News IBM's Revolution processor is done

So using your logic all new control methods are gimmicy?
So that must make mice, d-pads, analogue sticks, scroll wheels, optical mice & touchpads on lappys gimmicy.

Have you ever played a game on a DS that was designed for usage with a touch screen? I somehow doubt it. Metroid First Hunt on DS shows how a fps can be done without a mouse, and to most people who have tryed it, find it just as intuitive as using a mouse for fps game. An ideal way to play a fps while on the move. But of course, according to you, its gimmicy.

 

It's all about the games that the consoles provide. I have all three consoles of this generation and my ps2 games outnumber the rest 3 to 1. Although the xbox and the game cube have their own good 6-12 games they just have so much chaff that paying a lot of money for them isn't good when you can go 6 months without seeing a game you would want to play on a system.

 

Look, first off I'm not trying to start an argument here. I love Nintendo, although I feel their recent/upcoming products have resulted in them losing their grip on the Western market share.

I'm not talking about my own opinions either, but making assumptions on how the 'classic gamers' will respond.

Not at all - it's just Nintendo have tried 'alternative' control methods in the past, and failed. Remember the PowerGlove and U-Force3D? Hell, if we're talking gimmicks in general, how about Rob the Robot? Or the VirtualBoy?

The point is that all control methods have evolved from previous incarnations. Remember, Space Invaders used 3 buttons (left, right and fire). The next step up from this was adding a joystick. Jumping forward in time, this was scaled down (with the joystick replaced by a d-pad) and built into a small hand-held unit (control pad).
The DS touchscreen wotnot was obviously inspired by PDA's - something you don't normally associate with proper gaming.
And the Revolution control idea seems to have come from virtual reality (flailing limbs) - again, something you don't hear of any more.

Right, my own opinions now. No I've not played MFH, firstly because I'm not a fan of the 3D Metroid games, and secondly because I can't play fps shooters on anything other than a PC (which is a damn shame - I used to be quite good at Goldeneye, but I've played too many PC games since then, and now I'm rubbish!!)

Don't get me wrong, I think that surgery game (can't remember what it's called) on the DS looks pretty good - kinda reminds me of Operation. Very nice use of the touchscreen.
Thing is though, I'm not sure that I could play a touchscreen game for hours on end (maybe Nintendo that's the idea? They've been infuenced by Sony's ****ing 'casual gamer' design).

Will Nintendo succeed with their new products? Only time will tell.

And once again, I love Nintendo, and I am not slagging them off, just pointing out what I think the general publics reaction will be. If, on the other hand, you wanna take part in a 'why Sony suck' conversation, I'm your man!

Off topic here, but can anyone remember the names of 80s/90s Nintendo magazines available in the UK? The one I used to buy had a few guys that reviewed the games, and the only thing I remember was that they'd have pictures of their own faces at the bottom of the page (in a comic/pixelated style). Pretty sure one of the guys was called Andy. And they seemed to use the work 'twonk' fairly often...

 

Er... the SNES runs on a 65816 processor. Just one. One might say that enhanced (DSP/SFX/C4/etc) games could be counted as having two processors, but I could argue either way on that, ignoring the fact that there are also Megadrive carts with similar enhancements. But what really let the SNES poop all over the Megadrive in terms of graphics was -- unsurprisingly -- its graphics chip. Hardware scaling and rotation, baby!

Also, you need to cut those clock speeds roughly in half.

Nezuji

 

Of all the games I have ever played I have to say that the best game I have ever played was Goldenaxe, I think that was on the NES. I have played better games in terms of graphics and gameplay, but that game was the one I had the most fun playing. I am somewhat a little bit of a PS fanboy, however I do conced that the XBox is better in terms of power, but I like the PS mainly for the games, I have not seen a single game on XBox I would get that is not also on PS or computer. Halo is touted to be great, I have never played it though. Nintendo have brought many consoles and handhelds out and with some successes and pitfalls this console will most likely be a success.

 

Indeed, this is something that people make the mistake of jumping to conclusions on. I wonder if people remember that Nintendo has a habit of under-stating the power of their consoles? I believe I mentioned the "paper specs" of the Nintendo64 versus the Playstation; in that respect, the PSX was much more powerful, at 360k polys/sec compared to a paltry 150k. And a similar thing goes for the GC; 12 million polys (or around there) compared to the 120m and 150m or so claimed by the PS2 and Xbox. For the Revolution, it remains the same as it has for the past year or so; we're in the dark!

And then there's the use of Anti-aliasing. Nintendo has been making AA-using games since the Nintendo64. I don't remember exactly what games, but I believe Super Mario 64 was one of them; AA games ran at 320x240, while non-AA games ran at 640x480; increase the horrizontal resolution to 360 and 720 respectively, when using the optional wide-screen HD mode on the console.

What about all those other "alternative" control methods that DID succeed? Like the ones that were actually part of the primary console itself, like the shoulder buttons, the analog stick, and the rumble pack? Not all new input devices have been failures, otherwise we'd still be stuck with a "mixing panel" of buttons, knobs, and sliders.

Hmm... Guess that teaches me to rely too much on a 1993 article from Nintendo Power. I really need to find some better sources for old console information. (and NOT Wikipedia!)