http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/10/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/
(from Evil Avatar)
So a console who’s life span is going to end 6 years from now is not supporting HD? Who isn’t going to own some kind of HD set in the next six years? SD looks pretty bad on most HD sets. Talking about gameplay is great but I don’t want to see a pile of jaggies on my games 5+ years from now and with crappy SD resolution we are going to get it on the Revolution.
– Xaroc
A) Do you get all your game news from CNN Money? Because everyone else knew this like decades ago.
B) Gameplay actually is more important than graphics, in my book, so it’s a fair trade, especially if it results in the Revolution being significantly cheaper than the competition.
It works like this:
Parents buy new HDTV sets, plug in XBox 360s and PS3. Old TV sets get given to kids, and they get a Nintendo Revolution.
Was it confirmed before? I thought it was still up in the air. This is the first I have seen that they are definitely not supporting HD.
Yeah, I guess they have given up. I knew they weren’t totally trying to compete in the same space but their games are going to look significantly worse without at least 720p support. Art direction etc. can only carry you so far. Look at Shadow of the Colossus, great gameplay, great art direction, but honestly tell me that game wouldn’t rock so much more with a ton more graphics power behind it to render everything better rather than the pixelicious way it is rendered now.
– Xaroc
Was it confirmed before? I thought it was still up in the air. This is the first I have seen that they are definitely not supporting HD.
– Xaroc[/quote]
I thought it was confirmed.
Was it confirmed before? I thought it was still up in the air. This is the first I have seen that they are definitely not supporting HD.
– Xaroc[/quote]
I thought it was confirmed.[/quote]
I do see it mentioned earlier via Google now it just didn’t hit my radar until it popped up on my RSS right now from over at EvilAvatar. My bad. I still think it is a really poor idea.
– Xaroc
Is anyone really surprised? Nintendo has never been about cutting-edge tech. Remember that if you wanted component cables for your Gamecube, you had to buy them mail-order directly from them. I’m surprised they made them at all.
In any case, I don’t care. I’m more interested in cool news about the controller and the no-doubt wacky and interesting game stuff they’re going to be doing, than whether or not the system supports every possible bell and whistle on the planet.
Was it confirmed before? I thought it was still up in the air. This is the first I have seen that they are definitely not supporting HD.
– Xaroc[/quote]
I thought it was confirmed.[/quote]
I do see it mentioned earlier via Google now it just didn’t hit my radar until it popped up on my RSS right now from over at EvilAvatar. My bad. I still think it is a really poor idea.
– Xaroc[/quote]
Well, what if it lets them launch the Revolution at $150 or $200 instead of the $300 or $400 the X360 is? Still a bad idea?
[quote=“extarbags”]
Well, what if it lets them launch the Revolution at $150 or $200 instead of the $300 or $400 the X360 is? Still a bad idea?[/quote]
Well I know my interest level for it dropped from a buy it early (depending on games) to buy it when it hits $99 maybe. After seeing the amazing things that are going to come out on the other two consoles it is really going to be hard to go back to last gen visuals even for less money. Put it like this, at this point with the Xbox and PS2 around would you drop $200 right now for a new console with PS1 level visuals? Because 6 years ago that is what was around. I don’t think the difference will be quite that dramatic but it will be significant.
Personally after seeing HD in action I don’t want to take a step back.
– Xaroc
HD is indeed great but it’s not the compelling reason to buy or not buy a console, at least for me. That reason will always be the games, and one thing you can count on from Nintendo ALWAYS is a strong selection of brilliant must-play first-party titles that you can get on no other system. Given the likely cheap price of the Rev, that’s good enough for me. I can get my HD kicks elsewhere and the Rev, as has been the case for me with the last two generations of Nintendo hardware, will be my second (or third) system.
Look at it this way: if you’re hardcore enough of a gamer to care about HD support, you’re probably not a one-system guy either. If you can splash out big bucks on an HDTV you can certainly afford a Rev to go next to your X360 and/or PS3. And are you really going to miss out on what will probably be some of the most fun and innovative games of the next gen just because the graphics aren’t quite shiny enough?
I don’t really look at this as a mistake, per se. It’s a eyes wide open business decision.
HD is great. It’s beautiful. It’s the certified next level of TV and of games as well.
It’s also still rather expensive (both for the TV and the actual signal), completely confusing to the average consumer, and has a real market penetration of approximately squat.
Microsoft and PS3 are trying to out do each other, focusing on the geek, acquiring the cred, and hoping they bring their friends in to the fold. Nintendo is eyeing the wider, general audience – the folks that don’t yet have that fancy TV.
By no means, are you their target demographic. Those folks won’t have an HDTV for a long while. Those folks also far outnumber you and me (and I still don’t have an HDTV).
If they come out at 150 dollars, it won’t be a mistake.
If they only have an SVideo out or whatever that would be horrible, but presumably they’ll still have widescreen, progressive output, just at non-HD res.
They’ll probably release a “Revolution HD” version in a couple years once HD has more consumer presence (… which will also be after their component cost has come down). c.f. GBA, GBA SP, etc.
Yeah, it’s not like the company ever named one of its consoles after the number of bits of its CPU.
I’m amused that this turns “Nintendo=purity of gameplay,” which is the line the company is using. (Which tends to ignore that technology is one of the big reasons we have such great current Nintendo games.) People really drink whatever Kool-Aid they send their way; they are the Apple of gaming.
Yeah, it’s not like the company ever named one of its consoles after the number of bits of its CPU.[/quote]
Well to be fair that has happened ONCE in Nintendo’s history.
Nintendo Entertainment System
Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Nintendo 64
Nintendo Gamecube
Nintendo Revolution
Game Boy (etc)
So the majority of their systems have been titled around the simple concept that they’re fun machines for playing games on, rather than anything technological or nebulous “cool” titles like Xbox, Dreamcast etc. I agree that the N64 was the weakest names of any of their systems. Even Revolution implies some kind of creative innovation rather than technical excellence.
I agree that there is a certain cult of Nintendo, but I do think it’s partly justified. It’s true that they obscure the fact that their tech isn’t the best by focusing their marketing on other things, but they really do innovate more and make more interesting games than both the other first-party system makers combined. And they’ve been doing it for longer than both the other first-parties put together, too.
Yeah, I don’t think anyone’s drinking Nintendo Kool-Aid here. They stated around the time of the GameCube launch that they were focusing more on cost-efficiency, fun, and accessibility than pushing pixels.
They carried through that philosophy over the life of the system, and then around the time of the DS/Revolution announcements, made even stronger statements regarding that philosophy.
Most people admit the the DS is superior to the PSP in this regard. Yes, we all know the PSP pushes more pixels, has a bigger screen, and some more features the DS doesn’t have. But the DS has generally woo’d customers with its focus on fun and unique games, its novelty, and its lower price point. That’s been the first real balls-to-the-wall showdown of N’s philosophy against Sony’s.
I don’t like Nintendo because it’s the ‘cool’ thing to do, or because I’ve bought into marketing hype. I like Nintendo these days because they’re taking a real stance against the more-of-the-same direction of consoles, and they’re really putting their money where their mouth is by shaping their entirely business around it.
I’ll own an X-box 360 and/or a PS3. And I will most definitely own a Revolution as well.
Gary- Once in Nintendo’s history, and also 33% of the total systems that used that convention(that I’m aware of).
They weren’t big into obscuring how their tech wasn’t the best back when, you know, they had the best technology. Their “screw specs, it’s about the games” marketing mantra dates all the way back to… the future, when they release the Revolution. The Gamecube was competitive wrt specs.
Yeah, I don’t think anyone’s drinking Nintendo Kool-Aid here. They stated around the time of the GameCube launch that they were focusing more on cost-efficiency, fun, and accessibility than pushing pixels.
Then again, if I was going to release a weak-ass, tech poor console, that’s precisely the argument I’d present to the masses.
“Hey we know that this razor is cobbled together from chicken bones and baling wire, but the razor BLADES just kick ass!!!”
Like the weak-ass, tech poor DS, right?
My DS has already well justified what I paid for it. (Heck, Ouendan would have done that by itself.) It’s not even vaguely near the PSP graphically, but I don’t really give a damn, because it’s got great games that the PSP won’t have.
So when Nintendo says that their next console will be underpowered but feature innovative and fun games that use an oddball controller, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. No Kool-Aid needed.
I mean, what the hell? Aren’t we allowed to care about anything but how many polygons are getting pushed to the screen?
Of course. It’s just that it’s a bit disingenous for Nintendo to suddenly poo-poo technology advancement in favor of "gameplay is king"when they’ve played the opposite marketing line in the past.
Not to mention that trumpeting something that should have always been true, not only for them, but for everyone seems a little silly. Of course, it’s all about the games. I mean, I really doubt we’ll be seeing any ad campaigns for the 360 or the PS3 that trumpet “Screw the games! Look at this tech!” Even with all the convergence crap, they know the people buy consoles for software, not hardware.
My question for Nintendo is why do they have to choose one or other? Why can’t they have interface/gameplay innovation and technology advancement? A one-two punch like that would blow the competition out of the water. Can’t afford it? Fine. But don’t spin it into all this “we’re doin’ it for the games, man” folderol.