krypt0nian
Banned
ghostface said:
Which is why my PC specs comment applies just fine. Stay on topic.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Revolution Specs May Never be Made Public...
- Thread starter WindyMan
- Start date
Which is why my PC specs comment applies just fine. Stay on topic.
yoopoo said:
Here's what I found for Nintendo's publicly posted specs.
http://www.gamecubicle.com/hardware-nintendo_ds_spec_sheet.htm
Here's the PSP:
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Jul/gee20030731021096.htm
Is there something similar to the PSP spec list for the DS? That's the difference I mean.
Suburban Cowboy
Member
not like i would understand wtf the spec sheet would mean anyways. This is kinda funny though. They are basically saying "fuck you!" to whoever wants to prejudge the console
....god im durnk >.<
....god im durnk >.<
krypt0nian
Banned
ghostface said:
No I'll buy both of course because they are next gen.
Rev gets a buy when Zelda comes out no matter how archaic it will seem. Advance Wars and Fire Emblem still get my dollars too.
The Faceless Master
Member
it's amusing to see someone who champions a game with colossal framerate problems go on to champion the crusade for specs...
I see what you're saying now Amirox, but I still don't pay attention to specs because of things like this:
Just because the specs are good/bad isn't necessarily indicative of what we'll actually see on the system. If you felt like you had to make a decision launch day to get something maybe, but I never buy a system until there are enough games out for it that I KNOW I want to play and are worth owning the system for at that point.
miyuru said:
Just because the specs are good/bad isn't necessarily indicative of what we'll actually see on the system. If you felt like you had to make a decision launch day to get something maybe, but I never buy a system until there are enough games out for it that I KNOW I want to play and are worth owning the system for at that point.
Aika'svyse
Banned
Its why some Nintendo fans remind me of the wife that gets abused by the husband and she keeps making excuses for the guy. To me not putting up specs is the company trying to make fools out of people. If the Rev is going to be special and they trust in it they should be brave enough to let the specs out. This basically throws the specs don't matter argument out the window, because if they don't matter and it's all about gameplay and magics sticks why would you keep specs from people. There's people out there that aren't rich and are going to be trying to make an informed choice on what they are getting for their buck. Nobody wants a 2600 in a box.
krypt0nian
Banned
ghostface said:
Indeed.
Dark Age Iron Savior
Banned
Nintendo should release a few "comforting" specs to help relieve some people here.
Nintendo Press Release said:
Amir0x said:
I still think you're placing too much emphasis on specs, but I'm saying that under the assumption that next-gen systems will be similar in terms of power, well, as similar as the PS2/GCN/XBX are.
I understand why someone would want to know specs, but to me it sounds more like a security blanket for you than anything else. There's only so much you can infer from specs. But yes, I see this point: there's more benefit in knowing the specs over not knowing them.
I just hate to see people hate on a system because it's got this much less RAM or even more picky facts. Because really, a system seller is a system seller. I'm going to play Smash Bros. on Rev. no matter what the specs. It's nice to know what you're getting into - specsheets can help somewhat in this regard - but I think knowing what franchises will be on what console and such are more important than specs.
Aika'svyse said:
When I worked retail you'd be amazed how stupid/uniformed some casual gamers/parents are. I would have people come in and want a mario game, but came in to buy a Xbox instead, because it has a hard drive. Nintendo is basically wanting people to look at the games, not specs that the majority of people don't understand and will arbitrarily judge (PS3 has more RAM so I don't need a 360). Who knows if it'll work though, and I'm sure the specs will get leaked anyway.
Aika'svyse said:
I agree here. Just out of honesty, Nintendo should reveal the specs regardless. To people like me who just love Nintendo, we'll get the console regardless of the specs (though it won't be a 2600 :lol).
I don't really see Nintendo gaining any customers by stating specs won't be revealed, especially when no games have been shown yet (and won't be until 2006 right?).
By not releasing specs Nintendo is pretty much saying "the specs are significantly worse than Xbox 360". You could even speculate that the specs are only just above Gamecube level. It might even BE a repackaged gamecube.
Why wont they say what the machine can do? Is it because when you find out you realise that the machine should only be half the price (whatever that is)?
Not releasing specs will only lead to speculation like the above. It'll be just as damaging to Nintendo as letting us know what the machine can actually do even if that isn't very impressive.
