Support NeoGAF

[Mook1e]

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.

Why wouldn't you explain the concept behind the game?
Exactly what did you expect the person to do? You showed him a graphic, was he not supposed to give an opinion on the only piece of information you gave him?
You said it yourself.
You go ahead and believe everything Nintendo says.
I'll take some proof/specs, thanks.

 

[Amir0x]

Holy crap, you're a little testy tonight aren't you? Lighten up.

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.

I don't think it's safe to assume anything, which is why I wanna see the specs and decide for myself.

 

[Mrbob]

While the Nintendo faithful are already going rah rah on this topic, MS has already beaten them to the punch and offered people a setup which is one step better already. MS revealed all the specs to the tech whores to dissect, but they constantly downplay the specs and talk about the games. Mentioning how it is all about the games. Sony on the other hand is really the only company playing the spec game at the moment. Iwata probably realized MS has already taken the angle he wanted to take for his company, so not to look like a follower Iwata decrees no specs to be allowed open to the public!

 

[WindyMan]

It looks like this thread is another "Amir0x's personal opinion vs. the rest of the world's general opinion" debate.

Amir0x, I totally understand and respect your opinion on things, but I must say that you're pretty narrow-minded in a lot of your arguements, as open as you try to be about it. Everyone disagreeing with you is enough for me see that.

To get this discussion back on track, you'll need to answer a question. If the Revolution has the kinds of games you want, would you get it, regardless of whether or not you know/you approve of the system specs?


Aside: This thread was about Nintendo not going to officially reveal the Revolution specs, yet we are somehow still arguing about the Revolution specs. Oh GAF, will you ever learn?

 

[WindyMan]

MS revealed all the specs to the tech whores to dissect, but they constantly downplay the specs and talk about the games. Mentioning how it is all about the games.

The way I see it, Microsoft is saying something more like "look at what kinds of games we can make thanks to our fantastic hardware." They're pushing the visuals of the games more than anything else, because right now the Xbox 360 lineup is more of a super-sized new generation of games, rather than games a new generation of consoles.

Just how I'm reading it.

 

[Amir0x]

It looks like this thread is another "Amir0x's personal opinion vs. the rest of the world's general opinion" debate.

Amir0x, I totally understand and respect your opinion on things, but I must say that you're pretty narrow-minded in a lot of your arguements, as open as you try to be about it. Everyone disagreeing with you is enough for me see that.

Are you even reading the same damn thread I am?

No, this is a cop-out response. If you do not have any clear answer to debate my well thought out talking points, then don't bother making up excuses. We don't have to discuss this, but we also don't make up bullshit to suit the purpose.

So you're done? You can't substantively argue against how absolutely integral power and physics are (and by extension, specs), so you're just going to post fluff. Good job, WindyMan.

To get this discussion back on track, you'll need to answer a question. If the Revolution has the kinds of games you want, would you get it, regardless of whether or not you know/you approve of the system specs?

Again, depends. Because then without specs, the other part of the equation enters into it. And that would mean games would have to be DOUBLY as good and the controller would have to blow my mind. Otherwise it'll be an end-of-gen purchase.

 

[Gaia Theory]

I don't think it's safe to assume anything, which is why I wanna see the specs and decide for myself.

You're right.

It is now my firm belief that the Revolution (despite having near identical technology partners as MS and releasing many months afterwards) will not only simplify gameplay with a one handed controller setting us back prior to the 1920's, but the Revolution will also sport NES quality graphics... ahem, all joking aside...

For the record Amirox, I never said you did not have the right to see/hear the specs for the machine. My first post in this thread stated that WE WILL KNOW THE SPECS. So I'm not arguing with you on that point. We need to know, and WE WILL.

Rest easy man, when has an NOA, or NOE rep really been that knowledgeable or trustworthy within the press? If you want to know the specs so badly, the time will come (prior to release) when you will know the specs. It's all good.

One question though:

If we NEVER find out the specs (if by some Magikoopa magic Nintendo discovers a way to keep that a secret until we're all dead and gone) BUT from the moment we see the games on the Revolution they look NOTICEABLE better than the 360 and/or PS3, do you really need to know if Nintendo is achieving said quality with inferior OR superior hardware?

