Red Steel for the Revolution

[+Sauron]

http://www.endangeredgamer.blogspot.com/

 

Looks like the latest issue of Game Informer has a big write-up complete with *gasp* screenshots of Red Steel, a FPS launch title for the Nintendo Revolution. The above link has pics of the article, including the screenshots. Doesn't look bad at all, IMO.

[sega saturn x]

It's impossible to tell from those screens but maybe the graphics difference isn't as huge we thought it was?

[dalton4life]

It's impossible to tell from those screens but maybe the graphics difference isn't as huge we thought it was?

 

I never thought Revolution was going have anywhere near mind blowing graphics. According to IGN it's a tad less powerful than the original Xbox, but with a totally differently architecture sort of like Mac vs. PC. My main concern is how well they do with the great revolutionary gameplay they are hyping.

 

http://revolution.ign.com/articles/699/699118p1.html

Edited April 8, 2006 by dalton4life

[Lost Monkey]

It's impossible to tell from those screens but maybe the graphics difference isn't as huge we thought it was?

 

 

Different from what? The current generation, or the next generation?

[liveinabin]

Well I was expecting graphics similar to GC, but these are quite a bit flasher than that, and this is only an early shot from a third party developer. Must admit, I'm pretty excited about this console (though not this game).

[AtariJr]

you miss read the IGN article... it was saying in hrz its not as good.. but if you compair Macs vs Pcs you know that Ghz and Mhz dont mean crap. The revolution is 3 times more powerful than a GC.. and the reason why its looking this good becuase the Rev doesnt have to do HD, which takes lots of processing power, so its obvious that the graphics on the Rev would look very nice.... dont expect it to look much less nicer than a 360. Its a good move by nintendo cuase its going to have good graphics at a cheaper price just becuase of the lack of HD support.

[+remowilliams]

Looks like it could be interesting.

 

Is it me or is anyone else wondering why the inability of a device to support high resolution all of a sudden means "YAY better graphics!"? Someone should let the PC industry in on that secret. I mean they could have stopped at EGA then.

[NovaXpress]

It's easy. A focus on HD support doesn't mean anything to the vast majority who own conventional televisions and will still own them for the next few years (I know about the 2008 plan. I don't believe it). The Revolution plan is to make the most of conventional sets and it just might work for them.

 

On an HD you'd see the difference. But for the mainstream consumers that Nintendo is targeting, it will never be an issue.

[Starscream]

Looks like it could be interesting.

 

Is it me or is anyone else wondering why the inability of a device to support high resolution all of a sudden means "YAY better graphics!"? Someone should let the PC industry in on that secret. I mean they could have stopped at EGA then.

 

 

Not just you.

[Jess Ragan]

I'm pissed that Nintendo has chosen such a wimpy processor for its next machine. Say what you want, but clock speed DOES make a difference... you need look no further than the Super NES or the Playstation 2 for proof of that.

 

Nintendo expects to get by on their brand name and the "innovation" of its wand controller alone, but that's not going to be enough. A wimpy, overly specialized processor is going to be repellant to third party game developers, and Nintendo just can't afford to drive any more of them away.

 

Surely after the success of the NES and Super NES (and the failure of its other two home consoles) Nintendo would realize the importance of licensees by now...?

 

JR

[Starscream]

Uh-oh

[SteveW]

I thought that all three next generation consoles used variants of the Power PC architecture? The Cell processor inside the Playstation3 is a heavily modified Power PC, but still, they're essentially all related. Which hopefully will make porting games across platforms easier for third party publishers.

[ninjarabbit]

This generation we've already reached the point of nearly photorealistic graphics, look at games like God of War and Resident Evil 4 for example, so I think we've reached the plateau point as far as graphics go. Any progression in graphics is going to be in babysteps, just look at the 360 graphics, they are barely better than their X-Box/PS2 counterparts.

[AtariJr]

as on any computer mhz and ghz are too hard to compair between different architechtures.

 

for instance the g5 imac is techincally .1 ghz faster, but the Intel Imac is actually much much better.

