opentarget Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 The thought of a dedicated physics processor for rev never occurred to me but now the more that I think about it the more it makes sense! This would explain the relatively low system specs on other components, if there is a PPU it will free up the other components to do there own thing and not have to deal with such complex real-time maths. This also might strengthen the idea of rev being more powerful in the visual department than the specs let on(for the people who still care)?
ultrajamie Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 with the rev it's the experience that'll count. thats all that needs to be said really. even screens / video aren;t going to convey how the controller changes the way you interact,
system_error Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 [...]In short, if there's a PPU in Revolution, Nintendo hasn't told any developers about it. And that pretty much says it all.[...] I guess there is no PPU in the Revolution but nevertheless the combination of GPU and soundchip might be even more usefull than some people think.
Pestneb Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 lol, maybe they didn't tell the devs about the PPU so they'd concentrate on the controller.
Nintendork Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 even screens / video aren;t going to convey how the controller changes the way you interact, They did a grand job with the DS, I think if the controller comes out of the screen at your in first person and the controller moves on screen with the hand and the game reacts it will click to people. Game pods will be a big deal and I think gaming magazines can pull it off with just screens. A bit like this: Sure it's gonna be hard to change a convention that computer games are controller by 18 buttons. It may be difficuilt to make the emphasis of the adverts the game- because so much explaining must go into the Revolution's FHC.
mike-zim Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 i don't really care i will buy the rev and then i will tell you what i think.
pedrocasilva Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 The thought of a dedicated physics processor for rev never occurred to me but now the more that I think about it the more it makes sense! This would explain the relatively low system specs on other components, if there is a PPU it will free up the other components to do there own thing and not have to deal with such complex real-time maths. This also might strengthen the idea of rev being more powerful in the visual department than the specs let on(for the people who still care)?^ As I said, don't count on it/take it as a given... But it would be nice, nonetheless. *E3, E3, E3, E3*
ultrajamie Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 ^ As I said, don't count on it/take it as a given... But it would be nice, nonetheless. *E3, E3, E3, E3* a PPU is not goona happen. the specs we have seen so far are inline with the small leaks that have come out and rumours about the architecture... nintendo have been determined to keep the talk away from specs - so even if there was a PPU, they wouldn;t likely make abig deal out of it. also it would push up the cost and they resolutely refuse to make it more expensive. if devs are prepared to leak the sytem spec why would they not mention a PPU? because there isn;t one.
Nexus Zero Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 2x Gamecube is ridiculous. You can say 2X the polygon count and 2X the texture resolution is enough, I agree. But 2X AI, 2X physics, 2X lighting is not. 2x lighting will be fine, but this thing will be able to run Havoc physics easily (the Xbox can) and as for AI, we'll see. Lighting is purely cosmetics, cry me a river.
pedrocasilva Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 a PPU is not goona happen. the specs we have seen so far are inline with the small leaks that have come out and rumours about the architecture... nintendo have been determined to keep the talk away from specs - so even if there was a PPU, they wouldn;t likely make abig deal out of it. also it would push up the cost and they resolutely refuse to make it more expensive. if devs are prepared to leak the sytem spec why would they not mention a PPU? because there isn;t one. What if these developers don't know a few things about revolution? most of them didn't know of the FHC before Iwata unvieled it... and they do not know about the "third secret", because if so... of course it would be leaked they even leaked the specs... I'm not holding my breath... But a PPU would help Revolution a big deal, maybe even shut the mouth of some developers with it being underpowered, as physics wouldn't be a problem at all... Nintendo had the change, surely... now it's a matter of "did they do it?" or not.