Another thing: Doesn't history tell us that as technology advances (let's talk electronics exclusively here) that it get's smaller, more efficient and better at doing what it's supposed to do?

---So, with that in mind - the size of the Revolution might be irrelevant in the guessing game to specs - because they just MIGHT be able to fit comparable technology in a smaller case 1yr down the road.

---It also means that a cheaper price tag doesn't necessarily mean inferior hardware - 1yr down the road, equivalent IBM and ATI technology will likely sell for less than it does now.

So, yeah... if the Revolution was launching tomorrow, I'd be afraid that it would be vastly inferior to its competitors. Instead, the Revolution is launching sometime in 2006 - after MS, and either before, near or after the PS3 launch - so I (personally) am not worried about the specs (that is definitely NOT to say that I don't care about the specs. I do care.).

 

[anotheriori]

"The Revolution is still coming!"

 

[Mrbob]

The way I see it, Microsoft is saying something more like "look at what kinds of games we can make thanks to our fantastic hardware." They're pushing the visuals of the games more than anything else, because right now the Xbox 360 lineup is more of a super-sized new generation of games, rather than games a new generation of consoles.

Just how I'm reading it.

You're reading it wrong then. MS is going to their strength this generation.

MS, like Nintendo, is a software based company first. They are going to their strength.

 

[Amir0x]

If we NEVER find out the specs (if by some Magikoopa magic Nintendo discovers a way to keep that a secret until we're all dead and gone) BUT from the moment we see the games on the Revolution they look NOTICEABLE better than the 360 and/or PS3, do you really need to know if Nintendo is achieving said quality with inferior OR superior hardware?

There's frankly too many what-ifs for me to give a response. IF it looks better than 360 or PS3, then I'd still want specs. But just for a different reason.

However, this is clearly fantasy. So not much to do with this.

 

[Dilbert]

Doesn't history tell us that as technology advances (let's talk electronics exclusively here) that it get's smaller, more efficient and better at doing what it's supposed to?

---So, with that in mind - the size of the Revolution might be irrelevant in the guessing game to specs - because they just MIGHT be able to fight comparable technology in a smaller case 1yr down the road.

---It also means that a cheaper price tag doesn't necessarily mean inferior hardware - 1yr down the road, equivalent IBM and ATI technology will likely sell for less than it does now.

1) When computer/console technology advances, you can either a) provide much greater capability within the same form factor (see: Xbox 360) or b) provide the same capability in a much smaller form factor (see: PSP). You can't realistically expect to do both.

2) The idea that Revolution can be just as powerful as X360 and/or PS3 because technology will be cheaper/smaller when it launches doesn't make sense with a presumed late 2006 launch date. (I'm simply quoting your own assumption -- don't know if it's a good one or a bad one.) That would put it in the market barely a year after X360 and would make it contemporary with PS3. More to the point -- if it's being developed NOW, you'd need a time machine to pull off what you're suggesting.

 

[Gaia Theory]

There's frankly too many what-ifs for me to give a response. IF it looks better than 360 or PS3, then I'd still want specs. But just for a different reason.

However, this is clearly fantasy. So not much to do with this.

Another question:

Why are my 'IFs' irrelevant and your 'IFs' gospel?

You think that it is fantasy that the Revolution could produce better visuals than the 360? Care to substantiate that? Y'know, the whole technology improving as time goes on thing?

Sure, Nintendo might be cheap and purchase out of date chipsets... but who the hell believes that. What other argument is there?

So in the end, IF Nintendo's Revolution looks better than one or both of their competitors, you don't really care about the specs, but you'd still want to know. That is understandable.

 

[JJConrad]

I don't understand what knowing the specs will gain us. We will learn stuff like RAM and bandwidth, it'll be imposible to prevent. But what would we gain from Nintendo giving some theoritical perfect-conditions unrealistic polygon number. We know these numbers are mostly BS, that they give no real indication to what games will look or play like and that their purpose is primarily to gin up hype. We become nothing but tools when we fight over these things.

The spec wars he ended for this generation. In 2 years time, they won't matter for next-gen either.

 

[Spencerr]

I think that's pretty silly they wouldn't release it.

Obviously specs aren't the only thing that matter, but on the other hand they obviously matter to an extent.

I'm not saying having a .5 ghz less or whatever would kill the machine, but like Amir0x is saying, you don't buy a car without looking under the hood.

anyway, a great game needs both a good graphics and good gameplay. Poor graphics can hinder a game. Poor gameplay, well those games don't sell.

I haven't really said anything new, and I'm really tired, but the point is specs matter, but they're not absolute, there are many factors to consider -- but none should be ignored.

It's a balance thing.

 

[Amir0x]

Another question:

Why are my 'IFs' irrelevant and your 'IFs' gospel?

You're going to have to do better than this. Substantiate. Point out an "IF" that I treated out as gospel, and I'll try to tell you why.

You think that it is fantasy that the Revolution could produce better visuals than the 360? Care to substantiate that? Y'know, the whole technology improving as time goes on thing?

I don't think the 360>Revolution, I don't even know at all how the power will be. Thus the reason we're having this discussion.

I said it's pure fantasy, because we ARE going to find out the specs, and judging on the whole spec issue itself it's pretty clear that it won't be producing visuals better than PS3 or 360. On par, though...we'll see.

I'm not saying having a .5 ghz less or whatever would kill the machine, but like jinx- is saying, you don't buy a car without looking under the hood.

Jinx- used that analogy

 

[Spencerr]

Jinx- used that analogy

I didn't know anyone said it, I was just sayin

 

[miyuru]

I'm going to bed so this'll be my last post in this thread.

Just wanted to say, if we get a spec sheet, or if we don't...

It'll still be the same Nintendo Revolution we'll get.

Relax people!

 

[BorkBork]

To me it seems like it's a totally moot point. Even if Nintendo never officially releases the specs, they're going come out anyways. I'm sure someone out there will take apart a PS3, a 360, and a Rev and find the strengths and weaknesses of each system. Like they do with every piece of electronic out there.

 

[Polari]

The specs will be known, before launch. Nintendo couldn't keep them under wraps, even if they wanted to. So everyone should calm the fuck down and take a dose of reality. Until we know the real deal, NOTHING is definite and that's all there is to it.

 

[EternalDarko]

When i find out the specs, I won't tell any of you! Yay!

 

[Tony HoTT]

If you don't know the specs you can't brag about what you just paid for to your un-receptive wife/girlfriend/mom.

Nintendo is on to something. The less I hear about gigs and shaders the better. Anybody remember Drinky's anti Spec-War topic he made last year??? Good stuff.

 

[Diffense]

Heh heh...Nintendo continues to stick it to the fanboys.

I don't care for certain kinds of specs. I'm cool with knowing how much RAM is in a machine or the speed of its processor. Estimated performance numbers I turn a blind eye to. No one will be able to convince me that PS2 is a better machine for games than GC despite its more bloated numbers. The actual game graphics simply don't support that.

Specs are too easily misinterpreted and Revolution might not compare favourably if they were released. One's view of the graphics might be unfairly coloured by what you think it's supposed to be able to do. If Nintendo feels like playing it this way: 'Good for them'.

Besides, it's fun to see Nintendo get under people's skin due to its deviation from accepted procedure.

 

[WindyMan]

No, this is a cop-out response. If you do not have any clear answer to debate my well thought out talking points, then don't bother making up excuses. We don't have to discuss this, but we also don't make up bullshit to suit the purpose.

So you're done? You can't substantively argue against how absolutely integral power and physics are (and by extension, specs), so you're just going to post fluff. Good job, WindyMan.

Okay, so I'll retract my fluff.

Yes, specs can show what is possible of a system in the long run. Launch games do not tell the whole story of what a system can do in the long run. Games that are being released now look a better and can do much more than they could compared to launch titles. I'm not aruging this. (If I was, I'm an idiot.)

However, it's irrelevant, for the reasons Jim Merrick said in the article. Amir0x, did you go over the PS2 specs? Probably. Did the other 70 million PS2 owners analyze the specs when purchasing the system? Not bloody likely.

When Nintendo released the GameCube specs, they were compared to the Xbox and PS2 hardware specs that were already released. There are two types of people who looked at the system specs.

