The Revolution will not be televised

elpmis said:
okay, so after a day or so at E3, my understanding is that Nintendo is pretty much done for. I was psyched when i saw footage of the console and heard about the downloadable nintendo games(even though i already have them all on my pc). Fast forward to an actual article leaked about the raw performance of revolution. the article explained how xbox 360 was 13-15 times more powerful than xbox and ps3 was 35 time as powerful as its predecessor. Nintendo released that revolution was 2-3 times as powerful. wtf. Is nintendo kidding? All i can say is they better have some flipping amazing new game concepts with revolution or they are soon to suffer the same fate sega did.

im getting a ps3.
1. No one is really using all the power of the current generation of systems anyways.

2. How the hell can people be doing these comparisons? No one has any clue what the hell Nintendo's Hollywood chip even is yet or what the full system specs are. Comparing MS and Sony at this point is retarded because Sony is using a processor no one has ever seen before. The only objective measurement I think can be made at this point is comparing Xbox to Xbox360. Both have clearly defined hardware of known values. Everything else is marketing bullshit till then.
 
theacoustician said:
1. No one is really using all the power of the current generation of systems anyways.

2. How the hell can people be doing these comparisons? No one has any clue what the hell Nintendo's Hollywood chip even is yet or what the full system specs are. Comparing MS and Sony at this point is retarded because Sony is using a processor no one has ever seen before. The only objective measurement I think can be made at this point is comparing Xbox to Xbox360. Both have clearly defined hardware of known values. Everything else is marketing bullshit till then.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/615/615019p1.html
 
elpmis said:
2-3 times more powerful how? Theoretically, if Revolution uses 300W of power and GC uses 100W, its using 3 times the power and is therefore 3 times more powerful.

Those specs aren't apples to apples yet. This is the trap people fall into. I'm not saying Revolution isn't less powerful than 360 or PS3. I'm just saying the marketing monkeys might not be all quoting the same performance spec. Hell, Nintendo could be outright lying to lull the competition into complacency.
 
elpmis said:
I hope you're right


p.s. I love you
You'll love me more now. Remember the "fake" video of the Revolution circulating?








































5844052316327252.JPG

Nintendo isn't tell us shit. They're messing with everyone and they think its funny. There is speaking in hush tones that Revolution is actually going to be PLAYABLE at E3 tomorrow. WTF?
 
theacoustician said:
1. No one is really using all the power of the current generation of systems anyways.

2. How the hell can people be doing these comparisons? No one has any clue what the hell Nintendo's Hollywood chip even is yet or what the full system specs are. Comparing MS and Sony at this point is retarded because Sony is using a processor no one has ever seen before. The only objective measurement I think can be made at this point is comparing Xbox to Xbox360. Both have clearly defined hardware of known values. Everything else is marketing bullshit till then.

I'm sorta curious where you are pulling point 1 from? The systems are being pushed. Period. If you were to try to up the resolution to HD quality.... yeah, not going to happen.

As for point 2... People do these comparisons all the time. More public this time, to be sure, but I believe the quotes are straight from the companies. Nintendo themselves have said that it will only be 2-3 times as powerful as the GC. My guess is that they are not too worried about HD. (To be honest, I don't really blame them. They can probably easily have a system out by the time HD sets are out in numbers.)

And this just goes back to what I was saying about the size. There is no way something as small as the revolution can be as powerful as the XBox and PS3 are claiming to be. Not unless it is made of metal and glows red when it is playing. :)
 
taeric said:
I'm sorta curious where you are pulling point 1 from? The systems are being pushed. Period. If you were to try to up the resolution to HD quality.... yeah, not going to happen.

As for point 2... People do these comparisons all the time. More public this time, to be sure, but I believe the quotes are straight from the companies. Nintendo themselves have said that it will only be 2-3 times as powerful as the GC. My guess is that they are not too worried about HD. (To be honest, I don't really blame them. They can probably easily have a system out by the time HD sets are out in numbers.)

And this just goes back to what I was saying about the size. There is no way something as small as the revolution can be as powerful as the XBox and PS3 are claiming to be. Not unless it is made of metal and glows red when it is playing. :)
Xbox and GC are easily capable of pushing out 720p games if they felt like it. GC limited themselves to 480p this generation, the reason of which I forgot but read a while back. There are a few Xbox games that can do high def now, but most publishers don't use it. PS2 reached its limit? That's definately possible, but it seems that every time it looks like they've hit a wall, some clever devil comes up with a way to squeeze more pretty out of it. When I see games reach a consistant level of quality for a 3-6 month period, I'd be willing to say they've juiced the box as far it will go.
 
I think you are not realizing the compromizes that are being made in current generation hardware. The PS2 has definitely reached its limits. One need only look at the quality of Resident Evil 4 to tell that.

But that is all beyond a larger overriding limit. And that is simply that you can do more than just prettier graphics with a more powerful system. The best example I saw was imagine a system that was able to power great graphics, while providing complicated AI for several platoons of combatants on a single battle field.

Did you see the trailer for KillZone? I personally think that is completely full of crap to expect that from the PS3, but I know it will probably do a better job than any of the current generation hardware could attempt.

And the question isn't just about the extra lines of resolution. Sure, we can probably just up the resolution on many systems today. But you need to scale up the polygon counts, as well. Otherwise, they become even more noticeable. Again, look at the tech demos for the PS3. They almost look raytraced in some scenes. As good as the next Zelda looks, it does not look that good.