3DS is reportedly Nintendo's most powerful console ever

[DigitalSushi]

Make that 2 votes. Coldstorage makes a good point.

[Edit] 3-4 votes? Whatever. I would campagn for you.

Excellent, looks like the campaign is heating up.

Tell me Silver Patriot, would you vote in favour of him changing his name to "The Axe President"? possibly with an avatar of Abe Lincoln holding an axe.

Thanks for the Political support guys. But good luck getting me president, I'm a UK citizen, So unless there's some serious voting reforms, I'm outta the running.

But I'll change my name to The Axe President...... Anyone know where i can get that pic of abe Lincoln with the axe?

FUCKING EPIC

The Avatar store is your best bet, ask them nicely and ye shall receive!
TheNumberZero did my current avatar of headless MEGAS with rainbow shooting out of his neck while Sky14Kemea customised my previous avatar of headless bear with rainbow shooting out of his neck.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/The-Avatar-Store-New-and-Second-Hand

OK, political reform in the US to allow you a UK citizen to become president, this looks like a job for YOUR AXE!

 

[XMark]

I'm holding off on digging for 3DS information until Nintendo makes the official announcement at E3.

 

[t_rexaur]

"To provide stereoscopic 3D effects the system must have the ability to render each game field twice, one for each of the player's eyes, a technique that will require significant horsepower to produce,"

Meaning that nintendo will use that hardware to make shit 3d rather than run high end titles.

Also, I doubt this is true anyways.

So, now Nintendo is spewing technology from the 1800s. Gee, that isn't gimmicky at all.
At least their new system must be more powerful than the Wii (well, that's not raising the bar much..but still) so perhaps we can finally see Nintendo regain their senses and cater to both crowds again and not just the casual-shovelware market.

But I'm not optimistic. No. I'm fairly certain that Nintendo is addicted to their new found source of wealth, and we can expect nothing but mediocrity (at best) from them for the next 20 years.

The Wii is full of shovelware, but the DS has a good amount of decent titles. Mostly because it has a lot of SNES remakes, but still much better than the PSP's library, so that counts for something.

Also Atmos needs to remember that most of the shovelware on the Wii tends to be from 3rd parties desperate to get in on the act but not desperate enough to actually put a lot of work into their games. The likes of Wii Sports still outclasses most shovelware that's on the Wii, although what that means is anyone's guess.

The thing about the DS is true, I have a good amount of games on it and I would rate many of them highly. Pokemon, Phoenix Wright and Advance Wars are all quality game families that all have a home on the DS. And of course the SNES remakes of the likes of Super Mario World and Chrono Trigger are also great games.

One thing that confuses me though is the lack of N64 remakes. I know Super Mario 64 was an early title but they still managed to get it on the DS and add new features. I was expecting one day to maybe see Ocarina of Time but that might have been too much. No doubt it will appear on the 3DS, it's appeared on everything else.

Finally the 360 and PS3 are going to get their fair share of shovelware as soon as they jump on the motion family bandwagon. I mean, for all the faults of the Wii's motion controls at least they had the sense not to make the damn thing look like a lollypop.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

This seems unlikely. Nintendo doesn't really care about hardware, and it's a fucking handheld.

 

[Tony2077]

I very seriously doubt it

 

[Flying-Emu]

People seem to be taking this the wrong way - they never said it would have the graphical capabilities of the two consoles - just that it would have the same type of horsepower; specifically for the 3D element.

Besides, seeing as how the source was named as "anonymous developers" who knows how true this actually is?

I'm glad that some one else caught that...

 

[jamesworkshop]

To provide stereoscopic 3D effects the system must have the ability to render each game field twice, one for each of the player's eyes, a technique that will require significant horsepower to produce," claims the report.

Errrmm....No, the 360 is not a 8800GT, it's equivalent to whatever Radeons were around in 2005...X900 or whatever they were, and similarly, the PS3 is based on a GeForce 7900. If they were 9800GTX+'s, then the home consoles would be able to achieve 1080p, which currently, they struggle with greatly.

there

Look at benchmarks - the 360 has the power of the 8800GT. And the PS3 is more powerful due to the Cell doing a lot of graphics such as AA and depth of field etc hence 9800GTX
There is a lot more than just claiming high resolution = good graphics. Any video card can do a desktop at 1600x900, what you need to know is the complexity of the images, such as shading, plus the textures will still be of a low quality, AA, AF etc.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1221220064z22MekJUpa_5_2.gif

Quite a big difference, double the resolution and double the max frames with 2xAA


Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Both games run at a sub-720p resolution of 1024×600
(360 + PS3)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/call-of-duty-4-engine-analysis

Yeah, think is how do you know if the game is well optimised for the consoles? =\
The have different CPUs to a standard PC as well as different architecture, with the PS3 having a lot of power usually ignored in the SPU's.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,703669/Mass-Effect-2-Galactic-battle-Geforce-versus-Radeon/Practice/ GTS250 = 9800GTX+.
Being a bit of a graphics whore it is quite clear that many multiplatform games aren't optimised for consoles. Compare Uncharted 2 which looks pretty bloody good, even by PC standards, and put that next to MW2, which looks like a jizzy tissue even on PC.
Ideally some kind of benchmark software would be nice, but alas, not going to happen for this generation unless someone is really bothered about knowing each systems full potential.

Optimization doesn't really matter since no platform has had more work than the other so the only differnce is horsepower.

MW2 stacks up quite nicely to UC2 as well (60 fps vs 30 fps), its not night and day like farcry to farcry 2

Wow hang on there, optimisation counts for a massive load. The 360 has special coding which needs to be implemented to reduce content size of games to fit them onto DVD as well as three PPU cores, whereas the PS3 has a CPU which can be used for graphics unlike any other CPU on the market.
The reason exclusives look so nice on consoles is purely optimisation and there is always a massive gap between exclusives and multiplatform games - Dante's Inferno and God of War 3 for example.
Uncharted 2 blows the hell out of MW2 when it comes to graphics, and I was playing MW2 maxed on my PC so I know what it looks like at true HD resolutions. U2 has procedural animation, better textures, better models and better everything in terms of graphics.

exactly without platform specific optimaizations the pc still runs (MW) at double speed and double quality

coding doesn't change the number of available cpu cycles or video memory bandwidth.
all cpus can render graphics, software graphics were what doom (and others) used before dedicated 3d hardware was made, software shadows (cpu) for instance are done in all versions of GTA4 PC/360 included.

the animation is motion captured in uncharted 2 (body and face), Spore used procedural animation


http://www.gamerexchangezone.com/files/2212/4571/5277/uncharted2screenshots.jpg
http://www.officialpsds.com/images/stocks/CALL-OF-DUTY-MW2-SCREENSHOT-stock3143.jpg

 

[Ironic Pirate]

They waste all that research money on a gimmick? I never thought Nintendo of all companies would gamble all it's money on a fad, earning the ire of those who game as a hobby.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

The last time I trusted something beginning with "An anonymous source"..

That is all that needs to be said here, I believe.

 

[Silver Patriot]

Make that 2 votes. Coldstorage makes a good point.

[Edit] 3-4 votes? Whatever. I would campagn for you.

Excellent, looks like the campaign is heating up.

Tell me Silver Patriot, would you vote in favour of him changing his name to "The Axe President"? possibly with an avatar of Abe Lincoln holding an axe.

Yes, yes I would.

Also British or not I would still vote for you, but it would be an issue. Damn.

 

[JohnSmith]

"claims the report" but he doesn't have any references so is he actually using recurrence within his report by saying that his report is the report that claims things or is it just the equivalent of speaking in 3rd person. Anyway while the graphics card in the 3DS will be quite powerful it will also be stupidly specialized, and don't forget the all depends on developers actually wanting to use the 3d api, rather than use the dual screen the way it has been used before.

 

[pretentiousname01]

Well it doesn't take much to be the most powerful nintendo console.

Power on par with ps360.... Find that really hard to believe. like at all..

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Doubt it. In fact, I doubt it a lot. For one thing, I think the excuse they'll use for the games not looking as good as PS3 and 360 games is that they have to be in 3D so that sucks a bit of power. And for another, I hate 3D. It's a silly phase that I honestly hope we get over and get over it soon. So unless this guy can play games that look, feel, and run as well as Bad Company 2, I'm going to be very disappointed. You're raising high expectations Nintendo. We'll have to mark you down with Peter Molyneux syndrome.

Oh, and by the way. If this is going to be that good, Metal Gear Solid 4. Portable. And in 3D. Let's see you do that.

 

[jamesworkshop]

To provide stereoscopic 3D effects the system must have the ability to render each game field twice, one for each of the player's eyes, a technique that will require significant horsepower to produce," claims the report.

Errrmm....No, the 360 is not a 8800GT, it's equivalent to whatever Radeons were around in 2005...X900 or whatever they were, and similarly, the PS3 is based on a GeForce 7900. If they were 9800GTX+'s, then the home consoles would be able to achieve 1080p, which currently, they struggle with greatly.

there

Look at benchmarks - the 360 has the power of the 8800GT. And the PS3 is more powerful due to the Cell doing a lot of graphics such as AA and depth of field etc hence 9800GTX
There is a lot more than just claiming high resolution = good graphics. Any video card can do a desktop at 1600x900, what you need to know is the complexity of the images, such as shading, plus the textures will still be of a low quality, AA, AF etc.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1221220064z22MekJUpa_5_2.gif

Quite a big difference, double the resolution and double the max frames with 2xAA


Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Both games run at a sub-720p resolution of 1024×600
(360 + PS3)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/call-of-duty-4-engine-analysis

Yeah, think is how do you know if the game is well optimised for the consoles? =\
The have different CPUs to a standard PC as well as different architecture, with the PS3 having a lot of power usually ignored in the SPU's.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,703669/Mass-Effect-2-Galactic-battle-Geforce-versus-Radeon/Practice/ GTS250 = 9800GTX+.
Being a bit of a graphics whore it is quite clear that many multiplatform games aren't optimised for consoles. Compare Uncharted 2 which looks pretty bloody good, even by PC standards, and put that next to MW2, which looks like a jizzy tissue even on PC.
Ideally some kind of benchmark software would be nice, but alas, not going to happen for this generation unless someone is really bothered about knowing each systems full potential.

Optimization doesn't really matter since no platform has had more work than the other so the only differnce is horsepower.

MW2 stacks up quite nicely to UC2 as well (60 fps vs 30 fps), its not night and day like farcry to farcry 2

Wow hang on there, optimisation counts for a massive load. The 360 has special coding which needs to be implemented to reduce content size of games to fit them onto DVD as well as three PPU cores, whereas the PS3 has a CPU which can be used for graphics unlike any other CPU on the market.
The reason exclusives look so nice on consoles is purely optimisation and there is always a massive gap between exclusives and multiplatform games - Dante's Inferno and God of War 3 for example.
Uncharted 2 blows the hell out of MW2 when it comes to graphics, and I was playing MW2 maxed on my PC so I know what it looks like at true HD resolutions. U2 has procedural animation, better textures, better models and better everything in terms of graphics.

exactly without platform specific optimaizations the pc still runs (MW) at double speed and double quality

coding doesn't change the number of available cpu cycles or video memory bandwidth.
all cpus can render graphics, software graphics were what doom (and others) used before dedicated 3d hardware was made, software shadows (cpu) for instance are done in all versions of GTA4 PC/360 included.

the animation is motion captured in uncharted 2 (body and face), Spore used procedural animation


http://www.gamerexchangezone.com/files/2212/4571/5277/uncharted2screenshots.jpg
http://www.officialpsds.com/images/stocks/CALL-OF-DUTY-MW2-SCREENSHOT-stock3143.jpg

That's because PC's can just chuck sheer horsepower to get through no optimisation. Try running MW2 on a PC with the same specs as the 360 - 512RAM. Not going to happen.
CPUs can render graphics but they are so utterly useless at it there is no point in trying to get them to do it. Just run one of Futuremarks programs on an i7 if you don't believe me.
The Cell can do graphics at a level far beyond that of any CPU out in the market.
I seriously doubt the shadows in GTA4 are CPU based, it'd make no sense to do that and would really hamper performance.
The animation is motion captured to begin with but procedurally generated:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/uncharted-2-mastering-the-cell-blog-entry

Plus these two shots show the in game comparison far better as you used a promo-shot for MW2 which tend to be ran through photoshop or at least at a graphics level higher than ingame:
http://www.go386.com/culture/images/uncharted-2-among-thieves-20090115041035897.jpg
http://whoisbill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/modernwarfare2.jpg
Notice the low AA, the low textures etc etc. I've played both, and there is no doubt that MW2 just isn't that good graphically - the lighting is actually quite crap as the optimisation has everything turn to a blur at a distance of 20ft.

yeah so the ps3 isn't at the level of a 9800gtx because its too fast,
you didn't say the cell was better you stated it was the only one to have the capability of graphics rendering

you can't be motion captured and procedural at the same time just like you can't be both rendered in real time and offline rendering at the same time
Motion capture involves animation using telemetry data, proceduraly would be using a mathmatical equation like a scene demo or Spore which has too because your 3d model could look like anything unlike uncharteds designer 3d models

MW2 doesn't look as good as uc2 but that isn't the point its just as intensive because its out putting twice the frames

 

[jamesworkshop]

To provide stereoscopic 3D effects the system must have the ability to render each game field twice, one for each of the player's eyes, a technique that will require significant horsepower to produce," claims the report.

