Mottzilla wrote:As I recall, Xbox (original) can only display 640x480, no more, no less. Yet they still did games like Doom 3, and they look just fine. Really I think that 640x480 is sufficant for more games, and 800x600 is definitely plenty. Yet people insist on huge 2048x1024 or something resolutions. Resolution being higher allows for more detail, but you must realize that all that detail must be put in by hand. Now 320x240 isn't enough by today's standards, but 640x480 certainly is good enough. But you must realize the tech industry is always trying to sell people new and overpriced technology.
I second that. Try playing Doom 3 or (the rather excellent) Psychonauts on a 640x480 resolution and see for yourself. If you really can't cope, try 800x640. People demand bigger and better because they think it's what they want, when in actual fact they don't realise that they've already got pretty much all the power they could ever need.
It all adds up to my theory that people are stupid. Some are just better at hiding it then others, like most people here. I wouldn't be here if you guys didn't keep me coming back.
Darth Marsden wrote:People demand bigger and better because they think it's what they want, when in actual fact they don't realise that they've already got pretty much all the power they could ever need.
This is true, but the problem is, a good chunk of people still demand it, and because of that, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot.
I am really excited about the Rev, whether I am going to buy one or not. I am curious to see if their whole deal about making development cheaper will help them as much as I hope it will.
And the plus side about their secret "Revolution," should it be something so ridiculous that nobody buys it, if it is only the controller, they can always come out with something more conventional later in it's life cycle.
Last I heard, they were still building the damn controllers - they hadn't even finished them! I have faith in Miyamoto & Co, but they're kinda pushing it a little bit. Let's see some games, maybe a wee bit more about the specs on the console. Something. Anything. Please..?
Darth Marsden wrote:Try playing Doom 3 ... on a 640x480 resolution and see for yourself. ... It all adds up to my theory that people are stupid.
My old computer didn't have enough power for Doom 3, so I had to play it in that resolution. And really, that still looks more stunning than more than half the other pc games running at their max resolution.
And Darth, that theory should be the national motto. People are stupid. I find that the group's intelligence is expontially greater as the group expands. The larger the group, the dumber they are. 1 Albert Einstein is smarter than 20 Albert Einsteins put together. 😊
Technically, its probably a bad mistake, but I think its a good economical decision. A consoles lifespan is usually 5 years. Its been said that a small percentage of people own HD TVs. At the end of 5 years, is there that much of an increase in the percentage of people owning HD TVs that justify including that type of support. If its over 50%, yeah, but I highly doubt 50% of the people world wide will have HD in their homes by 2011. Only when I can get a HD TV for a couple hundred will I purchase one.
Also, not only are the people thinking they want this stuff, but the publisher think they know what games we want to play too.
http://www.forumsx.net//thread/27716/
I give up trying to argue anything on my own forums. Too many Xbox fanboys over there.
I still think HD for video games is kind of pointless. At least consoles. Just makes it easier to see all the graphical flaws in models and textures. Either way, I don't even own an HD tv so I don't care.
I mean, people are free to have thier own opinion, but damn. Let's not say "Revolution will fail and Nintendo sucks" just because Nintendo is not going to support HD -_-
I think it might be a mistake for Nintendo. The cost of adding HD support will no doubt drop during this upcoming console cycle, analogous with the drop in costs of producing HD TVs.
What you'll then see is PS3s and Xbox 360s dropping in price alongside the HD sets that will be capable of displaying their high resolution games. If HD performance is as noticeable as claimed, Nintendo could see itself in a bad position, especially in the eyes of a media which is becoming increasingly indifferent towards Nintendo's policies and products.
Nintendo, I'd think, would do well to reconsider HD support, if it doesn't want to continue to be seen as inferior to their competition. We might not care, but then again, we're already part of Nintendo's market. What Nintendo needs is more market sadly.
I doubt it will be enough to make Nintendo fail, but I can easily imagine its lack of HD support in the coming years will cause videogame correspondants to continually bring it up in their evaluation of the videogame market.
I don't know if it's a mistake or not. I think the idea was to make their console affordable. I care more about that than some feature I will probably never even use.
BTW, I don't know why but I replied to that other topic again. I'm sure I came off sounding like an idiot but I really don't care. If he wants to make up facts than I'm going to respond.
I still don't see what the heck is wrong with the Gamecube minidisks. God forbid if a developer (*cough*Square/Capcom*cough*) wants to cram in 100 hours of FMV you have to switch disks at some point. Because of course, having to switch disks on the PS1 is what caused that system to fail! *sigh* I don't even know of any 2 disk games besides Resident Evil. Are there any others?
Warlock wrote:I still don't see what the heck is wrong with the Gamecube minidisks. God forbid if a developer (*cough*Square/Capcom*cough*) wants to cram in 100 hours of FMV you have to switch disks at some point. Because of course, having to switch disks on the PS1 is what caused that system to fail! *sigh* I don't even know of any 2 disk games besides Resident Evil. Are there any others?
Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes had two disks because of the long cinematics. Tales of Symphonia also had two because of the length of the game and the voice-acting.
HD support I could care less for. I don't own a HD TV, and don't plan on owning one in the near future. Good graphics are nice, but I don't really care much about them. But the problem is, a majority of gamers base system-shopping on pretty graphics.
Chances are I'll be getting the Revolution since I basically grew up with Nintendo, and enjoy their first-party titles like Zelda, Metroid, and Fire Emblem.
Last I looked, Sony really didn't have any first-party titles I'm interested in. Silent Hill and DDR is made by Konami, Final Fantasy is by Square-Enix, and Devil May Cry is done by Capcom.
Xbox has Halo, which I do like playing, but that's about it. :shrug:
Yoshiman wrote:Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes had two disks because of the long cinematics. Tales of Symphonia also had two because of the length of the game and the voice-acting.
You forgot Enter the Matrix - One disc for each character, I believe.
First and foremost I am a PC gamer, which means that consoles are not my primary concern. I have had a Nintendo console since my early years when I was first introduced to the N64, and have followed the company ever since, but that doesn't mean that I am solely devoted to them - I intend to buy a PS2 when my sister leaves for University and takes hers with her. It does, however, mean that I have followed Nintendo more then Sony or Microsoft.
What I find is that Nintendo tend to aim at younger children first, then adults. More recently they have also tried to cater to adults (Resident Evil, etc), but this has had limited success. Nintendo are, at heart, a family company (Unlike most), and that's how I hope they remain. They've realised that a good deal of families won't have HD TVs at the moment - they may in the future, by the time the NEXT generation of consoles come around - so they've decided to appeal to the familes who don't by not including support for HD TVs and therefore making the console cheaper.
I wholeheartedly approve of this, as I'm sure a good few of you around here willl do as well, but the media won't. Sony and Microsoft won't. And, naturally, the easily led won't either. Here's hoping most people realise how petty they're all being. Nintendo are a good company. I highly doubt this will affect them as much as some are saying.
Exactly, that's the one reason why more people buy consoles from Sony and MS. It's too late for Nintendo to start making games for older kids. Sony and Ms have already abducted most of the teens already. Sure Nintendo has a few games for teens, like Tos and Baten Kaitos and RE4, but that's about it. Unless the Rev. has games mainly for teens, Nintendo has no chance to get ahead in the Mature games department.
You know, most of the people who own an Xbox or PS2 probably never had a system older than an Xbox or PS2. Its only my own theory that I created, but I think that most gamers who want mature rated games are ones that were introduced to mature rated games. Ones that could care less that its family friendly software that Nintendo makes usually had a system long before Xbox and PS2.
People say the Nintendo generation has grown up and its time for Nintendo to make games for the older audience members, but I dont' think that those who have grown up really want Nintendo to grow up with them.
At least thats my stand on it. I've grown up since then, been out of highschool for several years now, but I think a true gamer wouldn't care if its mature or not. I know what makes a game, and that little ESRB rating on the box is not it. I pride Nintendo for sticking with the E rated games in such a violent world. I don't think its stupid that Nintendo won't make mature rated games. Instead, I think its ignorant that people won't purchase a game without bloodshed and gun related killing. So I agree. I hope they stay that way.
Archibaldo, it is NEVER too late to change, certainly not for Nintendo, a company that is profitable and has quite a pile of cash in its pocket. Nintendo just needs to make wise moves. I think personally they should either include HD support like all the other morons, or design it so it can be purchased as an addon of sorts. It wouldn't hurt since HDTV is being shoved down people's throats in just a matter of a few years.
Grasshopper wrote:I've grown up since then, been out of highschool for several years now, but I think a true gamer wouldn't care if its mature or not.
You think a gamer isn't a true gamer just because they don't share the same likes and dislikes about games? I agree that games don't need to be mature to be good, but that doesn't mean that people who don't like mature games or good looking games aren't true gamers. People like different aspects of different games, and I think that in order to be successful, game companies need to try to please as many different kinds of people as possible. And I think Nintendo, by initially rejecting so many things, is alienating many kinds of people. It shouldn't be all about the Nintendo fan. It should be about all gaming fans.
One thing that bugs me is how in one of Perrin Kaplan's (a Nintendo figurehead) interviews on IGN, she claimes that Nintendo was the first in the online biz with some NES adapter deal, just to not make Nintendo look as bad when they didn't embrace online capabilities right away. Yes, they made an online adapter. But it certainly isn't used to bring people from all over the world to play games like XBox embraced this generation. Nintendo isn't always the first out with the most innovative ideas, as apparently she and many fans would like us to believe.
But what about Randnet on 64DD? 😉
Mottzilla wrote:Archibaldo, it is NEVER too late to change, certainly not for Nintendo, a company that is profitable and has quite a pile of cash in its pocket. Nintendo just needs to make wise moves. I think personally they should either include HD support like all the other morons, or design it so it can be purchased as an addon of sorts. It wouldn't hurt since HDTV is being shoved down people's throats in just a matter of a few years.
They can make the games, but other companies have already been there and done that. So the average teen consumer will just think, " Why should I go out and buy a Gamecube now? I already have a PS2/Xbox. As long as Sony and MS don't start making solely kiddie games, I'll stick with what I've got."
The money to make the games is no problem, it's their reputation as a family company that's going to make it difficult. Do you think that when an average PS2 customer is at Wal-Mart they're looking at the Game Cube games? No, They only go for the games for the system they own.
And when I mean average I mean those people who don't follow the industry very well.
I believe Orion is stating that while Nintendo may have thought of it, they never actually DID it, like Microsoft did with the Xbox.
I think.
Orion wrote:You think a gamer isn't a true gamer just because they don't share the same likes and dislikes about games? I agree that games don't need to be mature to be good, but that doesn't mean that people who don't like mature games or good looking games aren't true gamers. People like different aspects of different games, and I think that in order to be successful, game companies need to try to please as many different kinds of people as possible. And I think Nintendo, by initially rejecting so many things, is alienating many kinds of people. It shouldn't be all about the Nintendo fan. It should be about all gaming fans.
I'm sorry Orion. I wasn't directing that toward just anybody. I hate video game retail, and thats most of where those comments come from. I see who buys what games, and frankly, it sickens me with the comments and attitudes they make torward games. People who only buy games made by Rockstar, or games that you can say is similar to Rockstar.
Like the 6 or 7 yr old who dresses like a thug, begging me to sell him San Andreas, or the little kid who needs to trade in True Crime so he can get Dead to Rights II. And then the parent comes in and says that he doesn't listen to the words, its ok... Well, he sure knew what they were when he was talking in the corner before you came in. And the 20 some old guy who trades in his entire Xbox collection for a PStwo, and every game he owns is in the vein of underground racing, or GTA. Never owned a system before the Xbox. Don't even know of the Gamecube, and thinks the PSP can play DVDs.
40% or more of my games are mature, but my statement is aimed at these individuals. Yeah, sure nobody has the same interest, but I'll be darned I can't guess what game this group of people will buy next, and that they don't buy just because its looks cool. And too me, the above statement fits this group of people.
I needed to let off some steam. 😊 I hope you guys can see where I'm coming from. Again, sorry. I hope there was no offense taken.
That is a sad deal, Hopper, to see all of those young kids going after those types of games. I always thought I wanted to work in a game store, but then I thought of how frustrating it might be.
Didn't mean to be bitchy. I just wanted to point out that while these people might not enjoy games for what we feel to be all the right reasons (and I agree with you there), they still buy games, and thus should be aknowledged.
And yes, Dechipher, that's more along the lines of what I meant. Thanks for clearing that up 😊.
Speaking of internet...
I saw this from an article in Time Magazine. 5/20/96, Vol 147 Issue 21.
Sorry guys, no link, you'll have to get this from the library, or electronic database of periodicals
But I'll quote what was said.
One challenge will be to move today's stand-alone video games onto the Internet, where players could compete against one another, even if they were playing in different cities or countries. But Miyamoto says online expenses are still too high for most vidkids; he predicts that the two extra ports on the Nintendo 64 (which will allow up to four players to compete) will suit most people just fine, at least for now. �If we are going to use the Internet for play, it has to be more popular.�
My question is, by the end of the Nintendo 64, wasn't Internet play starting to get popular? Then what happened with Gamecube Nintendo? Clearly it was popular enough.
Nintendo developed an internet feature for N64 but it never got outside Japan.. I don't even think it was that big (if they even launched it to the public). It wasn't really common before then though.
Prior to the N64 and beyond, the PC and the Sega Genesis/Super Nintendo X-Band was the only way to play online. Dreamcast I believe is truely where online play started for consoles. N64 I don't believe it ever had any online service, anywhere. It did have the N64 DiskDrive thing in japan though.
Okay, slight change of topic, but this looks interesting:
IGN wrote:According to a new EGM interview with company president Satoru Iwata, there may be more to the story, though. The executive told the magazine that these classic titles could actually be improved on Revolution.
"We are doing several experiments, including working with the original Super Mario Bros., with the new technology," Iwata said. "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."
Iwata did not reveal exactly how the graphics for classic titles would be enhanced, but we expect that more on the subject will be announced before the end of the year. Nintendo has stated it plans to divulge more on Revolution, including the controller, by the time the holidays roll around.
Can anyone get their hands on the latest issue of EGM and see what else he says?
Incidentally, THIS IS FAKE, but it's interesting, huh? Amazing what bored people will come up with.
Conceptualy, a split controller is new, I believe. I don't think anyone's done that before. Action buttons on one side. Directional buttons on the other.
Revolutionary? I dunno. But it'd be cool, and would reduce wear on the controllers from when you freak out when you do something really stupid and get mad and squeeze your controller.
Which may or not be a substainal amount of wear.
I've known people who slam the controller when they get angry at the game. I try to keep the games near soft things to avoid damage.
I've actually broken a controller doing that. In all fairness though, the controller was a piece of shit. And I wasn't really mad, just pretending to be.
Anyone seen all the crap on gamefaqs about it having infinite framerate?
I dunno, the split controller wuld be kinda cool. But don't youi think it would be tough to press the button on the other side? And it would suck if it were wireless cause they're so small and you'd probably end up losing on of the sides.
Cloral wrote:I've actually broken a controller doing that. In all fairness though, the controller was a piece of shit. And I wasn't really mad, just pretending to be.
Pah! I broke a Game Boy Advance out of frustration with Sonic Advance. Those specioal stages were so bloody hard, and I just lost it and slammed it against my forehead a couple of times. Broke the screen so bad I had to get a new one. Let that be a lesson to us all - have some sort of punchbag nearby when playing a Sonic Team game.
I sitll don't think maybe of these concepts that people are coming up with are that "revolutionary." It doesn't really change the way we play games, it just changes the way we hold the controller. Of course, Nintendo could have been exagurating when they said it will change the way we play games, but who knows. I'm very interested in what they will crank out, and I hope that I will like it.
I found this link that talks about what HDTV is and thought you guys may want to read it since we were all arguing about HDTV a week or so ago: http://www.projectorcentral.com/hdtv_edtv.htm