|
Home > Archive > Nintendo gamecube > June 2005 > Revolution *NOT* just 2-to-3 times as powerful as Gamecube
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Revolution *NOT* just 2-to-3 times as powerful as Gamecube
|
|
|
| The report that Nintendo Revolution is only going to be two-to-three times
more powerful than Gamecube is totally false.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/522/522559p2.html
______________________________________________________________________________
Q: Is Revolution "two-to-three times more powerful than GameCube"?
A: USA Today reported this news based on a comment from Nintendo of
America's vice president of corporate affairs, Perrin Kaplan. The
information was later determined to be false. We do not yet know how much
more power Revolution wields over its predecessor.
_______________________________________________________________________________
it made no sense whatsoever that Nintendo Revolution would only be 2 or 3
times more powerful than Gamecube, that would make Revolution barely more
powerful than the original Xbox, at least as far as raw specs on paper.
just how powerful is Revolution going to be? I don't know. but it has
been in development for YEARS.
IBM is making the CPU, codenamed 'Broadway' - ATI is making the graphics
chipset, codenamed 'Hollywood'
MoSys is providing embedded 1T-SRAM with NEC's manufacturing process.
Iwata said, when you see the graphics, you will be like "WOW"
there will be a standard DVD drive and Wi-Fi built in.
I expect Revolution to be as impressive as Gamecube was when we first saw it
in 2000 and when it came out in 2001.
a huge leap, like Gamecube was over Nintendo 64.
| |
| izwalker@yahoo.com 2005-05-26, 6:33 am |
| Besides obvious flaws like one systems 64mb memory. Most specs aren't
really that important. Dreamcast had graphics that competed with the
ps2. Ever since the 64bit cpu, i haven't seen a drastic improvment in
graphics really. n64 and above has not drastically improved.
Graphics smafics anyhow. A good game is not defined by how "nice" it
looks. Does it play well? Is it actually fun? Am i throwing my time
away being bored?
Forget about the specs. Focus on what counts. Enjoyment factor!!!!
Flame away.....
| |
|
| izwalker@yahoo.com wrote:
quote:
> Besides obvious flaws like one systems 64mb memory. Most specs aren't
> really that important. Dreamcast had graphics that competed with the
> ps2. Ever since the 64bit cpu, i haven't seen a drastic improvment in
> graphics really. n64 and above has not drastically improved.
>
> Graphics smafics anyhow. A good game is not defined by how "nice" it
> looks. Does it play well? Is it actually fun? Am i throwing my time
> away being bored?
>
> Forget about the specs. Focus on what counts. Enjoyment factor!!!!
>
> Flame away.....
>
Entertainment factor is a good point - but games that look nice are not
a plus today, they're a must. Just one question, though ... Have you
palyed a game since the n64 came out?!? Back then people looked like
polygons, and now they look like people(remeber FF7?). I think that
there has been a dramatic improvement in graphics. I thought that SF:A
was beautiful, and my friend said that Baten Kaitos was the most
graphically appealing game he had ever seen. Was n64 capable of these
graphics? No.
Gameplay is important, but graphics play an equal role in making a game
excellant.
--
It's not paranoia if someone really *IS* out to get you ...
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times
the memory.
"Acronym" stands for "Abbreviated Coded Rendition Of Name Yielding Meaning"
Few people can see genius in someone who has offended them.
- Robertson Davies
| |
| Vitani 2005-05-26, 8:31 pm |
| R580 wrote:
quote:
> The report that Nintendo Revolution is only going to be two-to-three times
> more powerful than Gamecube is totally false.
>
Good to hear - but the damage may already be done. I think a lot of
people have already made their mind up over which console they will buy
next time around by what was shown/said at E3 (which is down-right stupid)
| |
|
|
<izwalker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117090932.097320.148510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> ps2. Ever since the 64bit cpu, i haven't seen a drastic improvment in
> graphics really. n64 and above has not drastically improved.
>
Ummm...you haven't played any N64 games recently have you. There is an
incredible difference btwn N64 current game system graphics. There is also a
big difference between 1st gen PS2 graphics and the current generation. I
agree that good graphics do not make good game play but good graphics do add
to the enjoyment of games with good gameplay. Good sound also adds to the
experience.
