With Revolution, what has changed to keep the machine from failing like GC?

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Now that the system specs are out and Waco has rightly flogged them, I am wondering what Nintendo is thinking?

We all know they have a new controller, but would a different controller had of saved GC? I think that helps, but Nintendo needs more help than that. To me they haven't addressed the problems which led to the failure of the GC and I don't see much that will prevent the Revolution from flopping, in fact I see a lot that probably ensure the Revolution does worse than GC.

First, let's remember since the SNES every Nintendo console has performed weaker than what it was replacing. N64 did worse than SNES, and GC did worse than N64, now we have the Revolution, but has something Revolutionary occurred to prevent it from doing worse than GC? If so what. I guess it is a Revolutionary step to say "okay, we won't offer current generation technology." That ain't a revolution that's stupid.

With these specs the system can't be more than $199, anything more and on a price to performance comparison the Revolution could be the most expensive system out there. Is it even more powerful than the PSP?

But back to addressing the problems which led to the early death of the GC. Nintendo has demonstrated they can make good games, they just can't make them fast enough. It says a lot that you had to wait what 2 years for MP:Hunters on the DS, and you had to wait and are still waiting on the next Zelda game, it was already delayed, then delayed another year!? Yet Nintendo is continuing with the same architecture, instead of somehow developing better architecture. Do they have better middleware and developer tools? There must be something wrong these delays have to be more than just delays for creativity. So yeah Nintendo can make great games, but can they make them fast enough or enough of them?

The next major problem is selling 3rd part software. What has Nintendo done to lure more 3rd party support? Nothing. They have taken a closed minded approach and not consulted the gaming industry, they are operating based on what they need and not developers. Sure a lot of 3rd parties have flowered nice compliments, but where are the games? You thought PS3 was quiet about games, you hardly hear jack about Revvy games and the system is supposed to be launching at the same time with the PS3(boy lucky for them Sony will experience shortages!). Also the GC did have some great 3rd party games, Viewtiful Joe and Resident Evil 5, but they did not perform as well as the developer would have liked and got shipped off to PS2. Now 360 has picked up Capcom support and it appears Revvy has lost it. 360 is getting Resident Evil as well as a new IP.

Finally you can talk all day about creativity and innovation but this hardware puts a cap on creativity and innovation. I don't think Kameo could be done on this system the way it was on 360 yet alone anything better. When 360 was released developers said they had the technology to do whatever kind of game they can think of, and they praised the move to High Def gaming. Nintendo has negated all of this.

I know a lot of you are going to claim innovation, well wasn't the GC innovative, did that save the console? A lot of you will talk about the controller, but what difference will that make without games? For those of you who think the controller makes the game, wrong! You need both, but a controller can't make a bad game great. Then people will praise the retro-games, that is fluff and filler, beside now PS3 and LIVE can do that online, in fact MS is already. That's a nice feature, but these console will live or die with the NEW games.

I think of course Revolution will have a handful a great games over its lifespan, but the system will sputter out after about a year. This system will underperform and as the PS3 and 360 create better more beautiful games Revy will be forgotten people will get their Nintendo fix from the DS. The Revolution has shown me no reason why it will be better than the GC, so I think it will do worse and continue the trend for Nintendo consoles.

[trebor]

The next major problem is selling 3rd part software. What has Nintendo done to lure more 3rd party support? Nothing.

Well, they created a platform that developers will be able to develop for far more easily and far more cheaply then the competition. Any developer who made games for the GC should be able to jump right in with a small learning curve, as opposed to the more complicated 360 and PS3.

But anyways, Nintendo has already lured 3rd party support - there are more 3rd parties on board for the Rev then there ever were for the GC.

The single thing you might have a point on is not whether they can lure 3rd parties in, but the selling of 3rd party software - which traditionally doesn't sell well on Nintendo console systems.

[Gadfly2317]

Is it even more powerful than the PSP?
No. The Revolution and GC are both less powerful than the PsP. Sheesh. And you wonder why it's hard to take you seriously?

Nintendo has demonstrated they can make good games, they just can't make them fast enough. It says a lot that you had to wait what 2 years for MP:Hunters on the DS, Hunters was delayed to add an online mode, no big deal. 2 years? The DS hasn't even been out but like a year and a few months. Earth to TMG. Nintendo's development cycles aren't any longer than anyone elses.

You wrote all this inane babble with a sole valid point, one so well known that I'm not sure why you bothered. . . yes, Nintendo has lacked sufficient third party support.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Well, they created a platform that developers will be able to develop for far more easily and far more cheaply then the competition. Any developer who made games for the GC should be able to jump right in with a small learning curve, as opposed to the more complicated 360 and PS3.

But anyways, Nintendo has already lured 3rd party support - there are more 3rd parties on board for the Rev then there ever were for the GC.

The single thing you might have a point on is not whether they can lure 3rd parties in, but the selling of 3rd party software - which traditionally doesn't sell well on Nintendo console systems.

Yes and I think it will be particularly hard this time around for 3rd party support to stay and also for the software to sell. Its going to be hard for 3rd party software to sell because the people who buy Revolution mainly wait for the Nintendo franchises, so the 3rd party support that is there doesn't remain because it almost like Nintendo consumers discriminate against not support 3rd party stuff. My question is what is Nintendo doing to reverse this thinking with consumers, they really can't position their games so that they shine brighter or compete with the 3rd parties. Also are they going to help advertise and promote these 3rd parties? These companies are already going out on a limb because any game is going to be unique to Revy and not on the 360 and PS3. Now that could be a plus, an exclusive game, but it could be a minus because the company could lose big-time and not come back even if they wanted to.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

<b>
You wrote all this inane babble with a sole valid point, one so well known that I'm not sure why you bothered. . . yes, Nintendo has lacked sufficient third party support.</b>

Yes of course this is nothing new, but now that the final specs are out it is even more valid because we can say these things with more certainty.

And if you think that lack of third party support is the only problem Nintendo has, you are still on that river called De Nile. Delayed games are a bigger problem on Nintendo or at least GC precisely because it doesn't get a lot of good games or a lot 3rd party games. Playstation or XBOX can get a delay but another game is there or coming. Plus I think the only delays that we have seen that have been as long as Zelda is the delay for StarCraft Ghost. Zelda was supposed to release before XMAS, then they bumped it to XMAS, and now they bumped it to XMAS '06?

Nintendo has more problems this generation with the Revolution and here they are:

1) lack of 3rd party support for the long-term(same as GC)
2) Delays(we don't know if this is a Revy problem, but Nintendo must prove otherwise)
3) Substantially less power(this is a problem the GC did NOT have)
4) Lack of High Def support(again a new problem that was not applicable to GC, but both Revy's competitors offer it, and Revy doesn't)
5) Bad Timing(GC launched with XBOX after PS2 not bad strategic timing, now Revy is launching with the PS3 and later than 360 and is less powerful than both)

I know that you are a Nintendo loyalist. But look at it this way, if this were any other product in any other market there is simply no way the product would survive. Let's say PS3 represented HiDef Plasma TVs, and 360 Represented HiDef LCD TVs, now Nintendo steps up and are offering old fashion CRT 480i Zenith TVs and promising you can play all of your old VHS movies and claiming it is Revolutionary! The product would get laughed outta the market. The difference here is Nintendo has one hope and that is the actual games, but they need more than one or two every now and then. They need enough to offer a broad line-up of games across multiple genres, I just dont see it.

[trebor]

My question is what is Nintendo doing to reverse this thinking with consumers, they really can't position their games so that they shine brighter or compete with the 3rd parties.

It's not up to Nintendo to reverse this thinking with consumers - it's up to the 3rd parties themselves.

If they will be lazy and try to shoehorn ports into the Rev with some gimmicky support of the Rev controller, then the 3rd parties will fail. If they create compelling content then they will succeed that's all there is to it.

[Gadfly2317]

<b>
Plus I think the only delays that we have seen that have been as long as Zelda is the delay for StarCraft Ghost. Zelda was supposed to release before XMAS, then they bumped it to XMAS, and now they bumped it to XMAS '06? b> Wouldn't those honors have to go to Duke Nuke Em, or Too Human which first started development on the Ps1? Anyway, how on earth can you say the Zelda game is "most delayed." Windwaker was a 2003 title, and Twilight Princess wasn't even announced until E3 '04 with an initial estimated date of Nov '05. It slipped a year, about the same as Halo 2. Epic masterpieces deserve whatever time it takes to get them right.



Nintendo has more problems this generation with the Revolution and here they are:

1) lack of 3rd party support for the long-term(same as GC)
2) Delays(we don't know if this is a Revy problem, but Nintendo must prove otherwise)
3) Substantially less power(this is a problem the GC did NOT have)
4) Lack of High Def support(again a new problem that was not applicable to GC, but both Revy's competitors offer it, and Revy doesn't)
5) Bad Timing(GC launched with XBOX after PS2 not bad strategic timing, now Revy is launching with the PS3 and later than 360 and is less powerful than both) Some of these are problems, certainly with public perception, especially in western countries. But the tech-spec thing is just so out of hand. Maybe the Rev will fail miserably. Everyone predicted total annihilation of the DS at the hands of PsP though. What has saved it is the thing is just so damned fun and original. That's really all I'm hoping for from the Rev. A big blast of fresh air. I already know I'm going to need a Ps3 or 360 for the mind numbing graphical spectacles. . . but as I've gotten older those graphic orgies have gotten a lot less exciting.

I know that you are a Nintendo loyalist. But I'm really not. You've only known me as one here on these message boards, but nearing the end of the SNES era with Nintendo's cencorship, crappy attitude, and then stupid decision to stay with cartridges when Sony went with CD, I totally abandoned the company. They've won me back, and doubley so with the DS. If the Rev leaves me feeling bored and only offers lame gimmicky experiences, I'll dump the thing.


But look at it this way, if this were any other product in any other market there is simply no way the product would survive. Let's say PS3 represented HiDef Plasma TVs, and 360 Represented HiDef LCD TVs, now Nintendo steps up and are offering old fashion CRT 480i Zenith TVs and promising you can play all of your old VHS movies and claiming it is Revolutionary! The product would get laughed outta the market. The difference here is Nintendo has one hope and that is the actual games, but they need more than one or two every now and then. They need enough to offer a broad line-up of games across multiple genres, I just dont see it.
Your analogy doesn't really hold though, because it is a one dimensional aspect of TV technology you are analogizing. I am probably more bummed than any Nintendo fan here that they aren't supporting hi-def since I just bought a nice hi-def widescreen set last year, but what the Revolution is setting out to do is different enough that it is the experience that interests me more than the tech specs.

Unless Nintendo just really blows it and the thing sucks, I expect the Rev to do phenomenally well in Japan and to keep it's head above water in the western regions.

[Wan-Fu]

Wouldn't those honors have to go to Duke Nuke Em, or Too Human which first started development on the Ps1? Anyway, how on earth can you say the Zelda game is "most delayed." Windwaker was a 2003 title, and Twilight Princess wasn't even announced until E3 '04 with an initial estimated date of Nov '05. It slipped a year, about the same as Halo 2. Epic masterpieces deserve whatever time it takes to get them right.



Some of these are problems, certainly with public perception, especially in western countries. But the tech-spec thing is just so out of hand. Maybe the Rev will fail miserably. Everyone predicted total annihilation of the DS at the hands of PsP though. What has saved it is the thing is just so damned fun and original. That's really all I'm hoping for from the Rev. A big blast of fresh air. I already know I'm going to need a Ps3 or 360 for the mind numbing graphical spectacles. . . but as I've gotten older those graphic orgies have gotten a lot less exciting.

But I'm really not. You've only known me as one here on these message boards, but nearing the end of the SNES era with Nintendo's cencorship, crappy attitude, and then stupid decision to stay with cartridges when Sony went with CD, I totally abandoned the company. They've won me back, and doubley so with the DS. If the Rev leaves me feeling bored and only offers lame gimmicky experiences, I'll dump the thing.



Your analogy doesn't really hold though, because it is a one dimensional aspect of TV technology you are analogizing. I am probably more bummed than any Nintendo fan here that they aren't supporting hi-def since I just bought a nice hi-def widescreen set last year, but what the Revolution is setting out to do is different enough that it is the experience that interests me more than the tech specs.

Unless Nintendo just really blows it and the thing sucks, I expect the Rev to do phenomenally well in Japan and to keep it's head above water in the western regions.


Gad, do you think the revmote will mean ds's quirky library (especially the non-games) could make it to the console world? Could brain training, trauma center, Phoenix wright, etc work on a full size tv?

[Gadfly2317]

Gad, do you think the revmote will mean ds's quirky library (especially the non-games) could make it to the console world? Could brain training, trauma center, Phoenix wright, etc work on a full size tv?

I don't know. I don't really want to see Trauma Center on my TV. The similarities between the DS and the Wand are there, but the DS is tactile. "Touching is Good." That's why a surgery game works on the DS, but seems like it would feel really weird and detached on the Revolution.

Nintendo does seem to understand the difference between handheld and console entertainment, and on the Rev, the Wand could best be applied to refreshing the experience of their standard fare, like Smash Brothers and Metroid Prime, FPS in general, flight games like Panzer Dragoon and Pilot Wings, sword combat, and for creating types of games none of us have thought of.

[mandark]

I know that you are a Nintendo loyalist. But look at it this way, if this were any other product in any other market there is simply no way the product would survive. Let's say PS3 represented HiDef Plasma TVs, and 360 Represented HiDef LCD TVs, now Nintendo steps up and are offering old fashion CRT 480i Zenith TVs and promising you can play all of your old VHS movies and claiming it is Revolutionary! The product would get laughed outta the market.
A better analogy would be Nintendo offering the same CRT 480i Zenith TVs but it comes with a peripheral that makes the viewer feel like they are actually part of a movie. A peripheral that will allow viewers to experience a type of immersion that HD alone cannot offer. And on top of all this you can still play all your old VHS and DVD movies!