 

Bus speed is what matters.... and like i said before the Rev doesnt need as much processing power since it doesnt push out HD. So it can be weaker and have comparible graphics, i dont get why no one understands that, there are plenty of articles out there that explains it. and as far as it not having as good of hrz as the orignial xbox, again those dont matter, the revoultion is going to be more than twice as powerful as the original box, you cant go compairing numbers on 2 different types of machines. Look at PC ghz versus Apple Ghz, its much higher, but not faster by any means.

 

remember the Jag vs n64 debate in Classic Gaming Forums? processor hrz doesnt matter at all.

 

if anyone understands this please help these people get it

 

and as far as 3rd party support , since its cheaper to make Rev games and its similar to GC architecture many 3rd parties have signed on, roughly 4 pages of games are in development for either launch or near launch. Check out ign if you dont believe me.

Edited April 9, 2006 by AtariJr

[8th lutz]

Anyone who expected the Revolutions graphics or other specs to be earth shattering didn't follow what nintendo had been saying. They felt there was so much they can do for graphics to tell a real difference.

 

Hd isn't in most homes and it wouldn't for a few more years until it do down in price.

 

Speed does matter for some types of games like fps games, other type of shooters and sports. I feel people are over reacting about the specs and graphics. Nintendo wanted to keep cost down for game development for making a games. The prices of games the way it is will not be cheaper unless what nintendo is doing. The next generations games will the highest in price since the n64 catridges for single games without special packaging.

 

The amount of people with hd and the price expected for games could lead until nintendo's hands.

 

This my theory why this might go into nintendo's hands: Price for gas isn't getting any cheaper that means expect gas price to be at least $4.00 a gallon sometime during the summer or close to it in the united states. It would get worse the year after I am expecting to go around $5.00 or $6.00 a gallon in 2007 in the states for gas. The cost for utilities aren't getting any cheaper. Where I live gas is already over $2.70 a gallon.

 

This effects the next generation of gaming by consumers not having as much money to spend. They may still buy xbox 360 games and a ps 3 system and games, but not as much. The Revolution and the future cost of their games shouldn't be much of a hit to consumers in the pocket book.

 

The amount of money being paid for gas and utilies for a person means less vactations, which then the 2nd thing could be very expensive t.v's and the list goes on. People will be spend on true needs like food first before video games if the system and game prices are close to the 16 bit era. The revolution's prices for games are less then the ps 3 or 360. Consumers would be looking at that the cheapest system to buy like my parent did in 1988 for my brother and I. We got a 2600 J.R instead of nes because of price.

 

It's that or people giving up cars due to gas prices.

[JB]

I thought that all three next generation consoles used variants of the Power PC architecture? The Cell processor inside the Playstation3 is a heavily modified Power PC, but still, they're essentially all related. Which hopefully will make porting games across platforms easier for third party publishers.

Bingo.

PS3 uses a single PPC with LOTS of math coprocessors(a slap in the face to everyone that was rambling about how much better the Emotion Engine was than any other processor, especially that lame PPC in the GameCube).

360 uses 3 PPCs on one chip.

Rev uses a single PPC.

 

I don't know the clockspeeds offhand. Hypothetically, the Rev's chip can be pushed fastest(because it's the simplest part), followed by the 360, with the PS3 coming in last.

In practice, system heat will stop that, as will yield targets. We know MS has major overheating issues. I've seen people predicting it for PS3, but they're just talking out their ass until we have some retail samples.

 

 

The Rev's primary advantage is simplicity. You don't have to worry about balancing component load, because theyre's only one processor, and the overall system architecture is very similar to the already-familiar GameCube(a system that I've heard was easy to code for on top of that)

It's weakness is far lower max capabilities.

 

as on any computer mhz and ghz are too hard to compair between different architechtures.

 

for instance the g5 imac is techincally .1 ghz faster, but the Intel Imac is actually much much better.

 

Bus speed is what matters....

Bus speed only matters between similar architectures. It's not a global metric

 

and like i said before the Rev doesnt need as much processing power since it doesnt push out HD. So it can be weaker and have comparible graphics, i dont get why no one understands that, there are plenty of articles out there that explains it.

The graphics WON'T be comparable in a household with HD-capable displays, because they'll be at a much lower resolution.

 

and as far as it not having as good of hrz as the orignial xbox, again those dont matter, the revoultion is going to be more than twice as powerful as the original box, you cant go compairing numbers on 2 different types of machines.

Particularly as the x86 architecture is rather sluggish per clock cycle.

 

Look at PC ghz versus Apple Ghz, its much higher, but not faster by any means.

Depends on the Mac.

A IBM clone PC VS a Intel Mac PC will be similar. Same architecture, same processor family.

The MacIntel will be a bit faster due to using a Core instead of an A64 or P4. Later this year it'll be the same processor. Then the only major diffrence from a performance standpoint will be the software.

 

An IBM clone VS a PPC Mac, the PPC will get much more done per clock cycle.

And had IBM kept the PPC line evolving as they promised Apple(as well as the cooler-running chips for laptops), the Macs would have retained their speed advantage.

But IBM didn't, and late G5 Macs are comparable in speed to the IBMs they're up against. Hence, Apple left for a company that COULD deliver faster chips at cooler temperatures(at least, with their next processor).

 

remember the Jag vs n64 debate in Classic Gaming Forums? processor hrz doesnt matter at all.

Complicated by the fact that the Jag has 5 processors. Which one are we talking about?

 

But it's not that it doesn't matter at all. It's just one part of a complex equation.

 

 

if anyone understands this please help these people get it

As requested:

 

Diffrent processors get diffrent amounts of work done per clock cycle.

 

Diffrent hardware architectures place diffrent bottlenecks on these processors, further altering these metrics.

 

The code being run affects things too, as it affects cache hits. Running well-optimized code on one machine and a sloppy hackjob mess that does the same task on another identical machine will make box A look WAY faster than box B.

 

 

 

 

and as far as 3rd party support , since its cheaper to make Rev games and its similar to GC architecture many 3rd parties have signed on, roughly 4 pages of games are in development for either launch or near launch. Check out ign if you dont believe me.

I recall hearing similar things about the 'Cube. It all dried up after launch, though.

Edited April 9, 2006 by JB

[AtariJr]

i dont think the cube had nearly as much to offer gamers honestly

 

super long reply lol

[+remowilliams]

The Revolution plan is to make the most of conventional sets and it just might work for them.

 

On an HD you'd see the difference. But for the mainstream consumers that Nintendo is targeting, it will never be an issue.

It will definitely work to a degree for them. I guess I'm not their target audience. I was looking forward to the next Nintendo console supporting the stuff I've had since the GC though. So in my case anyway "lower spec" does not automatically mean giving "gamers what they want"

 

i dont think the cube had nearly as much to offer gamers honestly

The Cube is a great little machine, I like it a bunch. It's also unfortunately a study in lost potential at this point.

 

super long reply lol

Long yes, but at least it's thought out and makes sense. Unlike this...

 

and the reason why its looking this good becuase the Rev doesnt have to do HD, which takes lots of processing power, so its obvious that the graphics on the Rev would look very nice....

[+Sauron]

It's amazing how many of you are still missing the entire point of the Revolution. What does it matter how much more powerful the 360 or PS3 will be when the Rev will most likely only cost half the price of both and offer gameplay experiences that can't be done by its "competitors"? Nintendo clearly isn't going up "against" Sony or MS; they're trying to create their own market, which just might be successful. The Rev is certainly getting a lot of press and hype considering everyone knows it's the least powerful console of the next gen. Not quite the same situation as the GameCube, either. Nintendo was begging for third parties to develop for the GC; now developers seem to be quite eager to do so without Nintendo openly soliciting them.

[sega saturn x]

It's impossible to tell from those screens but maybe the graphics difference isn't as huge we thought it was?

 

 

Different from what? The current generation, or the next generation?

The next gen.

