The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Pretty much confirmed news:
The Revolution will also be a wireless router for the home, connect broadband to it and it will allow nearby consoles to link and go online. Such as a DS for example.
Rumours:
Revolution will be VERY cheap, will be only a little more powerful than a Gamecube and vastly inferior to X-box 360 and PS3. There will be multiple controllers, touch screen, gyro and camera are all being touted.
If the latter is true then I told you Nintendo are gunning for a different market.
The Revolution will also be a wireless router for the home, connect broadband to it and it will allow nearby consoles to link and go online. Such as a DS for example.
Rumours:
Revolution will be VERY cheap, will be only a little more powerful than a Gamecube and vastly inferior to X-box 360 and PS3. There will be multiple controllers, touch screen, gyro and camera are all being touted.
If the latter is true then I told you Nintendo are gunning for a different market.
Page:
Hedfix wrote:
> Just look at the link to Oblivion in the Zelda thread to see that more
> power is indeed a good idea and very useful.
Oblivion look rather spank worthy, just hope it's not as damn boring and slow starting as before.
> Just look at the link to Oblivion in the Zelda thread to see that more
> power is indeed a good idea and very useful.
Oblivion look rather spank worthy, just hope it's not as damn boring and slow starting as before.
gerrid wrote:
> You haven't seen any problems
> with slowdown etc on the GC due to hardware because who in their
> right minds is going to make a game for the Gamecube that requires
> more power than the console has?
It happened on the Snes, Playstation and N64, games being released that were genuinely held back by a lack of console power.
> You're saying that we shouldn't rubbish what we haven't seen yet, but
> that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying that hardware with
> greater power wouldn't be anything different, but you don't know,
> because you haven't seen any games which utilise the power of the
> hardware.
I hadn't quite rubbished it...
But that is a very good point. :-)
> Even games like Resident Evil 4, the pinnacle of Gamecube games, is
> hampered by the limitations of the hardware. Your route is still
> forced, events are still completely scripted, because they have to
> be, and the environments offer the same level of ineractivity that we
> saw in Pokemon back in 1994.
I see what you're saying here, and agree.
The thing is, is this next step up in power enough to manage that?
I mean, ofcourse there'll be improvements, but enough to warrant a next generation already? Enough to demand a fresh console purchase? Yeah, there DID have to be a step in power someday, because there is steeps more complexity that games can go (the single route thing is just one example), but I think that this half step is too small, too early.
I guess I'm skeptical it, even though I think that article FFF showed me MUST be wrong. :-)
> I understand what you're saying, though, that Nintendo doesn't want
> to compete with Sony and Microsoft, because it knows it can't, but I
> think the scope for different input methods is severely limited.............................................., if
> the Revolution is like Dringo described in the original post.
> Obviously if it is something completely different, which actually
> does change the games themselves, rather than just how you play them,
> that will be great, and I'm sure that's what Nintendo actually intend
> to do. But in our current understanding of the Revolution, I'm just
> not very optimistic.
I'm not so optimistic, I'm still skeptical whether Nintendo will produce games beyond a gimmick (for the first gen of releases atleast). But I'd rather they did something completely different than another PS3 wannabe.
> You haven't seen any problems
> with slowdown etc on the GC due to hardware because who in their
> right minds is going to make a game for the Gamecube that requires
> more power than the console has?
It happened on the Snes, Playstation and N64, games being released that were genuinely held back by a lack of console power.
> You're saying that we shouldn't rubbish what we haven't seen yet, but
> that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying that hardware with
> greater power wouldn't be anything different, but you don't know,
> because you haven't seen any games which utilise the power of the
> hardware.
I hadn't quite rubbished it...
But that is a very good point. :-)
> Even games like Resident Evil 4, the pinnacle of Gamecube games, is
> hampered by the limitations of the hardware. Your route is still
> forced, events are still completely scripted, because they have to
> be, and the environments offer the same level of ineractivity that we
> saw in Pokemon back in 1994.
I see what you're saying here, and agree.
The thing is, is this next step up in power enough to manage that?
I mean, ofcourse there'll be improvements, but enough to warrant a next generation already? Enough to demand a fresh console purchase? Yeah, there DID have to be a step in power someday, because there is steeps more complexity that games can go (the single route thing is just one example), but I think that this half step is too small, too early.
I guess I'm skeptical it, even though I think that article FFF showed me MUST be wrong. :-)
> I understand what you're saying, though, that Nintendo doesn't want
> to compete with Sony and Microsoft, because it knows it can't, but I
> think the scope for different input methods is severely limited.............................................., if
> the Revolution is like Dringo described in the original post.
> Obviously if it is something completely different, which actually
> does change the games themselves, rather than just how you play them,
> that will be great, and I'm sure that's what Nintendo actually intend
> to do. But in our current understanding of the Revolution, I'm just
> not very optimistic.
I'm not so optimistic, I'm still skeptical whether Nintendo will produce games beyond a gimmick (for the first gen of releases atleast). But I'd rather they did something completely different than another PS3 wannabe.
it's on PS2.
I think it made serious use of the hardrive tbh.
The last question pretty much backs up my point that the GC won't be able to handle next generation games, and I'm not talking graphics here. The designer says "We'll try to get the game on as many platforms that can handle it as possible". The game isn't on GC, which shows that the GC can't handle it.
Just look at the link to Oblivion in the Zelda thread to see that more power is indeed a good idea and very useful.
gerrid's said basically what I was trying to vis-a-vis the power thing.
That other aspects apart from graphics allow more freedom and expression and creativiy in games.
You're right, Strafio, the step forward won't seem as big as before - mainly because the graphics won't see such a startling leap forward - but its still a step, and one that should be taken.
The generation after that ... well, I think that's when your argument solidifies. There probably won't be any point.
That other aspects apart from graphics allow more freedom and expression and creativiy in games.
You're right, Strafio, the step forward won't seem as big as before - mainly because the graphics won't see such a startling leap forward - but its still a step, and one that should be taken.
The generation after that ... well, I think that's when your argument solidifies. There probably won't be any point.
Ninty always make sure their consoles have plenty of ports on them to bolt on extra things.
A memory upgrade isn't out of the question, although it would surprise many people.
A memory upgrade isn't out of the question, although it would surprise many people.
Strafio wrote:
> MS and Sony MUST have something planned...
> Surely they know better than that...
Obviously not.
> Anysway, we're agree that if Nintendo have any future, it's make
> something that's actually GOOD out of these ideas, rather than some
> gimmicky demo's. And the fact that it's not much more powerful than
> the Gamecube is barely important because the Gamecube is yet to
> suffer from a lack of power?
>
> What do you think?
I think the GC's pretty much at its limit now - again, just because the limits are not obvious, doesn't mean we're not right on top of them.
Of course if Ninty do good stuff, they'll have a good future.
Ifififififif.
> MS and Sony MUST have something planned...
> Surely they know better than that...
Obviously not.
> Anysway, we're agree that if Nintendo have any future, it's make
> something that's actually GOOD out of these ideas, rather than some
> gimmicky demo's. And the fact that it's not much more powerful than
> the Gamecube is barely important because the Gamecube is yet to
> suffer from a lack of power?
>
> What do you think?
I think the GC's pretty much at its limit now - again, just because the limits are not obvious, doesn't mean we're not right on top of them.
Of course if Ninty do good stuff, they'll have a good future.
Ifififififif.
Strafio wrote:
> More detail, more things on screen, no slow-down, no pop-up, more
> ambient movement in environments, more interactivity with
> environments, larger play-areas.
>
> All this can be done on the Gamecube if people want to.
> If they haven't then it's an issue of coding/game design and more
> polygon pushing won't change a thing.
I think yo are vastly overestimating the power of the Gamecube, Strafio.
Think about it like this: Games are ALWAYS limited by the hardware they run on. Increasing the boundaries of the hardware increases the scope of any games on the hardware. You haven't seen any problems with slowdown etc on the GC due to hardware because who in their right minds is going to make a game for the Gamecube that requires more power than the console has?
You're saying that we shouldn't rubbish what we haven't seen yet, but that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying that hardware with greater power wouldn't be anything different, but you don't know, because you haven't seen any games which utilise the power of the hardware.
If you asked someone in 1990 where they thought games were going, I doubt they would have ever dreamed of the sort of games we enjoy today. Their imaginations were limited by what they knew. I don't care what you say, Strafio, power is what drives games forward. It's not the graphics, it's the physicaly ability of the console to realise the dreams of the developers. As it is, I am sure that there are many many developers with ideas that are just not possible on the hardware we have today. It's not an issue of coding, it's an issue of raw processing power.
Even games like Resident Evil 4, the pinnacle of Gamecube games, is hampered by the limitations of the hardware. Your route is still forced, events are still completely scripted, because they have to be, and the environments offer the same level of ineractivity that we saw in Pokemon back in 1994. These are all limitations of hardware - the GC processer just couldn't handle having real time AI scripting - with your actions having a distinct consequence (If you're having trouble imagining examples, its because there aren't any - games don't have this at the moment because the hardware isn't powerful enough to allow it, but it basically means that the game reacts to how you play, rather than you reacting to how the game plays). The game environments are still directed by the developers. you can only interact with things that the developers let you - real time physics means that you can shoot the paintings off the walls, etc, move every item of furniture in he game, blow holes in walls. The current way games are developed means that these sorts of ideas are still hampered by the traditional "developer designs a way for you to do something" method of gameplaying, but with more power it can be YOU who decides how you do things, not the developer. A simple example is the maze in the Resi 4 garden - there's only one way to do that maze, but with more power, and real time environments that react realistically to whatever you do, you could blow holes in the hedges with your guns, light them on fire to reduce them to ashes, move them around to create your own defences against the attack dogs, or even just snipe the treasure chest onto the floor so that you din't have to climb up to get it. But can you see how things like this, the windening of the scope of the game, how YOU the player controls what happens in YOUR game is something that Nintendo could easily exploit. These aren't fundamental changes that you can bring about by changing the way that you move your character on screen. Power isn't just about polygon counts and frame rates, its about widening the boundaries of games. Developers today aren't restricted by the controllers, but by the hardware. Developers at the secret developer meeting at the GDC were hoping that Nintendo's revolution was a more efficient coding structure, which would allow them to write their code much quicker and also for it to be processed quicker, so that they could make more use of the power in the machines, without having to write messy code all the time. It was an issue of hardware rather than input devices - developers want the limitations of hardware to be removed.
I understand what you're saying, though, that Nintendo doesn't want to compete with Sony and Microsoft, because it knows it can't, but I think the scope for different input methods is severely limited. Everything that has been suggested so far has been either just a poorer simulation of something we already have (gyroscopes, touchpad), or completely unworkable (pressure sensitive handles, touchscreen). If the console is only slightly more powerful than the GC then what's the point of it? Again, I'm not saying that the Revolution will be rubbish, because I don't know what the Revolution will be, or how it will work. What I'm saying is that IF the Revolution was this GC+gyroscoping controllers that people are talking about, THEN it would be rubbish. Sure, Nintendo would come out with a few new takes on its core franchises, but in reality they won't be anything that you couldn't just do on Gamecube, if the Revolution is like Dringo described in the original post. Obviously if it is something completely different, which actually does change the games themselves, rather than just how you play them, that will be great, and I'm sure that's what Nintendo actually intend to do. But in our current understanding of the Revolution, I'm just not very optimistic.
> More detail, more things on screen, no slow-down, no pop-up, more
> ambient movement in environments, more interactivity with
> environments, larger play-areas.
>
> All this can be done on the Gamecube if people want to.
> If they haven't then it's an issue of coding/game design and more
> polygon pushing won't change a thing.
I think yo are vastly overestimating the power of the Gamecube, Strafio.
Think about it like this: Games are ALWAYS limited by the hardware they run on. Increasing the boundaries of the hardware increases the scope of any games on the hardware. You haven't seen any problems with slowdown etc on the GC due to hardware because who in their right minds is going to make a game for the Gamecube that requires more power than the console has?
You're saying that we shouldn't rubbish what we haven't seen yet, but that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying that hardware with greater power wouldn't be anything different, but you don't know, because you haven't seen any games which utilise the power of the hardware.
If you asked someone in 1990 where they thought games were going, I doubt they would have ever dreamed of the sort of games we enjoy today. Their imaginations were limited by what they knew. I don't care what you say, Strafio, power is what drives games forward. It's not the graphics, it's the physicaly ability of the console to realise the dreams of the developers. As it is, I am sure that there are many many developers with ideas that are just not possible on the hardware we have today. It's not an issue of coding, it's an issue of raw processing power.
Even games like Resident Evil 4, the pinnacle of Gamecube games, is hampered by the limitations of the hardware. Your route is still forced, events are still completely scripted, because they have to be, and the environments offer the same level of ineractivity that we saw in Pokemon back in 1994. These are all limitations of hardware - the GC processer just couldn't handle having real time AI scripting - with your actions having a distinct consequence (If you're having trouble imagining examples, its because there aren't any - games don't have this at the moment because the hardware isn't powerful enough to allow it, but it basically means that the game reacts to how you play, rather than you reacting to how the game plays). The game environments are still directed by the developers. you can only interact with things that the developers let you - real time physics means that you can shoot the paintings off the walls, etc, move every item of furniture in he game, blow holes in walls. The current way games are developed means that these sorts of ideas are still hampered by the traditional "developer designs a way for you to do something" method of gameplaying, but with more power it can be YOU who decides how you do things, not the developer. A simple example is the maze in the Resi 4 garden - there's only one way to do that maze, but with more power, and real time environments that react realistically to whatever you do, you could blow holes in the hedges with your guns, light them on fire to reduce them to ashes, move them around to create your own defences against the attack dogs, or even just snipe the treasure chest onto the floor so that you din't have to climb up to get it. But can you see how things like this, the windening of the scope of the game, how YOU the player controls what happens in YOUR game is something that Nintendo could easily exploit. These aren't fundamental changes that you can bring about by changing the way that you move your character on screen. Power isn't just about polygon counts and frame rates, its about widening the boundaries of games. Developers today aren't restricted by the controllers, but by the hardware. Developers at the secret developer meeting at the GDC were hoping that Nintendo's revolution was a more efficient coding structure, which would allow them to write their code much quicker and also for it to be processed quicker, so that they could make more use of the power in the machines, without having to write messy code all the time. It was an issue of hardware rather than input devices - developers want the limitations of hardware to be removed.
I understand what you're saying, though, that Nintendo doesn't want to compete with Sony and Microsoft, because it knows it can't, but I think the scope for different input methods is severely limited. Everything that has been suggested so far has been either just a poorer simulation of something we already have (gyroscopes, touchpad), or completely unworkable (pressure sensitive handles, touchscreen). If the console is only slightly more powerful than the GC then what's the point of it? Again, I'm not saying that the Revolution will be rubbish, because I don't know what the Revolution will be, or how it will work. What I'm saying is that IF the Revolution was this GC+gyroscoping controllers that people are talking about, THEN it would be rubbish. Sure, Nintendo would come out with a few new takes on its core franchises, but in reality they won't be anything that you couldn't just do on Gamecube, if the Revolution is like Dringo described in the original post. Obviously if it is something completely different, which actually does change the games themselves, rather than just how you play them, that will be great, and I'm sure that's what Nintendo actually intend to do. But in our current understanding of the Revolution, I'm just not very optimistic.
Page: