Nintendo DS or Sony PSP?

[Phantom Blade]

Originally Posted by HopelessLover

I can't wait till the PSP wipes the floor with the shity DS. Then nintendo will go out of business and i'll be laughing out at all you pathetic nintendo fanboys. Be afraid bitchs, be very afriad.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Playing PSP will make u mature.

[HopelessLover]

Originally Posted by Phantom Blade

Playing PSP will make u mature.

I rather play the DS and stay kiddie. Too bad nintendo will be out of business though.


BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHA

[Phantom Blade]

Originally Posted by HopelessLover

I rather play the DS and stay kiddie. Too bad nintendo will be out of business though.


BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHA

i guess u didnt understand.
let me explain to you....

u say u want to play MATURE games on the PSP... my suggestion is that ure not mature at all. Im thinking u should go play with Transformers for another 4 yrs. Grow up first.
Does ur parents know ure online? They should limit ur computer time, otherwise u wont get as much naptime during the day.

[JubeiYamazaki]

Originally Posted by Soconfused

Hmmm, the Dreamcast came out a good year before the PS2 and it burned miserably. The reason the PSX/PS2 beat out the N64/Cube is because they had a wider variety of game and appealed more to the mainstream audience. As long as Sony holds unto the mainstream audience (the guys who don't play video games that much, but like to play Madden or GTA every once and awhile) then they will always come out on top.

As I said before SEGA had a lot of failures previously to the DC (which of course was one the best kick ass systems ever) so people were skiddish about it, not only that, the specs for the DC weren't up to par at all with the PS2 and GameCube. The PSX and Saturn were almost equal to eachother, and N64 had a reason to be delayed. So the DC at the time was really obsolete in terms of the other competitors, add that to their reputation and you'll see why DC failed the way it did. Plus developers kept pulling out on DC, like Sierra, and CEO of SEGA of America fucked over everyone cause they would barely bring anything out. And you are right about the marketing, which I also mentioned 5462451 pages ago about Nintendo basically owned themselves with the N64 and their target auidence. The top selling games are always sports.

Originally Posted by Soconfused

lol, yeah, because Nintendo hasn't been releasing the same games over and over for the past 15 years right? What, there on Mario Party 7 now? Laughable.

I'm talking about consoles here, and not at all about games. And in their defense atleast they try their best to give the gamer awhole new feel for the same games, like Mario, Zelda and Metroid. As for Mario Party, its a popular party game, really theres so much you can do with a party game, "innovation" can only go so far in that kind of genre with the countless mini-games. Besides I have fond memories of Mario party, it paid for my tuition, so I gotta rep it whenever I can.

Originally Posted by Soconfused

But really poeple, just the the damn systems come out then we can go into all this pointless e-arguing. -_-

I agree wholeheartedly, this thread needs to die, because everyone's been going in circles.

[Benoit]

As I said before SEGA had a lot of failures previously to the DC (which of course was one the best kick ass systems ever) so people were skiddish about it

I really don't think that's the reason, because I have yet to find a person (on the street) who knows of the Sega CD and 32X failure. All they know about how bad the Saturn did, and apparently that was enough.
Dreamcast was a hit in the US. Sega had great marketing. It even got an award for it!
I don't know why it didn't catch on in Japan (maybe not enough RPGs?), but in Europe, Sega did almost no marketing at all. They made the foolish move of sponsoring a UK national football team. In fact, the real foolish move was to give Sega Europe so few money for marketing.
The only time that I saw advertising for the Dreamcast was when I was in London as part of a school trip of a week, when our hosts were watching football. I saw football players with Dreamcast logos on their shirts.

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by LynnieS

Getting both; okay, getting the PSP since I've already bought the DS. "Ridge Racer" looks really nice, and I'd like to give "Metal Gear Acid" and "Dynasty Warriors" a try as well. "Hot Shots Golf" looked great even on the tiny screen. The idea of region-free games (from Gamespot.com's coverage) is pretty good also; if shipments arrive regularly, I think I'll pick up a couple extras as late Christmas gifts or something and store up some favors.

The PSP does have a solid design... mostly. I'm finding it to be a bit on the uncomfortable side when compared to the DS; it's only a bit wider, but the extra width seems to make my wrists ache more for some reason, and the surface, despite it looking really great (black with transparent controls), is more slippery. The PSP obviously also smudges more.

When the PSP's UMD holder pops open, I get the feeling that it's going to fall off; it comes open with a tinny sound... and rattles. I do not like the cover to the battery compartment, but am happy that I can replace the battery itself, which I dislike about the DS's design. I have not tried the so-called "flying UMD guillitine of death" trick and am not about to either.

