[pc999]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/555/555497p1.html

IGN: If the Xbox 2 launches in 2005, will the Revolution launch in 2005 to combat it? Or will it wait for the PS3 in 2006?

Reggie: Y'know, that's a great question...

Mostly about DS

[Inane_Dork]

What we've said and what we're trying to communicate is that graphics have been pushed as far as they can go.

Go back to sales and marketing, please.

[cthellis42]

Graphics will NEVER be "pushed as far as they can go." But they certainly can be pushed "beyond the point of their being profitable." I don't think we're there yet either--developers and publishers will simply be altering their gameplan. There is easily significant leaps we can make from what we see now, though.

[Jaybird376]

Originally Posted by cthellis42

Graphics will NEVER be "pushed as far as they can go." But they certainly can be pushed "beyond the point of their being profitable." I don't think we're there yet either--developers and publishers will simply be altering their gameplan. There is easily significant leaps we can make from what we see now, though.

I don't think that's actually what he's implying by the statement. If you look at the quote in the interview, you have to look at the rest of the statement. "What we've said and what we're trying to communicate is that graphics have been pushed as far as they can go. Driving down that path will likely not lead to innovations in gameplay."

I don't think the implication is that graphics can't be pushed further, it's that focusing on graphics won't get you any further from a gameplay perspective.

Fairly realistic 3D environments have been achieved, what more can you do? Detail can be added, more involving and realistic graphics can also be achived, but these things compliment the existing style of gameplay. Without a change in some other aspect of gaming, creating a truly unique and new gaming experience is exceedingly difficult.

I don't mind Nintendo focusing on changing the perspective of gaming, I just wish they would be more intelligent about how they market their approach. The way they articulate it now is fairly confusing and can be misinterpreted.

[Inane_Dork]

Originally Posted by Jaybird376

I don't think that's actually what he's implying by the statement. If you look at the quote in the interview, you have to look at the rest of the statement. "What we've said and what we're trying to communicate is that graphics have been pushed as far as they can go. Driving down that path will likely not lead to innovations in gameplay."

I don't think the implication is that graphics can't be pushed further, it's that focusing on graphics won't get you any further from a gameplay perspective.

Having the second part moves the inquisition, but does not make it any better. That is my opinion, anyway.

With both sentences, the implication is that Nintendo doesn't care about any hardware they don't see as advancing innovation. But as a maker of hardware, it is there business to care about more than that. I fully agree we should be advancing in ways to play games. And I agree it's important for hardware makers to think about those things.

People will buy tech advances for at least one more generation. With respect to the certain technical heavyweights that the X2 and PS3 will be, it just doesn't seem smart to be advertising that you don't care about that major selling point.

[McFly]

Better graphics can do a lot for games that try to mimic reality, like racing simulations, sport games, ... and for games that use athmosphere to suck players into the game, like survival horror. Then with better CPU's, you can simulate better physics, better AI ... there will always be an use for more power, we are not even close to the limit of naturaly interacting game worlds.

Fredi

[Readykilowatt]

I've always agreed with Nintendo and their stance on graphics. From a sales point of view (with respect to home consoles), it is the technology that "surrounds" the chipset (GPU/CPU/RAM/ etc.) that is important, not how technologically advanced the chipset is. For example, I am sure that the N64 would have had a bigger install base if it had a CD drive instead of a cartridge slot. With all that said though, I think that the Revolution will be the most powerful console next generation, but as usual, the casual gamers will be far more interested in the games and not just "power and pretty graphics". What new features and functions will Nintendo add to the Revolution to make it attractive against a Blu-ray equipped PS3? We will have to wait and see.

[Teasy]

Then with better CPU's, you can simulate better physics, better AI ... there will always be an use for more power, we are not even close to the limit of naturaly interacting game worlds.

AI and physics and "power" weren't actually mentioned though. He said graphics cannot take gameplay further not stuff like AI and physics.

Personally I think if he's talking about an entertainment experience in games then graphics can still take that further in a lot of games. But I also agree that only focusing on better graphics in the next gen will lead to just another generation of the same games. I would expect Nintendo not to focus on only graphics, but still to realise they need better graphics then last gen to compete with Sony and MS (I'm sure they will have that). After all a lot of this innovation over graphics is being referenced to DS. But DS still has a large improvement in graphics over GBA.

