Rev Graphics barely better then GC?

Canyarion · 12-01-2005, 06:46 AM

Something else. Nintendo showed a tiny trailer of Samus standing somewhere..... Graphics were... not noticably better than GCN. They would have been better off not showing that.

Teuthida · 12-01-2005, 04:45 PM

Samus seemed just a tad more detailed. Eh. The surrounding world looked pretty cool though. Stylistic > Realistic anyday...well most days. Not expecting the graphics to blow me away or anything. People will be interested in the gameplay. And if developers take the extra time and energy they can make a game look pretty damn nice even with lacking power.

Of course I'm just praying for a WW styled game. I couldn't care less for realism. Never played another game that looked that nice.

Jason1 · 12-01-2005, 07:06 PM

I was talking to a guy I worked with today who just recently read about the Revolution. He had some interesting things to say. He basically just said the controller looks crazy, and that he couldnt really see people buying into it. Typical response im afraid. Although he DID say he liked the look of the console itself more than the other 2, which did suprise me somewhat.

Teuthida · 12-01-2005, 07:18 PM

They'll release a Nintendogs game...more fluid petting maneuvers with the new controller...instant success...I'm not worried.

Xantar · 12-09-2005, 02:50 PM

I suppose if 2.5 times more powerful could be considered "barely better than the GC," then you could say that this rumor is true.

And apparently what's also very nice about the Revolution is that it will be very easy to develop for, especially compared to the multi-core systems from Sony and Microsoft.

Null · 12-09-2005, 02:55 PM

many developers are happy about developing for the multi core systems, they say its giving them good practice to have for future computer games.

honestly tho, we hear about hard to develope for / easy to develope for every console gen.. it means very little to most people.

Canyarion · 12-09-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Up until the past week or so, developers close enough to Nintendo's inner circle to have seen any Revolution hardware were working with development kits that were simply GameCube kits with mock-ups of the "wand" controller attached - a clear signal, if any were required, that the system is more about innovative control than about the hardware specs.

That explains a lot.

DeathsHand · 12-09-2005, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xantar

I suppose if 2.5 times more powerful could be considered "barely better than the GC," then you could say that this rumor is true.

What I don't get about the Nintendo fans (mostly on IGN boards... when I generalize 'Nintendo fans', I'm speaking of the overall tone of the IGN boards, which really are a horrible source to 'poll', I admit) is that they laugh about how the 360 is "Xbox 1.5" graphically, and yet it's a lot more powerful than "2.5 times Xbox"...

But when they hear that Revolution is "About 2.5 times more powerful than GameCube", they're like "Come on 2.5 times more powerful than Gamecube? How is that bad at all! Imagine RE4 now with 2.5 times more power!"...

As if 2.5 times the power = 2.5 times better graphics...

But like... 5-10 times (or whatever, I dunno Xbox/360's specs) the power = "XBOX 1.5 LMAOZ!"?

Xantar · 12-09-2005, 04:16 PM

Calling an entire system two or three or ten times more powerful than another system is silly to begin with. But the point I was making when I posted that link was that apparently, the Revolution is more than just "barely" more powerful than the GameCube. Surely it won't be as powerful as the Xbox 360 or PS3, but at least it will be an improvement.

And well, I guess the controller is worth a tenfold improvement in processing power for some peolpe anyway.