Revolution and next gen tools...

[FouadVG]

If Nintendo Revolution rumored specifications are true ( a console technically between XBOX1 and XBOX360 ) could than next gen tools run on Nintendo revolution ?

For example :

- Unreal Engine 3 or any other advanced engine.
- Latest Havok or Ageia physics engines. (even PS2 could run first havok engines, like the Psi Ops game for example, the developers behind Stranglehold, but could Revolution run stranglehold physics engine ? Havok 3.2 + ? )
- Endorphin next gen real time technology.
- Procedural vegetation and tree software rendering.
- AI middleware tools.
...etc


And if the revolution cant run those tools, than could this be an obstacle toward creating innovative games ? ( a lot of original, innovative and even revolutionary ideas were deleted, canned from many PS2 and XBOX1 games due to technical limitations, mainly : Fable for xbox1 (having childs, bigger envirnments, more advanced AI,...) and MGS3 on PS2 (bigger jungle non linear envirnments, better AI, more enemies on screen...)
The lack of total processing power and memory quantity and bandwidth limited many original, innovative ideas in current gen consoles...which is the main reason why we didnt see a lot of original video games this gen compared to previous generations.
(current gen hardware are powerful to improve everything from the 32bit-64 bit era, but not powerful enough to create innovative new original revolutionary ideas...Not powerful enough for example to create an RPG like Oblivion...)
For those reasons we will see a lot of innovations and revolutionary ideas and games on PS3 (MGS4, LA NOIRE, next famitu yuda game,...)

So will the technical limitations of Revolution limit too much innovation on its games ? Could only a new controller tacke this problem ?...If the revolution cant run advanced physics engines, animations engines, and AI, Will the new controller suffice to create more innovative titles than PS3 ?!!!

 

[NANOTEC]

Does Nintendo DS bring more innovative games than PSP despite being less powerful?

 

[FouadVG]

Does Nintendo DS bring more innovative games than PSP despite being less powerful?

1/ You compare handheld consoles to home consoles, which is different.

2/ The PSP has almost the same power of PS2 so its powerful but not enough powerful to create revolutionary games. Its technically very limited like the PS2 and XBOX1 (Fable and MGS3 deleted ideas the best example), Believe me if the PSP has the power of PS3, than YES it will offer more innovative games than Nintendo DS. This is for sure with revolutionary physics, Animations and AI.

But even though you still have :

- Loco Roco.
- HL of David Jaffe (real time in-gameplay cinematics a la Half life 2 ).
- Lumines of Mizuguchi
- sudoko
- Daxter

And you still could play on PSP, games considered as revolutionary in 2001 (GTA, for example) You could play on PSP games that were revolutionary at their time of release on home consoles.

You cant play those games on DS, because the DS doesent have the power nor the UMD storage capacity to run those home quality PS2/ XBOX1 games.

In 2003 The handheld market was dominated by the GBA, a console whare you REPLAY SNES quality games of 1990-1994, and everyone was happy with that.
So the PSP in 2004 whare you could play current gen games (xbox1 and PS2 quality) before the release of next gen consoles...I dont call this less than revolutionary...

Its just that people are sometimes Hypocrit...

Same goes for PS3, when we will play games like MGS4, GT5, LA NOIRE...games that just cant rub or be done for xbox360 due to the 25 GB of blu ray capacity, and due to the 218 GFLOPS processing power of the CELL. Period.

 

[NANOTEC]

Evolutionary and revolutionary are two different things. More complex graphics, more complex physic, etc. doesn't make games more revolutionary. Oh and Turbo Express allowed you to play home console cartridges on-the-go over 10 years ago. There's nothing revolutionary about PSP doing the same 10 years later. 25GB BDs don't make games revolutionary either. I guess when automobile engines went from V6 to V8, that made driving more revolutionary too eh?

 

[pc999]

What do you mean by revolutionary, for me TES:O is not but Splinter Cell it is or HL2 and a lot more that really offer gameplay that it is not possible before.

Anyway, yes specs can limit the innovation , think in a current gen Tennis game, such a game on Rev only make sense if you can control the ball for that you will need a much better animation system, physics simulation to the ball and a great AI that can reply to any move you do. For that you will need more power than you used on your "old tennis game".

Or see the PPU/Intia (AIPU) processors, one can easly think in new gameplay modes with those beast in the console.

