Should Nintendo have made Rev with the new control + as much/more power than PS3/360?

[superguy]

Yes.

http://blogs.ign.com/Peer-IGN

This blog intrigues me. BUT if it's poor graphics it will ruin it. If it had great graphics, as good or better than the other guys..it becomes very interesting to me personally.

Discuss.

 

[superguy]

Oh I meant to say..FPS on Revolution with the new control scheme as discussed in the blog WOULD interest me..but they simply dont because of the assumption of weak graphics.

 

[BenQ]

Nnitendo is in a different position altogether than it's competitors.

Some may say that it simply wasn't possible for nintendo to compete hardware wise this gen....but they did last gen, so I'm not so sure.

One thing I do know is that better hardware and higher resolutions don't hinder innovation, infact the opposite is much closer to the truth.

I really do feel that Nintnendo uses "innovaton" as an excuse too often, and so do hardcore Nintendo supporters. They claim that games will be much more innovative with better gameplay on the Rev ( So graphics and hardware suddenly "don't matter" ), but Nintendo holds no monopoly on either.

 

[BenQ]

Oh I meant to say..FPS on Revolution with the new control scheme as discussed in the blog WOULD interest me..but they simply dont because of the assumption of weak graphics.

The Rev controler MIGHT ( that's a BIG maybe as far as I'm concerned ) be good for FPS. But that wont matter much if the rev can ony manage the FPS's of last gen technology wise and then only at 640 X 480.

Noone in their right mind would buy a Rev if FPS's were one of their favorite genres......prove me wrong Nintendo,..... prove.... me ....wrong.....

 

[Guden Oden]

Yes.

No.

Going for cutting-edge processing and graphics means that will be by default what developers will focus on, rather than the game design, or control input method.

Besides, it will also mean a much larger system, that draws a lot more power and creates a lot more noise. The proposed chassis for Rev would have been totally inadequate. Look at the 360, it draws roughly 110W just sitting there on the dashboard doing nothing for chrissakes, and 180W+ in-game. Doesn't that tell you something?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

No.

Going for cutting-edge processing and graphics means that will be by default what developers will focus on, rather than the game design.

I'm at loss for words how ridiculous I feel that comment is...
I mean PS2, Xbox and GC also went for power, so basically what you are saying is that developers primally cared about graphics on those games also rather than game desing.

Now I have heard everything from N-fans, I mean last round when GC didn't have dvd playpack, it was considered a good thing because GC was a "pure" games console, and now with less power that is good also, because with less power you get better games. Talking about "I want to believe"

[Moderated]

 

[Rodéric]

It's rather than if the devs can use the power of the Revolution easily they won't have to spend that much time on the engine and rather focus on the game itself, which can only be a good thing.
It's also about user expectations, sofar both PS3 & XBox360 have been marketed around graphics, and graphics only (some Internet services too), while the Rev has been marketed as "different"; Devs will have to deliver what people expect, so high quality stunning graphics on the PS3/XBox360, and "different" titles on the Revolution.

There's no question that the Revolution is more capable than any current gen console, while not being performance wise up to the PS3 & XBox360 level, but that doesn't matter since it's not rendering at the same resolution. (Which mean it doesn't mean all that fillrate/bandwidth power.)

 

[Inane_Dork]

No, Nintendo should have partnered with Sony and Microsoft to make the wand compatible with both consoles. I mean, that's the only real reason to buy the Rev, so why make an entire console for a controller?

That's my crackpot idea, anyway. I'm sure it'll ruffle a few feathers.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

It's rather than if the devs can use the power of the Revolution easily they won't have to spend that much time on the engine and rather focus on the game itself, which can only be a good thing.

But one can just as easily spin this around so that, Rev developers have to put extra effort for graphics, because it's weaker system and they absolutely have to squuesh everything out of the system, whereas X360's and PS3's power will let developes to focus on other things...

the statement "less power=better games" is ridiculous.

 

[Entropy]

Not everyone on public boards is a young male fan-person, even if they are obviously populated mostly by people with a lot of time on their hands.

