they have very great chances imo, they are offering an experience that no one else can offer. personally if it wasn't for halo i would think the xbox to be rather doomed, its graphics aren't as promising as the other two =/ and really has little to offer besides halo and a couple other titles.
Joined: Sun 08-24-2003 8:41AM Posts: 286 Location: Off campus
Source: Off Campus
The only people that will buy the Revolution will be in the same niche market that bought the Gamecube, N64, etc.
Those controllers are nothing new, things like that have been around for years. The reason you hardly ever see them is because they didn't work too well. Although it might work well for Nintendo, as most of their games are simplistic enough for people not to notice.
_________________ Two pieces of yeast were discussing the possible purposes of life as they ate sugar and suffocated in their own excrement. Because of their limited intelligence, they never came close to guessing that they were making champagne.
Joined: Sun 08-15-2004 9:36PM Posts: 4957 Location: ~~~~\o/~~~~~
Source: TJ South
D-ra wrote:
they have very great chances imo, they are offering an experience that no one else can offer. personally if it wasn't for halo i would think the xbox to be rather doomed, its graphics aren't as promising as the other two =/ and really has little to offer besides halo and a couple other titles.
the revolution will be the weakest by far unless they went back to the drawing board again.
as projected at E3 ps3 will be 25x faster than ps2, xbox somewhere around 10x faster than xbox, and revolution was just somewhere like 2-5x faster. so really the revolution or at least the prototype of revolution would have had the graphic power of the first xbox. granted they dont exactly push for realistic gameplay but it definately seperates the market
I think the only thing the Revolution has going for it is backwards compatibility with all of the other Nintendo games. That's about it. It's powerless compared with the PS3 and 360, the controller looks retarded, and Nintendo will probably still have all the lame kiddie games. (with the exception of a few good ones))
I'm planning on getting a Revolution. I have wanted a system for a while that I can sit down with my non-gamer friends and play. For the hardcore games I will just upgrade my computer.
I think the Revolution has a good chance of being the most popular console this time around, unlike the last generation. It will probably all depend on how well the controller works with the games, and how much 3rd party developers are willing to try it out.
I think it will do great. Nintendo's got a different input than the other two, and it should allow different types of games to be played than the other two systems. Of course, someone has to make those games... but I suspect the folks that make games, like the last generation, will still want to make money, and will thus probably at least try to make a few games - especially if Nintendo comes up with a great game that really sells consoles.
Besides, "winning" doesn't really apply anymore, as people are more than willing to buy multiple consoles. And if you're going own multiple consoles, might as well have them do significantly different things.
"USA Today reported this news based on a comment from Nintendo of America's vice president of corporate affairs, Perrin Kaplan. The information was later determined to be false. We do not yet know how much more power Revolution wields over its predecessor."
IGN.COM
I doubt the revolution will go toe to toe with the PS3 in terms of power, I do suspect they will be around xbox 360, give or take, probaly take.
Nintendo is stressing that their approach is focused on quality, Awesome software that should keep production costs down, giving smaller less known studios the chance to produce games. Tom Fulp from newgrounds has expressed a lot of interest in getting his team a revolution dev kit.
From the sounds of things nintendo games are going to stay 50 bucks-ish, and offer the quality games we are used to from them. xbox 360 and ps3 have been leaning towards 70-80 per game. As many people have noticed with the psp's prices of 30-50 a game. Which is why the nintendo DS is still dominating the market.
Nintendo has also been quoted to saying they refuse to release their specs until the machine and chips have been fully tested under a full game load, they want people to know what the machines will be doing in a practical manner with real games, and not what devlopers could be doing, but most likely won't to keep projects semi cost effective.
I think it will do great. Nintendo's got a different input than the other two, and it should allow different types of games to be played than the other two systems. Of course, someone has to make those games... but I suspect the folks that make games, like the last generation, will still want to make money, and will thus probably at least try to make a few games - especially if Nintendo comes up with a great game that really sells consoles.
