Support NeoGAF

[BlueTsunami]

I 100% agree with that, but that's just the evolution of the series. Not any sort of technological advancement that was impossible on the first PlayStation.

So what your saying is that Metal Gear Solid 2 can be done on the Playstation?

 

[AndoCalrissian]

So what your saying is that Metal Gear Solid 2 can be done on the Playstation?

I don't see why not, the gameplay could be entirely intact.

 

[FightyF]

I will say this (despite having no idea what Nintendo is up to with Revolution):

Nintendo has never released an underpowered CONSOLE to market save for the NES (MasterSystem had it beat in the spec department).

SNES, N64, Gamecube - all hold their own when compared to their closest competitors.

Revolution will be no different.

It will be.

The Revolution is to consoles as the DS is to handhelds. It's the direction Nintendo is heading into, for better or for worse.

The DS's graphics capabilities were extremely dissappointing, and the Revolution will be no different. On the other hand, the touch screen opene a whole new world of gaming and we've never played handheld consoles the same.

*LOL*

 

[SolidSnakex]

I don't see why not, the gameplay could be entirely intact.

Good luck with that AI, which is a big part of MGS2's gameplay.

 

[the androgyne]

Nintendo is betting the general public wont give a shit about marginally worse graphics (which are still good) - there is no way they think the general public will give a shit about physics/AI.

It's all about fun/fresh for them (nintendo).

 

[SpiffyG]

It will be.

The Revolution is to consoles as the DS is to handhelds. It's the direction Nintendo is heading into, for better or for worse.

The DS's graphics capabilities were extremely dissappointing, and the Revolution will be no different. On the other hand, the touch screen opene a whole new world of gaming and we've never played handheld consoles the same.

*LOL*

So you are saying the gap between the DS and PSP will be the same as the gap between the Revolution and Xbox 360? Maybe so technically, but people won't be able to tell that big of a difference.

 

[BigBoss]

I don't see why not, the gameplay could be entirely intact.

The original MGS couldn't have more than 3 enemies on screen at once, the battle with the tengus woud've been impossible, as would've been the battle withe Rays and any other skirmish you got into as you progressed through the game. The AI was much more complex in MGS2 as well, the soldiers worked as a team, they cleared rooms just like SWAT teams, they used flash bangs before entering a room, they searched under tables and in lockers, none of this was possible on the PSX.

 

[quetz67]

They merged the threads (damnit) but I still think you will win. I forgot the best fanboys on this board would rather scratch their eyes out then let something go.
Oh and Gitaroo Man has it pegged at 12 pages, so we'll see.

Some more bets:

256MB of (very fast) RAM
CPU based on G5
A GPU with at least Shader 3.0 level quality effects but low fillrate (just enough for 480p with good AA)

That said I am sure it will do all 3rd party games at the lower resolution with slightly downsized textures but full effects. 1st party games will look breathtaking, but maybe not as good as the best xbox360/PS3 1st party stuff.

 

[Oogami]

Wait until you see some 1st party Rev games before judging the system's power.

Quick quotes from unnamed developers are absolutely meaningless.

 

[AndoCalrissian]

The original MGS couldn't have more than 3 enemies on screen at once, the battle with the tengus woud've been impossible, as would've been the battle withe Rays and any other skirmish you got into as you progressed through the game. The AI was much more complex in MGS2 as well, the soldiers worked as a team, they cleared rooms just like SWAT teams, they used flash bangs before entering a room, they searched under tables and in lockers, none of this was possible on the PSX.

It's been a while since I played them, but it seems to me that if AI like that wasn't possible, than Rainbow Six would have never been ported to consoles of that generation. I don't know, I'm obviously not the MGS expert you are as evidenced by your avatar. I'm not going to argue the point any more.

 

[Oblivion]

The general consensus amoung casuals & non-gamers alike is that Nintendo doesn't make powerful hardware anyways. So why should Nintendo try to go for people like this with expensive/powerful hardware when they're not gonna believe that it's powerful. The ultimate example is that the general masses *still* believe the PS2 is more powerful than the GCN. So again, why should Nintendo try to convince these people with "power" when most people don't know a GigaByte from a GFLOP?

To add, the people Nintendo are going for are the non-gamers who not only don't know the difference...but also really don't care about the differences. Seriously, if they cared about graphical prowess then wouldn't past powerful systems have made them gamers by now? Nintendo's "hook and draw" isn't the graphics 'cos people consider them "less" than big bad Sony & Microsoft. So...they're going for a new hook...a draw that doesn't really require ultra loss-leading power.

And moreover, since they're not in the graphical prowess "olympics" with their competitors & the public doesn't believe Nintendo is a tech-impressive company, why go for HDTV resolutions either? It'll save software/hardware development time/money/effort and make the system easier to program for & ultimatly profitable for Nintendo.

Revoltuion will be quickest to peak performance (good looking games right away), ideal for casuals, be the perfect secondary "complimentary" system and it'll also be the quickest to the magical $99 pricepoint. New curious control methods, with cheaper hardware and plenty of simple software (easier controls, retro downloadables) make it the perfect system for entry level gaming. A whole new market (low-end) that's been on the verge of blooming for a while now will pretty much belong to Nintendo and those who support them.

THANK YOU! I'm not sure where people picked up the "IT'S ALL OVER FOR NINTENDO" mentality becuase of the allegedly weaker graphics.

-The people who enjoy Nintendo products were gonna get the Rev. anyway.
-The anti Nintendo people, like Joe McHaloplayer, who wasn't even gonna plan on getting a Revolution anyway, isn't gonna gonna say "ZOMG! Revolution has HD?! MUSHROOM KINGDOM HERE I COME!"

Also, don't underestimate the power of the super BC ability. That and online SSB alone will keep Nintendo afloat this gen. The only way they could fuck this up is if they fuck their games up. Other than that, it can't get any worse.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

-no games shown, nor will they likely be shown until they're playable
-talk of diminishing returns & downplaying power
-oddball talk about the future display of games
-one of the first things mentioned was PC monitor support
-no HDTV support
-yet it'll make us say "wow"
-yet it'll have comparable graphics to the competition
-there is another "surprize" to Revolution

Most of us thought that the interface of the Revolution was going to be *the* revolutionary aspect of it...Nintendo's "trump card". Yet, before the specs are revealed, before games, demos or any visuals are even shown...they show this interface, the thing they were trying to keep secret, yet they show it before most anything else? Hrmmm...and no games will be seen until they're playable. This could mean that Nintendo either wants to surprize us with the visuals & interface together or the visuals are so unimpressive they don't want them to be seen until playable so that we focus on the interface rather than the graphics.

But why wait to show us that Revolution will be so underwhelming in the visuals department? Why tell us all the good news and then end with bad news. On top of that, why give us such a wow interface to only have it be ignored/reduced to the fact that Revolution will launch last, with the least powerful hardware?

I'm thinking that the remaining "surprize" coincides with the fact that they still haven't shown the visuals yet. What we know is Revolution is a smaller, cheaper, quieter, cooler running & lower powered (performance & consumption wise) system than the competing hardware. We also know that Nintendo is brainstorming with displays and is not supporting HDTV at this point. We also know that no one really knows what's up with the ATi Hollywood GPU yet.

I think it's safe to say that these coinsidences are related. The Revolution's next "surprize" probably has to do with it's visuals. This could be simply that the Revolution is well equiped to being a portable laptop-type console with the introduction of a Nintendo LCD. It could be that the system's basic power is ho-hum, but that it's GPU is going to be very impressive to the point it stands up to the competition and/or one-ups them with special Revolution-only effects (like cube-mapping?). Or to the extreme theory: the reason Nintendo isn't leaping forward in visuals (to HDTV) is 'cos they found a new way to leap forward (such as stereo-scopic 3D). I'm thinking Revolution could do all three, but that the later (3D glasses, or whatever) would only be a sideshow attraction for certain games (like Star Fox) and not really a main attraction feature.

 

[soundwave05]

I'm thinking Nintendo may be aiming for a $149.99 launch price point ... they're obviously not joking when they say they want non-gamers, and the lower the price, the more possible it is to convince that type of a consumer to take a chance. Asking a non-gamer to spend even $200 on a game system is asking for an awful lot.

$99.99 would actually be the real sweet spot, but if they launch at $149.99 they can quickly go down to $99.99 later on.

The system could also include two controllers or some other feature as Mr. Miyamoto indicated which is still secret -- Nintendo did place two patents for a camera system a while ago, something like that might be included with Rev as well.

As for the graphics ... well look at it this way. For a lot of these non-gamers, the last game they probably played was Tetris or Super Mario 3 or something. Giving that type of a person a system that can pump out Half-Life 2 level visuals quite comfortably is pretty considerable.

It's like giving a person who knows nothing about cars a new BMW 3 series. Sure, its not a Ferrari, but its not exactly your mother's Honda Civic either.

 

[AndoCalrissian]

Does "worse" equate to "making fucktons of money"? Just curious.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

As for the rest, well, Nintendo probably isn't even 100% certain yet until they see what the chip yields are, but numbers usually only go DOWN as the final specifications develop.

It was a bit of a mixed bag for the Xbox and GameCube. From initially released specs to final specs both had a drop in GPU speed, but an increase in CPU speed.

I'm not even sure I want this as a sidekick console. If The 360 core is the tard pack, what the hell is this?

"And now for something completely different."

I commend what they did with the DS but if the Revolution doesn't do well, I suggest Nintendo stick to their other specialty.....handhelds.

It holds true that
Big chunk of handheld pie + small chunk of console pie > Big chunk of handheld pie
unless the "small chunk of console pie" bit is actually working out to a negative.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Nintendo isn't the only innovater. When you want to speak on innovation Sony also has an ace up their sleeve.

EyeToy

Its not the same thing as the Revs control scheme but it allows you to interact with the game without a traditional controller. Most of you already know what the Eyetoy already does. With the PS2 the Eyetoy wasn't really exploited, it was more or less like a controller that you could use (with certain games) but nothing was built around it. I think this will be different with the PS3.

With the Eyetoy 2 this is one of the possible things that can be done

(the link below contains a bunch of different videos relevant to what i'm saying)
http://www.t-immersion.com/video_gallery/main.asp?idf=a0

The proof that those things will probably be done with the Eyetoy 2 is the DEMO with the two cups shown at E3. How does this exactly equal into gameplay? I'm not sure but it does open up a new level.

So I just want to let this be known before people say that the PS3 is just a amped up PS2 and is going to have stagnant gameplay. I personally think the PS3 gives the gamer both of both worlds. Eyetoy and a Traditional controller.

So I just want to let this be known before people say that the PS3 is just a amped up PS2 and is going to have stagnant gameplay. I personally think the PS3 gives the gamer both of both worlds. Eyetoy and a Traditional controller.

 

[Mr. Spinnington]

"surprize"

You mean "surprise", right?

 

[soundwave05]

The problem is PS3 + Eye Toy 2 = $500 at least

If the point is to attract non-gamers, $500 might as well be $10,000.

The other problem with the above setup is you can either use the controller or your hands/props ... you can't really use the Dual Shock controller with the Eye Toy unless you anchor your hands to the controller.

 

[BlueTsunami]

The problem is PS3 + Eye Toy 2 = $500 at least

If the point is to attract non-gamers, $500 might as well be $10,000.

Eyetoy 2 is said to be bundled with the PS3 or even built in

If the point is to attract non-gamers, $500 might as well be $10,000

:lol




-----


Check this out, can possibly be used with Eyetoy2

http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~ajd/Movies/kitchen.mp4.avi

 

[AndoCalrissian]

Nintendo isn't the only inovater. When you want to speak on innovation Sony also has an ace up their sleeve.

EyeToy

Its not the same thing as the Revs controll scheme but it allows you to interact with the game without a traditional controller. Most of you already know what the Eyetoy already does. With the PS2 the Eyetoy wasn't really exploited, it was more or less like a controller that you could use (with certain games) but nothing was built around it. I think this will be different with the PS3.

With the Eyetoy 2 this is one of the possible things that can be done

(the link below contains a bunch of different videos relevant to what i'm saying)
http://www.t-immersion.com/video_gallery/main.asp?idf=a0

The proof that those things will probably be done with the Eyetoy 2 is the DEMO with the two cups shown at E3. How does this exactly equal into gameplay? I'm not sure but it does open up a new level.

So I just want to let this be known before people say that the PS3 is just a amped up PS2 and is going to have stagnant gameplay. I personally think the PS3 gives the gamer both of both worlds. Eyetoy and a Traditional controller.

EDIT: Curses! Beat out!

The thing is, if Sony doesn't include it in the box with the PS3, it becomes a peripheral that only a small portion of the console base will pick up. By packaging the Revolution controller with the console, making it the focus, and working with 3rd parties to integrate it into every type of game, 100% of Revolution owners will start with it and use it, making it a core element of the system.

Also, it seems like the eyetoy would be more taxing on the hardware and harder to integrate into general games (or it just wouldn't be), though that is just a personal opinion.

 

[Shogmaster]

I wasn't that far off back in August I guess.

 

[soundwave05]

Eyetoy 2 is said to be bundled with the PS3 or even built in



:lol

I know that was their plan early on but I doubt that's going to happen now, they'll probably try to keep PS3 costs as much of a minimum as possible.

$500 is a ridiculous amount of money to ask a non-gamer to pay. Ask one of your buddies or your sister or one her friends if they'd pay that much for a game console (assuming they're non-gamers).

They'll likely laugh at you.

 

[AndoCalrissian]

I wasn't that far off back in August I guess.

Except that no one but Nintendo and ATi have any information on the GPU. And that we don't even know the actual specs of the processor and RAM (it sounds like the devs may not even).

 

[marc^o^]

"There's another secret"
"You will say wow"'

Believe

 

[BlueTsunami]

I know that was their plan early on but I doubt that's going to happen now, they'll probably try to keep PS3 costs as much of a minimum as possible.

$500 is a ridiculous amount of money to ask a non-gamer to pay. Ask one of your buddies or your sister or one her friends if they'd pay that much for a game console (assuming they're non-gamers).

They'll likely laugh at you.

And yet Xbox360s at $400 are selling

 

[Panajev2001a]

that is all

Yeah, no problem... it is not like their games have to ship in about 6-8 months from now...

One thing is having simulators and not full-speed hardware, but knowing how fast the final thing will be... if Nintendo plans to tell developers close to launch that the real specs are much higher and keep the low profile till then (keep providing the specs they are providing to the developers who spoke with IGN) they will guarantee that all 3rd parties launch titles will look MUCH MUCH worse than what titles for Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 will look around the same time-frame.

 

[Ghengis Cohen]

Yeah, no problem... it is not like their games have to ship in about 6-8 months from now...

One thing is having simulators and not full-speed hardware, but knowing how fast the final thing will be... if Nintendo plans to tell developers close to launch that the real specs are much higher and keep the low profile till then (keep providing the specs they are providing to the developers who spoke with IGN) they will guarantee that all 3rd parties launch titles will look MUCH MUCH worse than what titles for Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 will look around the same time-frame.

Don't bother. They won't get this.

 

[soundwave05]

And yet Xbox360s at $400 are selling

You do realize there's more than one type of consumer on the planet right?

 

[Gahiggidy]

128mb costs Nintendo what?? $20.


No fucking way that is the final spec.

Perhaps there is like a gig of L2 cache or something...?

 

[soundwave05]

Yeah, no problem... it is not like their games have to ship in about 6-8 months from now...

One thing is having simulators and not full-speed hardware, but knowing how fast the final thing will be... if Nintendo plans to tell developers close to launch that the real specs are much higher and keep the low profile till then (keep providing the specs they are providing to the developers who spoke with IGN) they will guarantee that all 3rd parties launch titles will look MUCH MUCH worse than what titles for Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 will look around the same time-frame.

I don't think Nintendo honestly gives a flying fuck what Sony or Microsoft's games look like.

 

[BlueTsunami]

You do realize there's more than one type of consumer on the planet right?

Of course but prices drop and people end up buying consoles. Eyetoy2 itself would probably not even cost that much in the first place, the magic itself will done with PS3s Cell. Video being rendered from Eyetoy2 will go to Cell and Cell will maniuplate it an any way you want it to. The only thing that is needed is a semi compitent camera as Eyetoy2.

Also, $400 even with Eyetoy2 is what I see. How does it somehow come to $500?

 

[Oogami]

One thing is having simulators and not full-speed hardware, but knowing how fast the final thing will be... if Nintendo plans to tell developers close to launch that the real specs are much higher and keep the low profile till then (keep providing the specs they are providing to the developers who spoke with IGN) they will guarantee that all 3rd parties launch titles will look MUCH MUCH worse than what titles for Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 will look around the same time-frame.

Yes this matters because people care about 3rd party and multiplatform games on a Nintendo console.

 

[soundwave05]

Of course but prices drop and people end up buying consoles. Eyetoy2 itself would probably not even cost that much in the first place, the magic itself will done with PS3s Cell. Video being rendered from Eyetoy2 will go to Cell and Cell will maniuplate it an any way you want it to. The only thing that is needed is a semi compitent camera as Eyetoy2.

Also, $400 even with Eyetoy2 is what I see. How does it somehow come to $500?

Have you ever had a girlfriend?

You know when your girl goes out shopping for something like a pair of shoes and wants to spend $100 or something and you just can't figure it out?

OK, reverse that situation. To a lot of non-gamers (especailly women) paying even $200 for a game console is *insane*. When they see guys spending that much money on games (read: toys) they think it's crazy.

Right now the DS is probably more expensive than Nintendo would like, they'd probably rather sell that system at $99.99.

 

[SantaC]

hmm the info was nothing new really...how surprising :/

still it reached 10 pages here at GAF :lol

 

[BlueTsunami]

Have you ever had a girlfriend?

;_;

You know when your girl goes out shopping for something like a pair of shoes and wants to spend $100 or something and you just can't figure it out?

OK, reverse that situation. To a lot of non-gamers (especailly women) paying even $200 for a game console is *insane*. When they see guys spending that much money on games (read: toys) they think it's crazy.

Right now the DS is probably more expensive than Nintendo would like, they'd probably rather sell that system at $99.99.

I understand what your saying but the PS2 was released at $400. The Xbox360 has been released at $400. Nintendo isn't Sony and Sony isn't Nintendo. They both have different outlooks on how a system should be marketed and what exactly should go into the system.

Nintendo takes the bare essentials approuch. Sony takes the Media Hub "Give you a fistfull of Technology" approach. If you expect Sony to try and compete with Nintendos aggressive pricing then the PS3 will have to be gutted out and brought down a few notches.

The system itself (the PS3) is being sold at a premium price. Consumers probably won't even look at it as a gameing system but as some sort of computer (PS3 is supposed to come with Linux pre installed on the Harddrive). The difference in visuals (if all this is true) will also add another reason why the general consumer will pick up a PS3.

Until Sony allows the hardware to cheapen over time (manufacture)...the PS3 will be probably $400

 

[soundwave05]

Actually I don't think Nintendo's approach is "bare essentials" ... it's just a completely different approach period.

I think GameCube might have been Nintendo's last "traditional" type of console. Because that system did not do as well as Nintendo wanted they likely opted to go for a much different approach altogether.

Who knows though, the approach is so different it might actually end up being more successful than the GameCube or even the N64, either of which scenario I think would please Nintendo just fine.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Actually I don't think Nintendo's approach is "bare essentials"

Wi-Fi, Controller, DVD-ROM

Its pretty much a bare gameing console (which isn't bad by the way ). Its bare when compared to the PS3.

 

[soundwave05]

Actually its built-in WiFi, built-in 512MB RAM, standard wireless gyro controller, standard TV sensors. It's probably a good bet the system will also come standard with the classic controller shell.

There could be more to the hardware too (camera?), we just don't know yet.

But the approach itself is so completely different from Sony/MS, I don't think Nintendo is saying "well lets look at Sony/MS and then just release a bare bones version of what they have" ... I dont think Nintendo is really looking at Sony/MS at all.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Yes this matters because people care about 3rd party and multiplatform games on a Nintendo console.

Good strategy for winning3rd partiesover... you thought we left you in the dark with the N64 ? Wait until only our 1st party games look decent because we did not bother giving you realistic projected specs...

They won't do that, unless they want to let you play ONLY Nintendo published games on Revolution...

The most likely thiong is that these "rumored" specs are true or that if changes happen they are revelaed at the same time to 1st party developers and 3rd party developers: if that was the case though, even 1st party games would not be able to tap the hardware in a decent way at launch (not enough time... they would need GOOD projected specs NOW to do it).

 

[soundwave05]

Actually I think Rev will have better third party support than the GameCube.

It may not get the third-party ports, but no one bought those on the GCN anyway.

It'll probably get a lot of controller specific titles, especailly from the Japanese designers like Kojima, Naka, etc. They'll all probably want to try something new out on it.

Even now, Ubi Soft is apparently making a FPS for the Revolution ... I'll take that over a watered down Splinter Cell port.

 

[methodman]

Every time a watered down GC port came out, a baby died
Pretty much all ports cept for 3 or 4.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Actually its built-in WiFi, built-in 512MB RAM, standard wireless gyro controller, standard TV sensors. It's probably a good bet the system will also come standard with the classic controller shell.

There could be more to the hardware too (camera?), we just don't know yet.

But the approach itself is so completely different from Sony/MS, I don't think Nintendo is saying "well lets look at Sony/MS and then just release a bare bones version of what they have" ... I dont think Nintendo is really looking at Sony/MS at all.

Well, I don't think Nintendo is even glancing at the competition but i'm saying from the consumer (and my) perspective, the Revolution is a straight up gaming console. I say bare in that all it does is play games (once again, not a bad thing). Consumers will see this and gauge the pricing of the Rev and PS3 and 360. If one does gauge the pricing of each system like that, $400 doesn't seem that bad to get a PS3 that acts like a computer and can play back High Definition movies through its Blu Ray player AND play new PS3 games.

 

[soundwave05]

Well, I don't think Nintendo is even glancing at the competition but i'm saying from the consumer (and my) perspective, the Revolution is a straight up gaming console. I say bare in that all it does is play games (once again, not a bad thing). Consumers will see this and gauge the pricing of the Rev and PS3 and 360. If one does gauge the pricing of each system like that, $400 doesn't seem that bad to get a PS3 that acts like a computer and can play back High Definition movies through its Blu Ray player.

To be honest, I don't think Nintendo cares what your perspective is.

They know that you are a hardcore game player, and if there's enough good games on the Revolution that you'll probably pick one up sooner or later as a secondary machine.

I'd gladly pay $400 for a HD capable, bleeding tech, Blu-Ray Revolution too, but that just isn't going to happen. That's not the role Nintendo sees themselves in.

And when you really think about it they're competing against Sony and Microsoft. Did you really think Nintendo is about to get into a pissing match with either of these two companies? Sega tried to stay competetive by bleeding money for years too ... and that eventually killed them.

What hardcore players want is nice and all, but where were the hardcore players when Sega needed them to bail them out? They were buying Playstations instead. Nintendo will never put themselves in such a position. There likely is not room for another Playstation-wannabe. XBox has that angle covered already, the market would not be able to sustain another similar type of machine.

 

[marc^o^]

Value, n. The property or aggregate properties of a thing by which it is rendered useful or desirable, or the degree of such property or sum of properties; worth; excellence; utility; importance.

Revolution will 1. play differently, 2. be affordable 3. host Nintendo franchises.

Don't deny its value at this stage.

 

[wazoo]

;_;


The system itself (the PS3) is being sold at a premium price. Consumers probably won't even look at it as a gameing system but as some sort of computer (PS3 is supposed to come with Linux pre installed on the Harddrive). The difference in visuals (if all this is true) will also add another reason why the general consumer will pick up a PS3.

Until Sony allows the hardware to cheapen over time (manufacture)...the PS3 will be probably $400

400$ with a HDD ???

DO you know, the HDD is optional and no way Linux will come on it.

 

[Oogami]

Good strategy for winning3rd partiesover... you thought we left you in the dark with the N64 ? Wait until only our 1st party games look decent because we did not bother giving you realistic projected specs...

They won't do that, unless they want to let you play ONLY Nintendo published games on Revolution...

The most likely thiong is that these "rumored" specs are true or that if changes happen they are revelaed at the same time to 1st party developers and 3rd party developers: if that was the case though, even 1st party games would not be able to tap the hardware in a decent way at launch (not enough time... they would need GOOD projected specs NOW to do it).

Nintendo do not care about 3rd parties on their system. Never do. It's really not hard to see that Revolution will get less 3rd party support than the N64. Especially with all the 'secrets' they have, 3rd parties might as well be left in the dark, or simply don't care.

So I don't think we should judge the system's power based on some unnamed developers' comments who are probably never interested in the system anyway.

That's why I'll judge the system's graphical ability when I see 1st party Rev games. Just like the past GCN and N64 1st party games.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Linux will come on it.

You do know Linux is free fight? And yes Linux comes with the HDD. It comes preinstalled with the HDD, so all you would need to do is insert the HDD and you've got a working Linux OS. IT was made for developers but I guess Sony figured that it could be turned into a consumer OS to. Its a Linux variant that works with the Cell processor.

I'm not sure if its $400 with the HDD. Thats kinda iffy but it is possible

 

[soundwave05]

Nintendo's relationships with Namco, Capcom, Sega, Konami, Square-Enix are much, much better than the N64 days and the controller will probably entice more than a few Western devs to make the occasional exclusive for it.

That's a hell of a lot more than the N64 got.

Why would you look at 1st party titles as a gauge for graphics? The only GCN 1st party titles that really probably make the GCN sweat are the two Zelda games, the rest were basically like N64 titles on steroids.

 

[Mama Smurf]

I agree with Drinky, for the most part. I'm kind of used to it, as we share a hatred for Shenmue, but it's still weird.

The Revolution already has most of the advantages the DS does, plus it gets rid of most of the DS's weaknesses. And we all know how well that handheld is doing, even in its weakest territories.

Obviously, as Drinky mentioned, the main advantages to both the systems are the unique gameplay possibilities in a stagnant market and the lower price points. The Revolution trumps the DS in a lot of ways though:

- It just looks cooler. The DS is surprisingly clunky, given Nintendo's other recent handheld designs. I wouldn't necessarily say it's ugly, but it's pretty damn boring and comes off poorly next to the PSP. The Revolution, on the other hand, is a smart looking piece of hardware. Certainly its a hundred times better looking than the DS or Gamecube, and while people will debate this endlessly, as many people will tell you its the best looking of the next gen consoles as won't. That's not the case when it comes to the DS vs PSP.

- It's smaller than its competitors. Small is cool, ask Apple. The DS (and the PSP)...kinda big! It's such an inconsequential thing to me and I would imagine most serious gamers, but to the casual and even untapped market? I think its size could be one of the biggest selling points.

- The graphics are a good quality. They're not going to be comparable to the 360 and PS3, we know that, but it's still good 3D. By which I mean, it's beyond the pixellated, blurry PS1/N64/DS levels. It's not going to offend anyone's eyes, even if it's not AS good as its rivals. The DS to PSP is, of course, a completely different situation. That's going from the initial 3D era to the acceptable 3D era. The Revolution should be like the "acceptable" to the PS3/360's "even better".

- I don't know about you guys, but I reckon the Revolution's unique control method is far better than the DS's. I was always excited about the DS possibilities, and to a degree I think its proven there can be new gameplay ideas introduced with a touchscreen, or at least better ways of playing current games. I just wish developers (especially western ones) would stop trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked. My point is, when we first found about the touchscreen, I was excited about what developers would come up with, but not really coming up with so much myself. I figured "Hey, I'm not a developer, it's no surprise I can only think of a few ideas". Turns out there have only been a few games so far (the likes of Kirby and Yoshi) where developers actually have come up with things I hadn't thought of. The Revolution though...completely different from the beginning. As soon as I understood the controller, I had idea after idea, and I wasn't alone. IGN had stuff I hadn't thought of, other people on the board were coming up with things, and this was only like minutes after we understood the thing. I just think it offers so much more straight away than the DS ever could.

Of course, the Revolution isn't without its disadvantages when compared to the DS. Nintendo were coming off a freakishly good handheld run, the Revolution has to follow console after console getting less and less sales. I think this would be a better point in the DS's favour if Nintendo had used the Gameboy brand, but it's still important to note. The other thing is that people are used to poorer graphics in a handheld. To me it seems almost like people look at the DS and that was their expectation for the next handheld, a jump to N64 quality. Then when they see the PSP, that exceeds expectations. With the Revolution, people are expecting better graphics. What they're going to get will be below expectations.

When it comes down to it though, regardless of what people think on a personal level about Nintendo's direction, we know they couldn't go toe to toe with MS and Sony forever. I really see absolutely no reason to think Nintendo would have finished anything but third in this generation had they tried to take on the other two in the same way again, even if they might have eaten into Sony's marketshare slightly without the time advantage of last gen.

Honestly, I think Nintendo would have to go out of their way to make the Revolution anything but a success. I don't really want to put a number on it, but I would expect something around N64 level sales than GC's (which is roughly double). With everything I've mentioned above plus the virtual console, the low price, the free online...I just don't know how they could fuck it up. Let's wait and find out!

 

[polg]

hmm the info was nothing new really...how surprising :/

still it reached 10 pages here at GAF :lol

I was not online for like5 hours... I come back and there are 10 pages!... I thought "maybe Nintendo showed something new while I was offline!"