The first type (the GAF majority, probably) simply looked at the one with the biggest numbers and declared it the most powerful. Early on, these people assumed the GameCube would be the least powerful and that was that. It wasn't until more games came out until people started to see the PS2 lagging behind a little bit and the top GameCube games looking pretty nice next to the Xbox versions. The second type gave a good look at the specs and determined each system on its merits individually.

There is more of type 1 then there is type 2. A lot more.

The arguement here is that Nintendo choosing to not release the specs to their system won't hurt them in the long run. People who are undeducated about it won't get confused by specs they don't understand. Remember the whole 32-bit/64-bit arguement back in the day? "Is the GameCube a 128-bit system?" Why is that important to someone who just wants to play games on the system? Apparently tens of millions of people didn't get the message that the PS2 is the technically inferior system, even though the spec sheets were readily available.

Hardware specifications are just as important as brand loyalty and shock value of launch titles if you're going to get a system right off the bat. That is to say, they are not. Why are specs any different in attracting someone to a particular system compared to the latter two? After the first 18 months-2 years, the determining factor of whether or not someone wants a console is what the game library is like. Brand loyalty, shimmering launch titles and system specs are meaningless toward the end of a generation, where there's no guarantee your spec-tacular machine will be the market leader and have all the games you want to play.

Just because the system has the potential doesn't mean it's the system to get. The Saturn, Dreamcast and GameCube are past examples of this. The Revolution is under the biggest microscope right now, but that doesn't mean the PS3 and Xbox 360 are going to be automatics based on their spec sheets, or for any other reason.

As they say, we'll see in five years.

 

[Kangu]

However, it's irrelevant, for the reasons Jim Merrick said in the article. Amir0x, did you go over the PS2 specs? Probably. Did the other 70 million PS2 owners analyze the specs when purchasing the system? Not bloody likely.

Specs excite the hardcore, the hardcore hype the casuals, the hype propels the system. It worked to perfection with the PS2. And the best part (for the manufacturers) is that through this trickle down effect first impressions are usually the most important. To this day some casuals think the PS2 is the most powerful system out there and it's all because some hardcore aquaintance of theirs probably hyped it up back when it was still cutting edge.

 

[Amir0x]

However, it's irrelevant, for the reasons Jim Merrick said in the article. Amir0x, did you go over the PS2 specs? Probably. Did the other 70 million PS2 owners analyze the specs when purchasing the system? Not bloody likely.

Nice post, and at least you tried to respond to me.

However, and I don't just mean this to slog off your statement, you're not really understanding what I'm trying to say. How did this argument come into what's the best strategy for Nintendo in the market? My argument was simply that releasing specs is best for ME, and certain consumers, and that not releasing is bull. I didn't say that showing the specs would be a good OR bad thing for them. I just said I want them, because it helps me.

And let me be pretty clear here: All I care about is me. I am a very selfish gamer.

 

[psycho_snake]

I can understand why you're annoyed Ami. There would be no harm in Nintendo releasing specs for the minority of people who bother with them.

I dont really give a crap about specs. Im not going to make a big deal about it because they are irrelevent. Its starnge that people at GAF actually make a bigger fuss about specs then they do about some games. The games are the most important thing. There should be a bigger fuss about the fact that Nintendo have not released any details about any of the revo's games.

 

[Farmboy]

By the way, I actually gave GAF this scoop last week. I'm good to you guys! Kinda ironic that it only spawns a three-page (and counting) thread after Eurogamer picks it up, followed by WindyMan plucking it from there.

 

[ninge]

what kind of fuck-tard bases their gaming hardware purchase on specs over games? Some of you people need to take a long serious look at yourselves...

 

[JRPereira]

I hope the specs are bad enough to where they have to make decent games. I'm necessarily trying to say that nintendo makes bad games - instead I'm trying to say that there's too much emphasis on graphics and other irrelevant things.

With the ps3 and xbox (primarily xbox so far imo), it looks like the dumb blondes comment may be on the verge of being right.

 

[MutFox]

Why shouldn't they release some of these specs?
Cause other companies flatout LIE.

Like seriously, the whole polygon thing this gen was retarded.

Next Gen casual gamers -
Player 1: "How many polygons does this game have?"
Player 2: "I dunno, what's a polygon? It looks awesome though."

 

[FightyF]

Mario should look like his CG artwork.

If they can get that...then it's all good wiv me.