Besides, "winning" doesn't really apply anymore, as people are more than willing to buy multiple consoles. And if you're going own multiple consoles, might as well have them do significantly different things.
Yeah, Nintendo is advertising cheaper prices, if you're going to pick two systems, and ps3 and xbox are going to have a lot of the same ports, i could really see nintendo picking up additional sales.
devil wrote:
the controller looks retarded, and Nintendo will probably still have all the lame kiddie games
Why do people associate nintendo with kiddie games? they have lots of games that aren't violent/offending to widen the game demographics, but they still have high quality titles, ie mario and link. Also should mention resident evil is for nintendo, quite graphic. There really isn't a "kiddie console" around.
Lava Tea wrote:
The only people that will buy the Revolution will be in the same niche market that bought the Gamecube, N64, etc. Those controllers are nothing new, things like that have been around for years. The reason you hardly ever see them is because they didn't work too well. Although it might work well for Nintendo, as most of their games are simplistic enough for people not to notice.
be more biased nintendo's games simplistic? metriod.. zelda.. simplestic? fire emblem, advance wars, etc. I do really see them as being anymore simplestic than any other game, and Nintendo gets most of the good ports, save for the really offensive ones like GTA.
as for the controler.. you know the control pad was an innovation that nintendo did. and look how that went. the 64 and the cube weren't innovations, they were just minor evolutions from the orginal pads, and how are their controlers perfect for simple games? they are as complex as all the other controlers. I played ps2 for the first time in a couple years last month, my hands were so sore I was so used to the comfort of the gamecube controler. the xbox i can put up with.
this new controler presents new very interesting possabilities for devs. it isn't something that other controlers in the past offerend, this thing has a gyro that relays just what tilt its at, where its pointing, its heading its pitch. its a real peice of work.
If anyone is going to pull off an innovation like this it will be nintedo, I'll wait to see what people think before I buy any of the consoles, but right now nintendo has me the most excited, and is about the only console that i may get off my computer for a little while to play.
xbox 360 and ps3 have been leaning towards 70-80 per game.
This isn't true at all. EA has made some brash claims about moving into the sixty dollar range, but publishers aren't stupid. The market will not support this for any real period of time.
Joined: Sun 09-19-2004 4:41PM Posts: 755 Location: The Buffalo Barn
Source: TJ South
yeah, people also said that as soon as gas hit 2 bucks a gallon, people would stop buying big cars, and everybody would be trading in for hybrids or hydrogen. it wasnt until gas hit 3 bucks that this started to happen. I wont be surprised if games can cost 60-70 bucks.
we've been lucky to pay the prices we are now for current gen, games can't be made by very small teams anymore. there have been tests by publishers with limited edition game packs costing 70-80 dollars with some extra loot in them to see if people would be willing to pay, in many cases those limited numbers ran out rather quickly. the industry wanted to know if people would pay more to get more. we voted. =/ like i said, why do you think the psp game prices are so high compared to the ds? its not because of the discs they use, there's a 20 dollar range based on the quality of the game mostly, the very crappy games as far as graphics go are normally on the low end.
Joined: Thu 04-10-2003 9:25AM Posts: 265 Location: the real world
Source: Fidelity
the new nintendo better have EA sports and ESPN sports if it wants me to buy it. It pissed me off when i found out ESPN was making new sports games for 19.99 and not on the cube.
This year EA didn't release college football on the cube(bastards) and have never put the college basketball on the cube.
and $80 games is fucking stupid. if ESPN can put out games for $20 and big mother truckers is $20 new then games should not be $80. I wont pay that much
if they want to compete they need better sports games and GTA style games with all of the mario/zelda games they make.
There's a list of game companies that have expressed interest in devolping titles to make use of the new controler. ea is one of them, don't know if that is sports or what. But if they didn't take advantage of the controller for baseball, golf, etc, I would have to question their inteligence.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum