No HD for revolution (1 Viewer)

[Brian_Pete]

I for one would very much appreciate Nintendo to continue to make great games and innovative controller features....for other consoles.

That would save room on my shelf and my wallet.

I've bought their last two systems strictly for Mario and Zelda. Were the games worth it? Yes. Would I have been happier if they were created for a system I already owned? Definitely.

I doubt Nintendo will stop making consoles but I can't help but wish they would.

 

[Ken Chui]

Engadget.com has an interesting article outlining (rumoured) specs of the Revolution (link). Nintendo has not confirmed nor have they refuted this info.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The final specs on the Revolution haven't been released yet. The X-Box 360 hardware is set in stone and the PS3 is basically done, but the Revolution has more up in the air. The controller is supposed to be the big deal of the console.

As I see it, the evolution in graphics is a natural one that will happen anyway. Each generation gives us better graphics no matter which console you're on and you're going to have amazing games on each one. Look at the trailers for Zelda: Twilight Princess, play God of War, and play Halo 2. Aside from what each game is or which group it's aiming for, they're all gorgeous and would sell well regardless of the platform.

In the next generation, Microsoft thinks online will declare the winner, Sony thinks functionality will declare the winner, and Nintendo thinks unique content will declare the winner. I'm going to end up buying each console, but I'm especially interested in Nintendo for driving the cost of their hardware down and increasing their creative potential in order to provide gamers with the most unique experience available.

 

[Ian_Fisher]

While it's true, the Revolution's final specs haven't been set in stone, even Nintendo has said it isn't nearly the leap that PS3 and X-Box 360 are. This is all I meant by it sounds like it is lagging behind, hardware wise.

I would also be happy with Nintendo's "increasing their creative potential in order to provide gamers with the most unique experience available" but they've fooled me too many times with this promise. GBA connectivity went nowhere, the DS's touchscreen is starting to live up to the predictions of all of it's nay-sayers.

Again, I'm not saying anything negative about Nintendo's first party games. They are great, and the reason to buy the system. I just think that Nintendo makes consoles to play their first-party games. The desires of the gamer's be damned. I feel this attitude is reflected in their refusal to go from cartridge to disc, ignoring of online playing, and ignoring the fact that this is the generation of consoles that is goign to be around as High-Def televisions become more and more prevelant.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The difference between cart vs. CD or offline vs. online is not nearly the same as non-HD vs. HD by any means. As of right now, the best global strategy to keep manufacturing and development costs down as well as provide gamers with an experience they'll be happy enough with to buy a console is to not include HD. The X-Box 360 will be a minimum of $300, the PS3 could launch above $400, but the Revolution will most likely only be $200. While less than 10% of gamers are even capable of playing games online with broadband connections (probably less worldwide), I'd bet fewer than that have HDTVs. In a few years it might be different, but in a few years we'll be getting another round of consoles. Nintendo isn't blazing the technological trail, but they're doing what they can to keep it cheap, affordable, accessible, and enjoyable.

 

[CaseyL]

I can't help but agree with Morgan on this. Yes, HD is definatley the way of the future, especially in N.America, but if the game content is good, frankly I don't really care. I think Nintendo still makes the best games around, and right now, the revolution is the only next-gen console that I know for sure I will buy, HD or not, because of the games, and because of the innovation. I have total faith in Nintendo's ability to put out quality hardware as well as software, and as Morgan points out, there's still quite a bit of time before the revolution is released, and we all know that Nintendo is traditionally tight-lipped about technical specifications before product release.

 

[BrionL]

Good luck waiting for it because it won't be released until around 2007. By that time people will own the 360 and/or the PS3 and with all the cool games coming out for those systems Nintendo will look pale in comparison.

Brion

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The Revolution is scheduled for next year. It could slip into 2007, but that doesn't really matter. The Dreamcast had a head start on the PS2, which had a head start on the X-Box and GameCube, and look how that turned out. It's Nintendo, so their console will do fine. Might not be first, or even second, but it's not like they're going to have to bow out of the business. The market is extremely capable of having three competitors.

 

[Dean Cooper]

I think it’s a mistake to not include HD, at least 480P. Good game or not, if it looks like crap I'll be sitting there annoyed that it could look so much better instead of enjoying the game fully. It'd be like watching a VHS tape of lord of the rings... I'll most likely wait for the thing to drop in price before I pick one up. One thing that I do know is that NES, SNES hell even Atari and Intelivision games look fantastically crisp in HD on my Xbox. In fact it kicks the crap out of the original on the same TV. What are they really going to save by not including it? 5 -10 bucks? Come on...
I guess if you always keep your expectations in the toilet you'll never be disappointed, but I'd rather have my cake and eat it too.

 

[DaveF]

Why are low-resolution graphics conflated with quality games? Not supporting high-def is no indication N will have better quallity games than the others.

Worse, I fear N is falling behind with lackluster first-party titles. I've found their "A" list games to be on par with third-party games available for the other systems, at best. And at worst, their top-shelf games are just dull.

Give me good games. And give them to me with the highest resolution and best sound possible.

 

[Brian_Pete]

I totally agree with Dean about old games in 480p or HD. I loved playing 'A Link to the Past' with a higher resolution. It definitely makes a difference.

If Nintendo would decide to make great games for other consoles we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Maybe some day.

 

[Ian_Fisher]

I agree that if nintendo would just become a 3rd party developer, there would be no problems! I just don't feel the "inovations" that they are doing hardware-wise are anything to be excited about. While Microsoft and Sony were spending this generation looking ahead with things such as online play and high definition gaming, Nintendo has taken the stance of "most gamers don't have broadband, and don't care about online play" "most gamers don't have HDTV, and don't care about it" "HEY! WANT TO CONNECT YOUR GBA TO THE GAMECUBE?!" (which, aside from tiny little game discs that dind't allow enough storage for a game such as GTA, is the only innovation they even attempted to offer beyond their N64) I remember the E3 a couple years back when Miyamoto was stating how "revolutionary" the GBA connectivity was going to be. "Imagine, you're pac-man and you can't see the entire map, and your 3 friends play the ghosts on their GBA and they can see the entire map on their screens." Uh... Ok, that's what gamers are clamoring for. I used the GBA connectivity for Zelda, and I feel all it did was jarringly break up the game play and was just a pain in the ass. Who here wouldn't have rather been playing Mario Kart online or an online Metroid?!

Interacting the the DS or whatever amazing advancement their controller is supposed to have (and their controllers have been the most horrid things for the last 2 generations, so I'm skeptical) just make me feel like Nintendo isn't in touch with what I want from my gaming experience.

Again, not arguing that Nintendo doesn't have great 1st party games. But their 3rd party support is weak compared to the other two consoles (the head-scratchingly bizzare deal they struck with Capcom over the Resident Evil series is their one good 3rd party reason to own the console), and it's just a shame that I have to buy a sub-standard piece of hardware JUST to play one of their top-tier games.

 

[DaveGTP]

IMO Nintendo has had very good controllers. I consider the wavebird my favorite controller (and I own a pile of consoles, including an Xbox and PS2). The d-pad sucks, but it only really ever sees use for Fighting games these days, for which I have a few nifty joysticks and my Sega Saturn laying around to play them properly.

Not having any HD support is telling me that they are moving to the same point as the GC - no component output. Maybe you guys on small CRTs or without HD don't see the difference, but I certainly do on my projector.

If there is no 480p support I'm not springing for it, until it gets cheap (kind of like I held out until this January on the Xbox).

This argument sounds just like the guy at a local video games/sports cards store on why a good set of RF cables look just as good as composite, s-video, and component....that they are a waste of time.

I would like 720p support, honestly. My X1 is 800x600 and 4:3, and I would love to be downscaling instead of upscaling.

Nice graphics are cool and all, but de-interlacing artifacts aren't. One of my few 480i Gamecube games, Megaman Anniversary Collection, comes to mind here :frowning: And hell, I have a Faroudja scaling chip in my X1, it's no slouch at scaling.


Revolution went from a launch buy based on the old school game downloads (something I never do) to a hold. I'm almost expecting no 5.1 support, no component support. It looks to me that it's gonna be the old s-video and standard a/v cables thing all over again, with Dolby PLII. This is getting ridiculous. And if it has no 480p support, I'll have to keep an old GC around for 480p. If I wanted oldschool games over standard a/v cables I could buy the damn cartridge. Lame.

 

[Ken Chui]

Nintendo president Satoru Iwata, in an interview with EGM, confirmed the following for the Revolution:

• 480p (progressive-scan) support (but no HD support)
• DVD player is built-in (i.e. no external attachment, but a dongle will need to be purchased to activate this functionality)
• Wi-Fi compatibility out of the box (no Ethernet port, but an Ethernet adaptor for the Revolution's USB port will be made available instead)

 

[Chris Bardon]

I saw those specs the other day as well. Not having the DVD out of the box really isn't a big deal anymore..

What I find strange is that in the interview where they claim that most people won't be playing Revolution on an HDTV, they also state that they're assuming that people will have wireless. Aren't these technologies about on par with each other?

 

[Ken Chui]

I would say so. I don't buy the argument (from Iwata-san) that the Revolution's likelihood of being in the living room would make it more difficult to run an Ethernet line (I'm running Cat 5E cables from my PS2 and Xbox in the living room to my router in the bedroom); the purpose of the Ethernet adapter, IMO, is to generate revenue as an accessory (what isn't nowadays? ). I will probably make the switch to Pre-N wireless eventually (when the router and adapter(s) become more affordable, and only after the PS3 and/or Xbox 360 have been purchased).

 

[RichardK]

HD progression around the world

This a link related to Japan & Europe's propensity for HDTV. Clearly these two parts of the world would welcome an HD capable Revolution with open arms...

Ultra High Definition

Gives us an idea as to where the future of television is going and who his going to bring it to us.
Again, Nintendo as a Japanese company must be aiming for a low cost point if they do indeed plan to release a non-HD device...

or Maybe they are going to just skip to UHD?

 

[Morgan Jolley]

If the games are good, I don't mind having to settle for 480p.

And about wireless/HD progession together, I know a LOT of people with wireless broadband internet, but only a few with HDTVs. This might not be representative of everywhere, but its what I see.

 

[DaveGTP]

Wireless router : free After Rebate
Broadband: $30-$70 a month

HDTV: minimum about $500, generally about $1000

More broadband than HD, by far, I'm sure. Not that many people with HD yet.

 

[JamesED]

Seems a shame they are skipping out on the high def. I'll have a high def TV within a year of the system coming out. It would be nice to be able to really use it.