wavedash Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 I think that nintendo doesnt mean 2-3 times more powerful in specifications but in in-game performance. For example developers who have made games (or are making games) for the xbox 360 have said it is only 2 times more powerful than the original xbox.If the revolution was 2-3 times more powerful than the GC (which was more or less equal to the xbox) than it would at least be on par with the 360.I read the 360 in an issue of gamepro but I can't quote them because it was my friends copy Ill try to get it and type it all up. .
dabookerman Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 no, the whole 2-3 times powerful remark doesnt exist
YenRug Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 I posted this in the old forums, just been to dig it out to clear things up, for both of you: OK, to clarify, Perrin Kaplan of NoA was in an interview and was asked how much more powerful the Revolution would be than the Gamecube. Without any specific figures to work with, she pulled "2-3 times" out of the air to illustrate that it wouldn't just be an incremental increase. When Sony and MS then went on to start declaring that their new systems would be 20-30 times more powerful, than their predecessors, everyone started panicking. Since then it has been clarified that she didn't have technical specifications to give a reliable answer, her best experience is of seeing demonstrations of the protoype Revolution systems, so her answer is a subjective response to what she has seen.
Woz Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 2-3 more times powerful actually is very powerful. If it was true, I'd be happy with it. Thats why I cant understand why everyone kicked off when it was thought to be true.
dabookerman Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 "I can't believe people are still going off on this!! Iwata never said anything. New York times (or one of those papers) said it after an interview with Perrin Kaplan. They took back the comments cos it was a misinterpretation!!!!" http://forums.gamespot.com/gamespot/show_messages.php?board=909104101&topic=23398408&page=0
wavedash Posted September 23, 2005 Author Posted September 23, 2005 okay sorry i hadn't heard about that.
FighterO'Foo Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Even if it is 'only' 2 to 3 times more powerful can you imagine: something 2 to 3 times better than that? Awesomeness defined.
Minlack Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Even if it is 'only' 2 to 3 times more powerful can you imagine: something 2 to 3 times better than that? Awesomeness defined. *Imagines the Unreal 3 Engine*
Mimternet Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Personally I think Revolution will be comparable with XBox 360 in terms of power. Nintendo have never said it will be less powerful, just said power is less important than innovation. I think we will all be pleasantly surprised come E3 2006. 2-3 times more powerful than Gamecube, that's incredibly powerful! As you both mentioned above, 2-3 times more powerful than Resident Evil 4 is easily as good as the screenshots and videos of Resident Evil 5. Xbox says it is 10 times more powerful, but more powerful than what? Both are saying they are more powerful on different statistics.
Minlack Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Yes! The X-Box 360 is 15 times faster than the X-Box...........to switch on.....remote u see
Kurtle Squad Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Hahaha...or do they mean to load things?! heheh When I play my bros. XBox it's like: STOP, Loading Time!!
Patch Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 STOP, Loading Time!! "Duh, du-du-duh...DUH DUH, Can't lift this"
DCK Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 2-3 times more powerful is bad. It doesn't mean the graphics will look 2-3x as better, it will mean it can do math 2-3x as fast :-/. Theoratically, the 360 is actually like 30-50 times as powerful as the Xbox (PS3 even 100 times or so, in theory) but that doesn't make its graphics that much better. The Revolution will be at least 20 times as powerful as the Cube, but probably more.
Mimternet Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 2-3 times more powerful is bad. It doesn't mean the graphics will look 2-3x as better, it will mean it can do math 2-3x as fast :-/. We don't know that though because there was never any context for that statement which never actually came from Nintendo. They could mean 2 - 3 times more powerful at generating graphics making it more powerful than both the other consoles. We'll find out at E3, and I doubt Nintendo will disappoint.
Haver Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Yeah, but if there's decent technical and graphical ability under the bonnet, that means the games will be crap. Right?
KingOfHyrule Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Nintendo just can't afford to play down eye candy and hardware performance in favour of innovation - to succeed I think both must go hand in hand. Sacrificing either one will not go down well!
Zelda_Rulez Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 I remember Nintendo saying that they were an AND company and not an OR company. I hope they'll show this to us by giving us innovationa and power instead of only one of the two.
Josh64 Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 2-3 times better would be good graphics wise, when i look at games like resi 4 and the legend of zelda: twilight princess I think, "I wouldnt care if the graphics didnt get much better because they are still awsome this generation so if they are only a bit better I would be pleased, because after all i dont care about the graphics as much, the thing im looking forward too the most is how it will reveloutionise gaming!
KingOfHyrule Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 I remember Nintendo saying that they were an AND company and not an OR company. I hope they'll show this to us by giving us innovationa and power instead of only one of the two. Hmm I don't know about that, Nintendo kinda didn't deliver with the DS in terms of graphics; they sacrificed potential GameCube-like graphics in favour of the touchscreen mechanics to keep the price down. The difference between PSP and DS displays is substantial, and I would not have minded in the slightest paying an extra 50 odd squid if the DS graphics matched the PSP, there would be no complaints about the DS had that have been so.
monkeyDluffy Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 but as nintendo said the DS isn't after the PSP, the next gameboy will be, the DS is a new thing all togeather. Plus put GC graphics in a DS and the battery would last 5 minutes.
DCK Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 Hmm I don't know about that, Nintendo kinda didn't deliver with the DS in terms of graphics; they sacrificed potential GameCube-like graphics in favour of the touchscreen mechanics to keep the price down. The difference between PSP and DS displays is substantial, and I would not have minded in the slightest paying an extra 50 odd squid if the DS graphics matched the PSP, there would be no complaints about the DS had that have been so. I doubt Nintendo would've managed PSP graphics even if they tried. It's quite an achievement Sony made by making the PSP with those graphics and screen for that price, because they could custom build it from scratch. Nintendo can't custom build a full console so they assembled the DS from 3rd party parts. Home consoles are a different thing. Home consoles use the latest chip technology, something Sony/Microsoft don't have the experience with building, so the competition is open.
ShadowV7 Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 but as nintendo said the DS isn't after the PSP, the next gameboy will be, the DS is a new thing all togeather. Plus put GC graphics in a DS and the battery would last 5 minutes. i wouldnt take it that far ,have you seen the metroid hunters gameplay video
Recommended Posts