One could as easily say that good special affects don't add to a good story
in a movie...but guess what, they do, as does good sound. Obviously story is
the most important but that doesn't mean it shouldn't look and sound good
too. Would Star Wars be as enjoyable with early Japanese monster movie
affects and a mono sound track?
| |
|
|
Raph wrote:
quote:
>
> <izwalker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117090932.097320.148510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Ummm...you haven't played any N64 games recently have you. There is an
> incredible difference btwn N64 current game system graphics. There is also a
> big difference between 1st gen PS2 graphics and the current generation. I
> agree that good graphics do not make good game play but good graphics do add
> to the enjoyment of games with good gameplay. Good sound also adds to the
> experience.
>
> One could as easily say that good special affects don't add to a good story
> in a movie...but guess what, they do, as does good sound. Obviously story is
> the most important but that doesn't mean it shouldn't look and sound good
> too. Would Star Wars be as enjoyable with early Japanese monster movie
> affects and a mono sound track?
Relatedly, would Godzilla be as good if it had CGI effects and lots of
Hollywood cash behind it? I'm pretty sure the Matthew Broderick version
says it all.
Or how about Psycho; would it be as good in color with modern technology
easing production? Let's ask Gus Van Sant...
| |
| Michael Cargill 2005-05-26, 8:31 pm |
| "Ted" <nospamforted@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:429611A2.B0E73CF6@nospam.com...
quote:
>
> Relatedly, would Godzilla be as good if it had CGI effects and lots of
> Hollywood cash behind it? I'm pretty sure the Matthew Broderick version
> says it all.
> Or how about Psycho; would it be as good in color with modern technology
> easing production? Let's ask Gus Van Sant...
I can well imagine that they would be better - the original Psycho film is
tripe.
| |
|
|
"Ted" <nospamforted@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:429611A2.B0E73CF6@nospam.com...
quote:
>
>
> Raph wrote:
>
> Relatedly, would Godzilla be as good if it had CGI effects and lots of
> Hollywood cash behind it? I'm pretty sure the Matthew Broderick version
> says it all.
> Or how about Psycho; would it be as good in color with modern technology
> easing production? Let's ask Gus Van Sant...
Psycho, color - absolutely not - Hitchcock was a master of black and white.
Would it add to it to have better sound and cleaner but still black and
white - Yes. Using modern technology does not necessarily mean using color -
color and bw are different in their impact. Godzilla original was pretty
awful to begin with but fun to watch and laugh at...the Matt Broderick
version was a different kind of movie with a different story.
| |
| NightStar 2005-05-29, 8:30 pm |
| On Thu, 26 May 2005 19:58:39 GMT, "Raph" <raphs@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>"Ted" <nospamforted@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:429611A2.B0E73CF6@nospam.com...
>
>Psycho, color - absolutely not - Hitchcock was a master of black and white.
>Would it add to it to have better sound and cleaner but still black and
>white - Yes. Using modern technology does not necessarily mean using color -
>color and bw are different in their impact. Godzilla original was pretty
>awful to begin with but fun to watch and laugh at...the Matt Broderick
>version was a different kind of movie with a different story.
>
Continuing the B&W/Colour debate - Sky Captain! There's a perfect
example of how to make a film look old, but also enjoyable!
Personally, I liked the Godzilla remake - Only as it was so stupid,
but rather enjoyable romp none-the-less. Not the best film in the
world, by any means, but a no-brainer flic! (Or the fact that in
Inspector Gadget they took the pee something chronic! - Not that I'll
ever admit watching that poo!)
Talking about story over graphics - Do you ever remember Outcast (Not
the group!) on the PC, quite a few years ago now? Using a graphics
engine that most PC's couldn't cope with, resulting in players using
the lowest graphics setting possible - This was an excellent game with
a superb storyline - Just it looked naff! (Wish they'd finished the
2nd game now!) Problem was most reviews stated how awful the game
looked, so most users never played it. Those who did, and overlooked
the low-res, came to find a beautiful game with a rich world, with a
richer story...
While graphics are not the be-all-and-end-all of games, they are an
important factor that cannot be overlooked... With more games opting
to look "photo realistic", graphics (unfortunately) do mean a lot
these days. However, this shouldn't mean they can get away with a
lousy story just because the games looks "nice"!
N*
"n64 and above has not drastically improved": Compare Goldeneye and
Halo and tell me that nothing has improved!!! Hellllloooooooooo!
| |
|
| izwalker@yahoo.com wrote:
quote:
> Besides obvious flaws like one systems 64mb memory. Most specs aren't
> really that important. Dreamcast had graphics that competed with the
> ps2. Ever since the 64bit cpu, i haven't seen a drastic improvment in
> graphics really. n64 and above has not drastically improved.
>
> Graphics smafics anyhow. A good game is not defined by how "nice" it
> looks. Does it play well? Is it actually fun? Am i throwing my time
> away being bored?
