Gamecube 2 or Revolution?

[DiemetriX]

Some of you seem dissapointed in Nintendo's revolution. And even more of you think the the revolution has to have better GFX than the 360 to compete.

so i was wondering.. would you rather have "Gamecube 2"

 

Pretty much the same as 360/ps3 but with Retro downlaods and no Mediacenter stashj.

 

Or do you think Nintendo is doing the right thing with the "underpowered" revolution?

 

I think Revolution has the potenital to be the best nintendo console. I love every bit of it. And i love the "blue ocean" strattegy.

[MunKy]

I think if Nintendo made a GC2 they would lose even more market share. Theres one reason for this: Nintendo isnt cool. And they couldnt make themselves cool by jazzing up the current system and making it look nice. They have to offer something different and they are. If it was a GC2 I would stop gaming. Im getting bored of it and need something new.

[Smowza]

GC2 would be slightly more entertaining than 360 but that boring anyway so no thx.

 

i think the rev will satisfy my need for a new experience in gaming.... but what comes after rev will have to be full immersion, otherwise it just wont be enough imo

[Pit-Jr]

I agree 100. The word 'Gamecube' would bring back bad memories of sluggish sales for the retailers too. Best for Nintendo to start fresh and push the Revolution as hard as they push the DS.

[The Peeps]

I'm much happier in knowing that I'll be getting a revolution, not just an upgrade in graphics.

[Retro_Link]

I think Nintendo have done exactly the right thing!!

 

The Revolution will bring about something new, something challenging, something new to learn and bring about unique gameplay!

 

I'm getting fed up of having the feeling with 'new' games that i've played/seen them before, simply because they are the same old games with better and better graphics!

Whilst i'm sure a photo-realistic Resi would be fantastic, so was Resi 4!!

I think there's only so much graphics can add to games and IMO they've got to the stage now (as seen with the Xbox 360) where I can actually say I'm not all that impressed by them any more!! They're getting more realistic, but It's nothing I haven't seen before and much better at the cimema!

 

I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with computer games looking like computer games!

 

The Revolution, just like the DS, will bring about new ways to interact with games, new gaming experiences! and it's in this way that I can see the Rev succeeding in exactly the same way the DS has; only this time it will be a home console version!

It shows by how well the DS is outselling the PSP, that gameplay is much more important than graphics!

 

If it wasn't for Nintendo's innovation this generation, then IMO (from what I've already seen from the 360 and PS3), this/next generation would be extremely boring!

[The Peeps]

I think this may be why the Cube has had some loss of interest... With the NES and the SNES, gaming was still relatively new and fresh, with the N64 we got to play in new 3D worlds but with the Cube, all we really had was an update in graphics. Now with the Revolution, Nintendo is bringing back that new, fresh and original feeling into gaming.

 

 

And we still don't exactly know what the games are going to look like on Revo, Nintendo have said that we wont notice the difference.

[DiemetriX]

I'm glad that people so far agree with me

[glucoseaddict]

i agree with retro link, this gen (revo, xb360, ps3) would be pretty boring if the Revo wasnt in it. im gettin bored with console gaming recently (for the past year really) and the DS has totally got me back into gaming again. i have more DS games than i have gamecube and ps2 put together.

 

i think that if nintendo can manage to repeat the DS sucess with the Revo, even just a bit, they are on to a winner. they still have a shite "kiddy" image but the targetted marketting they have been doin recently (eg nintendogs ads in a doggy mag) and the stuff they will be doin during Oprah (never thought id see the day!) is and will work.

 

i think that the Revo will be something new, fresh, exciting and FUN but i really hope the launch doesnt slip/happen too late. if people are happy with their xbox360s and ps3 then they are much less likely to pick up a Revo.

 

i can see the ps3 coming out in japan and maybe america this year but im sure europe wont see it til early next year. if nintendo can get the Revo out everywhere before the end of the year then things are lookin really good!

 

 

and one more thing... please can people stop worrying about the Revo graphics - im confident that they will be "shiney enough" for us and what the other two consoles have over the Revo, graphics-wise, it will be nothing in comparison to the gameplay advancements the Revo will have.

 

[Pit-Jr]

I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with computer games looking like computer games!

 

Couldnt agree more. Not to bash the 360 cause the games do look good, but the only game ive seen that i would pay 60 dollars for is ironically Geometry Wars. There should be a fine line between videogames and movies

[Hellfire]

No way, I think games need a fresh new start to go along the same old same old. Don't get me wrong I love my Zeldas, Marios and Ninja Gaidens, but unless games are out of this world they just don't seem worth playing. For example CoD2 is a great game, but the whole "WWII FPS that's just like every other FPS but better" just bores me.

