shit in PS and I was severely pissed when I found Halo 2 wasn't WS. Buffy doesn't look spectacular in PS either. Remind me WHAT XBox games I'm suppose to be impressed by graphicswise over the Cube especially under PS?
I have PGR3 for the 360 and thought the car looked good but first other impression is when I saw the trees and people I was NOT impressed by the HD here. I'm hoping "Enchant Arms", the Hudson RPG, Quake 4, Ridge Racer 6 or any # of 360 games look better in HD. So far the ONLY game to really impress me for the 360 in terms of graphics has been FNR3 though I will admit Kameo looks clean.
Oh and my feeling with Revo I hope Nintendo at least ends up making all devs. do WS. That wouldn't kill them since most GC games did PS by option.
Ryan what XBox games come to mind to blow one away on the Box in terms of this mid and high level graphically stuff you speak of? Riddick looks like shit in PS and I was severely pissed when I found Halo 2 wasn't WS. Buffy doesn't look spectacular in PS either. Remind me WHAT XBox games I'm suppose to be impressed by graphicswise over the Cube especially under PS?
I have PGR3 for the 360 and thought the car looked good but first other impression is when I saw the trees and people I was NOT impressed by the HD here. I'm hoping "Enchant Arms", the Hudson RPG, Quake 4, Ridge Racer 6 or any # of 360 games look better in HD. So far the ONLY game to really impress me for the 360 in terms of graphics has been FNR3 though I will admit Kameo looks clean.Oh and my feeling with Revo I hope Nintendo at least ends up making all devs. do WS. That wouldn't kill them since most GC games did PS by option.
megaseadramon
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (67%)
Have you negative nancys looked at zelda twilight princess? Thats on the cube and it looks like a next gen game. Now double that and your head will explode.
These specs are about what I figured. Expect more and more multiplatform games to come out for just the PS3 and the X360 because the Revo is just not going to be easy to port games over to.
Probably won't affect Nintendo much though. I'll buy the Revo for the exclusives and nothing else. They make money with that strategy, so why even try to challenge Sony and Microsoft.
Edit: Oh, I guess I forgot to comment on RE4 like every is required to in this thread. Yes, great graphics, but I'd have to say the Xbox had so many more games that outclassed the rest of the GC library in graphics (Ninja Gaiden, any of the DOAs, Mech Assaults, Crimson Skies, Halos, etc.)
Probably won't affect Nintendo much though. I'll buy the Revo for the exclusives and nothing else. They make money with that strategy, so why even try to challenge Sony and Microsoft.
Edit: Oh, I guess I forgot to comment on RE4 like every is required to in this thread. Yes, great graphics, but I'd have to say the Xbox had so many more games that outclassed the rest of the GC library in graphics (Ninja Gaiden, any of the DOAs, Mech Assaults, Crimson Skies, Halos, etc.)
Who's The Twitch Now?
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
To me, the logical explanation of "Next-gen" has changed over time. Let's break it down:
Nintendo Entertainment System - Incredible, timeless games which set the gameplay-oriented and graphical groundstones for the next generation. The graphics are dated; It's the NES.
Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Sega Genesis - The industry was just starting to hit its stride, and not only were 3D technologies impossible, but the public simply wouldn't have been ready for them. The SNES refined the brilliance of the NES' visuals to a then-staggering level of detail and color. This was its purpose, and the same goes for the Genesis.
Nintendo 64 and Sony Playstation - Now, this was a real revolution. Think back to when you first played Super Mario 64; did it astonish you? It must have. The first truly mesmerizing, fully-expansive 3D world had been realized, and in my opinion, was perfected, and perhaps never done so again. Think about ALL the things that could have gone wrong with the first 3D Mario outing: The controls could have been unresponsive, the animation could have grossly inhibited the free-roaming gameplay, and the game, which no one had ever seen anything like before, could have been, simply, a wasted effort. It was not. Nintendo re-invented the videogame, and they did so to a level of flawlessness which was not met by any of the Playstation games, or most - if not all - of the following generation's titles.
Gamecube, Playstation 2, XBox - These were meant to bring gaming to a new, advanced level of what it had become the previous generation. They astonished all who played them, as they were SUCH a dramatic leap in visual and control-oriented complexity. The games were good, and they were what they were meant to be.
But now things change.
Look at the XBox 360 compared to the XBox. Some games are drastic graphical improvements, but not primarily in the way that you might think. Look at Call of Duty 2; it's wonderous, and, more than anything, engrossing. It pulls you in to a full world, with things going on every way you turn, all in real-time. That's engrossing. A "Weaker" version of the game is available on the other systems, as well, and therein lies my point.
Every game system until now has given us something new, or, at least, an immeasurable improvement over a previously designed concept. But now we're getting into the new days, and you've gotta wonder if some better textures, lighting and effects are truly revolutionizing the games we play. Are they worth the extra dough? More than that, look at the controller; there is essentially one new button from the previous XBox controller, and it's not even used in actual gameplay. Is it worth 50 dollars for a wireless version of something we may already have 4 of, and must now throw away? Moving away from that, at what cost is this new level of engrossment coming? In NBA Live 2K5, for the PS2 and XBOX, there were several modes, levels, and options, including the main season mode. For NBA Live 2K6 on XBox 360, they took out almost every single mode - including Season - in favor of minorly improved graphics, until you get really, really close - usually during non-gameplay gutscenes, when you see "Amazing" sweat pouring from the hair of the players. That would be great, if it were visible when actually playing the game, and if it didn't come at the cost of 90% of the game's depth.
Amped 3 is a better GAME than Amped 1 and 2, but looks virtually identical.
Tony Hawk's American Wasteland.
Moving to the PS3, I have to say, it looks phenomenal. The videos I've seen of it have truly blown me away, and if they're not enhanced or forged (as has been suggested), then they shouldn't be able to keep the systems on the racks... if they were marketable towards households, as Sony themselves have said they are not. Apparently, unless they can find dramatically cheaper parts, they will not be able to market the PS3 for less than 700-800 dollars. And that's wrong. Also, the controller, while "Not a part of the Dual Shock line," as Sony has stated, is, in essence, a cooler, funkier Dual Shock 2, with almost identical button mapping.
Then there's the Revolution.
The Revolution may change gaming as we know it, as we have truly never seen nor invisioned anything of the sort. Not only that, but even with the "Weak specs" supposedly announced, it should be - at the very least - comparable to the XBox 360 out of HD mode. Nintendo has proved they can make more effective products with less power, time and time again. The details on DS games - such, for instance, the numerous little touches in Castlevania DS - have impressed me much more than the near PS2-quality overall presentation of PSP's library. But back on-subject, the Revolution is rumored to launch at around $150, and if it's anywhere NEAR the XBox 360 or the (likely) $500-$800 PS3, the latter 2 would be in a fairly large spot in the mass marketplace of graphics-hungry middle-classers. And if it truly lives up to its codename, it will be very interesting to see what Microsoft's third and Sony's fourth hardware outing will feature.
Nintendo Entertainment System - Incredible, timeless games which set the gameplay-oriented and graphical groundstones for the next generation. The graphics are dated; It's the NES.
Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Sega Genesis - The industry was just starting to hit its stride, and not only were 3D technologies impossible, but the public simply wouldn't have been ready for them. The SNES refined the brilliance of the NES' visuals to a then-staggering level of detail and color. This was its purpose, and the same goes for the Genesis.
Nintendo 64 and Sony Playstation - Now, this was a real revolution. Think back to when you first played Super Mario 64; did it astonish you? It must have. The first truly mesmerizing, fully-expansive 3D world had been realized, and in my opinion, was perfected, and perhaps never done so again. Think about ALL the things that could have gone wrong with the first 3D Mario outing: The controls could have been unresponsive, the animation could have grossly inhibited the free-roaming gameplay, and the game, which no one had ever seen anything like before, could have been, simply, a wasted effort. It was not. Nintendo re-invented the videogame, and they did so to a level of flawlessness which was not met by any of the Playstation games, or most - if not all - of the following generation's titles.
Gamecube, Playstation 2, XBox - These were meant to bring gaming to a new, advanced level of what it had become the previous generation. They astonished all who played them, as they were SUCH a dramatic leap in visual and control-oriented complexity. The games were good, and they were what they were meant to be.
But now things change.
Look at the XBox 360 compared to the XBox. Some games are drastic graphical improvements, but not primarily in the way that you might think. Look at Call of Duty 2; it's wonderous, and, more than anything, engrossing. It pulls you in to a full world, with things going on every way you turn, all in real-time. That's engrossing. A "Weaker" version of the game is available on the other systems, as well, and therein lies my point.
Every game system until now has given us something new, or, at least, an immeasurable improvement over a previously designed concept. But now we're getting into the new days, and you've gotta wonder if some better textures, lighting and effects are truly revolutionizing the games we play. Are they worth the extra dough? More than that, look at the controller; there is essentially one new button from the previous XBox controller, and it's not even used in actual gameplay. Is it worth 50 dollars for a wireless version of something we may already have 4 of, and must now throw away? Moving away from that, at what cost is this new level of engrossment coming? In NBA Live 2K5, for the PS2 and XBOX, there were several modes, levels, and options, including the main season mode. For NBA Live 2K6 on XBox 360, they took out almost every single mode - including Season - in favor of minorly improved graphics, until you get really, really close - usually during non-gameplay gutscenes, when you see "Amazing" sweat pouring from the hair of the players. That would be great, if it were visible when actually playing the game, and if it didn't come at the cost of 90% of the game's depth.
Amped 3 is a better GAME than Amped 1 and 2, but looks virtually identical.
Tony Hawk's American Wasteland.
Moving to the PS3, I have to say, it looks phenomenal. The videos I've seen of it have truly blown me away, and if they're not enhanced or forged (as has been suggested), then they shouldn't be able to keep the systems on the racks... if they were marketable towards households, as Sony themselves have said they are not. Apparently, unless they can find dramatically cheaper parts, they will not be able to market the PS3 for less than 700-800 dollars. And that's wrong. Also, the controller, while "Not a part of the Dual Shock line," as Sony has stated, is, in essence, a cooler, funkier Dual Shock 2, with almost identical button mapping.
Then there's the Revolution.
The Revolution may change gaming as we know it, as we have truly never seen nor invisioned anything of the sort. Not only that, but even with the "Weak specs" supposedly announced, it should be - at the very least - comparable to the XBox 360 out of HD mode. Nintendo has proved they can make more effective products with less power, time and time again. The details on DS games - such, for instance, the numerous little touches in Castlevania DS - have impressed me much more than the near PS2-quality overall presentation of PSP's library. But back on-subject, the Revolution is rumored to launch at around $150, and if it's anywhere NEAR the XBox 360 or the (likely) $500-$800 PS3, the latter 2 would be in a fairly large spot in the mass marketplace of graphics-hungry middle-classers. And if it truly lives up to its codename, it will be very interesting to see what Microsoft's third and Sony's fourth hardware outing will feature.
I agree with some of what you are saying Twitch, but c'mon, you can't judge the X360 by sports games and ports put out at launch. If that's the case, I guess we'll all be talking about how non-next-gen the Revo is when we bring up Tony Hawk and Madden for it as well.
And you can't honestly tell me you are more impressed graphically with Castlevania DS than with many of the games on the PSP. Graphically there is no contest between those two systems.
And you can't honestly tell me you are more impressed graphically with Castlevania DS than with many of the games on the PSP. Graphically there is no contest between those two systems.
[quote name='Sarang01']One thing people need to remember here is that Nintendo is the king of compression and if they find compression tricks to make the graphics significantly better than what would be expected from the chip set I would not be surprised.
Ryan what XBox games come to mind to blow one away on the Box in terms of this mid and high level graphically stuff you speak of? Riddick looks like shit in PS and I was severely pissed when I found Halo 2 wasn't WS. Buffy doesn't look spectacular in PS either. Remind me WHAT XBox games I'm suppose to be impressed by graphics wise over the Cube especially under PS? I have PGR3 for the 360 and thought the car looked good but first other impression is when I saw the trees and people I was NOT impressed by the HD here. I'm hoping "Enchant Arms", the Hudson RPG, Quake 4, Ridge Racer 6 or any # of 360 games look better in HD. So far the ONLY game to really impress me for the 360 in terms of graphics has been FNR3 though I will admit Kameo looks clean.
Oh and my feeling with Revo I hope Nintendo at least ends up making all devs. do WS. That wouldn't kill them since most GC games did PS by option.[/quote]
My point wasn't xbox had a ton of beautiful games, it was that the argument throughout this thread has been, resident evil 4 looked as great as any xbox game, yet the cube was weaker. That is debatable, but I accept that point on resident evil 4. But IMO, no other cube game can make that argument. The entire thread has been filled with its not that weak, they can compress yada yada yada. My point was, yes 1 great game was able to do it. For the most part on any game message board, you have 1 side saying graphics, the other game play. But many of the prior post, talked about even though the info possibly being revealed was weak, it is still strong and look at Res Evil 4. It should be ignored, as it isn't proven accurate, and isn't Nintendo and there faithful supposed to be all about the game play and creating new ways of interaction?
I am with shipwreck, just getting it for nintendo games.
Ryan what XBox games come to mind to blow one away on the Box in terms of this mid and high level graphically stuff you speak of? Riddick looks like shit in PS and I was severely pissed when I found Halo 2 wasn't WS. Buffy doesn't look spectacular in PS either. Remind me WHAT XBox games I'm suppose to be impressed by graphics wise over the Cube especially under PS?
I have PGR3 for the 360 and thought the car looked good but first other impression is when I saw the trees and people I was NOT impressed by the HD here. I'm hoping "Enchant Arms", the Hudson RPG, Quake 4, Ridge Racer 6 or any # of 360 games look better in HD. So far the ONLY game to really impress me for the 360 in terms of graphics has been FNR3 though I will admit Kameo looks clean.Oh and my feeling with Revo I hope Nintendo at least ends up making all devs. do WS. That wouldn't kill them since most GC games did PS by option.[/quote]
My point wasn't xbox had a ton of beautiful games, it was that the argument throughout this thread has been, resident evil 4 looked as great as any xbox game, yet the cube was weaker. That is debatable, but I accept that point on resident evil 4. But IMO, no other cube game can make that argument. The entire thread has been filled with its not that weak, they can compress yada yada yada. My point was, yes 1 great game was able to do it. For the most part on any game message board, you have 1 side saying graphics, the other game play. But many of the prior post, talked about even though the info possibly being revealed was weak, it is still strong and look at Res Evil 4. It should be ignored, as it isn't proven accurate, and isn't Nintendo and there faithful supposed to be all about the game play and creating new ways of interaction?
I am with shipwreck, just getting it for nintendo games.
[quote name='shipwreck']These specs are about what I figured. Expect more and more multiplatform games to come out for just the PS3 and the X360 because the Revo is just not going to be easy to port games over to.
Probably won't affect Nintendo much though. I'll buy the Revo for the exclusives and nothing else. They make money with that strategy, so why even try to challenge Sony and Microsoft.
Edit: Oh, I guess I forgot to comment on RE4 like every is required to in this thread. Yes, great graphics, but I'd have to say the Xbox had so many more games that outclassed the rest of the GC library in graphics (Ninja Gaiden, any of the DOAs, Mech Assaults, Crimson Skies, Halos, etc.)[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to argue with you much ship, but my previous post stands. If Capcom could create the beauty of RE4, what (technically) was stopping other developers from creating games that looked as good? If the technical capabilities of the GC allowed for RE4, then you can't blame the hardware for less attractive games.
Anyway, my generally uncaring attitude towards graphics and technical specs is that they only matter for some classes of games. Not all games (RPGs, platformers, etc) need lifelike graphics. War sims, racing games, those are certainly better the more realistic they look. It never hurts other games to look better, but if the developer designs a game well, it doesn't make it more fun.
Edit: And I this became a graphics debate because people were starting to freak out that the Rev wouldn't even be as powerful (and provide similar graphical quality) as the Xbox. Which given RE4 as an example, is obviously wrong.
Probably won't affect Nintendo much though. I'll buy the Revo for the exclusives and nothing else. They make money with that strategy, so why even try to challenge Sony and Microsoft.
Edit: Oh, I guess I forgot to comment on RE4 like every is required to in this thread. Yes, great graphics, but I'd have to say the Xbox had so many more games that outclassed the rest of the GC library in graphics (Ninja Gaiden, any of the DOAs, Mech Assaults, Crimson Skies, Halos, etc.)[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to argue with you much ship, but my previous post stands. If Capcom could create the beauty of RE4, what (technically) was stopping other developers from creating games that looked as good? If the technical capabilities of the GC allowed for RE4, then you can't blame the hardware for less attractive games.
Anyway, my generally uncaring attitude towards graphics and technical specs is that they only matter for some classes of games. Not all games (RPGs, platformers, etc) need lifelike graphics. War sims, racing games, those are certainly better the more realistic they look. It never hurts other games to look better, but if the developer designs a game well, it doesn't make it more fun.
Edit: And I this became a graphics debate because people were starting to freak out that the Rev wouldn't even be as powerful (and provide similar graphical quality) as the Xbox. Which given RE4 as an example, is obviously wrong.
[quote name='shipwreck']These specs are about what I figured. Expect more and more multiplatform games to come out for just the PS3 and the X360 because the Revo is just not going to be easy to port games over to.
Probably won't affect Nintendo much though. I'll buy the Revo for the exclusives and nothing else. They make money with that strategy, so why even try to challenge Sony and Microsoft.
Edit: Oh, I guess I forgot to comment on RE4 like every is required to in this thread. Yes, great graphics, but I'd have to say the Xbox had so many more games that outclassed the rest of the GC library in graphics (Ninja Gaiden, any of the DOAs, Mech Assaults, Crimson Skies, Halos, etc.)[/QUOTE]
Ok I forgot the Seg's and the Tecmo's. So we have what? PDO, GV, JSRF, DOA3, FF, FF2 and NG. 7 games there. Soz if I'm being a dick here but I can think of very few XBox games that would pull through on the PS mode the way they should.
I MIGHT give Halo 2 a fair shake as well. Hmmm and I heard good things about Magatama and Phantom Dust doesn't look bad. However Magatama wasn't released over here.
Probably won't affect Nintendo much though. I'll buy the Revo for the exclusives and nothing else. They make money with that strategy, so why even try to challenge Sony and Microsoft.
Edit: Oh, I guess I forgot to comment on RE4 like every is required to in this thread. Yes, great graphics, but I'd have to say the Xbox had so many more games that outclassed the rest of the GC library in graphics (Ninja Gaiden, any of the DOAs, Mech Assaults, Crimson Skies, Halos, etc.)[/QUOTE]
Ok I forgot the Seg's and the Tecmo's. So we have what? PDO, GV, JSRF, DOA3, FF, FF2 and NG. 7 games there. Soz if I'm being a dick here but I can think of very few XBox games that would pull through on the PS mode the way they should.
I MIGHT give Halo 2 a fair shake as well. Hmmm and I heard good things about Magatama and Phantom Dust doesn't look bad. However Magatama wasn't released over here.
[quote name='botticus']I'm not going to argue with you much ship, but my previous post stands. If Capcom could create the beauty of RE4, what (technically) was stopping other developers from creating games that looked as good? If the technical capabilities of the GC allowed for RE4, then you can't blame the hardware for less attractive games.
Anyway, my generally uncaring attitude towards graphics and technical specs is that they only matter for some classes of games. Not all games (RPGs, platformers, etc) need lifelike graphics. War sims, racing games, those are certainly better the more realistic they look. It never hurts other games to look better, but if the developer designs a game well, it don't make it more fun.[/QUOTE]
I think you can still blame the hardware though. By being less powerful it requires a lot more out of the developers to be able to achieve amazing graphics and thus, you generally don't get them.
Anyway, my generally uncaring attitude towards graphics and technical specs is that they only matter for some classes of games. Not all games (RPGs, platformers, etc) need lifelike graphics. War sims, racing games, those are certainly better the more realistic they look. It never hurts other games to look better, but if the developer designs a game well, it don't make it more fun.[/QUOTE]
I think you can still blame the hardware though. By being less powerful it requires a lot more out of the developers to be able to achieve amazing graphics and thus, you generally don't get them.
[quote name='shipwreck']I think you can still blame the hardware though. By being less powerful it requires a lot more out of the developers to be able to achieve amazing graphics and thus, you generally don't get them.[/QUOTE]
I was going to cede that point, but you beat me to it
But that difficulty should be gone with twice the processing power of the GC, so RE4 quality games should not be too hard to come by with the Rev, if so desired/needed.
I was going to cede that point, but you beat me to it
But that difficulty should be gone with twice the processing power of the GC, so RE4 quality games should not be too hard to come by with the Rev, if so desired/needed.[quote name='botticus']I was going to cede that point, but you beat me to it But that difficulty should be gone with twice the processing power of the GC, so RE4 quality games should not be too hard to come by with the Rev, if so desired/needed.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, stuff should look fine, just nowhere near what the PS3 and X360 are going to be pushing (especially without the HD support). For non-HD TVs though, Revo should look great.
It's the large gap between the PS3 & X360 that's going to cause a lot of issues with third parties putting their games on the Revo. Ports are going to have a lot of issues, not only graphically, but with physics and AI to name a couple of things as well. These multiplatform games are going to be really inferior to their counterparts and it's going to be interesting to see how the general public and third party publishers react to this.
But that difficulty should be gone with twice the processing power of the GC, so RE4 quality games should not be too hard to come by with the Rev, if so desired/needed.[/QUOTE]Yeah, stuff should look fine, just nowhere near what the PS3 and X360 are going to be pushing (especially without the HD support). For non-HD TVs though, Revo should look great.
It's the large gap between the PS3 & X360 that's going to cause a lot of issues with third parties putting their games on the Revo. Ports are going to have a lot of issues, not only graphically, but with physics and AI to name a couple of things as well. These multiplatform games are going to be really inferior to their counterparts and it's going to be interesting to see how the general public and third party publishers react to this.
Crash55118
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
It doesn't matter, What site is this guys, Cheap Ass Gamer, with a relative stress on the CHEAP! We want a next Gen system but I really don't want to throw 600 dollars for a system and a couple games. I like the road Nintendo is going keeping it cheap and still giving the gamer some graphical improvments.
And Remeber raw power doesn't neccesarily mean better graphics- look at the Madden 06 on the 360, they just upscanned it to HD, wand what a little better, but if they had really redesigned it and put some actual time into it, it would have looked alot better, just like anything, If your developers suck than your games and system will suck.
And Remeber raw power doesn't neccesarily mean better graphics- look at the Madden 06 on the 360, they just upscanned it to HD, wand what a little better, but if they had really redesigned it and put some actual time into it, it would have looked alot better, just like anything, If your developers suck than your games and system will suck.
SpottedNigel
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
...Super Smash Bros. Melee STILL looks ing good, doesn't it.
ing good, doesn't it.[quote name='shipwreck']Yeah, stuff should look fine, just nowhere near what the PS3 and X360 are going to be pushing (especially without the HD support). For non-HD TVs though, Revo should look great.
It's the large gap between the PS3 & X360 that's going to cause a lot of issues with third parties putting their games on the Revo. Ports are going to have a lot of issues, not only graphically, but with physics and AI to name a couple of things as well. These multiplatform games are going to be really inferior to their counterparts and it's going to be interesting to see how the general public and third party publishers react to this.[/QUOTE]
I think it's really going to come down to how developers, and the publishers of course, feel about making something new. Even though Activision isn't a shining pillar of the development community, we're already seeing one game (Spiderman 3) that they are developing for the Revolution, not porting it. If developers are willing to make the effort (we still need to figure out how the cost of redeveloping for the Revolution will compare to porting between 360 and PS3 with their vastly different architectures), there could be some very good -- graphically inferior, but uniquely controlled -- "ports" on the Rev.
It's the large gap between the PS3 & X360 that's going to cause a lot of issues with third parties putting their games on the Revo. Ports are going to have a lot of issues, not only graphically, but with physics and AI to name a couple of things as well. These multiplatform games are going to be really inferior to their counterparts and it's going to be interesting to see how the general public and third party publishers react to this.[/QUOTE]
I think it's really going to come down to how developers, and the publishers of course, feel about making something new. Even though Activision isn't a shining pillar of the development community, we're already seeing one game (Spiderman 3) that they are developing for the Revolution, not porting it. If developers are willing to make the effort (we still need to figure out how the cost of redeveloping for the Revolution will compare to porting between 360 and PS3 with their vastly different architectures), there could be some very good -- graphically inferior, but uniquely controlled -- "ports" on the Rev.
[quote name='botticus']If developers are willing to make the effort (we still need to figure out how the cost of redeveloping for the Revolution will compare to porting between 360 and PS3 with their vastly different architectures), there could be some very good -- graphically inferior, but uniquely controlled -- "ports" on the Rev.[/QUOTE]
That sentence gives me the heebeegeebees. I guess I don't have enough faith in developers.
And porting between the X360 and PS3 must not be that bad (or developers don't think it will be), because there have been an awful lot of multiplatfrom games already announced for the X360 and PS3.
That sentence gives me the heebeegeebees. I guess I don't have enough faith in developers.
And porting between the X360 and PS3 must not be that bad (or developers don't think it will be), because there have been an awful lot of multiplatfrom games already announced for the X360 and PS3.
[quote name='botticus']I think it's really going to come down to how developers, and the publishers of course, feel about making something new. Even though Activision isn't a shining pillar of the development community, we're already seeing one game (Spiderman 3) that they are developing for the Revolution, not porting it. If developers are willing to make the effort (we still need to figure out how the cost of redeveloping for the Revolution will compare to porting between 360 and PS3 with their vastly different architectures), there could be some very good -- graphically inferior, but uniquely controlled -- "ports" on the Rev.[/QUOTE]
Yeah see one of the points I make on the last page about someone potentially buying a game on the Revo over the other system just because of how well it controls. Granted some people may find hard to grasp but how much EASIER is this going to make playing FPS's over using a KB and mouse?
SM3 for Rev.=Get Bass with remote. ;-)
Yeah see one of the points I make on the last page about someone potentially buying a game on the Revo over the other system just because of how well it controls. Granted some people may find hard to grasp but how much EASIER is this going to make playing FPS's over using a KB and mouse?
SM3 for Rev.=Get Bass with remote. ;-)
[quote name='shipwreck']That sentence gives me the heebeegeebees. I guess I don't have enough faith in developers.
And porting between the X360 and PS3 must not be that bad (or developers don't think it will be), because there have been an awful lot of multiplatfrom games already announced for the X360 and PS3.[/QUOTE]
Let's just hope the Rev is cheap enough to develop for that we get some new people willing to take some risks then, shall we?
Eh, I think porting between 360 and PS3 will be required, regardless of the cost. No way a lot of companies can ignore what will likely be half the market. It just depends on the relative cost of that compared to the Rev if they will use it as an excuse.
And porting between the X360 and PS3 must not be that bad (or developers don't think it will be), because there have been an awful lot of multiplatfrom games already announced for the X360 and PS3.[/QUOTE]
Let's just hope the Rev is cheap enough to develop for that we get some new people willing to take some risks then, shall we?
Eh, I think porting between 360 and PS3 will be required, regardless of the cost. No way a lot of companies can ignore what will likely be half the market. It just depends on the relative cost of that compared to the Rev if they will use it as an excuse.
SilverPaw750
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 35 (100%)
Does noone realize that the graphics will look comparable to 360 and PS3 on an SDTV? The Revolution is outputting at a fraction of the resolution, so it needs a fraction of the power. I'm not saying Revolution will look better, but it will certainly look about as good as it can get in SD.
Blind the Thief
CAGiversary!
I think I'm already at the point where style matters much more to me than graphics. I enjoyed Ico far more than more realistic-looking titles because the graphical style was nice to look at. Same with Wind Waker or Okami; they're some of the least realistic-looking games this generation, but I'd rather look at those than at a basketball player's sweat anyday. It's just more appealing, and I hope more developers figure this out next generation.
Who's The Twitch Now?
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='shipwreck']I agree with some of what you are saying Twitch, but c'mon, you can't judge the X360 by sports games and ports put out at launch. If that's the case, I guess we'll all be talking about how non-next-gen the Revo is when we bring up Tony Hawk and Madden for it as well.
And you can't honestly tell me you are more impressed graphically with Castlevania DS than with many of the games on the PSP. Graphically there is no contest between those two systems.[/QUOTE]
An understandable and valid argument. Perhaps I was a bit too linear with my examples. All right, how about Perfect Dark Zero? A mediocre shooter made worse because of the perfection of its predecessor (which I may be biased about, as PD1 is my favorite game ever, but I'll move on). It also pretty much looks like a glorified Timesplitters. Still, just an example.
Truth be told, I haven't been keeping up on all the 360 releases, as I have no intention of getting one for quite a while. At least until the developers start utilizing it for more than just pretty textures. This may seem rather fanboyish, but in actuality, I'd really like to see how the public reacts to the Rev. I think some of Microsoft business strategies are pretty rediculous, but there's still a demand for the 360, so I guess they must be working.
The remark about the DS vs. PSP's graphics may have been vague; I haven't played many DS games, and almost no PSP games. I've seen footage of most of the major releases, though, and while the PSP is certainly impressive for a handheld (moreso than the DS, primarily), the DS has more little things that immerse me. Case in point; the very beginning of Castlevania DS, where if you jump on the car the snow falls off and the car tilts. This adds nothing to the gameplay, but while the bulk of the graphics (save for bosses and backgrounds), aren't so much more than a little improvement over the GBA games, the fact that they could create such a fantastic, immersive gaming experience, and have similar graphical detailing, on an "Underpowered" handheld, while not detracting anything from the gameplay or depth, is much more impressive - to me - than fancy polygons on the PSP or sweat or hair-blowing effects on the 360, or even the other current home consoles. It's just an opinion, and I'm certainly not against improvement over tried-and-true formulas, but as of yet, the 360 hasn't been much of an improvement, by my watch.
And you can't honestly tell me you are more impressed graphically with Castlevania DS than with many of the games on the PSP. Graphically there is no contest between those two systems.[/QUOTE]
An understandable and valid argument. Perhaps I was a bit too linear with my examples. All right, how about Perfect Dark Zero? A mediocre shooter made worse because of the perfection of its predecessor (which I may be biased about, as PD1 is my favorite game ever, but I'll move on). It also pretty much looks like a glorified Timesplitters. Still, just an example.
Truth be told, I haven't been keeping up on all the 360 releases, as I have no intention of getting one for quite a while. At least until the developers start utilizing it for more than just pretty textures. This may seem rather fanboyish, but in actuality, I'd really like to see how the public reacts to the Rev. I think some of Microsoft business strategies are pretty rediculous, but there's still a demand for the 360, so I guess they must be working.
The remark about the DS vs. PSP's graphics may have been vague; I haven't played many DS games, and almost no PSP games. I've seen footage of most of the major releases, though, and while the PSP is certainly impressive for a handheld (moreso than the DS, primarily), the DS has more little things that immerse me. Case in point; the very beginning of Castlevania DS, where if you jump on the car the snow falls off and the car tilts. This adds nothing to the gameplay, but while the bulk of the graphics (save for bosses and backgrounds), aren't so much more than a little improvement over the GBA games, the fact that they could create such a fantastic, immersive gaming experience, and have similar graphical detailing, on an "Underpowered" handheld, while not detracting anything from the gameplay or depth, is much more impressive - to me - than fancy polygons on the PSP or sweat or hair-blowing effects on the 360, or even the other current home consoles. It's just an opinion, and I'm certainly not against improvement over tried-and-true formulas, but as of yet, the 360 hasn't been much of an improvement, by my watch.
megaseadramon
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (67%)
Who's The Twitch Now?] The remark about the DS vs. PSP's graphics may have been vague; I haven't played many DS games said:
[quote name='SilverPaw750']Does noone realize that the graphics will look comparable to 360 and PS3 on an SDTV? The Revolution is outputting at a fraction of the resolution, so it needs a fraction of the power. I'm not saying Revolution will look better, but it will certainly look about as good as it can get in SD.[/quote]
It's been mentioned but needs to be reiterated. I do have an HDTV which will be connected to my 360/PS3. But the Revolution will be in my room with my SDTV.
It's been mentioned but needs to be reiterated. I do have an HDTV which will be connected to my 360/PS3. But the Revolution will be in my room with my SDTV.
[quote name='megaseadramon']I couldn't agree more with you on the DS vs PSP. I own both and I bought the PSP on launch and have 1 game for it, and emulators on the mem stick. But on the DS which I also got on launch I have around 20 games and couldn't love it anymore then I do right now. Metroid is eating my time, but Trauma center is what keeps coming back into play because I havent played a game like this before. The psp has good games but there just dumbed down ports with little innovation.[/QUOTE]
Meh soon to be "Gradius Portable", "Astonishia Story", "Princess Crown" and "Popolocrois" for me.
Meh soon to be "Gradius Portable", "Astonishia Story", "Princess Crown" and "Popolocrois" for me.
yester
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Strell']MAN. I bet even the 360 will outsell the Rev in Japan.
WAY TOING GO, NINTY.[/quote]
Dude, its pretty quite around the xbox 360. SO far, MS did not to manage to have units in stores. We are looking into the 5 month since release.
So far, i've seen more and more good titles on the Nintendo console & handheld, than on the Xbox or PS2.
Still, the Revolution will give gamers a different game experience than any other console on the market and we will see very inovative games rolling to the Revolution, like we see on the DS. It might be not a Xbox360/PS3 killer, but it will have a strong userbase and perhaps even gain more marketshare.
But hey, i guess your quote was a joke anyway.
WAY TO
ING GO, NINTY.[/quote]Dude, its pretty quite around the xbox 360. SO far, MS did not to manage to have units in stores. We are looking into the 5 month since release.
So far, i've seen more and more good titles on the Nintendo console & handheld, than on the Xbox or PS2.
Still, the Revolution will give gamers a different game experience than any other console on the market and we will see very inovative games rolling to the Revolution, like we see on the DS. It might be not a Xbox360/PS3 killer, but it will have a strong userbase and perhaps even gain more marketshare.
But hey, i guess your quote was a joke anyway.
[quote name='yester']Dude, its pretty quite around the xbox 360. SO far, MS did not to manage to have units in stores. We are looking into the 5 month since release.
So far, i've seen more and more good titles on the Nintendo console & handheld, than on the Xbox or PS2.
Still, the Revolution will give gamers a different game experience than any other console on the market and we will see very inovative games rolling to the Revolution, like we see on the DS. It might be not a Xbox360/PS3 killer, but it will have a strong userbase and perhaps even gain more marketshare.
But hey, i guess your quote was a joke anyway.[/QUOTE]
He was being sarastic. It's what he does.
So far, i've seen more and more good titles on the Nintendo console & handheld, than on the Xbox or PS2.
Still, the Revolution will give gamers a different game experience than any other console on the market and we will see very inovative games rolling to the Revolution, like we see on the DS. It might be not a Xbox360/PS3 killer, but it will have a strong userbase and perhaps even gain more marketshare.
But hey, i guess your quote was a joke anyway.[/QUOTE]
He was being sarastic. It's what he does.
crazytalkx
CAGiversary!
Damn, dissapointing but hopefully the gameplay will more than make up for it somehow. I lack an HDTV so some aspects aren't that dissapointing.
[quote name='dhs odium']Okay, as far as I'm concerned the specs are complete bullshit, I was right.
All those "leaked" specs are the gamecube's numbers multiplied by 1.5
April Fool's everyone. And Matt Cassasmasmsiamsmiamsani sucks nuts.[/quote]
its march 31st
And I dont think specs will hinder nintendo at all. Look at the DS versus the PSP. The psp compared is a graphics power house... but the games are lack luster and ports of Ps2 games. DS games are innovative and fun and think outside the box. It draws people in for the simple desire to want to enjoy a game.... The same will he had with the revolution. Its differnt. Its going to be intresting to see how it sells!! This will be a great year in gaming...
All those "leaked" specs are the gamecube's numbers multiplied by 1.5
April Fool's everyone. And Matt Cassasmasmsiamsmiamsani sucks nuts.[/quote]
its march 31st
And I dont think specs will hinder nintendo at all. Look at the DS versus the PSP. The psp compared is a graphics power house... but the games are lack luster and ports of Ps2 games. DS games are innovative and fun and think outside the box. It draws people in for the simple desire to want to enjoy a game.... The same will he had with the revolution. Its differnt. Its going to be intresting to see how it sells!! This will be a great year in gaming...
V
Virtua
Guest
only thing to worry about with the revolution is if it can handle complex and realistic physics systems. Imagine games with that freestyle controller and not being able to have objects react realistically and move on their own.. that would kind of suck. Now imagine interacting with objects the way they act in Half-Life 2 or Oblivion with the freestyle contoller.. that would be cool.
However, it will be tough to go back to plain textured models after seeing the amazing shaders on GRAW and such. Shading, lighting, and bump mapping make such a difference. Along with physics like havok I think these make a lot of games more fun and unpredictable. I want to see that in revolution games.
That unscripted-holy shit did you see that stuff.
However, it will be tough to go back to plain textured models after seeing the amazing shaders on GRAW and such. Shading, lighting, and bump mapping make such a difference. Along with physics like havok I think these make a lot of games more fun and unpredictable. I want to see that in revolution games.
That unscripted-holy shit did you see that stuff.
[quote name='Lice']its march 31st
And I dont think specs will hinder nintendo at all. Look at the DS versus the PSP. The psp compared is a graphics power house... but the games are lack luster and ports of Ps2 games. DS games are innovative and fun and think outside the box. It draws people in for the simple desire to want to enjoy a game.... The same will he had with the revolution. Its differnt. Its going to be intresting to see how it sells!! This will be a great year in gaming...[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is March 31st. But magazines and most websites start spreading their lies up to a week before April 1st and stop around a week after. It's best not to take any news seriously around that time.
What are the odds Nintendo decided ALL the specs would be GC times 1.5?
And I dont think specs will hinder nintendo at all. Look at the DS versus the PSP. The psp compared is a graphics power house... but the games are lack luster and ports of Ps2 games. DS games are innovative and fun and think outside the box. It draws people in for the simple desire to want to enjoy a game.... The same will he had with the revolution. Its differnt. Its going to be intresting to see how it sells!! This will be a great year in gaming...[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is March 31st. But magazines and most websites start spreading their lies up to a week before April 1st and stop around a week after. It's best not to take any news seriously around that time.
What are the odds Nintendo decided ALL the specs would be GC times 1.5?
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
[quote name='dhs odium']Okay, as far as I'm concerned the specs are complete bullshit, I was right.
All those "leaked" specs are the gamecube's numbers multiplied by 1.5
April Fool's everyone. And Matt Cassasmasmsiamsmiamsani sucks nuts.[/quote]
This was an extremely sharp observation on your part. Now I have to all over the internets trying to repair the damage that Matt has caused.
Chief Editors that damage the reputation of the product their site is about = bad.
All those "leaked" specs are the gamecube's numbers multiplied by 1.5
April Fool's everyone. And Matt Cassasmasmsiamsmiamsani sucks nuts.[/quote]
This was an extremely sharp observation on your part. Now I have to all over the internets trying to repair the damage that Matt has caused.
Chief Editors that damage the reputation of the product their site is about = bad.
SpottedNigel
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
http://revolution.ign.com/mail/
"I mean, if you were to take a calculator and multiple the CPU and GPU speeds on GameCube by 1.5, you would end up with the MHz figures we posted for Revolution. But that doesn't mean the console as a whole is only 1.5 times more powerful."
Well, he does actually make that point...
"I mean, if you were to take a calculator and multiple the CPU and GPU speeds on GameCube by 1.5, you would end up with the MHz figures we posted for Revolution. But that doesn't mean the console as a whole is only 1.5 times more powerful."
Well, he does actually make that point...
The RAM is 2.2x (not 1.5x) the GC...
I certainly would not discount the possibility that this is an april fools joke, but it just doesn't seem like it to me.
Nintendo has said the Revolution will not be considerably more powerful than GC, so this doesn't seem at all farfetched to me. IIRC, IGN's past jokes have been pretty blatant (GBA SP Virtual Boy?).
I certainly would not discount the possibility that this is an april fools joke, but it just doesn't seem like it to me.
Nintendo has said the Revolution will not be considerably more powerful than GC, so this doesn't seem at all farfetched to me. IIRC, IGN's past jokes have been pretty blatant (GBA SP Virtual Boy?).
I don't have a problem with the power. But the comparisons (Matt) made to the xbox were ridiculous. They're different architectures.
It's like saying my 4 cylinder VW does more rpms than your 8 cylinder Corvette so my Beetle is faster. The celeron cpu in the xbox is a 4 cylinder while the PPC is an 8cyl engine.
With the 50% clock increases and probable architecture enhancements you'll get your 2-3x more powerful than the 'Cube specs which is what Nintendo has said the Revolution power will be all along.
I mean really what he was saying was the GAmecube needed 50% more power to equal the Xbox. And that's bs.
It's like saying my 4 cylinder VW does more rpms than your 8 cylinder Corvette so my Beetle is faster. The celeron cpu in the xbox is a 4 cylinder while the PPC is an 8cyl engine.
With the 50% clock increases and probable architecture enhancements you'll get your 2-3x more powerful than the 'Cube specs which is what Nintendo has said the Revolution power will be all along.
I mean really what he was saying was the GAmecube needed 50% more power to equal the Xbox. And that's bs.
ArthurDigbySellers
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='munch']After 5 pages of posts, is this information going to stop anyone from buying a Revolution?[/quote]
Nope...and that is exactly the point. Nintendo has spelled out what their intentions are. Over and over.
The DS to PSP comparison's are exactly right. Power does not equal quality.
Nope...and that is exactly the point. Nintendo has spelled out what their intentions are. Over and over.
The DS to PSP comparison's are exactly right. Power does not equal quality.
[quote name='munch']After 5 pages of posts, is this information going to stop anyone from buying a Revolution?[/QUOTE]
Yes... I mean no, of course not.
I'm supremely disappointed in the lack of HD on the Revo, as I've has an HDTV for nearly 3 years now and have yet to feed a true HD signal into it. Thus, I will definitely be getting a PS3 because I really want some content to see on the HD. But it's not an either/or thing. Sure, I've held off on the Xbox360 because, except for Oblivion, there isn't a game I'd want to play on it, but I will need some HD goodness eventually this generation. Thus, I'll get one or the other of the higher-end systems (though probably not both) in addition to a Revo. There was the (small) possibility that had Nintendo come out with a powerhouse HD system I might not have bought either of the others - but that clearly is not their strategy.
Having said that, 90% of GC games look FAR better on my HDTV than PS2 games do, so I'm sure the Revo games will look just fine. I mean, who needs Mario Party in HD anyway?. Though Metroid would be nice in HD 
.
Yes... I mean no, of course not
.I'm supremely disappointed in the lack of HD on the Revo, as I've has an HDTV for nearly 3 years now and have yet to feed a true HD signal into it. Thus, I will definitely be getting a PS3 because I really want some content to see on the HD. But it's not an either/or thing. Sure, I've held off on the Xbox360 because, except for Oblivion, there isn't a game I'd want to play on it, but I will need some HD goodness eventually this generation. Thus, I'll get one or the other of the higher-end systems (though probably not both) in addition to a Revo. There was the (small) possibility that had Nintendo come out with a powerhouse HD system I might not have bought either of the others - but that clearly is not their strategy.
Having said that, 90% of GC games look FAR better on my HDTV than PS2 games do, so I'm sure the Revo games will look just fine. I mean, who needs Mario Party in HD anyway?
. Though Metroid would be nice in HD .
Blind the Thief
CAGiversary!
[quote name='jer7583']Along with physics like havok I think these make a lot of games more fun and unpredictable.[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't that make the game more predictable?
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']This was an extremely sharp observation on your part. Now I have to all over the internets trying to repair the damage that Matt has caused.
Chief Editors that damage the reputation of the product their site is about = bad.[/QUOTE]
That's why I don't think this is an April Fool's prank. Despite what anyone (or everyone) think of that guy, he does appear to love Nintendo, and I have a hard time believing he'd resort to this.
Shouldn't that make the game more predictable?
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']This was an extremely sharp observation on your part. Now I have to all over the internets trying to repair the damage that Matt has caused.
Chief Editors that damage the reputation of the product their site is about = bad.[/QUOTE]
That's why I don't think this is an April Fool's prank. Despite what anyone (or everyone) think of that guy, he does appear to love Nintendo, and I have a hard time believing he'd resort to this.
bread's done