• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

New? Iwata interview (Rev's power, Zelda)

Slurpy said:
:lol :lol :lol :

That would be the biggest waste of RAM, ever.

:lol :lol Ok. Ok. I was only exaggerating... But I think with a reasonably large ram, lets say 1gb :) The devs can create some seriously large and detailed worlds, especially as we're talking about SDTV here. Not only that the extra ram will also help with load times and caching.
 
civilstrife said:
Hmmm... I don't claim to know much about hardware design, but I doubt that its quite as simple as just spending a little more money to like, check texture off a list of graphical features or something.

I think the idea here is that Nintendo really thought it wouldn't make much much of a difference. Of course, the hardcore gaming public defers, but when I can play Mario 64 in better than the original fidelity, I'm happy.

As far as I'm concerned, DS is a perfectly capable of 3D games. Obviously its not the most ideal system for it, but its more than pasable. You are absolutely right though. if PSP never came along, we would be praising Nintendo to high hell for such amazing advancement in handheld graphics. Thats competition for ya.

DS a system based around a specific input device. Graphics are not its forte. The same will become of the revolution. All you people trying to convince yourselves otherwise are setting yourself up for disappointment. I mean come on. Nintendo says so themselves.

The way I see it, when Nintendo finally does release images of say... Smash Brothers Rev, we will be floored. Not because it looks much better than other next gen stuff out there, but who doesn't love seeing Nintendo's franchise characters go through that upgrade each generation?

Drinky
 
The graphical difference between DS and PSP is a generation's difference. Basically, if Nintendo wants a difference like that with Revolution <-> Xbox 360/PS3, they will have to use Gamecube hardware and it's out of the question that they will do something like that. Besides, Iwata said, if you don't have a HDTV, Revolution graphics will look the same as Xbox 360/PS3 graphics. And I think that's how it's gonna be. I'm thinking Revolution can render the (almost) same stuff that Xbox 360/PS3 can but only 640x480 without AA instead of 720p/1080i with AA.
 
Gaybrush Threepio said:
Revolution graphically won't be quite as powerful as Xbox 360 or PS3. However the difference will not be huge, and if you look at the difference between PS2 and Xbox this gen, you'll have a fair idea of the difference between Rev and its competitors.
Ack, I'll have to amend my superficial comparison!

PlayStation 3 = Xbox

Xbox 360 = GameCube

Revolution = PlayStation 2
 
Gaybrush Threepio said:
Revolution graphically won't be quite as powerful as Xbox 360 or PS3. However the difference will not be huge, and if you look at the difference between PS2 and Xbox this gen, you'll have a fair idea of the difference between Rev and its competitors.
this is a perfectly acceptable difference, per generation of consoles.

it's also nice to know, thanks.
 
So... would this be a fair pecking order in terms of raw output for dedicated next-gen game platforms?

01 PlayStation 3 (SCEI)
02 Xbox 360 (MGS)
03 Revolution (Nintendo)
04 LindBergh (SEGA)
05 Type-X+ (Taito)
 
Kiriku said:
I was always expecting Rev to be weaker in hardware. It makes a lot of sense IMO.
To appeal to the crowd who normally don't play games, a low price is a good start. Weaker hardware means lower price.

Also, Iwata himself stated that Rev will be the console for devs with the best ideas rather than biggest budgets. To me, it sounds like he wants devs to keep budgets for their games low, which surely will be easier if the hardware is weaker than 360/PS3. So in essence, cramming the latest and greatest hardware into Revolution would basically be a waste with the philosophy they're going for (games based around ideas rather than technology). It would just become more expensive for Nintendo to manufacture (and for us to buy), and devs probably wouldn't take advantage of it to any higher degree anyway.

I don't believe its power that creates a increase in budgets for game development, but the tools, API, the design of the hardware. If MS, Sony, and Nintendo can provide developers with a powerful consoles, aswell as a great development environment.

Sony could have had a powerful console without going the route they took, with having PPC core and 7 SPE's.
 
09-26-2005.png


I have no idea if this was posted in the Rev. Controller thread so sorry if it's old.
 
you know, it's comics like that that get me thinking shit along the lines of....

"did someone out there really find that funny?"
"what's the dude that directed the total recall game doing right now?"
"how on earth did Microsoft consider fusion frenzy and azurik killer apps?"
 
OG_Original Gamer said:
I don't believe its power that creates a increase in budgets for game development, but the tools, API, the design of the hardware. If MS, Sony, and Nintendo can provide developers with a powerful consoles, aswell as a great development environment.

Sony could have had a powerful console without going the route they took, with having PPC core and 7 SPE's.

