Nintendo reveals list of backwards compatible titles that will be available free of charge for Revolution

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IBdaMac

Senior member
Jan 12, 2003
259
0
0
I can emulate up through the 64 just fine on my PC...wtf are you talking about?

Um...all of your rigs that I see are WAY more powerful than the computer I described. So wtf are you talking about?
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Originally posted by: IBdaMac
Originally posted by: ElFenix
not everyone is a l33t h4x0r pir8 and knows/uses emulation. and how are the controls for emulation? last time i checked the emulators will still kinda crappy about controllers (or maybe my controller was crappy, but it wasn't like it was a cheap knockoff, it was a nice logitech usb ps2 gamepad clone). and many console games are better on your tv with 4 friends on your couch than you alone antisocial in your dimly lit computer room.

exactly...who has 4 controllers hooked to their computer with 3 friends sitting around their 19 inch monitor playing mariokart?

emulation has gone from only powerful pc's with specific hardware(3dfx) glide compatible in the early days of emu to retarded easy. if you can use a computer you can use emu's these days.

that being said i've never found a need to play emu's with 4 people because if you are going to play with 4 people you get a new console:p emulation of old games is just for nostolgia's sake. its a feature thats nice to have, and 99% of people will not regularly use.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Originally posted by: IBdaMac
I can emulate up through the 64 just fine on my PC...wtf are you talking about?

Um...all of your rigs that I see are WAY more powerful than the computer I described. So wtf are you talking about?

It's the HTPC...considering the parts I had on hand, the system cost less than $200
 

FleshLight

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2004
6,883
0
71
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: IBdaMac
Originally posted by: ElFenix
not everyone is a l33t h4x0r pir8 and knows/uses emulation. and how are the controls for emulation? last time i checked the emulators will still kinda crappy about controllers (or maybe my controller was crappy, but it wasn't like it was a cheap knockoff, it was a nice logitech usb ps2 gamepad clone). and many console games are better on your tv with 4 friends on your couch than you alone antisocial in your dimly lit computer room.

exactly...who has 4 controllers hooked to their computer with 3 friends sitting around their 19 inch monitor playing mariokart?

I have 2 controllers hooked up to an old duron system in my living room...play mario kart all the time. Good enough for you?

All you need is 4 xbox-usb adapters and an svideo cable and you're all set to play in whatever room on whatever tv.
 

IBdaMac

Senior member
Jan 12, 2003
259
0
0
I don't understand what you people are arguing. Are you saying that you'd rather emulate games on your computer than have it come standard on your gaming console? I mean...you're going to be able to play many of your favorite games as soon as it is released as well as the emulation is perfect...

admit it that it is a great idea and that it raised your interest for the revolution a tiny bit. For some it raised it a TON. And what if the controllers are actually LCD and the buttons can be manipulated and moved to look like an NES controller, or SNES...there are so many possibilities that you guys are just overlooking and focusing on trying to convince me that emulation on your pc is better or whatever you're trying to do.
 

Rogue

Banned
Jan 28, 2000
5,774
0
0
I play a number of N64 games on my Xbox without issue. How fast is the processor in an Xbox again? How much memory? Oh, wait....
 

IBdaMac

Senior member
Jan 12, 2003
259
0
0
that being said i've never found a need to play emu's with 4 people because if you are going to play with 4 people you get a new console emulation of old games is just for nostolgia's sake. its a feature thats nice to have, and 99% of people will not regularly use.

See, the only people that have the knowledge to install, run, and emulate games on their computer are not the ones that usually even emulate them. This is designed to target the people that think 4 buttons on the controller is way too complicated. There is a large group of people that don't play modern games because they are too complicated and fast paced. However, when they buy their kid the revolution they will be able to play mario like they did when they were kids. It's designed to target a different group of people and is brilliant...

Not to mention gamecube games which Id say would be pretty hard to emulate on your computer.
 

IBdaMac

Senior member
Jan 12, 2003
259
0
0
Originally posted by: Rogue
I play a number of N64 games on my Xbox without issue. How fast is the processor in an Xbox again? How much memory? Oh, wait....

dude...the xbox also has a modified TI500 with 64mb graphics memory, DDR ram, and is not running a full windows operating system....it's not exactly a 1ghz duron, with a 32mb shared memory video card running windows ME or something.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Originally posted by: IBdaMac
Originally posted by: Rogue
I play a number of N64 games on my Xbox without issue. How fast is the processor in an Xbox again? How much memory? Oh, wait....

dude...the xbox also has a modified TI500 with 64mb graphics memory, DDR ram, and is not running a full windows operating system....it's not exactly a 1ghz duron, with a 32mb shared memory video card running windows ME or something.

it's not that far off, really.
 

IBdaMac

Senior member
Jan 12, 2003
259
0
0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: IBdaMac
Originally posted by: Rogue
I play a number of N64 games on my Xbox without issue. How fast is the processor in an Xbox again? How much memory? Oh, wait....

dude...the xbox also has a modified TI500 with 64mb graphics memory, DDR ram, and is not running a full windows operating system....it's not exactly a 1ghz duron, with a 32mb shared memory video card running windows ME or something.

it's not that far off, really.

The 32mb onboard video is enough to make it run choppy, not to mention all the extra resources being run on a PC really hurts performance.
 

Siva

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2001
5,472
0
71
I really am looking forward to the Revolution, seriously, but I want to address IBdaMac's fanboy comments from a non-hater perspective.

You are also forgetting that the price of the revolution will probably be half that of the PS3.
Source? I think that sounds pretty made up to me
Online Smash Brothers and Online MarioKart!!!!
That's a reasonable assumption, but have any games even been confirmed for the Revolution?
emulating games on the PC sucks....no matter what console you emulate
No it doesn't, there are an endless supply of emulators available which are tailored to different rigs and different OSes. I have yet to have a problem emulating NES or SNES with anything faster than a 333mhz PII (my first decent PC).
Nintendo is the only one with the balls to change things around a little
Sony had a lot of balls jumping into a Nintendo dominated market with the PS and made Nintendo look like an aging dinosaur in terms of innovation. Sure the N64 had a nice controller, but making use of CDs and mass file storage to create games that rivaled cinematic experiences is what I think really hooked an entirely new generation of gamers.
Online gaming was done first on the computer, so they didn't innovate anything. All microsoft did was take a computer, strip windows, put a modified TI500 in it and sell it for too much while still using an operating system that relies on directx...which is stupid.
Exactly what constitutes stupid? To me it seems like Microsoft created the most powerful platform available in the exact same price range as the other consoles. If you are complaining that the Xbox is no more than a stripped down PC there are plenty of things that set it apart; price, controllers, multiplayer support, xbox live, and plenty of console specific games. The Xbox has taken on a big role by adding another competitor to the industry with a unique service (Xbox live), so what exactly about it is stupid?
I'm pretty confident that the average gamer that will be playing the old games doesn't even own a solder gun; let alone have the ambition or know how to mod their xbox.
What makes you confident of that? A lot of people own a soldering gun, a lot of people are smarter than you give them credit for.
PC emulation blows because there are more than just a few glitches, as well as you need a computer as powerful as mine just to play super mario 64 with a good framerate.
N64 emulation was available long before a rig as good as yours was. If you can't get a good framerate, you are at fault, not the emulator.
Since the console will cost like 300 bucks max, I won't mind spending like 20 bucks for the 10 games I loved back in the day.
Where the hell do you get these prices? Stop assuming, it makes an ass entirely out of you. Nintendo has released plenty of old games for new systems, and they have never cost $20 for 10 before. It costs $20 for one of the "new" old games for Game Boy Advance. I don't believe the downloadable games will be $2 each, not from any company that intends to make a decent profit off a unique service.
I'm pretty sure that EVERY game will be available eventually, that's just the list available at release.....but I could be wrong.
You ARE wrong. Nintendo does not own the rights to any games it did not develop itself (with the possible exception of RARE's games, I'm not sure how that works). You will never see Nintendo offer downloadable Mega Man or any other thrid party game unless they reach a deal with another company.
And what if the controllers are actually LCD and the buttons can be manipulated and moved to look like an NES controller, or SNES...there are so many possibilities that you guys are just overlooking and focusing on trying to convince me that emulation on your pc is better or whatever you're trying to do.
Why are you hyping the system with pure speculation? You should wait until all the details are revealed to compare it to other systems, otherwise you are going to slant yourself to the point where you wouldn't be able to enjoy any console but the one you have created in your own mind.


Oh and by the way, that list of games is entirely SPECULATORY. It is nothing but a list of all the first party games Nintendo has ever made. There is no reason to believe all of those games will be released, in fact I highly doubt it. It would take a lot of people and many hours to get those games polished to work well for the Revolution.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Originally posted by: Siva
PC emulation blows because there are more than just a few glitches, as well as you need a computer as powerful as mine just to play super mario 64 with a good framerate.
N64 emulation was available long before a rig as good as yours was. If you can't get a good framerate, you are at fault, not the emulator.

Well put!

(as was the rest of your post, but I really wanted to point this out, since this is all I am arguing about)
 

IBdaMac

Senior member
Jan 12, 2003
259
0
0
Originally posted by: Siva
I really am looking forward to the Revolution, seriously, but I want to address IBdaMac's fanboy comments from a non-hater perspective.

You are also forgetting that the price of the revolution will probably be half that of the PS3.
Source? I think that sounds pretty made up to me

Judging from the gamecube, nintendo's strive for cheap entertainment, as well as the hardware being less expensive.


Online Smash Brothers and Online MarioKart!!!!
That's a reasonable assumption, but have any games even been confirmed for the Revolution?

They announced at E3 that Smash Brothers will be online and considering that the DS will have mariokart online....do you see any reason for the revolution not to?

emulating games on the PC sucks....no matter what console you emulate
No it doesn't, there are an endless supply of emulators available which are tailored to different rigs and different OSes. I have yet to have a problem emulating NES or SNES with anything faster than a 333mhz PII (my first decent PC).

Again, I said 3d emulation (N64) takes some hardware as well as it sucks because you're sitting in front of your computer in your office instead of lying on your couch

Nintendo is the only one with the balls to change things around a little
Sony had a lot of balls jumping into a Nintendo dominated market with the PS and made Nintendo look like an aging dinosaur in terms of innovation. Sure the N64 had a nice controller, but making use of CDs and mass file storage to create games that rivaled cinematic experiences is what I think really hooked an entirely new generation of gamers.

Dreamcast came out with games on CD before Sony did, so what did Sony innovate in that field again? They were just the first ones to get good titles out for it and then it exploded

Online gaming was done first on the computer, so they didn't innovate anything. All microsoft did was take a computer, strip windows, put a modified TI500 in it and sell it for too much while still using an operating system that relies on directx...which is stupid.
Exactly what constitutes stupid? To me it seems like Microsoft created the most powerful platform available in the exact same price range as the other consoles. If you are complaining that the Xbox is no more than a stripped down PC there are plenty of things that set it apart; price, controllers, multiplayer support, xbox live, and plenty of console specific games. The Xbox has taken on a big role by adding another competitor to the industry with a unique service (Xbox live), so what exactly about it is stupid?

The only stupid thing I was referring to was using directx on a console. Because of that, they used hardware that was more powerful than needed if the games were written directly for the hardware.

I'm pretty confident that the average gamer that will be playing the old games doesn't even own a solder gun; let alone have the ambition or know how to mod their xbox.
What makes you confident of that? A lot of people own a soldering gun, a lot of people are smarter than you give them credit for.

No, I think you are giving them a little more credit than they deserve. Trust me the average gamer (not hardcore gamer) does not own a solder gun, and would not want to risk ruining their xbox so they can play mario 64

PC emulation blows because there are more than just a few glitches, as well as you need a computer as powerful as mine just to play super mario 64 with a good framerate.
N64 emulation was available long before a rig as good as yours was. If you can't get a good framerate, you are at fault, not the emulator.

I was exaggerating a little with that statement, but there isn't a person here that hasn't had to put time and effort into making emulation run perfectly.

