Lou: and yes, I have no interest in Linux, you are correct but if all I had to do to run an alternate OS on the GC was install a $50 mod chip that takes 10 minutes to install, I think the Amiga community has gone through alot more hassel to upgrade their machines and still be nowhere near the power of a Gamecube
Yeah, we all know what's possible with all that memory.
Don't forgot to add in your ethernet adapter, mouse, keyboard, new case, card reader, memory card, other easily overlooked stuff, etc. Have fun voiding your Gamecube warranty, everyone, and don't run into the problem Lou had when his Gamecube didn't turn on.
Oh yeah, don't forget all those deals on eBay, because only Idiot Ass Clowns pay MSRP.
I got my Mac mini on eBay for $335, and it's a full computer with 256MB or RAM and a real PPC that blows away Gamecube in every possible respect. Obviously, this is unacceptable for the Amiga community. We need Nintendo.
Lou: I predicted that a game for the GC would run enhanced on Revolution...if you read cube.ign.com/mail the editor there says this is a possibility with Zelda.
Possibility? Editors making hopeful predictions? Say it isn't so!
Lou: As for the GC, since it's escentially an upgraded Gamecube
Proof? Nobody knows at this point how Revolution runs Gamecube games. You have no trouble passing off your speculations as proof, of course.
Lou: As for 360, it just won't have the muscle to "emulate" all the regular XBOX titles.
This comes from hands-on experience, I take it?
I'm still holding to my theory that certain future Gamecube titles will be "aware" of the fact that they are running on Revolution hardware and run "enhanced".
That can be done easily with seperate compiles. I think Revolution's Gamecube mode will work like the Commodore 128 did when you went into "go 64."
That's not to say old games won't run better on new hardware. But, the game will obviously have to be fooled into thining it's running on a Gamecube. Post-Revolution Gamecube titles can very easily have ways of detecting the new hardware. How the old games behave is questionable.
koafder: And why bother making it backwards compatable, when you can sell your retro versions all over again after they have been ported?
Not having to unplug everything repeatedly and have yet another box lying around?
I play all my old console games on my PC for this very reason. Plus, they all tend to run better on emulators than on the original systems, and I can remap controls so I can play them much better using PC controllers. A keyboard is just
soooooo much better than a crappy Genesis controller or digital joystick.
koafder: Cmon, you know you;d pay 20 bucks to play mario 3 on your new nintendo.
This is my big beef with Nintendo's claim of being able to run your old games. You're not getting backwards compatibiltiy with your existing games. You have to relicense everything into a "native" format for the new systems, even if it is running on a software emulator.
Paying an Internet subscription service is even worse. You don't own anything, and you pay even if you don't download anything. Pretty soon, you won't even have game discs, anymore, when you can just pay a monthly fee.
Oh, wait... that's innovation at work. That's always a good thing, isn't it?
Lou: interesting and useless "prediction" since not one console of any system has been sold yet.
Words to live by, unless you're explaining exactly how Revolution works when Nintendo hasn't even finalized the hardware, and that the new systems will only be twice as fast as XBox becuase Microsoft and Sony programmers don't know how to code for multiple cores.
I remember these same kinds of arguments when Playstation and Saturn were set for release.
Lou: I keep telling people the 1st generation of 360/PS3 titles are only going to be twice as powerful as the current XBox. Multi-core programming is not in it's prime yet.
Especially since PCs have been using lots of mutithreaded software for years. Yup. Nobody knows a damn thing about multiple CPUs, especially since XBox 360 runs a Windows core, which has supported similar hardware on servers since its NT days.
Of course, Nintendo will have multiple cores, too, but Nintendo developers are immune to such performance problems because they're much smarter than those poor, drooling apes developing games for Microsoft and Sony.
It's safe to say developers won't be using the hardware to its full potential until after a few years (which is always the case with console hardware), but "twice as powerful as XBox" is really pushing it, Lou.
Lou: The stills look great but unless it's running a video, having 3x the screen space to fill with only 2x the power makes the animation look choppy.
Yeah, we all know the GPUs are only twice as fast, too, and choppy frame rates are always the fault of the hardware, never the fault of developers making demos for unreleased hardware.
