View Full Version : Nintendo confirms low price and no Hi Def for Revolution
ZoinKs!
13-Nov-2005, 02:16
Didn't see this posted yet and figured it deserves it's own thread. No real surprises for us and it's not specific about price. But it's from an official source rather then just rumors and speculation.
CNN article (http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/10/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm)
"Value has been a key card for us this generation and we'll continue to play it," Fils-Aime told me. "Do I expect us to be at a lower price point than our competition? Yes I do. Have we determined a price yet? No we haven't."
"What we'll offer in terms of gameplay and approachability will more than make up for the lack of HD," he said.
Wasn't that already understood? With their "All-Access Gaming" Motto and all...
Back since E3 they said that they'll be cheaper, more affordable, than the PS3/X360.
BTW, and OT, but did Nintendo already said what controller(s) will be include in all the boxes?
I don't have an HDTV, but the omission of HD support is a kick in the balls. There's no getting around it.
I don't have an HDTV, but the omission of HD support is a kick in the balls. There's no getting around it.
It has to be framebuffer eDRAM related, or else there's no reason for them to say that it won't defintely not support HDTV resolutions.
ZoinKs!
13-Nov-2005, 02:44
Wasn't that already understood? With their "All-Access Gaming" Motto and all...
Back since E3 they said that they'll be cheaper, more affordable, than the PS3/X360.Sure, it was understood which is why I said "no real surprises." But it's official confirmation of it and also shows they're not changing on the high def issue.
BTW, and OT, but did Nintendo already said what controller(s) will be include in all the boxes?
That's not really off topic because the article mentions the subject. There's some other tidbits in there, too.
...will the Revolution ship with any of the auxiliary devices for the controller, a motion-sensitive unit that looks like a TV remote control? (Playing action titles, for instance, could almost demand a second device to facilitate movement in the game.) The answer? To be determined. "A lot of that will be driven by our first party games," said Fils-Aime.
It has to be framebuffer eDRAM related, or else there's no reason for them to say that it won't defintely not support HDTV resolutions.
Looking at this (http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/xenos/index.php?p=05#tiled) if they do 480p [Ed] with AA they should be able to do 720p without AA, I doubt if anyone would want but dev still would have that option...
wireframe
13-Nov-2005, 03:13
Ballsy move. It may not please the spec junkies, but if this was madated through a business vision, rather than a lack of resources and ability (hardly), I can only think that Nintendo may have seen a new tomorrow. Let's hope they don't completely alienate their current fans while making the rest of the World ones.
Personally, I have a difficult time imagining the price as the sticking point for the market. Rather, I think these devices have to become more multi-purpose to find their way into every home. In a sense, I think it has to become "and they play games.." rather than "they only play games." To me, the obvious is Internet/E-mail, movies and music, with Internet being a very broad subject. To be very clear, I don't mean multi-player online games. I mean it as a universal entertainment and information device. In this sense, I think Kutaragi has it right (if he ever really said it, I have only read it on here) that the Playstation will seek to replace the PC. Perhaps not for your word processor and spreadsheet, but certainly as your Internet communication device and forget about buying stand-alone DVD players.
It follows, naturally, that HDTV is a key component in such an evolution. Just try reading a web page on a SDTV and you will see why.
PS. In this sense, I think Apple may be well suited to compete. They would not need the most powerful gaming system, but they seem to know how to do "the rest".
Do I smell an unprecedented Apple/Nintendo merger/collaboration?
First it was not going optical media. Then it was online. Now it's HD.
In each instance, Nintendo is choosing to forego advances in technology, particularly technology which is undergoing widespread adoption.
Not just by its competitors in the console business but in other electronics/computer markets.
They've stayed profitable, mainly through first-party games and portables. But they are justly seen as catering to the kiddie demographic, hence market-share limited. They tried to get games which are more adult, such as the deal for the RE series, as well as Eternal Darkness, a "darker" Zelda, etc.
But their main demographic is graduating to more "adult" systems.
Hardknock
13-Nov-2005, 04:54
First it was not going optical media. Then it was online. Now it's HD.
In each instance, Nintendo is choosing to forego advances in technology, particularly technology which is undergoing widespread adoption.
Not just by its competitors in the console business but in other electronics/computer markets.
This is completely different because they are offering something substantial in it's place. Something their competitors are not offering. So it's a give and take. I don't mind the DS's inferior visuals because of the new gameplay experiences it provides. And that is ultimately what matters.
mr_arcam
13-Nov-2005, 05:09
There is another way to look at it. If they choose not to use HD resolutions they will potentially have more available performance for graphical effects and such. The amount of performance they will gain from fill rate and such will make it interesting when comparing the overall gaming experience to PS3 and XBOX 360.
If anyone remebers the N64, it had a very low resolution but it ended up providing a visual experience that in most occasions looked better than psx.
Just food for thought....
seismologist
13-Nov-2005, 06:13
It's ok as long as they support 16x9 and progressive scan.
Skrying
13-Nov-2005, 06:19
Less resolution for more effects? I see that happening. I see them being able to show off a ton of awesome effects, some neither Sony or MS could do.
I think Nintendo may get a little bit of the market back this time around. Not a lot, but I think this console will sell much better than the Gamecube.
I think N could just be meaning that HD won't be standard but dev could make an HD game if they want. It does not mean Rev cannot output HD games. But it is really BAD marketing on N's part to say that Rev won't have HD. They could have said that Rev will be HD enabled/ready like you have those HDTV ready/enabled sets. :wink:
Am I right?
Inane_Dork
13-Nov-2005, 06:42
Some think of the Rev as doing 480p better than the X360 or PS3 can do 720p. I do not understand that at all.
As for why no HD, maybe it cut down on the number of chips and ports. And maybe if they pushed the Rev into 720p (for ports, I'd guess), the graphics would look degraded even to the lay person.
Do I smell an unprecedented Apple/Nintendo merger/collaboration?If you mean "unprecedented" as in "hasn't happened before," yes.
If you mean it as "unanticipated," no, as you obviously are anticipating it.
IMO, Apple and Nintendo are two of the most headstrong and independent companies in the tech sector. Any merger or collaboration between the two would be a disaster for both.
Some think of the Rev as doing 480p better than the X360 or PS3 can do 720p. I do not understand that at all.
Its not doing 480p better than the other 2 do 720p. Its that 480p is a third of the pixels which requires a third of the power .
So nintendo can show up with a third of the xbox 360s power and output graphics at 480p that is on par with 720p xbox 360 videos .
I highly doubt 1/3rd thep ower but a good 60-75% of the power should allow it to have ports of xbox 360 and ps3 games with the only hit to image quality being 480p . They may even be able to add more fsaa on 480p
There is another way to look at it. If they choose not to use HD resolutions they will potentially have more available performance for graphical effects and such. The amount of performance they will gain from fill rate and such will make it interesting when comparing the overall gaming experience to PS3 and XBOX 360.
If anyone remebers the N64, it had a very low resolution but it ended up providing a visual experience that in most occasions looked better than psx.
Just food for thought....
PSX and N64 were the same resolution though, and I think N64 had more hires (640x480) games than PSX did.
If anyone remebers the N64, it had a very low resolution but it ended up providing a visual experience that in most occasions looked better than psx.
Well was the N64 that much cheaper than its competition? I don't believe so (but I'm not sure so ...)
In other words, you can't (relative to your competitors) magically have:
Cheap
Powerful
Close launch dates
Small
All in one tidy package.
I think Nintendo may get a little bit of the market back this time around. Not a lot, but I think this console will sell much better than the Gamecube.
I totally believe Nintendo will do quite a bit better than the GCN, which really did sell quite poorly. :(
Well was the N64 that much cheaper than its competition? I don't believe so (but I'm not sure so ...)
In other words, you can't (relative to your competitors) magically have:
Cheap
Powerful
Close launch dates
Small
All in one tidy package.
the n64 came out what almost 2 years after and was at 200$ which i believe is what the psone and saturn were at .
THe psone and saturn kept droping in price. However the n64 did have the graphical edge. But the cost of games were alot due to the carts.
I really think if the n64 was cd based it would have taken a much bigger share of the market. Mabye around 50m units instead of the 30ish it was able to do. The cost of the games(70ish usd) kept me away from it as i was only in highschool and that was alot to drop on a game .
Skrying
13-Nov-2005, 07:31
I think Nintendo can have though:
Cheap
Easily useable power
Close launch dates
Small size
I think the Revolution will once again be extremely easy to develop for, and this time hopefully Nintendo will honestly make an effort to get 3rd party support. Honestly if Nintendo can help 3rd party dev's with the Rev's controller and useful features then I believe they could do much much much better this time around.
I think Nintendo can have though:
Cheap
Easily useable power
Close launch dates
Small size
Then MS and Sony (and their partners) have fools for engineers.
Nintendo is going to concentrate on new game mechanics with that controller. Not only does the controller and sensors take up more of the budget which could have been used for graphics silicon, the games developers will be working on supporting the controller, not pushing the envelope graphics-wise.
What does high-res and better textures do for Mario? Not a whole lot because the style is for simpler edges and flat colors with little light shading. Was the Mario in Sunshine that much more detailed than the Mario in Mario 64? Maybe the lack of visual difference accounted partly for Sunshine not seeming to sell as well as Mario 64 did.
MrWibble
13-Nov-2005, 10:19
Its not doing 480p better than the other 2 do 720p. Its that 480p is a third of the pixels which requires a third of the power .
So nintendo can show up with a third of the xbox 360s power and output graphics at 480p that is on par with 720p xbox 360 videos .
I highly doubt 1/3rd thep ower but a good 60-75% of the power should allow it to have ports of xbox 360 and ps3 games with the only hit to image quality being 480p . They may even be able to add more fsaa on 480p
Assuming the shortfall in power is only down to fillrate and the really really expensive CPUs that MS and Sony developed are basically sitting idle for much of the frame and not doing any physics, AI, deformation, animation...
Personally I'm far more interested to know what the Rev CPU is capable of than the GPU.
Also, given that the last survey indicated that most people would be buying the Rev as a 2nd console rather than their only console, and assuming that the other two really are more powerful (does anyone think they won't be?) then why would ports be particularly interesting anyway?
If I buy a Rev it'll be for the exclusives.
Magnum PI
13-Nov-2005, 10:47
Also, given that the last survey indicated that most people would be buying the Rev as a 2nd console rather than their only console.
which survey ?
wireframe
13-Nov-2005, 10:56
I'll also add that for me, as a non-hardcore console gamer (but working on it), the rumor of being able to play and easily acquire (Internet?) the Nintendo back catalogue for Revolution would be a very strong driver for purchasing one. This single idea overshadows HDTV by miles. For the most part I just want games to be fun. I like to examine them for their technical "WOWEEEEE" factor (technical term), but to get hooked you need good games and good games don't necessarily require HDTV. In fact, I would say that games are what require HDTV the least, with other functions, like Internet/e-mail, being the main draw of this feature.
This rumor, or is it a promise, sounds a bit too good to be true, but if Nintendo come through with that I think they will be facing a race to buy their console. I figure most of those older games are rather small in size too, so it won't be a day long download to acquire them. Sounds like it could be a lot of fun.
I'm actually not too worried about Rev's 480p. GC is ace-looking on my 720p LCD TV via VGA.
What does high-res and better textures do for Mario? Not a whole lot because the style is for simpler edges and flat colors with little light shading. Was the Mario in Sunshine that much more detailed than the Mario in Mario 64? Maybe the lack of visual difference accounted partly for Sunshine not seeming to sell as well as Mario 64 did.
http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/mariosunbroll_052902_6.jpg
http://www2.fileplanet.com/images/110000/113366ss_sm.jpg
Another good comparison is SSB vs SSBM graphically. Some people cried "N65" about the GameCube when seeing SSBM as a first-gen title, but it completely blows away the N64 SSB graphically. Especially the character models.
MrWibble
13-Nov-2005, 12:59
which survey ?
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24556
Very low support for Rev as a single platform compared to the other two. Pretty much mirrors the opinion of people I know too - everyone is interested in at least one of X360 or PS3, but are largely undecided on Rev.
I hope it will be successful and have interesting titles, but I don't think anyone, including Nintendo, really think it'll be the only platform owned by anyone who's likely to play the kind of mainstream cross-platform titles.
Was the Mario in Sunshine that much more detailed than the Mario in Mario 64? Maybe the lack of visual difference accounted partly for Sunshine not seeming to sell as well as Mario 64 did.
What lack of visual difference? Mario Sunshine was many times better looking then Mario 64..
Also, given that the last survey indicated that most people would be buying the Rev as a 2nd console rather than their only console, and assuming that the other two really are more powerful (does anyone think they won't be?) then why would ports be particularly interesting anyway?
Even if that was true then the answer to your question would be the controller. There is no reason why ports of PS3/360 games couldn't use Revs controller to enhance the control. Not for all games of course, but I can see quite a few games that could be ported to Revolution and end up being the version to have due to the controller.
Powderkeg
13-Nov-2005, 13:51
I think the Revolution will once again be extremely easy to develop for, and this time hopefully Nintendo will honestly make an effort to get 3rd party support. Honestly if Nintendo can help 3rd party dev's with the Rev's controller and useful features then I believe they could do much much much better this time around.
There is only 1 thing that will significantly improve 3rd party support on Nintendo systems.
Nintendo gamers are going to have to prove they will buy large quantities of 3rd party games.
Nintendo can give as much assistance as they want. They can make all of the deals they want, but as long as Nintendo gamers stick to 1st party titles only with their purchases, you'll only see more 3rd party devs leaving Nintendo.
The bottom line is to make money, and that's something very few 3rd party devs can do on a Nintendo console.
The bottom line is to make money, and that's something very few 3rd party devs can do on a Nintendo console.
It's been that way since the end of the snes era.
Powderkeg
13-Nov-2005, 14:26
It's been that way since the end of the snes era.
Which is why the Xbox has twice as many 3rd party titles as the GCN, and the PS2 has over 10 times as many 3rd party games.
Magnum PI
13-Nov-2005, 14:43
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24556
an internet poll on a enthusiast forum ?
you can't be serious. :lol:
Magnum PI
13-Nov-2005, 14:51
I am very happy with gamecube graphics, if the graphics improvement for revolution is remotely like the one between gamecube and n64 it will be just great.
I never owned a N64 but played many time on a friend's one, and the difference in visual and framerate is dramatic.
Those who own zelda collector with the emulated ocarina of time can see what i mean.
Shifty Geezer
13-Nov-2005, 15:03
an internet poll on a enthusiast forum ?
you can't be serious. :lol:It's still more statiscally valid as a basis of opinion than no figures at all. It presents a fair, if not accurate, support for the common perception that Revolution will be bought mainly as a 'second' console for it's unique gameplay, rather than as a solo console. As a solo console it'll likely handle cross-platform titles less well than it's rivals, but it's purpose is primarily to serve a different style of electronic gaming, rather than serve up the same old systems. Hence for those that want to play existing franchises, they'd likely want an XB360 or PS3, and for those who want Revolution gaming, buy a Revolution, and those who want both, buy both. That's been the overall impression I've got from Nintendo, and this small poll on a console enthusiast forum agrees. If you've numbers from non-gamers saying they're keen to get Revolution for it's Revolutionary controls AND to play conventional games too, I'm sure we'd all love to see them! ;)
fearsomepirate
13-Nov-2005, 15:06
But their main demographic is graduating to more "adult" systems.
You must have missed Fils-Aime's long speech where he explained how the industry can't survive by targeting boys/young men between the age of 14 and 22. Sure, there'll be cool games for guys like us, but you need to stop thinking of us as Nintendo's "target demographic." Their target demographic is people who aren't playing video games or are getting tired of video games, and they're figuring that a higher screen resolution isn't going to be what entices them, kind of like how girls and adults prefer Nintendogs and Brain Training over Wipeout Pure and GTA: LCS. Nintendo's going through a paradigm shift, and part of that shift means that they're not focusing on people who get excited about SLI'd 7800 GTX's.
You can be assured there will be great games on the Revolution, but it's just not the piece of mind-bending pixel-generating technology that's targeted at people like you.
Which is why the Xbox has twice as many 3rd party titles as the GCN, and the PS2 has over 10 times as many 3rd party games.
Where did you pull those nonesense statistics from?...
MrWibble
13-Nov-2005, 15:19
an internet poll on a enthusiast forum ?
you can't be serious. :lol:
Are you suggesting that many people will wait for Revolution and have that as their only system?
In which case, right back at you...
Shifty Geezer
13-Nov-2005, 15:20
Well PS2 must have about that, if there's apparently 7000 PS2 titles for PS3 to be BC with.
You must have missed Fils-Aime's long speech where he explained how the industry can't survive by targeting boys/young men between the age of 14 and 22. Sure, there'll be cool games for guys like us, but you need to stop thinking of us as Nintendo's "target demographic." Their target demographic is people who aren't playing video games or are getting tired of video games, and they're figuring that a higher screen resolution isn't going to be what entices them, kind of like how girls and adults prefer Nintendogs and Brain Training over Wipeout Pure and GTA: LCS. Nintendo's going through a paradigm shift, and part of that shift means that they're not focusing on people who get excited about SLI'd 7800 GTX's.
You can be assured there will be great games on the Revolution, but it's just not the piece of mind-bending pixel-generating technology that's targeted at people like you.
The situation you describe fits the Japanese game market perfectly where console sales have fallen from their 1997 peak and handheld gaming is becoming more pronounced.
Nintendo's strategy is needed, but so is more power. You want to be able to immerse people in believable environments - this opens up new genres and new experiences. People, not just the target 18-35 demographic, want to see better graphics, better physics, and better animation. It's just like the movies - people want to see better FX.
Essentially both approaches are aiming for the same thing; better entertainment experiences, but they are innovating from different angles. They’ll both grow the industry.
Are you suggesting that many people will wait for Revolution and have that as their only system?
Maybe he's suggesting exactly what he said, that you can't take a poll like that as any kind of fact. Also just because you wouldn't consider having Revolution as your primary system doesn't mean other people wouldn't. Even according to the poll you set to much stock in 8-9 million people would :D. And that's before Revolution has really been revealed properly (no video's shown, no third party game announcements ect).
mckmas8808
13-Nov-2005, 15:29
You must have missed Fils-Aime's long speech where he explained how the industry can't survive by targeting boys/young men between the age of 14 and 22. Sure, there'll be cool games for guys like us, but you need to stop thinking of us as Nintendo's "target demographic." Their target demographic is people who aren't playing video games or are getting tired of video games, and they're figuring that a higher screen resolution isn't going to be what entices them, kind of like how girls and adults prefer Nintendogs and Brain Training over Wipeout Pure and GTA: LCS. Nintendo's going through a paradigm shift, and part of that shift means that they're not focusing on people who get excited about SLI'd 7800 GTX's.
While I dearly respect that a lot, Nintendo also has had a foot hold in the handheld space for over 15 years. With no true competition for 15 years you can make a paradigm shift and succeed easily. Give the PSP 2 to 4 more years and then when can return to your point.
It will be a lot harder to sell people brain training type game (aka non-games) to people in the console space. It's not impossible, it's just going to be a little harder.
P.S. Also don't forget that the PSP has already caught up to the DS in overall software sales in NA even though it had no holiday season and came out 4 months later.
Well PS2 must have about that, if there's apparently 7000 PS2 titles for PS3 to be BC with.
PS2 has 1350 third party titles either released or in development in the US. No way does PS2 have 5650 unique (not released in the US) third party titles released/in development in Japan/Europe. No doubt the 7000 titles said by Sony counts every version of each game, for instance a game that's released in the US, Japan and Europe will be counted three times.
mckmas8808
13-Nov-2005, 15:34
PS2 has 1350 third party titles either released or in development in the US. No way does PS2 have 5650 unique (not released in the US) third party titles released/in development in Japan. No doubt the 7000 titles said by Sony counts every version of each game, for instance a game that's released in the US, Japan and Europe will be counted three times.
YES.
Nintendo's strategy is needed, but so is more power. You want to be able to immerse people in believable environments - this opens up new genres and new experiences. People, not just the target 18-35 demographic, want to see better graphics, better physics, and better animation. It's just like the movies - people want to see better FX.
Absolutely better graphics, physics and AI are needed. But remember that Nintendo's stratergy includes all those things. Even if Revolution isn't as powerful as its competition it will still be a generation ahead PS2/GC/XBox.
the n64 came out what almost 2 years after and was at 200$ which i believe is what the psone and saturn were at .
THe psone and saturn kept droping in price. However the n64 did have the graphical edge. But the cost of games were alot due to the carts.
I really think if the n64 was cd based it would have taken a much bigger share of the market. Mabye around 50m units instead of the 30ish it was able to do. The cost of the games(70ish usd) kept me away from it as i was only in highschool and that was alot to drop on a game .
1st party (and usually 2nd party) games stayed around $50...3rd party games went up to $60 and $70 though (but most sucked), and games didn't really drop in price like on the PSX. PSX's player's choice series, combined with the general fall of prices, led to some very cheap older games, whereas most N64 games did not enter player's choice and when they did they only dropped to like $40.
Was the Mario in Sunshine that much more detailed than the Mario in Mario 64? Maybe the lack of visual difference accounted partly for Sunshine not seeming to sell as well as Mario 64 did.
It was a huge difference, Mario in Mario 64 was flat shaded with no textures.
