EA talks about underpowered Revolution

superguy

Banned
Talking to Gamasutra on his own thoughts for the Revolution, Young commented: "One of the challenges for the Revolution is that it's not HD. If you think about RTS games, one element is the control scheme, but the other is the distance from the TV screen when you're playing a console game versus a PC game."

He continued, referencing the soon-to-be-released console SKU of the EALA-produced real time strategy title: "One of the reasons Battle for Middle Earth II works so well on the [Xbox] 360 is the controller, but the other reason is the HD - you can see everything, frankly, as well or better as you can when you're [as close as you would be to a PC]."

Young concluded of his own personal Revolution impressions: "So I think there are some questions there, and the other issue is performance. The hardware performance is sort of current gen plus, versus the 10x or 20x multiple that you get on next-gen. I mean, EA is building stuff for it, but I kind of prefer the DS. It makes the most sense to me."

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9027
 
I was also thinking, the point of being able to see detail better is a tangible example of better graphics improving gameplay in many instances.

For those who like to downplay graphics.
 
NANOTEC said:
What's the resolution of DS games?

Between the two screens, 98304 pixels. Each screen is 256x192.

Anyway, I wouldn't say he "rips" Revolution. But sounds some warnings, whose relevance may be limited to certain types of game. My guess is he highlighted RTS games, because in all other ways, Rev would probably be a very good console for that type of game.

(To balance the negativity, EGM will have Rev on their next issue's cover - apparently its editor is now "OMG super-psyched" for it after working on the article. http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6947164&publicUserId=5379799).
 
If that EA developer prefers DS's low resolution screen for RTS over Revolution's higher resolution screen, then I'm not sure his concern is valid.
 
I don't think he ever compared the DS and Revolution, and which of their resolutions were better for a RTS game.
He just said DS "makes more sense" as an overall package and marketwise.
 
Titanio said:
My guess is he highlighted RTS games, because in all other ways, Rev would probably be a very good console for that type of game.
Yeah, because nobody ever played RTSes in 640*480. Or 320*200 for that matter... ;)

If people want to find faults with hardware X, there'll always be plenty to choose from. We have our 360-trolling Legend character who's convinced the eDRAM is the work of the devil for example while others have bashed PS3 for its peculiar main CPU, and so on. You can't ever please some people. Doesn't mean anything is substantially wrong with the hardware itself.
 
Guden Oden said:
Yeah, because nobody ever played RTSes in 640*480. Or 320*200 for that matter... ;)

You mean Orcs and Humans is coming out for Rev? :LOL: Cool! X-wing vs. Tie Fighter would be great with that revmote :D

To be honest i do take his point about the controller though. I'm sure they'll be plenty of scope of creating new types of games with this new control method, but how compatible will it be with existing types of games? For instance a racing game. You would either have use the D-pad to turn, something games have moved away from to analog controls, or you would use the motion sensing to turn, but i can see that being quite hard to implement in a genre that relies on precision. I have awful memories of playing Midtown Madness on the PC with the mouse to turn, i would imagine the rev would be similar.

I think it's great that there are all these new possibilities for gaming with this controller, but at the cost of existing genres being compromised? I'm not sure.
 
Realife driving requires moving a steering wheel left/right with your hand/arm. How hard is it to map the same natural movement to a free form controller?
 
I keep tilting the controller (and myself) all the time when playing racing games. I'd think one could make pretty intuitive control scheme with that in mind, using revmote.
 
Paul_G said:
To be honest i do take his point about the controller though. I'm sure they'll be plenty of scope of creating new types of games with this new control method, but how compatible will it be with existing types of games? For instance a racing game. You would either have use the D-pad to turn, something games have moved away from to analog controls, or you would use the motion sensing to turn, but i can see that being quite hard to implement in a genre that relies on precision. I have awful memories of playing Midtown Madness on the PC with the mouse to turn, i would imagine the rev would be similar.

They'll probably release a steering wheel shell for it at a low cost price or bundle it with Mario Kart. Problem solved. Just like the mock-ups we've been seeing.
 
As a temporary solution you could just use a pot lid and attach the revote to it.
Without somethin tangible in hand, steering could be too erratic with your hands moving outside the imaginary rim of the imaginary steering wheel.
With something solid in your hands to keep the revmote more precisely in the circle of the steering wheel (or at the hub, depending on how it's set up), it'll be more precise.
So yes, I see there will be addon "shells" for various games that while not esential to be able to play the said game with a "revmote", will add to the experience and possibly make the game more ergonomic.
 
"One of the reasons Battle for Middle Earth II works so well on the [Xbox] 360 is the controller, but the other reason is the HD - you can see everything, frankly, as well or better as you can when you're [as close as you would be to a PC]."

Surely, every single console user out there owns a HDTV :rolleyes:
 
Mendel said:
I keep tilting the controller (and myself) all the time when playing racing games. I'd think one could make pretty intuitive control scheme with that in mind, using revmote.

Yeah but lots of people don't. I'm willing to be proved wrong, if the controller enhances the game that's great, and it's one more reason for me to get one which, if it's as cheap as some say, i'll do fairly soon after launch but i suppose my point is although it's possible, will it improve the game? It's not just racing, there are all sorts of genres that work pretty well as it is. I don't want to shift this topic away from the original post, but to say i'm hoping i'm just being narrow minded about all this, and that Nintendo prove me wrong, but i just think after 20 or so years of honing the control pad design, across 5 generations of console, to abandon much of that in favour of an unproven new control method is very brave. Time will tell if it was a good decision or not.
 
Guden Oden said:
Yeah, because nobody ever played RTSes in 640*480. Or 320*200 for that matter... ;)

Playing a 640*480 or even 320*200 game 30 cm in front of your screen is/was a bit different than what most people will be doing with Revolution. With that kind of a difference, you wouldn't even be able to use the highly innovative remote controller... ;)

On the other hand, given that EA likes multi-platform games, I find it questionable that they would alter the RTS games planned for both other HD capable consoles to be able to work at 640x480 and remain more or less in the same ballpark.

Given that a majority of people still use SDTVs (and will for next few years at least in Europe), I wonder if resolution is really a Revolution specific concern. I for one probably will not have a HD capable TV before end of next year.
 
Paul_G said:
i'm hoping i'm just being narrow minded about all this

I hope your being narrow-minded aswell :) Because I'm not interested in Revolution for genres that 'work pretty well as it is', so it would be disapointing if all they do is "halo with new controller" or "pgr 3 with new controller" or whatever.

If I get it it certainly won't be for things like hand-me-down pc rts games.
 
Paul_G said:
Yeah but lots of people don't. I'm willing to be proved wrong, if the controller enhances the game that's great, and it's one more reason for me to get one which, if it's as cheap as some say, i'll do fairly soon after launch but i suppose my point is although it's possible, will it improve the game? It's not just racing, there are all sorts of genres that work pretty well as it is. I don't want to shift this topic away from the original post, but to say i'm hoping i'm just being narrow minded about all this, and that Nintendo prove me wrong, but i just think after 20 or so years of honing the control pad design, across 5 generations of console, to abandon much of that in favour of an unproven new control method is very brave. Time will tell if it was a good decision or not.
This is all dependant on if it works or not.

I've got a lot of faith in that controller, and while I'm not sure if it will make games all around better, it will be one way of increasing immersion for the player.

One way of doing it is to throw lots of fancy effects, shaders to give people a game that much closer to lifelike. And it's a proven way, another potential way is to make them responsible for their characters actions. Let them slash the swords, fire the guns, or throw the Pikmin. Give them the control.

Now I can understand why so many are skittish about the controller. This will be the first time that your direct actions have consequences in these worlds. Instead of moving a stick and pressing a button, you aim and shoot, or slit their throats with a bottle (like Sadness purportedly utilizes).

Your connection to the character since you literally control their actions, can almost be scary. In fact almost really scary. When is it too much? The PS3 and 360 can render internal organs, and you can see very convincing characters have their grey matter splattered all over the wall, but with the Revolution you'll actually do it.

Sorry, I just had a realization that for as innovative this controller is, I don't want very violent games appearing on it. Slitting a throat, or bashing a hookers brain in, might have some psychological ramifications that some might not be ready to deal with. Doing such a thing using previous controllers was a disconnected button press.

Now you'll do it. Your exertion, your physical actions will end a life, a digital life yes, but a life.

Heh. I walk into this thread all ready to defend the Revolution, and I find myself with a little ethical question. Is too much control a bad thing?
 
Since Saturn that there is RTS in consoles and I never heard that rez is the problem,meybe is thinking that after the controler is solved it becames the main problem but I doubt it, even in the PC, in more severe cases, that is really a problem.
 
Talking about controls: I actually think RTS games can be played better on Rev duo to the remote. It may be even easier than using a mouse if it is indeed accurate and fast enough.

I really want to see RTS games on consoles.
 
bitwise xor said:
I hope your being narrow-minded aswell :) Because I'm not interested in Revolution for genres that 'work pretty well as it is', so it would be disapointing if all they do is "halo with new controller" or "pgr 3 with new controller" or whatever.

If I get it it certainly won't be for things like hand-me-down pc rts games.

Ah but there is the rub. A new console with new ideas and new types of games is all very well and I welcome it, but not everyone can afford a 360/PS3 for the normal games they like, and the Rev for these different types of games. If there is little chance of playing those new games in addition to all the sports games and shooters etc that the mass market buys in their millions, will they buy it?
 
Back
Top