I also agree with people who say that its an extremely bad idea for Nintendo not to be clearer when they say stuff like this. Because single quotes from them on this subject often sound like they are denouncing graphics all together and are going to just release a new system with the graphics of GC and new features. Which of course we know isn't true, from various other quotes and facts we've seen. But a lot of people will see quotes such as the one above and get that idea, which is terrible PR IMO.

[cthellis42]

Originally Posted by Teasy

I also agree with people who say that its an extremely bad idea for Nintendo not to be clearer when they say stuff like this. Because single quotes from them on this subject often sound like they are denouncing graphics all together and are going to just release a new system with the graphics of GC and new features. Which of course we know isn't true, from various other quotes and facts we've seen. But a lot of people will see quotes such as the one above and get that idea, which is terrible PR IMO.

Yeah, that would be my main complaint. The WAY they are saying things just gets me worried. They could phrase it much better, but since they keep trying to condence their comments to the same two-or-so soundbytes, I just get worried that they are trying to do damage control really early to cover up a deficiency they know is coming.

[Ooh-videogames]

Originally Posted by cthellis42

Yeah, that would be my main complaint. The WAY they are saying things just gets me worried. They could phrase it much better, but since they keep trying to condence their comments to the same two-or-so soundbytes, I just get worried that they are trying to do damage control really early to cover up a deficiency they know is coming.

I think its just knowing that inorder for them to top this gen, they must have something that make them stand out from the competition. The point is to not release another PS3 with a different shell, logo, and controller design.

DS and Revolution connectivity might be one way, but not in the same manner as GC and GBA connectivity.

One of the three console providers, really have to concern them with graphics technology. Nintendo and MS buy tech from other companies, so all they have to do is make request and setup contracts, set a deadline.

Nintendo is letting ATI handle that, so they can move foward to creating something unique, also bringing forth new franchises. MS is focusing on the software side and looking to bring new features to their Live service.

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by cthellis42

Graphics will NEVER be "pushed as far as they can go." But they certainly can be pushed "beyond the point of their being profitable." I don't think we're there yet either--developers and publishers will simply be altering their gameplan. There is easily significant leaps we can make from what we see now, though.

So we can go past photorealistic in some point?

[jvd]

We should all expect an increase in graphics. With newer hardware that will allways be the case .

But new hardware doesn't equal new gaming experiances . So nintendo is focusing on that . Which i think is great.

[cthellis42]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

So we can go past photorealistic in some point?

Hardy-har! :P The likelihood of our GETTING there in the next 50 years is unlikely.

Originally Posted by jvd

But new hardware doesn't equal new gaming experiances . So nintendo is focusing on that . Which i think is great.

Except we don't know with what, or how, or what they might be sloughing off in the meanwhile to concentrate on it. Nor do we know if there'll be a notable performance gap.

Certainly I plan on evaluating N5 based on what it DOES and not what they say about it, but their comments now and previously (dealing with next gen and this) keep me uncomfortably off-balance. When you get Nintendo execs pooh-poohing things like online play (regarding the Cube at least--with the DS they seem to be excited about it, eh? :P ) and making random, unsupportable comments about major facets of gaming life...

It just makes me wonder how FAR they're going to go, and if they're going to miss too many things gamers want along the way.

[jvd]

Except we don't know with what, or how, or what they might be sloughing off in the meanwhile to concentrate on it. Nor do we know if there'll be a notable performance gap.

Doesn't matter , even an r520 and a power pc chip will give better graphics than a gamecube . So we shouldn't worry

Certainly I plan on evaluating N5 based on what it DOES and not what they say about it, but their comments now and previously (dealing with next gen and this) keep me uncomfortably off-balance

I can say the same about sony though. All thier bullshit about 56k not being good enough for gaming and how the ps2 would never use anything but broadband . I can even say the same about ms (if i payed enough attention to the xbox )

It just makes me wonder how FAR they're going to go, and if they're going to miss too many things gamers want along the way.

Gamers don't know what they want . They are told what they want .

If sony and ms focus on graphics and nintendo puts out great games they aren't going to miss anyone but the fanboys of other companys .

A great game will apeal to everyone , great graphics will sell a few copys but if the game play is shallow it will stop selling once the reviews hit .

Also none of the next gen systems are going to be lacking in the graphics department unless one of them really messes up big time. They will all becoming out with in a year of each other .

[PC-Engine]

The likelihood of our GETTING there in the next 50 years is unlikely.

We already have photorealistic graphics today...

Anyhow like jvc said, ATI's Revolution GPU will likely match Xenon's anyway so graphics isn't going to be a deciding factor between the 3 consoles.

[McFly]

Originally Posted by PC-Engine

We already have photorealistic graphics today...

Yeah, and TFT's have no view angle problems.

Fredi

[PC-Engine]

Originally Posted by McFly

Yeah, and TFT's have no view angle problems.

Fredi

Heh and you call yourself a CG artist...might wanna see what others are doing to date...

While you're at it might wanna ask them what they use the tilt/swivel base on their monitors for too...

[McFly]

Open your eyes and stop lying to yourself or get new eyes, there must be something wrong with them.

If you want an other reply from me, post a natural cg scene with humans and plants in it and I show you where the picture has it's faults.

Fredi

[Fox5]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

So we can go past photorealistic in some point?

Why not? Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean you can't create it. In the future we may see art that puts reality to shame.

Then again, it's not photorealistic until you can replicate real flaws.

[McFly]

Every current gfx engine has it's own flaws and features that define the laws of that specific engine, so we already create a new world with every new engine we create. In the future those engines will just be able to calculate those worlds with more details and more and different features.

At the other hand, we will never be able to create an engine that is 100% photorealistic as long as we did not find the so called world formula. Everything we can do is create an engine that comes so close to the laws of our physical world, that our eye can't make out the difference.

Fredi

[cthellis42]

Originally Posted by PC-Engine

We already have photorealistic graphics today...

Photorealistic characters in photorealistic, interactable environments that are playable in a game engine (preferably 60FPS) with all of the other factors that make up realism built in as well? Oh, please do tell!

Originally Posted by jvd

Doesn't matter , even an r520 and a power pc chip will give better graphics than a gamecube . So we shouldn't worry

Right, because "better than a gamecube" will be the comparison people will be looking at? Considering the number of people in this gen that look at current differences between consoles as "horrible" to "great," it would seem even small differences can ignite many folks.

Meanwhile, we know very little about N5 technically, nor do we know the price points everyone is aiming at. Heck, if just a RAM gap can make large gaps, there's certainly enough room for sway. It's the fact that they keep bringing it up first and foremost in their talking about Revolution that makes me wonder. They were far better in their descriptions of the Cube before launch.

I can say the same about sony though. All thier bullshit about 56k not being good enough for gaming and how the ps2 would never use anything but broadband . I can even say the same about ms (if i payed enough attention to the xbox )

And yet what have Sony and MS done with verbal gaffes--as we all know the companies will make with their predictions? Defied them/ignored them/whatever, and gone right along with what gamers want, offers more options, or whatever. Regarding online, Nintendo has stuck to their guns (poorly aimed as they are), despite just about everyone believing it a bad move on their part, and wishing they had online play in their latest games.

Gamers don't know what they want . They are told what they want .

Oh please, with the needlessly dogmatic claptrap. Gamers don't "want" more than 10% of games that are produced or they'd own them, eh? And yet there are oh-so-many games that get developed and oh-so-many styles to choose from! Spooky... O_O

Gamers want what they see in front of them and decide is cool enough to purchase. Many times they reject something too silly or not so appealing--even if it's just a matter of timing and years later becomes desired again. But the bulk will always miss something they see coming into the fore elsewhere and ignored by a major party. And while this doesn't translate well into graphics comparisons, with other things--like online capacity--you can cross-compare quite easily, note where one party is lacking over another, and see how everyone has been improving over time.

Meanwhile, just about everything comes in as some sort of experiment or expansion device, and gets adopted due to its level of success, importance, and ease of adoption. Controllers show the progression well: what "number of buttons" did in generations past, through single and dual-analog controls (sticks and later buttons themselves), vibration... Each step of the way building on what was before it and being commonplace now. And regarding audio/motion/video control possibilities in the future...? Nothing so revolutionary there, as we've been seeing them build up over time as well, and will likely become commonplace in the same ways, too.

So what the hell's with "gamers don't know what they want?" It's their dollars that have been shaping the industry since the beginning--filled with all the failed and successful experiments that have happened along the way.