The real question (IMO) is how limited is Rev, today none (without NDAs) can give you a answer but see the RedSteel info it can give you a idea of what it can do , and then question your self if that game is limited.

Anyway if there is any kind of innovations that it is tied only/mostly to processing power/specs, then it should be easier to appear in XB360/PS3 than Rev (if it appear in it at all).

If you are interested in innovation, you should think now- overall which console will bring me more innovation?

About the tools/engines I doubt that most of next gen tools would be suited for Rev as eg some of them are completely ready for multicore ( Havok 3.2 +) , but that also depends on the scalability of the tools themselfs.

Of curse this is made under a assumption that Rev will have IGN specs, which are very bad explained and in the end it can mean diferent things (at least I hope so).

 

[sfried]

I'm guessing once it's out, 3rd party SDKs will start releasing tools specifically tailored for Rev, much like how Shin'en had been lending it's licence to it's music engine, and Factor 5 to the GC's. I don't think there will be many middleware tools in terms of porting, as I'm guessing this is exactly what Nintendo wants to avoid (half-hazard 3rd party ports. See Spyhunter for GC/XBox, for example).

 

[NANOTEC]

Exactly..I don't want watered down ports on Revolution. I want stuff like RE4 that was programmed specifically for the console.

 

[FouadVG]

What I mean by revolutionary game ?

A revolutionary games is a radical change in graphics, animations, physics, AI..., with a lot of new original ideas that will be copied in games after years. (take shenmue of yu susuki for example, the Idea of QTE considered as non interactive non interesting idea in 2000, has been after 4-5 years copied by games like : Resident Evil 4, God of War, Indigo Prophecy,...and a lot others...it became the standard of the industry now ! Or the FREE system the idea that you can talk and interact with a lot of humans and things in the game...its now the standard for the industry...shenmue was the most revolutionary game in all the history of video games )

For example :

- Shenmue
- MGS
- Zelda OOT
- Half Life 2

developers cant create those games without powerful hardware.

the current gen hardware is very limited technically, its for this reason that we dont have alot of innovation. Unfortunately Nintendo and Myamoto didnt understand this...When myamoto says : The GC hardware is already sufficient and capable of creating anything developers want.

Myamoto really dosent have a clue about how much ideas were deleted from games like : Fable, MGS3, GT4 (online, voice chat in gameplay, more than 6 vehicles per circuit, bikes + cars, Climate, rain, snow...vehicle damage,...etc etc etc )...all this is mainly due to technical limitations...

Its really a big mistake for Nintendo thinking that ONLY changing the controller will induce more innovation without powerful hardware to run advanced : Physics, animations, and AI.

Nintendo will pay the price of its ignorance and short term thinking by simply a big Failure of the Revolution...And who knows maybe the new games for the PS3 Eye Toy will be more innovative, interesting, original and revolutionary than revolution games...and this is due to :

- Advancement in the Controller + Advanceent in processing power.

Advancement in controller ONLY wont suffice.

Games like : Shenmue, Zelda OOT, MGS, Half Life 2...didnt need a new controller to be revolutionary games.

 

[Guden Oden]

I don't think there will be many middleware tools in terms of porting, as I'm guessing this is exactly what Nintendo wants to avoid (half-hazard 3rd party ports.

Perhaps there will be Rev-specific middleware solutions. Say Retro licenses out their Metroid engine to other devs for example...

 

[see colon]

- Shenmue
- MGS
- Zelda OOT
- Half Life 2

developers cant create those games without powerful hardware.

all of those games (with the possible exception of zelda) were released at a point when the hardware they were released on was outdated. have you seen the system requirements for HL2? that thing will run on my mothers computer! shenmue started on the saturn hardware and looked to have much of the "revolutionary" content that made the DC version popular. i could go on, but it's pointless.

games that are "revolutionary" don't need powerful hardware, they're revolutionary because of the lack of hardware. if performace wasn't a constraint you'd expect every game to look lifelike, sound lifelike, have lifelike physics, lifelike characters, ect. what makes a game stand out is when developers work around those constraints to make a game entertaining, enthraling, and deep beyond what you expect from the hardware.

 

[FouadVG]

all of those games (with the possible exception of zelda) were released at a point when the hardware they were released on was outdated. have you seen the system requirements for HL2? that thing will run on my mothers computer! shenmue started on the saturn hardware and looked to have much of the "revolutionary" content that made the DC version popular. i could go on, but it's pointless.

games that are "revolutionary" don't need powerful hardware, they're revolutionary because of the lack of hardware. if performace wasn't a constraint you'd expect every game to look lifelike, sound lifelike, have lifelike physics, lifelike characters, ect. what makes a game stand out is when developers work around those constraints to make a game entertaining, enthraling, and deep beyond what you expect from the hardware.