However, the Mario in Super Smash Bros Melee was much better, with extremely detailed textures. In fact, pretty much every character model looked better in melee than in its actual games, in both fluidity of motion and texture quality. I know some people who don't like Melee's look, and say it has too much of an 'edge' or that it tries to make the characters look too realistic.(bowser got a lot of complaints)
BTW, I also know a few people who are fed up with current gaming that want a Rev, mostly for the old school games though, that and its position as the cheapest next gen console. The only people I know interested in Rev for the actual new stuff it will bring are hardcore Nintendo fans.
In other words, you can't (relative to your competitors) magically have:
Cheap
Powerful
Close launch dates
Small
All in one tidy package.
I dont need to be as powerfull as the others, in fact they can be much less powerfull (till 1/3) the only place they need to be equal (or almost) is the CPU, because for most people (more if they get new gamers) will not see difference between HD games and no HD.
fearsomepirate
13-Nov-2005, 16:27
Nintendo's strategy is needed, but so is more power.
They will have more power, just not as much more as their competitors. DS is a lot more powerful than GBA, remember? Gamecube was basically a DX7-equivalent machine with a little bit of extra elven magic. Expect Revolution to be a DX9-equivalent machine.
With no true competition for 15 years you can make a paradigm shift and succeed easily
And if you're getting your ass handed to you in a market, if you don't shift your paradigm, you will die. You also need a profitable paradigm, and they've decided that blowing billions to buy the most pixel shaders and pay off the most 3rd parties for exclusives is just way, way too risky. You'll see elsewhere in the speech, Reggie pointed out that the victor in the next race to grab the usual demographic with the most powerful technology isn't guaranteed to make any money.
DS had very few compelling titles in the US until Nintendogs hit, and now it's hitting its stride with a steady stream of must-have titles. Let's see how the two handhelds finish out the year...and let's see which company manages to make a profit.
This rumor, or is it a promise, sounds a bit too good to be true, but if Nintendo come through with that I think they will be facing a race to buy their console. I figure most of those older games are rather small in size too, so it won't be a day long download to acquire them. Sounds like it could be a lot of fun.
Its most definitely not just a rumour, its a 100% guarenteed feature of the console, I'm also looking forward to it BTW! :)
Dr Evil
13-Nov-2005, 16:45
most people (more if they get new gamers) will not see difference between HD games and no HD.
I doubt that most people are that blind, the difference is bigger than you make it sound. I know that some people have difficulties spotting differences between RGB vs composite, but the difference between 720p and 480p is bigger.
There's no evidence that whatever GPU the Revolution ends up using will be capable of the same kind of shading performance or support other things like AA or HDR at a level comparable to the Xenos and RSX. So just because it won't support HD resolutions doesn't necessarily mean it has the power to do these other effects.
In fact, has Nintendo shown any demos of Revolution-native games? Considering that the Revolution may launch around the same time as the PS3, it's overdue, isn't it?
Nintendo will probably feature the controller and new gameplay aspects then graphics of the Revolution games it features. If playing back the legacy games becomes a big part of whatever success the Revolution has, then it won't need great GPU performance.
mckmas8808
13-Nov-2005, 17:04
And if you're getting your ass handed to you in a market, if you don't shift your paradigm, you will die. You also need a profitable paradigm, and they've decided that blowing billions to buy the most pixel shaders and pay off the most 3rd parties for exclusives is just way, way too risky. You'll see elsewhere in the speech, Reggie pointed out that the victor in the next race to grab the usual demographic with the most powerful technology isn't guaranteed to make any money.
This I agree with.
If playing back the legacy games becomes a big part of whatever success the Revolution has, then it won't need great GPU performance.
If playing back the legacy games is that important to the Revolution buyers then Nintendo will die a horrible console death. Old games are great, but Nintendo shouldn't put too much weight behind it.
I doubt that most people are that blind, the difference is bigger than you make it sound. I know that some people have difficulties spotting differences between RGB vs composite, but the difference between 720p and 480p is bigger.
Because most people dont have, or will have anytime soon, HDTVs, we are talking about all the potential consumers not only tech heads people with money to buy HDTVs...
There's no evidence that whatever GPU the Revolution ends up using will be capable of the same kind of shading performance or support other things like AA or HDR at a level comparable to the Xenos and RSX. So just because it won't support HD resolutions doesn't necessarily mean it has the power to do these other effects.
They said something like it will be very similar when you see them in normal TVs, if one as (eg) HDR and the others does not then it is not comparable IMO.
In fact, has Nintendo shown any demos of Revolution-native games? Considering that the Revolution may launch around the same time as the PS3, it's overdue, isn't it?
We still dont know the PS3 lauch date, and we dont know nothing about Rev date (I supossse we can belive that is only after E3 once they need to show it at full hype) still I think it would be better point for Q3/Q406 there is very good reason to that here (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24920)
I doubt that most people are that blind, the difference is bigger than you make it sound.
Most of my friends will sit there and play Doom 3 at 640x480 on a Radeon 9800 and I say "look you can turn up the resolution" and they'll say "So it doesn't look any different, and its slower..". I can't understand it but there it is.
There's no evidence that whatever GPU the Revolution ends up using will be capable of the same kind of shading performance or support other things like AA or HDR at a level comparable to the Xenos and RSX. So just because it won't support HD resolutions doesn't necessarily mean it has the power to do these other effects.
There is no evidence to the contrary either. Also once again, if its rendering at one third the resolution then it doesn't need shading performance of the same level to complete. At one third the resolution even one third of the pixel shading performance would do.
mckmas8808
13-Nov-2005, 17:39
Because most people dont have, or will have anytime soon, HDTVs, we are talking about all the potential consumers not only tech heads people with money to buy HDTVs...
The fact that most people don't have HDTV's today shouldn't stop a company from using it in a product that will last for 5+ years. In 2008 most people in America will have a HDTV. This could possibly hurt Nintendo in the long run.
Incidentally I honestly doubt that this generation will last much longer then 4 years.
mckmas8808
13-Nov-2005, 17:53
Incidentally I honestly doubt that this generation will last much longer then 4 years.
Respectfully speaking I think it is absouletly no way next-gen will last 4 years. There has to be only like a 1% chance of that happening. Wouldn't the game publishers be mad if all 3 companies folded around the year 2010? And Sony has already stated that they want the PS3 to last ten years so...http://community.allhiphop.com/images/smilies/fragend013.gif
The fact that most people don't have HDTV's today shouldn't stop a company from using it in a product that will last for 5+ years. In 2008 most people in America will have a HDTV. This could possibly hurt Nintendo in the long run.
I am not american so I dont see why unless most of normal TV get damage and HDTVs are at the same price of no HDTVs ones or everyone get a lot of money to spend and it starts a epidemic hurge to buy HDTVs, I doubt any of those or something exotic like those, but in Europe at least it should take a lot longer anyway.
The fact that most people don't have HDTV's today shouldn't stop a company from using it in a product that will last for 5+ years.
But it can start one from selling at lower price with equal results for 5+ years, it just a different prespective.
Magnum PI
13-Nov-2005, 18:02
Are you suggesting that many people will wait for Revolution and have that as their only system?
In which case, right back at you...
I do not suggest anything.. The "revolution" sales as a second console could be largely surnumering its sales as a first console..
Maybe revolutions sales will be abysmal, may be it will be GC-level, or better...
Who knows ?
I don't know and you don't know either.
Respectfully speaking I think it is absouletly no way next-gen will last 4 years. There has to be only like a 1% chance of that happening. Wouldn't the game publishers be mad if all 3 companies folded around the year 2010? And Sony has already stated that they want the PS3 to last ten years so...
How long each console lives and how long the generation lasts isn't quite the same thing though. PS2 will probably still be technically alive for quite a few years to come but that doesn't mean that the next gen didn't just start at the end of 2005.
Magnum PI
13-Nov-2005, 18:23
It's still more statiscally valid as a basis of opinion than no figures at all.
However you consider it, it is not valid.
Whatever it tells, even it supports something that has be proven otherwise, an internet poll has no validity.
Do you need to be explained the limits of internet polls ?
Do you need to be explained what's wrong with a poll with a very tiny sample ?
Do you need to be explained what's wrong with a sample that is not representative ?
Most of my friends will sit there and play Doom 3 at 640x480 on a Radeon 9800 and I say "look you can turn up the resolution" and they'll say "So it doesn't look any different, and its slower..". I can't understand it but there it is.
Be fair now, you just dismissed a poll taken here with a much wider & uncontaminated audience than "most of your friends".
Magnum PI
13-Nov-2005, 19:45
you don't know, maybe teasy has many many friends ;)
Well in this country at least, most of the growth in TV sales have been in big screen TVs for at least 5 years.
And now, most of those big screens, certainly anything over 32 inches, is all HDTV.
So HDTV sales have been growing at high double-digits for at least the past two years. Now the volumes of sales of TVs under $400 may be higher but they are flat or negative even.
There's a reason why companies have spent billions in the last couple of years to build more and more flat panel manufacturing capacity. Prices are going down by double-digit percentages every year. I think I heard that by the end of 2006, a 40-inch plasma or LCD would be under $1500? I may not have heard that correctly but if it turns out to be the case, a lot of people who might have bought a nicer $700 32-inch analog TV might stretch and get that flat panel.
US should have over 20 million HDTVs by the end of 2005 or after the SuperBowl in 3-4 months. I believe HDTV sales are accelerating in Japan and South Korea as well. Europe should get a boost, unless the economy over there tanks further, with WC 2006.
Why people are so resistant to getting rid of 40-50 year analog TV technlogy is bewildering. Would you use computers from the same vintage? Or one of those giant tube radios?
Ty I said the poll shouldn't be taken as fact that's all. I didn't claim that comment you quoted was any kind of proof of anything either. It was just a relivant anecdote that came to mind when reading Dr Evil's post.
Why people are so resistant to getting rid of 40-50 year analog TV technlogy is bewildering. Would you use computers from the same vintage? Or one of those giant tube radios?
Meybe because most of the time they dont see beneficts enought too spend their hard worked money to get a new TV, in personal experince I think that most LCDs, Plasmas etc... look worst than normal TVs when I see them on the stores ( in all stores), it my be because of bad infrastrutures(?) but it still look bad and there is now content so the answer is simple.
Branduil
13-Nov-2005, 20:55
Sould Calibur 2 sold better on GC than any other platform. Tales of Symphonia and Resident Evil 4 also sold quite well on the GC. 3rd party games will sell on the gC as long as you take advantage of the platform. If you just release crappy ports with less features then yeah, they won't sell as well.
<nu>faust
13-Nov-2005, 23:08
Sould Calibur 2 sold better on GC than any other platform. Tales of Symphonia and Resident Evil 4 also sold quite well on the GC. 3rd party games will sell on the gC as long as you take advantage of the platform. If you just release crappy ports with less features then yeah, they won't sell as well.
i don't think it's just a problem related with ports or platform spesific content; nintendo never had (and most probably will not have) a diverse portfolio as its competitors since n64 ,also if you looked at sales charts you'd see that 6-7 of the top 10 selling titles on nintendo platforms are always developed by nintendo.
fearsomepirate
14-Nov-2005, 02:53
Most of my friends will sit there and play Doom 3 at 640x480 on a Radeon 9800 and I say "look you can turn up the resolution" and they'll say "So it doesn't look any different, and its slower..". I can't understand it but there it is.
There are so many anecdotal stories like this. One of my buddies thought Conker N64 was a Cube game when he was watching me play it because of the graphics (and he's seen me play Resident Evil 4 and Prince of Persia). Another friend of mine (only plays Xbox) thinks that Timesplitters 3 and Halo are on the same level graphically. We're so used to scrutinizing every graphical detail of game (omg this version doesn't have bloom lighting, wtf these reflections aren't truly real-time, lolz ur gfx card does lower precision HDR, where r teh stenciled shadows u guys?) that we've forgotten that the vast majority of people don't observe these details when they play games. Forget not being able to tell the difference b/w RGB and composite, many people can't tell the difference from one 3D game to the next assuming that both look remotely like what the artists intended.
FWIW, I think most commercial failures on the Cube were results of misjudging the userbase, and no, I don't mean it's "too kiddy." Cubers like to be catered to and pampered as opposed to being flung tablescraps from the PS2 library or ports of Dreamcast titles. Did any quality exclusives with a decent amount of hype fail? I say "decent amount of hype," because Eternal Darkness is usually offered as proof that cool games don't sell on Cube, but it was barely advertised, had rather ugly graphics, and had poorly-conceived packaging. To my knowledge, WWE: DOR, ToS, Baten Kaitos, Super Monkeyball, Viewtiful Joe, Rogue Leader, Rebel Strike, and RE0 all sold respectably well. Take an exclusive, announce a PS2 port, and watch interest among Cubers just die. Anyone think Killer7 would have been more successful if it had been exclusive? Interest just evaporated around various Nintendo forums when the PS2 version was announced, and there obviously wasn't any PS2 interest to begin with.
expletive
14-Nov-2005, 03:01
This is completely different because they are offering something substantial in it's place. Something their competitors are not offering. So it's a give and take. I don't mind the DS's inferior visuals because of the new gameplay experiences it provides. And that is ultimately what matters.
Yes but what they are offering is not mutually exclusive to HD support. Why couldnt they have both?
I guess it all will come to down to price in the end and consumers will have to decide if no HD is worth saving a few bucks. The same way PS3 consumers will have to decide if BR is worth spending a few extra.
Scott_Arm
14-Nov-2005, 04:08
I think not supporting HD is a mistake. Even though most people don't have HDTVs yet, consoles are typically around for a pretty long time. Nintendo choosing not to build online capabilities into the Gamecube was not a big loss in any way. I think deciding to drop HDTV support could be very bad for their business throughout the life of this console. The problem is, a lot of people don't buy the consoles right at launch. They wait until the price comes down after a year or two. The way they're waiting for the price to come down on HDTVs and HDTV broadcasting right now. Maybe it won't affect Nintendo out of the gate, but two years from now, I think it could be a big blow to sales.
Powderkeg
14-Nov-2005, 06:09
You must have missed Fils-Aime's long speech where he explained how the industry can't survive by targeting boys/young men between the age of 14 and 22.
That would be right, but not for the reason you are thinking.
The average age of a video gamer is 24. If you are targeting the under 22 crowd, you're not targetting the majority of gamers.
So no, in order for the industry to survive, it needs ot target the 22+ gamers, since they make up the majority of the gaming market now.
Magnum PI
14-Nov-2005, 07:01
The average age of a video gamer is 24. If you are targeting the under 22 crowd, you're not targetting the majority of gamers.
That is wrong. An average does not imply that you have one half under the average and one half above. For example you can very well have cases like that:
Ten gamers:
Eight gamers being 20
Two gamers being 40
Average => 24 years
And 80% of gamers being less than 22.
So no, in order for the industry to survive, it needs ot target the 22+ gamers, since they make up the majority of the gaming market now.
The industry as a whole needs as much money as possible therefore it needs to address everyone through products adressed to different audiences.
As long as is big enough to support the product you designed for it, there is no problem to address a minor market.
PC-Engine
14-Nov-2005, 08:47
P.S. Also don't forget that the PSP has already caught up to the DS in overall software sales in NA even though it had no holiday season and came out 4 months later.
I heard PSP was behind by over 1million units in Japan and the gap is widening each and every week.
In fact, has Nintendo shown any demos of Revolution-native games? Considering that the Revolution may launch around the same time as the PS3, it's overdue, isn't it?
Revolution is launching in the fall while PS3 is launching in spring. So far there's only PS3 tech demos and CGI movies. When SONY releases actual playable PS3 games then we can talk about Revolution tech demos.
rabidrabbit
14-Nov-2005, 09:05
Sorry 'bout going a bit off-topic, but I'll soon get into it...
One thing that's been puzzling me is the "sensor" things that you're supposed to put on the sides of your TV (also on top and bottom?).
Are they running on batteries, or is there wires and they're connected to the mains, are they "wireless"? Do they need to be coneected with wire to the Revolution?
If they are not completely wireless, i.e. not needing to be connected to the mains, to the Revollution or to each other, then I can see there could be a problem when used with bigger displays, like some 50" plasma or even 120" HD (see, here's where I get back to topic ;) ) projector screens.
So. if people would like to use the new controller with their very big HD screens, even though Revolution wouldn't display in HD, would they be able to attach those sensor far enough from mains/Revolution/each other??
Cornman
14-Nov-2005, 09:15
I heard PSP was behind by over 1million units in Japan and the gap is widening each and every week.
Revolution is launching in the fall while PS3 is launching in spring. So far there's only PS3 tech demos and CGI movies. When SONY releases actual playable PS3 games then we can talk about Revolution tech demos.
nintendo hasn't confirmed a launch date...
Thunder Emperor
14-Nov-2005, 09:43
nintendo hasn't confirmed a launch date...
cornman pm me what do you know, or at least what are you theories.
PC-Engine
14-Nov-2005, 10:43
nintendo hasn't confirmed a launch date...
Yeah you're right they haven't announced a date. Fall is not a date, it's a timeframe.:wink:
mckmas8808
14-Nov-2005, 13:58
I heard PSP was behind by over 1million units in Japan and the gap is widening each and every week.
You're right they are behind 1 million in Japan. But in NA they caught Nintendo very fast.
I think not supporting HD is a mistake. Even though most people don't have HDTVs yet, consoles are typically around for a pretty long time. Nintendo choosing not to build online capabilities into the Gamecube was not a big loss in any way. I think deciding to drop HDTV support could be very bad for their business throughout the life of this console.
Lack of a online infastructure on GC was a bigger problem then lack of HD will ever be IMO. At the end of the day lack of HD will never stop a developer from making a Revolution game, not like lack of online put off some developers on GC.
The problem is, a lot of people don't buy the consoles right at launch. They wait until the price comes down after a year or two.
But ask yourself why do they do that? Most people do that because at launch consoles like PS3 and XBox 360 are too expensive for the average gamer. Hence the cheaper price of Revolution.
dopefishzzz
14-Nov-2005, 18:13
Didn't see this posted yet and figured it deserves it's own thread. No real surprises for us and it's not specific about price. But it's from an official source rather then just rumors and speculation.
CNN article (http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/10/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm)
No High-Def ?
They just losed my money.
Why would anyone buy another 640 X 480 console.
Just for the controller ?
Shifty Geezer
14-Nov-2005, 18:24
Why would anyone buy another 640 X 480 console.
Just for the controller ?Just for the games even :roll:
dopefishzzz
14-Nov-2005, 18:30
Just for the games even :roll:
Yeah, but nintendo always rehash the same games :roll:
Shifty Geezer
14-Nov-2005, 18:36
Yeah, but nintendo always rehash the same games :roll:Yeah, I'm sure we won't see any new games that work in totally new ways because of a totally new controller :roll: . Nintendo may rehash characters, but I don't know that they rehash games to any great degree. :roll:
(oooo, I'm just asking for trouble with all these rolley-eyes! :mrgreen: )
darkblu
14-Nov-2005, 18:40
dunno 'bout the rollies but you do seem to be running for the 'troll feeder of the day' award : )
Guden Oden
14-Nov-2005, 18:49
No High-Def ?
They just losed my money.
Yeah, because we all know graphics is more important than anything else...
fearsomepirate
14-Nov-2005, 18:51
Why would anyone buy another 640 X 480 console.
Just for the controller ?
Why would anyone buy another thumbstick-based console? Just for the screen resolution?
Why would anyone buy another thumbstick-based console? Just for the screen resolution?
OT:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Nintendo has 7 billion in cash and no debt. Meanwhile Sony has about as much in cash and a lot of debt yet they are willing to open up their bank account to produce a state-of-the-art system.
No doubt, innovation and gameplay are the most important elements in video games, but it's not an either/or proposition of gameplay vs. graphics. Instead of trying to justify a potential technologically inferior system compared to the 360 and PS3, we should ask Nintendo to be the most innovative AND have the best technology. We should ask that for every console maker. Competition is how you drive quality.
They probably could do a tech monster, but they dont want one and the principal reason is price, it is a different tatic of getting more costumers.
Plus IMO they are putting a lot of competion when it came the time to buy games, if you want (eg) UT07 and you can buy it on PS3/XB360 using normal controllers (and relativelly bad) or you can buy it using one of the best ever (or it looks, sounds and some how had a try on it say) controllers for FPS will you chosse HD over gameplay, because if you chosse the Rev version remember that the mos t money they (all) do come from the games, I think that most will/would chosse the Rev version, so as I said they will put a lot of competion on them.
Powderkeg
14-Nov-2005, 19:51
They probably could do a tech monster, but they dont want one and the principal reason is price, it is a different tatic of getting more costumers.
Plus IMO they are putting a lot of competion when it came the time to buy games, if you want (eg) UT07 and you can buy it on PS3/XB360 using normal controllers (and relativelly bad) or you can buy it using one of the best ever (or it looks, sounds and some how had a try on it say) controllers for FPS will you chosse HD over gameplay, because if you chosse the Rev version remember that the mos t money they (all) do come from the games, I think that most will/would chosse the Rev version, so as I said they will put a lot of competion on them.
Not to be picky but anyone buying a system just for UT2007 will be upgrading their PC, not messing with a console.
The Revolution will have the same rotation speed limitations that a thumbstick has. There is a limit on how far you can move the controller while still keeping it pointed at the TV, just like there is a limit on how far a thumbstick can move. Anything beyond that point is speed limited by the game.
A real FPS junky would still take a mouse.
Other game types however are an entirely different matter.
Not to be picky but anyone buying a system just for UT2007 will be upgrading their PC, not messing with a console.
The Revolution will have the same rotation speed limitations that a thumbstick has. There is a limit on how far you can move the controller while still keeping it pointed at the TV, just like there is a limit on how far a thumbstick can move. Anything beyond that point is speed limited by the game.
A real FPS junky would still take a mouse.
Other game types however are an entirely different matter.
1-How said only for UT07 (eg means: for example).
2-As long as I know you can use the controllers as a mouse if you (dev) want, or if it still the best way.
3- You should try before say that the FPS still are better in a mouse.
Powderkeg
14-Nov-2005, 20:09
1-How said only for UT07 (eg means: for example).
And my last sentence should have indicated so was I.
2-As long as I know you can use the controllers as a mouse if you (dev) want, or if it still the best way.
3- You should try before say that the FPS still are better in a mouse.
It's a limitation of the design. You can't do an instant 180 degree turn because you would be facing backwards and couldn't see the TV. Therefore there is a limit on how far you can turn the controller and beyond that the game takes over and your rate of rotation is limited by the game.
That's the whole reason why PC FPS gamers prefer the keyboard/mouse combo. They can adjust the rotation speed to insane rates where a flick of the wrist could send them spinning like a top.
Readykilowatt
14-Nov-2005, 20:17
Meh. Much ado about nothing. Most people are going to be playing their Revolutions/PS3s/Xbox 360s on SDTVs through composite cables.
Cornman
14-Nov-2005, 20:20
And my last sentence should have indicated so was I.
It's a limitation of the design. You can't do an instant 180 degree turn because you would be facing backwards and couldn't see the TV. Therefore there is a limit on how far you can turn the controller and beyond that the game takes over and your rate of rotation is limited by the game.
That's the whole reason why PC FPS gamers prefer the keyboard/mouse combo. They can adjust the rotation speed to insane rates where a flick of the wrist could send them spinning like a top.
for the final time the REV controller IS NOT a lightgun. Nintendo said it tracks in 360 degrees and can even detect twists.
stop trolling the thread.
But if you can use the controller like a mouse (once it does have total 3D control and 3D rotations too, you could simple ignore (in the software) one of the dimensions and the rotation and you get a mouse, or add more things) I dont see why not will it be good (it is said to be at least as precisse as a mouse too), plus the thumbstick is better for walk/run/step to the side... (at least IMO), so it can be as good as a mouse, unless I got something wrong if I did, please, explain me.
for the final time the REV controller IS NOT a lightgun. Nintendo said it tracks in 360 degrees and can even detect twists.
stop trolling the thread.
But, it can be one too:wink: .
PC-Engine
14-Nov-2005, 20:24
for the final time the REV controller IS NOT a lightgun. Nintendo said it tracks in 360 degrees and can even detect twists.
stop trolling the thread.
Yep I remember reading MP allows you to turn 180 degrees with the Revolution controller without having to turn around like an idiot.
dopefishzzz
14-Nov-2005, 20:48
Yeah, because we all know graphics is more important than anything else...
I know It's not. BUT. We have 640 X 480 since what... 1995 ? Ever heard a word called "progress" ?
I just can't stand that low of a resolution anymore. It's plain ugly. No game can really stand out graphically at 640 X 480. And it looks even worse on HDTVs.
Point is, with High-Def, Ninentendo could have played in the fields of X360 and PS3.
I know It's not. BUT. We have 640 X 480 since what... 1995 ? Ever heard a word called "progress" ?
I just can't stand that low of a resolution anymore. It's plain ugly. No game can really stand out graphically at 640 X 480. And it looks even worse on HDTVs.
Point is, with High-Def, Ninentendo could have played in the fields of X360 and PS3.
I don't think there was a 640x480i game released till 1998...
Then 640x480p wasn't around till 1999(and dreamcast's 640x480p looked much better than current consoles, if rev has perfect IQ at 640x480 that wouldn't be so bad).
Then we took a step back with ps2 and went to 640x240.
then back up to 640x480p with gamecube and xbox.
mckmas8808
14-Nov-2005, 22:43
Well I've already seen reviews that state playing a Xbox 360 game in HD makes a big difference than playing it in SD so what does this mean?
Powderkeg
14-Nov-2005, 22:43
for the final time the REV controller IS NOT a lightgun. Nintendo said it tracks in 360 degrees and can even detect twists.
stop trolling the thread.
I didn't say it was a lightgun twit. I simply said that it has a limit on how quickly you can turn.
Powderkeg
14-Nov-2005, 22:45
Yep I remember reading MP allows you to turn 180 degrees with the Revolution controller without having to turn around like an idiot.
I remember that it allowed you to circle strafe, but I can do that in Halo using a gamepad.
If you read something that says it will let you do a 360 spin as fast as a mouse let me know.
If you read something that says it will let you do a 360 spin as fast as a mouse let me know.
If it can be used like a mouse...
Powderkeg
14-Nov-2005, 22:52
But if you can use the controller like a mouse (once it does have total 3D control and 3D rotations too, you could simple ignore (in the software) one of the dimensions and the rotation and you get a mouse, or add more things) I dont see why not will it be good (it is said to be at least as precisse as a mouse too), plus the thumbstick is better for walk/run/step to the side... (at least IMO), so it can be as good as a mouse, unless I got something wrong if I did, please, explain me.
For you, I'll explain.
There are sensor bars placed on the top and side of your TV for the Revolution controller. The controller acts like a mouse as long as it's pointed somewhere within the confines of those sensors.
Once the controller it pointed outside of the sensor box (Beyond the edge of the TV screen) the game takes over and controls rotational speed.
If it didn't, 2 things would happen.
#1. In order to turn 180 degrees you would physically have to turn around and face away from the TV screen.
#2. There would be a single point forward. In otherwords, if forward was north in your game and you turned to the left, you (Or at least your hand) would have to stay turned. The only way you could point the controller at the TV again is if you turned back north in the game.
Resolution is largely irrelevant to graphics quality. I can watch a 320 x 240 movie on my little 3" LCD on my PDA and it looks incredibly good. Even a movie at 320 x 240 from a crappy VCR tape on a 36" TV looks better than any current game. No game on earth has even come close to reproducing a virtual reality indestinguishable from a movie even in plain old NTSC resolution.
I realize there are other issues in generating computer based graphics that higher resolutions help with (AA for example) but raw resolution is a small facet of the final image quality for movies and games in motion.
Powderkeg
14-Nov-2005, 22:53
If it can be used like a mouse...
I can use a thumbstick like a mouse.
Shifty Geezer
14-Nov-2005, 23:00
If you read something that says it will let you do a 360 spin as fast as a mouse let me know.Ummm, how's about instead of a 360 degree spin you just keep facing the way you are? :p
It'd be easy enough to have a quick turn button that when you hold down and flick your wrist left or right the character turns a 180 in that direction.
Resolution is largely irrelevant to graphics quality. I can watch a 320 x 240 movie on my little 3" LCD on my PDA and it looks incredibly good. Even a movie at 320 x 240 from a crappy VCR tape on a 36" TV looks better than any current game. No game on earth has even come close to reproducing a virtual reality indestinguishable from a movie even in plain old NTSC resolution.
I realize there are other issues in generating computer based graphics that higher resolutions help with (AA for example) but raw resolution is a small facet of the final image quality for movies and games in motion.
Bah, you can't compare real life to a digital image. You could say real life has an infinite resolution, and just the output res is 320x240, if current games were rendered internally at 2048x2048 and output at 640x480, they would look significantly better as well. The Silent Hill games on PC I believe have an option to set the backbuffer up to 2048x2048, it kills performance but it does look much better.
For you, I'll explain.
There are sensor bars placed on the top and side of your TV for the Revolution controller. The controller acts like a mouse as long as it's pointed somewhere within the confines of those sensors.
Once the controller it pointed outside of the sensor box (Beyond the edge of the TV screen) the game takes over and controls rotational speed.
Why do you need to point to your TV? If it is needed then you couldnt play those sword fighting/fishing/tennis/... games like they show in the video , unless I am making a major error in my knowledge (http://cube.ign.com/articles/651/651559p1.html) about the Rev control, I never heard that is need to point to the TV (it not even make sence considering the video) unless you use it like a light gun.
Powderkeg, your knowledge of the Revolution controller is absolutely terrible. Sorry but if your going to bad mouth the thing at every opportunity then surely its only right to try to find something out about the controller. All it takes is for you to read a hands on article...
The Revolution will have the same rotation speed limitations that a thumbstick has. There is a limit on how far you can move the controller while still keeping it pointed at the TV, just like there is a limit on how far a thumbstick can move. Anything beyond that point is speed limited by the game.
As people have pointed out to you a thousand times it is not a pointer. The speed of movement in game does not have to work linearly with the movement of the controller. The controller can be made to cover the entire screen with only very small subtle movements, or it can be made to work linearly like a pointer, its down to the developer/user to configure it how they want it (just like a mouse which you can configure to move very slowly or very quickly).
fearsomepirate
15-Nov-2005, 00:38
I remember that it allowed you to circle strafe, but I can do that in Halo using a gamepad.
And I could do that in Doom using a keyboard. Doesn't mean I prefer it.
fearsomepirate
15-Nov-2005, 00:45
I just can't stand that low of a resolution anymore. It's plain ugly. No game can really stand out graphically at 640 X 480. And it looks even worse on HDTVs.
Yeah, I always thought that Metroid Prime and Rebel Strike were indistinguishable from high-res N64 games like Duke Nukem 3D right and Rogue Leader, graphically speaking. Must have been the low resolution.
Powderkeg
15-Nov-2005, 01:01
Why do you need to point to your TV? If it is needed then you couldnt play those sword fighting/fishing/tennis/... games like they show in the video , unless I am making a major error in my knowledge (http://cube.ign.com/articles/651/651559p1.html) about the Rev control, I never heard that is need to point to the TV (it not even make sence considering the video) unless you use it like a light gun.
We are talking about First person shooters specifically, in which case you would need to point it at the screen like a lightgun.
Powderkeg
15-Nov-2005, 01:09
Powderkeg, your knowledge of the Revolution controller is absolutely terrible. Sorry but if your going to bad mouth the thing at every opportunity then surely its only right to try to find something out about the controller. All it takes is for you to read a hands on article...
As people have pointed out to you a thousand times it is not a pointer. The speed of movement in game does not have to work linearly with the movement of the controller. The controller can be made to cover the entire screen with only very small subtle movements, or it can be made to work linearly like a pointer, its down to the developer/user to configure it how they want it (just like a mouse which you can configure to move very slowly or very quickly).
Wow, you really don't get it, do you?
Here, let me make an example for you.
Pretend your finger is the Revolution controller. Point your finger at the center of your monitor screen.
Now, let's say you are playing an FPS. You are walking forward. Someone attacks you from 90 degrees to the right.
Now, to turn you have to point the controller 90 degrees to the right. Once you've found your target you must leave the controller aimed 90 degrees to the right and try to aim. If the target moves another 90 degrees to the right you must point the controller directly away from the TV and try to aim.
Now, is that how you think it's going to work? Do you think any developer in his right mind would make a FPS where you had to face away from the TV to fight enemies behind you?
