New details on Nintendo Revolution and the next Xbox

[jokemaster]

I'll probably end up getting all 3.

 

I'm the most interested in Revolution, since I think it could actually be something really cool.

 

I don't really care much of difference between teh other two cause they're both gonna be almost exactly the same: Multimedia center-oriented consoles. I mean that's my problem, I love my consoles to death but Sony and Microsoft are really getting too Multimedia cented, which could drive prices up too much, and doing more or less the same things. But I'll get them depending on wether any games look interesting.

 

BTW, I think everybody forgot my 'an end to fanboyism' thread from a while back....I mean you don't hear people arguing wether a Samsung or a Panasonic or a Sony TV is better

[Boba Rhett]

I dunno, it sounds like Microsoft has really learned from their first and are seriously getting their next creation in shape to kick bottom. Look at all the old school rocking developers they're bringing in. Plus they're actually doing a lot to keep their console quite cheap. The hdd* is seperate now which shaves off a lot.

 

 

* = If you get it though you enable backwards compatability w00t!

[BongoBob]

Z, I wan't proposing a fanboy thread, it's just there was no info on the PS3 : |

 

HDD all the way, mem cards are a fraggin pain...

[toms]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

And what exactly is WRONG with that? Aside from being innovative instead of just pushing the same crap through and never trying to change the experience and possibly *gasp* improve on things.

 

Hey, i agree. I'm a major nintendo fanboy. But recently they appear to have been so intent on their "innovations" that they have let everything else slip. Touchscreen is a great idea for some games but for others it is useless. I thought the DS would kick the PSP's butt, but so far the touchscreen has only been used properly by a couple of games. If the rumours of them dumping analogue sticks for the Revolution turn out to be true then its going to make it much harder to port games... which is what cost them dear with the GC.

 

Its a lot like jokemaster's point on TV brands. Developers these days want the consoles to be all the same, so they can cheaply port to all consoles. It is great that big N is willing to be different, but if the game makers aren't willing to put in the extra money to develop for that innovation then it goes to waste and they get no games (except a few in-house ones).

Panasonic could implement a great new tech on their tvs, but if only panasonic tvs support it then tv channels arn't going to waste money or people on supporting it.

 

Graphics will definatley improve, but not by as obvious a "wow factor" over previous generational leaps. MOre onscreen chars, larger environments, better lighting. Yep. As big as the difference between MGS and MGS3.. nope. imho.

 

BUt of course this is all speculation on my part. There is no real evidence yet either way.

[ET Warrior]

The problem is that nobody ELSE wants to think outside the box. Games as they are right now work, so why invest money in something that MIGHT not pan out. It's an annoying but true fact :\

 

If more people were willing to be more innovative I can't even imagine how awesome entertainment technology could be.

[toms]

Thats true, but innovation is risky. Investors don't like risky. THe whole entertainment industry has become far less inventive since big money got involved.

 

I could almost see it ending up with a Hollywood vs. Independent Films scenario, with the big players (Sony, MS, EA) producing the big budget, big selling blockbusters and Nintendo/Smaller studios producing the more innovative, lower budget art-house games.

 

The fact remains that nintendo has been very stubborn, refused to listen to gamers and developers and has missed the boat on a lot of things (online gaming). THey have also repeated the exact same mistake they made with the N64 and ended up with far fewer third party games than Sony or Microsoft. A console can't survive on Mario, Metroid and Zelda alone, no matter how great those games might be.

 

Nintendo has to decide where it wants to go:

 

If it wants to compete with Sony and MS then it needs to make it easy for third parties, and cheap for them to make cross compatible games. It can still do the innovative stuff, but it needs to support the mainstream stuff as well.

 

If it wants to seriously be a different and alternative option to the other two then it should go the whole way. Dump cross platform franchises. Create entirely new and unique and adventurous games. It can't produce enough of those alone though, so it should publish and support innovative games from small startup developers who don't want to sell their soul to EA. Make a totally different platform with totally different games.

 

Either way, third party support will kill or save nintendo this time around (and it has nearly killed them the last two times, this time they won't have the handheld dominance to fall back on).

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by toms

The fact remains that nintendo has been very stubborn, refused to listen to gamers and developers and has missed the boat on a lot of things (online gaming).

Without nintendo, noone would have that. Atleast, not this early.

 

But I agree, they are very stubborn.

[toms]

by cooincidence (how do you spell that anyway?) they are talking about this very thing on penny arcade http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php3?date=2005-03-16#2476

 

and include a link to a guy who i think is basically saying what i am:

 

http://www.costik.com/weblog/2005_03_01_blogchive.html#111069190589189590

Interesting that he mentions the idea of nintendo giving dev kits cheaply to small, innovative firms (which is kind of what i had in mind too).

 

I like this quote:

EA could have chosen to concentrate on innovation, rather than continually raising the graphic bar to squeeze out less well capitalized competitors, but they did not. Sony could have chosen to create a Miramax of the game industry, funding dozens of sub-million titles in a process of planned innovation to establish new world-beating game styles, but they declined. Nintendo could make dev kits cheaply available to small firms, with the promise of funding and publication to to the most interesting titles, but they prefer to rely on the creativity of one aging designer.

[lukeskywalker1]

I really want to know what the Revolution has in store for us. Its backwards compatible with the GCN, so if you buy it, and it goes down, at least you can still get used GCN games for it... some were really good. This will at least insure Nintendo still gets a profit (from GCN and Revolution).

 

About the Cell Shader: Im not worried about it, if Nintendo can make their console shoot out hot graphics and huge ammounts of data with low specs, then the cell shader doesn't matter. Its extra money down the drain for Soney.

 

I do notice that Nintendo isn't rushing games out to market, spending 3 or more years developing. Like that new Zelda... if that doesn't sell, nothing will.

 

Nintendo is starting to get back on track. Why not release that new zelda on the Revolution? Because then GCN owners can't get it. But they are smart, they are releasing the new Zelda on GCN, right before the Revolution hits shelves (im guessing) so then people will buy the game for GCN. When the Revolution comes out, other gamers can buy the Zelda, and play it on that. See? It sells a lot better this way.

 

Most people think you got to have blood and a lot of bullets to make a good game, even though... well, thats wrong. I guess it depends on your opinion though. Nintendo seems focused on making games that would be fun for a teenager, or young adult, but is still suitable for a younger kid... which is a good thing.