Another debate about the graphics...

[Fallax]

...You know, everyone keeps on thinking the Rev can't handle Xbox 360 type graphics. If that were so, why would Ubisoft Paris use both GCn dev kits AND PC dev kits, can you answer that one? They would have to use actual PC cpecs, right? I consider this proof that the Revolution should be able to handle any game or engine -- so long it doesn't require graphics in HD -- it needs to.

[D3adcell]

I don't think it can handle Unreal Engine 3. I could be wrong but i'm almost positive that I read that somewhere before. It will be able to handle graphics that are just fine by my standards. But alot of the techy guys like to nitpick little details.

Although the pictures from redsteel look on part with 360 games right now.

[Michael]

^Actually they said they didn't want to use unreal 3 because the revolution didn't have any HD output, not because of power.

[Flamin Scotsman]

this months ngc said that the revolution screens are like a 2-3 times gamecube, or someting, i think they were talking about red steel graphics but im not sure

[venomv]

...You know, everyone keeps on thinking the Rev can't handle Xbox 360 type graphics. If that were so, why would Ubisoft Paris use both GCn dev kits AND PC dev kits, can you answer that one? They would have to use actual PC cpecs, right? I consider this proof that the Revolution should be able to handle any game or engine -- so long it doesn't require graphics in HD -- it needs to.


You do realize that makes no sense right? Unles we know what the 'PC specs' are there is way you can get anything from that, there are PC's weaker then the XBox 360 and PS3 believe it or not.......

[Boggy700]

I believe that videogames are at a point, and have been for some time, where the graphics are as good as they need to be for a long time to come.
That is all.

[Generic Wheaties]

I believe that videogames are at a point, and have been for some time, where the graphics are as good as they need to be for a long time to come.
That is all.
:cheers:
agreed.

[venomv]

I believe that videogames are at a point, and have been for some time, where the graphics are as good as they need to be for a long time to come.
That is all.

For the most part, yeah, I hope they use a good portion of the systems' power for physics and AI, even though I doubt we will see much better AI.

[pac4life]

dude

seriously, if you honestly still believe the Rev will some how match the 360 in power,

you are gonna have a very very rude awakening come e3.

The games will still be really good looking, but dont expect what youve seen from Too Human or Gears of War

[Helios]

Excuse me for my lack of blind optimism but I do not think the Rev will be able to handle any game present on the PS3 or 360. Its called mathematics and logic, the numbers simply dont add up.

Will Rev have good graphics? Yes.

Will Rev have graphics on par with PS3/360? No way in hell.

I believe that videogames are at a point, and have been for some time, where the graphics are as good as they need to be for a long time to come.
That is all.

If certain little things were hammered out I might be able to agree with you. But I still believe there are too many issue that need to taken care of before we've reached any sort of "acceptable" plateu. Things like hand & foot articulation, flesh that doesnt look like plastic(ala the Unreal Engine), and proper material matrixing. Im tired of the only things that look "better" in games are metallic & other hard surfaces.

That and I dont think that because dev's wouldbt pushing graphics as much we'd get a bunch of spectacular new "original" titles. People get burned out. You can't constantly come up with new things, at least not ones that are actually better than what you have come up with before. If you could then we wouldn't have the word 'progress' because everything would have been done by now. There's a natural progression to the creation of new things. And the creativity most people seek is found not by trying to stimulate some secret, hidden creative organ, but by a multitude of things. First and foremost is maintaining a healthy body and mind. That means exercise, not just eating right. After that you need to have a well-rounded appetite for activities outside of the normal grind of whatever you do for a living, be it game design or anything else.

The point is, if you want to be creative, just sitting there trying to be creative isn't going to help. The most creative moments I've ever had were the result of a culmination of many things in my life, at which point mentally I reached an apex of sorts, and something clicked. And then I realized something or thought of something in a new way. As a result the only times ive ever gotten writers block was when I sat down 'trying' to think of a new connection for my book. It just doesnt work.


Point being there's no "new" creativity thats going to result if developers stop focusing on graphics. You're going end up with the same 'new' titles that would have resulted anyway, only they wont be nearly as polished as they could have been. Thats the reason why so many Indie titles completely bomb, sometime they have a nice new general idea but it ends up glitchy, buggy and barely acceptable graphics. Why? Too much focus on theme and not enough on complete well being.

[Fallax]

I never once said the the Revolution will be as powerful as the Xbox 360, and I never said the the Rev can use Unreal 3 -- what I said was 'Xbox 360 type graphics', meaning that the graphics will LOOK like the Xbox 360 and PS3. Thats all. End of story.

Also, I realize that. But games like Guild Wars -- which can even run on my two year old computer -- look awesome. Thats what I meant.

[Helios]

There's not much difference (if at all) between look-a-like 360 graphics and a graphic engine designed for 360/PS3. It takes pretty much equal power to run a 360 graphic engine and another graphic engine which gets comparable results.

Not trying to get nit-picky here but thats the case of things.

[bobo_ess]

Power is one way to go at things...but efficiancy goes another way...

I heard the genesis was more powerful than the SNES...

The SNES was going to town on the graphics...more so than the genesis

[disrupter006]

Wasn't genesis 16 bit vs. snes 32 bit?

