How can Nintendo make comparable graphics to its competetors next gen?
Author
Okay, I'm sure many of you have probably heard that Nintendo's next gen console, the Revolution, would be significantly weaker than the Xbox 360 and PS3. From what I heard, this is due to several factors, such as small size and affordabilty. The other consoles have impressive numbers, like high processor speed. But surely to make great graphics, there must be more factors to be put into the equation, right? So my question is this, what specs could the Rev. have that could give it optimum capabilities given its current size and desired under $200 price point? And how would it compare to the competitors? There are a lot of tech savvy people here, so I would like to hear your ideas. :)
Nintendo stated many times, that they tend to innovate in different than graphics fields - like input, as far as we know.
That is to draw more casual gamers - graphics don't matter much for them, except for wow-factor of the first look.
And let the 'speed' of next-gen don't fool you - these general cores are in-order CPUs... :(
That is to draw more casual gamers - graphics don't matter much for them, except for wow-factor of the first look.
And let the 'speed' of next-gen don't fool you - these general cores are in-order CPUs... :(
Author
Quote:Original post by Zemedelec
Nintendo stated many times, that they tend to innovate in different than graphics fields - like input, as far as we know.
That is to draw more casual gamers - graphics don't matter much for them, except for wow-factor of the first look.
And let the 'speed' of next-gen don't fool you - these general cores are in-order CPUs... :(
Oh, believe me, I'm totally aware Nintendo stated they want to focus more on fun gameplay rather than raw power. Of course, that wasn't the question for the thread ;).
The problem with comparing graphical capabilities of consoles that haven't been released is that we (the general public) don't know exactly how everything will mesh together. It only takes one bottleneck in the graphics pipeline for all those higher numbers to go to waste. I wouldn't be making any judgements on which system looks the best until someone can get all three working in the same room on the same television.
Of course, you also have to factor in that certain companies have a history of being "creative with the truth" when it comes to the graphical capabilities of their new consoles...
And for me, frankly, I know that all three systems will look utterly fantastic on my 14" TV screen, so I don't particularly care for that side of things. Actually, I think that the present generation also looks utterly fantastic as well (but that's because I remember the days the games I played came in two colours, black and green, and later when I marvelled at the multi-coloured splendiferousness of "EGA").
Of course, you also have to factor in that certain companies have a history of being "creative with the truth" when it comes to the graphical capabilities of their new consoles...
And for me, frankly, I know that all three systems will look utterly fantastic on my 14" TV screen, so I don't particularly care for that side of things. Actually, I think that the present generation also looks utterly fantastic as well (but that's because I remember the days the games I played came in two colours, black and green, and later when I marvelled at the multi-coloured splendiferousness of "EGA").
Well there's a good way to have "slower" hardware and yet producing something "comparable", or rather that would most often look "as nice", it's to cut on fillrate by using smaller resolutions.
AFAIK, it's what Nintendo intend to do with Revolution, no HD gaming (europeans don't care at all), resulting in "slower" hardware producing something "on-par" with the other systems on standard TV set...
Another way is to make the features easier to access and really usable (some hardware features can hardly be used due to the cost of using them.).
Also Art Direction plays a HUGE part in the final image. (Doom 3 vs ICO for exemple.)
Those are just ideas that came straight in a couple of minutes ^^
AFAIK, it's what Nintendo intend to do with Revolution, no HD gaming (europeans don't care at all), resulting in "slower" hardware producing something "on-par" with the other systems on standard TV set...
Another way is to make the features easier to access and really usable (some hardware features can hardly be used due to the cost of using them.).
Also Art Direction plays a HUGE part in the final image. (Doom 3 vs ICO for exemple.)
Those are just ideas that came straight in a couple of minutes ^^
How can Nintendo make comparable graphics to its competetors next gen?
Nintendo simply can't compete in the graphical aspect of next-generation console gaming. Is that the Accepted Answer?
Nintendo simply can't compete in the graphical aspect of next-generation console gaming. Is that the Accepted Answer?
Quote:Original post by Pipo DeClown
How can Nintendo make comparable graphics to its competetors next gen?
Nintendo simply can't compete in the graphical aspect of next-generation console gaming. Is that the Accepted Answer?
mmmh not really.
The thing is rather than Iwata said it wouldn't be more powerfull but roughly on par with the other two consoles, so we already know the answer to that question.
If you meant there was no way Nintendo could, that's simply incorrect, Nintendo have the funds and partners to have ultra high-end hardware, it seems it's simply not the goal with the Revolution...
The question to me sounded more like "Can Nintendo do as good with less expensive hardware ?", at which I say "YES !".
But doesn't this thread belong somewhere else ?
Quote:Original post by Ingenu
no HD gaming (europeans don't care at all)
Europeans don't buy LCDs and plasmas in droves which now start from around 500-600 Euro and provide not quite HDTV, but still way, way higher than PAL resolutions, not to mention the better crispness of the image?
I certainly don't see that in my local home appliance mall.
I think this year everyone shopping for a high-end TV will be buying a LCD or a plasma, and next year they will be mainstream.
Europeans like shiny new toys as much as the next guy :-)
*sigh* This is just silly.
Nintendo stated originally that their focus wasn't on how fast they could get their hardware. They were more concerned about innovation in gameplay than how many triangles they could push. This lead to gamer jumping to conclusions (cause, you know, we NEVER do that) and saying that the Nintendo would be far weaker than the other two consoles.
Nintendo responded to this shortly afterwards by saying that while their focus wasn't going to be on hardware, their system would definately be "competative" with the other next-gen offerings. Of course, by this point every fanboy on the interweb was trumpeting from the hilltops how the Revolution would be "teh suck", and most decided to convieniently forget this fact. Amazing how well we all seem to latch on the the marketing crap that we're fed, isn't it?
I personally think that Nintendo is going to keep cruising through the "console wars", not as a winner, but as a survivor. Sony and Microsoft are probably going to suffer the same fate as Sega, Atari, and the like and eventually fade away as new consoles from new companies are introduced, but Nintendo will always be there, jsut as low key and just as fun as ever.
Nintendo stated originally that their focus wasn't on how fast they could get their hardware. They were more concerned about innovation in gameplay than how many triangles they could push. This lead to gamer jumping to conclusions (cause, you know, we NEVER do that) and saying that the Nintendo would be far weaker than the other two consoles.
Nintendo responded to this shortly afterwards by saying that while their focus wasn't going to be on hardware, their system would definately be "competative" with the other next-gen offerings. Of course, by this point every fanboy on the interweb was trumpeting from the hilltops how the Revolution would be "teh suck", and most decided to convieniently forget this fact. Amazing how well we all seem to latch on the the marketing crap that we're fed, isn't it?
I personally think that Nintendo is going to keep cruising through the "console wars", not as a winner, but as a survivor. Sony and Microsoft are probably going to suffer the same fate as Sega, Atari, and the like and eventually fade away as new consoles from new companies are introduced, but Nintendo will always be there, jsut as low key and just as fun as ever.
Quote:Original post by Hellmaster
So my question is this, what specs could the Rev. have that could give it optimum capabilities given its current size and desired under $200 price point? And how would it compare to the competitors? There are a lot of tech savvy people here, so I would like to hear your ideas. :)
that is a completely different question from what the subject line implies
to your question I respond: What is wrong with the hardware of the gamecube in meeting those goals? Perhaps step it up a bit with more memory [the gamecube has what? 48Mb?], bit faster clock speed, and ability to output at higher resolutions [though probably not 720p]].
the new cdrom-sized design looks interesting, but doesn't seem that much different in size from the gamecube. I'd imagine they'd go with a similar approach this time round.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement