mckmas8808
Legend
PC-Engine said:
You're right they are behind 1 million in Japan. But in NA they caught Nintendo very fast.
Nintendo confirms low price and no Hi Def for Revolution
- Thread starter ZoinKs!
- Start date
- Status
You're right they are behind 1 million in Japan. But in NA they caught Nintendo very fast.
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.
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
Newcomer
ZoinKs! said:
No High-Def ?
They just losed my money.
Why would anyone buy another 640 X 480 console.
Just for the controller ?
Just for the games evendopefishzzz said:
dopefishzzz
Newcomer
Shifty Geezer said:Just for the games even
Yeah, but nintendo always rehash the same games
Yeah, I'm sure we won't see any new games that work in totally new ways because of a totally new controllerdopefishzzz said:Yeah, but nintendo always rehash the same games
. Nintendo may rehash characters, but I don't know that they rehash games to any great degree. (oooo, I'm just asking for trouble with all these rolley-eyes!
)Yeah, because we all know graphics is more important than anything else...dopefishzzz said:
dopefishzzz said:
Why would anyone buy another thumbstick-based console? Just for the screen resolution?
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.
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.
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.
pc999 said:
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.
pc999 said:
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.
Readykilowatt
Regular
Meh. Much ado about nothing. Most people are going to be playing their Revolutions/PS3s/Xbox 360s on SDTVs through composite cables.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