Since the console will cost like 300 bucks max, I won't mind spending like 20 bucks for the 10 games I loved back in the day.
Where the hell do you get these prices? Stop assuming, it makes an ass entirely out of you. Nintendo has released plenty of old games for new systems, and they have never cost $20 for 10 before. It costs $20 for one of the "new" old games for Game Boy Advance. I don't believe the downloadable games will be $2 each, not from any company that intends to make a decent profit off a unique service.

So tell me then....what are they going to charge for mario 1? 20 bucks? 10 bucks? No...they've already made their profit from those games a long time ago. Obviously the games are going to be dirt cheap or else no one would download them and they definitely wouldn't make a profit. I make assumptions based off logic, and that is pretty logical. Why would someone go pay 20 bucks for mario 1 when they can go on ebay, but a NES with 329832983 games for that price.

I'm pretty sure that EVERY game will be available eventually, that's just the list available at release.....but I could be wrong.
You ARE wrong. Nintendo does not own the rights to any games it did not develop itself (with the possible exception of RARE's games, I'm not sure how that works). You will never see Nintendo offer downloadable Mega Man or any other thrid party game unless they reach a deal with another company.

Ok, I am wrong...that's why I said 'I could be wrong'. However, I'm willing to bet money that there will be a lot more than just the games made by nintendo available eventually

And what if the controllers are actually LCD and the buttons can be manipulated and moved to look like an NES controller, or SNES...there are so many possibilities that you guys are just overlooking and focusing on trying to convince me that emulation on your pc is better or whatever you're trying to do.
Why are you hyping the system with pure speculation? You should wait until all the details are revealed to compare it to other systems, otherwise you are going to slant yourself to the point where you wouldn't be able to enjoy any console but the one you have created in your own mind.

I was giving an example of the possibilities, and the speculations that have been roaming the internet. That is why I said 'What if...' And the reason I said that is to get the focus off of emulation. Whether it works good on a crap computer or not, it is still much easier to have it available for download on your console plain and simple

 

Siva

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2001
5,472
0
71
Judging from the gamecube, nintendo's strive for cheap entertainment, as well as the hardware being less expensive.
Wasn't the N64 more expensive than the Playstation? One generation of hardware doesn't necissarily dictate the future. I think Nintendo said they would set a lower price point than other companies, but I don't think the Revolution will be half the price of the PS3.
Dreamcast came out with games on CD before Sony did, so what did Sony innovate in that field again? They were just the first ones to get good titles out for it and then it exploded
The Dreamcast came long after the Playstation. And before that Sega CD was probably the first console to use CDs (I could be wrong). I was saying Sony revolutionized the gaming experience with the way that they put CDs to use. As for your console time line, Dreamcast came before the PS2, but not the PS1 (btw Dreamcast used GD-ROMs, basically 1 GB cds, but not cds).
The only stupid thing I was referring to was using directx on a console. Because of that, they used hardware that was more powerful than needed if the games were written directly for the hardware.
So you are a programmer then? You are speaking from experience? Its hard to argue that the hardware in an Xbox (700mhz CPU, Basically a Geforce GPU) is overpowered for the high quality games it produces. Direct X isn't quite as flawed as you think.
So tell me then....what are they going to charge for mario 1? 20 bucks? 10 bucks? No...they've already made their profit from those games
Thanks for the info, but this says otherwise. It was $20 brand new when it was released over a year ago.
 

IBdaMac

Senior member
Jan 12, 2003
259
0
0
Originally posted by: Siva
Judging from the gamecube, nintendo's strive for cheap entertainment, as well as the hardware being less expensive.
Wasn't the N64 more expensive than the Playstation? One generation of hardware doesn't necissarily dictate the future. I think Nintendo said they would set a lower price point than other companies, but I don't think the Revolution will be half the price of the PS3.

ok, do some research because Nintendo's president said it would be the cheapest. Read the article I posted before this.

EDIT: OK, I'm sure it won't be half the price but the difference in price will be pretty significant.


Dreamcast came out with games on CD before Sony did, so what did Sony innovate in that field again? They were just the first ones to get good titles out for it and then it exploded
The Dreamcast came long after the Playstation. And before that Sega CD was probably the first console to use CDs (I could be wrong). I was saying Sony revolutionized the gaming experience with the way that they put CDs to use. As for your console time line, Dreamcast came before the PS2, but not the PS1 (btw Dreamcast used GD-ROMs, basically 1 GB cds, but not cds).

Maybe I was thinking of the Saturn....either way, a console came out with games on CD's before Sony did so they didn't innovate anything. They just had other features that appealed more to the american market and game developers which made it succeed. There is nothing innovative about that...and also, I didn't say they haven't been innovative at all...they just haven't been as innovative as Nintendo

The only stupid thing I was referring to was using directx on a console. Because of that, they used hardware that was more powerful than needed if the games were written directly for the hardware.
So you are a programmer then? You are speaking from experience? Its hard to argue that the hardware in an Xbox (700mhz CPU, Basically a Geforce GPU) is overpowered for the high quality games it produces. Direct X isn't quite as flawed as you think.

directx was designed to prevent game manufacturers to write the software for each type of hardware...instead they had to write it for directx, which in turn knew how to run the hardware. Since xbox all has the same hardware....why use directx? It may not affect it tremendously but it does have an impact

So tell me then....what are they going to charge for mario 1? 20 bucks? 10 bucks? No...they've already made their profit from those games
Thanks for the info, but this says otherwise. It was $20 brand new when it was released over a year ago.

Listen....when you buy that....you are buying hardware (the cartridge) on top of the software. You are paying for the cost of the factories to produce that piece of hardware, and make them available in retail stores....what we are talking about is a download, no cartridges...just software....so, if you can buy mario 1 for 13 bucks including the cartridge, manual, and box that it came in...I'm pretty sure the download will be much cheaper....again, logic my friend

 

Siva

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2001
5,472
0
71
Originally posted by: IBdaMac
Originally posted by: Siva
Judging from the gamecube, nintendo's strive for cheap entertainment, as well as the hardware being less expensive.
Wasn't the N64 more expensive than the Playstation? One generation of hardware doesn't necissarily dictate the future. I think Nintendo said they would set a lower price point than other companies, but I don't think the Revolution will be half the price of the PS3.

ok, do some research because Nintendo's president said it would be the cheapest. Read the article I posted before this.

EDIT: OK, I'm sure it won't be half the price but the difference in price will be pretty significant.


Dreamcast came out with games on CD before Sony did, so what did Sony innovate in that field again? They were just the first ones to get good titles out for it and then it exploded
The Dreamcast came long after the Playstation. And before that Sega CD was probably the first console to use CDs (I could be wrong). I was saying Sony revolutionized the gaming experience with the way that they put CDs to use. As for your console time line, Dreamcast came before the PS2, but not the PS1 (btw Dreamcast used GD-ROMs, basically 1 GB cds, but not cds).

Maybe I was thinking of the Saturn....either way, a console came out with games on CD's before Sony did so they didn't innovate anything. They just had other features that appealed more to the american market and game developers which made it succeed. There is nothing innovative about that...and also, I didn't say they haven't been innovative at all...they just haven't been as innovative as Nintendo

The only stupid thing I was referring to was using directx on a console. Because of that, they used hardware that was more powerful than needed if the games were written directly for the hardware.
So you are a programmer then? You are speaking from experience? Its hard to argue that the hardware in an Xbox (700mhz CPU, Basically a Geforce GPU) is overpowered for the high quality games it produces. Direct X isn't quite as flawed as you think.

directx was designed to prevent game manufacturers to write the software for each type of hardware...instead they had to write it for directx, which in turn knew how to run the hardware. Since xbox all has the same hardware....why use directx? It may not affect it tremendously but it does have an impact

So tell me then....what are they going to charge for mario 1? 20 bucks? 10 bucks? No...they've already made their profit from those games
Thanks for the info, but this says otherwise. It was $20 brand new when it was released over a year ago.

Listen....when you buy that....you are buying hardware (the cartridge) on top of the software. You are paying for the cost of the factories to produce that piece of hardware, and make them available in retail stores....what we are talking about is a download, no cartridges...just software....so, if you can buy mario 1 for 13 bucks including the cartridge, manual, and box that it came in...I'm pretty sure the download will be much cheaper....again, logic my friend
For the price, I know that the Revolution is probably going to be the cheapest next gen console, I just don't think you should be throwing out figures when you have absolutely no clue of the Revolution or any other console's price point.

Direct X was not designed to "prevent" anything. It is mearly an interface between hardware and software. I'm sure direct X was modified to fully utilize the Xbox. If not, then you would be able all the new games that come out for the Xbox on every 700mhz PC available, which we know is not true. You are bashing something that has proven to WORK for what it was meant to do, which is to make full use of the Xbox's hardware capabilities.

Believe me when I say that GBA cartridges, boxes, and shipping do not cost $10. Even if they cost $5, there was still a $15 profit being made on the game when it was initially released. Yes some of that goes to the retailer, but I can guarentee you Nintendo was making more than $2 for every old Mario game it sold. Considering that the games can be sold for download directly to the consumer at a much lower cost to Nintendo, I have a feeling that a portion of that savings will not be deducted from the price but go straight into Nintendo's pocket. It won't be as expensive as buying a cartridge, but I would put money on many downloadable games being no cheaper than $5. Profit is king, Nintendo loves you as long as you'll put money in their wallet. You'll see when you grow up.
 

IBdaMac

Senior member
Jan 12, 2003
259
0
0
directx is an extra step not necessary when dealing with console games. What I am saying is if you took the same game, and wrote it directly for the xbox hardware you would get a better fps. You're taking out the middleman.

Like I said, the reason directx came out was because there was so many different kinds of hardware that it would be impossible to expect each game vender to develop code for each set of hardware....so, the game code runs directx while directx runs the hardware. Granted, it is a stripped down version of directx on the xbox, but it's an unnecessary step. That's why the ps2, ps1, gamecube, n64...etc doesn't use anything like directx....the games are written specifically for the hardware and so there is no middleman.

Mark my words about the price of the games...there is no way that super mario 1 will be over 5 dollars to download. Nintendo knows that if they charge 5/10 bucks for each game that no one will bother buying them. I'm guessin 99c for NES games, like 3 dollars for SNES and maybe 8 for n64 or something....who knows. But I guess only time will tell.

They were also saying that the games will look different....here's the quote:

"We are doing several experiments, including working with the original Super Mario Bros., with the new technology. The game itself and the gameplay shall be identical, but the look will be different; it's possible that with Revolution, we may be able to see the old games with new looks."
- Satoro Iwata, president


That could be interesting

Anyway, back to my original point...

Graphics are going nowhere, and are already approaching photorealistic. Innovation is needed, and like I said I trust Nintendo to provide it more than anyone else.

With it being cheaper, smaller, online and backwards compatable....it's already got a lead over the competition in my book. Not to mention that it is going to be far more than just better graphics; unlike the competition.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,427
8,388
126
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: IBdaMac
Originally posted by: Rogue
I play a number of N64 games on my Xbox without issue. How fast is the processor in an Xbox again? How much memory? Oh, wait....

dude...the xbox also has a modified TI500 with 64mb graphics memory, DDR ram, and is not running a full windows operating system....it's not exactly a 1ghz duron, with a 32mb shared memory video card running windows ME or something.

it's not that far off, really.

except there is a lot more bandwidth and little to no operating system overhead. OS overhead puts a huge brake on PC performance. not to mention the added emulation layer.


this directx argument is stupid. it was put in there to make the xbox easy to program for in the first place, so games could be gotten out the door quickly and inexpensively. directx, iirc, is in no means mandatory, and game developers are free to code the metal to take full advantage of the hardware.
 

IBdaMac

Senior member
Jan 12, 2003
259
0
0
I agree....

But come on, are there any other Nintendo fan boys like me that are excited for this or am I the only one??
 

Maverick

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2000
5,900
0
71
wow...this is a really good move by them to try to turn the tide of a losing battle. Now all that remains is for them to price it right.

I wish chrono trigger was on that list :(