First Revolution screens

K600 said:
Less Power != Good Games either.
Click to expand...

Correct, I completely agree with you. The power of a system is not indicative of how good its said software is. Meatfestival, nobody knows. They could be Ubisoft's "concept renders" which are usually indicative of basically what the finished product would look like... or they could be in-game as was stated by Ubi employees... or they could be completely faked. We'll find out in a month. I would bet 100000000 internets that the final product looks as or nearly as nice as those screens, though.

And back on topic, this game now officially exists:
Ubisoft officially announces its first game for Nintendo's next-gen platform; says game will be at E3 and take advantage of motion-sensing controller.
Less than a week after it was first revealed, Red Steel now officially exists. Ubisoft today announced that it is indeed developing an action game for Nintendo's next-generation console, the Revolution.

As rumored, the game will feature a combination of swordplay and gunfire, which will make use of the Revolution's controller. Also, as suspected, Red Steel's gameplay will be so dependent on said controller's motion-sensing functionality that it will be exclusive to the platform. "We have been working closely with Nintendo to take full advantage of the innovative controller to create a thrilling experience that can only exist on the Revolution," said Serge Hascoet, Ubisoft's chief creative officer.

Today's announcement, though, was not just a retread of previously known information. Ubisoft revealed that the game will indeed be a launch title for the Revolution, which Nintendo is targeting to go on sale in North America by Christmas. "Nintendo is excited to have Ubisoft bring Red Steel to the Revolution launch lineup," said Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo of America's outspoken executive vice president of sales and marketing.

Ubisoft also dropped the first details about Red Steel's plot. Set in contemporary Japan, the game will make players "master both the ancient art of the katana and the sophisticated technology of modern firearms, taking advantage of the emotion and immersive gameplay possible only with the Revolution's remarkable controller."

Ubisoft also announced its intention to make Red Steel a franchise in the same vein as its popular Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia series. It promised to "disclose more specific information on Red Steel in the coming months" and to show off how it would work with its controller at the forthcoming Electronic Entertainment Expo next month.
Click to expand...
 
Ok, so we all agree, less power does not mean good games, and more power does not mean good games. So, the only conclusion you can draw from this is that the power of the system has little or nothing to do with the enjoyment you get out of the games on that system. So why does everyone obsess over numbers so much?
 
RancidWAnnaRIot said:
no one ever implied that... i certainly never said that..
Click to expand...

I never said you did. I'm simply tired of everyone insenuating that less is more because it isn't always so.

The X360/PS3 might cost more, but the stronger hardware means they have the opportunity to go much further with immersive physics/AI/textures/environments than the Revolution.
 
K600 said:
The X360/PS3 might cost more, but the stronger hardware means they have the opportunity to go much further with immersive physics/AI/textures/environments than the Revolution.
Click to expand...

Granted, but those things alone do not make a game enjoyable. If a game sucks it sucks, if a game is great, then better of everything you mentioned makes it that much greater. The properties you mentioned don't make games great though.
 
Sure, the capability is there, but you also have to remember that more CAN mean less (lol what a fucked up statement, but it can make sense if you think about it):

1) The Revolution won't need to do HD, eliminating a shitload of work dedicated to rendering it
2) The PPE in the X360/PS3 is no supercomputer when it comes to physics/AI due to its design limitations
3) We still don't know what's under the Rev's hood (there are still rumours of PPUs and things, though I wouldn't get my hopes up)
 
1) The Revolution won't need to do HD, eliminating a shitload of work dedicated to rendering it
Click to expand...

And thus it will rarely, if ever, match the visual integrity of the others to those of us with HD screens.

2) The PPE in the X360/PS3 is no supercomputer when it comes to physics/AI due to its design limitations
Click to expand...

Neither is that of the Revolution.

3) We still don't know what's under the Rev's hood (there are still rumours of PPUs and things, though I wouldn't get my hopes up)
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but if that is the case then they're either going to have to swallow costs or sell for more than most Nintendo fans are expecting to have to pay.
 
CodeX said:
Granted, but those things alone do not make a game enjoyable. If a game sucks it sucks, if a game is great, then better of everything you mentioned makes it that much greater. The properties you mentioned don't make games great though.
Click to expand...

But what you're not understanding is.. the systems are not riding on that. They have the capacity to DO MORE then the Rev. Say you compare 2 cars .... You can drive both, some cars are fun to drive some are not. Now by saying that one will have a V10, while the other is cap'd on a 4 cylinder doesn't mean the V10 will be more enjoyable.. and nobody is saying that... we are saying... In a situation where the 2 cars are equally fun to drive, the one with the V10 has the edge.

I 'may' buy a Rev but only for the controller. I have ZERO interests in VC, and I am VERY upset about no HD support. Its 2006 for Christ's sake... NO HD ? I almost feeling like writing a letter to Iwata myself in disgust.
 
Man you guys are from a different crowd... I don't know anyone with an HDTV. And I dont think my household will have one any time soon... just seems like its too expensive of an investment.
 
xerus` said:
Man you guys are from a different crowd... I don't know anyone with an HDTV. And I dont think my household will have one any time soon... just seems like its too expensive of an investment.
Click to expand...
Not to be mean or anything but... you live in compton or something?
 
diehard said:
Not to be mean or anything but... you live in compton or something?
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat as him. All I use my tv for is watching the daily show from time to time and playing my cube every once and again.
 
diehard said:
Not to be mean or anything but... you live in compton or something?
Click to expand...

rofl.... yeah Im straight outta compton I'M HARD SON.

I live in a rural area but its not like in the middle of nowhere. I watch TV for the occasional adult swim, and maybe one or two other shows. When I play Gamecube or PS2, I just play it on my little 15inch tv.

Even at college, none of my friends own an HDTV. I've seen a couple walking through some of the dorms, and usually they're just watching football on it.
 
Barely anyone around here has an HDTV.

Probably something to do with not getting high-defintion tv broadcasts.

That, and they're way too expensive.
 
Nuzzles, xerus', etc... don't feel bad. HD penetration now (and until 2009) will be extroadinarily small (still around 15%) because of the costs involved for both people and networks. I don't know very many (2? 3?) people with a full blown HD setup, and I'm one of 'em :p

theNoid said:
But what you're not understanding is.. the systems are not riding on that. They have the capacity to DO MORE then the Rev. Say you compare 2 cars .... You can drive both, some cars are fun to drive some are not. Now by saying that one will have a V10, while the other is cap'd on a 4 cylinder doesn't mean the V10 will be more enjoyable.. and nobody is saying that... we are saying... In a situation where the 2 cars are equally fun to drive, the one with the V10 has the edge.

I 'may' buy a Rev but only for the controller. I have ZERO interests in VC, and I am VERY upset about no HD support. Its 2006 for Christ's sake... NO HD ? I almost feeling like writing a letter to Iwata myself in disgust.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet money that a small effeciently made compact with a decent V4 can beat a tanker truck with a V10 off the line, and believe me that's quite a valid comparison ;)

I'd also be willing to argue that if the controller does what it's supposed to, you can "do more" with that than you could rendering images in absolutely gorgeous HD, which is all the extra power on the other consoles is really used for. There's a reason why the instruction sets and OOO processing and dynamic branch prediction were removed from the PS3/X360's PPE CPUs, despite the fact that those are precisely what help the CPUs with AI/physics calculations and other similar gameplay elements without taking a large performance hit. There's also a reason why the Rev's CPU is based on full-blown unstripped PowerPC architecture (with gameplay-related additions, if the Gamecube's CPU was any indication), complete with the very things that are missing from the afformentioned PPEs. I'm not saying there won't be a visual disparity, or that the system won't be weaker. It's just a matter of what the power under the hood is used for.

Personally, if the games turn out to be fun, I couldn't care less whether they were running in HD. I still play games like King's Quest and Mario 3, running at a lovely 320x240, and still enjoy them far more than 98% of today's titles. If the fun is provided, why would you care so much about which resolution you're enjoying yourself in?
 
To be honest, I'm not that excited about playing games that may require me to flail my arms around wildly in attempt to be "revolutionary." I am afraid some developers might focus a bit too much on the revolutionary part and the actual gameplay will be mediocre. Gameplay is what really counts.

With that being said, I wonder if the controller will end up just being a gimmick that won't ever really catch on. A bad game is a bad game regardless of how you control it. A fishing game, in the end, is just a fishing game and the gameplay is the same no matter how you control it. Unless the current control scheme is incredibly lacking, the benefit that a new controller can bring to a game is next to nothing.
 
xerus` said:
Man you guys are from a different crowd... I don't know anyone with an HDTV. And I dont think my household will have one any time soon... just seems like its too expensive of an investment.
Click to expand...


I'm in your boat man... i don't own an HD tv.. i probably won't own one till i'm out of college.. i can only think of one person i know that has an HD tv..
 
CodeX said:
Granted, but those things alone do not make a game enjoyable. If a game sucks it sucks, if a game is great, then better of everything you mentioned makes it that much greater. The properties you mentioned don't make games great though.
Click to expand...


This is correct. However, underpowered machines cannot even play a game with better graphics and more importantly a better gameplay or "feel" of the game.

Please go back to my vid card and ppu card for examples.

You have to remember that I'm keeping an open mind here. I will be the first to go an buy a Rev if games like this are truley going to be on it.

But when someone says less power is better, or not a handicapped, I have to step up and call bs, because it is or everyone will still be using a sega master system, or a p2 with no video card.
 
Firewall said:
This is correct. However, underpowered machines cannot even play a game with better graphics and more importantly a better gameplay or "feel" of the game.

Please go back to my vid card and ppu card for examples.

You have to remember that I'm keeping an open mind here. I will be the first to go an buy a Rev if games like this are truley going to be on it.

But when someone says less power is better, or not a handicapped, I have to step up and call bs, because it is or everyone will still be using a sega master system, or a p2 with no video card.
Click to expand...


i doubt the rev is that under powered.. but.. okay
 
RancidWAnnaRIot said:
i doubt the rev is that under powered.. but.. okay
Click to expand...


I'm sure it won't be.

My whole first post (and subsiquent) have been directed at the poster or posters who would lead us to believe being underpowered isn't a problem. I beleive they even tried to indicate it was an advantage.
 
Firewall said:
More power = better games, end of story, don't bother arguing because to say otherwise means you smoke crack.
Click to expand...

hahahahahahaha *deep breath* hahahahahahahha

Yeah man, everybody who enjoys their atari 2600 is smokin' f'in CRACK! The dreamcast was a complete pile of SHIT compared to the xbox. The original Nintendo? Complete crap! I mean all these systems have terrible specs compared to what we have today, so by definition, from what you're saying, all of their games suck compared to new games.

Well hot damn, I'm going to go buy that Mark Ecko game, because since it's on a more powerful system, it must be better than Mario 3, Castlevania DS, Ikaruga, and Half-Life COMBINED.

I mean seriously, do you have any clue as to the impact development costs have on the industry? Any clue at all?
 
dotK said:
To be honest, I'm not that excited about playing games that may require me to flail my arms around wildly in attempt to be "revolutionary." I am afraid some developers might focus a bit too much on the revolutionary part and the actual gameplay will be mediocre. Gameplay is what really counts.

With that being said, I wonder if the controller will end up just being a gimmick that won't ever really catch on. A bad game is a bad game regardless of how you control it. A fishing game, in the end, is just a fishing game and the gameplay is the same no matter how you control it. Unless the current control scheme is incredibly lacking, the benefit that a new controller can bring to a game is next to nothing.
Click to expand...

Why oh why must this arm-flailing be debunked every week? Your second paragraph was the same as everyone else's second paragraph a few months before the DS' release.

Firewall said:
However, underpowered machines cannot even play a game with better graphics and more importantly a better gameplay or "feel" of the game.
Click to expand...

I believe you are confusing what we call "graphics" to what we call "gameplay". Fortunately, there is a difference. Again, look at the DS as a shining example. The handheld has brought more money in than your billion dollar PC gaming industry... why? :D
 
steviep said:
I believe you are confusing what we call "graphics" to what we call "gameplay". Fortunately, there is a difference. Again, look at the DS as a shining example. The handheld has brought more money in than your billion dollar PC gaming industry... why? :D
Click to expand...
whens the last time i got immersed by the original zelda, oh wait graphics do effect that dont they? how fun would have half life 2 would have been if it was released looking like half life 1? yes graphics effect the immersivness of a game more then anything can
 
paranoia4422 said:
whens the last time i got immersed by the original zelda
Click to expand...

For me, it was about a year and a half ago. Wind Waker was a living cartoon, which a lot of people did not like. I got incredibly immersed in that, too. It's all relative ;)
 
It always bothers me when people talk about immersion in videogames, I think by and large because there's no good working definition. When some people say "immersion," they refer to feeling like they're actually in the game (which I think is the definition Firewall is using), while others use it in the sense that while playing, they're so "immersed" in it that they are focused solely on the game (which I think is how steviep is using it). So if I'm correct, there's no way you two guys can have a discussion about immersion without some sort of mutual understanding of what you're talking about.

To me, I agree with the first usage - if I say I'm "immersed" in a game, then I mean I feel like I'm actually within the game world, and in this case, graphics are very important. If the goal is to feel like you're existing in an alternate reality, then yes of course graphics become a very large component of how "good" the game is. For me personally, this only ever applies to FPS and racing games (and I always play racers from a first-person/windshield perspective).

But going with the second concept - that of being so involved in the game that you're ignoring everything else - graphics are not important. Hell, when I play non-videogames like Settlers, bridge or go, I completely zone in on the game and am unaware of much else. However, that's not to say I'm "immersed" in the game - I never feel like I actually am the jack of clubs or something. For ease of use I'm going to call this feeling "absorption" - being completely absorbed in the gameplay experience, but not feeling like you're existing in an alternate place/time. You can be completely absorbed in an abstract game like Street Fighter, Ikaruga, or Double Dragon, but I doubt any of us ever feels like we're really Ryu, a pilot, or the guy with blue pants. But with a good driving sim, you can really feel like you're whipping along at 200mph.

So, in my opinion, if you're looking for an immersive gameplay experience, graphics are very important. If you're looking for an absorbing gameplay experience, graphics are moot. And I think we get into a lot of these arguments because some people want to be immersed, and some people want to be absorbed. I for one certainly fall within the latter group.
 
steviep said:
For me, it was about a year and a half ago. Wind Waker was a living cartoon, which a lot of people did not like. I got incredibly immersed in that, too. It's all relative ;)
Click to expand...
i said original, as in 8bit graphics


you get my point......
 
paranoia4422 said:
i said original, as in 8bit graphics


you get my point......
Click to expand...

I meant the original 8 bit graphics, too. I played through Zelda 1 and 2 a year or two ago. I made my point :p
 
steviep said:
Your second paragraph was the same as everyone else's second paragraph a few months before the DS' release.
Click to expand...

...and, by and large, their concerns were valid well after the release of the DS. There was a flood of generic, no-name garbage for quite some time. Luckily for Nintendo, they have superior brand recognition in that part of the industry and they got their handheld out first. Neither is true with them in the console industry anymore.
 
steviep said:
I meant the original 8 bit graphics, too. I played through Zelda 1 and 2 a year or two ago. I made my point :p
Click to expand...
well then i guess your the ultimate !!!!!! if your immersed by colored blocks :p
 
paranoia4422 said:
well then i guess your the ultimate !!!!!! if your immersed by colored blocks :p
Click to expand...


what about books?? I know a few people that get pretty immersed in them.. And they have horrible graphics :p

Any one who thinks graphics are the end all be all of story telling ( the essence of games) is a retard who just likes to look at pretty pictures.
 
[T5K]thrasher said:
what about books?? I know a few people that get pretty immersed in them.. And they have horrible graphics :p
Click to expand...

I would say they're "absorbed" in the book :D
 
Well I am happy to see playable Rev games.. Its more then I can say about the PS3.
The only thing I want on the rev is 16:9 support.. The games look like fun.

On a side note: I was hoping for games with guns and hoping for games with swords.. but never occurred to me to have both in one game for the rev :eek:
 
480p widescreen (16x9) will be standard... not to worry.

well then i guess your the ultimate !!!!!! if your immersed by colored blocks
Click to expand...

No I'm not. I replayed the entire Zelda series a couple years back because they're fucking great games. Regardless of whether there were 256 or 16.7mil colours, they were just plain good games. It's the same reason I still play Starcraft, or played Space Quest and Commander Keen again recently (despite their 16 colour 320x240 EGA graphics) and its the same reason I will be playing the Revolution at 480p on an HD television without any worries... provided the games are fun, they don't have to "look real", or even look on par with my 'l33t' PC graphics. That's not being a !!!!!!, that's simply playing good games. I don't see how you can see that, though perhaps thrasher is right about the "oooh pretty pictures!" comment?

...and, by and large, their concerns were valid well after the release of the DS. There was a flood of generic, no-name garbage for quite some time. Luckily for Nintendo, they have superior brand recognition in that part of the industry and they got their handheld out first. Neither is true with them in the console industry anymore.
Click to expand...

And I bet something similar will happen with the Rev. Unless the 20 game launch lineup comment is true, I bet there will be a bunch of gimmicky crap from third parties for the first 4-6 months. And I bet Nintendo will show everyone the way with some killer apps, and the industry will follow suit with their own killer apps. That's a best case scenario, but not an unlikely one simply due to the low development costs and time required in comparison to the other 2 platforms, much like the DS. Everything is based on numbers and how many are sold. I'd also argue that Nintendo has the widest brand recognition with their franchises, despite the fact that Sony's Playstation brand name is stronger. Throw a couple solid Mario games into the launch mix, and a Nintendogs, and Zelda: Twilight Princess (enhanced) and all of these speculated numbers and consols sold could play into an advantageous situation for developers like Ubi Soft who are bringing this Rev-exclusive series. Yes, it's a best case scenario, but the DS CAN be a mirrored look into the future of the console industry. Why? Differentiation in price AND hardware, coupled with good software can open up the market to the record-breaking proportions that the DS is selling right now.
 
steviep said:
Why oh why must this arm-flailing be debunked every week? Your second paragraph was the same as everyone else's second paragraph a few months before the DS' release.
Click to expand...
When pictures are released of people standing up, holding their arm straight out to aim, it only serves to reinforce the stereotype that you'll need to do more than rest the controller on your lap and swivel your wrist a little. Would it kill somebody to photograph someone sitting down using this thing?
 
You CAN flail them if you want to flail them... hell, it may be more fun to do so! But you can also use it like you would a regular gamepad and make slight movements. On top of that, the sensitivity is adjustable. You have full customization of your own experience. Why do they keep photographing people flail? Because it looks damn fun, that's why! Those of you who are concerned about "waving a remote around" clearly have issues with personal image. HELLO you're playing a video game! lol
 
steviep said:
You CAN flail them if you want to flail them... hell, it may be more fun to do so! But you can also use it like you would a regular gamepad and make slight movements. On top of that, the sensitivity is adjustable. You have full customization of your own experience. Why do they keep photographing people flail? Because it looks damn fun, that's why! Those of you who are concerned about "waving a remote around" clearly have issues with personal image. HELLO you're playing a video game! lol
Click to expand...
Just because they're playing a video game doesn't mean they have to feel like an idiot while doing it.
 
You people are setting yourselves up to either like or hate this game. Just stop and wait. We dont know if the Rev will have good games. Hell it could have shitty graphics and horrible games or the exact opisite could be true. BUT NO ONE KNOWS YET. No one can attack or defend a console that isnt out yet. And when you try I laugh.
 
gamz247 said:
Just because they're playing a video game doesn't mean they have to feel like an idiot while doing it.
Click to expand...

Here's a newsflash for you: when you play any video game, on any platform, you "look like an idiot". Or let me phrase that better. The action of "playing video games" is/can/will not be associated with the notion of "being cool". I had more fun with games like Donky Konga and Dance Dance/Karaoke Revolution (i'm not a singer or dancer) lately than I have with most of the FPS and RTS titles that have come out in the last 5 years, and it had everything to do with the level of interaction required with the game, and the fact that I could actually play those afformentioned titles with actual people that are sitting next to you. If anything, that actually makes you "cool", or at least "cooler" than you would be sitting by yourself like a lump, staring at a screen and clicking buttons. This obsession with concern over "looking like an idiot" is something you'll eventually outgrow, I'd assume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top