 

[Striek]

I wouldn't not purchase the console due to underpowered specs but I mightn't purchase it if no specs are released at all.

Yes its about the games and all, and there is no real intrinsic value in the specs and no joy garnered from knowing them, but I expect them and it can only seem like they are "hiding" them from public which I don't support.

 

[empanada]

In the end, its all about the games. Right? Of course I'm right.

In anycase, even if they don't release the specs, the Rev will eventually be dissected part by part. So spec lovers need not worry.

Funny thread btw. Most of the comments were expected.

 

[Sunski]

I'm not saying having a .5 ghz less or whatever would kill the machine, but like Amir0x is saying, you don't buy a car without looking under the hood.

But this is a game machine, not a car. A better analogy would be would you get into a go kart or bumper car without looking under the hood. The answer is of course - Yes you would. You just get in and have some fun and a good laugh. You don't actually care what is powering it.

 

[Panajev2001a]

what kind of fuck-tard bases their gaming hardware purchase on specs over games? Some of you people need to take a long serious look at yourselves...

Hey, hey ninge I do hope that no-one reasons in that simple way.

You see, IMHO when purchasing a gaming hardware you need to look at various different aspects which also relate some more and some less with its cost.

The games: there must be some game surely coming for the console because of which you decide the worthiness of your purchase. Depending on the quality and maybe also on the quantity of unique game releases for the system and on the price of the system itself you might decide to buy it earlier or later. If there is only 1 game coming in a span of 6-8 months that you like and the console costs $799,90 well you might not be wrong waiting a few more months unless (here we go to the next points)...

The features: what else besides the games coming for it (see point above) makes the console appealing and justifies its price ? What can you do with the hardware during the periods of drought as far as game releases go ? When I talk about specs, I talk about all features including those that affects graphics for games as well as the other more multi-media oriented ones.

The hardware raw processing performance: coming last, this factor is not coming with zero importance. First, it kind of gives out a sense of competiviness regarding the platform against its competitors and the avilability and faithfull-ness of multi-platform games and has some indications (I said "some") about the future-proofing of the console itslef. Second, it gives a way to judge the price asked by the manufacturer (what they ask for what they give) and if a price-cut might be the event to wait for.

If you have a huge budget allocated for game electronics purchases then sure, who cares about any of the arguments I made here, but for the others... well some thought won't hurt them.

 

[ninge]

Hey pana - long time

The games: there must be some game surely coming for the console because of which you decide the worthiness of your purchase. Depending on the quality and maybe also on the quantity of unique game releases for the system and on the price of the system itself you might decide to buy it earlier or later. If there is only 1 game coming in a span of 6-8 months that you like and the console costs $799,90 well you might not be wrong waiting a few more months unless (here we go to the next points)...

Thats all there is to it really - we already know the rest as far as other functionality for revolution is concerned (DVD playback functionality is optional, its not gonna play HD DVD or BR or be a media server and i already own about 20 CD players so that doesnt matter)

So this gen hardware purchase decisions for me come down to:

1 - Does xbox360/ps3/rev have enough games i want to play to warrant the price of admission?

2 - see question 1

 

[Bebpo]

Not knowing the specs does matter when buying a console.

For instance if there was secretly only 64 megs ram in the system then all multi-platform titles would have to be heavily downgraded for the Revolution port. Now if you were only able to afford one system it would be important to know if Revolution is setup to handle accurate ports of PS3/Xbox360 games, or if you'd be getting the downgraded crappy version each time.

 

[psycho_snake]

Hey, hey ninge I do hope that no-one reasons in that simple way.

You see, IMHO when purchasing a gaming hardware you need to look at various different aspects which also relate some more and some less with its cost.

The games: there must be some game surely coming for the console because of which you decide the worthiness of your purchase. Depending on the quality and maybe also on the quantity of unique game releases for the system and on the price of the system itself you might decide to buy it earlier or later. If there is only 1 game coming in a span of 6-8 months that you like and the console costs $799,90 well you might not be wrong waiting a few more months unless (here we go to the next points)...

The features: what else besides the games coming for it (see point above) makes the console appealing and justifies its price ? What can you do with the hardware during the periods of drought as far as game releases go ? When I talk about specs, I talk about all features including those that affects graphics for games as well as the other more multi-media oriented ones.

