Revolution and HD: Do your part.

When I think about it now, I rather have 2D Zelda with a cool controller where you can do really cool stuff gameplay wise then a 3D Zelda game with all the graphical fixings and a regular old controller...

I respect that Blue, but most of the world would choose the latter.
 
I'm pretty confident that the Revolution will be less powerful than the other two consoles and that it will have piss-poor third party support

I think its pretty reasonable to believe that Rev won't be exactly as high spec as either of the other two consoles considering the very small size. What I can't understand is the idea some people have that it'll be only three times as fast as GC or even worse a GC in a new box. Which is just not going to happen.

Third party is a lot harder to guess. It will certainly start with good third party support though AFAICS.
 
Teasy said:
I'm pretty confident that the Revolution will be less powerful than the other two consoles and that it will have piss-poor third party support

Just to be clear about my opinion on this. I think its reasonable to think that Rev won't be exactly as high spec as either of the other two consoles because of the very small size. What I can't understand is the idea some people have that it'll be only three times as fast as GC or even worse a GC in a new box.

The 2-3 times as powerful comment came from Nintendo.
 
Which was then said to be incorrect, by Nintendo. Taking a throw away line from Perrin Kaplan on hardware power literally is silly IMO.
 
Teasy said:
Which was then said to be incorrect, by Nintendo. Taking that literally is silly IMO.

You said you couldn't understand the idea some people have. It's Nintendo's own fault. And the comment on it's own doesn't mean much, except in interviews Miyamoto and Iwata keep stressing that thier technology is focused on other areas than power.

If you want to talk about silly, we could try and figure out how much AA Nintendo would need to make up for a lack of HD though. =P
 
This thread got very large, very quickly. I read/skimmed through most of it, but I just wanted to add my two cents.

And I say all of this with the assumption that Revolution will not support HD, which may or may not happen.

HD might not be important now. We are also talking about a console that won't be on the market until the middle of 2006 and will supposedly last until 2011. The adoption of HD capable sets has been phenomenal and will continue to grow as prices fall. Sure high definition is not that important now (nearly summer of 2005), but it seems ridiculously shortsighted to say that it won't be important 2 or 3 years from now, especially as broadcast networks and next-generation optical media bring more HD content to the masses.

Every generation has a buzzword that becomes important when marketing the system to the masses. People are easily swayed by their peers. They will buy what their friends and family recommend. Ever wonder why Xbox got so popular among the college aged kids this generation?

The early generations fought over 8 or 16-bit processors. Last generation introduced "online" to the marketing vernacular. This next generation will introduce "HD" to the gaming masses. Without it you'll be viewed as old technology. And yes people will purchase new HDTVs to replace their perfectly capable SD television just to keep up with the Jones' next door.
 
You said you couldn't understand the idea some people have

The fact that its been said to be false by Nintendo is the reason I can't understand the idea. Well that and the fact that Nintendo are well known for their conservatism (plus Perrin Kaplan knows nothing about hardware specs :)).

BTW I wasn't talking about 640x480 with AA vs actual 720p on a HDTV. I was talking about both on a normal TV. Using high levels of anti-aliasing automatically set on all games in order to get crisp looking games on normal TV's without the extra expense of HDTV to the developer. Just an idea for discussion that's all, nothing silly about it :)
 
Back
Top