The only other alternative is you place a limit on how far left/right/up/down the controller needs to be moved and allow the game to take over the rotation once that limit has been exceeded.
For example. You point the controller to the right edge of the screen and it rotates until you see your target and then you stop rotating and aim by pointing at your target.
Now, which of those two ways of control do you think sounds more intuative?
I get it and its not an issue, in fact its the same 'issue' that faces you when you use a mouse every time you play a FPS. Just instead of lifting the mouse from the mat to stop movement while you quickly recenter your holding a button on the controller to stop movement while you quickly recenter. Also once again the on screen movement does not have to be effected linearly by the movement of the controller. So no a 90 degree movement on screen does not neccesarily require a 90 degree movement of the controller.
The only other alternative is you place a limit on how far left/right/up/down the controller needs to be moved and allow the game to take over the rotation once that limit has been exceeded.
I've been thinking that they will do some other scheme whereby rotation is mapped to a different input (say a thumbstick for the left hand) and the gun is merely used for mouse-looking up to the edge of the screen.
OtakingGX
15-Nov-2005, 02:24
There are many control schemes that could be mapped to the freestyle controller. One is a direct 1:1 method, which I'm 100% sure would never be used in an FPS.
How about this? Inside a 90 degree cone in front of you the aiming reticle is slaved to your movements, but your character turns 4 degrees for every 1 degree you turn (now you can aim behind you by turning your wrist only 45 degrees). Outside of this range your character will turn continuously even if you keep the controller in the same place, and faster the further you are from the cone. To execute a quick 180, jerk the controller to the left, outside the cone, then back in to aim at your target. Then, you can also make use of the much lauded light gun feature by pushing the controller forward. This frees your view from your hand movement and just your gun will track the controller position, so you can shoot something in the corner of the screen quickly without having to center your vision on it.
Sounds to me like a much more prolific input scheme for an FPS than a gamepad or mouse/keyboard.
There are many control schemes that could be mapped to the freestyle controller. One is a direct 1:1 method, which I'm 100% sure would never be used in an FPS.
Well I doubt it would be 1:1 (1 degree for 1 degree) simply for the fact that most FPS games have an FOV of at least 90 degrees whereas a monitor doesn't display a 90 degree arc to the person unless they are sitting pretty close to it. Afaik anyhow.
How about this? Inside a 90 degree cone in front of you the aiming reticle is slaved to your movements, but your character turns 4 degrees for every 1 degree you turn (now you can aim behind you by turning your wrist only 45 degrees).
The problem with this then, is that what you are aiming at via the controller is NOT what the center point of the screen is aiming at, which is typically your gun. Maybe if your gun barrel swiveled (i.e. you could aim away from the center point of the screen as well) it might work.
I also wonder how sick this might make people as well (motion sickness).
Perhaps Nintendo isn't going to make FPS shooter games like UT2004?
OtakingGX
15-Nov-2005, 04:07
Well I doubt it would be 1:1 (1 degree for 1 degree) simply for the fact that most FPS games have an FOV of at least 90 degrees whereas a monitor doesn't display a 90 degree arc to the person unless they are sitting pretty close to it. Afaik anyhow.Better yet, you could have 1:1 control, within, say, 15 degrees from directly forward. Then 3:1 within the next 15, and then finally 8:1 for the last remaining 15 degrees. Or perhaps a more continuous transition, but you get the idea.
The problem with this then, is that what you are aiming at via the controller is NOT what the center point of the screen is aiming at, which is typically your gun. Maybe if your gun barrel swiveled (i.e. you could aim away from the center point of the screen as well) it might work.I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you mean that the point that you're pointing at in space does not correspond to something on the screen, then yes, you're right, because the controller is not being used as a light gun. Likely you're not even pointing directly at the TV screen. To "swivel" your gun barrel you push the controller forward. Now your gun does follow exactly what you're pointing at on the TV screen.
As far as thumbstick use goes, I envision it as being just for movement. So up/down is forward and back and left/right causes you to strafe. You could even get really complex and tighten the cone while strafing so that you can turn quicker to execute a circle strafe.
I also wonder how sick this might make people as well (motion sickness).
Perhaps Nintendo isn't going to make FPS shooter games like UT2004?I imagine the usual motion sickness and epileptic seizure warnings would apply. I don't see using a freestyle controller to contributing to additional motion sickness. If anything, it might lessen the effects. Usually motion sickness comes about due to a disparity between what the body feels and what the eyes see. Perhaps being able to feel how you're moving in the game would alleviate that for people who get sick playing 3D computer games.
And I'm sure Nintendo won't be making UT2K4 style shooters, but I bet Retro will be making a Metroid game and many publishers will be exploring the FPS possibilities on it.
Li Mu Bai
15-Nov-2005, 08:32
And I'm sure Nintendo won't be making UT2K4 style shooters, but I bet Retro will be making a Metroid game and many publishers will be exploring the FPS possibilities on it.
NSTC is currently working one futuristic fpser, Retro, Ubi Soft, & others as well. Two internally produced fpsers, as well as others Nintendo will be publishing. Nice interface control ideas btw.
fulcizombie
15-Nov-2005, 09:51
Nintendo shouldn't push the "We have the cheap console" slogan so much because by the time the revolution comes out ,the xox360 core console could cost 199$ so the price "advantage" of the rev. could ,potentially,be thrown out of the window.
YeuEmMaiMai
15-Nov-2005, 10:30
I will buy the next Nintindo console once it reaches the magic price point ($99) untill then I got a PS2 and NGC to keep me company not to mention one monster of a gaming rig.........
Shifty Geezer
15-Nov-2005, 10:37
Here, let me make an example for you...Just to agree with the other's who've rsponded, you're only imagining one control scheme. There's other ways to do things that wouldn't be so restrictive. It's a 3 dimensional controller with D buttons, pointer and thumbstick attachment. They could keep the pointer function for aiming, and have the thumbstick for turning, turning faster/slower depending on how near the edge of the screen you were aiming. Or use twisting of the controller to turn, with thumbstick to strafe. Or use an area outside the frame of the screen for turning, with the more you point the controller away from the screen, the faster you turn. Or use the D-buttons as quick turns, to the left 90 degrees, right 90 degrees, 180 on the down button. And any number of combinations that they test and refine. And any number of other systems that I haven't covered.
I think the main reason you don't see the controller as a good thing is a lack of imagination, and you're trying to map existing control schemes onto a different device. How to get mouse and keyboard onto a Rev controller, instead of hoe to make the most of the Rev controller through a new interface.
Powderkeg
15-Nov-2005, 12:41
They could keep the pointer function for aiming, and have the thumbstick for turning, turning faster/slower depending on how near the edge of the screen you were aiming.
Then you lose your strafe.
Or use twisting of the controller to turn, with thumbstick to strafe.
Which is precisely the scheme I described.
Or use an area outside the frame of the screen for turning, with the more you point the controller away from the screen, the faster you turn.
Which relies on the game to control your actual rate of turning, just like I said.
Or use the D-buttons as quick turns, to the left 90 degrees, right 90 degrees, 180 on the down button.
Which again leaves the game in control of your rate of turning.
And any number of combinations that they test and refine. And any number of other systems that I haven't covered.
Which so far hasn't been anything I didn't already cover.
I think the main reason you don't see the controller as a good thing is a lack of imagination, and you're trying to map existing control schemes onto a different device. How to get mouse and keyboard onto a Rev controller, instead of hoe to make the most of the Rev controller through a new interface.
I think your imagination has run wild.
The Revolution is nothing more than a slightly different way of entering in the same control inputs. Up, down, left, right, forward, back, tilt, buttons, thumbstick. That's the controller, and it's inputs are just like every other controller. The only difference is how those inputs are made. Instead of pushing a stick, you push the controller.
There is no magical Revolution inputs. It's not issuing commands to the console that no other controller can make.
Now, I realize that for the typical Nintendo "fan" it's much easier to say "Oh Powderkeg is just trolling" rather than to let go of your rose tinited dreams, but here is a little fact.
You can either have a 1:1 ratio of controller movement to game movement, or you can let the game control the rate of movement.
That's it, there is no other choice, and all of your fanatical Nintendo support isn't going to change that fact.
Now, since I doubt any developer will ever have you face away from the TV to make game inputs then I think we can safely assume that rate of movement will be limited by the game.
If you are going to say I am wrong then why don't you try telling me how you can do a 360 degree circle with a 1:1 ratio of controller movement to game movement without having to turn the controller in 360 degrees as well.
Because if you don't have to turn the controller 360 degrees then you aren't getting a 1:1 ratio of controller to game movement, in which case the game is controlling the rate of movement, not you.
Shifty Geezer
15-Nov-2005, 13:12
The Revolution is nothing more than a slightly different way of entering in the same control inputs. Up, down, left, right, forward, back, tilt, buttons, thumbstick. That's the controller, and it's inputs are just like every other controller. The only difference is how those inputs are made. Instead of pushing a stick, you push the controller.I'm not really arguing that. I'm talking about your idea Rev isn't suiotable for FPS. But to be clear Rev does offer more than a PC. A DS2 has four analogue DOF (ignoring analogue buttons). A PC has two analogue DOF (mouse). The Rev controller has 5 (pitch, title, yaw, thumbstick forward/back, thumbstick left/right).
EDIT : Actually doesn't Rev contoller have another 3 analogue inputs in position in 3D space. There's pitch, yaw, tilt, vertical position, horizontal position, ummm...z position, thumbstick forward/back and thumbstick left/right. You can move the controller laterally as well as turning and twisting it.
Because if you don't have to turn the controller 360 degrees then you aren't getting a 1:1 ratio of controller to game movement, in which case the game is controlling the rate of movement, not you.Huh? A mouse isn't a one-to-one ratio of movement. To turn 180 degrees you move your mouse 1" or 2" or half an inch, depending on the control speed settings of the game/mouse.
A PC with FPS has a 2 dimensional analogue mouse input, mapping mouse speed to movement rate, and a collection of digital buttons. These buttons are mapped to strafe, move and quick turn say, in simple on/off action. There's no variation to speed of sidestepping left; just left or not. Using these two input methods the game is controlling the rate of movement. You run, turn and strafe at the speed the game is set to. Your quick turn key turns you 90 degrees. Your mouse turns you as quick as you set the mouse sensitivity.
A DS2 controller provides 2 2D analogue input in the thumbsticks, and several buttons (also analogue but rarely used as much). Using a thumbstick to turn you the game controls the rate of movement based on how much you push the stick, exactly the same as a PC game controls the rate of movement mapped onto the mouse. The L1/R1 buttons could be mapped to a 90 degree turn each direction, same as the PC.
The Rev controller provides 3 1D analogue inputs in pitch, yaw and roll angles, plus a 2D thumbstick, plus several digital buttons. You can thus use one of the 1D inputs for turning, the other two for pointing, and the 2D controller for analogue motion forwards and sideways.
Now maybe I'm being amazingly thick, but what on earth are you managing to do on PC that you can't do on Revolution? And how on earth is the Revolution limited to the game deciding how fast you can move any different to a PC? I don't at all understand what you mean by leaving the game in control of your rate of motion. That's the same in any software. You only move as fast, turn as fast, jump as high and aim as quick as the software enables you to.
I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore Powderkeg, its not getting through.
BTW Shifty I was reading Edge Magazines big Revolution article recently in there TGS issue (well it was more like a Revolution issue to be honest but it was supposed to be a TGS issue :)). In that article Edge mention that when the thumb stick is attatched to the Revolution controller it can then also detect movement like the main controller! So you could use it for stuff like leaning round walls and ducking ect while simultaneously aiming with the main controller and moving with the analog stick.
And our imagination still on somewhat more conventional controls, BTW you can also think in fast movements (fast rotations with the arm (clock like), or with the wristle ... for automatic moves like the U-turn)
I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore Powderkeg, its not getting through.
BTW Shifty I was reading Edge Magazines big Revolution article recently in there TGS issue (well it was more like a Revolution issue to be honest but it was supposed to be a TGS issue :)). In that article Edge mention that when the thumb stick is attatched to the Revolution controller it can then also detect movement like the main controller! So you could use it for stuff like leaning round walls and ducking ect while simultaneously aiming with the main controller and moving with the analog stick.
Really, that is so:cool: :grin: :cool:
Magnum PI
15-Nov-2005, 18:22
No High-Def ?
They just losed my money.
Why would anyone buy another 640 X 480 console.
Just for the controller ?
I don't buy a resolution, I buy a console, and while a better resolution will improve appearance of games and make them more immersive, a new controller will add to, as it will allow new forms of interactions, new kinds of gameplay.
better resolution = incremental progress
new controller = innovation
OtakingGX
15-Nov-2005, 19:01
You can either have a 1:1 ratio of controller movement to game movement, or you can let the game control the rate of movement.You obviously didn't read either of my posts before you said this. I detailed in them precisely a way to do this.
To simplify things, don't think of your mouse as your input, but your mousepad. Now place that square surface in front of you. Instead of moving a mouse around on it, you point at locations on it with the freestyle. There, now you could turn 360 degrees without having to become a contortionist and touch the back of your hand to your forearm.
As I pointed out, you can make the system much more sophisticated and elegant, and incorporate the light gun feature into the input mechanism as well.
Powderkeg
15-Nov-2005, 19:04
I'm not really arguing that. I'm talking about your idea Rev isn't suiotable for FPS.
I didn't say it wasn't suitable.
Why don't you stop being such a blind fanperson and actually address what I did say instead of making stuff up?
But to be clear Rev does offer more than a PC. A DS2 has four analogue DOF (ignoring analogue buttons). A PC has two analogue DOF (mouse).
The PC also has the keyboard, but I don't guess it ever occured to you to map the other 2 DOF's to the keyboard, did it?
The Rev controller has 5 (pitch, title, yaw, thumbstick forward/back, thumbstick left/right).
EDIT : Actually doesn't Rev contoller have another 3 analogue inputs in position in 3D space. There's pitch, yaw, tilt, vertical position, horizontal position, ummm...z position, thumbstick forward/back and thumbstick left/right. You can move the controller laterally as well as turning and twisting it.
Forward, back, move left, move right, lean left, lean right, jump, duck, and a mouse to look up, down, left and right.
Yep, I can do all of that on a PC. In fact, I have a hard time remembering the last PC FPS where I didn't do all of that.
What what does this have to do with my point? Or are you just going off on some tangent because you cannot dispute my point?
Huh? A mouse isn't a one-to-one ratio of movement. To turn 180 degrees you move your mouse 1" or 2" or half an inch, depending on the control speed settings of the game/mouse.
A mouse can be and often is a 1:1 ratio of movment. If the mouse ball rotates 360 degrees you rotate 360 degrees in the game. I can adjust this to make it more or less depending on my own preferences.
But with the Revolution controller, you have no adjustment unless the game allows you one, and you are depending on the game to control your rotational speed.
blah blah blah
Your mouse turns you as quick as you set the mouse sensitivity.
Precisely.
Can you say the same about the Revolution controller, or is the sensitivity setting up to the developer?
Using a thumbstick to turn you the game controls the rate of movement based on how much you push the stick, exactly the same as a PC game controls the rate of movement mapped onto the mouse.
So, you look with the thumbstick, move with the controller, and aim with what? The thumbstick, since that's what controls your looking?
And aiming with a thumbstick is supposed to be better than a mouse? If that was true than every gamepad already made is better than a mouse. Why is it most people prefer the mouse then?
Oh, and FYI, turning with the thumbstick still leaves you with a limited rotational speed.
Now maybe I'm being amazingly thick, but what on earth are you managing to do on PC that you can't do on Revolution?
Turn 3 complete 360 spins in less than 1 second, and still get a per-pixel accuracy on aiming.
And how on earth is the Revolution limited to the game deciding how fast you can move any different to a PC?
Load up any FPS on your PC. Take your mouse and as fast as you can move it to the right as far as you can.
The result will be something you cannot do using the Revolution controller.
I don't at all understand what you mean by leaving the game in control of your rate of motion. That's the same in any software. You only move as fast, turn as fast, jump as high and aim as quick as the software enables you to.
Not true. With a PC I have 3 adjustments to speed. There is in-game sensitivity which can limit the speed, which is exactly what you will get with the Revolution.
But, with the PC, I can also increase the sensitivity in the OS.
I can also adjust the sample rate of the hardware itself.
The end result is I can move faster than what the game was designed for, and yet still maintaining that per-pixel accuracy.
This is the whole reason why FPS fans have preferred the mouse/keyboard to any other controller for over a decade.
But with the Revolution controller, you have no adjustment unless the game allows you one, and you are depending on the game to control your rotational speed.
How the do you know that? Where do get this incredible insider info Powderkeg? You started off complaining and bashing the Revolution controller and now you've changed tack to software. Basically saying that if for some reason a game won't let you change sensetivity and if Nintendo also don't allow it to be configured then there will be a limit on how fast the controller moves on screen, well duh! That isn't a limit of the controller at all and there is no reason why sensetivity wouldn't be configurable. You're argument is similar to claiming that a mouse wouldn't work on a console because it somehow wouldn't be configurable..
Can you say the same about the Revolution controller, or is the sensitivity setting up to the developer?
I don't know, do you know? Your claiming that the Revolution controller has certain limits and then bringing up completely fictional software based limits, what's the point of doing that other then to be a total fan-boy?
Load up any FPS on your PC. Take your mouse and as fast as you can move it to the right as far as you can.
The result will be something you cannot do using the Revolution controller.
How is that something you wouldn't be able to do with the Revolution controller? :lol:
PC-Engine
15-Nov-2005, 19:31
I don't know, do you know? No you don't, your claiming that the Revolution controller has certain limits and then brining up completely fictional software based limits, what's the point of doing that other then to be a total fan-boy?
This is a common tactic ie come up with rediculous fantasy scenarios to support your argument when all else fails.:smile:
Powderkeg
15-Nov-2005, 19:43
How the do you know that? Where do get this incredible insider info Powderkeg?
Read the thread. I already explained this.
The rest of your post is nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Too busy defending the system you're a fan of to even bother reading what I've said, and no attempt whatsoever to understand my point.
Powderkeg
15-Nov-2005, 19:45
This is a common tactic ie come up with rediculous fantasy scenarios to support your argument when all else fails.:smile:
His response? Yes, I agree.
But I would love for you in your infinite wisdom to explain how you can turn 360 degrees in the game without turning the controller 360 degrees, and yet have no limit on rotational speed.
If you think you're smart enough, of course.
PC-Engine
15-Nov-2005, 19:56
His response? Yes, I agree.
But I would love for you in your infinite wisdom to explain how you can turn 360 degrees in the game without turning the controller 360 degrees, and yet have no limit on rotational speed.
If you think you're smart enough, of course.
I think the burden is on you to prove it cannot be done which so far you've failed to do beyond fantasy scenarios. :wink:
In fact I already have a solution to your artificial roadblock, but I'd rather watch you futily argue your point. It makes for good comedy.
If you were smart you wouldn't go around arguing about how you cannot use a DVD slim drive in Revolution because the drive cost $200. :lol:
You haven't explained any such thing Powderkeg and please save your "you haven't read the thread, you don't understand" excuses for another forum.
PC-Engine
15-Nov-2005, 20:11
I'll be nice and give a hint at possibilites.
Virtual desktop-like panning in conjunction with acceleration of controller movement. For example like a mouse you can control sensitivity AND acceleration. For Revolution acceleration would only kick in when you're pan outside of the immediate window. The faster you pan when you reach the outer edge the faster you turn. To spin you simply flick left or right beyond the tv screen at a higher speed than when aiming. In fact this is how the fishing controller on DC works. To hook a fish you snap the controller back or to the side.
Shifty Geezer
15-Nov-2005, 20:15
I didn't say it wasn't suitable.
Why don't you stop being such a blind fanperson and actually address what I did say instead of making stuff up?Wow. Wasn't only yesterday someone else was accusing me of being a Sony sixstar with nothing but vilified hatred for all things Nintendo? :lol:
The PC also has the keyboard, but I don't guess it ever occured to you to map the other 2 DOF's to the keyboard, did it?Not analogue, which means they're off or on, rather then a degree of freedom.
Forward, back, move left, move right, lean left, lean right, jump, duck, and a mouse to look up, down, left and right.
Yep, I can do all of that on a PC. In fact, I have a hard time remembering the last PC FPS where I didn't do all of that. What what does this have to do with my point?I was talking about input modes. You said Revolution controller offers no more input options then existing methods, but it offers, by my reckoning, 8 analogue inputs versus a PCs 2. You can run forward and left and lean right perhaps, but on Revolution can you choose how much you run forwards, and left, and lean right.
A mouse can be and often is a 1:1 ratio of movment. If the mouse ball rotates 360 degrees you rotate 360 degrees in the game. I can adjust this to make it more or less depending on my own preferences.
But with the Revolution controller, you have no adjustment unless the game allows you one, and you are depending on the game to control your rotational speed.Huh?! An analogue input provides a signal strength, and you map that onto a multiplier when you use it. The software receives a signal 'The controller is turned x degrees pitch, y degrees yaw, z degrees roll' etc and the developer decides how to use it. Will one degree of x rotation be mapped as to one degree of rotation in the game? Or five? Or allow a sensitivity slider for the gamer to choose? Exactly the same as a mouse or thumbstick or analogue flight yoke or steering wheel. When you say the Revolution's controller has no adjustment for sensitivity except in software, netiher does your mouse! You can't change the ball size in your mouse to change the ratio of distance to rotation. It's all done through software.
So, you look with the thumbstick, move with the controller, and aim with what? The thumbstick, since that's what controls your looking?How's about you look and aim by pointing at what you want to look/shoot at?
And aiming with a thumbstick is supposed to be better than a mouse? If that was true than every gamepad already made is better than a mouse. Why is it most people prefer the mouse then?Who said that? I never said that.
Turn 3 complete 360 spins in less than 1 second, and still get a per-pixel accuracy on aiming.[quote]Why on EARTH do you want to do three 360 spins in a second? Still if you want to, have the down button on the Rev controller perform an instant 180 degree spin, and press it several times while still getting the benefit of a 'point and shoot' gun.
[quote]Not true. With a PC I have 3 adjustments to speed. There is in-game sensitivity which can limit the speed, which is exactly what you will get with the Revolution.
But, with the PC, I can also increase the sensitivity in the OS.
I can also adjust the sample rate of the hardware itself.
The end result is I can move faster than what the game was designed for, and yet still maintaining that per-pixel accuracy.
This is the whole reason why FPS fans have preferred the mouse/keyboard to any other controller for over a decade.But those are three controls all affecting the same thing. As long as the game covers the needed range who cares? Nintendo's hardware isn't fundamentally limited by design. And TBH what you're asking to do sounds crazy anyway. A soldier in a battlefield won't be spinning around 3 turn in 1 second and getting perfect aim! Even though that sort of gameplay would be possible on Revolution I can't see much reason to bother. I'd rather have the position of the controller realistically mimcking my characters positioning, peeping up or around objects by moving the controller, looking around by turning the controller, pointing at targets to targets them, etc. If you want to stick to less realistic methods like only having a duck/stand button instead of being able to gauge how much to duck or stand, and a walk/run button instead of being able to decide gradients between sneaking, walking, jogging and running, that's fine. Personally, with my Nintendo Sixstar Glasses that i wear on days I'm not hating Nintendo and discrediting everything they do, I think an intuitive control system that fits into two hands offering easily accessible 8+ DOF analogue input is pretty whizzo. I've never liked the crazy 50+ controls of PC shooters.
For you, I'll explain.
There are sensor bars placed on the top and side of your TV for the Revolution controller. The controller acts like a mouse as long as it's pointed somewhere within the confines of those sensors.
Once the controller it pointed outside of the sensor box (Beyond the edge of the TV screen) the game takes over and controls rotational speed.
If it didn't, 2 things would happen.
#1. In order to turn 180 degrees you would physically have to turn around and face away from the TV screen.
#2. There would be a single point forward. In otherwords, if forward was north in your game and you turned to the left, you (Or at least your hand) would have to stay turned. The only way you could point the controller at the TV again is if you turned back north in the game.
Obviously, for fps. style games, one of the buttons will have to be reserved for a "lift mouse" like function. Or alternatively you could pull slightly back on the controller to "lift it" from an imaginary surface.
I know It's not. BUT. We have 640 X 480 since what... 1995 ? Ever heard a word called "progress" ?
I just can't stand that low of a resolution anymore. It's plain ugly. No game can really stand out graphically at 640 X 480. And it looks even worse on HDTVs.
Point is, with High-Def, Ninentendo could have played in the fields of X360 and PS3.
BS! We have a looong way to go before 640x480 is "exhausted". As long as we are not able to do completely believable scenes in real-time, higher resolutions is like getting slightly better glasses; it's the same reality only a bit sharper.
Personally I'd much rather see better textures, lighting and geometry before higher resolution. As long as the output is progressive and updated at 60fps.
Magnum PI
15-Nov-2005, 20:44
when someone is constantly lowering the standards of the forum by trollings and derailing threads with schizophenic arguing, mods should ask themselves if he belongs to this place , maybe other forums would be more adequate for him.
Powderkeg
15-Nov-2005, 21:39
Wow. Wasn't only yesterday someone else was accusing me of being a Sony sixstar with nothing but vilified hatred for all things Nintendo? :lol:
I don't know about that, but unless you can either quote precisely where I said the controller wasn't suitable or retract your claim, I will accuse you of being a liar.
Not analogue, which means they're off or on, rather then a degree of freedom.
Irrelevent.
I was talking about input modes. You said Revolution controller offers no more input options then existing methods, but it offers, by my reckoning, 8 analogue inputs versus a PCs 2. You can run forward and left and lean right perhaps, but on Revolution can you choose how much you run forwards, and left, and lean right.
Again with your made up BS.
I NEVER said anything about input modes, or input options. Not once.
I only commented on one single aspect of control in one signe genre of game. Nothing more. And analog or digital, thumbstick or controller, button or trigger makes absolutely ZERO difference to what I said..
Huh?! An analogue input provides a signal strength, and you map that onto a multiplier when you use it. The software receives a signal 'The controller is turned x degrees pitch, y degrees yaw, z degrees roll' etc and the developer decides how to use it. Will one degree of x rotation be mapped as to one degree of rotation in the game? Or five? Or allow a sensitivity slider for the gamer to choose?[/quote]
Wrong.
On rotation specifically. Turning around in a circle in a FPS. There is only 1 input being discussed here, and it's incredibly different on the Revolution controller than a mouse.
Exactly the same as a mouse or thumbstick or analogue flight yoke or steering wheel. When you say the Revolution's controller has no adjustment for sensitivity except in software, netiher does your mouse!
No, mice are different. In a mouse, the "sensitivity" rate is how far the ball rotates translated into on-screen movement. The higher the sensitivity, the less ball movement it takes to achieve the same degree of in-game movement.
But the SPEED at which it moves is limited by one thing, and one thing only.
Your arm.
You can spin as fast as you can move your arm or wrist. Your only limitation on rotation speed is how quickly you can move.
Why on EARTH do you want to do three 360 spins in a second?
You've never played PC FPS's before, have you?
There is this tactic called Circle Strafing. Basically you rotate to the side as you run around your opponent in a circle, always keeping your gun pointed to the center of the circle. Often times, especially online, your opponent will do the same thing.
Now, the normal tactic to beating your opponent when both of you are circle strafing is to cut into his circle. In otherwords, you turn faster than him, and cut inside if his aiming point.
This normal, every day tactic is impossible using any other controller but a mouse or trackball. Joysticks, thumbsticks, and yes, your precious Revolution controller are all incapable of matching that rate of turn because they all have a maximum limit on how far the controller can be moved or rotate, and beyond that limit the speed or rotation remains constant.
What ends up happening is you and your opponent circle each other at the exact same rate, and instead of being a tactical fight you end up with a contest of simply who shoots first, or who has the biggest gun. You may as well not bother circle strafing at all, because there is no advantage to be gained by doing it.
Since all of these aspects seem to be beyond your grasp, perhaps you should not continue this debate until you have at least familiarized yourself with PC FPS gaming, and the tactics normally employed by it's fans, and the reason behind the controller prefences that exist in that specific genre.
Powderkeg
15-Nov-2005, 21:42
when someone is constantly lowering the standards of the forum by trollings and derailing threads with schizophenic arguing, mods should ask themselves if he belongs to this place , maybe other forums would be more adequate for him.
When a member cannot debate a point rationally without having to accuse one who disagrees of "trolling" perhaps he isn't mature enough to take part in these discussions.
There is one truth to life. Absolutely NOTHING is perfect. If you can't handle someone pointing out the flaws, that would be a problem with your own fragile little ego, not a problem with the other person.
If you ever have any doubts about my point why don't you try wandering into a PC-specific gaming forum, preferrably specializing in FPS's, and ask them if they would prefer the Revolution controller or their mouse for aiming and ask for their reasons. See what kind of answer you get.
fearsomepirate
15-Nov-2005, 21:47
For what it's worth, I'm surprised no one has done this. All I did was take some X360 images, rescale them to 480 widescreen (using linear interpolation to simulate FSAA), then upscaled them back using linear interpolation (to simulate scaling on a high-end HDTV), then did one with no interpolation (maybe some HDTV's don't interpolate?):
PD0 @ 720p:
http://www.ms.uky.edu/~jstrodtb/pcvsconsole/perfect-dark-zero.jpg
PD0 @ 480p w/ linear interpolation:
http://www.ms.uky.edu/~jstrodtb/pcvsconsole/perfect-dark-zero1.jpg
PD0 @ 480p w/o linear interpolation:
http://www.ms.uky.edu/~jstrodtb/pcvsconsole/perfect-dark-zero2.jpg
PGR3@ 720p:
http://www.ms.uky.edu/~jstrodtb/pcvsconsole/pgr3.jpg
@ 480p w/ interpolation:
http://www.ms.uky.edu/~jstrodtb/pcvsconsole/pgr31.jpg
@ 480p w/ no interpolation:
http://www.ms.uky.edu/~jstrodtb/pcvsconsole/pgr32.jpg
So assuming that Nintendo's claim of "no visible difference at 480p" claim is true (to be honest, I have my doubts...I think Revo will probably have less than 256 MB of RAM, possibly 128 MB), the graphics will be fine. Yeah, there's a visible difference, but it's not the nightmare doomsday scenario some of you guys are making it out to be.
Powderkeg
15-Nov-2005, 21:49
You know, it's really sad.
I have said something bad about all 3 systems. I've bagged on the 360 for it's lack of memory bandwidth, it's overpriced peripherals, the lack of a standard hard drive, and it's limited disk size. I've commented on the PS3's lack of efficiency in design, it's poor online plan, it's limitations on RAM usage, it's ugly controller, and it's probable price.
Why is it the only group of people who have little name-calling hissy fits over what I say are Nintendo fans?
Powderkeg, for what we know the Revolution controller works exactly like a mouse, only it can also measure depth and it doesn't require that you have a flat surface nearby.
For FPS. games the major difference is that you can not disconnect the reading of the movement by lifting the mouse when you run out of space, but that could easily be achieved, like I said in an earlier post, by pressing a button or doing a very small gesture with the controller.
Rodéric
15-Nov-2005, 22:18
That thread wasn't meant to discuss the Controller.
If you want to do so, feel free to create another thread about this very topic, in which YOU WILL PROPERLY EXPLAIN YOURSELF, ALL OF YOU.
Because the feeling I get from reading it is that none of you is commited to make his vision understood by the others.
(It looks like : it can, no it can't, yes it can, no it can't...)
On a side note, I fail to see how the Revolution Controller is any different from a mouse in the narrow field of FPS controls, since my mouse only travel in a small area, just like revolution's controller would only rotate to the limits of my wrist.
But as I said that's for another topic.
There are gyroscope mice for sale at Best Buy (and presumebly other places), they're just mice that work by tilting a little joystick thing.
And back in the days of DOS/SNES/Genesis, I had a gyroscopic joystick. It was hard to keep it centered (you could almost never stop moving), but I'd imagine a game made specifically for it wouldn't have the same problems. Not sure of precision, genesis and snes games were 2d anyhow, and it's not like the various doom clones I had on pc even supported aiming, let alone analog movement.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.