I didn't have the same problems, but I'm not as hardcore as some.
I have a questiion to ask you though. If the GC only had Wavebirds from the start would you have noticed it, or is it only noticeable in comparison to the wired controllers. If it is only noticable compared to the wired controllers, I wouldn't see that as a problem for you with the Revolution, even if it has the same reaction time. If it would be noticable to you anyway, that might be a problem, because Nintendo seems pretty pleased with the results of the wavebird. I wouldn't expect them to tweak it much more.
I once walked onto my friends' dorm room in college and saw a bunch of people playing Soul Edge for the PS1. I had never played it, but it looked cool enough, so I got in line for a turn.
When I picked up the controller I found the button for "hit person with ax," and I used it... a lot. Then I found out that up was jump, and I formulated a plan! I would jump away then jump back toward the enemy and hit them with the ax. I played against people that prided themselves on knowing all the moves.
I did not let go of the controller for more than an hour. Everyone lost. Most thought it was hilarious, but I had one person close to tears as he tried over and over to beat me.
Was it beginners luck? Maybe. Did I have any right to beat these people? Probably not. The fact remains that I kicked fucking ass without knowing a thing about the game. BOO YAH!
Use a Wavebird. I used to think the same as you, I really did, but that controller is as responsive as the wired ones. The care that Nintendo puts into their hardware is phenominal.
The Revolution is out powered - in technical terms - by the other two.
God damn it!
Listen to me, and listen to me good. This isn't directed solely at the parent, EVERYONE needs to listen.
This generation Nintendo said that their machine would push 6-12 million polygons per second. Sony still claims 75 million/second on the PS2, and Microsoft claims 125 million/sec.
This would suggest that the XBOX and the PS2 were 5 to 10 times more powerful than the GameCube.
This is completely not true. The Gamecube, in reality, is much more powerful than the PS2 and on par with the XBOX (don't get into semantics, both the GC and the XBOX do things better than the other).
Now, right now, Sony and Microsoft are claiming their consoles will effectively be 5 to 10 times more powerful than the Revolution.
Do you see the connection? Can we, as intelligent gamers, learn from the not so distant history?
Let them show footage before you make your judgement, but I am 99% certain that the Revolution's graphics will be just as impressive as its competitors. Unlike Sony and MS, Nintendo does not give crazy theoretical numbers, they give the numbers you will see on the screen
If you look at the specs at GameSpot for the current generation. You'll see that the PS2 and XBOX are 5 to 10 times more powerful than the GameCube. This is, of course, not true.
Nintendo never gives what I call "pissing contest" specs, even when asked for them.
You can make excuses for the XBOX special all you want, and many, many people have. Microsoft did not only mean for the XBOX 360 special to be viewed by teenage trend-seekers. They meant it for us too. The "professional gamers" segment is proof. They were trying to reach out to the video game enthusiasts with "hard questions" and "game lingo" from "seasoned gamers."
They scheduled it before E3 to get people like us to watch. This is what they think will sell to us. Most of the MTV fanbase isn't going to pour over E3 press releases this week, so Microsoft could have scheduled a similar special weeks from now with similar effect for that demographic.
It was the "Ishtar" or the "Daikatana" of video game marketing. Nothing less, but nothing more. I'm just sick of hearing that Microsoft thinks we are smarter than that show. They don't.
The landscape for Nintendo information is going to get very strange. First you worry that IGN and GameSpy will be too positive about Nintendo. Then you think that Gamespot and C|Net are going to get vindictive.
Why couldn't Nintendo buy everyone off like Sony and Microsoft do?
It's doubtful that the Revolution will be more powerful than the Xbox 360 (from what specs I've seen, it's going to have 3 CPU's running all @ 3.2 Ghz).
Besides the very impressive hardware specs (is this where we get real-time Toy Story?)
I'm very sick of companies announcing theoretical specs. The current XBOX can manage about 10% of the 100 million theoretical polygon count in an actual game. The new XBOX can do 500 million! OOOOOOH! Maybe we'll see 50 million polygons in an actual title, but honestly, I won't hold my breath.
Here is my challenge to every company at E3: Show me something that could not be done this generation. I'm not talking micropayments. That would only take a simple software upgrade. I'm not talking a larger world or more enemies on screen. Again this could be done with simpler worlds or enemies in current consoles. I'm talking about games that are fundamentally different because of the new hardware. Like the difference between Mortal Kombat and Virtua Fighter.
I want to know why I need to pay for new hardware to play your new games. Pie in the sky theoretical bullshit and pointless processor speeds ain't going to get it done this time.
The online platform appears to be the same for both.
From TFA: Nintendo's networking plan is, according to Wada, "not just a portable, not just a console -- it's exactly what we wanted in that it's the birth of a completely new platform."
Considering no details have been announced yet, we should all keep our panties unbunched for the moment.
Think of online play now. Most systems now give you access to everyone and people try to branch off into smaller groups to get away from internet jerks. This doesn't always work, however, as often times random people still have access. Watching my friend play NFL 2K3 on XBOX live highlights the problem. He's good, and more often than not opponents disconnect, quit, or act like total jerks when he is winning.
Now imagine an opt in system. You look online for certain groups. These groups have rules you have to play by. Moderators can kick you out if you don't follow them. Because it is an opt-in system only, these groups would not be affected by outsiders at all. The downside would be to do the legwork to find groups of people to play with. The upshot is that internet ass clownery is greatly reduced. It will result in more finished games, more civil attitudes, and more fun.
That's my take on the whole thing. In games like MMORPGs or Animal Crossing most of the game is centered around player to computer conflict, but in sports or fighting games you have direct conflict with another human, and the current anonymous system leads to alot of frustration. I think Nintendo is trying to reduce this.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! Apparantly my bathroom has been breeding Bolsheviks for quite some time now. Might it be breeding terrorists too?
Damn you Moen and American Standard!
I didn't have the same problems, but I'm not as hardcore as some.
I have a questiion to ask you though. If the GC only had Wavebirds from the start would you have noticed it, or is it only noticeable in comparison to the wired controllers. If it is only noticable compared to the wired controllers, I wouldn't see that as a problem for you with the Revolution, even if it has the same reaction time. If it would be noticable to you anyway, that might be a problem, because Nintendo seems pretty pleased with the results of the wavebird. I wouldn't expect them to tweak it much more.
I once walked onto my friends' dorm room in college and saw a bunch of people playing Soul Edge for the PS1. I had never played it, but it looked cool enough, so I got in line for a turn.
When I picked up the controller I found the button for "hit person with ax," and I used it... a lot. Then I found out that up was jump, and I formulated a plan! I would jump away then jump back toward the enemy and hit them with the ax. I played against people that prided themselves on knowing all the moves.
I did not let go of the controller for more than an hour. Everyone lost. Most thought it was hilarious, but I had one person close to tears as he tried over and over to beat me.
Was it beginners luck? Maybe. Did I have any right to beat these people? Probably not. The fact remains that I kicked fucking ass without knowing a thing about the game. BOO YAH!
Use a Wavebird. I used to think the same as you, I really did, but that controller is as responsive as the wired ones. The care that Nintendo puts into their hardware is phenominal.
The Revolution is out powered - in technical terms - by the other two.
God damn it!
Listen to me, and listen to me good. This isn't directed solely at the parent, EVERYONE needs to listen.
This generation Nintendo said that their machine would push 6-12 million polygons per second. Sony still claims 75 million/second on the PS2, and Microsoft claims 125 million/sec.
Take a look for yourself.
This would suggest that the XBOX and the PS2 were 5 to 10 times more powerful than the GameCube.
This is completely not true. The Gamecube, in reality, is much more powerful than the PS2 and on par with the XBOX (don't get into semantics, both the GC and the XBOX do things better than the other).
Now, right now, Sony and Microsoft are claiming their consoles will effectively be 5 to 10 times more powerful than the Revolution.
Do you see the connection? Can we, as intelligent gamers, learn from the not so distant history?
Let them show footage before you make your judgement, but I am 99% certain that the Revolution's graphics will be just as impressive as its competitors. Unlike Sony and MS, Nintendo does not give crazy theoretical numbers, they give the numbers you will see on the screen
Super Mario Sunshine was a specific example of a game that could be downloaded.
Wait, you are telling me that the GameCube has worse graphics than the PS2?
That is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrongy wrong wrong.
Nothing attracts the hardcore fan like a game that was released 3 years ago.
Seriously FFXI is not that big of a deal. You can play it on your PC... now. I got the game for Christmas... 2003.
If you look at the specs at GameSpot for the current generation. You'll see that the PS2 and XBOX are 5 to 10 times more powerful than the GameCube. This is, of course, not true.
Nintendo never gives what I call "pissing contest" specs, even when asked for them.
You can make excuses for the XBOX special all you want, and many, many people have. Microsoft did not only mean for the XBOX 360 special to be viewed by teenage trend-seekers. They meant it for us too. The "professional gamers" segment is proof. They were trying to reach out to the video game enthusiasts with "hard questions" and "game lingo" from "seasoned gamers."
They scheduled it before E3 to get people like us to watch. This is what they think will sell to us. Most of the MTV fanbase isn't going to pour over E3 press releases this week, so Microsoft could have scheduled a similar special weeks from now with similar effect for that demographic.
It was the "Ishtar" or the "Daikatana" of video game marketing. Nothing less, but nothing more. I'm just sick of hearing that Microsoft thinks we are smarter than that show. They don't.
that Nintendo partnered with IGN.
The landscape for Nintendo information is going to get very strange. First you worry that IGN and GameSpy will be too positive about Nintendo. Then you think that Gamespot and C|Net are going to get vindictive.
Why couldn't Nintendo buy everyone off like Sony and Microsoft do?
No, the WHOLE sentence.
It's doubtful that the Revolution will be more powerful than the Xbox 360 (from what specs I've seen, it's going to have 3 CPU's running all @ 3.2 Ghz).
You base this on what information?
Nintendo has said more than once that their goal is to meet or beat the PS3 to market.
I have got to believe the development is farther along with the Revolution. The first Cell processor prototypes only surfaced in March.
Of course Sony might try the same stunt they did with the PSP, and launch it before they were really ready.
IGN seems to think that the controller will be so special it will be the last thing Nintendo shows of the Revolution.
Now that IGN Entertainment is an official Nintendo partner, I trust their Revolution analysis a little more than other sources.
I have always said that a company that cannot make a decent mouse should not be trusted to make a decent game console.
I avoid Microsoft brand hardware like the plague.
Besides the very impressive hardware specs (is this where we get real-time Toy Story?)
I'm very sick of companies announcing theoretical specs. The current XBOX can manage about 10% of the 100 million theoretical polygon count in an actual game. The new XBOX can do 500 million! OOOOOOH! Maybe we'll see 50 million polygons in an actual title, but honestly, I won't hold my breath.
Here is my challenge to every company at E3: Show me something that could not be done this generation. I'm not talking micropayments. That would only take a simple software upgrade. I'm not talking a larger world or more enemies on screen. Again this could be done with simpler worlds or enemies in current consoles. I'm talking about games that are fundamentally different because of the new hardware. Like the difference between Mortal Kombat and Virtua Fighter.
I want to know why I need to pay for new hardware to play your new games. Pie in the sky theoretical bullshit and pointless processor speeds ain't going to get it done this time.
Madden 2006, Halo?
That's the thing I'm most looking forward to in the next console generation - sequels of stale games with marginally better graphics.
Nope, it's about Nintendo's online platform which includes the DS.
My connection dongle was left out of my box. So was a place to connect the dongle to my DS.
The online platform appears to be the same for both.
From TFA: Nintendo's networking plan is, according to Wada, "not just a portable, not just a console -- it's exactly what we wanted in that it's the birth of a completely new platform."
Don't expect this to mean Final Fantasy XIII or even IV or V will be on the Revolution unless it's 10x more powerful than they purport it to be.
Exactly how powerful is Nintendo "purporting" it to be. It might be more powerful than Sony's console, just like this generation.
maybe you could meet them on the internet, duh.
No one said how you meet them.
Considering no details have been announced yet, we should all keep our panties unbunched for the moment.
Think of online play now. Most systems now give you access to everyone and people try to branch off into smaller groups to get away from internet jerks. This doesn't always work, however, as often times random people still have access. Watching my friend play NFL 2K3 on XBOX live highlights the problem. He's good, and more often than not opponents disconnect, quit, or act like total jerks when he is winning.
Now imagine an opt in system. You look online for certain groups. These groups have rules you have to play by. Moderators can kick you out if you don't follow them. Because it is an opt-in system only, these groups would not be affected by outsiders at all. The downside would be to do the legwork to find groups of people to play with. The upshot is that internet ass clownery is greatly reduced. It will result in more finished games, more civil attitudes, and more fun.
That's my take on the whole thing. In games like MMORPGs or Animal Crossing most of the game is centered around player to computer conflict, but in sports or fighting games you have direct conflict with another human, and the current anonymous system leads to alot of frustration. I think Nintendo is trying to reduce this.
That's just my opinion though.
You are not going to see single cart internet play. Nintendo has never announced this.