Oh yeah, isn't Revolution going to be less powerful than XBox 360 and PS3? I suppose that means Nintendo games will be slideshows. Everyone knows these new CPUs are incapable of anything useful, especially since all three next-gen consoles are basicly the same architecture designed by the same supplier.
Lou: You do know that you can add on to the controller right?
Ever notice how add-ons don't sell very well? People prefer all-in-one solutions when it comes to consoles, even if they cost a fortune. Otherwise, why even call them consoles?
Lou: Reloading can be like the arcade gun games where you "fire" off-screen to reload.
Yeah, but arcade games have plastic guns with triggers and kick-back, not rectangular remote controls with badly placed buttons. :-)
Lou: yeah real small - for Microsoft
What's so surprising? With XBox 360 around the corner, nobody is going to buy an XBox
now.
Hmmm... I wonder how many Gamecubes will sell right before the launch of Revolution.
MskoDestny: Even with the silly analog stick dongle you've got fewer buttons than the Gamecube controller and I found it inadequate for FPS games.
People who adore FPS'ers are not Nintendo's target audience.
MskoDestny: Even with the silly analog stick dongle you've got fewer buttons than the Gamecube controller and I found it inadequate for FPS games.
Fewer buttons isn't always a bad thing. What bugs me is that people are probably going to drop it constantly, and the fact that it's just so ergonomicly incorrect. I'm also not too impressed that the analog controller is connected to the remote with a wire, despite all this glorification over wireless technology. It's fun to have a 2-foot cord in your lap while you're waving your remote in the air. I also wonder what this will do to the Carpel Tunnel Generation.
As an interface designer, I think the controller is a classic example of bad execution, approved by a manager instead of a game designer. If I had designed it, I would have made it a discus with a thumb handle.
How much you wanna bet this controller was the direct result of some stuffy exec raging over the success of the EyeToy? I'm sure with Nintendo's emphasis on affordable hardware, people will have a blast playing it on their 2000" plasma TVs.
MskoDestny: I don't really see how it's more instinctive.
The typical buzzword is to say that it is "natural."
If you want natural, go for a walk, get some friends together, and go to the park and play a game of tennis. Entertainment technology is supposed to overcome natural limitations that prevents us from experiencing very atypical things, like the dangerous sport of car racing, space exploration, randomly killing people, etc. You don't need lots of buttons to do that, but you need more than a fat, rectangular magic wand.
Seriously, think about it. If this controller had been available seperately for the Gamecube, would it sell? Would people just think it's a gimmick and a passing fad?
MskoDestny: Off screen reloading really only works well for games on rails like traditional light-gun games.
That's what bugs me most. The N64 had a lot of issues with its early 3D platform games because you couldn't adjust the camera. Dreamcast did not improve this very much, as Sonic Adventure proved quite well. Once Sony introduced controllers two analog sticks, it became painfully obvious that people could control cameras much, much better than any AI routine can, and since you can look around only when you
expect it to happen, it feels more "natural" than when the game does everything for you.
Revolution will likely have a lot of games that play "on rails," and that's not a good thing.
MskoDestny: The whole add-on concept seems to be a big compromise between the different needs the controller tries to fit.
Yeah. Most games that could really benefit from a unique controller are best with a purpose-built controller, like, as you suggested, Sega's fishing pole.
Revolution's controller seems more like, "PowerGlove, Part Deux: we'll get it right this time. Honest!"
MskoDestny: Simplicity and approachability for the casual and non-gamer crowd
Nintendo's audience is the younger group of gamers. I think the real reason why Nintendo is going so cheap with their new console (low performance, no HDTV), is because they feel their core audience is too young and inexperienced to care about power, visual quality, lots of features, and so on. This may make Revolution profitable for that core audience if they keep their costs under control, but if Nintendo isn't careful, they'll wind up like Sega -- having to drop out of the hardware race altogether, and make their games for much more powerful machines.
Nintendo is one of the world's leading and most powerful software developers. They really don't belong in the hardware market if this is all they can deliver. Personally, I think Revolution will hold them back.