Playstation1 hardware on end 1998 was outdated ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Half Life 2 with full AI, Physics, animations and all visual effects turned on, could run at smooth framerate (or it wont be revolutionary game if you cant experience the game as it was meant to be expreienced by developers ) all this on an outdated hardware ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dreamcast Outdated on March 2000 ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N64 outdated on end 1998 ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




And what you are saying is :
(revolutionary games are created by great developers who use the hardware to the maximum, and jump over the obstacles)

But even the best developers in the world cant make Shenmue run on PS1, nor make Zelda OOT run on SNES, nor HL2 on ps1...

Believe me...For revolutionary games you need powerful hardware.

 

[pc999]

Half Life 2 with full AI, Physics, animations and all visual effects turned on, could run at smooth framerate (or it wont be revolutionary game if you cant experience the game as it was meant to be expreienced by developers ) all this on an outdated hardware ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the reason of minimum specs, so everybody had the same (basics) experience.

Believe me...For revolutionary games you need powerful hardware.

So we cant have any innovation or revolution in 2D games any more

You are taliking not about innovation or revolution per se, you are talking about new features and yes new features (tied to specs) can make a game innovative and revolutionary but this is not the only way to make a game revolutionary, one simple eg is a sword fighting game and everybody say that it is a revolutionary game, it will be revolutionary just because you never played such a thing and probably will become a standard for Rev games and again probably it does not need more power than GC (one can easly think in many more examples).

The bigest question is if the lack of power will harm the full potential of Rev (IMO it is probable that it happens, at the very least in a few cases).

Anyway if you read the feature list (in the dev kits) from Red Steel you can see that they already added a lot of features, so meybe it will not be that underpowered in terms of features, time/price will tell.

PS(edit)
On the other side power alone may not give you innovation, think in Halo if you only had two D pads, think that you can/could give a lot of orders to your team but you need tu use menus (see micro in my sig).

For diferent times we have diferent limitations, for the games you said those are cleary/mostly limited by specs, but now myebe the major limitations is not specs anymore, and personally I think that we will see more innovative/revolutionary games on Rev than in any others cosole, still I keep wating more power than it gives.

 

[Ragemare]

Nintendo will pay the price of its ignorance and short term thinking by simply a big Failure of the Revolution

Because everyone else has your exact opinion of revolutionary. For me a game has to define a new genre or sub-genre and do it well to be revolutionary. HL2 just improved on the FPS genre and not by much, I still prefere the first one.

A revolutionary games is a radical change in graphics, animations, physics, AI...

A radical change in game mechanics makes a revolutionary game, a radical change in graphics makes a game with revolutionary graphics. Revolutionary games are very few and arn't necessarily even playable.

I could be wrong, but your just saying Rev can't compete because it's not powerfull enough, using a wonderfully elaborate argument to say it.

the current gen hardware is very limited technically, its for this reason that we dont have alot of innovation.

Well obviously towards the end of this gen there wasn't much technical innovation, but there was room for innovation in gameplay. New tech helps game play, it opens up new possibilities (as does a new type of controller), but it's not vitally needed for innovation in game play.

Advancement in controller ONLY wont suffice.

If we ignore the fact the Rev is more advanced than last gen, it could still get customers with "Gameplay + funky controller + nice case + low price". Oh and well done on de-railing your own thread.

 

[FouadVG]

That is the reason of minimum specs, so everybody had the same (basics) experience.



So we cant have any innovation or revolution in 2D games any more

You are taliking not about innovation or revolution per se, you are talking about new features and yes new features (tied to specs) can make a game innovative and revolutionary but this is not the only way to make a game revolutionary, one simple eg is a sword fighting game and everybody say that it is a revolutionary game, it will be revolutionary just because you never played such a thing and probably will become a standard for Rev games and again probably it does not need more power than GC (one can easly think in many more examples).

The bigest question is if the lack of power will harm the full potential of Rev (IMO it is probable that it happens, at the very least in a few cases).

Anyway if you read the feature list (in the dev kits) from Red Steel you can see that they already added a lot of features, so meybe it will not be that underpowered in terms of features, time/price will tell.

PS(edit)
On the other side power alone may not give you innovation, think in Halo if you only had two D pads, think that you can/could give a lot of orders to your team but you need tu use menus (see micro in my sig).

For diferent times we have diferent limitations, for the games you said those are cleary/mostly limited by specs, but now myebe the major limitations is not specs anymore, and personally I think that we will see more innovative/revolutionary games on Rev than in any others cosole, still I keep wating more power than it gives.

To run smoothly HL2, an outdated hardware in 2004 is not sufficient. Period


I am talking about innovation, and new features are part of the innovation term. (innovation does mean : New ideas, and new feautures are new ideas)

PS3 will have more innovative, original, entertaining revolutionary games than Nintendo Revolution. Be it a new revolutionary Eye toy game. or any game using eye toy possibilities, or any other game using revolutionary physics, animations and AI to make more FUN gameplay, and an entertaining experience.

You wont have anything on Revolution nor XBOX360 as revolutionary as MGS4 on 2007. You wont play a better racing game than GT5 on XBOX360 nor Revolution on 2007.

Great Developers + Great Hardware = Great games.

And Yes we cant have anymore revolutionary games by using ONLY 2D 16 bit technology...You can create innovative 2D games on PSP ( LOCO ROCO) by using an advanced physics engine. This game, its 2D but it cant run on DS, nor GBA or SNES, or mega drive.

To Innovate you need new technology.

 

[pc999]

I will rest my arguments here once you simple ignored my points, just a last advice, do not confuse a revolutionary system/part of a game with a revolutinary game (or try to see if is the "revolutionary" the term you really want to use here).

 

[FouadVG]

Because everyone else has your exact opinion of revolutionary. For me a game has to define a new genre or sub-genre and do it well to be revolutionary. HL2 just improved on the FPS genre and not by much, I still prefere the first one.

No its not because of consumers, its because of Nintendo.
The secret of a successful console, is developers support.

If you dont have enough developers support, even if you have one of the best games ever (shenmue) and a lot of great innovative games (virtua tennis, Jet set radio, MSR, crazy taxi...) It wont suffice to have a successful console (in this case the Dreamcast lacking EA and a lot of other developers support)

If everyone will be playing each year new Need for speed,Brothers in arms, alone in the dark, splinter cell,...etc games on PS3 and XBOX360 and not on Revolution...than the new controller and a new Mario and Zelda wont help Nintendo to have a successful console.

A radical change in game mechanics makes a revolutionary game, a radical change in graphics makes a game with revolutionary graphics. Revolutionary games are very few and arn't necessarily even playable.

I could be wrong, but your just saying Rev can't compete because it's not powerfull enough, using a wonderfully elaborate argument to say it.

A revolutionary game must be revolutionary in a lot of aspects (graphics, animations, AI, and the use of those which gives Gameplay)

Well obviously towards the end of this gen there wasn't much technical innovation, but there was room for innovation in gameplay. New tech helps game play, it opens up new possibilities (as does a new type of controller), but it's not vitally needed for innovation in game play

More powerful hardware is VITALLY NECESSARILY needed for innovation, and better games.

Believe me but you cant make a game like Zelda OOT on SNES, nor MGS1 on MSX...You cant make GOD OF WAR on PS1...

If we ignore the fact the Rev is more advanced than last gen, it could still get customers with "Gameplay + funky controller + nice case + low price". Oh and well done on de-railing your own thread.

As I said before, For a console to succes, there is ONLY one secret :
MAXIMUM DEVELOPERS support.

powerful hardware, price, innovative controller...etc are all ways to capture developers support. If the new controller of revolution fail to capture developers support...the revolution will be a big failure. Period

I am an economist, and I know that consumers preferences change over time...

Who knows that GTA3 will be a huge success and phenomenan in 2001 ?!! or Halo ? or MGS ?....

Producers dont and cant know what will be the shift of consumers preferences in the future, nor what games will be revolutionary...so the best way and safest is : To gather MAXIMUM developers support...to have maximum exclusive games, and to buy maximum number of good developers.

Those are the secret of success...

Maybe Heavenly sword will be the next genre phenomenan on PS3 this November 2006...and than Microsoft will be sad not supporting the developers of this game in 2003-2004...Time will tell...

 

[Rodéric]

Subject beaten to death already, check the forum history for details.
We aren't gonna waste more forum space on those arguments again.