>
> Forget about the specs. Focus on what counts. Enjoyment factor!!!!
>
> Flame away.....
>
Entertainment factor is a good point - but games that look nice are not
a plus today, they're a must. Just one question, though ... Have you
palyed a game since the n64 came out?!? Back then people looked like
polygons, and now they look like people(remeber FF7?). I think that
there has been a dramatic improvement in graphics. I thought that SF:A
was beautiful, and my friend said that Baten Kaitos was the most
graphically appealing game he had ever seen. Was n64 capable of these
graphics? No.
Gameplay is important, but graphics play an equal role in making a game
excellant.
--
It's not paranoia if someone really *IS* out to get you ...
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times
the memory.
"Acronym" stands for "Abbreviated Coded Rendition Of Name Yielding Meaning"
Few people can see genius in someone who has offended them.
- Robertson Davies
| |
| Mac Cool 2005-05-30, 3:31 am |
| Ted:
quote:
> Relatedly, would Godzilla be as good if it had CGI effects and lots of
> ... cash behind it?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0366526/
yes
--
Mac Cool
| |
|
|
Raph wrote:
quote:
>
> <izwalker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117090932.097320.148510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Ummm...you haven't played any N64 games recently have you. There is an
> incredible difference btwn N64 current game system graphics. There is also a
> big difference between 1st gen PS2 graphics and the current generation. I
> agree that good graphics do not make good game play but good graphics do add
> to the enjoyment of games with good gameplay. Good sound also adds to the
> experience.
>
> One could as easily say that good special affects don't add to a good story
> in a movie...but guess what, they do, as does good sound. Obviously story is
> the most important but that doesn't mean it shouldn't look and sound good
> too. Would Star Wars be as enjoyable with early Japanese monster movie
> affects and a mono sound track?
Relatedly, would Godzilla be as good if it had CGI effects and lots of
Hollywood cash behind it? I'm pretty sure the Matthew Broderick version
says it all.
Or how about Psycho; would it be as good in color with modern technology
easing production? Let's ask Gus Van Sant...
| |
| Tim Miller 2005-05-30, 8:31 pm |
| In their own inimitable way, Richard Strong wrote:
quote:
>
> The people that are aware of E3 are a small minority. The great unwashed
> would have probably never have heard of the "2-3 times more powerful"
> comment.
>
Apart from the fact that most of the newspapers picked up on it and
reported it widely the day after?
Tim (tm)
--
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.ugvm.org.uk - the uk.games.video.misc magazine
| |
| Pluto \(M\) 2005-05-30, 8:31 pm |
|
"Michael Cargill" <mikementalist@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:3g0s1tF9vosmU1@individual.net...
quote:
> "Pluto (M)" <jetstream@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:AMGme.23892$6g3.16276@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> Are you nuts? Five years is a LONG time in technology terms - just what
> do
> you class as a 'significant' technology change? The difference in power
> between the Saturn/PSX/N64 and the Xbox/GC is enormous.
Yes, it was an enormous shift. However, as I said, the graphics of these
consoles are quickly approaching a point at which the human eye will no
longer be capable of perceiving the change to the picture? Who gives a damn
if the thing can put ten million more polygons on the screen at once if you
can't SEE the change? Maybe these new systems will be majorly prettier than
the old ones, but I doubt it. I don't even see THAT much of a difference
between the PS2 and Xbox/Gamecube. And I don't see ANY difference between
the Gamecube and Xbox, regardless of the processing power and
specifications.
When it gets right down to it, I almost can't justify the new consoles. The
old ones still have plenty of life left in them. Just because it's an
industry standard to shift the damned things out every five years doesn't
mean we HAVE to. I think they should've waited. Do you disagree?
| |
| Michael Cargill 2005-05-30, 8:31 pm |
| "Pluto (M)" <jetstream@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AMGme.23892$6g3.16276@tornado.texas.rr.com...
quote:
> I hope they don't bother
> doing the five-year cycle with this generation of consoles. Can we get ten
> this time? Please? Wait for a /significant/ technology change?
Are you nuts? Five years is a LONG time in technology terms - just what do
you class as a 'significant' technology change? The difference in power
between the Saturn/PSX/N64 and the Xbox/GC is enormous.
| |
| Richard Strong 2005-05-30, 8:31 pm |
|
"Vitani" <inativ@tfosxft.moc> wrote in message
news:bNile.908$f4.527@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
quote:
> R580 wrote:
>
> Good to hear - but the damage may already be done. I think a lot of people
> have already made their mind up over which console they will buy next time
> around by what was shown/said at E3 (which is down-right stupid)
The people that are aware of E3 are a small minority. The great unwashed
would have probably never have heard of the "2-3 times more powerful"
comment.
| |
| Pluto \(M\) 2005-05-30, 8:31 pm |
|
"Ash" <furroash@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3vhle.36930$Ph4.751669@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
quote:
> izwalker@yahoo.com wrote:
> Entertainment factor is a good point - but games that look nice are not a
> plus today, they're a must. Just one question, though ... Have you palyed
> a game since the n64 came out?!? Back then people looked like polygons,
> and now they look like people(remeber FF7?). I think that there has been a
> dramatic improvement in graphics. I thought that SF:A was beautiful, and
> my friend said that Baten Kaitos was the most graphically appealing game
> he had ever seen. Was n64 capable of these graphics? No.
>
> Gameplay is important, but graphics play an equal role in making a game
> excellant.
Yes, but there comes a point at which the human eye is no longer capable of
perceiving a change in the picture. For instance, the human eye is not
equipped to perceive more than 40 frames a second, IIRC. Games that claim
50, 55 or even 60? Who the XXXX cares. I can't see that, neither can you.
That sort of thing. At this point, mindless increases in processing power
only serve to increase the amount of crap that you can fit on the screen at
once, and that's almost at its visual peak too. I hope they don't bother
doing the five-year cycle with this generation of consoles. Can we get ten
this time? Please? Wait for a /significant/ technology change?
| |
| Michael Cargill 2005-05-30, 8:31 pm |
| "Pluto (M)" <jetstream@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zjHme.23900$6g3.2565@tornado.texas.rr.com...
quote:
>
> Yes, it was an enormous shift. However, as I said, the graphics of these
> consoles are quickly approaching a point at which the human eye will no
> longer be capable of perceiving the change to the picture? Who gives a
damn
quote:
> if the thing can put ten million more polygons on the screen at once if
you
quote:
> can't SEE the change?
If you really think that we are anywhere near not being able to see the
difference then you are either mad or there is something wrong with your
eyes. You only have to look at the difference in the graphics on the latest
PC game to see how behind the consoles really are. As good as something
like Doom 3 or Half Life 2 look now, in three years time they will look
severly dated.
Remember when that Formula 1 game came out for the PSX? Everyone thought it
looked photorealistic at the time, though it looks like a turd now. I
remember how good the faces seemed on the main characters when Goldeneye
came out - yet now they are horrific.
quote:
> Maybe these new systems will be majorly prettier than
> the old ones, but I doubt it. I don't even see THAT much of a difference
> between the PS2 and Xbox/Gamecube. And I don't see ANY difference between
> the Gamecube and Xbox, regardless of the processing power and
> specifications.
I can see plenty of difference between the PS2 and the GC/Xbox. I can also
see how there is plenty of scope for improvement for the future - Halo 2 was
supposed to be great looking, but it is very lacking in detail with many of
the textures being rather low-res. Compared to the best PC titles, it looks
shite.
quote:
> When it gets right down to it, I almost can't justify the new consoles.
The
quote:
> old ones still have plenty of life left in them. Just because it's an
> industry standard to shift the damned things out every five years doesn't
> mean we HAVE to. I think they should've waited. Do you disagree?
Yes. Exactly what should we have waited for? If Sony, MS and Nintendo
waited then all that would happen would be that someone else would release a
far superior machine in the meantime. Five years is a long time and
technology moves incredibly quickly, so there is precisley no point at all
waiting any longer.
| |
|
|
"Pluto (M)" <jetstream@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AMGme.23892$6g3.16276@tornado.texas.rr.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "Ash" <furroash@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3vhle.36930$Ph4.751669@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
[vbcol=seagreen]
Baten Kaitos...wow - I think it's pretty ugly. I am about halfway into it
and enjoying the game but think graphics, story and gameplay are really lame
next to Jade Empire which I just finished. I think that FF Chrystal
Chronicles had better graphics than Baten Kaitos but there the gameplay was
lacking.
I do think Baten Kaitos is a good game on it's own...but some of the other
games I've played recently have been amazing - ie. Jade Empire. I intend to
go back an finish Tales of Symphonia next..
| |
| ucphenom82@hotmail.com 2005-06-02, 8:31 pm |
| What about Microsoft bringing the Xbox360 out after FOUR years? If
anything you should be up in arms about that. I know I am. I sure
hope this "first one out of the gates (no pun intended)" thing doesn't
work out, or else we could be seeing some shorter cycles yet. I
wouldn't mind a longer generation at all, especially since developers
start really taking advantage of the hardware as it gets older.