[Hylian-Advocate]

Well.... ....Graphics aren't going to make a game drastically better...

I think we all agree on that.

however, I do have to agree that increased processing powere can potentially enhance games for the better. For example, you can have more character models on screen at one time. You can have more complex programs with more variables and different outcomes. Levels can be larger and yield more variety in depth and detail....

Dont get me wrong. I have long been a supporter of the Revolution and I think the Revolution's gameplay will surpass both the 360 and PS3, but I do understand where some of the more tech savy individuals are coming from.

[P.B.]

i believe the snes could produce a better quality image but the genesis could load screens faster or something, which is one of the reasons sonic was created, because due to its speed it couldn't be done on snes.

Anyways, I'm not counting on revolution being as powerful as these other next gen systems. But honestly, I look at a lot of these next gen screens in motion, and then some of the top games from this gen, and I don't see too much of a difference. Especially if you're not too concerned with HD, I'm sure revolution will look just fine.

The one thing I am kinda worried about though is I wish epic would make some games for revolution, it could potentially be very great for them, but I doubt they'll do it if it can't handle unreal engine 3. Maybe if the revolution controller completely makes the standard control of fps games feel terrible though on other consoles by comparison, then they'll be almost forced to go to revolution.

[Boggy700]

If certain little things were hammered out I might be able to agree with you. But I still believe there are too many issue that need to taken care of before we've reached any sort of "acceptable" plateu. Things like hand & foot articulation, flesh that doesnt look like plastic(ala the Unreal Engine), and proper material matrixing. Im tired of the only things that look "better" in games are metallic & other hard surfaces.

But since when is any of that important to the function of a game?
Although I can see things like proper hand and foot articulation being important when we reach a level of AI that will actually be able to put that skill to good use.
But doesn't that come under 'programming'?

I do share your stance on developers only improving hard surfaces though.


I understand your point about creativity, and for the most part I agree.
But I do believe that once graphics can improve no more
(hypothetically of course, because as we already know, digital images can never achieve perfection, not in their current form anyway,)
there will be a focus shift to other elements of game design, and for some developers this may mean a more concentrated effort on creating an original game.
So my belief is based on possible improved effort in a situation that can only exist in theory.
Not the most solid foundation, I know.


There does seem to be some inverse correlation between graphics and gameplay, as far as some of my top-of-the-head cherry-picked experiences prove.
I mean, I can't remember the last time I had a significant amount of fun playing a game with excellent graphics for the time.
I AM a forgetful guy, but y'know.
And what I'm trying to say is nothing.
That is not a point that could stand up in a discussion, let alone a debate.
Not that there is much debating going on here anyway.


Thats the reason why so many Indie titles completely bomb, sometime they have a nice new general idea but it ends up glitchy, buggy and barely acceptable graphics. Why? Too much focus on theme and not enough on complete well being.

You're right, but while glitches and bugs are coding problems, I see your point.
But as I see it it's more a case of Indie titles not appealing to the majority of the demographic.
And when fewer people know about a game, it's harder to get word of mouth going, and I find that word of mouth is more effective to me than any marketing campaign.
Also, a lot of people just want their things to be state-of-the-art, or something.
Many people don't want to listen to music recorded poorly onto cassette tape, no matter how good the music itself is.
Or watch black and white 16mm films, no matter how good the content is.
Or drive cars that look terrible, no matter how well they run.
So I suppose I've ended up back at your original point.
Ha! I thought I had a different opinion!

[Fallax]

There's not much difference (if at all) between look-a-like 360 graphics and a graphic engine designed for 360/PS3. It takes pretty much equal power to run a 360 graphic engine and another graphic engine which gets comparable results.

Not trying to get nit-picky here but thats the case of things.

True, but in the case of the Revolution, it must be able to handle some pretty intense stuff. I have the Game Informer Mag, btw. Read everything there is to know. Seen the PS3 graphics, even. Seen the screens of Xbox 360. Know what I see? Something that doesn't look all that better. Looking at Unreal Tournament 2007, all I see are graphics that are shinner. Red Steel looks just as good, and all of that is in real time, too. You must admit that much. So i don't care about all that mombojobo that says you need a powerful specs to handle the same level that Xbox 360 and PS3 can do. To the everyday gamer, the graphics won't be all that different.

Well.... ....Graphics aren't going to make a game drastically better...

I think we all agree on that.

however, I do have to agree that increased processing powere can potentially enhance games for the better. For example, you can have more character models on screen at one time. You can have more complex programs with more variables and different outcomes. Levels can be larger and yield more variety in depth and detail....

Dont get me wrong. I have long been a supporter of the Revolution and I think the Revolution's gameplay will surpass both the 360 and PS3, but I do understand where some of the more tech savy individuals are coming from.

And, although I know you are a fan of the Revolution, I must inform you that Game Informer says this, "While the Revolution won't be as powerful as the x360 or the PS3, it will still be able to produce impressive graphics. Ubisoft Paris hopes to populate this game with many types of environments that look distinct from one another."
http://www.gameshout.com/images/steel2.jpg
That is the screen that this caption is from. It looks a lot more clear on the actual page, but you can see many little sparts on screen. And if you read this feature, you'll descover that Red Steel's AI will be on par with F.E.A.R, which I understand was praised for its smart AI. And from what I am hearing, this game will be the most challenging game yet to grace any console.

I am not saying it will be able to have 1000 people on the screen at the same time. But remember Mario 128? That was a demo showcasing the power of the GCN. I imagine that the Revolution can do that and more.

And with all this talk, I must state that Red Steel will be awesome. The graphics are beautiful. The gameplay is like nothing I have heard of or even imagined before now. You can now turn your gun on screen just by twisting your wrist. You can now knock things over with a simple nudge of the controller. You can no interact with the AI like no other game. Instead of when you walk away and the AI still talks or just stands there, they will be angry. They might try to kill you. Instead of AI just being targets, they will now move tables to avoid your fire. Instead of a sword fight feeling like you are simply telling the your character to do what your thumbs says, you are the character on screen and you control the action.

This was unheard of. Still is. But with all of this, I can't imagine the Revolution not having weak specs. They have to have a PPU, or something. Maybe not horsepower, maybe its a new way to make games. Maybe its simply something they descovered, I dunno. But all of this sounds too good to be true, yet hear I am, reading a testomany proving that it is indeed true. So I am left at my home, wondering how it's possible. I bet the processor isn't very powerful. Combined with a PPU, does it really matter haveing much power? It would only need enough power to complete everything else. The PPU will do everything else.

But we will wait and see. In fact, we may never know...actually. Nintendo may never release their specs, but I am sure their partners will be announced. This E3 we will know. This E3 we will see. I can't wait.

[bobo_ess]

I like the looks of Red Steel...

Wasn't genesis 16 bit vs. snes 32 bit?


nope...the SNES was 16 bit as well

[munnkyman]

as much as i would like to agree with u on graphics for revolution cause i love nintendo. if u go futher in the game informer and look at rainbow 6 which is on 360 and put the pics side by side u can tell the 360 looks better. not to down the revolution and all cause i love how the game looks u just have to deal with the fact the revolution is going to be a much weaker console

[Hylian-Advocate]

Fallax... ... I wasn't saying the rev wont be fantastic with a bunch of characters on screen at one time and all...... I was just trying to point out that some of the things that graphics/processing whores tout are reasonable arguments...... that all...

I am 500% more stoked about the revolution than 360 or PS3

[Fallax]

as much as i would like to agree with u on graphics for revolution cause i love nintendo. if u go futher in the game informer and look at rainbow 6 which is on 360 and put the pics side by side u can tell the 360 looks better. not to down the revolution and all cause i love how the game looks u just have to deal with the fact the revolution is going to be a much weaker console


This is the best way for me to describe this. Look at the PC market. There is one game, lets just name a game...Guild Wars. But Guild Wars isn't just made for the powerful PC's. is it? No, and no matter what your specs are, they will look the same. Sure, if you have the most powerful PC in the world, it may be smoother, it won't have PC lag -- just network lag if it happens to be a online game (like Guild Wars) -- but thats it. How is that, though? Its because these developers understand that you don't need to most powerful of all specs to create something beautiful.

And once again, talking about Rainbow Six for x360, you are right -- it is damn beautiful. Thing is, Red Steel is also beautiful. Its hard to compare these two, although I can clearly see Rainbow Six being the winner. Why is it hard, though? Because they both look fantastic. But who plays better? Rainbow Six or Red Steel? I haven't played either of these games, but from what I read Red Steel is the clear winner here.

As you guys can see, I don't care too much for graphics. I care more about the gameplay. But I know the graphics will look fantastic. Red Steel looks so damn sexy. So does Rainbow Six (and, btw, Too Human looks even better -- I know the Revolution could never achieve what Silicon Knights did there -- graphicilly speaking, of course) -- but does it matter? If Too Human was on the Revolution, I bet you it would look fantastic nonetheless. I bet we couldn't tell the difference between Too Human on the Revolution and Oblivion on x360. And looking at another title I want, Mass Effect, it doesn't even look half as good as Too Human. In fact, I have never seen a game that looks THAT good.

Thats all I am trying to say. That the graphics will look good, and we will be hardly be able to see the difference. And in the end, it won't make a lick of difference -- because every game will play better on the Revolution. Silicon Knights are trying to re-work the x360 controlls to work for their action title. To make it simple. But imagine Too Human being on the Revolution. I believe this title will suffer because its not on the Rev, although I am sure it will be fantastic nonetheless. But when I play this game, I wont be able to help thinking....what if...what if...it was on the Revolution?

[HolyPaladin]

Power is one way to go at things...but efficiancy goes another way...

I heard the genesis was more powerful than the SNES...

The SNES was going to town on the graphics...more so than the genesis

This is sort of true. Though the SNES beat the holy crap out of the Genesis in every respect, the Genesis sported much higher clock speeds than did the SNES, though the SNES had more RAM overall.

Genesis:
main CPU = 7.61 MHz (PAL), 7.67 MHz (NTSC)
secondary CPU = 3.55 MHz (PAL), 3.58 MHz (NTSC)
boot ROM = 2 KB
main RAM = 64 KB
video RAM = 64 KB
secondary RAM = 8 KB

Super NES:
main CPU = variable-speed, capable of 1.79, 2.68 and 3.58 MHz
RAM = 128 KB
sound control chip (Sony SPC700) = 1.024MHz
audio RAM = 64 KB
video RAM = 64 KB
512 + 32 bytes of "OAM" (Object Attribute Memory) for objects
512 bytes of "CGRAM" for palette data

So, looking at clock speeds, the Genesis appears to be more of a beast, but the SNES has more main RAM and audio RAM than the Genesis, though relatively equal amounts of video RAM. Looking at the CPU speeds and video RAM, it would appear that the Genesis should graphically out-perform the SNES, but it miserably fails to even come close to Nintendo's console. Let's compare them in actual graphic output:

Genesis:
Planes: 4 (2 scrolling playfields, 1 sprite plane, 1 'window' plane)
Sprites: Up to 80 on-screen, depending on display mode
Palette: 512 colors
On-screen colors: 64 × 9-bit words of color RAM, allowing 61 on-screen colors (up to 1536 using raster effects and Shadow/Hilight mode)
Pixel resolution: Up to 320×240 (40×30 cells) for PAL, and up to 320×224 (40×28 cells) for NTSC

SNES:
# Palette: 256 entries; 15-bit color depth (RGB555) for a total of 32,768 colors.
# Maximum colors per layer per scanline: 256.
# Maximum colors on-screen: 4,096 without alpha and 32,768 (using color arithmetic for transparency effects).
# Maximum colors per sprite: 128
# Resolution: between 256x224 and 512x448. Most games used 256x224 or 512x224 pixels since higher resolutions caused slowdown, flicker, and/or had increased limitations on layers and colors (due to memory bandwidth constraints); the higher resolutions were used for less processor-intensive games, in-game menus, text, and high resolution images.
* Resolution 512x224 named pseudo high-resolution is sometimes used for color blending between two sprites with dithering technique. For example: Kirby's Dream Land 3 (aka Hoshi no Kirby 3 in Japan)
# Maximum onscreen objects (sprites): 128 (32 per line, up to 34, 8x8 tiles per line).
# Maximum number of sprite pixels on one scanline: 256. The renderer was designed such that it would drop the frontmost sprites instead of the rearmost sprites if a scanline exceeded the limit, allowing for creative clipping effects.
# Most common display modes: Pixel-to-pixel Mode1 (16 colors (4-bit) per tile; 3 scrolling layers) and affine mapped Mode7 (256 colors per tile; one rotating/scaling layer).

I don't suppose all this was necessary, but I just find crap like this interesting. Oh, specs tend to fail to mention something else Nintendo likes to do with their cartriges (one advantage of using carts over discs): throw in enhancement chips. For example, the game Star Fox came with the "Super FX" microchip in the carts, which enabled them to do the 3D stuff that the SNES wouldn't have been able to handle otherwise.
sources used above:
Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Genesis)
Super NES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System)


Wasn't genesis 16 bit vs. snes 32 bit?

No, they were both 16-bit.


i believe the snes could produce a better quality image but the genesis could load screens faster or something, which is one of the reasons sonic was created, because due to its speed it couldn't be done on snes.

Incorrect. Sega tried to make it seem that way, but it wasn't really true at all. Sonic was indeed intended to convey that illusion, but the SNES was very capable of doing very fast stuff. For comparison, Samus Aran could run blindingly fast in the SNES game Super Metroid; though I don't have speed figures handy, I'd say she'd easily give Sonic a run for his money, if not blow him completely away. Further, games like F-Zero wouldn't be possible if the SNES couldn't handle sufficient framerates, since F-Zero is probably the fastest racing game from that generation, and it was one of the first SNES games available.


Okay, I think I'm done rambling, here.

[pac4life]

Fallax man, the Rev will be a strong system

but dont hold your breath for anything like super bump mapping or shit like that
or some secret way the Rev will somehow match the 360 or ps3 in power

cus thats not going to happen. like i said before, if your EXPECT this, you will walk out of e3 very dissapointed. Do NOT expect anything you have seen such as Huxley or Too Human or even Gears of War.

Sure, your argument about PC games is valid...but only to a certain degree...

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147028/index.html

^go there and look at how a game like that will look on a low end vs. hi end rig. Gears of War can run on my PC right now aswell....but it will look like crap to the max

the Rev WILL be weaker than both systems, and on paper, by quite a bit.

That doesnt mean the games wont look good...Okami on PS2 looks amazing, the new Zelda on GC looks better than many "next gen" games. The Rev will be much more powerful than any current gen system.

The best way to compare will be like the DS and PSP. Which sytem is more capable in the graphics department?

But which system however has the best games?

That is what it seems like will be the case with the Revolution vs 360 and PS3.

Im really anticipating the Rev a lot, its going to be the only system i buy at launch (PS3 will break my wallet...plus i expect a price drop for that once MGS4 comes out next year)

mainstream could care less that the Gamecube has more pipe filters or w.e. and the xbox is twice as powerfull than the ps2....

"the games look good enough...its got better games (and a wider selection) so ill go for the ps2..."


I personally wish that nintendo satisfied everyone and made their system at least strong enough to be able to handle something like unreal 3

but from a business perspective, they are probably smarter.