ultrajamie Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 What if these developers don't know a few things about revolution? most of them didn't know of the FHC before Iwata unvieled it... and they do not know about the "third secret", because if so... of course it would be leaked they even leaked the specs... I'm not holding my breath... But a PPU would help Revolution a big deal, maybe even shut the mouth of some developers with it being underpowered, as physics wouldn't be a problem at all... Nintendo had the change, surely... now it's a matter of "did they do it?" or not. 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... Never mind that it doesn't seem to fit with Nintendo's hardware approach with Revolution. The company has placed all bets on the innovative new controller and downplayed the importance of dramatically boosting horsepower. Let's consider the issue of price, which has also been a driving factor behind Revolution. It would not be economically feasible for the Big N to include one. And third, the issue of size -- probably not a major hurdle -- but a third component is still another piece of hardware that has to fit in a tiny case without overheating issues. and also from his blog: But I propose you take a different point of view -- one that puts graphics in the back seat and gameplay up front. Ask yourself why Microsoft and Sony have not advanced their controllers. Look at what Nintendo is attempting with Revolution's free-style pointer. Look at the technology in place there. Now, imagine the gameplay possibilities that may await because of this new device, which is, at least to me, fundamentally more important than any bump in graphic horsepower. This is the driving force behind Revolution. Whether the final system will live up to Nintendo's ambitions, I have no idea. But I'll tell you, quite honestly, that the potential is enormous. 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
pedrocasilva Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 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... 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 what does he know about the cost of the thing... and about the heating... if it heats up just take like... half of it's power, cutted down chip... Microsoft and Sony did that with their PowerPC variants otherwise they wouldn't be at 3,2 GHz... and there's like... 9 months till the release of the console... they could shrink it even without cutting features... a PPU sample from a year ago wouldn't do it justice... still I don't find it contradicting to include a PPU graphics are not the issue... Physics and AI is, and nintendo knows it, even if they can somewhat match what you see in a HD console to Standard Definition, the developers won't be happy cutting features like physics when porting the game over... if they unveil it correctly it might be a turning point for the support of unreal engine 3 and other stuff... but as I said... it's not a given... but I for one am crossing my fingers for that issue in E3.
ultrajamie Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 what does he know about the cost of the thing... and about the heating... if it heats up just take like... half of it's power, cutted down chip... Microsoft and Sony did that with their PowerPC variants otherwise they wouldn't be at 3,2 GHz... and there's like... 9 months till the release of the console... they could shrink it even without cutting features... a PPU sample from a year ago wouldn't do it justice... still I don't find it contradicting to include a PPU graphics are not the issue... Physics and AI is, and nintendo knows it, even if they can somewhat match what you see in a HD console to Standard Definition, the developers won't be happy cutting features like physics when porting the game over... if they unveil it correctly it might be a turning point for the support of unreal engine 3 and other stuff... but as I said... it's not a given... but I for one am crossing my fingers for that issue in E3. why does everyone keep going on about unreal engine 3? it a solution to make making next gen games easier.... it's not a priority for rev as making games for it is not the order of magnitude more complex that ps3 and xbox 360 games are? frankly i hope most companies don't port their other next gen wares anyway. simply because they are unlikely to use the rev thoughtfully when they do. the overblown nature of other next gen games is not what revolution is about. full stop. they are not trying to compete of the same level at all. adding psyhics to bridge that gap will simply never be a priority because nintendo don;t see it as a gap but a positive differentiator that makes games cheaper to make, easier to innovate, and more attractive to stakeholders right the way through the delivery chain due to (comparatively) reduced cost.
DCK Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Well, if you want to have developer interest, you want to have easiness for developers to work, for that you need crossplatform technology and Unreal Engine 3 is a very popular example of that. It doesn't mean direct ports, but it allows for rescource reuses, and that makes so much difference. Quite frankly I couldn't care less for mindless ports if it makes the Revolution popular.
system_error Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Well, if you want to have developer interest, you want to have easiness for developers to work, for that you need crossplatform technology and Unreal Engine 3 is a very popular example of that. It doesn't mean direct ports, but it allows for rescource reuses, and that makes so much difference. Quite frankly I couldn't care less for mindless ports if it makes the Revolution popular. I really would like to know how much you pay for the UE3 to make ONE game. I am quite sure that EPIC makes a lot of cash with their engine but if it is better for developers is not an easy question. For a conventional WW2 shooter it would fit perfectly well but for other games I doubt it ...
ultrajamie Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Well, if you want to have developer interest, you want to have easiness for developers to work, for that you need crossplatform technology and Unreal Engine 3 is a very popular example of that. It doesn't mean direct ports, but it allows for rescource reuses, and that makes so much difference. Quite frankly I couldn't care less for mindless ports if it makes the Revolution popular. mindless ports are not going to make the rev popular... if i was going to buy just the same old games on the ps3 with worse graphics... i'd keep my ps2! the fact the rev doesn't support HD means the little resource sharing is going to happen anyway. also the rev SDK is many, many, times cheaper than even the psp, let alone a PS3 devkit with a full license for UE3. so it's very attractive investment from the off anyway.
pedrocasilva Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 but developers are using UE3 because they want to... try telling them "no you can't use UE3 on Revolution" that may turn them off... it's a matter of support, nintendo should even pay EPIC for them to port the engine over, even if it was just to appear on paper... It's good for the image... UE3 is mostly a FPS engine and Nintendo has talked that the controller on Revolution is perfect for FPS's like... forever...
ultrajamie Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 It's good for the image... UE3 is mostly a FPS engine and Nintendo has talked that the controller on Revolution is perfect for FPS's like... forever... thats absolutely fine... but i bet metroid is going to be a million times better than any ported fps. especially as we now know that retro came up with the idea of adding the control stick add on to the FHC.
DCK Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 mindless ports are not going to make the rev popular... if i was going to buy just the same old games on the ps3 with worse graphics... i'd keep my ps2! the fact the rev doesn't support HD means the little resource sharing is going to happen anyway. also the rev SDK is many, many, times cheaper than even the psp, let alone a PS3 devkit with a full license for UE3. so it's very attractive investment from the off anyway. FIFA on the Revolution could make it more popular, without using the controller, for example. Not that people will buy a Rev for FIFA, but the fact that it's on there makes it more popular. It's bullsh*t that HD makes rescource sharing more difficult. Code can be ported, AI scripts can be ported, models can be ported, sound can be ported, textures can be ported, maps can be ported - everything can be ported with a modification here and there. That's much easier than building it from the ground up. The Unreal Engine and similar technologies means that developers don't have to worry about making a high-class engine. For mid-size developers a license to the engine means they have much, much more time for actually designing the game.
ultrajamie Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 The Unreal Engine and similar technologies means that developers don't have to worry about making a high-class engine. For mid-size developers a license to the engine means they have much, much more time for actually designing the game. alternatively, they could just make the game on easy hardware with a familiar environment.... like the rev, for instance.
Hellfire Posted April 5, 2006 Author Posted April 5, 2006 Arround and arround and arround it goes, where will it stop? E3. Just a little something I cooked up.
21st century cowboy Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Nintendo have already said that they spent the money that usually go's into upgrading the graphics for a new console on the freehand controller. Plus please remember the size of the console compared to the 360 and ps3. If you think that tiny little thing is going to chuck out the same graphics as them power stations then your sadly deluded. It's just common sense. I'll be glad when E3 comes around so we actually know what kind of console we are going to be buying.
ViPeR Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I might cry if I can only play Metroid Prime x2... I feel it coming on now
The3rdChildren Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 GameCube generation graphics are just fine. I'm sure we'll see an improvement on those. Let's be honest, what we're seeing on the Xbox 360 only really looks that much better because it's high definition.
opentarget Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Lets face it most people on these boards and on most other Nintendo forums don’t really give a damn about the visuals as long as there functional…but that’s because we are for the most part we are Nintendo fans and hard core gamers. What Nintendo must have realised by now is that if rev is to be a hit it has to catch the attention of the average Joe Sope! And most of them are caught of guard by shinny visuals and big explosions! Fortunately for Nintendo there is another root available (carved by Nintendo themselves) and that is innovation and affordability. Just look at ds psp sales and it is evident that there is a market for cheaper more creative products! And if rev is as cheap as we hope... it will be a no brainer purchase for the other console owners as well! Nintendo have done there homework this time around I think. (crosses his fingers just encase!)
Recommended Posts