Maybe not only directly, but also indirectly. I don't think great development environments comes for free either. But I mean yeah...what I described earlier is obviously not like a rule written into stone, but more advanced hardware generally means higher costs for someone, be it developers, hardware manufacturers or consumers.
 
Wow!


I can't wait till 2012 to finally play Super Mairo in Hi-def.






depressed.jpg
 
Ruzbeh said:
The graphical difference between DS and PSP is a generation's difference. Basically, if Nintendo wants a difference like that with Revolution <-> Xbox 360/PS3, they will have to use Gamecube hardware and it's out of the question that they will do something like that. Besides, Iwata said, if you don't have a HDTV, Revolution graphics will look the same as Xbox 360/PS3 graphics. And I think that's how it's gonna be. I'm thinking Revolution can render the (almost) same stuff that Xbox 360/PS3 can but only 640x480 without AA instead of 720p/1080i with AA.
You realize how much of a hit the PS3 GPU takes on HDR and AA, right?

I agree with what you said, but I think the Rev games WILL be able to look as good as the 360 and PS3, just at a lower res. No compensation on AA or lighting or anything like that.
 
jarrod said:
Ack, I'll have to amend my superficial comparison!

PlayStation 3 = Xbox

Xbox 360 = GameCube

Revolution = PlayStation 2

your old superficial comparison was better. ps2 didn't run at a considerably lower resolution (sorry lazy8s), and managed an accurate port of the gamecube's best-looking game. you won't be able to say the same about revolution vis a vis its competitors. i believe gaybrush works for nintendo. but i think he's spinning.
 
drohne said:
your old superficial comparison was better. ps2 didn't run at a considerably lower resolution (sorry lazy8s), and managed an accurate port of the gamecube's best-looking game. you won't be able to say the same about revolution vis a vis its competitors. i believe gaybrush works for nintendo. but i think he's spinning.


The PS2 didn't have the type of controller that Revolution will bring to the market either though or the market considerations which come with that.

If Nintendo really wanted to make an XBox 360 level (maybe even better in some areas) chispet, I think they could, but you wouldn't be able to get it for $200, and they probably would not have had the extra money left over to make the controller the way they wanted it either. It's not just a one way street.

If Revolution can basically render the same images as the XBox 360, just at an EDTV resolution, that's more than good enough for what they're aiming to do with their console.
 
drohne said:
your old superficial comparison was better. ps2 didn't run at a considerably lower resolution (sorry lazy8s), and managed an accurate port of the gamecube's best-looking game. you won't be able to say the same about resolution vis a vis its competitors. i believe gaybrush works for nintendo. but i think he's spinning.

Also PS2 RE4 runs at higher resolution than the original.
 
Ruzbeh said:
If you are running the game in anamorphic widescreen, the resolution is higher than the Gamecube version. The standard 4:3 mode is the same resolution as Gamecube, however.
 
CDs don't matter - 1995
DVDs don't matter - 2000
Graphics don't matter - 2005
Dignity doesn't matter - 20xx

The timeline as Nintendo fans gradually become the tracked out crack whores of the gaming industry. PEACE.
 
Pimpwerx said:
CDs don't matter - 1995
DVDs don't matter - 2000
Graphics don't matter - 2005
Dignity doesn't matter - 20xx

The timeline as Nintendo fans gradually become the tracked out crack whores of the gaming industry. PEACE.

Dignity *doesn't* matter.
 
Pimpwerx said:
CDs don't matter - 1995
DVDs don't matter - 2000
Graphics don't matter - 2005
Dignity doesn't matter - 20xx

The timeline as Nintendo fans gradually become the tracked out crack whores of the gaming industry. PEACE.
Who the hell is saying graphics don't matter? Nintendo? Nintendo fans? Please point out one example of anyone saying graphics don't matter, PERIOD.
 
jarrod said:
So... would this be a fair pecking order in terms of raw output for dedicated next-gen game platforms?

01 PlayStation 3 (SCEI)
02 Xbox 360 (MGS)
03 Revolution (Nintendo)
04 LindBergh (SEGA)
05 Type-X+ (Taito)
lindbergh will probably be the easiest to program for. it could probably beat the hell out of the ps3 and 360 cpus for less optimized single/dual threaded code. same with type x, but i just hate it cause its not a locked down configuration, it can go to hell.

another thing about lindbergh is that it can output to hd resolutions, if you want to take that into account for the #3-4 spots. im assuming type x can as well, but afaik there havent been any hd setups for type x games.
 
as japtor says, lindbergh does hd. i think it's likely that revolution will at least have less fillrate.
 
drohne said:
your old superficial comparison was better. ps2 didn't run at a considerably lower resolution (sorry lazy8s), and managed an accurate port of the gamecube's best-looking game. you won't be able to say the same about revolution vis a vis its competitors. i believe gaybrush works for nintendo. but i think he's spinning.
Let's zero-in on the bold part of your post:

How in the hell do you know this already? No specs have been officially announced and no screens (be they exclusive games to Revolution or multi platform ones) have been shown. No video, no nothing.