[bobo_ess]

This is sort of true. Though the SNES beat the holy crap out of the Genesis in every respect, the Genesis sported much higher clock speeds than did the SNES, though the SNES had more RAM overall.

Genesis:
main CPU = 7.61 MHz (PAL), 7.67 MHz (NTSC)
secondary CPU = 3.55 MHz (PAL), 3.58 MHz (NTSC)
boot ROM = 2 KB
main RAM = 64 KB
video RAM = 64 KB
secondary RAM = 8 KB

Super NES:
main CPU = variable-speed, capable of 1.79, 2.68 and 3.58 MHz
RAM = 128 KB
sound control chip (Sony SPC700) = 1.024MHz
audio RAM = 64 KB
video RAM = 64 KB
512 + 32 bytes of "OAM" (Object Attribute Memory) for objects
512 bytes of "CGRAM" for palette data

So, looking at clock speeds, the Genesis appears to be more of a beast, but the SNES has more main RAM and audio RAM than the Genesis, though relatively equal amounts of video RAM. Looking at the CPU speeds and video RAM, it would appear that the Genesis should graphically out-perform the SNES, but it miserably fails to even come close to Nintendo's console. Let's compare them in actual graphic output:

Genesis:
Planes: 4 (2 scrolling playfields, 1 sprite plane, 1 'window' plane)
Sprites: Up to 80 on-screen, depending on display mode
Palette: 512 colors
On-screen colors: 64 × 9-bit words of color RAM, allowing 61 on-screen colors (up to 1536 using raster effects and Shadow/Hilight mode)
Pixel resolution: Up to 320×240 (40×30 cells) for PAL, and up to 320×224 (40×28 cells) for NTSC

SNES:
# Palette: 256 entries; 15-bit color depth (RGB555) for a total of 32,768 colors.
# Maximum colors per layer per scanline: 256.
# Maximum colors on-screen: 4,096 without alpha and 32,768 (using color arithmetic for transparency effects).
# Maximum colors per sprite: 128
# Resolution: between 256x224 and 512x448. Most games used 256x224 or 512x224 pixels since higher resolutions caused slowdown, flicker, and/or had increased limitations on layers and colors (due to memory bandwidth constraints); the higher resolutions were used for less processor-intensive games, in-game menus, text, and high resolution images.
* Resolution 512x224 named pseudo high-resolution is sometimes used for color blending between two sprites with dithering technique. For example: Kirby's Dream Land 3 (aka Hoshi no Kirby 3 in Japan)
# Maximum onscreen objects (sprites): 128 (32 per line, up to 34, 8x8 tiles per line).
# Maximum number of sprite pixels on one scanline: 256. The renderer was designed such that it would drop the frontmost sprites instead of the rearmost sprites if a scanline exceeded the limit, allowing for creative clipping effects.
# Most common display modes: Pixel-to-pixel Mode1 (16 colors (4-bit) per tile; 3 scrolling layers) and affine mapped Mode7 (256 colors per tile; one rotating/scaling layer).

I don't suppose all this was necessary, but I just find crap like this interesting. Oh, specs tend to fail to mention something else Nintendo likes to do with their cartriges (one advantage of using carts over discs): throw in enhancement chips. For example, the game Star Fox came with the "Super FX" microchip in the carts, which enabled them to do the 3D stuff that the SNES wouldn't have been able to handle otherwise.
sources used above:
Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Genesis)
Super NES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System)




No, they were both 16-bit.




Incorrect. Sega tried to make it seem that way, but it wasn't really true at all. Sonic was indeed intended to convey that illusion, but the SNES was very capable of doing very fast stuff. For comparison, Samus Aran could run blindingly fast in the SNES game Super Metroid; though I don't have speed figures handy, I'd say she'd easily give Sonic a run for his money, if not blow him completely away. Further, games like F-Zero wouldn't be possible if the SNES couldn't handle sufficient framerates, since F-Zero is probably the fastest racing game from that generation, and it was one of the first SNES games available.


Okay, I think I'm done rambling, here.


there we go i miss them posts.

[Hylian-Advocate]

Very educational, HP....

I didn't know all that about the Gen and SNES

[munnkyman]

Fallax im not saying the revolution is not going to have beautiful graphics im just saying they might not compare to xbox 360 games which r made well. By that i mean look at dyanasty warriors 5 its on a next gen system but man it looks horrible. Yes and i agree with u on gameplay all the way i believe thats much more important then graphics.

[dead718]

First and foremost is maintaining a healthy body and mind. That means exercise, not just eating right. After that you need to have a well-rounded appetite for activities outside of the normal grind of whatever you do for a living.



What the fuck does that have to do with anything















sorry, you lost me there

[=NukeBlaze=]

1920x1024 : 1080i/p Xbox360/PS3
1280x720 : 720p Xbox360/PS3
640x480 : 480i/p Revolution

There are simply a fewer number pixels to be pushed, therefore it really does not matter if the system was "Rev-ed up", get it? Terrible ..I know. I still prefer high frame rates, rather than a few extra peices of eye candy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Videores.png/800px-Videores.png

[Teh Roxor!]

The only thing that might bother me about the Rev's relatively low power isn't graphics at all, but general processing power like Hylian-Advocate said. When I make a large map in Timesplitters: Future Perfect, the number of bots I can add is very low. This is a problem that more power can fix. Also, better physics and AI might be possible with a stronger system.