If sony and ms focus on graphics and nintendo puts out great games they aren't going to miss anyone but the fanboys of other companys .

Meanwhile, I wasn't talking about that in the slightest. I was talking about whether the course they're on will add TO gaming without subtracting from it elsewhere along the way. Everyone puts out great games, and yet you can hardly get through a review of Mario Kart DD without wistful sighs as to the amazing fun one could have with it online.

THAT is the kind of thing I'm worried about. I don't know what things they're going to try to mix in, and I don't know what they might potentially leave on the curb along the way. Their comments leave me flustered (they talk about DS in terms of "hugely innovative" as well, and while it's a neat machine it's still just a re-wrapping of elements we've seen before in a new way, and--as always makes a difference--with stronger backing), so mainly I just plan to reserve ALL judgement until I see the thing. That includes dire predictions AND utter assurances.

All I've said so far is their marketing-speak pleases me not, and leans more on my worries than my confidence. I was perfectly content with the Cube's build-up and launch, but I guess the stronger a presence they want to be versus Sony and Microsoft, the more they have to emulate their bull. (And even just in sending out the message they're doing, they could do it better instead of laying down a few soundbytes as patchwork. I simply don't like what they're saying right now.)

[PC-Engine]

Photorealistic characters in photorealistic, interactable environments that are playable in a game engine (preferably 60FPS) with all of the other factors that make up realism built in as well? Oh, please do tell!

Well this was what you said:

The likelihood of our GETTING there in the next 50 years is unlikely.

We already have photorealistic graphics today in terms of offline renders. Yes they're not realtime but that's irrelevent. In 20 years they WILL be reatime let alone 50 years like you originally said. We already have enough power to render GI 640x480 resolution scenes today in realtime. Granted they're not the most complex but not everything in reality is complex when viewed through a person's eyes.

[cthellis42]

Well this was what you said:

...and we're talking about this in the context of playable games on a cheap (relatively), mass-market console device. (Or perhaps "console-equivalent," as in 20+ years I expect the market to look quite a bit different. )

I still don't think that will be the case in 20 years; we have an awful lot of ground to cover technically let alone budget-wise. Where now are all the comments about our not being near Toy Story-quality CG in a playable state? While current all-CG movies still don't approach "photorealism," and command HUGE development costs and years of rendering time?

Granted I tossed my "50 years" comment out of my butt (sarcastic reply to a sarcastic reply), but "out-of-butt" commentary seems to be a staple. I certainly see no signs of what we will undoubtedly hit in the future, let alone the state of technology in decades to come nor the costs associated with bringing photorealism to life and when it would be available on the mass-market to the gaming consumer. Hindsight may be 20/20, but foresight is usually far worse and has a much shorter field of vision.

[Li Mu Bai]

All this Nintendo hate, yet Nintendo has never launched a platform system that was antiquated technically by its competitors. Strange that MS's new mantra of game content over visuals sounds eerily similar to Nintendo's. I wonder why? Then Iwata goes & says something like this:

"We are going in a different direction than Sony. We believe that other companies are already investing in state-of-the-art semiconductor development, says Iwata. "Nintendo is not actually trying to create a state-of-the-art technology that is not known to the world. We are reviewing technologies that are in the early stages of development [by other companies]. Nintendo should be able to find the optimal solution to make the best possible hardware by cooperating with several partners.

I agree with how they choose to phrase things regarding the Revolution doesn't necessarily instill a technical confidence, (they don't need to actually, the specs. will or will not do that) but Nintendo's premise is quite clear.

In the world of gaming, if you are going to only purchase hardware, you will not enjoy yourself at all. It is our assumption that it is the software that provides the sensational experiences, and that [the games] are the only reason to buy the hardware," says Iwata.

He speaks the truth as a software library pushes hw sales, & not the reverse. http://www.gamespy.com/articles/505/505234p4.html

[cthellis42]

You know, it would be awfully nice if people stop would stop being so liberal with labels like "XXXX hate" and actually stick to the comments being made.

For reference, I don't know of a single player who's ever said "fuck games, we just want everything to look pretty"--so is there an actual point being made? You won't find anyone disagreeing with "software pushes hardware" either, as it's been quite evident for ages.

Those aren't the types of complaints being made.