Support NeoGAF

[Ranger X]

The way you see it is interesting but there's something you're missing:

There won't be niche games on a console that does not sell. If the Rev is put behind the PS3 and 360 for a general lack of graphical power (yes that's what matter at first) the console may not be popular and you can say bye bye to niche games. PS2 is having alot of niche games for ONE reason: the console is extremely popular so there is a market for those games.

Anothing i wanted to say to all people thinking it does not cost ship to make games in 720p instead of 480. Yes you can just switch the resolution, but maybe you want to create higher res textures for that mode and that's where the money and time goes. Most games will be designed to look good in normal definition and prolly will only switch to HD definition but the graphics will prolly stay the same. Wich could result in a not all that hot of an improvement.

 

[The_Letter_3]

Revolution is going to be destroyed by PS3 and Xbox360 without HD support just like the DS is being crushed by PSP... No wait.....

 

[Amir0x]

Revolution is going to be destroyed by PS3 and Xbox360 without HD support just like the DS is being crushed by PSP... No wait.....

Because the magical gnome consumers in the console sector have been secretly hiding these last two generations, awaiting the time to change their ideology all at once despite the industries massive insane growth this past decade!

(p.s., your avatar is great. I'm not even being sarcastic, that's a seriously cool avatar. Demi: "It's great to be on the winning team.")

 

[Sho Nuff]

Great thread Jeff, keep 'em coming!

 

[JJConrad]

Typical GAF – Take speculation, assume it as fact.

As long as the Revolution is capable of HD resolution, there is no reason why multiplatform games would not support the feature. You can’t just tell the system to increase the resolution and make an HD game. Textures and models and a host of other aspects have to be brought up to match the output. Otherwise, you’re left with a blurry, jarring N64-emulation look. With Sony and MS forcing the resolution, what developer, in their right mind, would scrap all that extra work for the Revolution version? “We can do it, we’ve done it, but we won’t include it ‘cause we ain’t gotta.”

By not requiring HD, Nintendo has granted developer more flexibility than the other consoles. Higher resolution is never free. At the very least, it requires fill-rate, which some developers may be able to use for better things. This could then backfire on Sony and MS.

Imagine that Resident Evil 5 is created from the ground up for the Revolution at standard definition. The game pushes that resolution so far, that it would be impossible to recreate in HD without a serious frame-rate hit (and that’s still with the smaller textures). It could prevent the game from being ported to the PS3 or 360, unless the two drop their requirements. And before you say “That could never happen,” remember that Japan and Europe are not as enamored with HD as the US is.

Now let’s assume that everything in IGN’s article is true… If that’s the case, the Revolution is already underpowered and HD support is irrelevant. If the games already don’t look as good, what difference does a lower resolution make? Nintendo’s focus would then not be on pure graphics, but elsewhere. GAF is full of graphic-whores (I’m can be one too), we make way to much out of graphics, and can bitch and bitch about the littlest flaw, but what’s to prevent Nintendo having similar success with the Rev, as they are the DS? Graphics be damned, there are a whole bunch of quality games headed to that little abomination.

One last thing about these HD penetration percentages… we made a big to-do about broadband with similar projections. However, despite its success, we still only see less than 10% of gamers online. Even if 80% of the population has an HDTV, that doesn’t mean that they all be playing games on them. An example, right now, I know only one person with an HDTV, and it is “HIS!” He’s got a satellite dish and a DVD player hooked up to it and that’s it. “The kids have their own TV’s (not HD) to play games on.”

 

[Oracle Dragon]

Well, HDTV is starting to make its big push. In the next few years, many more consumers will be purchasing HDTV sets. Most will be LCD; because that’s what everyone is hot for, but there will be a mix of DLP and Plasma in there as well.... the point is that the large majority of them will be fixed panel displays.

In couple of years, you will see the number of HDTV's in North America increase drastically. This number will increase well before the lifespan of the Revolution is over.

So now all my Revolution games that will run in 480p (if I'm LUCKY) will look like upscaled garbage on my new HDTV. X360 and PS3 are looking pretty good, because I'm running them in true 720p. Sure maybe there is the odd Revolution game that supports this resolution, and it can still look great, but if its multiplatform, then it doesn’t matter. Since the days of the SNES, Big N has rarely held the best version of a "multiplatform" title. So why would I buy it for Revolution instead of X360 or PS3? Its the Revolution exclusives that will need to support those higher resolutions.

Its all well and good to think that 720p games will look much better than the current 480p games. It will be a bit of an improvement, of that there is no doubt. Not as big a deal as what MS is making it out to be, certainly. But the important thing to remember is that 480p games look like crapola when they are upscaled on a fixed panel display. Almost all of you will have an HDTV in the next few years. Unless you want your Revolution games to look much worse then they have to, you should be hoping that Nintendo changes their mind, and pushes for higher resolutions... if only so their games don't need to be upscaled.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Well, HDTV is starting to make its big push. In the next few years, many more consumers will be purchasing HDTV sets. Most will be LCD; because that’s what everyone is hot for, but there will be a mix of DLP and Plasma in there as well.... the point is that the large majority of them will be fixed panel displays.

In couple of years, you will see the number of HDTV's in North America increase drastically. This number will increase well before the lifespan of the Revolution is over.

So now all my Revolution games that will run in 480p (if I'm LUCKY) will look like upscaled garbage on my new HDTV. X360 and PS3 are looking pretty good, because I'm running them in true 720p. Sure maybe there is the odd Revolution game that supports this resolution, and it can still look great, but if its multiplatform, then it doesn’t matter. Since the days of the SNES, Big N has rarely held the best version of a "multiplatform" title. So why would I buy it for Revolution instead of X360 or PS3? Its the Revolution exclusives that will need to support those higher resolutions.

Its all well and good to think that 720p games will look much better than the current 480p games. It will be a bit of an improvement, of that there is no doubt. Not as big a deal as what MS is making it out to be, certainly. But the important thing to remember is that 480p games look like crapola when they are upscaled on a fixed panel display. Almost all of you will have an HDTV in the next few years. Unless you want your Revolution games to look much worse then they have to, you should be hoping that Nintendo changes their mind, and pushes for higher resolutions... if only so their games don't need to be upscaled.

Of course, that's only for the US

 

[Oracle Dragon]

Of course, that's only for the US

In couple of years, you will see the number of HDTV's in North America increase drastically. This number will increase well before the lifespan of the Revolution is over.

Yep...

 

[Amir0x]

Typical GAF – Take speculation, assume it as fact.

Nothing to do with speculation. Perrin Kaplan said point blank Nintendo has no plants to support HD with Rev.

As long as the Revolution is capable of HD resolution, there is no reason why multiplatform games would not support the feature. You can’t just tell the system to increase the resolution and make an HD game. Textures and models and a host of other aspects have to be brought up to match the output. Otherwise, you’re left with a blurry, jarring N64-emulation look. With Sony and MS forcing the resolution, what developer, in their right mind, would scrap all that extra work for the Revolution version? “We can do it, we’ve done it, but we won’t include it ‘cause we ain’t gotta.”

While you're technically right, you're intentionally skewing the aspects of it to sound negative. HD = Better. Period. End of discussion. Moving on. Nothing to do with graphic whorism, it just is. And we should always - always - demand the best (when possible. Which is the case here).

By not requiring HD, Nintendo has granted developer more flexibility than the other consoles. Higher resolution is never free. At the very least, it requires fill-rate, which some developers may be able to use for better things. This could then backfire on Sony and MS.

Imagine that Resident Evil 5 is created from the ground up for the Revolution at standard definition. The game pushes that resolution so far, that it would be impossible to recreate in HD without a serious frame-rate hit (and that’s still with the smaller textures). It could prevent the game from being ported to the PS3 or 360, unless the two drop their requirements. And before you say “That could never happen,” remember that Japan and Europe are not as enamored with HD as the US is.

Pure pipe dream. One, for 80% (<< note, this is a made up figure! I don't actually know how many developers will choose Rev as the lead platform, and can only judge by this gen and the trends we can extract from it!) of all developers Revolution will not be the lead platform for multiplatform titles. For another, it doesn't matter who is "enamored" with it, it has nothing to do with anything as far as support is concerned because the systems can still be used for those with shitty televisions. Shortsighted thinking, as is obviously the case here, does not change anything.

HD is best. This is the way we're moving, this is the way we should go. It's that simple. Not including it is only a negative and there's absolutely zero spin anyone on this planet could put to it to make it anything but. Why even bother? It's a waste of your time.

The most entertaining aspect is that you tried to paint Sony and Microsoft's decision to go with the entirely superior HD spec as standard as a possible disadvantage vs. Nintendo. I don't know what's worse, the fact that someone wrote that or that there's actually a few misguided people that believe it.

Now let’s assume that everything in IGN’s article is true… If that’s the case, the Revolution is already underpowered and HD support is irrelevant. If the games already don’t look as good, what difference does a lower resolution make? Nintendo’s focus would then not be on pure graphics, but elsewhere. GAF is full of graphic-whores (I’m can be one too), we make way to much out of graphics, and can bitch and bitch about the littlest flaw, but what’s to prevent Nintendo having similar success with the Rev, as they are the DS? Graphics be damned, there are a whole bunch of quality games headed to that little abomination.

I don't know, JJConrad. What is to prevent Nintendo from having similar success with the Rev? It's possible, of course. Granted, it would only take a complete 75% (i.e., since GC has 18mil, and PS2 has 90,000,000... and will eventually reach 120-140mil, you do the math) ideological shift in terms of the market and a hundred billion other variables for it to occur, but it is possible.

Of important note, handheld != console market. This needs to be emphasized because it seems people are truly tireless in the crusade to try to use DS as an example of some sort of market surprise, but it wasn't. Nintendo had full control of the market, they knew who they had to market to and Sony simply hasn't so far to that level. Likewise, Nintendo lost the grip of the console market long ago and does not appeal to the vast majority of that market anymore. It would take a complete shift in the type of support Revolution had, or a colossal fuck up by both Sony AND Microsoft for anything to change in this regard.

So again, it's possible. But pretty fuckin' unlikely.

One last thing about these HD penetration percentages… we made a big to-do about broadband with similar projections. However, despite its success, we still only see less than 10% of gamers online. Even if 80% of the population has an HDTV, that doesn’t mean that they all be playing games on them. An example, right now, I know only one person with an HDTV, and it is “HIS!” He’s got a satellite dish and a DVD player hooked up to it and that’s it. “The kids have their own TV’s (not HD) to play games on.”

Anecdotal evidence is weak and really has little place in this discussion.

 

[JJConrad]

Nothing to do with speculation. Perrin Kaplan said point blank Nintendo has no plants to support HD with Rev..

If speculation has nothing to do with it, then why does IGN's article continue:

That Nintendo would choose to publicly dismiss high-definition games for Revolution rather than simply downplaying them could suggest that the console might be physically unable to output HD quality games. The company, notorious for its cost-cutting measures, may have opted to eliminate component output from its forthcoming system, which would make it impossible to display anything higher than standard definition signals, even if the hardware is powerful enough to render more. Nintendo has not yet confirmed what kind of output Revolution will feature.

IGN is clearly does not know and they are the source of this debate. Right now, all there is, is speculation.

If the Revolution is capible of HD output, then everything I said to 100% true and your bitching is foolish. The system would gain from multiplatform HD standards, but still benefit from the freedom to use just the standard resolution. Forcing developers to do something is never an advantage.

Also, I never defined the DS' success by it sales, but rather by the quanity and quality of its games. That success is from the system's lower cost to develope, not Nintendo's dominance in the handheld market.

 

[sangreal]

If speculation has nothing to do with it, then why does IGN's article continue: IGN is clearly does not know and they are the source of this debate. Right now, all there is, is speculation.

If the Revolution is capible of HD output, then everything I said to 100% true and your bitching is foolish. The system would gain from multiplatform HD standards, but still benefit from the freedom to use just the standard resolution. Forcing developers to do something is never an advantage.

Also, I never defined the DS' success by it sales, but rather by the quanity and quality of its games. That success is from the system's lower cost to develope, not Nintendo's dominance in the handheld market.

That simply says IGN doesn't know WHY the revolution won't support HD. Whether its a hardware limitation in that it CANT output HD, or if its just Nintendo not offering the option to developers. It is quite clear that there will be no HD on the Revolution (as of right now).

"Nintendo doesn't plan for the system to be HD compatible as with that comes a higher price for both the consumer and also the developer creating the game. Will it make the game better to play? With the technology being built into the Revolution, we believe the games will look brilliant and play brilliantly. This can all be done without HD."

That quote leaves no room for debate over its meaning. There is always the chance that she is wrong, however slim, but other than that its a clear statement. Revolution will not allow for HD games.

 

[krypt0nian]

If speculation has nothing to do with it, then why does IGN's article continue: IGN is clearly does not know and they are the source of this debate. Right now, all there is, is speculation.

If the Revolution is capible of HD output, then everything I said to 100% true and your bitching is foolish. The system would gain from multiplatform HD standards, but still benefit from the freedom to use just the standard resolution. Forcing developers to do something is never an advantage.

Also, I never defined the DS' success by it sales, but rather by the quanity and quality of its games. That success is from the system's lower cost to develope, not Nintendo's dominance in the handheld market.

We are WELL past the point of speculation here. You've misinterpreted the article.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Is this the same Perrin Kaplan that said the Revolution would only be 2-3x as powerful as the GC? I'll await further confirmation, thanks.

 

[Chrono]

Is this the same Perrin Kaplan that said the Revolution would only be 2-3x as powerful as the GC? I'll await further confirmation, thanks.

Well that's just an estimate. There's no exact answer on how many times is revolution more powerful than gamecube. With HD support it's either yes or no. In this case it's obviously a no. :'(

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Well that's just an estimate. There's no exact answer on how many times is revolution more powerful than gamecube. With HD support it's either yes or no. In this case it's obviously a no. :'(

Actually Chrono, that was an "erroneous" statement proven to be false. I'll still wait for system specification finalizations before I'm absolutely convinced. You don't spend roughly the same amount as MS on your GPU for 2-3x the power.

 

[Monk]

The Revolution should atleast support HD, it doesn't mean they have to force all developers to develop their games with HD in mind.

^^^ What he said. But can't say I can complain though, the Rev games probably will look the best on my shitty tv because of this.

 

[Dupy]

I honestly don't get this "no high-def" info, and I'm looking in Nintendo's direction here. On May 12 IGN ran a story on Rev info. The article said:

According to recent information, Revolution will also be able to play high-definition games and regularly go online.

You can shrug this off as misinformation, but all the stuff they reported on a few weeks before E3 were right: online plans, downloading old games, DVD playback, standard wireless controllers, and a sleek design (3 DVDs tall).

I'm not sure if it's Kaplan that's out of the loop, NOA in general that's clueless, or NCL that just doesn't know what the plan is. Whatever it is, they need to get their shit together.

 

[ziran]

Now let’s assume that everything in IGN’s article is true… If that’s the case, the Revolution is already underpowered and HD support is irrelevant. If the games already don’t look as good, what difference does a lower resolution make?

exactly.

 

[ThongyDonk]

i don't understand.
When the Rev was forst shown the press release stated u'd be playing high definition games

 

[Ruzbeh]

Sounding a lot like Hideo Kojima there...

PS3 is like the big expensive meals but Revolution is something you eat everyday! :lol

 

[whzup444]

Well, I'd have to say HD support means nothing to me. Because, I won't be getting a HDTV for at least 3 years. A big portion of the gaming population is the college-age student (myself being a clear example). I seriously can't afford, nor do I have room for a quality HD-TV in my dorm. So, do I care? absolutely not.

 

[Vark]

Well assuming the thing still has output for PC monitors (which I believe is the case?) then you'll at least be getting 480p content which frankly, looks great on my 55" HDTV. Does it look as good as 1080i stuff? No, but it doesn't look bad. Gamecube games in particular look awsome on this set so i'm not exactly worried.

 

[bigNman]

I refuse to believe any of this stuff until Nintendo OFFICIALY announce the specs and controller.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

Well assuming the thing still has output for PC monitors (which I believe is the case?) then you'll at least be getting 480p content which frankly, looks great on my 55" HDTV. Does it look as good as 1080i stuff? No, but it doesn't look bad. Gamecube games in particular look awsome on this set so i'm not exactly worried.

If your TV is a CRT Rear Projection, then yes, 480p content will look just fine since it is displayed without scaling. (Or if you have an EDTV and not an HDTV) However, if your TV is a fixed panel display you can rest assured that 480p content will look like a pixilated mess. There are 4 types of large screen HDTV's to choose from, and only 1 of them is CRT based.

If you have a fixed panel display right now, and think 480p content upscaled to 720p or higher "looks great", then I don't know what to say... either you have a TV with the best scaler in the universe, or your standards for visual fidelity aren’t high enough

 

[Amir0x]

If speculation has nothing to do with it, then why does IGN's article continue: IGN is clearly does not know and they are the source of this debate. Right now, all there is, is speculation.

Again, Perrin Kaplan said point blank that "Nintendo doesn't plan for the system to be HD compatible." As krypt0nite said, there's zero room for interpretation. It is what it is. It's possible, as Li Mu Bai said that she's simply wrong and will be proven so. That's only one of two possibilities - she is right, or she is wrong. But right now we're discussing the implications of not including HD, which is always, no matter what, no matter how many stupid shit damage control posts are made, a very bad thing going into next-gen. Pretty much that simple.

I hope they include it, and it probably won't matter either way in terms of marketshare by the end... but as a consumer, it's a bad thing. Best for me.

If the Revolution is capible of HD output, then everything I said to 100% true and your bitching is foolish. The system would gain from multiplatform HD standards, but still benefit from the freedom to use just the standard resolution. Forcing developers to do something is never an advantage.

Actually, you're wrong. Everyone has standards that they "force" developers to utilize, some less than others. Forcing developers to present there games at a higher standard can again only be a good thing - for consumers. I'm a consumer, if you haven't figured it out. We're still going to get an equal amount of shit and great titles. The only thing is, now even the shit titles will be in high definition. At least for this, a better standard.

Also, I never defined the DS' success by it sales, but rather by the quanity and quality of its games. That success is from the system's lower cost to develope, not Nintendo's dominance in the handheld market.

I hate to break it to you, but the quality and quantity of the titles is directly proportionate to the amount of market success you have. To point: If you have shit marketshare, you're going to have shit support. DS doesn't have shit marketshare compared to its new handheld competitors. This is why marketshare is important. People always try to shrug off marketshare by saying "OMG, PROFIT!", but it's the reason why Gamecube is perilously perched behind the back of the pack with its fans (me included, mind you. I'd go mad without alternate systems at this point) scrapping for any piece of quality software in terms of third party support.

 

[Stinkles]

HD is a fad.


In 2016 we will all be watching 480i again.

 

[Suite Pee]

If Nintendo were embodied as a single person standing in front of me and my hatred for their moronic decisions was fashioned into a knife, I'd have Nintendo spread the butter on my toast.