[AMN-Ryan]

Interesting question. Here is my take on it:

 

I see a value to both situations. On one hand, you would have another console that would butt heads, directly, once again with Sony and Microsoft. If Nintendo would have come up with a "GC 2" and had it been comparable but cheaper than the other consoles, that would be a winner in my eyes.

 

With this new radical direction, and supposed low price, it will be interesting to see if it becomes a "primary" console or a "secondary" one. The games that Nintendo will publish will be good (I would have said fantastic a few years ago but some GC games let me down, hard), that isn't a question. What 3rd parties have in store is yet to be seen. If they are unable to port games, dev houses will have to make a choice, find a way to fit the controller controls in, not port, make an add-on device the controller (expensive for gamers), or split dev teams for entirly new games. I only see a few of those options happening.

 

I do like the controller idea, I can't wait to get my hands on it but for now, I remain skeptical until I see the games. We can dream of all the possiblilties but if they never get made our dreams will fall flat. Show me the games!

[ndreamer]

im happy with just gamecube graphics but even that is over kill, i just want developers to spend as much time as they can on game play.

[Nintendork]

It isn't a cube.

Revolution is here to say.

[Owen]

I say Revolution.

 

Hopefully the Revolution will have a fantastic new game released, every week of every month of every year.

 

Unlike the Gamecube where you had to wait like 6 months for a fantastic game.

 

[Pestneb]

I think the revo is a GC2 tbh. I think there is merit in having improved graphics, but I don't see the point in HD right now. the standards aren't standard enough yet imo, and consumers in general (in my experience so far) are fairly ignorant when it comes to HD, other than vaguely knowing it is better, while not quite understanding how.

 

I don't think by the end of this generation they will have been able to fully realise 100% realistic graphics at 480p, so I don't see the rush to support higher resolutions. perhaps I'm wrong though.

 

I would rather realistic physics, larger worlds, and more realistic graphics than more sharply defined graphics.

or to put it another way, would you rather pong style graphics on a 1080p screen, or the graphics we have now on a 480i screen?

 

exagerrated point, but the fact is if the 360 focused completely on 480 resolution all the extra power and work could go into othergame related processes.

 

meh.

 

the controller doesn't interest me as much now, but I can see it has huge potential, and I hope it gets fulfilled. time will tell.

[Innovance]

I think the revo is a GC2 tbh. I think there is merit in having improved graphics, but I don't see the point in HD right now. the standards aren't standard enough yet imo, and consumers in general (in my experience so far) are fairly ignorant when it comes to HD, other than vaguely knowing it is better, while not quite understanding how.

 

I don't think by the end of this generation they will have been able to fully realise 100% realistic graphics at 480p, so I don't see the rush to support higher resolutions. perhaps I'm wrong though.

 

I would rather realistic physics, larger worlds, and more realistic graphics than more sharply defined graphics.

or to put it another way, would you rather pong style graphics on a 1080p screen, or the graphics we have now on a 480i screen?

 

exagerrated point, but the fact is if the 360 focused completely on 480 resolution all the extra power and work could go into othergame related processes.

 

meh.

 

the controller doesn't interest me as much now, but I can see it has huge potential, and I hope it gets fulfilled. time will tell.

 

Some good points here, i also agree rev is just GC2 anyway, they have carried over that same thinking they started with GC and have refined it.

 

People seem to forget nintendo played the power game before with the N64, and they lost (figuratively speaking of course)

 

As far as revs power goes, ive now come to the conclusion that they are simply making it powerful enough. We never know we may get more realistic looking games on Rev.

 

It has to be said sony and microsoft made life easier for rev as well at least initially had their machines power gone into making games at 480p rev may have been in a different battle graphically, as it is now developers are going to truly take advantage of 480p + extra power so rev has a smaller bridge to cross

[Konfucius]

I really like that question Diemetrix.

 

I think better graphics are never a bad thing. It would be nice if the Revo featured the same graphics as the X-360 does but not at the cost of innovation. If I have to choose between graphics and innovation I'll choose innovation. Based on the next gen games I saw better graphics are nice to look at but the games don't feel different and fresh - like and old woman with tons of make-up.

Therefore I'm glad that Nintendo takes a different approach and during the last two years I really started to appreciate innovation. And I think on an SD TV the graphics will looks as good as the ones of the X-360.