Errrmm....No, the 360 is not a 8800GT, it's equivalent to whatever Radeons were around in 2005...X900 or whatever they were, and similarly, the PS3 is based on a GeForce 7900. If they were 9800GTX+'s, then the home consoles would be able to achieve 1080p, which currently, they struggle with greatly.

there

Look at benchmarks - the 360 has the power of the 8800GT. And the PS3 is more powerful due to the Cell doing a lot of graphics such as AA and depth of field etc hence 9800GTX
There is a lot more than just claiming high resolution = good graphics. Any video card can do a desktop at 1600x900, what you need to know is the complexity of the images, such as shading, plus the textures will still be of a low quality, AA, AF etc.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1221220064z22MekJUpa_5_2.gif

Quite a big difference, double the resolution and double the max frames with 2xAA


Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Both games run at a sub-720p resolution of 1024×600
(360 + PS3)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/call-of-duty-4-engine-analysis

Yeah, think is how do you know if the game is well optimised for the consoles? =\
The have different CPUs to a standard PC as well as different architecture, with the PS3 having a lot of power usually ignored in the SPU's.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,703669/Mass-Effect-2-Galactic-battle-Geforce-versus-Radeon/Practice/ GTS250 = 9800GTX+.
Being a bit of a graphics whore it is quite clear that many multiplatform games aren't optimised for consoles. Compare Uncharted 2 which looks pretty bloody good, even by PC standards, and put that next to MW2, which looks like a jizzy tissue even on PC.
Ideally some kind of benchmark software would be nice, but alas, not going to happen for this generation unless someone is really bothered about knowing each systems full potential.

Optimization doesn't really matter since no platform has had more work than the other so the only differnce is horsepower.

MW2 stacks up quite nicely to UC2 as well (60 fps vs 30 fps), its not night and day like farcry to farcry 2

Wow hang on there, optimisation counts for a massive load. The 360 has special coding which needs to be implemented to reduce content size of games to fit them onto DVD as well as three PPU cores, whereas the PS3 has a CPU which can be used for graphics unlike any other CPU on the market.
The reason exclusives look so nice on consoles is purely optimisation and there is always a massive gap between exclusives and multiplatform games - Dante's Inferno and God of War 3 for example.
Uncharted 2 blows the hell out of MW2 when it comes to graphics, and I was playing MW2 maxed on my PC so I know what it looks like at true HD resolutions. U2 has procedural animation, better textures, better models and better everything in terms of graphics.

exactly without platform specific optimaizations the pc still runs (MW) at double speed and double quality

coding doesn't change the number of available cpu cycles or video memory bandwidth.
all cpus can render graphics, software graphics were what doom (and others) used before dedicated 3d hardware was made, software shadows (cpu) for instance are done in all versions of GTA4 PC/360 included.

the animation is motion captured in uncharted 2 (body and face), Spore used procedural animation


http://www.gamerexchangezone.com/files/2212/4571/5277/uncharted2screenshots.jpg
http://www.officialpsds.com/images/stocks/CALL-OF-DUTY-MW2-SCREENSHOT-stock3143.jpg

That's because PC's can just chuck sheer horsepower to get through no optimisation. Try running MW2 on a PC with the same specs as the 360 - 512RAM. Not going to happen.
CPUs can render graphics but they are so utterly useless at it there is no point in trying to get them to do it. Just run one of Futuremarks programs on an i7 if you don't believe me.
The Cell can do graphics at a level far beyond that of any CPU out in the market.
I seriously doubt the shadows in GTA4 are CPU based, it'd make no sense to do that and would really hamper performance.
The animation is motion captured to begin with but procedurally generated:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/uncharted-2-mastering-the-cell-blog-entry

Plus these two shots show the in game comparison far better as you used a promo-shot for MW2 which tend to be ran through photoshop or at least at a graphics level higher than ingame:
http://www.go386.com/culture/images/uncharted-2-among-thieves-20090115041035897.jpg
http://whoisbill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/modernwarfare2.jpg
Notice the low AA, the low textures etc etc. I've played both, and there is no doubt that MW2 just isn't that good graphically - the lighting is actually quite crap as the optimisation has everything turn to a blur at a distance of 20ft.

yeah so the ps3 isn't at the level of a 9800gtx because its too fast,
you didn't say the cell was better you stated it was the only one to have the capability of graphics rendering

you can't be motion captured and procedural at the same time just like you can't be both rendered in real time and offline rendering at the same time
Motion capture involves animation using telemetry data, proceduraly would be using a mathmatical equation like a scene demo or Spore which has too because your 3d model could look like anything unlike uncharteds designer 3d models

MW2 doesn't look as good as uc2 but that isn't the point its just as intensive because its out putting twice the frames

In terms of rendering lighting etc the PS3 has the same power as the 9800GTX if you compare PC exclusive performance vs PS3 game performance.
You don't quite get procedural animation do you? What you do is you motion capture some of the basic animations, such as reloading, and then use procedural animation to adjust for it for when he is say reloading but crouched, or behind a wall etc. It basically gives a lot more animation possibilities with far less hassle.
Think you are mixing procedural animation with procedural generation.

what exactly are you saying is the animation pre recorded using that method or does the game actually waste real time cpu cycles generating an animation.
Mo-cap is expensive, doing things procedurally (which means generated) is used mostly when storage spaces cannot hold scripted animations/data
I don't see why that would be a problem on a 50gig disc and is a lot less hassle than making algorithims and is far more believable in quality terms