Hey

Wouldn't it be possible to redeem the Revolution's downside in technical superiority, if they simply focused on making a new, unique art style for there games?

Hence:



Anyway, I thought this was a valid point for discussion.

Yes

And taking advantage of the controller, instead of just abusing the analog stick add-on

I kinda dont understand what the hell is going on in the picture

o.o Is that an actual Revolution screenshot?

Actually, Playstation 2.

NONONONO people, that screenshot is from a game by the name of "Okami", which is soon to be released on the PS2. I should have been more clear: Nintendo could do unique things like that with certain games' art style.

But actually, Okami would work much better on the Rev.

It looks like Viewtiful Joe, but with a bumpier texture.

I would so play that game. Maybe.

That's because it has the same developer.

seing that game in action rox

To put it simply; the lack of hardware capability in the Nintendo Revolution is not indicative of a lack of effort on Nintendo's part to develop the console. Nor is it an excuse for half-assed games to litter the platform as something that will support a fanbase that is pleased with 'ugly' games.

Revolution as a platform, embodies Nintendo's own corporate philosophy and strategy. A cheap system, with such a broad appeal that developers see dollar signs, and consumers aren't having to drop nearly as many because that many people are buying it. It is indeed the "DS" strategy. Innovation over hardware capability; but it doesn't work because of a gimmick on level with focusing on an artistic style.

On the one hand; without legally binding deals going into Revolution development (which we already know do -not- exist), this sort of thing isn't plausible. No one will go out of their way to mimic an art style or even art effect because they believe it will sell more games.

The clearest definition of the Nintendo strategy here is simple; and it gets too confusing on sites like IGN so let me clarify it:

Revolution doesn't support the highest definition resolutions on the market. It supports only what the GCN did. That means 480p. And because the games are in 480p; and the Revolution is (for the most part) a beefed up Gamecube, games are easier to develop due to individual developer familiarity with the console. This allows for better graphics sooner, as in this fast-paced industry, artists are held back by their amateur levels of experience in the newest console's development tools.

So while there is certainly not as much to pull from; there is also a lot less training that needs to be done on a per employee basis. This reduces the ludicrous development costs companies are complaining about, in having to develop games that support 720p at the very least (requiring more artwork because more pixels per texture need to be drawn).

What does this mean to the average consumer? Well most people can tell the Xbox 360 sports a great picture in those kiosks at the store. Well of course the kiosks bring out the best in the console, as each unit is displayed on a screen that supports the sort of refresh rate and resolution that exposes the 360 for how powerful it is. The Nintendo bet goes beyond the gamble that HDTVs will not be as prevalent as its competitors hope. It goes into what I believe to be a more realistic aspect of the home gaming experience.

You're not always in the "TV room". And feeling that you aren't getting the most out of your experience from your standard TV ends up making the whole thing feel negative. With Revolution you're not nearly as tempted to enjoy progressive scan because there is so little of a difference, and instead; you're treated to crisp graphics, overflowing with effects, all because the Revolution can handle them just fine on the 640x480 display. It's not a ludicrous proposition; and it's hardly a crutch. Will Revolution ultimately be short-handed in some situations because of its hardware deficiency? Yes.

Is it going to receive a concerted effort of games to exploit some random artistic fancy to try and compensate? No. It's not going to be necessary, for the same reason DS outsells PSP, or that PSX outsold N64, or that PS2 is still the dominating home console in the market today. Graphics are important, but they will not make or break sale if your game delivers a decent framerate and recognizeable characters. To make a claim that Nintendo couldn't do that would be an insult; as Iwata has said many times, you'll be wowed by what you see with Revolution. It isn't going to look dated, ever. Ultimately, it's up to the artist to produce a decent game. Not everything is a MGS4, not everything is Resident Evil 4. The limits are hardly explored, maybe this will be become more clear during E3.

I played a demo of that game, and it's alright, but kind of hard to look at. It reminds me of Wind Waker in alot of ways, one probably being how dust and smoke are in those swirl shapes like in Wind Waker.

This is what I've been saying all alonnnnnng... all games should look different.

Nintendo tried this with a game: it was called The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and unfortunately not a lot of people took to the new art style despite the fact that it was used both ingame AND in the official art. The *****ing and moaning mounted to a point where most gamers forgot about the actual gameplay and Nintendo reverted to releasing Zelda games with a more overused, almost Final Fantasy-like style for the series' next console installment, Twilight Princess.

Or do people actually remember this injustice? Humph. No matter how awesome you try to make a game's style, the majority will be jerks and idiots who belittle it because it's different and somehow, in their view, "childish."

But that picture is awesome. Looks like something from Avatar: The Last Airbender.

I liked Wind Waker's style (except for Link, he looked like crap), I loved the cartoony look and the enemy designs.

The gameplay, however, was another matter.

I have my reasons for being turned off to Wind Waker, but the graphics sure as hell wasn't the reason.