DS vs. PSP

[Shinin]

Underwhelming=opposite of overwhelming

The DS's touch screen isn't untested.

 

[Kairi]

Look back through the thread. Some people who were excited are suddenly finding themselves with not much to enjoy after the long DS wait.

DS' touch screen has never been used in a major handheld/console before, so sure it is.

 

[Shinin]

It's been used in lots of PDA products.

 

[Kairi]

PDAs are not primarily gaming systems; they're designed for handling business.

 

[Shadow]

PSP has PS2 graphics, can play music and play movies.
PS2 has PS2 graphics (obviously >_>), can play music (with CDs) and play movies (with DVDs).

Not much of a difference.

The difference is the format, meaning for the PSP, you have to go back and buy your music, games, and DVDs in a brand new format to be able to play them for about 2 hours on the road. =/ Yup, the PSP is so useful.

 

[pokejungle]

The difference is the format, meaning for the PSP, you have to go back and buy your music, games, and DVDs in a brand new format to be able to play them for about 2 hours on the road. =/ Yup, the PSP is so useful.

Such is the silliness of the PSP. And people still stick up for it >>;

 

[Lucifer.]

Given the choice, I'd never buy a film for the PSP over the DVD version. Ever.

 

[HellishHades]

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I want an all-in-one MP3 player, MPEG video / DVD player, and game machine, I'll just stick with the wonderful device that is the laptop. It has a backlit screen, a built-in keyboard, et cetera, et cetera. And if I really want, I can get one that's very small. It's certainly more powerful than the PSP. So why would I want to get one?

There were developers for the N64 that were able to push its limits, and make graphically amazing titles -- and great games. Conker's BFD, anyone? In most cases, developers are lazy. They will often work with the most powerful system, and make ports by decreasing graphics, sounds, and so on from games going to other systems. Instead of finding more efficient ways to work with the unique hardware, they simply remove from the game. The screenshot may look worse on the DS, but that's a reflection of the poor quality of the game developer, not the hardware.

Nintendo has always been devoted to the quality and innovation. The games that we've seen so far on the DS are only the tip of the gaming iceberg. Mario 64 took up the a very small amount of cartridge space, whereas Conker's BFD -- the largest N64 game, took up about eight times as much cartirdge space. Future games will be able to utilise more space, and I'm sure we're bound to see some more Rare -- best developer ever -- gems, like Perfect Dark, before the lifespan of the DS is up.

 

[Carlito-san]

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I want an all-in-one MP3 player, MPEG video / DVD player, and game machine, I'll just stick with the wonderful device that is the laptop. It has a backlit screen, a built-in keyboard, et cetera, et cetera. And if I really want, I can get one that's very small. It's certainly more powerful than the PSP. So why would I want to get one?

There were developers for the N64 that were able to push its limits, and make graphically amazing titles -- and great games. Conker's BFD, anyone? In most cases, developers are lazy. They will often work with the most powerful system, and make ports by decreasing graphics, sounds, and so on from games going to other systems. Instead of finding more efficient ways to work with the unique hardware, they simply remove from the game. The screenshot may look worse on the DS, but that's a reflection of the poor quality of the game developer, not the hardware.

Nintendo has always been devoted to the quality and innovation. The games that we've seen so far on the DS are only the tip of the gaming iceberg. Mario 64 took up the a very small amount of cartridge space, whereas Conker's BFD -- the largest N64 game, took up about eight times as much cartirdge space. Future games will be able to utilise more space, and I'm sure we're bound to see some more Rare -- best developer ever -- gems, like Perfect Dark, before the lifespan of the DS is up.

Who's side are you on,HH?

 

[Kairi]

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I want an all-in-one MP3 player, MPEG video / DVD player, and game machine, I'll just stick with the wonderful device that is the laptop. It has a backlit screen, a built-in keyboard, et cetera, et cetera. And if I really want, I can get one that's very small. It's certainly more powerful than the PSP. So why would I want to get one?

There were developers for the N64 that were able to push its limits, and make graphically amazing titles -- and great games. Conker's BFD, anyone? In most cases, developers are lazy. They will often work with the most powerful system, and make ports by decreasing graphics, sounds, and so on from games going to other systems. Instead of finding more efficient ways to work with the unique hardware, they simply remove from the game. The screenshot may look worse on the DS, but that's a reflection of the poor quality of the game developer, not the hardware.

Nintendo has always been devoted to the quality and innovation. The games that we've seen so far on the DS are only the tip of the gaming iceberg. Mario 64 took up the a very small amount of cartridge space, whereas Conker's BFD -- the largest N64 game, took up about eight times as much cartirdge space. Future games will be able to utilise more space, and I'm sure we're bound to see some more Rare -- best developer ever -- gems, like Perfect Dark, before the lifespan of the DS is up.

We might see one Rare game. If you haven't noticed they have become ridiculously lazy (Kameo~)

Developing for a platform with greater technological prowess isn't being lazy. Just because you're making a game on the Xbox as apposed to the PS2 doesn't mean the graphics will be better, to it's easier to make them better.

What it does mean is the potential *is* there. So if two developers (or even the same one) put an equal amount of effort into their titles on both systems, it will look better on the technologically superior one. Nintendo, with the DS, is forcing innovation. Telling developers how to make games, by shoving all these new features and screens onto their system. With the N64, there was a lot new to love. But it was built on the solid foundation of learning from the past. The N64 was different, but it didn't totally disregard its roots.

And as for space that games take up, consider that a selling point for developers. Which system has the most space to work with? The PSP. Although with the PSP you might as well develop for the PS2. Cause the PSP is just the PS2 with the limitations of mobility, and, oh yeah, the "Advantages"

Neither of these two systems have the edge the GBA has in the mobile market. They're trying to be 3D like the consoles, and showing just why it should stay on the consoles.

 

[Drizzt' Do Urden]

I think the DS the best and will probably buy it but i also like the psp and will probably buy that two.

 

[Brittany]

The difference is the format, meaning for the PSP, you have to go back and buy your music, games, and DVDs in a brand new format to be able to play them for about 2 hours on the road. =/ Yup, the PSP is so useful.

Oh please :P
In most cases, buying music isn't neccesary, because most of us already have it. Did you expect for the PSP to come with music already on it? Geez, the lazyness of peoples these days... Soon you'll try to make the same point on an iPod :P

Games? Buying it does have an advantage over... well, not buying it. I'm not really understanding your point here :P
Were you making the implication of having to re-buy it, if you already have it for PS2? Simple solution- buy it for one of them. They will both have their own advantages, nobody is going to force you to buy them both. Even if you always choose PS2 over PSP, I'm sure that there will be a plethora of PSP-only games. We'll just have to wait and see.

And sorry about the movie thing. Nintendo did it first with GBA. Sony is just doing it better. Longer movies, better sound and picture quality. And you can do it longer than 2 hours. Two or three times longer.

Such is the silliness of the PSP. And people still stick up for it >>;

Saying that I stand up for silliness? :P
Please don't down other's personal preferances. Expressing it is one thing, but... nevermind

Given the choice, I'd never buy a film for the PSP over the DVD version. Ever.

Considering that Sony's plans concerning movies(even their own!) aren't concrete yet, I don't think jumping on this issue is a priority.
But anyway, I would. UMD seems like a next-gen disc to me. I can't really see the purpose of Blu-ray or HD-DVD discs for movies, aside from putting all of LoTR or Star Wars on a single disc. :P
Keep in mind, 1.8 GB is the UMD's size single layered. I'm not sure what their plans are concerning multiple layer discs in the near future, or even if it's possible- but the thought of 3.6 GB seems like plenty of space to me.
I know that you're point wasn't really directed towards future home use, so here's a more on topic, PSP comeback-
UMD movies may be bundled with the DVD, coming in a package with a small price increase. Just speculation, but nobody know's their plans concerning this anyway. Poor comeback, but I can't really argue with you for the most part.

 

[HellishHades]

Who's side are you on,HH?

I own a DS. I'll never get a PSP.

In my eyes,
PSP || PS2 = POS;

If you want a console with power, then go for MS X-Box. If you want innovation and creativity, go for Nintendo. If you want a POS, well just see the above.

We might see one Rare game. If you haven?t noticed they have been spending a lot of time making sure that their games are stellar and receive the acknowledgement they deserve.

That's better.

Developing for a platform with greater technological prowess isn?t being lazy. Just because you?re making a game on the Xbox as apposed to the PS2 doesn?t mean the graphics will be better, to it?s easier to make them better.

Gameplay > graphics;
Efficiency > laziness && monotiny;
DS > PSP;

QED;

What it does mean is the potential *is* there. So if two developers (or even the same one) put an equal amount of effort into their titles on both systems, it will look better on the technologically superior one. Nintendo, with the DS, is forcing innovation. Telling developers how to make games, by shoving all these new features and screens onto their system. With the N64, there was a lot new to love. But it was built on the solid foundation of learning from the past. The N64 was different, but it didn?t totally disregard its roots.

And as for space that games take up, consider that a selling point for developers. Which system has the most space to work with? The PSP. Although with the PSP you might as well develop for the PS2. Cause the PSP is just the PS2 with the limitations of mobility, and, oh yeah, the ?Advantages?

Neither of these two systems have the edge the GBA has in the mobile market. They?re trying to be 3D like the consoles, and showing just why it should stay on the consoles.

The only qualm I have about the DS is the lack of an analog stick. There are ways to make them so they can be embedded in the device so that they don't stick up so much. In fact, they can be shaped like a ball with ridges, and still work as well. Otherwise, it's a perfectly sound device.

The games being ported to the PSP can be pirated from the Internet and played on a laptop with better quality. What's the point of a PSP?

The president of Nintendo said that this is now the age where hardware speeds are not the contributing factor of success. Quality and innovation are key. I couldn't agree more. Nintendo is by no means "forcing" innovation. It is providing it as an option. If some developers want, they can simply put a run-of-the-mill map on the touch screen. But they also have the potenial for great things, new things, innovation.

 

[Brittany]

I own a DS. I'll never get a PSP.

In my eyes,
PSP || PS2 = POS;

Please don't flame the devices.

If you want a console with power, then go for MS X-Box. If you want innovation and creativity, go for Nintendo. If you want a POS, well just see the above.

Again, please don't flame a device. And don't tell people what to do either. I'll go for what I want, just as most other gamers, and developers for that matter- Sony.

Gameplay > graphics;
Efficiency > laziness && monotiny;
DS > PSP;

Disagreed.
I think PSP has better gameplay, graphics, efficiency, and lacks laziness and monotiny. We all have different opinions- just don't force your's upon the rest of us

The games being ported to the PSP can be pirated from the Internet and played on a laptop with better quality. What's the point of a PSP?

Most definetly DISAGREED. Gameboy games have been emulated since their arrival, and pretty easily. Roms are found EVERYWHERE. DS emulators are already in-progress/running. The only PSP emulator was released by Sony, for developing purposes- running at about 1/16 the speed of a PSP with less quality.

The president of Nintendo said that this is now the age where hardware speeds are not the contributing factor of success. Quality and innovation are key. I couldn't agree more. Nintendo is by no means "forcing" innovation. It is providing it as an option. If some developers want, they can simply put a run-of-the-mill map on the touch screen. But they also have the potenial for great things, new things, innovation.

Sure, the option is there. But do most gamers care about that option? I don't.

 

[Dawson]

I'm not sure how people can call the DS dated technology. It may be dated compared to console technology but the GBA was seen as a massive step forward in handheld gaming with it's 32 bit capabilities, the DS is just advancing on that, just like the home consoles they went from 8bit>16bit>32bit>64bit. Sony produced the PSP without the knowledge that Nintendo has of the handheld market. They made a system with only a few hours battery life and are pushing games that require a lot of time to put in to playing. I think the DS will win the handheld. I'm not saying that the PSP is a poor console, it's just about 5 years ahead of it's time. However, after saying that, Nintendo rushed the release of the DS so that it could have the extra few months of shelf activity over the PSP and now they find themselves with a console and now big games on the shelves for people to play, just like they did with the GameCube. And a final note about the GBA. The GBA still had a minimum of 2 years life left in it. Nintendo has completely screwed all of the GBA owners with the new console, even though they were perfectly happy with the quality of the system they currently had.

 

[Kairi]

@HH

That's better.

They've made one game in the many years they've been with the Xbox. And most will agree Grabbed by the Ghoulies isn't up to snuff with their old titles. They're just lazy. Some of the best games of our time were made under much tighter time restraints.

Gameplay > graphics;
Efficiency > laziness && monotiny;
DS > PSP;

QED;

Presentation is an equal part of it. You could have good 'gameplay' code, but if you then make the entire screen giant yucky pixels, fact of life is no one will play it. In this world we live in, people expect a standard. Does that mean all games have to have good graphics? No. Does it mean that developers are forced to make their games be presented poorer on inferior hardware? Yes.

The games being ported to the PSP can be pirated from the Internet and played on a laptop with better quality. What's the point of a PSP?

I agree with the fact it adds nothing new. The PSP is pointless in the fact it offers nothing new, except a PS2 with the limitations of portability. 3D has had numerous plagues when trying to be made portable. This was Sony's mistake. Nintendo had a monopoly on 2D games in handhelds. But I guess they didn't see that, cause they had to go and make a low quality hardware device, with some new innovations. But the fact is their biggest edge was offering unique games because of the style of graphics. The GBA doesn't need a touch screen or dual screens, no it's pretty close to perfect as it is. Note that all the DS innovations aren't necessarily going to "offer something new" either. None of the devices on their own are new, and none are known if they can work together to enhance software.
The PSP, however, as the DS, will draw people because of some of the names behind it (FFVII anyone? *rest of the world goes YESPLZ*) Not all PSP games are ports.

The president of Nintendo said that this is now the age where hardware speeds are not the contributing factor of success. Quality and innovation are key. I couldn't agree more. Nintendo is by no means "forcing" innovation. It is providing it as an option. If some developers want, they can simply put a run-of-the-mill map on the touch screen. But they also have the potenial for great things, new things, innovation.

Nintendo is forcing it. By putting so many new features into the hardware, developers are pressured to at least use one. And when you build games around a "feature", they usually don't do well. But when you build games that actually could benefit, not need, but benefit from one, then you have something. But it doesn't have to be a peripheral or a touch screen or a mic. It doesn't have to be a hardware innovation. So maybe the potential is there, but these extra devices are being marketed so heavily, games are coming out that are nothing more than "games" built around them. That's bad. I guess they have to market it that way though, because they sure don't have the graphics/storage of the 3D consoles its trying to be have.

What Nintendo and Sony should do is give as much freedom for developers to work with on their next gen consoles. This means giving the option for good graphics (because, despite how some people believe graphics are inversely proportional to gameplay, a lot of people like them. The majority decides.) giving plenty of storage space, and making the console a solid platform with features we know from experience work. Such as online play.


@Brittany:

IMO he wasn't flaming. It's his opinion, and in debates, you've got to try and accept it, argue the logic, and so on.

Ho does the PSP have better "gameplay"? The games decide that, not the hardware. Not good graphics, not dual screens. The games.

I think he means the PSP has no games on its own; that they're all PC game ports. Which isn't true

@Pheonix:

Please read the thread about when 3D is NOT greater than 2D, just different. You don't "step up" from 2D.

 

[Brittany]

@Brittany:

IMO he wasn't flaming. It's his opinion, and in debates, you've got to try and accept it, argue the logic, and so on.

Agreed, I still prefer that he not refer to it as a 'POS' though. Many other, less rude, options to take, but I guess you're still right.


On topic- I've returned my DS two times now(my uncle is so persistant), but this time with better reasoning(mostly just to not hurt his feelings :P). I think I'll be getting the DS when it gets released in Black(onyx, jetblack, whatever black they use xD)

 

[Kairi]

He did say from his POV. What that says about his POV is up for you to decide and judge, based off the statement.

Debating is fun. ^_^

 

[Shinin]

Debating is fun. ^_^

I don't agree. LOL.

 

[HellishHades]

Presentation is an equal part of it. You could have good ?gameplay? code, but if you then make the entire screen giant yucky pixels, fact of life is no one will play it. In this world we live in, people expect a standard. Does that mean all games have to have good graphics? No. Does it mean that developers are forced to make their games be presented poorer on inferior hardware? Yes.

No game now simply has simply "giant yucky pixels". It a matter of how complex the polygons can get.

Nintendo is forcing it. By putting so many new features into the hardware, developers are pressured to at least use one. And when you build games around a ?feature?, they usually don?t do well. But when you build games that actually could benefit, not need, but benefit from one, then you have something. But it doesn?t have to be a peripheral or a touch screen or a mic. It doesn?t have to be a hardware innovation. So maybe the potential is there, but these extra devices are being marketed so heavily, games are coming out that are nothing more than "games" built around them. That's bad. I guess they have to market it that way though, because they sure don't have the graphics/storage of the 3D consoles its trying to be have.

That's already answered with a previous quote.

The president of Nintendo said that this is now the age where hardware speeds are not the contributing factor of success. Quality and innovation are key. I couldn't agree more. Nintendo is by no means "forcing" innovation. It is providing it as an option. If some developers want, they can simply put a run-of-the-mill map on the touch screen. But they also have the potenial for great things, new things, innovation.

PSP is pointless in the fact it offers nothing new, except a PS2 with the limitations of portability. 3D has had numerous plagues when trying to be made portable. This was Sony?s mistake.

...

I think he means the PSP has no games on its own; that they?re all PC game ports. Which isn?t true

I'll take my FPSes on the PC rather than some tiny box that has horrid controls. D-pads are either be too slow or too inaccurate, since every button press value is fixed, rather than having a variable joystick.

Adding more innovation into the mix isn't a negative thing. It's better to have more options than to simply make a rehash system of a console. If a piece of technology wasn't found to be useful, then it will be removed in the next Nintendo portable system.

He did say from his POV. What that says about his POV is up for you to decide and judge, based off the statement.

Debating is fun. ^_^

My POV still say says the PSP is a POS (lots of acronyms there). The DS may be a step down from the PSP in terms of power, but the PSP is just a downgraded laptop. There are many less rude ways to refer to the PSP, but they don't hold the same truth to the system nor does it continue the nice acronym repetition.

Presentation is an equal part of it. You could have good ?gameplay? code, but if you then make the entire screen giant yucky pixels, fact of life is no one will play it. In this world we live in, people expect a standard. Does that mean all games have to have good graphics? No. Does it mean that developers are forced to make their games be presented poorer on inferior hardware? Yes.

It's interesting how you enjoy debating, yet you answer your own rhetorical questions.

Aren't rhetorical questions used to force your answer of a question onto the opposing point of view?