As far as reaching a visual peak, though, you know that's incorrect.
Somebody always says stuff like that because they can't imagine a
better version of what already exists. In the late 1800's someone said
something like, "everything that can be invented has been invented."
In the 19th century! When I can't tell the difference between the
latest Madden NFL game and watching a football game on TV, maybe I'll
start agreeing with you.
| |
|
| In article <ZradnXmoHP_m2AjfRVn-1A@comcast.com>, <R580> wrote:
quote:
>
> it made no sense whatsoever that Nintendo Revolution would only be 2 or 3
> times more powerful than Gamecube, that would make Revolution barely more
> powerful than the original Xbox, at least as far as raw specs on paper.
Please provide stats that the Gamecube is 2-3 times slower than the Xbox.
5-10% slower perhaps, but that stat you said there is utter utter nonsense.
Smid
| |
| figmentPez 2005-06-04, 8:30 pm |
| "Pluto (M)" <jetstream@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AMGme.23892$6g3.16276@tornado.texas.rr.com...
quote:
> Yes, but there comes a point at which the human eye is no longer capable
> of perceiving a change in the picture. For instance, the human eye is not
> equipped to perceive more than 40 frames a second, IIRC. Games that claim
> 50, 55 or even 60? Who the XXXX cares. I can't see that, neither can you.
Keep in mind that the importance of frame rates is about more than what the
human eye can consistently percieve (and if you're suggesting that the human
eye can only see about 40 frames a second, you're forgetting that many
people see flicker on CRT monitors with less than 85hz refresh rates and
some people need over 100hz to not get headaches on a CRT). Anyway, if a
game is _averaging_ 40 frames a second, then it could easily dip into the
teens for intense action and that _is_ noticable, especially in
responsiveness. Frame rate isn't just about what's shown on the screen,
because in most games frame rate is indicative of overall performance, and
if frame rate is suffering, so is response rate and other factors. What
average frame rate is necessary for a consistenly smooth gameplay experience
is dependent on the genre and on the game engine. For instance, Serious Sam
(PC) tends to have much higher dips and spikes in FPS than does Quake 3,
even though they're about the same generation of graphics, and it takes a
higher average FPS to get smooth gameplay during heavy action for Serious
Sam than it does for Quake 3.
--
figmentPez
| |
|
| ucphenom82@hotmail.com wrote:
quote:
> What about Microsoft bringing the Xbox360 out after FOUR years? If
> anything you should be up in arms about that. I know I am. I sure
> hope this "first one out of the gates (no pun intended)" thing doesn't
> work out, or else we could be seeing some shorter cycles yet. I
> wouldn't mind a longer generation at all, especially since developers
> start really taking advantage of the hardware as it gets older.
>
> As far as reaching a visual peak, though, you know that's incorrect.
> Somebody always says stuff like that because they can't imagine a
> better version of what already exists. In the late 1800's someone said
> something like, "everything that can be invented has been invented."
> In the 19th century! When I can't tell the difference between the
> latest Madden NFL game and watching a football game on TV, maybe I'll
> start agreeing with you.
>
I agree. I mean, c'mone! Game Manufacaturors have to get used to a whole
new system every 5 years, and it takes them that long just to get used
to them and squeeze the full potential out of the systems. Pokémon Dash
vs. Nintendogs for the DS is a great example. Already, developers are
getting better at using the DS's unique interface and graphics. PD
looked awful, but Nintendogs looked half decent. I can't wait for newer
games to come out, because they'll have even better graphics, but still
on the same DS.
--
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
-Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-06-06, 8:32 pm |
| "Pluto (M)" <jetstream@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote
quote:
> Yes, but there comes a point at which the human eye is no longer capable
> of perceiving a change in the picture. For instance, the human eye is not
> equipped to perceive more than 40 frames a second, IIRC. Games that claim
> 50, 55 or even 60? Who the XXXX cares. I can't see that, neither can you.
Ignorance. At higher FPS your eyes begin to blur the images between frames.
It is noticable, even if you can't percieve every frame. More is better, in
this respect, and we haven't hit the upper limits yet.
quote:
> I hope they don't bother doing the five-year cycle with this generation of
> consoles. Can we get ten this time? Please? Wait for a /significant/
> technology change?
This just proves you don't know much about the technology. Rendering
technologies improve VASTLY in five years.
|
| |
|
|