ultrajamie Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 There is no secret that could make up for a weak system as it would have to be bigger than the controller, You might wonder why I'm being so pissed off about it, but I'm a person who doesn't easily settle for less. . Nonsense.... you are not settling for less. you are settling for New, Different, and FUN. i would trade new ways to play and new things to play for the HD output of the Xbox and Ps3 anyday. having had a 360 and HDTV i can safely say that the HD era is overated. and that high res version of the same old dtuff doesn't feel in any way 'new' also.... not having to use huge amount of memory and power toiling over high-def resolution means the rev doesn't need tons of power to deliver good visuals. i think nintendos stratey is going to pay off big time - and no ones stopping you getting a PS3 if cutting edge tech is what you want. also... gamecube RE4 is still one of best looking games ever... on any format - any machine that can provide 3 times that level of visual output is good news - and easily on a par with what the letdown 360 produces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike-zim Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Look DCK i dont want to sound like i am flaming here cause i am not. also i respect you for your honesty. but firstly you say nintendo were against online play last gen. they were right. Nintendo said that it was the wrong time for console online. how long has it taken for live to really take off. i would say only in the last year, the end of the current gen. and the penetration rate of Live is not that high even now. defo not as high as WIFI. The Disc thing. maybe nintendo were a bit late on that boat but there were an unhealthy number of PSones that were chiped playing pirated games. (i beleive that is the real reason sony are the number 1 today but i digress). for all those "failures" look at the sucesses. Shoulder buttons, analog true 3D gaming. nintendo know what they are doing and lets face it these specs are hardly "official" let alone trustworthy. lets wait and see we will all be pleasently surprised i am sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demuwan Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Look DCK i dont want to sound like i am flaming here cause i am not. also i respect you for your honesty. but firstly you say nintendo were against online play last gen. they were right. Nintendo said that it was the wrong time for console online. how long has it taken for live to really take off. i would say only in the last year, the end of the current gen. and the penetration rate of Live is not that high even now. defo not as high as WIFI. The Disc thing. maybe nintendo were a bit late on that boat but there were an unhealthy number of PSones that were chiped playing pirated games. (i beleive that is the real reason sony are the number 1 today but i digress). for all those "failures" look at the sucesses. Shoulder buttons, analog true 3D gaming. nintendo know what they are doing and lets face it these specs are hardly "official" let alone trustworthy. lets wait and see we will all be pleasently surprised i am sure. WELL PUT I think the Revolution is TRUE 3D gaming. If you think about it in many respects the analog stick is 2 dimensional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ultrajamie Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 WELL PUT I think the Revolution is TRUE 3D gaming. If you think about it in many respects the analog stick is 2 dimensional. absolutely... and if you are using a dualshock... a bit rubbish too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCK Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 i would trade new ways to play and new things to play for the HD output of the Xbox and Ps3 anyday. having had a 360 and HDTV i can safely say that the HD era is overated. and that high res version of the same old dtuff doesn't feel in any way 'new' I agree with you there - I also prefer the Revolution anyday over the 360 or PS3. It's still too early for HD, especially for Nintendo. Please don't misunderstand me about that. The point is, is that Nintendo promised me to see a 2-3x more powerful console (which was already dissappointing to me at the time they said it) and that I would say 'Wow' at it. I knew not to expect all that much but a significant improvement over the GameCube would by all means be possible. The specifications don't seem to mean much to most of you (or you don't want them to mean anything to you). If you read it carefully with some technical knowledge it basically says is that Nintendo took the GameCube hardware and updated it. On same design you can actually use the clock speed gauge quite well and then you get a 30-50% performance increase. Add in a few optimizations, improved caching, extra bandwidth, a pixel pipeline here and there and hopefully for Nintendo quite some shaders and then you maybe get a 100% performance increase. So possibly a 100% increase in performance. Does this give you twice as good graphics? Does it give you 'twice' Resident Evil 4? It doesn't. Computing power doesn't translate in the same amount of graphical improvement. Even though they have upgraded the architecture, the graphics won't be upgraded so much. That's where Nintendo dissappointed me. They promised a 'wow', a significant improve and they don't give it to me. Of course I still have to wait to see the games - but these specs don't give me any faith that I will have that 'wow' even slightly. It would be perfectly possible to replace the CPU with a 1+ GHz G4 (which is pretty power efficient and quiet judging Apple notebooks) and get a brand new graphics chip from ATi, and still sell it under $200. Right, please don't go attacking me on what I said here. I just don't have much faith in the specs given by IGN and I am by no means saying the graphics will 'suck', or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