Just tell us what's under the hood Nintendo and stop being jerks.
Why wont they say what the machine can do? Is it because when you find out you realise that the machine should only be half the price (whatever that is)?
Not releasing specs will only lead to speculation like the above. It'll be just as damaging to Nintendo as letting us know what the machine can actually do even if that isn't very impressive.
Just tell us what's under the hood Nintendo and stop being jerks.
Aika'svyse said:
I know you're exagerrating, but I wouldn't be surprsised if people actually believed this to be true.
The problem with specs is that (at least when comparing with Sony and MS's inflated numbers) they don't prove that System A is better than System B. Has the GC ever reached the PS2's 70 or whatever million polygon level? Don't think so, but who has the better looking games? Yeah.
I would like specs too, just to play around with the numbers, but meh, it's no big deal. Instead of worrying about the Rev being GC turbo (or maybe even N64 Jr. :lol ) I'd rather worry about Nintendo delivering N64 level software again.
Yup. After Zelda: TP, my GC's gonna get a face full of sledge hammer.
Amir0x,
You make some valid points about why graphics are important (and therefore why specs are somehow also as important), but because you're so hell-bent on expressing your view you're overlooking a rather critical factor in the scope of this particular argument, and that's the Revolution controller.
According to your logic, a game system should have the most possible power available, and it should be applied to enhancing the visual experience, among other things. PC gamers have known this for years now, and high-end PC gaming rigs can push ridiculous resolutions and show off high-end games like HL2 with super-clarity, enhancing the experience.
Yet, with all the PC upgrades the high-end PC gamers demand, the one thing they don't get for PC gaming is a standard gamepad controller. In fact, they spend can spend $100 or more on a really good mouse or keyboard, when a really good gamepad would have only set them back $50 or so. Every PC gamer will tell you that playing shooters on a console with a controller is a joke, because a mouse and keyboard is the superior setup for that kind of game. No matter how good a game will look on a console, many refuse to consider it because of the control setup.
Now, for the dozen or so publications who have got their hands on the Revolution controller, a good portion of them are saying that even with the crude TGS demos, the controller was superior to the superior mouse-and-keyboard setup. Ignoring all other genres for a moment, if the Revolution controller turns out to be the superior controller for first-person shooters, and PC gamers see a way to have even more precision and accuracy in a popular FPS (and can play against others online, lest we forget), what reason would they have to pick the PS3 or 360 when the games they want to play on those systems are still being controlled by, in their opinions, an inferior controlling device? Would the superior audio/visual environment that the higher-end consoles offer override that?
You make some valid points about why graphics are important (and therefore why specs are somehow also as important), but because you're so hell-bent on expressing your view you're overlooking a rather critical factor in the scope of this particular argument, and that's the Revolution controller.
According to your logic, a game system should have the most possible power available, and it should be applied to enhancing the visual experience, among other things. PC gamers have known this for years now, and high-end PC gaming rigs can push ridiculous resolutions and show off high-end games like HL2 with super-clarity, enhancing the experience.
Yet, with all the PC upgrades the high-end PC gamers demand, the one thing they don't get for PC gaming is a standard gamepad controller. In fact, they spend can spend $100 or more on a really good mouse or keyboard, when a really good gamepad would have only set them back $50 or so. Every PC gamer will tell you that playing shooters on a console with a controller is a joke, because a mouse and keyboard is the superior setup for that kind of game. No matter how good a game will look on a console, many refuse to consider it because of the control setup.
Now, for the dozen or so publications who have got their hands on the Revolution controller, a good portion of them are saying that even with the crude TGS demos, the controller was superior to the superior mouse-and-keyboard setup. Ignoring all other genres for a moment, if the Revolution controller turns out to be the superior controller for first-person shooters, and PC gamers see a way to have even more precision and accuracy in a popular FPS (and can play against others online, lest we forget), what reason would they have to pick the PS3 or 360 when the games they want to play on those systems are still being controlled by, in their opinions, an inferior controlling device? Would the superior audio/visual environment that the higher-end consoles offer override that?
AmirOx, I agree with you that graphics are important, but wouldn't you be able to judge Revolution's graphical prowess by looking at the games first? I could understand if you were a developer, but you're not (right?), so the end result is what matters. It's not like games will start looking progressively worse as the generation goes by. If Rev's first gen of games is comparable to 360 and PS3 then it could be justified as a purchase. After all, 20, even 10 years ago we didn't really care about specs, we just looked at the game and if it was something that we wanted to play, we would. Why should that change now?
I think the main reason this is happening because the 'low-specs' uproar when the GC was first unveiled pretty much overshadows that GC games looked at least on par (or spectacularly advanced in the case of Rogue Leader) with the games from its competitors. If this is indeed the reason, I can't say that I blame them. These 'official specs' are often used incorrectly in a lot of mainstream (even fan) publications and can affect public opinion.
I think the main reason this is happening because the 'low-specs' uproar when the GC was first unveiled pretty much overshadows that GC games looked at least on par (or spectacularly advanced in the case of Rogue Leader) with the games from its competitors. If this is indeed the reason, I can't say that I blame them. These 'official specs' are often used incorrectly in a lot of mainstream (even fan) publications and can affect public opinion.
It's 101 marketing. If you got a inferior product and coming out late, you don't come out and tell people why (spec). Instead, you market the product's uniqueness. If the Revolution was most powerful, does anyone here think Nintendo will not be promoting specs? Got good price on Brooklyn Bridge for you.
SailorDaravon said:
Obviously. I prefer DS to PSP atm. I'm just trying to emphasize that, for me anyway, it's important to know what's under the hood. Not so I can participate in annoying discussion over 3MB of RAM, but to see what the potential is down the line. Not only is it interesting to me on a elementary level, but it helps get a clearer picture of just what the value for your system is (i.e., if I should adopt when it drops 50 bucks or something).
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
byproduct said:
i doubt it.. they wouldnt have paid ati tons of money to redesign the gamecube.
im guessing they dont want to play the specs war. it hurt them for the gamecube. people thought (and still think) its worse than the ps2.. but in reality (i.e. real world situations and computations) its closer to the xbox.
jamesinclair
Banned
I still dont know how many colors DS can do.
GBC was 52 on screen.
GBA was 512
DS is?
GBC was 52 on screen.
GBA was 512
DS is?
Aika'svyse
Banned
I kinda like some of the things Nintendo has said in regards to next gen, sooner or later we have to get back to where its just about the games and experiences, it's like I've been seeing Nintendo as brave lately and then you read something like this. I kinda wanted the Rev just because they are trying to be different it seems. I want them to be brave enough to show the specs and still have confidence that we'll buy it. I just like knowing whats in my box even if the casual consumer doesn't understand it all, heck I don't but it's great that someone is always around to translate the tough stuff.
2600...erm that may have been a bit drastic :lol
Actually, I'm sure Revolution specs are quite comparable with, say, X360 - PS3 even! But Nintendo, the champions of gamers, want to avoid unnecessary tech war, and concentrate on games only and new innovative methods of control. I reckon that's what NINTENDO REVOLUTION is all about.
WindyMan said:
I'm not ignoring the controller at all. I just know that no matter how innovative or nice it feels in my hands, it's only half of the equation. Visuals are the other half. So in this way, specs are just as important to me as seeing the controller. People are seeing this as being shallow, but it's just me understanding why I personally love games. And part of that is the visual experience.
WindyMan said:
Possible. Believe you me, there are just as many visual/audio whores PC gaming as there are keyboard/mouse whores. It's not so cut and dry as that either; will they be willing to give it a chance? PS3 can use a kb/m, so will they just go with familiar?
But this is a silly argument. I don't care what PC gamers use or if other people will be interested. I care only about what's important to me, and specs are.
capslock said:
No. Especially early games. They very rarely tell you shit about the longterm. I'm a gamer. And power, which includes physics and presentation, is one of the central aspects.
capslock said:
It's also not this simple. Specs can reveal a lot. It's can reveal the little details as well as the large. The going rumour is that Rev games will be 420p. Now, just to use this as fact for a second, if that's true then I don't care how shitty everyone's TV is. For me, that automatically makes Rev games dramatically inferior visually. These are just some of the things that are important going forward. Physics will play a larger role, as well as little detailed effects. It won't necessarily be readily apparent from a few videos. Specs are essential.
Porridge said:
No, I know what is important to me. I need to know the specs, so yeah.
Arluss said:
I'm pretty sure you haven't been following the thread closely since this posts demonstrates a clear lack of understanding.
Listen to the elitist's in here. LMAO.
ITS A TOY.
FFS. Why is it so important to know the specs of the Revolution? Won't just seeing, and playing the games be enough?
Did any of you spec whores know what was under the hood of the NES, or Master system before it was plopped under your tree for christmas?
GET REAL.
Unless of course you tech-head stiffs want to do your taxes on the fucker.
ITS A TOY.
FFS. Why is it so important to know the specs of the Revolution? Won't just seeing, and playing the games be enough?
Did any of you spec whores know what was under the hood of the NES, or Master system before it was plopped under your tree for christmas?
GET REAL.
Unless of course you tech-head stiffs want to do your taxes on the fucker.
moku said:
seriously if this is the best argument some of you guys can offer you should probably not bother.
because
a.) it's clear you haven't read much of this discussion
b.) you're not grasping simple concepts
c.) you're still discussing points that have been covered in far less dumbass ways, about ten or twenty posts ago
miyuru said:Awesome!
I fully support this. Now we'll see how stupid some of you spec/graphic/audio etc. whores are, who have superhuman visual acuity and hearing...
fully agree!
just the other day a friend and me showed animal crossing DS pics to a co-worker. he was laughing and saying "look at this crappy graphic, this game can't be good".
OK, looks like he only looks at the graphic and doesn't get a shit how much FUN the game in the end is.
there are so many people who judge a game just because of the graphics. that's just retarded I think.... there are so many other aspects to "rate" a game than just the graphics. but well, it's the first thing to see in a game that's for sure.
but anyway, nintendo said the graphics won't differ too much on the REV from the competition's.
AndreasNystrom
Member
this makes me think its maybe only 1% faster then the Cube.. (ok, but what do they have to hide..)
:lol :lol :lolCosmicGroinPull said:
(That comment deserved more chuckles. Terrific line.)
As for all the "specs aren't important" comments, you're ignoring the two simple facts:
1) As the third-place company during the last console generation entering a hyped spec war against your competitors for THIS generation, refusing to talk about specs is marketing suicide. It doesn't matter if "specs shouldn't matter" in some hypothetical, ideal world. In this one, it IS going to matter to a lot of buyers if they have the perception that the Revolution is inferior.
2) It is true that without good games, console power doesn't matter. However, it is ALSO true that without power, there is a limit to what kind of game is possible. This generation, if you were looking for good games, you could find some of them on any of the consoles...perhaps even all of them. If you were looking for high-definition gaming, though -- with the possible exception of GT4 with its unexpected 1080i mode -- your only option was Xbox.
To put out another analogy (which is always dangerous given how people love to argue about the analogy, not the point, but whatever): If you live in Los Angeles and buy a 350 hp sports car, chances are that 99% of the time, you won't get to use any of that power or handling because you're stuck in traffic or on city streets, and you could reasonbly argue that there is no practical difference between your car and a Honda Civic. However, on those occasions when you're driving through twisty canyons or speeding through the desert on the way to Vegas, the difference between your car and the Civic is obvious. If those driving experiences -- though rare -- are important to me, then it's not worth my time to buy a Civic.
Hey Nintendo:
how much system memory will Revolution have?
how much on-chip / embedded memory will Revolution's Hollywood GPU have?
what are the latencies for all the memory in Revolution?
how wide are the buses within Revolution?
how many polygons can Revolution push, if using Gamecube-level features?
how many polygons can Revolution push, if using shader model 3.0 ?
how much L2 cache is on Revolution's broadway CPU?
show me a highly detailed block diagram of Hollywood.... while you're at it, get me one of Broadway too.
how many vertex shader pipes and pixel pipes are in Hollywood?
etc etc etc etc
BREAKING NEWS..... Nintendo is admitting to close 3rd party developers that Revolution will only be 80% as powerful as the Gamecube. apparently Nintendo is concerned about manufacturing costs and wants to make as much money on the hardware as possible. Gamecube's are still relatively expensive for Nintendo to have built, even in 2005. by going with a scaled down Gamecube-like chipset, Broadway and Hollywood, Nintendo will save alot of dough and reap the profits on super-cheap hardware. Nintendo says that there's nothing to be concerned about though. Revolution's control scheme will more than make up for the downgrade to Gamecube's chipset with innovative gameplay and control. its not about graphics anymore, a Nintendo spokeperson said. :lol
j/k!
how much system memory will Revolution have?
how much on-chip / embedded memory will Revolution's Hollywood GPU have?
what are the latencies for all the memory in Revolution?
how wide are the buses within Revolution?
how many polygons can Revolution push, if using Gamecube-level features?
how many polygons can Revolution push, if using shader model 3.0 ?
how much L2 cache is on Revolution's broadway CPU?
show me a highly detailed block diagram of Hollywood.... while you're at it, get me one of Broadway too.
how many vertex shader pipes and pixel pipes are in Hollywood?
etc etc etc etc
BREAKING NEWS..... Nintendo is admitting to close 3rd party developers that Revolution will only be 80% as powerful as the Gamecube. apparently Nintendo is concerned about manufacturing costs and wants to make as much money on the hardware as possible. Gamecube's are still relatively expensive for Nintendo to have built, even in 2005. by going with a scaled down Gamecube-like chipset, Broadway and Hollywood, Nintendo will save alot of dough and reap the profits on super-cheap hardware. Nintendo says that there's nothing to be concerned about though. Revolution's control scheme will more than make up for the downgrade to Gamecube's chipset with innovative gameplay and control. its not about graphics anymore, a Nintendo spokeperson said. :lol
j/k!
Gaia Theory
Member
Give it a rest. We'll know the specs.Amir0x said:
-jinx- said:
Okay, I got a question. Let's assume that the Rev matched the Xbox360, nay the PS3! Do you think Nintendo would have flaunted its amazing graphical abilities? The GC was the second best console graphics wise, and Nintendo didn't say it could do 8 billion more polys than the PS2 or whatever. So they would still be modest, and as a result, still seen inferior in the eyes of the public. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
SailorDaravon said:
If you believe that THIS is the reason for them not to reveal the specs, well... IMHO you are watching it only from a "person playing games" perspective... which might not even be that awful to begin with, but there are other reasons.
I say good for them too, like DCharlie did, from a business stand-point they get a double opportunity: 1.) if the graphics, launch-game wise, do not show an incredibly vast difference versus the other consoles they get the benefit of customers thinking their hardware is just as exotic/high-tech as the other two (even though it might show later on as the other consoles are better utilized... I stand with Yu Suzuki on this one as well as with Hideo Kojima... there is plenty to do with great raw performance than JUST graphics, but still it is not a DEAD END to pack it if it is usable by developers); 2.) customers will pay a price for Revolution which will be lower than Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3, but IMHO they will be able to price it if they have their way at $299 (with DVD play-back, as they announced already IIRC, as an optional purchase by the consumers who buy a Revolution system and want to watch movies on it, taking away the licensing worry and related cost from Nintendo) which would give them HUGE margins on their hardware (Nintendo usually prefers to launch their systems making a profit on hardware from day 1, I think GCN was the only exception in which they lost maybe a few bucks per system or were closing even...).
IMHO, Revolution's push on new system interfaces/controller methods is a good one and might lead to very fun games, but I worry this comes with a much lower push on technology than their competitors (less RAM, less processing power from their CPU+GPU+co-processor-if-they-have-one combo, etc...) as this will impact games.
Better graphics can help a game's atmosphere, more RAM and faster processors can help reduce the in-game loading times (complete streaming model) while delivering gorgeous and ncredibly vast environments, they can help the interactivity between the in-game characters and the environment and between themselves (how they affect their surroundings and each other, all in real-time, not pre-baked, but unique each time, dynamic, changing with the change in conditions that lead to an event), they can provide us with more independent and intelligent A.I. controlled characters (the RADIANT A.I. system Bethesda set-up for Oblivion is a welcomed improovement over Morrowind, but it surely does take its fair share of CPU time to manage each N.P.C. in a world where there exist hundreds of independent N.P.C.'s), etc...
Gaia Theory
Member
Holy crap, you're a little testy tonight aren't you? Lighten up.Amir0x said:
I think it's safe (and rather obvious) to assume that the Revolution will have very COMPARABLE hardware specs to their competitors. Whether they dip slightly below or above (MS, Sony or both and in any combination) is irrelevant to me.
All 3 of the next gen machines are going to look great, plain and simple.