If history has teached us anything, is that weaker videogame system can RULE all!

[Anakenobi]

Regardless of the fact that Matt Cassamasina (sp?) recent article on Revolution-IGN is faulty (no big name developers were quoted and the dev's that talked can only work on prototype dev kits based on the GC technology as Ninty mentioned before), it is almost a given that the REVO will not be as powerfull as the other consoles from Sony and MS.

 

But is that really a problem? Consider the fact that historically, "weaker" systems have won console wars before.

 

 

* The Game Boy (the original brick version).

 

 

Back in 1989 or so, that handheld had competition coming from Nec (Turbo Express) and SEGA (Game Gear) and from Atari (Lynx). Said companies produced more powerful handhelds that were in COLOR (the original GB was in B & W) and had better graphics (for the time).

 

And yet the humble Game Boy was able to beat them to a pulp. Why? Simple... Because the GB had a better library of quality games. And a better battery lifespan. Nintendo was thinking about gamers not graphics. Thus they made the GB to fit our gaming needs.

 

 

* The Playstation 1

 

This system was technically weaker than the N64. And yet due to the fact the PS1 had a HUGE catalog of games (and Final Fantasy) it won the 32 and 64 bit wars.

 

 

 

* PS2

 

Despite having older and weaker hi-tech specs than the Xbox and GC (GC had faster processor and could handle real time graphics and textures better), the PS2 once again managed to place SONY as the winner during the last generation of consoles. Why? Because the PS2 had ALL THE GAMES MOST GAMERS WANTED TO PLAY (GTA).

 

 

* Nintendo DS

 

Too early to say or to mention it really has any real competition, and yet the DS has managed to beat the crap out of the PSP in the videogame handheld arena. And once again, it all comes down to games. The DS has them and Nintendo has done a better job at marketing the DS as a GAMING system, not like Sony which looks like they're trying to save their film division by selling the PSP as a MEDIA device to watch their films (Zathura anyone?)

 

In short, weaker systems manage to do well and even better than more powerfull console/systems.

 

So all is not lost for the Revolution... especially when we have been told that not EVERYTHING has been revealed about it.

 

Cheer-up people! : peace:

[DCK]

Well, all reactions like 'weak doesn't mean anything' and 2-3x powerful is pretty 1337 just seem sad to me. Everything is far from lost, we know that.

[The fish]

U have a point but the only way nintendo will do well in the next-generation is by the gameplay, not by having slightly inferior graphics.

[Anakenobi]

Graphics aren't everything but they are a factor these days.

 

Like for example, almost nobody is mentioning the fact that for the game Developers the cost of making HD games will be quite an expensive proposition.

 

That's why Iwata mentioned that they want to make the REv affordable for even small companies to work on it and not go the way of Sunsoft, Acclaim and other companies that didn't have the money to stick around anymore because making games has become so expensive because everybody wants Hollywood productions and HD graphics and yet the games themselves remain as formulaic and repetitive as ever.

 

Devs have to go back to basics...making great games not just great lookin' games!

[Mr. Bananagrabber]

It's tought. Not teached.[/arsehole]

The poorer graphics do dissapoint me a bit though.

But isn't it amazing how graphics mean nothing to the DS or Rev, and yet the PS2 RE4 port is much worse because of them?

[The Peeps]

Like many people, I'm not fussed about the graphics but there's still no telling what the games will look like.

 

Geremy Mustard - Co-Founder (Advent Rising)

November 26, 2005

“The Revolution will be much more powerful than the GameCube. I think people will be surprised at how many games will continue to be made across all three consoles."

 

That's enough reassurance for me. Multi-platform games still going to Nintendo, as well as their own original games. I'm sure I read somewhere that some developer (or someone reliable) said that we probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Xbox 360 and Revo graphics anyway.

 

Nintendo are going a seperate way with the Revo, gameplay over graphics. That's what they've been doing all along and the Revo control scheme itself shows that we'll have something original and new (and most likely very fun) to play with.

[Anakenobi]

It's tought. Not teached.[/arsehole]

The poorer graphics do dissapoint me a bit though.

But isn't it amazing how graphics mean nothing to the DS or Rev, and yet the PS2 RE4 port is much worse because of them?

 

Actually, it is "Taught" not tought...I'm American so my English blows as a result... anyhoo, it seems that we are a couple of arseholes! no? :p

[Mr. Bananagrabber]

Actually, it is "Taught" not tought...I'm American so my English blows as a result... anyhoo, it seems that we are a couple of arseholes! no? :p

Yeah. At least we have each other.

[dabookerman]

i would like to add the the game boy had tetris

[Anakenobi]

i would like to add the the game boy had tetris

 

Yep, it's all about the games.

 

Tetris was in B&W and played on a dark pissed colored screen on the old GB. And yet it was so good it made the GB #1 over the competition.

 

Regardless of the fact that the GB was bulky, had a tiny non-HD screen (compared to the other handheld screens), and was marketed mostly to kids.

 

It's all about them games. That was what really made all the mentioned consoles rein supreme over their competition. The games.

 

Nintendo better work hard on the next Smash Bros.!

[King_Mushroom]

One hole in the theory. The weaker console should normally = earlier console = greater customer awareness.

 

Sadly this is not the case with REV. Nintendo have to Market the CONTROLER like crazy and make the competitors devices look exremely dated.

[MikeMania]

didn't Nintendo's licencse agreement for Tetris and having it bundled with every GameBoy system make it sky rocket in sales?

 

For me, I think a big factor was the price and accessibility of the system. Having less harware power and still winning is not really a statistic, but I do see Nintendo pulling those a many times. If a system had better graphics and cost less than the competition not to mention good games... then its guaranteed to win.