So I'll ask you again:

How do you know that Revolution won't be able to manage accurate ports of the PS3 and/or Xbox360s' best-looking games?
 
Pimpwerx said:
CDs don't matter - 1995
DVDs don't matter - 2000
Graphics don't matter - 2005
Dignity doesn't matter - 20xx

The timeline as Nintendo fans gradually become the tracked out crack whores of the gaming industry. PEACE.


you do realize that xbot fans were first singing the 'graphics dont matter' tune when it was expected for the ps3 to completely blow it out of the water. now they are playing the blurays/hd-dvds dont matter tune.
 
case isn't designed for the heat generated by a big multicore cpu. revolution won't be able to handle the physical simulation, procedural content generation, ai, etc. that 360 and ps3 will. to be fair, carmack thinks multicore cpus are hugely inefficient for gaming purposes, and lots of people think they'll be a pain to code for.

i also think revolution's non-support of hd resolutions is a major oversight, and one that nintendo wouldn't make unless it also allowed them to use a really cheap graphics part. hdtv will enjoy wide adoption within the revolution's lifespan. even if it does a dreamcast.

edit: haven't nintendo also mentioned that the revolution won't make any noise? i think that further suggests that its chips won't generate much heat.
 
I guess my point is this:

We can talk all we want about this, but we won't know until we see, with our own eyes, what the graphic capabilities of the Revolution are.
 
drohne said:
case won't accomodate a big multicore cpu. revolution won't be able to handle the physical simulation, procedural content generation, ai, etc. that 360 and ps3 will.

This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. :lol

Case won't accomodate a multicore cpu, eh? With Intel and AMD making mobile multicore CPU's in the very near future, and the Rev's launchdate of Fall 2006?

Actually, have you seen a dual-core processor? Sizewise, it's the same as a regular single-core processor.
 
"You will say wow........



































that looks like shit !"

But seriously i think the rev's in game graphics will indeed be competitive with x360, first party games anyway. I predict many 3rd party devs will not invest the time and effort in optimising for lower spec / higher efficiency hardware. Case in point, gamecube.
 
Making up specs seems fun, so I'm going to give it a try, too. I considered price, ease of development, ease of making it backward compatible with the Gamecube, performance, heat generation, design decissions made in the Gamecube, GBA and DS.

1 G5 based cpu core with heavy modifications (1.8-2 GHz)
Gamecube gekko cpu included on the die for backward compatibility
Soundchip included on die

128 MB 1T-SRAM-Q connected to the CPU

GPU with 16 Pixelpipelines, DX9 like Shaders, ~400 Mhz
4 Vertexshader Pipelines, modified to accelerate physics too (collision detection)
5 MB embeded framebuffer (using 1T-SRAM-Q)
4 MB embeded texture cache (1T-SRAM-Q again)
256 MB regular DDR-SDRAM connected to the GPU

512MB flash memory
Wifi
Bluetooth
Slot-In DVD
USB 2.0
Toslink Output
DD5.1
 
drohne said:
i clarified in the edit.

Okay, but the Cube is very close to the level of the Xbox, yet it is very quiet too. The fans that they make nowadays are very quiet.

Look, I'm not going to argue about this anymore, because it really is pointless. We don't have a single spec or have seen a single game, demo or otherwise, to comment on the power of the system.

The only thing we have is history. Every Nintendo home console has stood up in terms of power and graphics. Period. Why would this change now? And honestly, do you really think that there will be much difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360? I don't. That's why Sony isn't showing anything playable before the X360 launches. They're using smoke and mirrors to get people to believe that it's "an order of magnitude" more powerful than the X360. I'm going to guess, that the only difference you'll see is something akin to the sparks controversy with Burnout 3.
 
there's not much history to go on, and in any case nintendo's hardware philosophy has changed since gamecube. speculating on revolution's capabilites isn't like speculating on the playstation 5's capabilities: we have lots of circumstantial evidence go on. if you want to suspend all judgement until we've seen unambiguous specifications or ambiguous game screens, then knock yourself out.
 
drohne said:
there's not much history to go on, and in any case nintendo's hardware philosophy has changed since gamecube.
how do you figure? when designing the GameCube, they wanted to make a small, quiet, efficient game machine. after they made it, they were even moddest about the power under the hood.