[DiemetriX]

I think the revo is a GC2 tbh.

I also agree rev is just GC2 anyway, they have carried over that same thinking they started with GC and have refined it.

 

IMO the Nintendo Revolution is far from beeing a GC2. Revolution is all about using the new Revmote. New ways to play games. Even if this will distance them from PS3 and 360. Nintendo has more than once said they are going after a new auidence.

 

Gamecube Wasn't a revolution in any way. Gamecube was just Nintendos "ps2". It went ater the exact same market. After making the cube they started thinking in a new direction. Which led to the revolution.

[Hellfire]

He's not asking if it's a GC2 power wise people, he's asking about the way we play games. And it's good that it uses the GC hardware architecture, bcause that way it's easier to develop for, meaning more advance games early on.

[Pestneb]

IMO the Nintendo Revolution is far from beeing a GC2. Revolution is all about using the new Revmote. New ways to play games. Even if this will distance them from PS3 and 360. Nintendo has more than once said they are going after a new auidence.

 

Gamecube Wasn't a revolution in any way. Gamecube was just Nintendos "ps2". It went ater the exact same market. After making the cube they started thinking in a new direction. Which led to the revolution.

 

I'm pretty sure the revmote would work fine with the GC, much like the microphone and bongo's work fine with it.

I don't know obviously for sure whether the GC could cope with the revmote, but there are no clear reasons that I can see that say the GC couldn't have used the revmote.

[system_error]

I would like to know the degree of how far the Revolution will be underpowered. I don't mind the lack of high definition but when it comes to AI, physics I would like that the Revolution can at least compete. It is not difficult to downsize textures or use low polygon models but it is nearly impossible to make the AI run "faster" or to leave out physics. Imagine Halflife 2 without the physics part and you know what I am talking about.

 

The main problem is that Nintendo sacrificed power for innovation whereas both could go hand in hand BUT of course with a higher price.

Nintendo is now in a very limited situation - they need to gain back more of their former market and on the same hand also establish a way to reach a completly new market. The Revolution will do that to a certain degree concerning casual gamers, non-gamers - eg. the "new" market but to gain more influence on hardcore gamers you need both power and innovation (aka freehand controller, retro library, ...).

 

Innovation is the focus this time and I am quite happy with it. Technically the Revolution must be quite advanced and the only thing I really wish concerning the specification is that the Revolution decreases loading times even more. So I want fast RAM and I want plenty of it.

 

Oh well one point I currently hate is the secrecy. To a certain point it helps but right now hardcore gamers are sick of the waiting and casual gamers don't even know about a new Nintendo console.

[DCK]

Heh, if they gave a GC2 a look as good as the Rev, not call it Cube, and if I wouldn't know of the Revolution, I doubt I'd mind at all.

 

But now we have the Revolution I'm not going back. I just hope they do well on graphics.

[Innovance]

IMO the Nintendo Revolution is far from beeing a GC2. Revolution is all about using the new Revmote. New ways to play games. Even if this will distance them from PS3 and 360. Nintendo has more than once said they are going after a new auidence.

 

Gamecube Wasn't a revolution in any way. Gamecube was just Nintendos "ps2". It went ater the exact same market. After making the cube they started thinking in a new direction. Which led to the revolution.

 

No i think your wrong there, and and i think the big A button on the gc pad is one of the earliest indications of the path that nintendo are heading down now. It started with GC, they realized their mistakes with N64 and tryed to change

 

"It will be cheaper and more developer friendly" did we not hear that with GC?? Are we not still hearing it with rev? Again the GC pad was designed to be more intutive the main game function mapped to the 'A' with the lesser functions elsewhere.

 

We heard about the desire for shorter more pick and play titles before the announcement of revolution and we saw it in games like warioware and donkey kong jungle beat.

 

Their focus on the controller is really their focus on the user experience and their attempt at differentiation from their competitors, as opposed to getting drawn into a graphic or spec battle that apparently would lose

 

But the philosophy/thinking/aims of revolution started on GC and the controller is merely an extension of that philosophy not (entirely) the cause of it

 

Revolution is interesting (to me) because it is both an evolution and an attempt at restarting from the beginning.

 

That is something people miss revolution doesnt solve any of the problems with current / next gen staleness it is merely attempting to restart the cycle in different ways

[AshMat]

I want a revo. I don't want another souped up console, that's why i neer had that much fun with my ps2. I want new features, new control system. That's what lures me in.