I don't think this will be a problem for the Revolution, though. I think it will be powerful enough for me.

[Fallax]

The only thing that might bother me about the Rev's relatively low power isn't graphics at all, but general processing power like Hylian-Advocate said. When I make a large map in Timesplitters: Future Perfect, the number of bots I can add is very low. This is a problem that more power can fix. Also, better physics and AI might be possible with a stronger system.

I don't think this will be a problem for the Revolution, though. I think it will be powerful enough for me.

I don't think that will be problem, either. Nintendo never once said they didn't care about technology, rather they would rather push it towards a different direction -- as in improve the game play. AI is a big part of the entire game. And reading Red Steel, we are going to have some tough AI -- they can actually plan together now, did you know that? Move tables to create cover...

As for how many AI bots u'll be able to have...who knows? Not me. We will find out.

[mark297]

This is just another person who still cant get it through his scrawny head that the rev's graphics will suk compared to the 360 and ps3. Come on, just face the fact that graphics will be really good, but will still pale in comparison to m$'s and sony's consoles.

if you want graphics so bad just go buy a ps3 and stop trying to convince yourself that the revs graphics will equal the 360s and ps3s.

[venomv]

I don't think that will be problem, either. Nintendo never once said they didn't care about technology, rather they would rather push it towards a different direction -- as in improve the game play. AI is a big part of the entire game. And reading Red Steel, we are going to have some tough AI -- they can actually plan together now, did you know that? Move tables to create cover...

As for how many AI bots u'll be able to have...who knows? Not me. We will find out.

There have been plenty of games that had great idea's but when it came to releasing the game they had to be cut, just because they want to do something doesn't mean they CAN or WILL do it. And ist generation games will show of a systems power zero percent of the time.

To what you said earlier about Red Steel and UT07, you may think Red Steel looks better, and I am not going to argue with you because that is purely opinion, but I think (don't quote me on this) that I takes a pretty good amount more power to do UT07 then Red Steel.

[Hylian-Advocate]

bottom line people.....all consoles will look fine....some will likely play better or look better....thats all.

and if Nintendo's efforts pay off the Rev will be the one playing better. So all else doesn't matter as much to me.

[Vishus]

We're just going to have to wait until someone actually explains in detail how efficient the Rev is.

[munnkyman]

This is just another person who still cant get it through his scrawny head that the rev's graphics will suk compared to the 360 and ps3. Come on, just face the fact that graphics will be really good, but will still pale in comparison to m$'s and sony's consoles.

if you want graphics so bad just go buy a ps3 and stop trying to convince yourself that the revs graphics will equal the 360s and ps3s.

won't be as good but i don't think sux. i mean it still gonna make some good looking games but say sux compare to the other cosoles is a little harsh

[dead718]

The GC graphics don't even suck compared to the call of duty and King Kong Demos I've played for the 360...

[Derrick Barra]

Nintendo has always downplayed graphics as not being terribly important. But they've always had incredible graphics without sacrifices like long load times. This generation is a bit different due to HDTV, but like they said before if you don't play it on a HDTV you won't be seeing much of a difference at all.

Plus 1st generation Revolution games will look absolutely stunning from the get-go. PS3 and 360 have to wait 2-3 years to actually see their potential. And then you've got the Nintendo made games, which somehow always look breathtaking and seem to ignore the "lower system specs" that the competition always says it competitors has. Case in point, Metroid Prime, and LoZ: Twighlight Princess.

Plus the Revolution won't overheat and commit Suicide like the 360 and PS3 do and will because of its "lower system specs".

[Hylian-Advocate]

Well....technically Metroid Prime was done by retro.....which Nintendo purchased as a second party.....lol

but yes... I am always impressed by the fact that they were able to have so much detail in that game.... no other game at alll compares to the detailed geometry of everything in Prime.

[nintendofan123]

man the graphics will be great even if they might not be as good as the others they still have the controller and just hearing about it im going to buy it ive already pre ordered mine at gamestop and cant wait to get it when it comes


Boricua 4 EVER

[Fallax]

This is just another person ho still cant get it through his scrawny head that the rev's graphics will suk compared to the 360 and ps3. Come on, just face the fact that graphics will be really good, but will still pale in comparison to m$'s and sony's consoles.

if you want graphics so bad just go buy a ps3 and stop trying to convince yourself that the revs graphics will equal the 360s and ps3s.


I DON"T WANT F***ing GRAPHICS....I WANT AWESOME GAMEPLAY. But, at the same time, I know that the graphics WILL LOOK F***ING good. They will. Red Steel looks great. Really does. No one who I have showed those graphics to have denied their beauty. Period. Don't ever insult my intelligence again, saying I can't get something throw my head -- never once -- F***ING once...did I say the graphics will be better. Never once did I say that Red Steel LOOKS BETTER then UT2007. I said, in my F***ING opinion that it looked just as good. THATS IT.


Man, I though NintendoNow was full of actual people who wouldn't insult people. Maybe I was wrong.

[Loomer]

Plus the Revolution won't overheat and commit Suicide like the 360 and PS3 do and will because of its "lower system specs".
That should not even be considered a plus because it is such an excellent point. Stability is the last thing consumers consider when they decide which system to invest in, but it actually should be one of the first if not the first.

[venomv]

I have had no problems with anything Playstation or Nintendo, so I am not worried about that at all.

I DON"T WANT F***ing GRAPHICS....I WANT AWESOME GAMEPLAY. But, at the same time, I know that the graphics WILL LOOK F***ING good. They will. Red Steel looks great. Really does. No one who I have showed those graphics to have denied their beauty. Period. Don't ever insult my intelligence again, saying I can't get something throw my head -- never once -- F***ING once...did I say the graphics will be better. Never once did I say that Red Steel LOOKS BETTER then UT2007. I said, in my F***ING opinion that it looked just as good. THATS IT.

I agree with what he said about you being thick-headed, but anyway I have a question for you. Are you saying that the graphics in Red Steel and UT07 are equal, or do you just like the way Red Steel looks when compared to UT07? Cause I can relate to that, I really don't like the look of UT, but I don't deny that defently takes a good amount of power to create. Nor do I like the look of Red Steel though, me and shooters don't get along.

[Hylian-Advocate]

I want to stress, Fallax that Nintendo Now and E-mpire does not support slanderous comments and putdowns.... so I am sorry if you felt that way, but it’s not indicative of the community as a whole. I hope you stick around.

mark297... please refrain from making comments that obviously target somebody’s personal opinions (this may not have been your intent but the result still happened -- try to rephrase any future comments like this using a more friendly tone).... this is a great community and it doesn't need to be a place where people are afraid to express their personal views .... in fact, mature discussions about how each member feels about certain issues is exactly what this place is all about….. so everyone try and keep it that way.

I don’t want to see this thread or any others be closed for unnecessary/immature, argumentative insults -- keep it kind and respectful!

[Tael]

I don't like it how Sony and Microsoft are displaying HD as a must have.

[Vishus]

They have to dispaly HD and graphics, because it's all they have and nothing else. Anything else is just something that could have been done with today's generation.

[Boggy700]

Are you saying that the graphics in Red Steel and UT07 are equal, or do you just like the way Red Steel looks when compared to UT07?

His exact words were:

Never once did I say that Red Steel LOOKS BETTER then UT2007. I said, in my F***ING opinion that it looked just as good. THATS IT.

So no, he isn't saying that they are equal.
He is saying that in his opinion they look just as good.
Really all I'm doing is just repeating what I quoted.

[Fallax]

His exact words were:



So no, he isn't saying that they are equal.
He is saying that in his opinion they look just as good.
Really all I'm doing is just repeating what I quoted.

I have cooled down since my last post here, and I feel I can post without being saying a damn curse word (oops, I already failed). Anyway, looks like someone can understand what I been trying to say all along. Great! Thanks Boggy700.

And Hylian-Advocate, I must say that I understand that neither Nintendo Now nor E-mpire support the comments of one man -- and I understand that the community at whole is not like that one man. But also understand that I have lived in many different forums. My names are many -- Straith, GamingProphet, Treason, MysticX, and Dj Dark are all names I have gone under in the past seven years. Now there are only three or four forums I go to. Why? Because they are full of people who don't slander anyone for their opinions, who aren't so thick-headed that they can't even understand that an opinion is not fact -- but merely what someone thinks.

My eyes are on you, Mark297.

And up until now, Nintendo Now has been full of these good, hearted people. Even when I showed up as a fake, there were people here who didn't believe in me -- but never once said anything that hurt my feelings. And even after I admited to it, we all laughed and agreed it was fun while it lasted. But like they always say, one bad apple ruins the entire batch. Luckly for you, another good one makes it all new again.

So here it goes, once more: The Debate. In the end, this is all that matters. I found an article on a fan site I enjoy. This article speaks many truths, and for some people like Mark297, maybe this will help you understand my opinion:

The debate rages on over the Nintendo Revolution specs. There have been a whole lot of unsubstantiated reports that claim anything from extremely low specs for an underpowered machine to things that make a NASA supercomputer look like an abacus. All of these supposed insiders claim to know the truth but in fact nobody but Nintendo knows the real story and we won’t know until they tell us. Unfortunately, they haven’t chosen to tell us anything and have even made statements that they may not ever officially divulge the specs of their new machine. What could possibly be the reason for that? Is it that the machine is truly underpowered and Nintendo doesn’t want to be embarrassed by the specs? Is it that they are trying to protect some top-secret internal hardware that will blow everyone away? Whatever the case, we just don’t know what to expect from Nintendo’s next console and that can be worrisome.

Specs aren’t important. There’s a statement that gets thrown around a lot. It is also blatantly false. Granted the specs of a new console have little bearing on how much fun is to be had with it by the right players. Most true gamers recognize that gameplay is the most important factor in judging the quality of a game or system. Playing that paper game of “My Console is Better than Your Console” is a fruitless endeavor. It’s not really going to mater in the end. The PlayStation 2 has the lowest specs on paper, but it has still been the most successful console this generation. There are always some casual gamers that will tout a system’s specs as being the best, but they usually don’t have any idea of what any of it really means. PS2 has the only true 128-bit CPU in the current generation, but the Xbox, with its meager 32-bit processor, beats it hands down. The average consumer is uneducated when it comes to specs and it doesn’t matter to them one bit. They only care about what they see and they do tend to like pretty graphics, but other things are factors as well. Otherwise, the PSP would be trouncing the DS hands down, but it isn’t. The DS offers more bang for less buck and the consumers have responded to that.