system_error Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 @DCK: Just believe me that on a regular TV you will say WOW as much as you would it say to a 360 or PS3 game. I just talked with a friend of mine who saw actual footage and demos of Revolution software. He told me it is pretty and it is a big step compared to the Gamecube. Effects, lightning, textures seem to be really good. I don't have any proof so I would perfectly understand if you don't believe me at all but if you do - there is no reason to be disappointed by the hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demuwan Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 @DCK: Just believe me that on a regular TV you will say WOW as much as you would it say to a 360 or PS3 game. I just talked with a friend of mine who saw actual footage and demos of Revolution software. He told me it is pretty and it is a big step compared to the Gamecube. Effects, lightning, textures seem to be really good. I don't have any proof so I would perfectly understand if you don't believe me at all but if you do - there is no reason to be disappointed by the hardware. Are you being serious. If so can you specify deatails. Such as the type of game or what type of graphics (cartoon etc). or any additional deatails I need something. Im so desperate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
system_error Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Well I can't go much into detail because I did not see it myself and of course I would understand that people won't believe me. I can't proof anything but I was assured by a very good friend of mine who works for a rather big developer in Europe that the demos and teasers Nintendo showed are really marvelous. At a conference they have been shown what will become the next Mario and the audience became silent after they saw the first pictures and how the controller will be used for it. Some even thought that the Revolution could do better than anyone so far expected. Nintendo did not develop a miracle of a console but for the size it is capable of pushing a lot of beautiful graphics and I have seen a lot (this is a quote from my friend). The graphics looked stylish and fresh - like something entirely new. It seems to be something really different. Similar to the ways of Killer7 when it comes to perspective and art direction (not because of "cartoon" graphic). I "heard" that the title will be Mario: Mushroom but if it is not please don't blame that is just what I heard. I don't want to convince anybody since I am a bit sceptic too right now. I am sorry if people don't like such postings where you can only believe but don't have prove - if anyone dislikes such things I will instantly stop. I don't have a problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djamb3 Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I believe you That is good to listen but frankly I am nothing worried with this type of news. By the time of E3 maybe, but not now. The most of all this is just speculation and almost an entire year with this is a bit crazy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpinesN Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 ...It would be perfectly possible to replace the CPU with a 1+ GHz G4 (which is pretty power efficient and quiet judging Apple notebooks) and get a brand new graphics chip from ATi, and still sell it under $200... Not to troll or anything but I just found this funny. :p All CPUs make 0 noise as they are solid state chips it's the fans on them that make the noise :p Sorry but as a bit of a techie I just find that funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Well I think that twice as good as the Gamecube is adequate; It doesn't sound like a lot, but go back and play Resi 4 or the Primes, look at the graphics on those, they're great appart from a few lil things you notice. You get absorbed into those games already, think about those graphics times 2!!...They'll be pretty flawless in a lot of respects if used in the same way as the Cube. I mean...I even got mega absorbed into the Wind Waker world n_n Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jav_NE Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Erm, Kurt, twice the power of the Cube doesnt mean twice the graphics. I reckon, to put it boldly, if you in any way try and compare Revolutions visuals with PS3 or XB360, you will be disappointed. However, if you're going to be willing to take them as they are, and not even compare them to Cube or XBox, then you will be happy, becuase as weve been told, they look good. I think the 'wow' factor will come from thinking they are going to look shit, then realisng, oh actually, look at it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moku Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I love these debates. Why? Untill someone actually sees a Revolution game in action, pissing and moaning about the "supposed" specs of the machine is pointless, AT BEST. How can anyone have an opinion on the Revolutions specs, when no one actually knows if whats been reported is correct, and no one, NOT EVEN game journalist's have seen actual Revolution games? It's one of my favorite things on the net right now. You can go to a million messege boards, and they all whine about the tech "supposed" specs. People just eat this crap up, and have ZERO to stand on, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Don't mind me though, carry on as if you know what your talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jav_NE Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Im with you moku. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pestneb Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 looking at wind waker, the reality in the movement of the world was stunning. tp promises to have that, but more, with closer to photo realistic graphics. I can imagine better than that would be near enough perfect. basically the graphics this will push out will be very very nice. also, its been speculated the 512Mb flash could be used as cheap extra RAM. I don't know how quick flash can be accessed, but I imagine it would be fine to record simple things, little touches that add slightly to realism (perhaps help solve the self healing walls when it comes to bullet holes etc.) and if its pretty quick (doubt it but possible) maybe it could act like slow ram, the 1-t ram they're allegedly using for 88Mb would be fine for the fast access stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintendork Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 The on board 512mb of ram is accessible to developpers. It's about as slow as ram gets though- to lower costs of course. The 3mb (speculated) on the chipset is like 20 times faster than whatever the 360 has though I hear, something like 3 nano seconds to load it- where as the 360's equivalent takes 60 nano seconds. That's quite a bit of freedom. I'm not sure whether developpers will use this 512mb- they certainly could but as I said in my E3 speculation post very few xbox games took advantage of the HD, prince of persia and blinx were the only two i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike-zim Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 it is fun having a debate about it isn't that what these boards are about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faz99 Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Well, some people are worried here about the low specs. But maybe they don't need high specs... http://209.132.69.82/zbrush/zbrush2/GalleryPages/strike7.html http://209.132.69.82/zbrush/zbrush2/GalleryPages/cardwell3.html http://209.132.69.82/zbrush/zbrush2/displacement.html You get the idea, but first off maybe im behind because i remember reading the news on how Nintendo were investing in this technology, and I didn't read the news much about it after that so maybe it was confirmed not to be used or something? I just can't believe no one mentioned it yet. Also on that last site, im not sure if every image is using displacement mapping, but i think they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike-zim Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 there was a thread on displacement mapping a while back. i still dont understand it. but if it makes games look alot better for less power than i am happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCK Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Displacement mapping doesn't make all the difference - there's not 'one' graphical technique (except raytracing that can only be pulled off in real time by supercomputers) that will upgrade the graphics immensely. It helps, but uses for displacement mapping are limited (it's used mostly for terrain) as displacement maps offer little interactivity. If Nintendo would have such an important technique, they would've had a completely new graphics chip, and in that case it would certainly have additional shaders. But yeah, system_error, let's hope your friend's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stabby Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 You need a lot of RAM for displacement mapping and parallax mapping, so count those out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faz99 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Don't the new Nvidia cards or was it the ATI cards, they support displacement mapping. And i'm sure one of those companies are designing the graphics chip for the Revolution.. Along with the whole having a new chip, i wonder could they make it in a way that its transparent, where you don't have to worry about actually making for displacement mapping but instead it converts for you. Say providing an advanced structure and then it converts to displacement mapping in compile time. I really wonder if the Revolution will use it. EDIT: Hmm! The wonder thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoBlizz Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Found this.. 1280x768 vs 800x480 (the thread I found this in was talking about possible Revolution graphics) I guess this depends on what stuff is in the Revo-GPU, shader 3 and things like it. Picture1 1280x768: http://img317.imageshack.us/img317/1880/larahq14ya.jpg 800x480: http://img425.imageshack.us/img425/493/laralq19ld.jpg Picture2 1280x768: http://img425.imageshack.us/img425/2820/larahq23gw.jpg 800x480: http://img425.imageshack.us/img425/2504/laralq27ef.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pestneb Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Errr.... I think they've just gotten a 1280x768 image and downsized it to 800x480. Not a valid comparison at all. why is it not valid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pestneb Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 the grabs are both the exact same size.if its been downscaled to 480 then its been upscaled again to 720, which is perfectly valid, because the detail/texture would be lost once the screen had been downscaled. it would basically show what a 480 grab would look like on a 720 screen, and what a 720 grab would look like on a 720 screen. if you do a 480 vs 720 picture comparison picture then the 480 image would look about 1.5 times smaller than the 720 screen, on a PC. The only way to show them is to take the 720 image, shrink it to 480 (losing detail) then to blow it back up to 720 size (the detail would not be regained in this process) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts