No High Definition in Revolution: Nintendo

[SixFootJockey]

Take a look at the screens for PS3, Xbox360 and NR, and then come and talk.

Next gen graphics are a HUGE step forward.? It's not like the jump from psx to ps2.

I can just imagine having a NR hooked up to my 46" hdtv plasma and get ****ed off at all the blurryness and fuzz.? Come on Nintendo, put hd back while theres still time.

586056297[/snapback]

There hasn't been any screenshots released from the NR as of yet, so you can't make a comparison from that.

The graphical difference between the PSX to PS2 is quite a lot. Go and have a look at the texture quality/resolution, polygon count, and resolution of a PSX game and then compare that to a PS2 game. Then come back, sit down, and shut up.

I really couldn't give a toss if it can or cannot display in HD. Is HD really going to make playing SMB:3 on the Revolution more fun? I don't think so...

[dt]

Oh go cry a river. No HD on revolution? Who cares? Most likely that decision will change by the time Revolution si released anyway. ~_~

[Doli]

Oh go cry a river. No HD on revolution? Who cares? Most likely that decision will change by the time Revolution si released anyway. ~_~

586056434[/snapback]

and if not....who cares still.

i will still get it (when the price goes down, i never buy when it somes out) HD or not. its not like every xbox360 and PS3 people will be able to play in HD since not everyone has an HDTV.

people buy and play your damn game systems and stop this war over game consoles, look at yourselfs...relax.....relax

[Alpha2004]

How is nintendo expecting to get so much third part support with this system? Unless it can play games which the ps3 can play.

I mean, wont developers be spread thin, with all the systems currently out?

xbox360/ps3/gba/ds/gba2?/psp/all current consoles

[SixFootJockey]

How is nintendo expecting to get so much third part support with this system?  Unless it can play games which the ps3 can play.

586056553[/snapback]

Nintendo hasn't had much third-party support for quite some time now. With the Revolution not focusing on HD, they are trying to attract more third-party developers. Games will be cheaper and easier to develop for the Revolution compared to the other two next-gen consoles because they will not have to spend as much time and resources on creating uber-quality textures or models with trillions of polygons. Instead they can focus more on the gameplay and being innovative.

[megamanXplosion]

I don't quite agree with your statement. What games do you think own all? I own a cube and I can say from experience that every 1st party game I used to love has completely let me down. I'm not counting Zelda as I don't care for it. The biggest problem I've seen is that they're farming alot of my favorite games.

F-Zero - Developed by Sega. - Sega makes great games, but they screwed this up good. Amazing gfx and speed are hindered by lousy music and cheating cpu favored AI that stinks of Sega's arcade ways. In fact they made this for the arcade but called it AX instead of GX. F-Zero on N64 blew this game away. Its gfx were nothing to write home about, but it had speed and good gameplay. You could win on skill not luck. After getting over the GCs gfx, GX went back into the cd case and hasn't seen light since....

StarFox Adventures - Developed by RARE - Someone explain too me why they decided to take a perfectly good space shooter and make it an adventure game? Its not what fans wanted and it was just more of the same platform/adventure crap RARE had churned out many times before. No thanks....

StarFox - Developed by Namco - Namco is a great developer and I thought I'd finally see a real Starfox game. Scratch that one, buddy. Hello! no one wants to get out of the ship!!! Tank vehicle sucked cause of the slow fire rate.

Metroid - Developed by Retro Studios - Mediocre first person shooter with good gfx and repetitive, maddeningly frustrating difficulty caused by awful controls. 2D metroid was all bout exploring and bactracking, but the backtracking part doesn't work too well in a shooter of this type.  Regenerating enemies and Having to completely stop and hit a button to look around was the nail in the coffin for me.

Donkey Kong and Mario games - I haven't even bothered with. They suck in 3D is the word I get. Dunno if N made them or not, but Shigeru Myamoto doesn't involve himself in the Mario games like he used to.

