Support NeoGAF

[Panajev2001a]

Hey pana - long time



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

For me the price of admission is also related to the features the system packs in relation to the price they ask for it in addition to the games thing.

If Revolution comes out around the same time as PLAYSTATION 3 launch and at the time I only have the money for one console, I think that I will have to weight all aspects to make a decision (I do not think either of the two consoles will launch without one or two AAA games). The decision would likely be which to get first, because I already have come to realize that I am a tech-nut and there is enough in each console to make me very interested in it and worth my purchase... there are people who do the same with other fields, I do it with Consumer Electronics .

What could I like about Revolution (I already talked about Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 a lot as far as their non-gaming aspects are concerned) even without considering new Revolution games ?

Wifi enabled, DS connectivity, small form-factor (very portable console), backward-compatible with the GCN, big internal Flash Memory Storage, DVD play-back (although optional it migth be good to have it just because it is so portable and if I decide that ona weekend in the mountains I want to play GCN games and watch some movies I migth as well only bring Revolution and save space in the car ). I do trust Nintendo to makeat the very least some Super Mario games and Zelda games as well as Metroid games that will be quite purchase-worthy.

 

[capslock]

For me the price of admission is also related to the features the system packs in relation to the price they ask for it in addition to the games thing.

If Revolution comes out around the same time as PLAYSTATION 3 launch and at the time I only have the money for one console, I think that I will have to weight all aspects to make a decision (I do not think either of the two consoles will launch without one or two AAA games). The decision would likely be which to get first, because I already have come to realize that I am a tech-nut and there is enough in each console to make me very interested in it and worth my purchase... there are people who do the same with other fields, I do it with Consumer Electronics .

What could I like about Revolution (I already talked about Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 a lot as far as their non-gaming aspects are concerned) even without considering new Revolution games ?

Wifi enabled, DS connectivity, small form-factor (very portable console), backward-compatible with the GCN, big internal Flash Memory Storage, DVD play-back (although optional it migth be good to have it just because it is so portable and if I decide that ona weekend in the mountains I want to play GCN games and watch some movies I migth as well only bring Revolution and save space in the car ). I do trust Nintendo to makeat the very least some Super Mario games and Zelda games as well as Metroid games that will be quite purchase-worthy.

:lol Pana you really expect us to believe that you would spend more than a nanosecond debating if you had to choose between Revolution and PS3?

 

[Thraktor]

I don't see why people are at all surprised about this news. This gen Nintendo have released a console which put out initially significantly better visuals than the PS2 (and still noticably better visuals nowadays), but, because Sony touted their machine as to be able to push 70 million polygons per second (theoretical) and Nintendo released info claiming 12 million pps (in-game), they were widely percieved as being the makers of a weaker console. From Nintendo's point of view, it simply doesn't make sense for them to release specs to the public this time around, especially if you consider their sticking to standard def. A 480p-capable machine simply won't need the sort of graphical horsepower to produce comparable visuals (on a standard def TV) as a 1080p-capable console would. As Nintendo have already said that Revolution graphics will be comparable on a standard TV to it's competitors, it makes no sense for them whatsoever to publicly state that they're only 1/3rd as powerful when the majority of consumers wouldn't have otherwise been able to tell the difference.

 

[Tellaerin]

I can't believe some of you are defending this, though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Just the idea that someone could argue against making information about products a company is selling available to the public because it's supposedly 'not important' or 'people might misunderstand' sets my teeth on edge. Their refusal to disclose the specs for the Rev suggests to me that the hardware is inferior to the PS3 or X360 - if it compared favorably to either of those machines, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to play the numbers game themselves. (Sure, you might argue that the Rev hardware doesn't need to be as powerful to generate visuals comparable to the other consoles at regular TV resolutions, and that Nintendo's right to try to conceal the specs in order to avoid that kind of 'confusion' on the part of consumers.. but what about when the time comes for those people to upgrade to HDTV? I guess they don't deserve to know that the Rev games won't look as good on those new sets as PS3 and X360 titles, either, right? I mean, putting information like that in the hands of the public might make them think twice about buying Nintendo hardware, and that would be so wrong. *shakes head, sighs*)

 

[ninge]

Er.. they already have said that the revolution wont run HDTV so they have put that information in the hands of the public. What was your point again?

 

[Panajev2001a]

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?

Is this all that faster hardware buys you ? Still, how is that increase in polygon count used in the game ? Is it making a difference to the game in some way ?

