re: NX to be announced before E3?

quote:

---

Just the assumption that Nintendo consoles were "really powerful," which they weren't in comparison, see this..

---

Well they were really powerful at their time of release, where is the assumption?

quote:

---

Creating a powerful console has never been their MO. It just happened that technology was easier to develop in similar power scales years ago (and they still didn't focus on "power," but on "tech," see the FX chip, the N64 Ram Expander, etc.). A soon as bigger gaps in hardware could be achieved Nintendo's mindset was way more clear. They were never a "power first" company. Again, they develop hardware to match their ideas, regardless of everything else. This doesn't mean they adapt, again the FX chip, but it comes in the need of creating a typical gaming experience, not just the idea of "more power, more pixel pushing," that most game companies focus on.

---

This is as much of a fanboy thing as I have ever read. That absolutely is what they used to do, along with everyone else. I mean they even named one of their systems 64. To show how their system was 64 bits. Double what the playstation had.
The importance of bits is another discussion but that right there is showing how they were bragging about their power.

Obviously their plans changed with the Wii.

Straight from N 64 Wikipedia.

quote:

---

The system was frequently marketed as the world's first 64-bit gaming system, often stating the console was more powerful than the first moon landing computers

---

And here are two, non-Wikipedia Analyses to highlight the power issues, which are probably more complicated than you or I could discuss:

LINK

quote:

---

The N64 was held back by the cartridge medium, which brought storage limitations and made the system challenging to develop for. Its rival had no such drawbacks and was able to play host to blockbuster titles with CD-quality sound and FMV cutscenes. One of the few disadvantages of the CD format was loading times, an area where the N64 emerged on top, with games offering the same plug and play quality traditionally associated with home consoles. Cartridges were also more robust, but this was hardly a significant selling point where developers were concerned. Graphical comparisons between the two platforms is a contentious issue. While 3D titles on the PlayStation looked pixelated and rough around the edges, skilled developers had numerous means of compensating for this. Many N64 titles ran much smoother by comparison, yet the machine struggled with textures and CGI.

---

quote:

---

Multi-platform releases often appeared more impressive on the PlayStation, yet on the occasions where the N64 was at its best, it outshone its rival. There weren't too many releases on the Sony platform that could hold a candle to Rare's Conker's Bad Fur Day or Perfect Dark.

---

LINK

quote:

---

While theoretically less powerful than both the Sega Saturn and N64, the PlayStation’s architecture was far simpler than either. It featured a single cpu as opposed to the Saturn’s dual cpu’s and a unified memory architecture, something the N64 lacked. Because of this and the dedicated video decoder and sound chip the PlayStation was relatively easy to program for and could harness full motion video and high quality audio with little system overhead. This allowed for the PlayStation to run games that matched or even exceed in graphics quality and feature set of the N64 despite it’s lower performance.

---

quote:

---

While the N64 had some impressive specifications compared to the PlayStation and Saturn on paper, the reality was much different. The RCP, while a very advanced design for 1996, had a serious crutch in that it only had 4Kb of texture memory (compared to the PlayStation which had 1Mb of dedicated video memory, a variable amount could be dedicated to textures). This meant that developers had to make serious concessions in texture design. Two common solutions were to either tile small textures across a surface or resort to Gouraud shading of polygons instead of proper textures. Many games (Mario 64 being an example) used Gouraud shading heavily to make up for a lack of texturing. This contributed to the cartoony look of many N64 titles as opposed to a more realistic look of competing PlayStation games. Gouraud shading is a shading technique used in 3D games that allows light to be properly rendered on models. It is not the same as texturing, it is a shader, however in the case of the N64 solid color textures with heavy Gouraud shading are used to create the illusion of detail when textures cannot be used.

---

quote:

---

The issues were not limited to the texture cache. The RCP also lacked DMA which means that in order to access system memory it had to go through the cpu in order to do so. RDRAM was at the time some of the fastest memory available but it also suffered from heavy latency, by forcing the RCP to go through the CPU for memory access the CPU had to quickly switch back and forth from RCP requests to it’s own memory needs which exacerbated the heavy latency and defeating the benefit of such high bandwidth. The RCP was also featured reprogrammable microcode, a nice feature on paper but the stock Nintendo-supplied microcode, known as Fast3D, was intended more for high precision 3D modeling and not raw performance. Estimations show that using the supplied microcode and conventional programming models, the RCP was only capable of 100,000 polygons per second. That is 1/10th the theoretical power that Nintendo promised. Nintendo did not supply developer tools for modifying the RCP’s microcode until later in the N64’s life which meant many titles were poorly optimized for the hardware and didn’t take full advantage of it.

---

quote:

---

Nothing that you said changes what I have been saying. That they used to release powerful systems. I could link countless articles that state why the power of the 64 was better than the playstation but I am done with this argument.

---

And it doesn't change what I've been saying either. We're both right and wrong on this one on different points.

quote:

---

Mystery

---

Ah, so are you done with the conversation, or do you want to accuse me of things that aren't true and then get frustrated that we're continuing the conversation when you said you were done?

There's plenty enough evidence to refute all of these points, but if you're already annoyed there's no need for the added stress. Just accept we disagree and don't throw out incorrect labels. That's petty and it doesn't solve anything

This whole shite argument is pointless. From someone who worked on the Wii U LINK

What Mystery is trying to say, and you are failing to grasp somehow, is that Nintendo used to be able to match power/graphics/games/controllers/the whole console with other competition out there. They used to be fairly comparable, maybe not winning on all those fronts, but they were either at the top or near it.

Once the Wii generation started all of that fell through the ground with Sony and Microsoft curb stomping Nintendo. That is undeniable.

-Graphically the Wii rarely looked as good as the original xbox games.
-Multiplatform titles couldn't put out games on the Wii because of performance issues.
-No HDMI (seriously?)
-Catered way too much on the casual gamer.
-So much shovel ware.
-The online capabilities were terrible.
-Motion detection was extremely unreliable
-The controllers were not suitable to playing more complex games.


Then the Wii U came out.
-Motion detection is still weak
-Game library is non existent outside of maybe 7-10 titles.
-Still shovel ware
-Still for casual gamers
-Adding in a peripheral that no one asked for or really wanted, and then making it a requirement for some games.
-Everything is for multiple players. There are barely any single player only games.
-Brutally slow OS
-Touch screen is spotty and unresponsive
-Battery life
-Online is still shotty
-Nothing is ever really on sale in the EShop

I think Nintendo still has it in them. I hope they do. I love my 3DS and I love the games on it. But they aren't infallible. The WiiU is what everyone thought it would be. A suped up Wii.

The only thing keeping Nintendo afloat the past few years have been their big hitters in Zelda, Mario, Smash, and Pokemon staying exclusive to the system. Zelda and Mario still haven't had a big release in years(Skyward Sword and Galaxy 2). Remasters don't count.

quote:

---

Well I typed something up then saw what you posted so I felt like a dick after. Plus I have work and can't argue all day. But I didn't mean fanboy in such a mean way as some take it. I will admit I was a huge fanboy with Nintendo up until the PS2. So over 3 generations. Anyways I will post what I posted again sense you already saw it.

---

Cool.

And I admit I'm kind of scarred with N64. When those 3rd Parties started leaving and I saw, owned, played FFVII on the PS, it was at that point that I realized Nintendo would never be the most powerful console again. I've owned every Nintendo console since then (and always a 2nd console in each gen), but never with the idea that I'd get a powerful console that do everything people and 3rd parties wanted.

quote:

---

I just think the premise of them always being about their ideas and making their system around that is silly. Nintendo is not some artistic studio compared to Sony or Microsoft. They have some very very very good first party games that they have milked, and did bring some innovation into the world like motion controls and that gamepad. But that is not why they have fallen off on power.

---

I wouldn't say artistic, but their focus is different.

It sounds silly, but why since the N64, have the best games on Nintendo systems always been first party games? Why did Nintendo not care about FMV and CD drives? Because they wanted to make smooth 3D games like Mario and OoT. Why did they choose a cartridge? Because their cheap and Mario 64 didn't need a CD drive. The N64 controller was built specifically for Mario 64 and OoT as well, 3rd parties be damned. Since the 64, they've never cared about 3rd party input or needs, and there's evidence from those above quotes that support that. (Think about it, people have often hated Nintendo controllers the 64, Gamecube, Wii, WiiU, but if you play the games they were made for, you realize why they are necessary.)

3rd Parties hate Nintendo often, mostly because they are ridiculously stubborn in how they develop Hardware only they can build for, this has been common since the N64.

Think about the Gamecube controller. Spots Game Companies Hated it. Fighting Games Companies Hated it. So they pretty much abandoned the Gamecube for those types of games. Nintendo didn't care.

My biggest point was this:

quote:

---

It just happened that technology was easier to develop in similar power scales years ago

---

Nintendo has always been cheap. Always been focused on building certain kinds of game experiences. These two things have driven development, it was just easier to keep with the Joneses in the 80s and 90s. So yes, I admit they chased power in a sense - because they could, it wasn't expensive, but as soon as it became difficult, they quit. That started with the N64 when they didn't want to pay the CD-ROM fees. However....

quote:

---

They fell off on power because they were losing and they changed their market. And it worked, with the Wii. Not so much with the U but that is for a lot of reasons.

For 4 generations they were at the top or near the top in power. But the PS2 killed them in sells, the Gamecube was a more powerful system but it could not compete. Then Microsoft enters the picture.

---

I don't think you can consider them really "chasing power" when you are constantly undercutting capabilities by using inadequate storage mediums, limiting RAM, etc. This was a huge problem for both the N64 and Gamecube So this:

quote:

---

Taken in TOTAL, Nintendo systems are usually less capable overall

---

Has been true since the N64 IMO. Did it have computing power, certainly, but was it a console in Total as capable as the PS? Not really.

quote:

---

So instead of competing with those deep pockets again they changed things. And why not because they had "lost" with power twice in a row.

---

True, but that wasn't only a power issue, it was a development tool issue. This started with the N64/Gamecube and went on to the Wii. Developers started to see that Nintendo built stuff that Nintendo knew and never made it easy on 3rd Parties. They couldn't get the same out of the system (see above, Nintendo designs for itself). While a powerful console, 3rd parties could not get to the full output of the hardware. They had to spend more development hours for the same output as the PS2. I think efficiency is a part of power-which is why it seems we define that differently.

quote:

---

The price point was a huge thing with the power on the Wii.

---

Oh yeah, definitely. Again, I think they were always focused on keeping consoles as affordable as possible, while still making a good chunk of money, it just accelerated the gap when technology advances become more pronounced.

If Nintendo is going to stay underpowered, the console has to be very cheap. The wii u was too expensive for what it was.

At this point I have no belief that Nintendo will ever get 3rd party support back. They don't seem willing to do what I needed for that. They will continue having good first party games but at this rate no one will have their console to play them.

quote:

---

At this point I have no belief that Nintendo will ever get 3rd party support back. They don't seem willing to do what I needed for that. They will continue having good first party games but at this rate no one will have their console to play them.

---

Probably not, but people will carry hope.

And although it's frustrating, I'd still like Nintendo to stay Nintendo. Otherwise, you're asking people to sacrifice Smash and Kart and whatever Mario game is next....to play the same games that you can play on PCs and other consoles. I think that's ludicrous.

The big problem is that even if Nintendo goes out and makes a comparable console to the Xbox One and PS4, they will still fail and that will not and cannot save them. Those types of gamers will never buy a Nintendo console even if it can play Grand Theft Auto 6. They've passed that point IMO, so they have to find some other way to be unique.

And I think, if they went that far, it would be the beginning of the end.

The only thing that would change my mind is that if we polled current X1 and PS4 users (even on this site) and said...

"Would you buy a comparably powered Nintendo console instead of your MS or Sony equivalent next generation?"

And the answers were 80% Yes.

But, my guess is overwhelmingly "No." Somewhere in the 90% range.


On the flip side, if you polled them,

"Would you purchase Mario games on your MS or Sony console if Nintendo were to develop 3rd Party games?"

The answers would be in the 90% Yes range.

And there is an extremely important measure to draw between those questions and answers.

That's why I see them going 3rd party long term.