| Author |
Message |
Hollywood-GPU
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:12 am Post subject:
Nin Revolution still less powerful than X360, PS3 |
|
|
Nintendo Revolution (graphics by ATI) is still currently less powerful
in compute performance (CPU) and rendering performance (GPU) than
either Xbox360 or Playstation3, according to both Nintendo and 3rd
party developers.
quote:
_________________________________________________________
It doesn't really matter, though, because Too Human as Silicon Knights
envisions it would not be possible on Revolution, both because
Nintendo's console doesn't have the graphical horsepower of Xbox 360
and (more importantly) because Nintendo would be unwilling to fund such
an epic trilogy. For these reasons alone, I'm thrilled it's on
Microsoft's system and not Nintendo's.
Quote:
As to your first question, I'm sure that Revolution will be plenty
powerful, but I don't think we're going to see a repeat of Nintendo's
ultra conservative presentation of the GameCube specs. There are
significant differences between the systems, remember. GCN was
positioned to be the "developer's platform" that could yield big
graphic results with less effort. We knew from the very beginning that
the console was going to be technically savvy, if you recall, and even
proclaimed early on that it would be better suited than PlayStation 2
in most respects. In contrast, we are hearing early on that Revolution
will not be as powerful as Xbox 360, which in turn makes it technically
underpowered compared to PlayStation 3. We know this because both
Nintendo and third parties have told us so.
As you said, it might be possible to deliver a console as powerful as
360 in a smaller package if Nintendo launched it 12 months later. But I
don't think the company is even concerned with matching Microsoft's
horsepower. Revolution is all about this new controller. The system
will undoubtedly be far more advanced than GameCube, which should
satisfy less discerning audiences, but the Big N's focus with the
machine is not horsepower, but a new way to play. And on top of that, a
console that is attractively priced to immediately hit the mainstream
market.
Second question. I don't agree with J Allard's assessment that a
freehand-style pointer would be unable to accommodate racing games. I
actually think it would work quite well, as gamers could simply turn
the thing left or right to turn, and push forward or pull backward to
accelerate and decelerate. It's an interesting alternative, anyway, to
the formulaic setup of today's racers. But let's assume for a second
that he's right and that Nintendo's controller makes racers and sports
games completely unplayable. It's still not a problem because
Revolution owners can simply use the conventional controller shell to
play those games, at which point they get both motion sensor
functionality and traditional controls.
Question three. I honestly think the answer is because Nintendo has not
yet decided on the final name of Revolution. Once it has, I'm sure it
won't be long before we all know it.
Final question. I'm always disappointed when Nintendo sacrifices
technology in order to deliver a game console at a cheaper price. Not
only did this strategy not benefit GameCube, but in hindsight I would
say it actually hurt the system because it helped snowball the
perception that GCN was less equipped than its competitors. If you've
read the mailbag for any amount of time, you undoubtedly know I bitch
regularly about Revolution's lack of high-definition support, and yadda
yadda yadda, so on and etc. But I have to admit that with Revolution
Nintendo has the chance to target a more mainstream audience than it
ever has before -- perhaps, even, than any videogame company has
before. Bearing that in mind, I can for this console understand why it
might want to introduce some cost-cutting measures in order to hit a
mainstream price point.
__________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Michael J. Sherman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:52 pm Post subject:
Re: Nin Revolution still less powerful than X360, PS3 |
|
|
Hollywood-GPU wrote:
| Quote: | Nintendo Revolution (graphics by ATI) is still currently less powerful
in compute performance (CPU) and rendering performance (GPU) than
either Xbox360 or Playstation3, according to both Nintendo and 3rd
party developers.
|
So? Does that automatically make the games less fun or something?
Honestly, can we all stop this nonsense comparing sizes of CPUs and
GPUs? I would rather play the Atari 2600 over any stupid re-hash of a
sports game on the Xbox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antonin PAVIL
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:31 am Post subject:
Re: Nin Revolution still less powerful than X360, PS3 |
|
|
"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:b1n223-4so.ln1@laser.austinpowers.dsbox.com...
| Quote: | Hollywood-GPU wrote:
Nintendo Revolution (graphics by ATI) is still currently less powerful
in compute performance (CPU) and rendering performance (GPU) than
either Xbox360 or Playstation3, according to both Nintendo and 3rd
party developers.
So? Does that automatically make the games less fun or something?
Honestly, can we all stop this nonsense comparing sizes of CPUs and
GPUs? I would rather play the Atari 2600 over any stupid re-hash of a
sports game on the Xbox.
|
If CPU / GPU are not important, then:
_ Why does Nintendo bother releasing a revolution 3 times more powerfull
than the cube ?
Why not simply releasing a 'Gamecube+' that would, while having the exact
same spec as the gamecube, have the new controller and new 'API / SDK' to
exploit it ?
If all that matters is just new gameplay, why bothering releasing new
consoles at all ?
_ In the same vein, why the DS ? Why not simply have released a dual / touch
screen GBA with a stylus and WiFi ?
Let's push the logic to the limit: if I just want to play new games, I don't
need a new console AT ALL.
I just have to look at all the games I never played on my current console.
If not enough, I can buy one of the other current gen console I never owned
and play games that were not accesible to me so far.
If still not enough, I can go retro and pick a choice across all consoles /
micro computers ever released since video games were born, I don't think I
even played 1% of them.
I don't even need a new controller, I am sure that in the whole video game
history there are more than enough 'different/weird/unusual' games or
accessories that provide a different experience from the usual gameplay.
We could even beg console makers to sopt releasing new consoles ever, just
ask then to release new accessories / extensions, and beg developpers to
create 'new' licenses.
The thing is, this is human nature, we always need more / shinier things.
After a while, we are not "wowed" by the graphics anymore, we start to
notice the polygons, the pixels, it reminds us this is fake, and it makes
"immersion" in the game more difficult, and in fine it does spoil the
gameplay a bit.
Now for those not interested in more polygons, there are plenty of Atari
2600, NES, saturn, whatever on ebay...
You don't even have to buy consoles, you can buy rubik's cube for example:
it's just made up of 162 square "polygons" (27 cubes / 6 sides per cube) ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ln
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:56 am Post subject:
Re: Nin Revolution still less powerful than X360, PS3 |
|
|
| Quote: | _ Why does Nintendo bother releasing a revolution 3 times more powerfull
than the cube ?
Why not simply releasing a 'Gamecube+' that would, while having the exact
same spec as the gamecube, have the new controller and new 'API / SDK' to
exploit it ?
|
Because graphics are nice. It may add to a game like a good soundtrack can.
Granted, when you compare 8 bit graphics to present technology you can see
that graphics do open up new gaming possibilities. But for consoles in the
same generation, is it that important that we need to argue which hardware
will have a slightly more polygon power?
It's ridiculous that some people obsess over it. Genuinely odd behaviour
IMO.
Same for audio. Most people don't discuss it because in the grand scheme of
things it's not that important. Yes, with ever generation I want and
*expect* improvements in sound quality, but is it worth talking about? For
some strange folk it might be, but for most people, nope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: Nin Revolution still less powerful than X360, PS3 |
|
|
"ln" <ln@spam.com> wrote in message
news:1hi5eq8diqxwj.1c2e0ueq87y8e.dlg@40tude.net...
| Quote: | _ Why does Nintendo bother releasing a revolution 3 times more powerfull
than the cube ?
Why not simply releasing a 'Gamecube+' that would, while having the exact
same spec as the gamecube, have the new controller and new 'API / SDK' to
exploit it ?
Because graphics are nice. It may add to a game like a good soundtrack
can.
Granted, when you compare 8 bit graphics to present technology you can see
that graphics do open up new gaming possibilities. But for consoles in the
same generation, is it that important that we need to argue which hardware
will have a slightly more polygon power?
It's ridiculous that some people obsess over it. Genuinely odd behaviour
IMO.
Same for audio. Most people don't discuss it because in the grand scheme
of
things it's not that important. Yes, with ever generation I want and
*expect* improvements in sound quality, but is it worth talking about? For
some strange folk it might be, but for most people, nope.
|
Also there are plenty of people who see a screen cap of a game and think
"This is gonna be great", based on the graphics, so they rush out, buy the
game no matter what it plays like. This causes an overblown emphasis on the
graphical side of things, forcing other manufacturers to follow.
Usually good graphics come at the expense of some other element of the game,
like enemy AI, sound variation, character variation etc, all the elements
that actually make playing the game interesting.
Just look at the GTA 3 series. The thing that makes those games great is all
the variation, but if the producers were to improve the graphics they would
need to take out some of those other elements.
I'm playing Doom 3:Resurrection of evil ATM, and it's quite boring. The AI
isn't much better than earlier Doom games, but hey it looks nicer, same with
Pariah. Toward the end of the game there is a boss with a laser weapon, and
all you need to do it walk up to him point blank and duck, the laser will
pass over your head, very disappointing.
Of course producers of most games want you interest to wane after a week or
so, then you can buy the next game etc.. and the cycle continues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laziejim
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Nin Revolution still less powerful than X360, PS3 |
|
|
| Quote: | If CPU / GPU are not important, then:
_ Why does Nintendo bother releasing a revolution 3 times more powerfull
than the cube ?
Why not simply releasing a 'Gamecube+' that would, while having the exact
same spec as the gamecube, have the new controller and new 'API / SDK' to
exploit it ?
If all that matters is just new gameplay, why bothering releasing new
consoles at all ?
_ In the same vein, why the DS ? Why not simply have released a dual / touch
screen GBA with a stylus and WiFi ?
Let's push the logic to the limit: if I just want to play new games, I don't
need a new console AT ALL.
I just have to look at all the games I never played on my current console.
If not enough, I can buy one of the other current gen console I never owned
and play games that were not accesible to me so far.
If still not enough, I can go retro and pick a choice across all consoles /
micro computers ever released since video games were born, I don't think I
even played 1% of them.
I don't even need a new controller, I am sure that in the whole video game
history there are more than enough 'different/weird/unusual' games or
accessories that provide a different experience from the usual gameplay.
We could even beg console makers to sopt releasing new consoles ever, just
ask then to release new accessories / extensions, and beg developpers to
create 'new' licenses.
The thing is, this is human nature, we always need more / shinier things.
After a while, we are not "wowed" by the graphics anymore, we start to
notice the polygons, the pixels, it reminds us this is fake, and it makes
"immersion" in the game more difficult, and in fine it does spoil the
gameplay a bit.
Now for those not interested in more polygons, there are plenty of Atari
2600, NES, saturn, whatever on ebay...
You don't even have to buy consoles, you can buy rubik's cube for example:
it's just made up of 162 square "polygons" (27 cubes / 6 sides per cube) ;-)
|
I normally just like to read what other people are talking about in
these newsgroups, but I must interject here...that last post has to be
one of the asinine statements I've heard in a long time. It sounds like
it was created just to disagree with someone. It claims to point out
false logic when it, itself, happens to be based on false logic.
Are you serious about all your sarcastic remarks...Why make rev. 3x
more powerful? Why make the DS? Why not just stick to defined polygons?
Give me a fuckin break. You really need to understand the difference
between glam and usability.
Yes the industry defines that people, generally, want better
graphics...but are next gen graphics going to decide what is a better
system? No. If you think they will...then I feel bad for you because it
would suggest that you did not grow up with NES or SNES. I can give
comparisons all day about how older games can be much better than next
gen games...take the big names...Zelda & Mario...I don't care how much
you love 3d graphics...if you try to tell me that Mario Sunshine even
comes so close as to hold a candle to Mario 3, Mario World or Mario
64...you are a foolish foolish person. Legend of Zelda
windwaker...Prolly the best game to come out for that year...does it
even come close to Legend of Zelda or Link to the Past or Ocarina...no.
Hell lets look across systems closer in timing. PS1 vs. PS2...Final
Fantasy X (and I suppose X-2) were beautiful masterpieces of art (both
visual and musically) in video game form. Neither game can touch Final
Fantasy 7 or Final Fantasy Tactics though, as far as overall game goes.
I won't even get into FF 6 or 4. What made Halo great? The graphics?
Nope...try the ridiculous replayablity and fun factor.
Point is you try to shoot down these people who say, "Who gives a fuck
about what the system is pumping out...as long as they are better than
current gen consoles." You say we need new shinier things...perhaps we
do...but to all of the real gamers here, the shinier things are going
to be games with inventive game play, not just another step toward the
confusion of a video game and a live action movie.
You mention that you can't get as immersed into games with worse
graphics that is sad to hear. If you are THAT dependant on graphics,
your imagination must be crap. The immersion comes from how well the
story is told...not how realistic the game looks...If you can't immerse
yourself in the world of Hyrule from Ocarina or Link to the past or
into the final fantasy worlds of the past, then, as far as enjoying
games goes, you are a lost cause.
I appologize to everyone else who had to read this, because much like
you, I'm sure, I hate reading flamming on these things, but I felt I
must interject here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:32 am Post subject:
Re: Nin Revolution still less powerful than X360, PS3 |
|
|
| Quote: | I normally just like to read what other people are talking about in
these newsgroups, but I must interject here...that last post has to be
one of the asinine statements I've heard in a long time. It sounds like
it was created just to disagree with someone. It claims to point out
false logic when it, itself, happens to be based on false logic.
Are you serious about all your sarcastic remarks...Why make rev. 3x
more powerful? Why make the DS? Why not just stick to defined polygons?
Give me a fuckin break. You really need to understand the difference
between glam and usability.
Yes the industry defines that people, generally, want better
graphics...but are next gen graphics going to decide what is a better
system? No. If you think they will...then I feel bad for you because it
would suggest that you did not grow up with NES or SNES. I can give
comparisons all day about how older games can be much better than next
gen games...take the big names...Zelda & Mario...I don't care how much
you love 3d graphics...if you try to tell me that Mario Sunshine even
comes so close as to hold a candle to Mario 3, Mario World or Mario
64...you are a foolish foolish person. Legend of Zelda
windwaker...Prolly the best game to come out for that year...does it
even come close to Legend of Zelda or Link to the Past or Ocarina...no.
Hell lets look across systems closer in timing. PS1 vs. PS2...Final
Fantasy X (and I suppose X-2) were beautiful masterpieces of art (both
visual and musically) in video game form. Neither game can touch Final
Fantasy 7 or Final Fantasy Tactics though, as far as overall game goes.
I won't even get into FF 6 or 4. What made Halo great? The graphics?
Nope...try the ridiculous replayablity and fun factor.
Point is you try to shoot down these people who say, "Who gives a fuck
about what the system is pumping out...as long as they are better than
current gen consoles." You say we need new shinier things...perhaps we
do...but to all of the real gamers here, the shinier things are going
to be games with inventive game play, not just another step toward the
confusion of a video game and a live action movie.
You mention that you can't get as immersed into games with worse
graphics that is sad to hear. If you are THAT dependant on graphics,
your imagination must be crap. The immersion comes from how well the
story is told...not how realistic the game looks...If you can't immerse
yourself in the world of Hyrule from Ocarina or Link to the past or
into the final fantasy worlds of the past, then, as far as enjoying
games goes, you are a lost cause.
I appologize to everyone else who had to read this, because much like
you, I'm sure, I hate reading flamming on these things, but I felt I
must interject here.
|
thats great but great gameplay and great graphics are not mutually exclusive,
all the old games you mentionned (alttp, ocarina, mario3, smw, m64, ff7, etc..)
had jaw dropping graphics when they came out.. graphics don't make the game
but they certainly play a huge part in the overall experience. i think metroid
prime is the only classic that came out of the gamecube that can stand
alongside the games you mentionned above.. and its a damn good thing its
graphics were beautiful.
graphics might not be the most important part of a videogame but they're
still important, although i agree i think its insane that people are so
obsessed with graphics that they'll say 'im not buying a revolution because
it only pushes out 3 zillion polygons instead of the ps3s 3.6 zillion
polygons with HD'. these people are idiots.
nes to snes was the leap from 2d to quality 2d graphics, snes to n64 was
the leap from 2d to 3d, n64 to gamecube was the leap from 3d to quality
3d graphics.. the era of quantum leaps in graphics is over, now its time
to focus on other things, nintendo has the right idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Guapo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:16 pm Post subject:
Re: Nin Revolution still less powerful than X360, PS3 |
|
|
| Quote: | graphics might not be the most important part of a videogame but they're
still important, although i agree i think its insane that people are so
obsessed with graphics that they'll say 'im not buying a revolution
because
it only pushes out 3 zillion polygons instead of the ps3s 3.6 zillion
polygons with HD'. these people are idiots.
|
<standing ovation> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael J. Sherman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:22 pm Post subject:
Re: Nin Revolution still less powerful than X360, PS3 |
|
|
El Guapo wrote:
| Quote: | graphics might not be the most important part of a videogame but they're
still important, although i agree i think its insane that people are so
obsessed with graphics that they'll say 'im not buying a revolution
because
it only pushes out 3 zillion polygons instead of the ps3s 3.6 zillion
polygons with HD'. these people are idiots.
standing ovation
|
Amen.
Can it be true? A sane person posting on Usenet? ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raph
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:55 am Post subject:
Re: Nin Revolution still less powerful than X360, PS3 |
|
|
"ln" <ln@spam.com> wrote in message
news:1hi5eq8diqxwj.1c2e0ueq87y8e.dlg@40tude.net...
| Quote: | _ Why does Nintendo bother releasing a revolution 3 times more powerfull
than the cube ?
Why not simply releasing a 'Gamecube+' that would, while having the exact
same spec as the gamecube, have the new controller and new 'API / SDK' to
exploit it ?
Because graphics are nice. It may add to a game like a good soundtrack
can.
Granted, when you compare 8 bit graphics to present technology you can see
that graphics do open up new gaming possibilities. But for consoles in the
same generation, is it that important that we need to argue which hardware
will have a slightly more polygon power?
It's ridiculous that some people obsess over it. Genuinely odd behaviour
IMO.
Same for audio. Most people don't discuss it because in the grand scheme
of
things it's not that important. Yes, with ever generation I want and
*expect* improvements in sound quality, but is it worth talking about? For
some strange folk it might be, but for most people, nope.
|
Uhh..in a lot of ways audio matters more to me than graphics, since I have
way more invested in my audio equipment than I am likely to ever put into my
video display. Good sound is very powerful in setting a mood for a game -
especially horror based. I like good graphics but I am happy with graphics
on all 3 current systems though sound could be better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Powell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Nin Revolution still less powerful than X360, PS3 |
|
|
What abou the PPU..should make a lot of difference to games........
"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message
news:cmoc23-p5m.ln1@laser.austinpowers.dsbox.com...
| Quote: | El Guapo wrote:
graphics might not be the most important part of a videogame but they're
still important, although i agree i think its insane that people are so
obsessed with graphics that they'll say 'im not buying a revolution
because
it only pushes out 3 zillion polygons instead of the ps3s 3.6 zillion
polygons with HD'. these people are idiots.
standing ovation
Amen.
Can it be true? A sane person posting on Usenet? ;-) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:26 am Post subject:
lots of games out there |
|
|
| how does anybody keep track of all the terminology and variations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:26 am Post subject:
are video games that exciting? |
|
|
| what do they learn you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stimp
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:41 pm Post subject:
Re: are video games that exciting? |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.games.video.nintendo.]
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 tariq.1.rahim@spamgourmet.com <tariq.1.rahim@
| Quote: | what do they learn you?
|
they 'learn' you proper grammer for one.. well except for 'all your base
are belong to us'
--
"I hear ma train a comin'
.... hear freedom comin" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShinraSoldier3
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:35 pm Post subject:
Re: are video games that exciting? |
|
|
tariq.1.rahim@spamgourmet.com wrote:
| Quote: | what do they learn you?
|
Hehe.. I take it all your life you've been playing video games?
'i nedz 2 getz sum lernin11!1' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in