[Starscream]

In all seriousness, can someone tell me what new types of unique games the Rev controller can introduce? I am at a loss. Interaction with games can be different, but gametypes - I'm not seein' it. It's a mouse. I can see more accuracy and maybe better suited for certain types of existing game types, but I don't see how moving your wrist will be different from moving thumbs. I am really, really not a creative person at all so this is why I am asking

[JB]

In all seriousness, can someone tell me what new types of unique games the Rev controller can introduce? I am at a loss. Interaction with games can be different, but gametypes - I'm not seein' it. It's a mouse. I can see more accuracy and maybe better suited for certain types of existing game types, but I don't see how moving your wrist will be different from moving thumbs. I am really, really not a creative person at all so this is why I am asking

The mouse IS the conventional input device it's most similar to.

 

 

It actually bears more in common with a VR glove, though.

A mouse can only track motion within a fixed plane. The Rev wand can track up/down, left/right, in/out, and rotation along each axis.

And it's absolute motion instead of relative. Instead of knowing whether or not the controller is moving and in what direction it's going(mouse behavior), it knows where the controller IS. Which is a somewhat joystick-like trait.

 

The big diffrence between this and the Power Glove is that NES software wasn't designed to USE a 3D space input device, and a d-pad doesn't translate well to a VR glove.

 

 

 

I admit I'm having trouble coming up with a genuinely new idea right now.

I know they exist, I'm just drawing a blank.

[Atarifever]

In all seriousness, can someone tell me what new types of unique games the Rev controller can introduce? I am at a loss. Interaction with games can be different, but gametypes - I'm not seein' it. It's a mouse. I can see more accuracy and maybe better suited for certain types of existing game types, but I don't see how moving your wrist will be different from moving thumbs. I am really, really not a creative person at all so this is why I am asking

Well, there might only be a couple of whole new genres on the thing by the end of it's life I'm sure. However, some genres will probably be changed so much that playing them on other systems will feel less good. For example, playing RTS games on a computer makes playing them on a console seem a little inferior. In the same way, I guess some genres will perhaps best be played (i.e. more intuitively or in a more fun way) on the revolution. A Bushido Blade type game comes to mind. It's the same with the DS. The only "new" genre is the touch screen platformer. However, point and click games and menu based games just play better on the DS than any non-computer system. Also like the DS, it is likely that some genres won't play as well on the Rev. as on other systems.

I've said it before and I still believe a great fighting game could end up on the Revolution though. You could use the analog and the two buttons on it for moving and jumping and maybe quick strikes. Then you could use the wand for the special moves. If the system really can pick up the controller in real 3D space then moves could be pulled off in all kinds of great ways. For example, moving the controller in a full circle and then pushing it towards the TV could be one move, while a quick up and down motion and a pull back + pressing the trigger could be another. Imagine how good (and how actually fatigued) you could get playing a fighter like that. Watching two people fight would be nearly as fun as playing. Sure it'd be hard on the arms, but so is Donkey Kongas and I still play that for hours, and people seem to spend an aweful lot of time with guitar hero and DDR. Of course, the quick strikes would be more limited than in other games (although each character could be given a different melee weapon that could be used by simply slashing with the controller, which I guess would make this the Bushido Balde game I mentioned earlier).

Edited April 10, 2006 by Atarifever

[NovaXpress]

Red Steel = Duck Hunt Deluxe

 

The XBox 360 left me sour and my expectations for the PS3 are lowering by the week. So far the new generation looks like $100 woth of extra power for several times the price. I don't know what to think of the revolution, other than that it's the only console that I'm really interested in at this point. I might try the innovative controller and think that it sucks. But at least I really want to try it. I already know that I'm not getting a PS3 for a couple years at least and I don't expect to ever want a 360. The Revolution could be the only new console I buy for a long time.

 

Or it might suck. We'll see.

[Starscream]

Red Steel = Duck Hunt Deluxe

 

Nah, I don't think. After I read some features of the game, it sounds pretty cool. Truthfully, it reminds me alot of XIII (which I liked).