These games on the surface have the Nintendo look, but fall short of their quality in terms of gameplay. These games are the reason I bought a cube and all failed me. My cube has collected dust for 1.5 years and looks to continue the trend. People may disagree with me, but its how I feel. This is definitely not the Nintendo I grew up with!

586050551[/snapback]

I agree completely. Metroid prime was an absolute joke. I don't know how it managed to win the "best game of the year" awards, the game sucked! If Metroid Prime was the "best game of the year" then Super Metroid must've been the best game of the decade. I played Metroid Prime long enough to say that I beat it, once I did beat it I threw it in my closet and never touched it again. I could've beaten the game in almost half the time if it weren't for those stupid doors that refused to open half of the time, grrr... That was an absolutely horrible game.

Starfox games, I agree with you completely. They were also a huge joke to the series. Starfox 64 was an incredibly fun game to play, that is not true with the recent ones.

The Donkey Kong and Mario games have sucked since they entered 3D. There were a few good Mario games in 3D but most of this are from N64, the Gamecube hasn't really offered anything. I have been wanting to play the Mario Kart Double Dash game because I loved Mario Kart 64, but I fear that it will all be hype and nothing more, like the rest of the old games that I used to love.

The original F-Zero was also a hundred times better than the recent ones. So were the first couple of Resident Evils and Megaman games (as someone who has ran a Capcom fansite, I was majorly disappointed by all of the recent Capcom offerings), etc. I have yet to find a *good* game on the GameCube. They simply don't deliver...

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Well I know lots of people who own consoles and I don't know one person who has a HDTV. I've seen the term 12% here, and maybe that's valid for the US, however this system is going to be a world wide system, so 2% or less is the real number of people who'll be missing out on the HDTV feature, and that's a pretty small market in my opinion.

Further if the system is priced cheaper, and you do have the money to buy a PS3 or X-Box 360 not to mention a HDTV, chances are that if the big N comes out with an amazing game that you really want to play that you'll be able to afford the system to do so. So in reality I honestly don't think that Nintendo will lose much money on this thing. If there's a game you want and you have the money you will buy it, it's that simple. The only person who wouldn't buy a game he really wants when he has the money would be some kind of graphics ###### who's too afraid of looking lowtech to his superficial friends.

I'd rather have HDTV than not, but it won't be my buying decision the launch games will. I held off on the Gamecube until Zelda's release, and if the Revolution launches with crap like Luigi's Mansion then I'll hold off on the Revolution's launch as well, but the lack or support of HDTV will not be a deciding factor for me.

Dissapointing? Yes. Business ending decision for Nintendo that will push them into Sega's level? Not hardly.

Edit: And Metroid Prime rules. If you don't like it cool, but it was one of the greatest games I ever played.

Eternal Darkness out creeped Resident Evil, F-Zero while not revolutionary is a blast 4 player, there was alot of good cheap fun on the Gamecube. the price of the same level of fun on the PS2 or XBX was alot higher.

[Shetland]

Wtf are you talking about?  I would expect this statement from someone living in a poor country, but your info says you are from Toronto too.

The majority of the people I know who play with consoles have at least one HDTV, or are buying one real soon.  I personally have 2 HDTVs in my house, and in my society, I am barely even middle class.

...

Almost every tv sold today is an HDTV.

...

586054411[/snapback]

err barely anyone here has a HDTV.

No-one i know either, and its not based on the "richness" of our country so just think about what your saying.

I am in the United Kingdom, specifically; London. So i am hardly living in a cave out in a desert.

HDTV is common in america, but not EVERYWHERE.

I dont know about canada specifically but dont assume straight away that all countries must be with hdtv.

[Laughing-Man]

How is this a bad thing? Better hardware would also make plain 480i better-looking if a developer wanted to. So now it's okay for Nintendo to not have a generational leap in hardware?