[James McGeachie]

Well here's the problem with Revolution. This is one of, if not the biggest power gap there's ever been between consoles in competition and not only that, this is the LAST of the consoles to be on the market.

 

In the past, the way people would be impressed enough to buy a next gen system would be buy the first images and videos they saw totally wowing them and making them think they HAD to have this system. In all the above cases, the successfull above systems were able to do that because the weakest ones were either out first or at the same time as the competitors. The weakest ones have never been available LAST however. The reality with Revolution is that not only is it going to be weakest, it's going to be a whole year after the Xbox 360, with the people's idea of "next gen" already firmly buried in the heads of gamers everywhere. What are people going to think when they see games of the quality of a souped up Xbox, after a whole year of being exposed to the quality of a console MANY times more powerful than the Xbox? It's as simple as this, their first reaction will not be very positive.

 

In other words, the only way Nintendo can really sell this thing now is if they have ONE HELL of a marketing campaign. They need to market it to a point they've never done before, they have to show everyone exactly why they should be buying their system. Adverts on every channel in every country explaining exactly what the controller does, print advertising everywhere, tons of posters and billboards, sponsoring, etc. It needs to be huge...and I'm sorry if anyone is unhappy about this, but going by their previous advertising history, I'm not sure if they can pull it off. I hope they can, I realy do, but is it possible? I'm really not sure. Please prove me wrong, Nintendo.

[Gaijin von Snikbah]

And who bought Tetris? The hardcore gamers? No. The old folks.

[MikeMania]

well, they wern't quite old back in those days. In a time video games were simple and addictive, I would think everyone got hooked on Tetris in 1989.

[King_Mushroom]

Yes James is right, for me nitnendo have everything covered except for one thing... timing.

If revolution released alongside Zelda in say March, things would be alot brighter.

[Raven]

Graphics aren't everything but they are a factor these days.

just extending on this, the graphics thing is mainly with the casual gamers who are unsure of what game system to buy.

 

i mean think about it. if you like a system because they release "This kind of game", you would get it regardless of the graphic quality.

im sure that if "GTA : Insert city name here" wasnt all the graphically nice, people would still get it regardless.

 

anyway. im goin to bed. all this being logical is tiring.

[Hellfire]

You just know that this discussion will end up like any other discussion about Rev's power. It's really hard to tell what will happen. PS2 is the weakest, but it had PSone image, while Nintendo doesn't benefict from GCs image. So being weak, might add fuel to the fire. Gaming wise I dont care, I just want good games.

[Hal_9Million]

If I'm not mistaken, hasn't the console that's won every "war" been a less powerful one? The NES and SNES also competed against other, more powerful machines, and won against them. I'm guessing that this was due to the other systems being too powerful wasn't it? And Nintendo's collevtion of games. So if Nintendo can just get the games, we're sorted.

[DCK]

So if Nintendo can just get the games, we're sorted.

That's the reason why these specs make people worry. It's not at all as if the graphics will suck or that Nintendois t3h doomed. But it's very likely the Revolution won't be able to run games such as Resident Evil 5 properly. If you believe the 'souped up Xbox' comment it can run the Doom 3 engine and the Half-Life 2 engine nicely but it ends there. It will be very difficult for developers to port games that they have developed for the extremely powerful 360 and PS3 and scale them down to fit them in the limited capacity the Revolution gives them. As a result we might see less third party games or see that those games look quite different from what they are on the other consoles.

[Kurtle Squad]

If I'm not mistaken, hasn't the console that's won every "war" been a less powerful one? The NES and SNES also competed against other, more powerful machines, and won against them. I'm guessing that this was due to the other systems being too powerful wasn't it? And Nintendo's collevtion of games. So if Nintendo can just get the games, we're sorted.

 

The NES & SNES were JUST as powerful as MegaDrive & Master System

[Anakenobi]

Well here's the problem with Revolution. This is one of, if not the biggest power gap there's ever been between consoles in competition and not only that, this is the LAST of the consoles to be on the market.

 

You mean gap between launch of any system?... the biggest gap was when SEGA released the 16-bit Genesis/Mega Drive in 1989, and then Nintendo released it's Super Nintendo at the end of 1991.

 

That happened after Nec's TurboGrafx 16 was released in 1990 and also after the release of the Neo-Geo from SNK.

 

So after the release of several major consoles, Nintendo went ahead with the SNES. It was dead last. And yet went on to produce some of the most popular and classic videogames ever (Zelda III, Super Metroid, Donkey Kong Country, Star Fox (Star Wings), Super Mario World, Mario Kart, etc.) Not to mention that that console had the best RPG games. Final Fantasy, Secret of Mana, Illusion of Gaia, Breath of Fire, etc.

 

In the end, the SNES was able to dominated the 16 bit market by the end of 1994 after SEGA made some dumb mistakes (developing useless add-ons for it's 16 bit system) and when it decided to move on by developing it's 32 bit system (Saturn).

 

 

....In all the above cases, the successfull above systems were able to do that because the weakest ones were either out first or at the same time as the competitors. The weakest ones have never been available LAST however.

 

Nope.... The Nintendo DS came last after the PSP.

 

Business 2.0 has a great article about the Nintendo DS in their most recent issue (Dec 2005). The article starts off by saying: "There’s a truism in the video-game industry: Fancy hardware doesn’t sell game machines; it takes great games to sell fancy hardware."

 

An article which only proves my point. That it doesn't matter when a console comes out (look up the SNES example) it matters MORE if the console/system has any quality games to be played on it.