Nintendo choices seem very rational to me. This generation they make a small, cool, inexpensive device, that gives the option of an entirely new, and arguably more intuitive, control scheme.

So far, it's all wins, and the only thing we know for sure that they have given up to achieve this is image quality for owners of HD displays. Seems like a very small sacrifice given the benefits.

Nintendo can't subsidize a flop with selling OS+Office, they have no in-house production capabilities like Sony, so if they tried to trump their competitors on technical specs the result would have been a more expensive console than either the PS3 or the 360. That would have been risky in and of itself, and at the end of the day, you would have to ask yourself what the point could possibly be.

As it is, they will offer something unique, and at a price point that is likely to be more accessible than the other two consoles. As I said, it seems completely rational, and from a creative point of view, making the platform more accessible to the public in terms of price, control and ease of home integration can only be good.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Not everyone on public boards is a young male fan-person, even if they are obviously populated mostly by people with a lot of time on their hands.

Nintendo choices seem very rational to me. This generation they make a small, cool, inexpensive device, that gives the option of an entirely new, and arguably more intuitive, control scheme.

So far, it's all wins, and the only thing we know for sure that they have given up to achieve this is image quality for owners of HD displays. Seems like a very small sacrifice given the benefits.

Nintendo can't subsidize a flop with selling OS+Office, they have no in-house production capabilities like Sony, so if they tried to trump their competitors on technical specs the result would have been a more expensive console than either the PS3 or the 360. That would have been risky in and of itself, and at the end of the day, you would have to ask yourself what the point could possibly be.

As it is, they will offer something unique, and at a price point that is likely to be more accessible than the other two consoles. As I said, it seems completely rational, and from a creative point of view, making the platform more accessible to the public in terms of price, control and ease of home integration can only be good.

I hear you and I don't disagree with your post, well I think HD is more important what you give it credit for. All I'm saying is that because Rev will have less power, that doesn't automatically make the games better, the opposite is more closer to truth. Having less power allows them to be cheaper and make money with the hardware etc, but it does not translate into better games. Whether you prefer Mario and Zelda over Halo or MGS is anybodys choice, but Lower spec machines Mario is not better than Higher spec's Mario.

I didn't critize Rev or Nintendo's business model. I critized people spinning bad things into good things.

 

[Entropy]

I hear you and I don't disagree with your post, well I think HD is more important what you give it credit for. All I'm saying is that because Rev will have less power, that doesn't automatically make the games better, the opposite is more closer to truth. Having less power allows them to be cheaper and make money with the hardware etc, but it does not translate into better games. Whether you prefer Mario and Zelda over Halo or MGS is anybodys choice, but Lower spec machines Mario is not better than Higher spec's Mario.

I didn't critize Rev or Nintendo's business model. I critized people spinning bad things into good things.

Which is perfectly justified.
Would it be nice if the Revolution offered gfx horsepower exceeding that of its competitors? Of course. Would it make certain game genres more appealing? Yes.

Would it be worth it in terms of price point, power draw/noise, physical size and design limitations? In Nintendos opinion, no. Graphics horsepower is, after all, only one of several important factors, and letting it dictate your design decisions at the cost of other concerns aren't necessarily in the best interest of either Nintendo or their customers. We still don't know quite what balance Nintendo has chosen to strike, only that it isn't the same one that MS and Sony has. IMHO that makes their product more interesting, not less.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Which is perfectly justified.
Would it be nice if the Revolution offered gfx horsepower exceeding that of its competitors? Of course. Would it make certain game genres more appealing? Yes.

Would it be worth it in terms of price point, power draw/noise, physical size and design limitations? In Nintendos opinion, no. Graphics horsepower is, after all, only one of several important factors, and letting it dictate your design decisions at the cost of other concerns aren't necessarily in the best interest of either Nintendo or their customers. We still don't know quite what balance Nintendo has chosen to strike, only that it isn't the same one that MS and Sony has. IMHO that makes their product more interesting, not less.

Well power allows more things than just prettier graphics, but that aside I do also find Rev to be an interesting machine and will follow closely what it's going to offer, I think Nintendo has a good chance to do very well in Japan with Rev, west might be a bit tougher, but on overall I think it will fare quite well. I agree that it makes Rev more interesting, because I don't want 3 consoles that are almost the same, I'm probably going to buy all three and so I got all bases covered, I do have to say though that it would be a surprise to me If after next five years my best gaming experience was on Rev, but neverthless I'm sure it will be a nice addition to my console rack.

 

[Guden Oden]

Ingenu, you can't rewrite my post with words I never used and then simply add a "moderated" down at the bottom. That's the same as counterfeiting! You have a problem with the post, then kill it.

Oh, and you can give me all the red dots you want, I'll still speak my mind the way I see it, so on you.

 

[pc999]

So we are ussing the assumption of 2-3x GC (which I dont belive).

As powerfull as PS3 or XB I dont think it would be wise as I think they should strick hard with the price so HD and shuch would be a waste, but do think they should have done a console significantely more powerfull simple because that can enable new types of game plays or new experiences that arent possible with so little power.

So yes as long as they can put new gameplay/experiences using specs I think they should improve as much as is economically viable.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

*Shrug* I don't care what you think.

Yet you answered anyway

Look... You have X amount of resources to make a game.

On one hand, you have a system with traditional input method and powerful processing abilities. On the other, you have another system with a unique input method and more average processing abilities. How would you tailor your product to fit each system

The more effort you spend on one area, the less there'll be for the rest.
I own a PS2 and 360. I'm no Nintendo fan.

Well you could just as well say that, because the Rev has less power it takes more of an effort to squuesh the power out of there, and the fact Rev developers will focus more on the controller and the strenghts of that platform has little to with the content and the story elements for the other systems and there is no reason that they should suffers in anyway. You seem to think that X360 and PS3 strenghts are graphics and Rev's strength are good gameplay and good games. Or atleast that's what you said.

Well, I wasn't actually arguing less power was BETTER (though I guess someone could interpret it that way if they really feel like it), so alrighty then, let's do it your way! Perhaps you want to compare games on DS and PSP?

The former has unique input ability while the latter has more power and plays movies. Does it also have better (and more unique) games because of it?

You were arguing that less power turns into better games, because developers can consentrate on good gameplay instead of nice graphics in essence meaning that Rev's weakness is in fact a strenght, ridiculous imo. As for the latter question, I dunno I only have NDS.

 

[bitwise xor]

Hello all,

But one can just as easily spin this around so that, Rev developers have to put extra effort for graphics, because it's weaker system and they absolutely have to squuesh everything out of the system, whereas X360's and PS3's power will let developes to focus on other things...

Wouldn't that make mobile phone games rather expensive to make then?

I think saying something like that ignores pretty much everything we've heard about next-gen game developement (especially wrt things like direction and content, rather than tech) and what we've been told about the Revolutions 'philosophy' as a platform.

the statement "less power=better games" is ridiculous.

Absolutely. But it's not what is being said is it.

but do think they should have done a console significantely more powerfull simple because that can enable new types of game plays or new experiences that arent possible with so little power.

I think developers would have more success 'enabling new gameplay and experiences' by simply designing new games, I don't buy that the raw power we have today is currently any sort of major limiting factor in this regard.

 

[pc999]

I think developers would have more success 'enabling new gameplay and experiences' by simply designing new games, I don't buy that the raw power we have today is currently any sort of major limiting factor in this regard.

I didnt say the raw power we have today (I take it as XB360 level) I said that only 2-3x times should limit especially in the Rev case.

 

[bitwise xor]

I didnt say the raw power we have today (I take it as XB360 level) I said that only 2-3x times should limit especially in the Rev case.

Well I was thinking of the power that most people have, xbox1/ps2/average pc, I guess, and thinking of my first encounter with ThiefII last week which is a 6? year old game.

Why especially in the Rev case? Is the controller cpu intensive or do you have a certain usage in mind or something?

 

[function]

Should Nintendo have made Rev with the new control + as much/more power than PS3/360?

Not if they want to follow their current strategy, which requires cheap hardware, no.