How can Nintendo make comparable graphics to its competetors next gen?

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... :(

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").

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 ^^

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

Original post by Toji 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.

I don't think Microsoft will ever become another Sega (are you referring to Genesis or Dreamcast?); how much money has X-Box cost them already? Sony's got a lock on some fantastic franchises, along with impressive console specs. I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon either. Just my opinion.

" 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? "

Have you not heard about the controller for the nintendo rev??
Gameplay isn't all about graphics... hell, the ordinary housewife hardly cares (they still tetris and the like ...) . It's about gameplay.

Don't get me wrong, everyone likes nice graphics ... but there is a max up to which you should care about it.

Quote:

Original post by stylin how much money has X-Box cost them already?

Four billion [grin]

I enjoy mentioning that

I am not sure gameplay creativity is the strong side of nintendo.
I think nintendo has many fans from past days.
How much creative you have to be to make a 1000 mario games?
Nintendo is like the britney spears of video games. Her music sucks, but a lot of people like it. Guess its the same.
(All nintendo fans dont get too angry from my cynical post )

I don't think Nintendo will ever be the system for the "Gamer". Nintendo is all about doing something different and making fun little games. They have done it with Mario Party time and again. The games that I personnally really like on Gamecube are probably the games that the normal "Gamer" might think are a waste of time.

If I wanted FPS and Racing games, I don't think I would have choosen the GC but what I want is a bright and color game that I can pick up and enjoy for a while.

I don't know if I will be getting a Next Gen console but I can say that if I do it will be the Revolution, hopefully there are more Mario Parties on the way.

If Nintendo uses a common off the shelf graphics chipset, they could make it cheaper and still powerful enough to compete with the XBox 360 and PS3.

I think its the begining of the end for nintendo.
This is the strategy of a dying console, the cheaper lower techonligy system.
It has been attempted before, by sega.
Nintendo might do more games for little kids, but I dont think their games are heaps more innovative and fun frmo games in other consoles.
If in the previous consoles nintendo didnt have much greater success then the other consoles with the same graphics power, why do you think they will do better when their graphics power is less then the other consoles?

The nintendo rev should be very well suited for fps thanks to their new controller design

Doesn't anyone pay attention to what's going on in the world of consoles? Not one console maker is designing & manufacturing their graphics chip. Sony is using an nVidia chip. Microsoft and Nintendo are using ATI. The Revolution won't be significantly underpowered compared to the others. And for those who don't know, the PS2 is a weaker system than the GC, both in graphics and CPU power.

Quote:

Original post by sit 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.

But the Rev. is smaller than the GC and is supposed to be more powerful. Cause what I keep hearing from people is that the Rev.'s small size will make it impossible (at the current moment, anyway) to be as good looking as the other two.

I want the maximum specs that the Rev. can hold for all the factors that I've named (size and affordablility).


Edit: By the way, guys. There are other non "kiddy" games on a Nintendo system you know :rollseyes: