Author
|
Topic: Paul Reiche III is linked to the Nintendo Revolution (Read 21537 times)
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1387
|
Now, though the Xbox is inarguably the most powerful console of its generation, I doubt it's twice as powerful as the Game Cube
I seem to remember it having about twice (perhaps 400mhz vs 768mhz) the processor as the Game Cube, so you may have doubted wrong. Assuming this is true, the Wii would probably be somewhere in the 80-150% power range, compared to the original Xbox (based on rumors of how powerful the Wii is compared to the GC.)
So, uh, how about that Paul Reich III rumor, hmm?
If you have any new info on the subject, please share. Otherwise, I think we'll just have to wait many months or until the next E3 for an update on this (assuming TFB started work on a SC game, they'd have to keep it under wraps for a while.)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 18, 2006, 04:02:38 pm by Deus_Siddis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
Interesting. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Froborr
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 7
|
Guess what? Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony all exist, and all three are making good profits. It is possible for more than one company to make similar products: look at computer printers, or breakfast cereals, or any of a thousand other products that have three, five, or a thousand companies all making variations on the same thing.
For the previous generation, the XBox was hands-down the best console for online play, which I don't do. The PS2 was the best for RPGs, of which I'm getting bored. And the GameCube was the best for quirkiness and retro stuff, which I found most appealing. But if you like RPGs, the PS2 was far away your best bet (that or the GBA, which is the most bizarre thing in the history of gaming). And if you like FPS, sports games, or online play, the XBox would be the way to go. And if you like more than one? Just buy more than one console!
P.S.: I am simply APPALLED that a discussion of the merits of the various consoles has gotten this far without mention of Eternal Darkness, Pikmin, or Ico. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Clay
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 169
What can we do for you...today?
|
Ico is my religion.
Is that enough mention? :3
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony all exist, and all three are making good profits.
Really? I recall Microsoft bleeding out cash like crazy to keep themselves afloat since they started. The Xbox sure doesn't sell too well outside of the US. Of course they can afford this, they're Microsoft. I just don't see how they'll ever be able to profit more than they spend if they can't strong-arm Sony out of business.
For the previous generation, the XBox was hands-down the best console for online play, which I don't do. The PS2 was the best for RPGs, of which I'm getting bored. And the GameCube was the best for quirkiness and retro stuff, which I found most appealing. But if you like RPGs, the PS2 was far away your best bet (that or the GBA, which is the most bizarre thing in the history of gaming). And if you like FPS, sports games, or online play, the XBox would be the way to go. And if you like more than one? Just buy more than one console!
PCs have always been the only real way to multiplay anything. That's right, Goldeneye and Mario Kart are fundamentally flawed because you can see your opponent's screens. "Online play" and "consoles" do not belong in the same sentence. The Xbox would be a worthless console except for two things: 1) The best specs of all three systems making it the best choice for anything multi-platform, 2) Ninja Gaiden. The only fullscale RPG for the PS2 I remember playing was Final Fantasy X. Otherwise it was all about Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Prince of Persia or Grand Theft Auto. None of which are RPGs in the proper sense.
P.S.: I am simply APPALLED that a discussion of the merits of the various consoles has gotten this far without mention of Eternal Darkness, Pikmin, or Ico.
While fun, all three of those were way, WAY too short for me to bring into a serious discussion.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 04:08:20 am by Shiver »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Froborr
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 7
|
PCs have always been the only real way to multiplay anything. That's right, Goldeneye and Mario Kart are fundamentally flawed because you can see your opponent's screens. "Online play" and "consoles" do not belong in the same sentence. The Xbox would be a worthless console except for two things: 1) The best specs of all three systems making it the best choice for anything multi-platform, 2) Ninja Gaiden. The only fullscale RPG for the PS2 I remember playing was Final Fantasy X. Otherwise it was all about Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Prince of Persia or Grand Theft Auto. None of which are RPGs in the proper sense. P.S.: I am simply APPALLED that a discussion of the merits of the various consoles has gotten this far without mention of Eternal Darkness, Pikmin, or Ico. While fun, all three of those were way, WAY too short for me to bring into a serious discussion.
I don't see how the ability to see one's opponent's screen is a "fundamental flaw". That's simply part of that kind of game. Just because two things are different doesn't mean that one has to necessarily be better than another; personally, I find games where you can see the other person's screen more fun, because you can see and hear his reactions to what you're doing, which adds a certain malicious thrill. But that's my personal preference; it doesn't mean that one way is better than another.
It's the same thing about length. Ico packed more fun into its hour and a half, in my opinion, than the last four Final Fantasy games had in their collective 150 hours. So, in my opinion, it was a better buy than all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
Really? I recall Microsoft bleeding out cash like crazy to keep themselves afloat since they started.
Yea, and now Sony has joined in. They both hope to make their losses back on game sales. Neither can afford to back down from this strategy at this point. Another interesting thing is Sony had originally tryed for more power, peripherals and size than the X360, which is what the Xbox did to its PS2. Now they've down sized it a bit to make it affordable, but it seems to indicate that at least in some markets, this power-over-spacesaving strategy is becoming more effective. So while it might not have any noticeable power advantage, the PS3 will have more cutting edge equipment, like blue ray and higher dpi support. The question is whether or not this will create too much unnecessary expense, in a system that would have been very pricy even at $400, like the 360. It's an arms race.