So, specs don’t matter, right? Wrong. The thing about specs is that they offer an amount of psychological comfort to gaming fans. Having good or bad specs is one thing, but it is more important just to know what they are. There is a certain amount of pride that comes from seeing a really great spec sheet. It’s futile to brag about them, but seeing it on paper builds confidence in a console and a company. You know they are serious about what they are doing. Conversely, bad specs may be hard to swallow but they also let you make reasonable assertions about a system. Sometimes it is plain to see that just because the specs aren’t great there are certain advantages to having it that way. In the early stages of a console’s pre-release period, the specs offer a way to feel good about your potential purchase and make you an educated consumer. I know that as good or as bad as they may be, I want to know the specs of any system I buy.

Let’s look at it another way. The truth is a very important aspect of the consumer marketplace. It fosters trust between a company and the customer. The spec sheet is a way of providing information to the consumer about the product. As long as the sheet is reliable and doesn’t contain any exaggerations or serious errors (what company would ever do that I wonder?) then trust will be gained. It’s like buying a car. It may be a great vehicle and fun to drive no matter what, but before you buy it, you’re going to want to know if it’s a four-cylinder or a V-8 under the hood. If the salesman tells you it’s a V-8 and you get home and discover it’s just a V-6, you will probably never trust that company again or ever buy another car from them. Information is a powerful tool and withholding key information like system specs will not foster trust and certainly won’t boost sales.

Yes, specs do matter and great specs can help immensely in the long run. It’s not just the consumers who care, but the developers as well. Better specs give developers more freedom leading to bigger and better games. You can bet that any development company took a good hard look at the Nintendo Revolution specs before deciding what to make for the system or even to make anything at all. We have heard comments from many developers that seem to indicate that the specs are good but not great. Is that acceptable to them? Is it acceptable to the consumer? It depends largely on what they do with the capabilities at their disposal. The better the specs, the greater the possibilities. Developers know that and make their business decisions accordingly. Many programmers want to create the best games they can; it’s how they make a name for themselves. Never underestimate the power of pretty graphics to the buying masses.

Yes, specs do matter, but they aren’t everything. You can have the most outstanding specs in the world, but that will lead to problems, as well. Cost is the number one factor. A company can put together the biggest, fastest, most decked-out system ever created, but they would have to charge thousands of dollars for it and they have priced themselves out of the market. Keeping the specs low can have a lot of advantages. It will force developers to be more creative in their programming, and also hopefully their game design. We see it throughout the life of any video game console. Later games look better than the early ones because new programming tricks can generate better looking content with the same hardware. Add to that something groundbreaking like NURBS or cube-mapping and you might have something that looks just as good as the competition while costing significantly less. Still, it’s a risky game to play. You have to make sure that every developer can use what they have been given effectively. Even one bad looking game on a console can have some negative effects. We can, however, always count on Nintendo to deliver the goods no matter what kind of power they are dealing with.

Good specs, bad specs, does it really make a difference? Well, yes and no. People can say the Revolution does not need great specs, which is true to an extent. But suppose that the Revolution boasted an 8-bit processor and all the capabilities of an Atari 2600. Could it still be a success at all? It’s not likely. Conversely, they could blow everyone else out of the water with a dedicated physics processor and enough power to render a new Star Wars movie, but how much would that cost? How would they even make it? No, the specs must not be extreme, but rather competitive. If the Revolution clocks in as the least capable of the three consoles but still has comparable graphics and games, then it really won’t matter. Developers might want to port their games between platforms as well, and the specs need to be reasonably similar for that to be done effectively. Otherwise the developer just might not port the game at all and choose only one platform to develop for. Again though, The PS2 proves that the system with the best specs won’t necessarily be the most profitable platform for games and that’s what really matters. The Revolution can be a success even if it is “underpowered.” It just can’t be too underpowered or the developers will opt to produce elsewhere.


The most important thing about specs is just knowing what they are. It is so hard to make judgments this far out about these systems that are basically vaporware. I am surprised that Nintendo has kept them from us for so long and has considered never even telling us at all. We need to know so we can dream about the possibilities. Some people might build it up too much and be disappointed. Others might think too conservatively and be blown away. Personally, I don’t really care what the specs actually are as long as I can stop guessing. We could put all these radical claims to rest with just a little forthrightness from Nintendo. Of course, that is the curse of the Nintendo fan. Nintendo is a company of secrets and they have us hooked. There is no way we can’t play their game even if we don’t want to. They have a point. I plan to get a Revolution regardless of whether they ever reveal these specs or not. But I do want to know and I hope we find out sooner rather than later.


First off, let me tell you this is from AMN. Second off, let me tell you that the editorial speak some truth. Notice the bold. Its the parts I want everyone to read.

But there is a reason for them hiding their specs. If the Rev' specs are what IGN claims -- then they need to hide that so that people wont judge the graphics on paper, but on what they see. In the end, that is what Nintendo is betting on.