If that we can send a message to Kojima Productions and to Team ICO and tell them that they are wasting their time on PLAYSTATION 3 and that really they have all they need on PlayStation 2 already .

Maybe the performance does buy you the ability to get a game with certain gameplay characteristics as the game creators are finally able to use this techniques which would have been too slow on older hardware, but oh so nice to have and how interesting they would have made the game and now they can afford that "inefficiency" and implement that feature in.

I think that graphics can go further, that developers have ways of using the increased power to deliver something even more captivating, that allows the player to get even more immersed in the game world created for him/her.

The performance is out there, we will see how developers take advantage of it.

As I said, there might be developers with awesome ideas, but that could not shine as they maybe lacked the competence or experience or budget to fully extract them out of the older hardware, but now they can license an engine like UE 3, customize it a bit and take advantage of the tool-set it provides and give life to your game.

If I only knew how to make a 2D adventure game with SDL and SDL ran too slow to produce the graphical quality I want on machine A, maybe I can realize it on machine A1 which is its successor... this is one of the many things to consider whena new generation of hardware comes out. Surely Katamari Damaci and Viewtiful Joe are not taken as examples of BEST technical engines on each platform .

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!

True, but it adds some sense of amazement to me to play some game like SotC or MGS 3 and think "it is running on PlayStation 2 and it is oh so prrrreeeettty" .

 

[Panajev2001a]

:lol Pana you really expect us to believe that you would spend more than a nanosecond debating if you had to choose between Revolution and PS3?

It depends, but a nano-second is already a long time .

It depends on how expensive the console is and if they do not do a last minute "let's f*ck consumers in the butt --Howard Stringer sends his thanks" trick .

 

[ninge]

Ok pana, we seem to be drifting in different directions with this discussion

I'm not suggesting that having more powerful hardware wont allow developers to do new things, but i am saying that having more powerful hardware doesnt add anything to a machine unless it is actually reflected in the games that are available on it.

Revolution could be the most powerful machine ever created, but if the games are shit i wont buy one. Same goes for all the platforms. But equally if the revolution is half as powerful as the 360 and the 360 is half as powerful as the ps3 i would still buy the 360 and revolution if they had games that i wanted to play - their hardware "inferiority" would not be a factor for me at all.

 

[stone128]

It's a smart move by Nintendo. Personally, I really don't give a shit about specs anyway.

It's "fun" for comparison purposes though, and a lot of you people here are probably dissapointed because you can't slam the rev and feel all fuzzy and warm inside because your console of choice is stronger on paper. What a shame ^_^

By the time the spesc are leaked, we've probably already seen screenshots/videos from games, and any negative backlash from the weaker specs will not have much of an impact (IF the games looks on par with PS3/X360, which Nintendo went on record to say).

But a lot of you tech whores will probably cry your bitter tears

 

[Tellaerin]

Er.. they already have said that the revolution wont run HDTV so they have put that information in the hands of the public. What was your point again?

No need to be a smartass. My point is that trying to downplay the specs because 'people won't notice any difference between Rev and the other consoles on a regular TV' becomes a problem when HDTVs start becoming more widely adopted, and these hypothetical casuals that everyone likes to talk about (you know, the ones that get confused by things like specs ) wonder why Rev games look like crap on their new hi-def set, while the neighbors' X360 games all look terrific.

 

[Shaheed79]

We should be able to guesstimate how powerful the Rev is just by looking at its first-gen games and how detailed they look. If the Rev can at least match current high-end PC's that can run games like F.E.A.R. cranked up then I think we have nothing to worry about. So if the games LOOK and Move as good as modern PC games will you "spec-nazis" still avoid buying a Revolution? And like any other console ever made, we can expect the games to only look better and better as developers become more familiar with the hardware.

Basically what I'm saying is that a simple look at some Revolutions Games (Plural) will tell me WAY more about what the system can do graphically than some fluffed up spec-sheet hyperbole.

 

[etiolate]

but we don't want to contribute to the cloud of meaningless information that surrounds the next generation systems."

OH THE HUMANITY WHAT WILL THE VIDEOGAME PRESS DO????

 

[P90]

I do, durr. On any other game device on planet earth, knowing how high end or low end your product is is incredibly important.

Can't you just look at the screen and determine that?

 

[imastalker co.]

how satisfied would you guys be with a Smash Bros that looked atleast as good as the opening cinema to Melee?

 

[ninge]

Not trying to be a smartass but i still dont see what part of nintendo saying "people won't notice any difference between Rev and the other consoles on a regular TV" and "the revolution is not HDTV compatible" is in anyway going to confuse people?

 

[SomeDude]

Sounds like and underpowered console.

 

[capslock]

how satisfied would you guys be with a Smash Bros that looked atleast as good as the opening cinema to Melee?

Junker, I am saying this as a friend but if at least 10% of your hints are substantiated by the end of this year I am going to hunt you down and shove a whale harpoon up your ass, all the way.

 

[Shaheed79]

Sounds like and underpowered console.

Give me a list of specs that you consider "under-powered" for next generation. Given that there are more than a few PC Games that run perfectly fine on 6800's in high detail that are being ported over to Xbox360 and vice-versa (Oblivion, Call of Duty 2, Ghost Recon 2 ect.), then what do you consider to be "under-powered". Do you honestly believe the Rev won't be able to display graphics equal to that of a 6800?

I think the only area for realistic concern here is the amount of Ram the Revolution ends up having.

 

[imastalker co.]

who said anything about hints. it was a legit question.

and what's up with some of you guys calling me junker? since when did people start reffering to members by their titles?

 

[Unison]

How many Nintendo-created games suffered this gen because of the system specs? Nintendo's franchises seem to be designed w/ art styles that pretty much make specs irrelevant. They don't exactly strive for photorealism.

I guess there's the question of how ports will look on Rev., but it already seems to me that buying ports on the system won't be the wisest thing to do.

 

[capslock]

who said anything about hints. it was a legit question.

and what's up with some of you guys calling me junker? since when did people start reffering to members by their titles?

Fewer letters than Phatnomaoidhdfla;sdfn;lasdbf;ajsdfo[iehwjgbalgahdfl;kahsfd oiaeywohsdflmbvlajkshdoifaweoifbalsbvo;iqpwquerpasjflasnvlanfldsf sdafpasdfupawheflaskdf

 

[jman2050]

I honestly don't remember what the PS3 and X360 specs are, nor do I have any motivation to go look them up. If Nintendo release specs, I'll probably just forget them in a month, so I don't care what they do either way...

 

[Tellaerin]

Not trying to be a smartass but i still dont see what part of nintendo saying "people won't notice any difference between Rev and the other consoles on a regular TV" and "the revolution is not HDTV compatible" is in anyway going to confuse people?

Probably because I doubt the world at large, particularly the casuals Nintendo's going to be bringing in with the wand, are going to be aware that the Rev isn't on par with the other new consoles in terms of hardware. I seriously doubt Nintendo's going to make 'NOT HDTV COMPATIBLE!' their new tagline for Revolution commercials when they start airing. No, they'll downplay that aspect of the machine, and go out of their way to avoid releasing the hardware specs to the public so people won't be 'confused' into thinking that the Rev is less powerful than the competition. It'll only become obvious later, when more people start buying HDTV's and Rev games begin looking shabby by comparison to titles on the other consoles, the ones designed to push more pixels in anticipation of hi-def.

Basically, it feels like Nintendo's making an elaborate effort to conceal the fact that the Rev hardware isn't up to the level of the competition from the average consumer. 'As long as we don't play up the specs and the games look as good as PS3 and X360 titles running alongside ours on regular TV's, nobody's ever gonna know the difference!' Kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[jman2050]

Basically, it feels like Nintendo's making an elaborate effort to conceal the fact that the Rev hardware isn't up to the level of the competition from the average consumer. 'As long as we don't play up the specs and the games look as good as PS3 and X360 titles running alongside ours on regular TV's, nobody's ever gonna know the difference!' Kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Um yeah. That's precisely the point. You do realize they're running a corporation that relies heavily on the average consumer's perception of them, right? I have yet to hear a good reason as to why this would be a bad thing from a business standpoint (and no, GAF does not count as the average consumer. They're the exception, not the rule)

 

[SantaC]

specs will come out sooner or later.

I don't think it can survive E3 without revealing them.

 

[dog$]

Nintendo: Don't ask, don't tell.

 

[Tellaerin]

Um yeah. That's precisely the point. You do realize they're running a corporation that relies heavily on the average consumer's perception of them, right? I have yet to hear a good reason as to why this would be a bad thing from a business standpoint (and no, GAF does not count as the average consumer. They're the exception, not the rule)

I don't give a shit about how it benefits Nintendo. Nintendo doesn't sign my paychecks. I care about things from a consumer standpoint. While a certain amount of advertising sleight-of-hand is par for the course, this seems more deliberately deceptive than usual.

 

[thorsilver]

I can understand why people would want to see specs simply for the enjoyment of dicussing them, but I strongly disagree with the contention that said specs will have any useful impact on purchasing decisions.

In my case, I bought a PS2 like everyone else, buying into the hype of 70 kabillion polygons and so on. Imagine my surprise when I bought a cheap Gamecube later on along with Metroid Prime, and this thing looked FAR better than anything I'd seen on the PS2, and did it all without noticeable load times to ruin the immersion.

I was so stunned that I ended up having an extended conversation about it with a mate of mine who used to work for a developer working with EA, and he told me with great anger in his voice that he *hated* the PS2 hardware; he said he wished that the Gamecube and Xbox had done significantly better so that he'd be able to spend more time working on those systems, which are easy and pleasurable to develop for, rather than fighting with the PS2's insufficient RAM and poor development environment.

Of course, as we all know, the PS2 won this gen by tens of millions of units despite these significant technical faults when compared to the competition due to extensive third-party support and Sony's marketing panache. Specs are not by any means a useful measuring stick of a system's actual visual punch; my experience with the PS2 taught me this. Even screenshots can be very deceptive, as they tell you nothing about framerate, and in the Gamecube's case the screenshots always look terrible compared to how great the games actually look on my telly.

As for this upcoming gen I simply don't care, as all three systems will no doubt look amazing. The only technical capability that'll make any difference to me is loading times; with graphics as luscious as what we'll get next gen, developers have a real opportunity to really immerse us in the gameplay, and if this gets mucked up by constant loading pauses I'll be very annoyed. This is something I'll only be able to tell by playing the games anyway, so you can keep your spec-sheets and polygon counts, as they're just as much marketing spin as any other PR release and don't actually tell us anything useful. From now on I make my decisions when I play the systems for myself and not by any other means.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

God, the whingers in this thread.

Nintendo never released specs for the N64 and it was the most powerful of the bunch (with shortcomings). Nintendo never really released "official" specs for the DS -- they were leaked, and Nintendo released some after the fact.

Face it, we here on Gaming-Age Forums will get the specs. They will be leaked in some form.

So stop bitching. Christ, it's just sad.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Ok pana, we seem to be drifting in different directions with this discussion

I'm not suggesting that having more powerful hardware wont allow developers to do new things, but i am saying that having more powerful hardware doesnt add anything to a machine unless it is actually reflected in the games that are available on it.

Revolution could be the most powerful machine ever created, but if the games are shit i wont buy one. Same goes for all the platforms. But equally if the revolution is half as powerful as the 360 and the 360 is half as powerful as the ps3 i would still buy the 360 and revolution if they had games that i wanted to play - their hardware "inferiority" would not be a factor for me at all.

True, I do get your point . The only thing it adds is that "hey the price is closer to what it cost to build the machine", but if that is the ONLY point in favor of it, well I'd recon it would be pretty sad too.

having more powerful hardware doesnt add anything to a machine unless it is actually reflected in the games that are available on it.

Which is why I am happy there are nice 1st party developers for each console and third parties doing exclsives to one or the other console or well done multi-platform games that take advantage of the hardware sitting underneath.

Sure, power is nothing without the console ever putting it to use (unless you plan to run Linux and you need a few more performance out of the sucker ).

If a person needed a car to go to work )) were to choose between two cars and car A was sold at manufacturing cost and had 300 HP, but it came with a contract that mandate the car to stay at all times inside a garage and car B was sold for a profit and had only 200 HP, but you could drive it on the road I'd reckon that any sensible human being would buy car B.

 

[Panajev2001a]

God, the whingers in this thread.

Nintendo never released specs for the N64 and it was the most powerful of the bunch (with shortcomings). Nintendo never really released "official" specs for the DS -- they were leaked, and Nintendo released some after the fact.

Face it, we here on Gaming-Age Forums will get the specs. They will be leaked in some form.

So stop bitching. Christ, it's just sad.

Dragona, if she did not exist someone would have to invent her to beat up forum kids ... .

"the most powerful of the bunch" ...cough... ... ok, ok.. do not GWARGH me, I'll keep my tech-discussions-lover hat off .

 

[jett]

God, the whingers in this thread.

Nintendo never released specs for the N64 and it was the most powerful of the bunch (with shortcomings).

Excuse me, but they sure are as hell did. I remember reading about the 95.5mhz(or whatever) SGI cpu back in 95/96. Nevermind about the mip mapping, anti-aliasing and texture filtering shiznit. Oh they released specs all right.

Their current position just reeks of weakness.

 

[Mrbob]

God, the whingers in this thread.

Nintendo never released specs for the N64 and it was the most powerful of the bunch (with shortcomings). Nintendo never really released "official" specs for the DS -- they were leaked, and Nintendo released some after the fact.

Face it, we here on Gaming-Age Forums will get the specs. They will be leaked in some form.

So stop bitching. Christ, it's just sad.

Don't know about DS, but N64 PR campaign from Nintendo was high and mighty. I don't know how you missed it. The specs were defeinitely taoted by Nintendo, along with their dream team and SGI claims. I remember reading about the early N64 in Next Generation magazine, and then getting mad when the system was downgraded! :lol

Perhaps all the Revolution hardware isn't finalized yet. This is why Nintendo is probably tight lipped. Info will come out one way or another once finished hardware is out.

 

[krypt0nian]

Nintendo: Don't ask, don't tell.

Console in the closet....

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Don't know about DS, but N64 PR campaign from Nintendo was high and mighty. I don't know how you missed it. The specs were defeinitely taoted by Nintendo, along with their dream team and SGI claims. I remember reading about the early N64 in Next Generation magazine, and then getting mad when the system was downgraded! :lol

Perhaps all the Revolution hardware isn't finalized yet. This is why Nintendo is probably tight lipped. Info will come out one way or another once finished hardware is out.

Oh yes, the N64 was VERY hyped for its graphical abilities, I am not saying there wasn't any media hype for it, so don't take it that way. But Nintendo never released specs as in how many polys it could push and the like. That's what I'm referring to.

We will get specs. We will know the mhz speed, they have to release that information for devs. They're talking poly counts and whatnot -- that's Nintendo.

Besides we will know anyway. It's GAF. We'll find leaks.

And Pana: the M2 doesn't count.

 

[CamHostage]

How is it even possible to keep the specs from getting out? All this information has to be told to developers...

DS specs were never officially released, and Cube specs were all performance specs based on Nintendo tests, not necessarily peak specs ... it's more useful in some ways (everybody went gaga for the PS2's triangle count numbers, but not many put into that that in-game performance is always about 20% of max ... they could have easily just looked at the games announced at the time of the spec release to see what it was really capable of, which was still impressive and more realistic for the time than some notion of 'Toy Story reality.') The RAM and graphic chipset and CPU will be brought public, but outside of that, I'd believe them when they say they don't intend to release specs.

Just by the specs alone, the PS2 should be the superior piece of hardware. Yes, it's market leader, but that doesn't mean it's the better overall hardware.

Again ... Nintendo does this strange thing where they print specs based on some performance test or some I-don't-know-what. Maybe they just throw up whatever Mario game they're playing at the time and do a benchmark test. In some ways, Nintendo is being more up-front about what their machine will do, but it's a strange way of releasing technical specifications -- it doesn't make sense. If they're going to do that, release the specs AND release benchmark tests.

Those accusing Sony and MS of "inflating" the specs aren't really getting what specs are. Those saying that specs are not a great indicator to choose a system on and that they're self-inflating hype that spoil the console wars, those are the people who probably do get specs all too well...

 

[Timbuktu]

I just took it to mean that they would never promote the specs like MS or Sony does, which is fair enough, but I still expect to see the specs on the box when the console arrives. The specs might not give them any advantage, but this doesn't necessarily mean an underpowered console, , they might simply think that it would distract from the the core feaetures that would define the Revolution.

 

[Gaia Theory]

I thought that this quote from 1999 was very fitting for this particular thread:

Miyamoto on spec disclosure for the N64:

IGN64: When do you think we'll see the first tech demo for Dolphin [Gamecube]?

Miyamoto: After Sony has disclosed every specification for PlayStation 2 [laughs].

I think it's safe to say something very similar to the above sentiment is why Nintendo has yet to reveal Revolution specs or game demos.

 

[vantastic]

whoever thinks nintendo not revealing specs is a smart move are geniuses...

 

[John Harker]

I thought that this quote from 1999 was very fitting for this particular thread:

Miyamoto on spec disclosure for the N64:


I think it's safe to say something very similar to the above sentiment is why Nintendo has yet to reveal Revolution specs or game demos.

Oh, Nintendo.

Always looking into the past...

haha

 

[Amir0x]

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...

An educated fucktard who likes to know what they're purchasing, and what the system might be able to offer in the longterm.

We call them smart fucktards, but you can choose to name it in whatever hilariously reactive way you choose.

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?

Not to simplify, because there's much more to it than just RAM, but FUCK yes. The quality of the visuals will greatly effect the type of gaming experiences I have. Visuals are a major part of the equation. Will there be no games I want to play if they have comparatively weak visuals? Of course not. But it will effect the type of games I buy.

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.

And just for clarity, this is NOT what I want. But as anyone can tell you, great power can be used to make fantasy worlds even better. And no matter what people trick themselves into believing, we are not at the limit or close next-gen.

I'm trying to say that there's too much emphasis on graphics and other irrelevant things.

And that's your first mistakes, since graphics are one of the most relevant aspects of all gaming.

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

If you're not even going to read the thread, then do not bother asking stupid retard questions that have already been covered.

I, and others, have already explained in great detail why knowing this information is important. You can choose to degrade the importance of the issue if it makes you feel better about your position, but it changes very little.

Face it, we here on Gaming-Age Forums will get the specs. They will be leaked in some form.

Of course. We WILL get them. It's arguing only on principle, which is to basically get the point across that Nintendo themselves should not try to avoid releasing them because specs are important. It's a silly decision, and further people trying to defend it are not being realistic about the role visuals and strength plays in our experience with games. Physics, Visuals and Audio - it's all a very central part of the package.

 

[yoopoo]

See if Nintendo had decided to release the rev specs we wouldn't be seeing this dumbass hilarious commentary from Amir0x, which is extremely entertaning :lol

+100 Nintendo.

 

[Oblivion]

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

Thank you.


Guys, I have a question. What if Nintendo did release specs that seemed weaker than the the other 2, but was able to at least get a strong 2nd place with in-game performance (like with the GC)? What then?

Like somebody stated, specs are nice to know for intelligent discussion, so I can understand some people here. But I don't think it'll effect most of our purchases.

 

[Amir0x]

See if Nintendo had decided to release the rev specs we wouldn't be seeing this dumbass hilarious commentary from Amir0x, which is extremely entertaning :lol

+100 Nintendo.

If you don't have anything to contribute, if you cannot say how it's "dumbass", then don't post in this thread. Seriously, we're trying to have a logical discussion which clearly you seem to be incapable of participating in. So we can fix that, if you don't fix it yourself.

Guys, I have a question. What if Nintendo did release specs that seemed weaker than the the other 2, but was able to at least get a strong 2nd place with in-game performance (like with the GC)? What then?

Like somebody stated, specs are nice to know for intelligent discussion, so I can understand some people here. But I don't think it'll effect most of our purchases.

See, people are misunderstanding it as "I want to see specs to know if it's comparable to the other two systems." I, and others, just want to know what to expect from the system down the line. Even if it's "third place", just to use your line of thinking for a moment, it can still offer compelling visual experiences.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Sounds like typical Nintendo to me: Keep the public in the dark about their product but somehow expect them to line up in droves.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Under-promise, over-deliver.

And where the Revolution is concerned, is more important to see how the technology is being applied rather than what that technology actually is.

 

[Oblivion]

Even if it's "third place", just to use your line of thinking for a moment, it can still offer compelling visual experiences.

Hmm? Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but I didn't mean it was gonna be the weakest.

As for the other part of your post, I can understand where your coming from.

 

[Zweisy1]

I dont care really. We will get them sooner or later.. AND though hardware does matter, software is more important anyway.

I'd take some game announcements over tech specs anyday.

 

[citrus lump]

Jeez , it's not as if AmirOx has too worry about wasting money on an underpowered console.

Look at all the crap you'be bought in the last year. You've got money to burn pal, and your "I don't want to make a bad purchase" shtick is a bit silly.

 

[Amir0x]

Hmm? Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but I didn't mean it was gonna be the weakest.

I know that. I was just saying you were thinking in terms of "places" (i.e. 'what if it was 2nd place'), and I was saying that even if it was LAST place that's not necessarily the reason I wanted to see specs. It's not a matter of comparing specs number for number, because Revolution may be able to make up for "deficiencies" with its interface, which is the other part of the equation.

Jeez , it's not as if AmirOx has too worry about wasting money on an underpowered console.

What.

Look at all the crap you'be bought in the last year. You've got money to burn pal, and your "I don't want to make a bad purchase" shtick is a bit silly.

I bought no "crap", as I only buy quality products. And I don't have money to burn, because if you've been following anything I've posted you know I can't afford PS3 or 360 at 399 - so none for launch. 250 is what I'm waiting for.