Nintendo's Revolution

[warcrow]

I think this is the first picture of it, isnt it? If not, it's an interesting article non-the-less.

 

[Furyline]

Few more pics, high res.

I'm a Nintendo fan. I like the online library of past games idea. But they will need to do more. I'm skeptical at this point whether they can beat Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo may not like it, but power is fairly important. I hope they find a way to be competitive.

 

[Slick5150]

There's no reason to believe the Revolution will be any less "powerful" than the Xbox360 or PS3. Just because Microsoft and Sony make claims such as their new systems being eleventy-billion times more powerful than the last doesn't really mean they are.

All 3 systems I'm sure will be able to produce similar graphics and whatnot. Nintendo's offering free online play may be the wildcard they need to spring back.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Furyline
Few more pics, high res.

I'm a Nintendo fan. I like the online library of past games idea. But they will need to do more. I'm skeptical at this point whether they can beat Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo may not like it, but power is fairly important. I hope they find a way to be competitive.

If you ever thought they could beat them, then you had way too much hope. Nintendo hasn't beaten Sony in the last 2 generations, why would they start now? They don't even try to be like their competitors and even admit to that.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
All 3 systems I'm sure will be able to produce similar graphics and whatnot. Nintendo's offering free online play may be the wildcard they need to spring back.

There is no reason to believe that. Nintendo said it would only be a few times better than the gamecube compared to the other systems being 10-30 times better. Look at current consoles, which ones had the better looking games? Not Nintendo. Nintendo has kids games with kids graphics. That's the way they've always done and will always do it. All the good looking games are on the PS2 and Xbox.

 

[Czar]

looks the best out of the three without a doubt

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: Slick5150
All 3 systems I'm sure will be able to produce similar graphics and whatnot. Nintendo's offering free online play may be the wildcard they need to spring back.

There is no reason to believe that. Nintendo said it would only be a few times better than the gamecube compared to the other systems being 10-30 times better. Look at current consoles, which ones had the better looking games? Not Nintendo. Nintendo has kids games with kids graphics. That's the way they've always done and will always do it. All the good looking games are on the PS2 and Xbox.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin on this one.

Saying a system is 10-30 times better, or a billion times better is all meaningless. Paper numbers mean nothing. The same thing happened with the current generation. Microsoft and Sony put out spec sheets for Xbox and PS2 touting all sorts of insane graphical numbers that were never realized. Nintendo put out more realistic specs, and in the end, their system holds up just fine with the other 2, in fact, its graphics are generally better than PS2 versions of the same game.

And have you ever actually played a Gamecube game? Sure, some look cartoony, because they are supposed to. Play Resident Evil 4 and tell me that game has kiddy graphics. It has some of, if not the best, graphics I've ever seen on a console system.

So, if you really feel like beliving soley in marketing hype, go right ahead.

 

[BW86]

Originally posted by: Czar
looks the best out of the three without a doubt

Agreed.

 

[cyclohexane]

Originally posted by: Czar
looks the best out of the three without a doubt

how so? Looks to me like a CD rom drive.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: Slick5150
All 3 systems I'm sure will be able to produce similar graphics and whatnot. Nintendo's offering free online play may be the wildcard they need to spring back.

There is no reason to believe that. Nintendo said it would only be a few times better than the gamecube compared to the other systems being 10-30 times better. Look at current consoles, which ones had the better looking games? Not Nintendo. Nintendo has kids games with kids graphics. That's the way they've always done and will always do it. All the good looking games are on the PS2 and Xbox.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin on this one.

Saying a system is 10-30 times better, or a billion times better is all meaningless. Paper numbers mean nothing. The same thing happened with the current generation. Microsoft and Sony put out spec sheets for Xbox and PS2 touting all sorts of insane graphical numbers that were never realized. Nintendo put out more realistic specs, and in the end, their system holds up just fine with the other 2, in fact, its graphics are generally better than PS2 versions of the same game.

And have you ever actually played a Gamecube game? Sure, some look cartoony, because they are supposed to. Play Resident Evil 4 and tell me that game has kiddy graphics. It has some of, if not the best, graphics I've ever seen on a console system.

So, if you really feel like beliving soley in marketing hype, go right ahead.

Marketing hype? Sony and Microsoft showed demos of games that looked good. Nintendo announced the same thing they've announced for 2 decades. More Mario and Zelda. And you know they aren't going to look anything other than cartoony.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Czar
looks the best out of the three without a doubt

Yea, looks slick. Just wish I had more info on it.

 

[fishbits]

If Nintendo Revolution is simpler and cheaper than $4-500ish 360/PS3, that alone can win the day for some families' spending money. If you gotta get the kids something, saving a few hundred bucks can be important, and Nintendo has awesome name recognition. Reality is that we're going to have to wait and see actual hardware, software and prices before we can pronounce any of them must-have or trash. Maybe Revolution will be a screaming powerhouse, though it seems to be the least likely of the three.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: Slick5150
All 3 systems I'm sure will be able to produce similar graphics and whatnot. Nintendo's offering free online play may be the wildcard they need to spring back.

There is no reason to believe that. Nintendo said it would only be a few times better than the gamecube compared to the other systems being 10-30 times better. Look at current consoles, which ones had the better looking games? Not Nintendo. Nintendo has kids games with kids graphics. That's the way they've always done and will always do it. All the good looking games are on the PS2 and Xbox.

That's completely wrong. As others stated, go play the RE series and tell me they don't look great. I've always felt the PS2 graphics looked sub par compared to Xbox and GC.

That said, I do expect Nintendo's console to have less power than the competitors this round.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: modedepe
That's completely wrong. As others stated, go play the RE series and tell me they don't look great. I've always felt the PS2 graphics looked sub par compared to Xbox and GC.

That said, I do expect Nintendo's console to have less power than the competitors this round.

The PS2 was subpar. But it was released so early in comparison that it might as well have been its own generation.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Marketing hype? Sony and Microsoft showed demos of games that looked good. Nintendo announced the same thing they've announced for 2 decades. More Mario and Zelda. And you know they aren't going to look anything other than cartoony.

I'm not saying that the PS3 & Xbox360 games don't look good, but you're buying into their marketing hype that they are 10-30 times better, which is just a made up number, and comparing that with Nintendo's statements.

Nothing in the 360 & PS3 demos were a leap ahead. They are slightly better graphic wise then what you can do on a PC right now, so to say it's 30 times better than the Xbox is just making up numbers. But they've been doing it for years now. 32bit vs. 64bit.. That was all just hype, but people bought into it. Why is this system better? Well, it's 32 bits more, so that must be good. Well, yes and no. Same thing going on here. To think that the graphics on the Revolution are going to be significantly worse (2-3 times better than current gen vs. 10-30 times, right?) is just silly.

And what's wrong with showing off your flagship characters? The new Zelda game on Gamecube looks phenomenal, and in no way cartoonish. If anything it looks like The Lord of the Rings.

But, like I said, you're more than welcome to go on beliving whatever marketing hype you want. I'll go ahead and wait and see what the final products look like.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Marketing hype? Sony and Microsoft showed demos of games that looked good. Nintendo announced the same thing they've announced for 2 decades. More Mario and Zelda. And you know they aren't going to look anything other than cartoony.

I'm not saying that the PS3 & Xbox360 games don't look good, but you're buying into their marketing hype that they are 10-30 times better, which is just a made up number, and comparing that with Nintendo's statements.

Nothing in the 360 & PS3 demos were a leap ahead. They are slightly better graphic wise then what you can do on a PC right now, so to say it's 30 times better than the Xbox is just making up numbers. But they've been doing it for years now. 32bit vs. 64bit.. That was all just hype, but people bought into it. Why is this system better? Well, it's 32 bits more, so that must be good. Well, yes and no. Same thing going on here. To think that the graphics on the Revolution are going to be significantly worse (2-3 times better than current gen vs. 10-30 times, right?) is just silly.

Silly? The xbox is a 733mhz celeron. The xbox 360 is 3 cores running at 3.2 ghz. It is 10x better.

 

[toekramp]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Marketing hype? Sony and Microsoft showed demos of games that looked good. Nintendo announced the same thing they've announced for 2 decades. More Mario and Zelda. And you know they aren't going to look anything other than cartoony.

I'm not saying that the PS3 & Xbox360 games don't look good, but you're buying into their marketing hype that they are 10-30 times better, which is just a made up number, and comparing that with Nintendo's statements.

Nothing in the 360 & PS3 demos were a leap ahead. They are slightly better graphic wise then what you can do on a PC right now, so to say it's 30 times better than the Xbox is just making up numbers. But they've been doing it for years now. 32bit vs. 64bit.. That was all just hype, but people bought into it. Why is this system better? Well, it's 32 bits more, so that must be good. Well, yes and no. Same thing going on here. To think that the graphics on the Revolution are going to be significantly worse (2-3 times better than current gen vs. 10-30 times, right?) is just silly.

Silly? The xbox is a 733mhz celeron. The xbox 360 is 3 cores running at 3.2 ghz. It is 10x better.

10x faster on paper doesn't = 10x better

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Marketing hype? Sony and Microsoft showed demos of games that looked good. Nintendo announced the same thing they've announced for 2 decades. More Mario and Zelda. And you know they aren't going to look anything other than cartoony.

I'm not saying that the PS3 & Xbox360 games don't look good, but you're buying into their marketing hype that they are 10-30 times better, which is just a made up number, and comparing that with Nintendo's statements.

Nothing in the 360 & PS3 demos were a leap ahead. They are slightly better graphic wise then what you can do on a PC right now, so to say it's 30 times better than the Xbox is just making up numbers. But they've been doing it for years now. 32bit vs. 64bit.. That was all just hype, but people bought into it. Why is this system better? Well, it's 32 bits more, so that must be good. Well, yes and no. Same thing going on here. To think that the graphics on the Revolution are going to be significantly worse (2-3 times better than current gen vs. 10-30 times, right?) is just silly.

Silly? The xbox is a 733mhz celeron. The xbox 360 is 3 cores running at 3.2 ghz. It is 10x better.

10x faster on paper doesn't = 10x better

Exactly

 

[AdamSnow]

Looks plain

 

[jimithing2077]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: Slick5150
All 3 systems I'm sure will be able to produce similar graphics and whatnot. Nintendo's offering free online play may be the wildcard they need to spring back.

There is no reason to believe that. Nintendo said it would only be a few times better than the gamecube compared to the other systems being 10-30 times better. Look at current consoles, which ones had the better looking games? Not Nintendo. Nintendo has kids games with kids graphics. That's the way they've always done and will always do it. All the good looking games are on the PS2 and Xbox.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin on this one.

Saying a system is 10-30 times better, or a billion times better is all meaningless. Paper numbers mean nothing. The same thing happened with the current generation. Microsoft and Sony put out spec sheets for Xbox and PS2 touting all sorts of insane graphical numbers that were never realized. Nintendo put out more realistic specs, and in the end, their system holds up just fine with the other 2, in fact, its graphics are generally better than PS2 versions of the same game.

And have you ever actually played a Gamecube game? Sure, some look cartoony, because they are supposed to. Play Resident Evil 4 and tell me that game has kiddy graphics. It has some of, if not the best, graphics I've ever seen on a console system.

So, if you really feel like beliving soley in marketing hype, go right ahead.

If you can honestly tell me one game that has better graphics than PS2, please either PM pics, a link, or a copy of the game...because I have yet to read ONE review of any game that has been available on all 3 platforms that was touted as having GAMECUBE better than PS2..its ALWAYS, and i state ALWAYS been XBOX, PS2, then Gamecube in terms of graphics....

where you got your info from im confused!!

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: BW86

Originally posted by: Czar
looks the best out of the three without a doubt

Agreed.

qft. i'm a MS fan and i absolutely loathe the Gamecube but i love the desigh of the revolution it looks so mature and sexy. This si the only system i would be proud to display on top of my av equipment. the sony looks like a bose unit whick will get me laughed at by my audiophile friend and the xbox360, while better is concave which is weird to me.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: jimithing2077

If you can honestly tell me one game that has better graphics than PS2, please either PM pics, a link, or a copy of the game...because I have yet to read ONE review of any game that has been available on all 3 platforms that was touted as having GAMECUBE better than PS2..its ALWAYS, and i state ALWAYS been XBOX, PS2, then Gamecube in terms of graphics....

where you got your info from im confused!!

Well, here's several that I remembered off the top of my head:

Prince of Persia:
"The GameCube version of Prince looks slightly better than the PlayStation 2 one"
http://cube.ign.com/articles/458/458726p4.html

SSX3:
"All of these effects look great on Xbox and GameCube, and happily, I can report they look almost equally as good on PS2."
http://cube.ign.com/articles/455/455472p5.html

Tony Hawk Underground 2:
"While on the PS2, the game often gets blurry and texture and object pop-in is more obvious and painful -- especially in widescreen mode."
http://cube.ign.com/articles/554/554301p3.html

Lord of the Rings: Two Towers:
"It particularly shines in comparison to the PS2 version; the textures are much more clean, the rough edges are all smoothed out, and the particle lighting effects are even slightly more radiant than before. In this vein, the real-time gameplay visuals are nearly as brilliant as the slightly superior Xbox version."
http://cube.ign.com/articles/383/383455p3.html

So, there's 4 off the top of my head. So much for it ALWAYS being Xbox-PS2-Gamecube. That being said, the graphical differences between the 3 are minimal, however I was responding to someone saying the Gamecube's graphics are "crap", which obviously isn't the case.

 

[shock311]

good stuff, i was trying to find the head to head reviews on ign but found out you have to be an insider, there are several cases where its usually XBOX then CUBE then PS2, if you play all three, it should be obvious, I dont see how people cannot tell the difference.

I personally am looking forward to all three systems but I am a hardcore Nintendo fan and will get the rev just for the franchises alone. Though, I wont post here and say that MS and Sony suxorz!!!!!!1111ononeoneoneeleven, and all that nonsense, all three have great systems, but it'll be the games that make it or break it.

 

[SaltBoy]

Slick's done his homework. Everybody else shut up until we actually play the games. That's all that REALLY matters.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Originally posted by: jimithing2077

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: Slick5150
All 3 systems I'm sure will be able to produce similar graphics and whatnot. Nintendo's offering free online play may be the wildcard they need to spring back.

There is no reason to believe that. Nintendo said it would only be a few times better than the gamecube compared to the other systems being 10-30 times better. Look at current consoles, which ones had the better looking games? Not Nintendo. Nintendo has kids games with kids graphics. That's the way they've always done and will always do it. All the good looking games are on the PS2 and Xbox.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin on this one.

Saying a system is 10-30 times better, or a billion times better is all meaningless. Paper numbers mean nothing. The same thing happened with the current generation. Microsoft and Sony put out spec sheets for Xbox and PS2 touting all sorts of insane graphical numbers that were never realized. Nintendo put out more realistic specs, and in the end, their system holds up just fine with the other 2, in fact, its graphics are generally better than PS2 versions of the same game.

And have you ever actually played a Gamecube game? Sure, some look cartoony, because they are supposed to. Play Resident Evil 4 and tell me that game has kiddy graphics. It has some of, if not the best, graphics I've ever seen on a console system.

So, if you really feel like beliving soley in marketing hype, go right ahead.

If you can honestly tell me one game that has better graphics than PS2, please either PM pics, a link, or a copy of the game...because I have yet to read ONE review of any game that has been available on all 3 platforms that was touted as having GAMECUBE better than PS2..its ALWAYS, and i state ALWAYS been XBOX, PS2, then Gamecube in terms of graphics....

where you got your info from im confused!!

I own all 3 and I can tell you factually the Gamecube games look much better than PS2. Do the games that go across all platforms look better on Gamecube? Well Viewtiful Joe looked a hell of a lot better on gamecube than PS2, while PS2 native games look better on PS2. They're called ports. Overall the Gamecube graphics are better though, sorry to stomp on your fanboytasies.