exactly what has changed? and please don't bring up the DS, im sure even you realize that portables are a different galaxy. don't give me that size crap either. their last 2 systems were smaller than the competetion, and they totally held their own.

you guys just need to accept it already. it'll pretty much be on par with a 480p xbox 360. due to the fact that it'll come out a year later, and is built from the ground up as a games only machine, they'll be able to bust it out at a cheaper price.
 
drohne said:
your old superficial comparison was better. ps2 didn't run at a considerably lower resolution (sorry lazy8s), and managed an accurate port of the gamecube's best-looking game. you won't be able to say the same about revolution vis a vis its competitors. i believe gaybrush works for nintendo. but i think he's spinning.
PS2 managed an accurate port visually, though there are slight geometry/texturing concessions here and there if you look close enough. Basically though, it looks the same to the untrained eye... which is what Guybrush basically said about Revolution compared to it's competition (barring the resolution drop, though Nintendo's evidently reconsidereing their stance there also). And working for Nintendo, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as to knowing more than you or me.
 
like it or not, ds is the best indication of what revolution will be like. gamecube was meant to compete with ps2 and xbox on even terms. revolution is meant to attract nongamers and lapsed gamers, has already ceded high definition visuals to its competitiors, and banks on the appeal of a novel controller. i think analogies to ds will go further still, but i've already been accused of speculating too far ahead.
 
This is the first Nintendo home console where Iwata is in the driver seat. There is alot to be learned what he envisions Nintendo to become and what they are to deliver to the industry.
 
drohne said:
like it or not, ds is the best indication of what revolution will be like. gamecube was meant to compete with ps2 and xbox on even terms. revolution is meant to attract nongamers and lapsed gamers, has already ceded high definition visuals to its competitiors, and banks on the appeal of a novel controller. i think analogies to ds will go further still, but i've already been accused of speculating too far ahead.

Gaybrush Threepio said:
Revolution graphically won't be quite as powerful as Xbox 360 or PS3. However the difference will not be huge, and if you look at the difference between PS2 and Xbox this gen, you'll have a fair idea of the difference between Rev and its competitors.


Okay, so if there was no problems this gen between the PS2 and Xbox differences, then why suddenly is there problems with the Revolution?

So, as jarrod said:

PS3 = Xbox
X360 = Cube
Rev = PS2

Where's the problem?
 
Spike said:
So, as Johnny said:

PS3 = Xbox
X360 = Cube
Rev = PS2
don't put words in my mouth. i never said that.

if anything, it will go down like this.

xbox 360 = xbox 360

one year later....

xbox 360 = xbox 360
Revolution = xbox 360 in 480p (although there's still time to change that)
PS3 = PS3

but yeah, in conclusion it looks like it's gonna end up being 360=Rev < PS3.
 
phantomile co. said:
don't put words in my mouth. i never said that.

if anything, it will go down like this.

xbox 360 = xbox 360

one year later....

xbox 360 = xbox 360
Revolution = xbox 360 in 480p (although there's still time to change that)
PS3 = PS3

but yeah, in conclusion it looks like it's gonna end up being 360=Rev < PS3.

Sorry mate, I meant jarrod. :D

Edited the post.
 
GaimeGuy said:
Didn't the N64 output higher resolution graphics than the PSX did? :|

It wasn't uncommon to see PlayStation titles at 640x480 in at least the menus, whereas N64 was stuck in or around 320x240 until the expansion pack came out. PSone pushed more polys, N64 had impressive effects and nice texture filtering.
 
phantomile co. said:
xbox 360 = xbox 360
Revolution = xbox 360 in 480p (although there's still time to change that)
PS3 = PS3

but yeah, in conclusion it looks like it's gonna end up being 360=Rev < PS3.

I'm not really disagreeing with you in theory, but these statements are essentially contradictory, bascially because xbox 360 in 480p does not equal xbox 360. So if Rev is similar to x360 but displays only in 480p, it is inherently less powerful. Not a big deal, just pointing it out...
 
GitarooMan said:
I'm not really disagreeing with you in theory, but these statements are essentially contradictory, bascially because xbox 360 in 480p does not equal xbox 360. So if Rev is similar to x360 but displays only in 480p, it is inherently less powerful. Not a big deal, just pointing it out...
But there's always been resolution differences between systems each gen. It's just being hyped more next gen because of HD. Yet all the multiplatform games end up looking very comparable. So what's the problem?
 
Since when was the 360 running in 480p going to make it look say half a generation Next-Gen?

Dont even bother trying to explain, Im sure I'll find out for myself.
 
Top Bottom