Quote:Original post by Ingenu

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 ?

Yes, I meant with the Revolution (since this thread is about the Revolution), and the discussion is about whether Nintendo can produce next-gen graphics with their hardware. At which I say "NO !".

The physics processor sounds highly unlikely to me, at least if Nintendo keep their tradition of keeping costs down and minimizing their losses.

Quote:Original post by Morpheus011
the point is that nintendo doesn't care if they can compete on the graphics side of things. They know that good graphics don't make good games. Do you people know what the best selling video game system of all time is? The gameboy. Do you think the gameboy competes with the next gen consoles in graphics (or any console for that matter -- post 1982)? No! But it sells well because of a number of other factors. Factors such as playability, the accessibility of the content provided, and for other reasons as well. Nintendo doesn't want to compete in graphics because that's not the type of company they aim to be. The Revolution will have good graphics, but more importantly it will have a huge database of games to choose from (backwards compatability is a beautiful thing) and a garuanteed fun factor that the other consoles may loose sight of while making their games pretty. It's not called the nintendo graphics revolution nor will it claim to be. However, it will be fun as hell and provide new and interesting forms of gaming that will appeal to a broader audience then the other 2 can hope to reach.

*shakes head*

Come on, people. Work with me!

Quote:Original post by Hellmaster
Come on, people. Work with me!

I'm sorry, Hellmaster, but questions like these seem to attract the rabid console fanboys of all types, and your reasonable question about graphics hardware has been subverted into a flamewar. I'll reiterate what I think the answer to your question is, but keep in mind that I am not a graphics hardware expert, and haven't been keeping up to date with all the latest and greatest news about the new consoles. Also keep in mind that because I'm a PC and Nintendo gamer only (I don't consider myself to be a "rabid fanboy" because I see there are benefits in owning any of the consoles or a PC, it's just that this configuration is best for me), my knowledge is skewed towards those two systems.

If you Google for "nintendo revolution specifications", you'll find heaps of websites that list FAQ about the new console. However at this stage most of the details are still unknown. But comparing the Gamecube to the Xbox it is certainly possible that if the same thing occurs this round, Nintendo will easily remain "competitive" with the competition. Heck, even if you compare the PS2 to the Xbox, with an appropriately skilled team bringing the best out of the console the loss in graphics qualitiy will not be significant.

But my point still stands that until independant reviewers get their hands on all three next generation consoles, there's no way to accurately compare their performance. At the moment, the marketeers are busy putting their spin on all the numbers, trumpeting how many time faster zillion times their new console is from the previous generation; these are almost certainly inflated, given the past history of the console wars. It's possible that might be bottlenecks in their architecture, such as limited memory pipeline sizes or what-not (my hardware lingo is a bit rusty, sorry!). It's also possible that if the developer kits aren't friendly enough that the developers mightn't be able to use the new hardware to its full potential for a couple of years.

And in my case, I think that the revolutionary advances in console design, such as the move from 2D to 3D, using CDs instead of cartridges, interent access, the hard drive in the X-box, and the new Revolution controller, are more important than knowing that the graphics console X are 1.2 times better than console Y. Others may disagree, but that's why it's good that there are three different consoles to choose from.

Oh, and I wouldn't let the small size of the Revolution be any indicator of its lack of power; Nintendo have some very good hardware engineers and I'm sure they have already thought of ways to deal with any possible heat problems. Although if that picture is correct, I wish it wasn't quite so ugly...

Quote:Original post by Toji
*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.

You're probably right, but nobody will know for sure after the fact, then everybody will be Monday and Tuesday-morning quarterbacks and nobody will really care about the prior predictions.

That said though, at the risk of hanging on my petard I'd like to predict that the performance of the PS3 and XB360 won't be anywhere near as claimed. They may also likely not have the best games on their platforms, although I predict the XB360 will have a better go at it because I read somewhere that the developers working on the PS3 can't get the job done. Apparently they've run into a whole bunch of snags in designing their NG games due to the unusual hardware architecture and they can't get the software to do what they want. Then again that was back in July or so but I don't expect that the situation changed by a whole lot.

Remember the 90's with SEGA vs. SNES. People said the SEGA had so much better graphics, but then it turned out only Sonic was the major title on that platform when the SNES had a whole bunch despite the inferior graphics. The best technology doesn't always win, when it doesn't serve to perform or entertain as well in its implementation.

Quote:Original post by The C modest god
There is something you dont understand.
Normal people will buy a console because of the great racing game with the great gaphics they see. They dont have the chance to play several games of each console and then decide based on which games were more fun.
And I dont think that some one will prefer nintendo's console because of a controller that looks like a TV remote control.

You're thinking like a die-hard hardcore gamer. It doesn't look like you are their main intended audience. If they get some demo systems with fun little games in the store and let people play around with it a bit they might just forget about those shiny looking cars on the other system.

Quote:Original post by The C modest god
Also, I dont think it is such a big problem for other console to add later a contoller with similar capabilities such as nintendo's control.

But unless it's the standard controller that comes in the box, developers cant count on the consumer to have that controller, so any games made for it will be niche games like the eye toy titles.

Quote:Original post by The C modest god
What I really dont understand is all the claims that nintendo's games are "100% fun, and other consles games are 90% graphics and 10% fun".

I agree with you there. We'll have to wait until the systems come out, and make our judgment on a game by game basis.

Quote:Original post by The C modest god
The most fun games I have played have been mostly on the PC, and these games were not little kiddy fun games, games like civ, starcraft, virtua figther (sega) etc etc.

Well, the Revolution does seem to be the system best geared to bringing games similar to Starcraft and Civilization to a home console.

shmooove

Quote:Original post by WithoutRemorse
Remember the 90's with SEGA vs. SNES. People said the SEGA had so much better graphics, but then it turned out only Sonic was the major title on that platform when the SNES had a whole bunch despite the inferior graphics. The best technology doesn't always win, when it doesn't serve to perform or entertain as well in its implementation.

The SNES had better graphics than the genesis. The SNES had more color palettes available for sprites. It also had mode 7 which allowed for a 3D scrolling background plane. The Genesis did not. The SNES had a better sound chip. OTOH, the Genesis had a much better CPU.