Well there is always two sides to the coin. Sure there are benefits to including the HD, but there are also negative aspects as well. If you read the IGN article there are the negative aspsects:

Source: IGN

There could be a visual downside to the switch to high-definition, though, and this may work to Nintendo's benefit. HD games may be hampered by framerate problems, while SD titles rendered by more powerful hardware will probably run smoothly. "This is my single biggest worry," admits Eggebrecht. "Let's put it this way. At 640x480 [standard definition], we're at a point where we can do anything. Anything. Finally. But with high-definition, I think we're at about the same level of challenge when it comes to framerate as we are this generation. You can do a hell of a lot more polygons. You can do a hell of a lot more shaders. But the inherent fill-rate issues are still certainly there. Will it be a 30-frame time? Will it be a 60-frame time? It will be interesting to see."

Being the cheap system didn't help the GameCube. I can't see it helping Revolution all of a sudden.

You could say being an expensive system production cost-wise didn't help the XBox either. So making Nintendo a costly system to produce and sell to consumer may not work either.

PS2 sold because it was a PlayStation. That's all there is to it, plus it came out a year before the stiff competition.

Agreed.

The bottom line. HD will reach the mass market very soon in the US, and will be in the vast majority of US households within a few years. Ignoring that and forcing these people to view 480i(p) content just so that Nintendo can save some change is not a smart choice.

Who said that all games will be 480i. Maybe Nintendo is not requiring all games to be HD, but that doesn't have to stop third party developers.

The goal is to NOT give people a reason to ignore your console, not add to them. Especially if you're struggling.

Struggling in what aspect? If it is profit on their consoles, they aren't struggling. If is numbers you are referring to, they have sold approximately the same amount as the Xbox has, but no one is complaining about the amount of Xboxes sold. I agree they should have sold more and rather then let Sony take the market share from them. But perhaps they are doing what some business analysts are saying and they are wethering out the storm until Sony and MS can't spend any more money on their consoles because investors are eventually going to demand returns on the money they put into the consoles.

Nintendo isn't some huge corperation like Sony or MS. They need to make a profit on their hardware and software or they are through as a company. If they think that this decision will help them sell their systems for a profit then so be it. They can't make a system that is going to cost them money for each system sold. They don't have other divisions to fall back on like Sony or MS, they have to make a profit on their hardware and software or they will go bankrupt.

Edited June 13, 2005 by jmole

[Xerus]

Hooray for jmole. Whenever I see someone post about how Nintendo is "struggling" I find myself confused and annoyed. When I first read about Nintendo struggling, I looked further into it... and they definately are not struggling. They keep themselves up, or even ahead of Microsoft and Sony in some quarters, and Sony and MS are big companies with different branches to make money off of. Nintendo only has gaming, and its quite a big accomplishment for them.

I'm too tired to continue to talk coherently... I dont know if I even am now right.

[Marduk]

I agree completely. Metroid prime was an absolute joke. I don't know how it managed to win the "best game of the year" awards, the game sucked! If Metroid Prime was the "best game of the year" then Super Metroid must've been the best game of the decade. I played Metroid Prime long enough to say that I beat it, once I did beat it I threw it in my closet and never touched it again. I could've beaten the game in almost half the time if it weren't for those stupid doors that refused to open half of the time, grrr... That was an absolutely horrible game.

Metroid has alot more depth than alot more horrible fps games on consoles, lets see who it has more depth then, hmmm Halo :o and Halo 2 :o , the game didn't suck at all it was a ton of fun, and the way they designed it you never really had to be in any situation where you needed to run and turn around.

Anyway, no HD on Revolution is a tiny bit of a downer, but ah well it doesn't phase me revolution is going to be amazing anyway.

Edited June 13, 2005 by Marduk

[megamanXplosion]

Metroid has alot more depth than alot more horrible fps games on consoles, lets see who it has more depth then, hmmm Halo  and Halo 2  , the game didn't suck at all it was a ton of fun, and the way they designed it you never really had to be in any situation where you needed to run and turn around.

Therein lies the problem. Metroid Prime wasn't really a Metroid game! It was a FPS with Metroid stuff in it.

The original Metroids required the user to figure out problems by themselves. Metroid Prime kept popping up a stupid alert telling you what you need to do next and then take you to the map and then a little while later repeat the process again, and again, and again. And does that even make sense? Apparently someone installed "predator trackers" around the planet before Samus arrived, yeah right.

Metroid Prime was basically just Metroid 1 from the NES with better graphics and watered down gameplay. Why do I have to read everything on every computer monitor and blinking light along the wall and then identify all of the species before I beat the game with 100%? In previous games I done that by getting cool powerups like power bombs, not by identifying weeds that grow out of the ground!

Not only was getting 100% in this game not fun, it was an absolute horrid way to play the game. Couple your weeding-expedition with 500 pages worth of reading that you have to access by waiting for the broken doors to open (hopefully they open up before you get another reminder of what you're supposed to do next), it simply wasn't fun. It was annoying as hell.

The Metroid series was always about exploring, solving problems, scaring the person when a new boss was appearing, and offered good replayability. Metroid Prime didn't offer any of those things. You didn't explore in Prime, you followed instructions (and thus, never had to solve any problems yourself.) None of the bosses were scary and immediately gave away their weakness, and some were downright stupid: It's the scary flame thrower with a big blinking red light! Oh no, it's the giant flower that hates the light being taken away! Oh crap, it's a rock monster that hated missiles!

Seriously, Metroid Prime was an absolutely horrible game. I fail to see why anybody liked it beyond the graphics...

[Xerus]

I rather enjoyed the scan feature. I liked reading the logs of the space pirates, it really moved the story along for me. I thought it was a really nice feature of the game to have almost everything scannable... I never went for 100% scans though, that was too much for me... I managed to get 100% of the items though. I thought it was a very immersive and fun game...

I suppose you cant please everyone though.

[Laughing-Man]

The original Metroids required the user to figure out problems by themselves. Metroid Prime kept popping up a stupid alert telling you what you need to do next and then take you to the map and then a little while later repeat the process again, and again, and again. And does that even make sense? Apparently someone installed "predator trackers" around the planet before Samus arrived, yeah right.

I always assumed that Samus's ship was constantly scanning the planet. Could be wrong though.

Metroid Prime was basically just Metroid 1 from the NES with better graphics and watered down gameplay. Why do I have to read everything on every computer monitor and blinking light along the wall and then identify all of the species before I beat the game with 100%? In previous games I done that by getting cool powerups like power bombs, not by identifying weeds that grow out of the ground!

The developers were trying to make the game more immersive and believable. I liked reading reading the log messages of what was going on and scanning various things on the planet to learn about them. The developers didn't force you to read everything though, it was your choice to do so.

The Metroid series was always about exploring, solving problems, scaring the person when a new boss was appearing, and offered good replayability. Metroid Prime didn't offer any of those things.

You thought the bosses in Metroid and Super Metroid were scary? Maybe you are not a kid anymore and won't easily be scared by the bosses in Metroid Prime. I thought Castlevania was a scary game back in the day. Perhaps it comes with growing up.

You didn't explore in Prime, you followed instructions (and thus, never had to solve any problems yourself.)

I agree with you on that. I would have rather had to discover the weapons without indicating where they were located. I guess they tried to dumb down the game a bit because finding stuff in Metroid and Super Metroid without using a guide or anything was a pain in the ass. Not so much Super Metriod, because they gave you a map, but finding weapons in Metriod was really painful. I used to draw my own maps on pieces of paper of the game to find out where the hell I was and where I hadn't checked yet.

None of the bosses were scary and immediately gave away their weakness, and some were downright stupid: It's the scary flame thrower with a big blinking red light! Oh no, it's the giant flower that hates the light being taken away! Oh crap, it's a rock monster that hated missiles!

I liked the bosses,

Meta Ridley especially along with Metriod Prime.

Overall it was a great game, it great controls , environments, all the details (steam, ice, water effects on the visors I especially liked), story, and the music. The Magmoor Caverns music gave me the flashback willies, it was like the Norfair music of Metroid. It sold millions, reviewers liked it, it was the best game of the year at the time, there is no reason why it should have been game of the year. Echoes is even better.

Edited June 13, 2005 by jmole

[BroChaos Veteran]

damn, i'm a little late, but this is pretty crazy news. i really just don't agree with their decision. i might as well trade in my DVD player for a VCR and trade in my HD cable box for a pair of rabbit ears...

[inthefade]

Eternal Darkness out creeped Resident Evil,

586057076[/snapback]

True..

Especially staying up late into the night, trying figure out why there was flies buzzing around the screen and why your head fell off upon entering a room....

Definetely one of my favourites...Hoping for Silicon Knights to come back and do a sequel... It is a pity to see Xbox and PS2 gamers writing off the gamecube.. they don't realise what they are missing...

[Amnesia]

@jerry, I suggest you go and read what I wrote one more time.

I never said "who cares about graphics" I said "who cares if there will be HD support"

There's a difference, Just because a console doesn't have HD support, it doesn't mean that the game itself wont look as sexay as any other console.

I'd imagine that although they CAN be related to each other, they also can also have no affect.

[jerry]

@jerry, I suggest you go and read what I wrote one more time.

I never said "who cares about graphics" I said "who cares if there will be HD support"

There's a difference, Just because a console doesn't have HD support, it doesn't mean that the game itself wont look as sexay as any other console.

I'd imagine that although they CAN be related to each other, they also can also have no affect.

586059495[/snapback]

Just look at this way:

We used to game at 640x480 six or seven years ago, didnt we ? Now are we gaming at the same resolution ? You want me to game at that resolution for the next five years ? Sorry mate. :no: There's just no excuse for this. :pinch:

[faraway.]

do u think there will be a sequel to Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem?

[inthefade]

do u think there will be a sequel to Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem?

586059788[/snapback]

i like to hope there will but who knows , but if ever there is and it lives up to sanity's requiem, then it will be a definite console buying game for me.. HD or not..

[graphitemonster]

It's very possible that Nintendo is ensuring that their sells of hardware remain profitable.

I don't know how much of an increase it would take to add HD support, but if it means taking a loss, then I would think Nintendo would rather take the chance at losing a few customers than losing money on every console.

Seriously, if they are able to incorporate it into their system without any losing anything that they desire (design, profits, etc.), then I don't see why they would refuse to add it.

Just wait it out. Or you could be like, "OMG! Outrage!"

[Amnesia]

what I'm saying is.. ok maybe you are misunderstanding me. Lets say they design a character on the revolution without HD, it could just as well look as good as one with HD.

Know what I mean?

Yes it's restricted to a level, but people shouldn't automatically reject it based on that fact.

[jerry]

Lets say they design a character on the revolution without HD, it could just as well look as good as one with HD.

586060574[/snapback]

That can only happen if you are outputting it to a SD TV.

Adoption of HDTV is inevitable, Nintendo does not need to defy it to remain "different". :no:

[Amnesia]

i mean, i dont know anyone at all that uses HDTV, I myself have just purchased a 52 inch Plasma, is that HD? (i'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious)

It's a Philips Ambilight.

Nintendo thinks about cost, and if it cuts out something like HD it saves us money, and perhaps we only sacrifice just a bit of graphics.

[jerry]

i mean, i dont know anyone at all that uses HDTV, I myself have just purchased a 52 inch Plasma, is that HD? (i'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious)

It's a Philips Ambilight.

Nintendo thinks about cost, and if it cuts out something like HD it saves us money, and perhaps we only sacrifice just a bit of graphics.

586060630[/snapback]

You own a Plasma, good for you ! :yes: But see you only fall into 5% of the population where as HD is slightly more (11%) and it is on its way up as Microsoft & Sony both intend the HD "push" and its inevitable that it will be a widely accepted standard 1-2 years from now.