PCs have always been the only real way to multiplay anything. That's right, Goldeneye and Mario Kart are fundamentally flawed because you can see your opponent's screens.
I don't think that is a "problem" but just the way they are played. In poker your opponents' moves are hidden from you (until the end) whereas in soccer (football) the whole field is openly visible. The problem was that screens divided in four didn't offer much resolution to anybody, but that will be fixed now with HDTVs, for those who have stacks of gold coins in their basements.  (Someday they should be relatively cheap, though.)
The Xbox would be a worthless console except for two things: 1) The best specs of all three systems making it the best choice for anything multi-platform, 2) Ninja Gaiden.
If you don't like split-screen and you don't like the penny-pc original Xbox strategy, then I don't see why you don't consider all the consoles worthless. PS2 was an Xbox with half the controller ports, less than half the power (a third? a quarter?) but twice the PC game converts. GC had lots of cutsy cartoon animals and characters beating each other senseless (with the fall of sega, they now own this market.) I don't see a serious gameplay advantage in any of these systems. It seems like it is more a match between Power Vs Game Library Vs Nostalgia.
But if you can afford a capable PC, you'll find at lot more choices, with more in-depth if less intuitive gameplay. So I can see how one would consider it above the consoles in many ways. But the differences between PCs and Consoles is are still too many to really treat them as anything other than separate animals.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Clay
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 169
What can we do for you...today?
|
Just as a quick history footnote, almost every, if not every, console ever released has been sold for a loss. It's the nature of the market. PS3 may be taking more of a loss than usual, I haven't read the statistics, but it certainly is not a new strategy.
As for PC games...I'll agree there. There are a handful of crossover genres (FPS cough), but the kind of games you play on the PC are usually radically different from the console games you can play.
I personally got bored with PC games shortly after Halflife...mainly because FPSes and RTSes dominated the market. The former I don't care for...the latter I'm just terrible at.
Now I just play MMORPGs on occassion...mostly consoles and UQM though. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
Just as a quick history footnote, almost every, if not every, console ever released has been sold for a loss. It's the nature of the market. PS3 may be taking more of a loss than usual, I haven't read the statistics, but it certainly is not a new strategy.
I didn't know that, but it does seem that a lot is being spent now. The last round was very interesting- Microsoft's entry into the market, the Sony powerhouse getting outmaneuvered on price and power in the end, Nintendo beginning its trek to develope a new market aside from Xbox/PS2 battleground, and Sega biting the dust. I consider that generation the setting of the stage. Now the first great battle is about to take place. I think it will result in one of the console makers getting kicked out in the next generation (from X360, PS3, and Wii) or the one after. That is to say no PS4 or no PS5, for example.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Clay
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 169
What can we do for you...today?
|
It's hard to predict things like this. (As I've mentioned, the PSP had all the makings of completely clobbering the DS)
That said, there's several reasons why none of the current crop of consoles will drop out of the market.
Sony: The Playstation currently holds a vast majority of the world's home console dollar right now (more than all the competitors together, in fact). It would take a major blunder for such a following to jump ship in the new generation. Also, in ways, Sony cannot afford to lose, since not only is their gaming superiority at stake, but the success or failure of their Blue-Ray drive.
Xbox: Microsoft has so much money coming out their ears, they can take losses into perpetuity as long as there is some promise of a future profit.
Nintendo: Nintendo has the undefeated success of its handhelds to fall back on. Even if the Wii fails to perform, the success of its handheld properties, and crossovers to home consoles of those properties, will keep it afloat.
Sega didn't have dominance of any market, nor did it have the money, to continue operations.
Again, though, one can never tell. ^_^ I would've balked at Sega ever quitting the market.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Bongo Bill
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 37
Maybe
|
Microsoft and Sony are spending lots of money to try to force the other one out of the market. Whoever lasts longer can then start worrying about turning a profit from their games division. Nintendo, on the other hand, never sells at a loss for more than a few weeks. They might never get lots of market share, but I can't imagine them being forced out of the market. And as long as they have their talented first- and second-party developers, they'll have enough of a fanbase to ensure that they have a market.
Developers are really the most important part of the equation. Every game is a feature, and the machine with the most best features wins. The console that does the best is usually the one with the greatest number of high-profile exclusive titles. High-quality but low-profile exclusives are below that, and then you have higher-quality versions of cross-platform releases. Hardware features fit into the mixture based on how much hype they're getting.
This is where it gets confusing. A hardware manufacturer has to attract many developers in order to guarantee selling a console. But they have to sell their console in order to attract developers - they're both in it for money, and no developer will make a game if it can only sell to people who have Obscurebox 9000s (of which only ten were made). Most developers solve this problem by subsidizing developers who will make exclusive titles for them.
Regarding the last generation. The general consensus among developers is that if they can do it on the Xbox, then they can probably do it on the Gamecube, and they'll have to optimize it or maybe even scale it back for the PS2. The Xbox's edge over the Gamecube is very slight, and the only developers who really take advantage of that extra margin are the ones who wouldn't be making games for systems other than the Xbox anyway.
Joke: you've got a console, but you don't know which one it is. How do you identify it? Well, it's simple. Drop it off a building. If it still works after it lands, it's a Nintendo console. If it leaves a crater, it's a Microsoft console. If it disintegrates in the air, it's a Sony console.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...but is it art?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
