Revolution Specs

[dwarfkicker]

Yeah but that is Square-Enix, not Nintendo.

 

[SaiyajinNoOuji]

Creating high end graphics takes a lot of time, and time = money. If graphics continue expanding at their current rate, we'll end up with hyper-realistic graphics in games that take 20 years to program and your lifes saveings to buy. Now, I'm all for games looking pretty, but the focus of "innovation" is going to change soon.

We've allready seen the new direction in a few tech demos. I remember one where you play as a futuristic soldier and its utter chaos. Your commander is yelling in your face, your comrades are getting blown up, ect ect. "So what, big deal, cutscenes have been doing stuff on par for years." The thing is, I think thats where the gameplay is headed.

This generation, I think we'll have substantial improvements to AI.

Next generation, I think we'll be looking at graphics again. Not neccesarily big poly-count improvement, I think we'll be looking at realtime generated poses and such. Rather then a character's movements be determined by pre-animated loops of them running and stuff, I think we'll see the machine actualy figure how they can move based on the character's environment, flexability, strenght, ect.

No, not at all. When technology becomes so advanced and what not it will get cheaper. Look at the computers now a days. Ultimately the games will take as long as they take now and the tech will not get any more expensive, inflation with holding.

 

[Denial]

Personally I think the only real innovation we're going to see in the game industry is by giving us more and better control (the path Nintendo has taken).

Back when UT2003 was released, I remember one of the people from Epic talking about the Karma Physics engine and saying that, if they wanted to, they could have applied a new level of physics-based realism to the movements of characters. Something like, if your leg gets hit by a projectile, your leg is blown backwards (or "off" depending on realism and what hit it) you would probably by thrown to the ground. What are the controls for, "Use one arm to prop yourself up so you can return fire"? What are the controls for, "Throw away my weapon so that when I hit the ground face-first I can use my hands to stop me from smashing my face into the concrete"? What are the controls for, "Straddle the tree branch so that I can snipe and not have an upright profile"?

Sure, this type of control can be abstracted into automatic things (for example, most First Person Shooters classify certain objects as "climbable" and when you walk up to them, it automatically makes you start "climbing" them) but that type of abstraction has to be added in manually, and often results in reduction of player choices (ie, making tasks automatic and abstract reduces interactivity).

 

[Majin_Tenshi]

I don't see how nintendo is giving us "more and better control." They've come up with a gimick controler. I can't see how this motion sensor will help the games I like playing (Final Fantasy, Ridge Racer, Legacy of Kain). They've just made an option standard that won't get used 90% of the time except in mini-games. By redesigning the controler to look like a remote, they've alienated... erm... every gamer ever?

No, not at all. When technology becomes so advanced and what not it will get cheaper. Look at the computers now a days. Ultimately the games will take as long as they take now and the tech will not get any more expensive, inflation with holding.

You misunderstand what I'm refering to. It takes a hell of a lot longer to to build 1 character model in Final Fantasy X then it did to do all of the graphics for Super Mario Bros.
What you're refering to is hardware costs. I'm refering to development costs.

The only thing that has helped development costs is that we're now programing mario in C# or something rather then compiler (you don't want to see compiler). I'm fairly certian there hasn't been substantial improvement in their programing language options since the begining of the 32-bit generation.

Its takeing longer and longer to make the graphics for games. Hopefuly developers will wise up and realize that graphics are pretty much good enough, and start pushing other aspects of the console.

 

[Aazealh]

Speaking of the Dual Shock and shittily designed controllers, anybody seen the new Dual Shock design for the PS3? I was quite dissappointed when I saw this, as I love the original Dual Shock design, but I geuss Sony lost rights to it or something.

They just have to come up with new designs not to look like they're only capable of recycling old Nintendo controllers with slight esthetic changes. The Dual Shock was just their original SNES controller ripoff plus functionalities from the N64 controller. Now they have to try to show they can innovate, and they're failing, since this controller is basically the Dual Shock with the same buttons at the same place and a somewhat different shape. Now whether there's a need to innovate is another debate, as long as you can play with it I guess it's fine.

They've actually said that the boomerang is pretty much what the final controller is going to look like with slight changes, but the overall design is remaining basically the same as what we saw from E3.

Yeah, they wanted to make it clear they weren't just waiting for Nintendo to unveil theirs so they could copy it. Surprisingly that's after they saw the radically different Revolution controller though. Anyway I'll wait to have it in my hands before judging it definitely.

When technology becomes so advanced and what not it will get cheaper. Look at the computers now a days.

That has to do with mass production and the industry being driven by the market and the constant demand for more powerful hardware (software needs), big companies have no choice but to follow, and they fund the R&D, then the technology becomes more widely available. The effects are less for the console market with its specifics architectures, don't forget that Microsoft loses a lot of money on each Xbox 360 sold (royalties on the games is what brings money in). By the way, the Xbox 360 costs more than the Xbox costed, inflation or not. And that's just the hardware part, not what Majin was talking about.

Ultimately the games will take as long as they take now and the tech will not get any more expensive

Oh, really? Games take longer to develop now than they did before. And instead of 10 people you need 200 to develop big titles. I don't see how that'll stop now, and that's also why games will cost more in the future (it was announced by several developers already). Another consequence is the death of small developers, or at least more difficulties/risks: no error possible because if their game doesn't sell they sink.

Sure, this type of control can be abstracted into automatic things (for example, most First Person Shooters classify certain objects as "climbable" and when you walk up to them, it automatically makes you start "climbing" them) but that type of abstraction has to be added in manually, and often results in reduction of player choices (ie, making tasks automatic and abstract reduces interactivity).

You're right, but you know what? I'd rather play DooM and be unable to jump, run as fast as the rockets I shoot and get the same damage whether I'm hit in the upper or lower part of the sprite representing me. It's just more fun to play than to have to press five buttons to stop the hemorrhage because you got shot in the leg and it hit the femoral artery.

Now, I still would like to be able to use that controller like a sword hilt to fight in a game. And I also think than more interactivity provides a better gaming experience, my NDS proved it to me.

I don't see how nintendo is giving us "more and better control." They've come up with a gimick controler.

It's only a gimmick if you refuse to see its potential. I can call the huge graphical processing power on the X360 and the PS3 a gimmick, because I don't see how they'll help the games I like playing.

They've just made an option standard that won't get used 90% of the time except in mini-games.

We'll see about that. I seem to remember a lot of people saying the touch screen of the NDS wouldn't work, and now that it's leading the market these persons aren't talking anymore. Besides:

Hopefuly developers will wise up and realize that graphics are pretty much good enough, and start pushing other aspects of the console.

What other aspects? As far as Sony and Microsoft are concerned, there's only one aspect (Ok, I'll concede online play to MS). And Nintendo's orientation doesn't seem to suit you either. What do you propose? Developers aren't the ones creating the systems, they just make the games... And they can't do so much more stuff with the X360 (to take an example) than they could with the Xbox in terms of gameplay.

C# or something rather then compiler (you don't want to see compiler).

I take it you're talking about the Assembly language? A compiler is a program that transforms source code into an executable file (or another file in another language). Also, I doubt Nintendo codes in C# which is primarily designed to work in .NET Framework environments (developed by Microsoft).

 

[CnC]

Oh, really? Games take longer to develop now than they did before. And instead of 10 people you need 200 to develop big titles. I don't see how that'll stop now, and that's also why games will cost more in the future (it was announced by several developers already). Another consequence is the death of small developers, or at least more difficulties/risks: no error possible because if their game doesn't sell they sink.

True, and thats sad. But also keep in mind that the gaming industry is huge. Thats not to say there isn't a risk in cost/benefit in the creation of a game, just that the industry seems to support the 200+ companies (Blizzard, EA, ect.). However, its not like the smaller companies are completely left out. It took 20 people to create ICO, and 30 to create Shadow of the Colossus. Granted, it took longer, but I think the time taken was worth it.

You're right, but you know what? I'd rather play DooM and be unable to jump, run as fast as the rockets I shoot and get the same damage whether I'm hit in the upper or lower part of the sprite representing me. It's just more fun to play than to have to press five buttons to stop the hemorrhage because you got shot in the leg and it hit the femoral artery.

Well, I'd find both games appealing. And I'm sure there would be a market for both.

Now, I still would like to be able to use that controller like a sword hilt to fight in a game. And I also think than more interactivity provides a better gaming experience, my NDS proved it to me.

Anyone here ever play "Die by the Sword" for the PC way back when? When I saw that aspect of the new controller thats what I immediately thought of. Great game. However, my gripe was (and would be with a similar game for the revolution) that sword fighting was very hard without any form of response to clashing swords. So you'd end up just waving the sword around blindly hoping to get lucky with one of your swings. Anyways, I realize theres no real way to simulate that experience in a game just felt like bringing up DbtS as its related to what you were looking for.

It's only a gimmick if you refuse to see its potential. I can call the huge graphical processing power on the X360 and the PS3 a gimmick, because I don't see how they'll help the games I like playing.

In the end its just a matter of opinion. Some people depend on graphics now to be immersed, rather than gameplay. Thats just their opinion.

What other aspects? As far as Sony and Microsoft are concerned, there's only one aspect (Ok, I'll concede online play to MS). And Nintendo's orientation doesn't seem to suit you either. What do you propose? Developers aren't the ones creating the systems, they just make the games... And they can't do so much more stuff with the X360 (to take an example) than they could with the Xbox in terms of gameplay.

Well, that sounds remarkably similar to the kind of thing people used to say about the touchscreen on the DS. What can be done in terms of creativity or revolutionary about gameplay on these next-gen consoles has yet to be determined.

 

[Aazealh]

But also keep in mind that the gaming industry is huge. Thats not to say there isn't a risk in cost/benefit in the creation of a game, just that the industry seems to support the 200+ companies (Blizzard, EA, ect.).

There are way more than 200 companies making games (although EA works hard on destroying them all), and the problem is that it's threatening the '+' part.

However, its not like the smaller companies are completely left out. It took 20 people to create ICO, and 30 to create Shadow of the Colossus. Granted, it took longer, but I think the time taken was worth it.

Yeah, they get one game out every 4 years to quote Walter. And as standards go up it'll take them longer. I don't see how what you say is supposed to affect my point at all.

Well, I'd find both games appealing. And I'm sure there would be a market for both.

Wasn't the point of my comment really. There's always a market for everything as long as a game is well done. Nintendogs sold over a million copies this year both in Europe and in the USA, more than 3 millions worldwide.

In the end its just a matter of opinion.

No shit, that's pretty much why I said that. It's not even a question of being more immersed with one thing or another, just the arbitrary judgment of a feature based on its novelty (and obviously it not being used in older games).

Well, that sounds remarkably similar to the kind of thing people used to say about the touchscreen on the DS. What can be done in terms of creativity or revolutionary about gameplay on these next-gen consoles has yet to be determined.

What? I don't remember hearing that about the DS... Nevertheless, the hardware limitations/features don't necessarily relate to the developers' creativity, let's not mingle the two.

 

[Majin_Tenshi]

It's only a gimmick if you refuse to see its potential. I can call the huge graphical processing power on the X360 and the PS3 a gimmick, because I don't see how they'll help the games I like playing.

or it may go the way of the virtual boy.  

We'll see. The deciding factor will be how well its implemented. Given that its Nintendo, they'll come up with something good, but I probably won't wanna play it. The only games I really play that are Nintendo exclusive are Zelda and Mario, and in either of those games, making motion sensing required for much of the game would involve a overhaul of the game's style that might make me lose interest.

We'll see about that. I seem to remember a lot of people saying the touch screen of the NDS wouldn't work, and now that it's leading the market these persons aren't talking anymore. Besides:

What other aspects? As far as Sony and Microsoft are concerned, there's only one aspect (Ok, I'll concede online play to MS). And Nintendo's orientation doesn't seem to suit you either. What do you propose? Developers aren't the ones creating the systems, they just make the games... And they can't do so much more stuff with the X360 (to take an example) than they could with the Xbox in terms of gameplay.

As I've said earlier, I'm hoping we can look forwart to advances in AI.  Consider a crowded bazaar where hundreds of randomly generated NPCs all have different intrests and are crowding from stall to stall.  The advantage of the XBox360 and PS3 if they advance AI is that you can have the player interacting with more NPCs simultaneously.  Either of the consoles can handle more more NPCs then the N console cause if nothing else they'll be able to put more on screen without them looking like crap.  

I take it you're talking about the Assembly language? A compiler is a program that transforms source code into an executable file (or another file in another language). Also, I doubt Nintendo codes in C# which is primarily designed to work in .NET Framework environments (developed by Microsoft).

C++ then?
The consequences of posting when I should be sleeping.  The class I took with assembly level language used Littleman Computer rather then true assembly.  My university doesn't do anything with high-level C as near as I can tell.  C# seems like a better guess then Java or Visual Basic though....

 

[Walter]

The only games I really play that are Nintendo exclusive are Zelda and Mario, and in either of those games, making motion sensing required for much of the game would involve a overhaul of the game's style that might make me lose interest.

Do you have ADD or are you just really, really, really old? Who killed your inner child? Games are supposed to be fun, not 'strictly business and tradition.'

As I've said earlier, I'm hoping we can look forwart to advances in AI. Consider a crowded bazaar where hundreds of randomly generated NPCs

Developing AI like that would cost, as you've been stressing, millions. Why not just go to an actual bazaar... you know, in real life? I prefer my reality to be distinct from my fantasy, personally.

 

[CnC]

There are way more than 200 companies making games (although EA works hard on destroying them all), and the problem is that it's threatening the '+' part.

200+ being number of employees... not companies

Yeah, they get one game out every 4 years to quote Walter. And as standards go up it'll take them longer. I don't see how what you say is supposed to affect my point at all.

Regardless of whatever your point was _my_ point is that there are still small game companies making good, innovative games. Theres room for error when costs are low, however I will concede theres greater room for error when budgets are high.

No shit, that's pretty much why I said that. It's not even a question of being more immersed with one thing or another, just the arbitrary judgment of a feature based on its novelty (and obviously it not being used in older games).

Your description of graphics being just a novelty was why I emphasized it being your opinion, not really a dispute of that opinion.

What? I don't remember hearing that about the DS... Nevertheless, the hardware limitations/features don't necessarily relate to the developers' creativity, let's not mingle the two.

We'll see about that. I seem to remember a lot of people saying the touch screen of the NDS wouldn't work,

What other aspects? As far as Sony and Microsoft are concerned, there's only one aspect

And they can't do so much more stuff with the X360 (to take an example) than they could with the Xbox in terms of gameplay.

Excuse me for construing these statements as a placement of premature "limitations" on the console, and a similar statement to what would have been deemed a "useless" feature of the DS

Developing AI like that would cost, as you've been stressing, millions.

While I agree, I'll just add that in an interview with the people that made shadow of the colossus, they said the biggest time consumer was the development of the technologies that drove the interactions in the game, etc. With advancements in consoles' processing power or instructions driving said interactions already built into the console, that time could be dramatically cut down and allow smaller developers to create games quicker. However I'd have to take a greater look into what they're using to drive the cell processor to see if what I've said even relates to the PS3 (I know there are no such abilities for the xbox). Just putting that out there as a what-if.

 

[Aazealh]

or it may go the way of the virtual boy.

We'll see. The deciding factor will be how well its implemented.

Yeah, obviously it'll have to work and to work well, otherwise they'll get in serious trouble. It's a bet they made and they're risking a huge money loss, but I can't blame them for trying, especially since it appeals to me (at least not being all about polygon numbers, fuck I want 2D games). Like I said, I'll wait to see what it does, what the possibilities are, and then I'll decide whether or not to call it a failure/gimmick/success. And third party developers will be needed to make it a success of course, that pretty much goes without saying. The fact that Hidea Kojima announced a game and other big developers look interested is a good sign in that regard I think.

That being said I perfectly understand that some people might not be enthusiastic at all about it.

a overhaul of the game's style that might make me lose interest.

Well, Mario 64 wasn't anything like the SNES titles, and yet it was a real success. I know what you mean, but I'd rather be open minded than strictly sticking to what I know. I'd have missed a lot of cool stuff in the past had I done that. Basically and as always, if it's good I'll look into it, if it sucks I'll forget about it.

As I've said earlier, I'm hoping we can look forwart to advances in AI.

That would be nice yeah, but I'm actually not sure it'd be particularly easier to have on the X360/PS3 than on the Revolution. Either you have talented coders and your AI looks great or they suck and it coincidentally ends up being very limited. The PS3's hardware architecture could make it easier to have multiple complex AI threads running simultaneously but it's already so hard to do that I wonder if it'd make any difference. I hope we'll see progress in that domain, but I doubt it'll predominantly rely on a better hardware, it's more a question of pure coding IMHO.

C++ then?

Yeah, that'd be more like it. They were using it a few years ago, nowadays I don't know but it's pretty much a classic so... Probably.

The class I took with assembly level language used Littleman Computer rather then true assembly.

I knew a girl that was an assembly expert some years ago (yeah I know my life's great), she was really in love with it and actually pretty scary, crazy nerd.

200+ being number of employees... not companies

Oh. Well most big companies have over 200 employees, it's the teams that are composed of 100+ persons nowadays (for big titles). Your previous statement is wrong now though. Big companies aren't supported by the industry more than the others (as long as a game is good it sells, Shadow of the Colossus proved this), it's just that they can take a commercial failure (or moderate success) without sinking, which small companies can't. That's not taking the franchises into account of course, but companies like Square also get into financial trouble and manage to keep going while medium sized ones would disappear.

Regardless of whatever your point was _my_ point is that there are still small game companies making good, innovative games. Theres room for error when costs are low, however I will concede theres greater room for error when budgets are high.

Yeah, I don't see how you couldn't concede it anyway. Also, if your point differs from mine and doesn't relate to it, you don't need to quote me when I'm replying to someone else. That's why I assumed you were trying to comment on what I said, if it's not the case then no need to quote. Also, there are less small companies than before, much less, and they have a lot more restrictions than before. You're nice to tell me that small companies still exist but I knew it already (like everybody else?), thus my perplexity.

Your description of graphics being just a novelty was why I emphasized it being your opinion, not really a dispute of that opinion.

That's pretty much useless then, since I presented it as being my opinion in the first place, or rather an example of what it could be using the same reasoning as Majin Tenshi. Don't bother replying compulsively if you have nothing else to add to the topic (it's a matter of opinion?? ).

Excuse me for construing these statements as a placement of premature "limitations" on the console, and a similar statement to what would have been deemed a "useless" feature of the DS

You're just relating fundamental hardware design differences that don't have much in common in the context of my previous post. The DS had "innovative" features that people deemed useless because they thought they weren't appropriate to playing games. The X360 and the PS3 lack "innovative" features and concentrate themselves on enhancing traditional gameplay. There's a big nuance here, and that's about hardware (topic of this thread). Then you bring in developer creativity, which is a different matter. I'm not sure I see the need to insist on this point, especially since you're not even addressing what I was originally talking about.

With advancements in consoles' processing power or instructions driving said interactions already built into the console, that time could be dramatically cut down and allow smaller developers to create games quicker.

No, that's not really how it works... There's nothing in the PS3's architecture that would allow this as far as the official specs go. And "interactions" already built into the console? What interactions? Some specific instructions are built-in, but they won't save that much development time, the goal is more to save resources since the processor will have less things to calculate. Interactions in-game are on a level too high to be built into the hardware, because games vastly differ on that point.

 

[CnC]

You're right. Sorry.
I suppose thats the downside of quoting then writing, quoting and writing. At the end its obvious the post is pointless, and poster useless. All it ends up looking like is unnecessarily argumentative. I apologize.

 

[Aazealh]

I suppose thats the downside of quoting then writing, quoting and writing.

Oh don't worry, I think we all know what it's like... At least the heavy quoters. Who said especially me? BANNED!

At the end its obvious the post is pointless, and poster useless. All it ends up looking like is unnecessarily argumentative.

Heheh, well the thing is that when we both basically agree on the same things but start replying to each other on variations of variations of replies that didn't mean to be taken like the other took it, the final result can lack pertinence. See, I'm quoting a 2 lines post.

It's no big deal though, we've got to liven up the board one way or another. Bottom line is that we'll be happy as long as good games come out, and I personally won't be buying a console just because it's got a lightgun controller or can display a bazillion polygons if I don't like the games.

PS: Now since we were talking about making development easier, Sony is actually negociating contracts with middleware developers to provide databases of realistic outdoor elements and other stuff like that in their SDK for the PS3. A bit off topic but I think it's a good idea.

 

[Majin_Tenshi]

Do you have ADD or are you just really, really, really old?  Who killed your inner child?  Games are supposed to be fun, not 'strictly business and tradition.'

I enjoy Megaman games in general. They're a classic platform shooter. Transferring a platform shooter to 3-d gameplay just about kills it for me anyways. Why? Cause the jumping is exponentially harder in the 3-d environment and keeping your mobility controls intact kills your accuracy for shooting. (still jumping is usually easier then in Landstalker)

Mario 64 worked cause they mostly deemphasized jumping on things, and when they didn't, the game was awkward and difficult.

They may have the sense to modify the gameplay the same way for motion sensing, but will the gameplay resemble past games at all? The most obvious change for Zelda would be if the motion sensing controlled your sword swings. To do that though, they'd have to sacrifice mobility.

Anyway, let me try this another way. The implementation of motion sensing as a primary interface would probably change the game substantially enough that it may no longer be recognizable beyond the graphics.


The beauty of object oriented programing is you can reuse code a vast majority of the time. Each time you develop a new behavior pattern or AI method, you can probably reuse it somewhere in a future game. While this methodology is not entirely false, it is less true for graphics. It actually helps in parallel development cause you'll probably need some of the same behavior patterns on numerous games, and each development team can develop part of the total and then distribute them. In graphics, this only really works for background graphics, and even then, not for anything game specific.

 

[Walter]

Transferring a platform shooter to 3-d gameplay just about kills it for me anyways. Why? Cause the jumping is exponentially harder in the 3-d environment and keeping your mobility controls intact kills your accuracy for shooting. (still jumping is usually easier then in Landstalker)

Play Metroid Prime. Being a huge Super Metroid fan, Prime suprisingly dispelled all my fears of the transfer from 2d to 3d. The controls and movement are intuitive. Because of the controls and nature of the game, I believe it's truly an Adventure first and FPS second.

The most obvious change for Zelda would be if the motion sensing controlled your sword swings. To do that though, they'd have to sacrifice mobility.

It's presumptuous to assume that developers can't find a way to retain mobility while still aiming (or swinging) with the controller. For instance, by assigning the Z-trigger to move forward, you could still move and swing simultaneously. This is just one solution off the top of my head. I'm sure those that are paid to create solutions [Miyamoto to name the foremost god of intuitive controls] could find a much more viable one.

will the gameplay resemble past games at all?

What happened to the flagpoles in Mario?

 

[CnC]

For instance, by assigning the Z-trigger to move forward, you could still move and swing simultaneously. This is just one solution off the top of my head.

Well they do have that d-pad that can be attached to the remote... I assume that can make fps/adventure games interesting...

 

[Griffith]

Is it 2015 already?

"You have to use your hands...? That's like a baby's toy."​

We already know what DOES work, the burdon of proof is on the Revolution, it's not even a valid debate yet.