The hardware raw processing performance: coming last, this factor is not coming with zero importance. First, it kind of gives out a sense of competiviness regarding the platform against its competitors and the avilability and faithfull-ness of multi-platform games and has some indications (I said "some") about the future-proofing of the console itslef. Second, it gives a way to judge the price asked by the manufacturer (what they ask for what they give) and if a price-cut might be the event to wait for.

If you have a huge budget allocated for game electronics purchases then sure, who cares about any of the arguments I made here, but for the others... well some thought won't hurt them.

Where have you been? You've not posted here in a while.

 

[Xellotah]

If the graphics in the early titles, turn out to be comparable and or surpass the competitors, then Nintendo's decision not to release specs will look like a masterful decision.

If on the other hand the graphics are significantly worse, or there is a significant noticeable difference in the quality of the graphics when compared to the competitors, then Nintendo's decision not to release specs will look as though they are trying to pull a quick one over the customers.

Of course ... its all relative about what you consider to be good graphics, and in a few years time, nobody will really care about the specs.

 

[ninge]

Does it matter if it only has 64meg of ram if there are a boat load of games that you want to play on it?

So what if the 3rd party stuff doesnt run well on a given piece of hardware. If i want to play enough 3rd party games i'll buy a machine that does play them well.

Edit:

Just to add a little more reason to my stance i think it is worth pointing out that my stance on this matter comes from my own recent experience.

I bought a PSP on day one from japan because i REALLY wanted to play Ridge Racers and Lumines and it was CLEARLY the better technology. 10 months later, it sits collecting dust and playing the ocasional SNES game via emulation and i have bought and get far more use out of the technically shit (in comparison) NintendoDS. I failed to take a step back and realise that there simply aren't any games on the PSP that i cant play on my PS2 or XBOX in much more comfort and on a bloody big screen while the DS continues to surprise me by offering new and interesting things to play that are not found anywhere else. I did not expect that to be the case.

This has solidified in my mind that the constant race for ever greater technology that the Sony and Microsofts of this world seem to be using to win hearts and minds is not always the only way, and i won't be fooled again. So when the new machines roll out i will be buying the ones with the games i want to play regardless of the quality of the hardware that is playing them. This may seem like a strange stance for a developer who loves to get to grips with the nuts and bolts of every new piece of technology the hardware manufacturers produce but when it comes to playing games i have finally realised that it really is all about the games, and not the hardware.

 

[Koshiro]

I strongly approve of this decision. *puts on a Nintendo T-shirt*

 

[Elios83]

If they don't reveal the specs (which will eventually come out thanks to developers working on the console) it's only because they think it would hurt them because the competition it's better than them.
Of course games will speak for themselves but as a customer I don't give away my money for a magic box,I need and I have the right to know what I'm buying.

 

[_PsiFire_]

Nice post, and at least you tried to respond to me.

However, and I don't just mean this to slog off your statement, you're not really understanding what I'm trying to say. How did this argument come into what's the best strategy for Nintendo in the market? My argument was simply that releasing specs is best for ME, and certain consumers, and that not releasing is bull. I didn't say that showing the specs would be a good OR bad thing for them. I just said I want them, because it helps me.

And let me be pretty clear here: All I care about is me. I am a very selfish gamer.

Why is it best for YOU that Nintendo releases specs? Are you a developer?

 

[Panajev2001a]

Does it matter if it only has 64meg of ram if there are a boat load of games that you want to play on it?

Come on buddy, I understand your guys work hard, but I did make a more than one liner post that was not four pages long .

Edit: *Pana is bad and mean*

.

I said it does not, depending on its price though. If buying it means not buying another console and its games, you need to decide which one of the two you want first and then get the other if you can. This decision might also come down, if amount of games I want is about the same, to how much I think each console is worth to me . Yes, I do factor the "if you buy SCE, Ken Kutaragi will dedicate to you the next super-model he sleeps with (unless married, in which case he will only send you a PM without making a public statement)" factor in my case .

So what if the 3rd party stuff doesnt run well on a given piece of hardware. If i want to play enough 3rd party games i'll buy a machine that does play them well.

Maybe someone does not have the money for both at the time both come on the market.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Where have you been? You've not posted here in a while.

Been around, mostly at University, getting the new Pana-mobile (used of course, but well kept), etc...

 

[ninge]

pana - i edited that post to add more information, but in actual fact that was not a reply to you! The reply to you was several posts earlier - im not that lazy old friend

 

[Chrono]

Not knowing the specs does matter when buying a console.

For instance if there was secretly only 64 megs ram in the system then all multi-platform titles would have to be heavily downgraded for the Revolution port. Now if you were only able to afford one system it would be important to know if Revolution is setup to handle accurate ports of PS3/Xbox360 games, or if you'd be getting the downgraded crappy version each time.

Ok first who is going to buy a nintendo console for 3rd party games? I'll play those on PS3 thank you very much.

And if somebody is buying only rev they'll be able to tell whether 3rd party ports will have to be downgraded by looking at rev games. It's not hard. People are talking like not knowing the specs mean we'll never know how powerful rev is. Won't the games give us a good idea if it's close to PS3/360? We'll see plenty of those before launch.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I bought a PSP on day one from japan because i REALLY wanted to play Ridge Racers and Lumines and it was CLEARLY the better technology. 10 months later, it sits collecting dust and playing the ocasional SNES game via emulation and i have bought and get far more use out of the technically shit (in comparison) NintendoDS. This has solidified in my mind that the constant persuit of every greater technology that the Sony and Microsofts of this world seem to be persuing is not always the only way to make games fun, and i won't be fooled again.

That might be. You might also be wary of getting new firmware changing games and playing new releases on DS which you just got.

I am not playing too much the DS and the PSP right now: I am playing more the DS because Castlevania: DoS just got out and on the PSP I am still too interested in checking out the emulators for Amiga, SNES, Genesis and C64 as well as doing some programming with PSPSDK (the free one). Another thing is that in Italy I do not feel as comfortable as when I was in Japan carrying the PSP around, the I fear less for the DS and still I never play with it on the bus so it is back to breaks between classes and at home if I am not doing something else.

If you mainly game at home, you have to share the portables with other gaming systems.

You are right that MS and SCE's staretgy is NOT the only one that makes games fun, but it can make games very fun indeed. I do not think SotC and ICO would have had the same emotional impact/experience running on a software accellerated engine on the NGage as they have running on PlayStation 2.

 

[Panajev2001a]

pana - i edited that post to add more information, but in actual fact that was not a reply to you! The reply to you was several posts earlier - im not that lazy old friend

You see, I loaded the page and went to the bottom then back up... I saw that post and I was like...aaaaaaahhhh he is addressing me . *Hit Reply*

I felt really stpid once I saw the real reply to my post... I called yu lazy when the lazy one was me .

 

[ninge]

You are right that MS and SCE's staretgy is NOT the only one that makes games fun, but it can make games very fun indeed. I do not think SotC and ICO would have had the same emotional impact/experience running on a software accellerated engine on the NGage as they have running on PlayStation 2.

You are right about that for sure - but that arguement really doesnt translate to the next gen machines as we have already reached a level of competence in the hardware that allows us to create these compelling graphical and emotional experiences.

Just how much greater would the emotional impact of SOTC be with twice the polygon count? or a hundred times?

Perhaps this is something that is more to do with what people want out of games than it is about how powerful a machine needs to be to play games that are interesting and fun? Personally i'm not interested in how realistic a game is whereas for many posters here it seems that it is 100% realism or bust. I would rather play a beautifully artistic game like Viewtiful joe, SOTC, God of War of Castlevania: DOS than something like PGR3 or madden, not because i dont like racing or sports games, but because i don't get as excited about games that ape real life as i do about games that create their own look.

At the end of the day all the next gen machines will be more than capable of producing extremely compelling content and i for one will not be worrying about the amount of RAM they have or the number shader effects per cycle any of the next generation machines are capable of when i'm playing the actual games.

It really is all about the games!

If the revolution launches with nothing put half-assed ideas and counless mini games based on chopping vegetables, fishing and playing the drums then that will negatively effect my decision to buy one.

If it launches with really compeling games that are actually fun to play then the fact that it only draws half the amount of polygons as the PS3 and doesnt function as windows media server and refuses to play BR disks will not negatively effect my decision to buy it.