Teppo Holmqvist Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 UE3 is VERY scalable. When you turn higher resolution and more complex effects off, you will get Unreal Engine 2.5. UE 3 only differs from 2.5 in that it does take use of the latest 3D-card effects and handles higher resolutions faster. In fact, I'm not even sure that does UE3 support anymore standard 420p resolution, because that would make some routines slower than they could be. Epic made porting between with these two versions very easy, and because Rev doesn't feature latest super effects there isn't any need to have latest version. You can basically convert UE 3.0 code to run in 2.5 by simply stripping some more extreme effects off. * I haven't coded with UE myself, but my friend has worked on one of the more popular UE mods.
SpinesN Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 I'm gonna need a source Here you go http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/28/revolution-can-handle-unreal-engine-3/ Edit: A note to everyone else, I was simply correcting a misunderstanding.
DCK Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Gotta love the article's sarcasm... There are some rumored features in the Revolution that allows for Unreal Engine 3.0 to be an improvement, such as the displacement mapping and the enhanced bumpmapping. It allows for portable technology and therefore more interest of the bigger developers. Now, if they can just add shaders...
goku21 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 They´ll do @ dck...I´m totally sure or @ least another programmable instance, that takes up on uptodateshaders... havn´t you seen the lighting in REDSTEEL? You and I have never seen that, it´s way supirior to any lighting used in videogames now... just look @ this pic: It just looks like it´s handdrawn...
c0Zm1c Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 I would be more than happy if Nintendo made their new controller compatible with their current console, launched them both as a bundle as standard (making the controller available seperately for existing Gamecube owners), and offered fresh support in the form of a new range of Gamecube games that work exclusively with the new controller. Of course they wouldn't do that, mainly for marketing reasons I think. But the whole point of the Revolution is innovative control over better graphics. Will people ever get that? After all, it's been over a year since the DS was launched - a device that also eschewed the race for technical superiority over the competition in favour of a more versatile interface - so we've had plenty of time to get used to the idea.
DCK Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 It just looks like it´s handdrawn... Exactly. Though the scans are a bit vague, I suspect the best screens of being artwork. They just seem to be 'posing'.
goku21 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 I would be more than happy if Nintendo made their new controller compatible with their current console, launched them both as a bundle as standard (making the controller available seperately for existing Gamecube owners), and offered fresh support in the form of a new range of Gamecube games that work exclusively with the new controller. Of course they wouldn't do that, mainly for marketing reasons I think. But the whole point of the Revolution is innovative control over better graphics. Will people ever get that? After all, it's been over a year since the DS was launched - a device that also eschewed the race for technical superiority over the competition in favour of a more versatile interface - so we've had plenty of time to get used to the idea. I think we did understand that!! For example: If there´s a really cool simulation or other arcarde-styled mini-game like baseball, I will download it via the VC pay about 5€ for that and I will play it with amazed fun and immersiveness (perhaps over wifi then). I had never bought a sportsgame for 50€...and I don´t care for the graphics in sportsgames!! But I´m willing to pay 50 bucks for a cool action-adventure or RPG, and there I want big graphics, effects and things like that...it´s like an interactive movie trhat you play... the rev needs both types of games!! small ones, as party and wifigames just to play with fun, for less money. And big epic titles that show nice graphics are needed too!! And I think Nintendo wants exactly what I said above, but for an affordable price( and that´s why many people are crazy for ingamescreenshots)
pedrocasilva Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Exactly. Though the scans are a bit vague, I suspect the best screens of being artwork. They just seem to be 'posing'.Confirmed by a guy from Ubisoft: It's all in-game... And this one is a real insider, even IGN acknowledges him, he's the real deal.
c0Zm1c Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 I think we did understand that!! For example: If there´s a really cool simulation or other arcarde-styled mini-game like baseball, I will download it via the VC pay about 5€ for that and I will play it with amazed fun and immersiveness (perhaps over wifi then). I had never bought a sportsgame for 50€...and I don´t care for the graphics in sportsgames!! But I´m willing to pay 50 bucks for a cool action-adventure or RPG, and there I want big graphics, effects and things like that...it´s like an interactive movie trhat you play... the rev needs both types of games!! small ones, as party and wifigames just to play with fun, for less money. And big epic titles that show nice graphics are needed too!! And I think Nintendo wants exactly what I said above, but for an affordable price( and that´s why many people are crazy for ingamescreenshots) Whichever way you look at it, the new controller will be more important than the console's graphical capabilities. It is what will separate it from the, arguably identikit, competition. Provided the games are good, and they make sensible use of the controller's versatile nature, I think the quality of what's on screen will take a back seat in what people think of Revolution games. After all, it happened with the DS - its games are usually judged more by their use of the touch screen and dual screen features more so than the graphics.
ultrajamie Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 <see's red steel pics> <laughs to self at everyone who whinged about the specs>
DCK Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 It's all in-game... And this one is a real insider, even IGN acknowledges him, he's the real deal. Nice. If I can't make the difference between a piece of artwork and a Rev screen that's good news (or I need to get my lenses improved )
goku21 Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 Whichever way you look at it, the new controller will be more important than the console's graphical capabilities. It is what will separate it from the, arguably identikit, competition. Provided the games are good, and they make sensible use of the controller's versatile nature, I think the quality of what's on screen will take a back seat in what people think of Revolution games. After all, it happened with the DS - its games are usually judged more by their use of the touch screen and dual screen features more so than the graphics. Iwata said: We know graphics are going to be important, but that´s not enough. ....you know some people want some beautiful graphics, and Nintendo delivers good graphics for an O.K.-price... surely, I´m one of those who never thought about the stupid shell or whatever compatible joypad, I want every game to be played with the FHC, I really can´t understand why so many people ask for PS-like pad...I think those just didn´t yet understand the FHC and what it´s capable of. But I want good graphics - and the point that Nintendo will give me what I want, ....
Fierce_LiNk Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 There's a lot of people who are getting hyped up over the Red Steel screens. They are nice looking and show off what the Revolution can do graphically. But, this in no way what-so-ever means that there won't be shitty looking games on the Revolution. Every console has it's fair share of bad-looking and bad-playing games.
DiemetriX Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 Every console has it's fair share of bad-looking and bad-playing games. 360 has FFXI :P
c0Zm1c Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 I want good graphics - and the point that Nintendo will give me what I want, .... As subjective as that is, it's a fair bet that the Revolution will at least be capable of 'good' graphics. Just don't expect the 'best'.
Innovance Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 i still think that as trying to be cutting edge in the tech stakes was never meant to be part of the plan, a ppu is not going to go in. Nintendo never intended the Rev to compete with the PS3 or Xbox 360 in terms of grunt... suddenly adding a PPU when they aren;t even common place yet seems to contradict that stance. and anyway... in the same article... and also from his blog: anyway... he summed up my feelings about this 'issue' perfectly. the revolution was never intended to compete visually with the competition - but it beat them in ways sony and microsoft haven't even considered There are amny reasons why a PPU does and doesnt make sense, but to try and say it doesnt make sense because nintendo are not trying to compete with cutting edge technology is crazy. Is the freehand controller not cutting edge technology?? does it not take existing technology (gyration) and add yet another dimension??
Recommended Posts