Tuesday, December 06, 2005
I actually am surprised
Try as I might, it's really impossible to be completely indifferent about graphics. Everyone knows that gameplay is far more important than anything on the screen. Heck, even a fantastic score can add more to a gaming experience that shiny graphics (Dawn of Souls anyone?). But even blind gamers have to admit that graphics do matter. My jaw was dropped so far for such a long period of time when Nick and I first fired up Kameo that I had a case of dry mouth for the next few days. And with that in mind, the first news of the technical specifications for Nintendo's still unnamed next generation console has hit the net. Granted, these are unconfirmed still, and only offer a glimpse of the raw horsepower behind the system, but I would venture a guess that these are not too far off from the real thing.
Here are the raw specs for people who care about numbers - 104 MBs of RAM with the number of gigahertz doubling the Gamecube's output. Doesn't mean much to me, but according to IGN and some unnamed developers, this means the Revolution is about twice as powerful as the Gamecube.
This is actually quite surprising to me. Nintendo said at E3 last year that the Revolution would only be two or three times as powerful as the Gamecube, but I thought they were only bluffing. Whenever technical specs are revealed Nintendo has always had a tendency to downplay them. While Sony and Microsoft were talking about how their current systems could push hundreds of millions of polygons, Nintendo had a much lower number that accounted for things like textures, sound and artificial intelligence (why won't it end!?). I figured their rough estimate of system power just meant that, to the average person, Rev games would look twice as good as Gamecube titles.
I have to admit I am disappointed by this news, but I'm not sure why. Right now, the idea of graphics twice as pretty as Resident Evil 4 actually sounds pretty nice. The Xbox 360 looks amazing, but nothing is twice as good as current gen systems. But those are just launch titles. Look at Gears of War. There's a chance nothing on the Rev will look as good as GoW, and that's still a first wave title. And then there is the all powerful PS3. Sure, graphics don't matter, but can you imagine the difference between Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles Revolution and Final Fantasy XIII?
There are a few good things that, if these specs are true, could actually help the Rev. First, the system may only cost $99, and it will certainly be less than $200. That's not too shabby. I can't imagine the Xbox 360 will be cheaper than $300 a year from now and the PS3 will probably be even higher than that, so for gamers who simply want to play games the Rev will be enticing.
Also, less power means less development costs. To max out the PS3 and Xbox 360 - which developers will have to do if they want to sell to the casual gamer - they will need a huge development team. With the Revolution they will be able to use a similar size to what they are already using for current generation games. I imagine most games won't even try to be too graphically intense since Nintendo clearly isn't trying to beat their competition with graphics. Right now, Xbox Live Arcade is the perfect place for small developers. Titles like Hexic and Geometry Wars can be made with a handful of people and are still fantastic. However, the Revolution could be the perfect platform for larger development teams. If the Rev is truly as underpowerd as it appears, a team roughly the same size as one making games on current systems could easily develop something worthwhile for it. If it all comes down to money, which it invariably will, only the richest developers will be able to make great games for the 360 and PS3 - everyone else will have to find another way.
Of course, I'm trying to make this sound better because I am disappointed. I know the Revolution is all about changing the way people play games. I know the NDS is my favorite system right now even though it is severely underpowered compared to the PSP. But I still wish the Revolution was a little more powerful. Sure, it's not directly trying to compete with Sony and MS, but it could be dead on arrival if the ignorant mainstream is turned off by average graphics.
Here are the raw specs for people who care about numbers - 104 MBs of RAM with the number of gigahertz doubling the Gamecube's output. Doesn't mean much to me, but according to IGN and some unnamed developers, this means the Revolution is about twice as powerful as the Gamecube.
This is actually quite surprising to me. Nintendo said at E3 last year that the Revolution would only be two or three times as powerful as the Gamecube, but I thought they were only bluffing. Whenever technical specs are revealed Nintendo has always had a tendency to downplay them. While Sony and Microsoft were talking about how their current systems could push hundreds of millions of polygons, Nintendo had a much lower number that accounted for things like textures, sound and artificial intelligence (why won't it end!?). I figured their rough estimate of system power just meant that, to the average person, Rev games would look twice as good as Gamecube titles.
I have to admit I am disappointed by this news, but I'm not sure why. Right now, the idea of graphics twice as pretty as Resident Evil 4 actually sounds pretty nice. The Xbox 360 looks amazing, but nothing is twice as good as current gen systems. But those are just launch titles. Look at Gears of War. There's a chance nothing on the Rev will look as good as GoW, and that's still a first wave title. And then there is the all powerful PS3. Sure, graphics don't matter, but can you imagine the difference between Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles Revolution and Final Fantasy XIII?
There are a few good things that, if these specs are true, could actually help the Rev. First, the system may only cost $99, and it will certainly be less than $200. That's not too shabby. I can't imagine the Xbox 360 will be cheaper than $300 a year from now and the PS3 will probably be even higher than that, so for gamers who simply want to play games the Rev will be enticing.
Also, less power means less development costs. To max out the PS3 and Xbox 360 - which developers will have to do if they want to sell to the casual gamer - they will need a huge development team. With the Revolution they will be able to use a similar size to what they are already using for current generation games. I imagine most games won't even try to be too graphically intense since Nintendo clearly isn't trying to beat their competition with graphics. Right now, Xbox Live Arcade is the perfect place for small developers. Titles like Hexic and Geometry Wars can be made with a handful of people and are still fantastic. However, the Revolution could be the perfect platform for larger development teams. If the Rev is truly as underpowerd as it appears, a team roughly the same size as one making games on current systems could easily develop something worthwhile for it. If it all comes down to money, which it invariably will, only the richest developers will be able to make great games for the 360 and PS3 - everyone else will have to find another way.
Of course, I'm trying to make this sound better because I am disappointed. I know the Revolution is all about changing the way people play games. I know the NDS is my favorite system right now even though it is severely underpowered compared to the PSP. But I still wish the Revolution was a little more powerful. Sure, it's not directly trying to compete with Sony and MS, but it could be dead on arrival if the ignorant mainstream is turned off by average graphics.
// posted by Tom @ 9:30 PM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]