re: Nintendo's next gen console reportedly more powerful than 360/PS3

quote:

---

Will their next console finally be able to play DVDs?

---

It looks like the main optical drive may be bluray
LINK

I guess its how you describe #winning.
Either way i doubt any of them are losing money when the dust settles.

This was a necessity for Nintendo. The hardware in their systems was outgunned in 2006 and it is so far behind in 2011. They aimed for a smaller console lifespan and now they will be the first to get a next-gen in production.

quote:

---

PS1 was vastly more popular than the N64 despite being significantly less powerful (32 bit processing vs 64 bit).

The PS2 wasn't significantly less powerful than the Gamecube, but the Gamecube did have better lighting and shader effects. PS2 still did better than the Gamecube.

For the Wii Nintendo made a less powerful system, but with a hardware twist (PS1 was the first popular console to use discs) and Sony decided to make the powerful system. Sony almost ended up like Sega, but has since regained some lost footing.

---

Yeah its a stupid argument that because the system is the most powerful that it will do the best when it has literally never happened. Genesis was more powerful than the SNES, N64 was more powerful than the PS, XBox was more powerful than the PS2, and the PS3 was more powerful than Wii. This usually subsides on the second half of each generation fortunately.

quote:

---

Sony's console will have next gen graphics

---

You do realize that there is a point of diminishing returns, right?

Its already almost past the point of the problem not being what the hardware is capable of, but paying for the artistic and programming talent to utilize all of that processing power well.

The PS4 will have better graphics.....but outside of a bare handful of blockbluster games that have resources lavished on it, it won't be THAT much better than PS3 titles. Just maybe busier.

It won't be at all like the jump from PS2 to PS3

quote:

---

PS1 was vastly more popular than the N64 despite being significantly less powerful (32 bit processing vs 64 bit).

---

The reason for the difference was because the N64 was an absolute horror to program for.

Not only technically, but with the added restraint of very limited cartridge space in comparison to a CD.

Its no coincidence that many of the game developers that made the best games for the system are also ones that had a hand in developing the original hardware design...

Didn't matter that it was far more powerful, 3rd parties ran for the cheaper to develop for platform.

And that is where the momentum for PS2 came from.

The PS3's technical complexity is part of why it fell behind on its former dominance compared to the Xbox and Wii

I think Nintendo have always have good ideas, it's just that they haven't really pushed our type* of gaming forward since Ocarina of Time. Which is a shame for them because I remember a time when a Nintendo main franchise release fricking mattered. Now it just seems to be rehashes, I've played Zelda/Metroid/Mario in 3D now.

The difference now is that there are games of comparable or superior quality (maybe not to Mario 64/Galaxy but that's a dead genre) so a Nintendo release is just one pixel in a huge array of releases, as opposed to having the spotlight and years of hype. Underneath the bright colours and clean dialogue that some people call childish, they were all really playable games. Now Nintendo have lost that advantage, and realistically they can't compete with what MS and Sony are doing in terms of hardware power, which leaves them with only their flair for hardware innovation.

And let's face it, that won't be enough to get them through. The innovations are cool, but none of them really sold the product themselves - perhaps for the Wii they did. Sony and MS aren't going let Nintendo beat them to occasional/family audience next time round - I can't see Nintendo pulling another rabbit out of a hat in the next console cycle. Which again, I feel is a shame, because I grew up with Zelda and Mario games.






*I'm making an assumption that the vast majority of people on this board are aged 16-40 and are typical gamers.

I was more shocked at the name

quote:

---

What?

---

In terms of raw computational power...the N64 was vastly more powerful.

I thought that was common knowledge.

quote:

---

Playstation:
CPU: 32-bit RISC (33.9MHz)
RAM: 2MB, 1MB Video RAM
Graphics: 3D Geometry Engine, with 2D rotation, scaling, transparency and fading and 3D texture mapping and shading
Colors: 16.7 million
Sprites: 4,000
Polygons: 360,000 per second
Resolution: 640x480
Sound: 16-bit 24 channel PCM

---

N64:

quote:

---

CPU: 64-bit R4300i RISC (93.75MHz) / 64-bit data paths, registers with 5-stage pipelining
Co-processor: 64-bit RISC (62.5MHz)
RAM: 4MB (36Mb) upgradeable
Graphics: Pixel Drawing Processor (RDP) built into co-processor
Colors: 16.7 million (32,000 on screen)
Polygons: 150,000 per second
Resolution: 640x480 pixels
Sound: 16 to 24-channel 16-bit stereo (up to 100 PCM channels possible)

---

Its primary limitation was on graphical output, which was heavily limited by the media the games were on anyway.

I guess i'm not a "hardcore gamer"...i will probably buy a nintendo next gen.