Support NeoGAF

[DrGAKMAN]

First, the Revolution is prohibitively small. No matter what you or I say, it's VERY difficult to imagine technology that would be cost effective in 2006 that would be comparable to PS3 or 360 at that size (supposedly, 3 DVD cases tall). That's not just random ass-speak, it's about technical limitations. Did they figure out a way to do it? It's possible. But based on corporate Nintendo philosophy (cheap, efficient hardware) many can't imagine it happening at 200 or 250.

While Nintendo themselves have pretty much confirmed Revolution won't be as powerful as competing systems I keep hearing the "it's too small" argument WAY too much. It's almost assinine. The size is NOT a detriment to it's performance.

Look at the GCN vs the X-BOX. You could sit 6 GCN's firmly on top of the X-BOX. SIX! Granted the GCN is taller than the X-BOX so I'd say that it's not quite 6 times smaller...more like 1/4TH the size of the X-BOX. YET...it's power is not a detriment to it's size is it? Certainly not, in the right developer's hands, GCN visuals are on par with the might X-BOX's visuals. To add, GCN is *older* technology to boot and was completly months before the X-BOX was...yet...it still holds up. The power pak & internal HD increased the X-BOX's size, but still, no one can deny that the GCN is much smaller.

Compare that to next generation. Yes, Revolution is very small, smaller than the GCN in some ways even, but how does this make it "prohibitively small" as you say? Nintendo has always looked to making technology smaller and smaller anyways...IBM said so years ago. And look, for the performance, price and size IBM gave them with GCN, Nintendo MUST have been onto something 'cos now IBM is making the CPU's for all three hardware makers. Now, compare Revolution to X-BOX 360...about the same difference as GCN vs X-BOX wouldn't you say? So again, how is the size going to kill Nintendo when it comes to performance if it didn't this generation? Revolution will also not have an internal power supply or HD again, plus it's technology will be newer than X-BOX 360's...so size really won't kill it's performance IMO!

Not saying it'll have all the features of the X-BOX 360 or PS3 or all the raw specs, but it should look comparable to most people in the end. Casuals shape this industry, not the tech-mongers who can see the minor differences between different versions of the same game on different hardware. Plus Nintendo could be going for hardware specific "shortcuts" to make things look even better like stereo scopic 3D or cube mapping, etc.

I think going thrifty is smart for Nintendo. They *could* go for higher raw specs than the competition with Revolution but people won't believe Nintendo has the most powerful hardware (especially, as you and many other say, at that size). People see the current market leader as a giant electronics empire, and they see MS as a rich monopolizing technology company...no one would ever believe Nintendo could beat them at technology. Sooooooo...why should Nintendo even try to play that game? They'd lose money, have to sell the hardware at a much greater loss all to still be beaten 'cos their name doesn't hold the mindshare their competition does. Plus they lose the benifits of having a smaller, cheaper and less power consuming machine...something that's important to them 'cos of their possition in the portable gaming market. In fact, Revolution ('cos of it's cheaper/smaller "thrifty" design) could be marketted as a psuedo-mobile game machine...a strategy that would be lost if they followed Sony & MS. Nintendo (if their smart) could market a Revolution + LCD combo that's a next-generation game machine as well as a portable DVD player. Plus, by going the thrifty route they reach more budget minded people. People will still "trust" Nintendo as the system for their kids, but not if it's suddenly jacked to $300+. Plus Nintendo is trying to attract newer gamers...people who don't really care about HD gaming or tech. specs, they just want something that looks comparable and is cheap. Also, by having a less powerful machine, it could cut down on developement costs all while still looking comparable visuals. This all really is a good strategy for Nintendo: they expand themselves into newer markets, they appeal to budget minded gamers, they'll more easily turn a profit on hardware...all while still having comparable specs to the competition!

 

[Razoric]

Wow one mention of Metroid Prime is all it takes to send a GAF thread to flamers hell. :lol

 

[FiRez]

wow...this thread was created today? :lol .
but at least the OP theory isn't so far fetched like most of the Nintendo Rev. threads, If it's just the controller anyone can simply create a new controller and new kind of games for this controller (DDR, eyetoy, Light-Guns..etc), so what's the point of showing it later

 

[koam]

Wow one mention of Metroid Prime is all it takes to send a GAF thread to flamers hell. :lol

No, it took calling the highest rated game of this generation "shit" to get GAF going. Notice how no one cared about the sunshine and LM comment.

 

[demon]

I hate Nintendo. Commence personal attacks....

Fixed.

That's funny....Metroid Prime was the first Metroid not developed by an originally Nintendo developer. And secondly, I agree with his sentiment on Metroid Prime, yet *gasp* my only system now is a Gamecube! Shock and awe. Hell, I thought Mario Sunshine, during its better moments, had the best 3D platformer game design ever.

Prime is 1st party.

Only because the non-Nintendo developer was bought up right before Prime was developed. I really don't care if Metroid Prime was developed under the banner of Nintendo and has the Nintendo logo slapped on the cover.....it was still developed by a bunch of fps developers from Texas instead of the original creator of Metroid from Nintendo Japan, regardless of the development having been overseen by Nintendo.

And to those who are still oblivous as to how anyone (myself included) could dislike Metroid Prime, I found it to be nothing more than a bunch of incredibly dated gameplay and design mechanics wrapped up in an extremely polished package. Its gameplay was some of the most undynamic and boring I've played this gen in a supposed triple-A game: Tomb Raider-esque puzzles that leave zero room for creativity in solving; enemies with neither any AI nor interesting/original attack patterns whom you fight with simplified FPS controls; and for that matter, a dumbed-down FPS control scheme that doesn't "simplify" anything, only hindering your ability to control the character in ways that have been standard in first-person games for years. It just bored me. What more can I(we) say.

No, it took calling the highest rated game of this generation "shit" to get GAF going.

Critics wouldn't have given a damn about it if it weren't made by Nintendo and didn't have "Metroid" in the name.

 

[tedtropy]

No, it took calling the highest rated game of this generation "shit" to get GAF going. Notice how no one cared about the sunshine and LM comment.

And the arguments as to why Prime is "shit" are usually pretty lacking. There's nothing wrong with not liking the game, but I don't think anyone can deny the artistry and time that went into its environments, graphics, music, sound, etc. Not enjoying the gameplay is one thing, but blanket stating the whole thing as "shit" just because you couldn't get into it is a little dumb.

 

[tedtropy]

Critics wouldn't have given a damn about it if it weren't made by Nintendo and didn't have "Metroid" in the name.

If anything, critics were harder on it because it was transitioning their precious 2D Metroid to a 3D environment. Hell, look at the flak Castlevania got when going 3D. (Although in the end it was warranted.) Remove the 'Nintendo' and 'Metroid' and it's still a solid game - anything critic worth his salt would still realize that.

 

[Gorgie]

Could the Revolution use foot pedals? Not only would racing games be easier to play, but you have an authentic Time Crisis port. They could act as 2? extra buttons for any game, like a pedal push makes Link duck, or while walking a tight rope in Mario, gently using the petals will keep Mario from losing his balance. The pedals may be a part in the Revolution (or not).

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

If it's only the controller that's the "Revolution", then Microsoft and Sony can easily rip it off and pretty much render the Revolution useless since it won't be anywhere near as powerful.

You could get analog controllers on Saturn and PS1, 3D glasses for the Master System, a six button controller for Genesis, a hard drive on PS2, a mecha controller for Xbox, an eReader for GBA, and bongo drums for GameCube. But as long as they aren't something standard from the beginning of the system, most games won't make big use of them.

 

[Bluemercury]

No, it took calling the highest rated game of this generation "shit" to get GAF going. Notice how no one cared about the sunshine and LM comment.

They dont care about those two because they didnt score highly of course....

 

[Amir0x]

While Nintendo themselves have pretty much confirmed Revolution won't be as powerful as competing systems I keep hearing the "it's too small" argument WAY too much. It's almost assinine. The size is NOT a detriment to it's performance.

Look at the GCN vs the X-BOX. You could sit 6 GCN's firmly on top of the X-BOX. SIX! Granted the GCN is taller than the X-BOX so I'd say that it's not quite 6 times smaller...more like 1/4TH the size of the X-BOX. YET...it's power is not a detriment to it's size is it? Certainly not, in the right developer's hands, GCN visuals are on par with the might X-BOX's visuals. To add, GCN is *older* technology to boot and was completly months before the X-BOX was...yet...it still holds up. The power pak & internal HD increased the X-BOX's size, but still, no one can deny that the GCN is much smaller.

For one, Revolution is comparatively smaller than even Gamecube was to its competitors. Way smaller. This isn't a matter of just being able to skirt around on efficient hardware as Nintendo did effectively. Also, the measuring stick - 6 Gamecubes on top of Xbox - is disingenuous, since its actual size is not 6 times smaller AND it doesn't have a HD. This is about releasing similar, competing technology in a size so much smaller than competition that it's almost unfathomable. Taking into consideration cooling things down, being 3 DVD cases tall and the near endless comments from Nintendo and others, it's not surprising that the speculation leads to feeling it's underpowered.

Size is, without a doubt, a detriment to performance. You could not release a PSP in 2001 without it costing so much money as to be not worth it. This is not directly comparable, but minimizing technology DOES prohibit things. Disregarding it just demonstrates a lack of understanding.

This all really is a good strategy for Nintendo: they expand themselves into newer markets, they appeal to budget minded gamers, they'll more easily turn a profit on hardware...all while still having comparable specs to the competition!

Ok, but again, the strategy is only "good" if you are Nintendo themselves or you're one of their stockholders. Budget systems did not do shit this gen against XBX and PS2. What happened? PS2 raped Gamecube at a 100 dollar premium. A year headstart, sure. But not a 70 million console headstart. And Xbox released at the same time and has begun to beat out even Gamecube, despite the higher price.

So it comes down to what I, as Amir0x, want. I'm not a budget minded gamer. I'm not a stockholder, I don't give a shit how much profit Nintendo (or Sony or Microsoft) turns. And while visuals are not the most important to me, I love power.

Really, I'm just going to leave it at that and wait for more announcements. Because all I can be is bleak, and I don't want to be.

 

[Drensch]

Can we agree that ign's Revolution faq is probably the most comprehensive collection of Revolution info? If so, read all 9 pages of it. There is probably less than 3 paragraphs of actual info, the rest is speculation. We know(assuming this is set in stone, which is a horrible assumption) a probable case design, that it will provide downloads of games, it will play GCN games, that there is some sort of "new" controller function, that it has 512 mb of flash ram, it can play dvds with an add on. That's about it. You can speculate, but none of it is really informed speculation.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

Please re-read my post Amir0x.

Okay, back. I never said the GCN was 1/6TH the size of the X-BOX...just that you could sit 6 on top of one. I also mentioned that the X-BOX has an internal power supply & HD before so I don't know why you brought that back up in your argument. In fact, the internal power supply & HD issues more support what I'm saying than what you're saying 'cos it offsets the overall size of GCN & Revolution by not having them. Also, shrink the heat sink, shrink down the oversized top-loading disc drive and take out all the ports on the bottom and I'd say you could cut the GCN in half and still not kill it's performance. Those are probably the first things they did when designing the Revolution!

Never did I say that the Revolution would have comparitive power to the competition, nor am I ignoring the FACT that it being smaller will most likely dictate it's overall power. What I WAS saying was that using it's size as an excuss and calling it "underpowered" is illogical 'cos the GCN is smaller than X-BOX, yet has comparitive visuals despite it being smaller AND older technology. I do admit, that Nintendo's own words and Revolution's size almost prove it won't be as powerful, but it won't be a total detriment to how it performs compared to X-BOX 360 & PS3. That was my point.

Revolution will be smaller, but it also won't have an internal HD, nor power supply, plus it'll be newer tech. than X-BOX 360 and in that time they can/will find a way for it to run with less power & run cooler as that's one of the only things Nintendo has told us. Due to it's size and those comments, I would say Nintendo found a way to greatly shrink the heat sink and/or found a chipset combination that won't run as hot as competing chipsets, yet will give comparable performance.

 

[Amir0x]

Please re-read my post Amir0x.

Don't need to, I read and understood it perfectly thanks

Okay, back. I never said the GCN was 1/6TH the size of the X-BOX...just that you could sit 6 on top of one. I also mentioned that the X-BOX has an internal power supply & HD before so I don't know why you brought that back up in your argument. In fact, the internal power supply & HD issues more support what I'm saying than what you're saying 'cos it offsets the overall size of GCN & Revolution by not having them. Also, shrink the heat sink, shrink down the oversized top-loading disc drive and take out all the ports on the bottom and I'd say you could cut the GCN in half and still not kill it's performance. Those are probably the first things they did when designing the Revolution!

I know you never said the GCN was 1/6th the size of Xbox. You simply used a disingenuous way of comparing size as it served your argument. There was no other point in saying that, because it has no relevance on how much smaller GCN is than XBX. And indeed you did mention HD and power supply, it was bought up for emphasis as it was so easily ignored.

Revolution is NOT a Gamecube situation. It's so, so much smaller. It is, without doubt, prohibitively small. Now whether you want to accept it or not, this is once more one of the primary reasons for the speculation. "Comparable" tech is now what you're hinging on, and again it's too much speculation. The argument lies in just how comparable it will be. And size DOES effect it.

Never did I say that the Revolution would have comparitive power to the competition, nor am I ignoring the FACT that it being smaller will most likely dictate it's overall power. What I WAS saying was that using it's size as an excuss and calling it "underpowered" is illogical 'cos the GCN is smaller than X-BOX, yet has comparitive visuals despite it being smaller AND older technology. I do admit, that Nintendo's own words and Revolution's size almost prove it won't be as powerful, but it won't be a total detriment to how it performs compared to X-BOX 360 & PS3. That was my point.

Not most likely, WILL. Size will contribute to overall power/lackthereof. This is the argument here. Why even bother trying to avoid this fact? You seem to half-heartedly accept it, but refuse to state it outright ("most likely" "sounds like"). Nintendo is not a magic company. They are forced to technological limitations as much as the next guy. Releasing a few months after PS3 is not enough to create comparable power and MANY times smaller size and at a cheap price, even removing much of that extra shit the competition has. It just won't happen. I'd almost go as far as to say it's impossible, but I don't want to short change the amazing things people are able to do with technology. I'll leave it at that, because your ridiculous "ITS LIKE GCN" posturing is getting irritating.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

You = it's small, therefore it's going to be very weak and "underpowered".

Me = it's small, will be weaker, but will still be visually comparable to the competition.

The main argument = if GCN can give as good as visuals as X-BOX despite it's size, then so can Revolution compared to X-BOX 360.

Truth = neither of us know until more info is released.