The placement of the controls seem awkward and more than a bit cluttered. Slide switches on the sides, buttons on both sides of the screen and along the bottom, and a little speaker right under my left hand (right below my thumb).

I have not noticed any dead pixels or loose controls, and both the graphics and sound (despite the speaker placement) are fantastic. The controls are quite responsive and have a nice feel; I know when I pressed a button, for example.

All ratings are based on personal opinions and limited (initial and current) use.

From a pure gaming point of view, I would give the DS's overall design a 9/10 and the PSP's a 7.5/10. Graphics, DS is a 8/10, and the PSP is a 9.5/10. Sound, DS is a 8/10, and the PSP is a 9.5/10.

Games, can't say anything about them; I don't have enough of either system's to make a good judgement. Both look good in what they do; the DS's games are more family-friendly in both theme and control, and the PSP's... are a real mix. From a pure supply, though, I'd rate the DS above the PSP as I can still play my old GBA games on it.

Good luck in getting a PSP, though. I suspect that supplies will run short once again.

[ChoBaka]

Originally Posted by Benoit

I really don't think that's the reason, because I have yet to find a person (on the street) who knows of the Sega CD and 32X failure. All they know about how bad the Saturn did, and apparently that was enough.
Dreamcast was a hit in the US. Sega had great marketing. It even got an award for it!
I don't know why it didn't catch on in Japan (maybe not enough RPGs?), but in Europe, Sega did almost no marketing at all. They made the foolish move of sponsoring a UK national football team. In fact, the real foolish move was to give Sega Europe so few money for marketing.
The only time that I saw advertising for the Dreamcast was when I was in London as part of a school trip of a week, when our hosts were watching football. I saw football players with Dreamcast logos on their shirts.

It's such a shame...the Dreamcast was a worthy successor to the almighty Genesis. I wish Sega could've just erased the failures they had with the Saturn and Sega CD/32X. Oh well, now I can get a Dreamcast on ebay for 50 bucks with 4 controllers and 2 mem cards, plus the games are cheap!

[Mavurik]

You're just basing your judgment on graphics. The DS is more than a portable N64. It has two screens and has a touchscreen. Innovating. Something I haven't seen Sony doing, it just copies.

Sony isn't innovating? Nevermind that it develops it's own NEW storage formats for its systems. Go read about the PS3 then slap yourself for saying that.

[Mavurik]

Originally Posted by Benoit

But FFVII changed that, by coming out on the PSX (instead of N64).

And thank God for that. N64 would have ruined it. Every game with identical graphics. I can't get over that. I don't think I ever saw a 2d game on N64. I know people here who are all hardcore Nintendo fans but if FF7 came out on N64 it would have sucked and it wouldn't be as good as it is now. N64 would have limited it too much.

Also, while I was living in Japan DC was dead in the USA and still going strong in Japan. So I think it was doing better in Japan than in USA. Not vice versa.

As for the PSP, with all of the features I think it's more convenient. I can do much more with it. The DS has two screens but to me that's not really innovative. There's already hardware out there with touch screens that you can play games on. Have you ever heard of Palm Pilot? And people accuse Sony of copying?

[Mavurik]

Just to make a few points and correct a few inconsisitencies I keep reading.

1) What is all this talk about DC doing poorly in Japan? I was in Japan a year ago going to college and the DC was still going strong while it was going poorly in USA. It was in USA that you could buy a Dreamcast for like $20 with a controller and memory card but in Japan the prices were still pretty competitive. I say this from actually being there.

2) People are not just saying PSP is better because of graphics and features. You need to look at other things too and come to a conclusion based on every element. Past successes/failures, business strategy, long run vs short run, future projections, popularity, etc. Looking at everything I've come to the conclusion that the PSP is made to last for the long run and I think that that's Sony's strong point. Nintendo is thinking in the short run and it's obvious because they probably shot themselves in the leg by letting it leak out that they're going to develop a new system in about a year or so. Who wants to buy something that's going to be old so soon? At least I can have peace of mind when I buy the PSP that it's going to be around and supported long enough for me to enjoy. As for DS, I can't say the same thing. I'd rather be frugal with my money and wait for Nintendo's REAL next handheld to come out. I have a feeling Nintendo will copy Sony and go to disc format with this new system. That's the only way they're going to REALLY compete with the PSP because developers who develop for both are obviously going to have more flexibililty on the PSP. Look at the short run vs long run. That's why Sony is not going crazy over the shortage right now or how many DS' are being sold. Their system is going to outlast the DS. They have support from developers, they have a much better format to work with with more memory allowing the possibility for more innovative things to be done.

3) As for game libraries, Sony wins hands down. I don't really see how you can argue against that. Some of the most innovative and industry changing games have come out on Sony's systems. When's the last time you've seen a truly innovative game on N64? Or on GC? Those systems do what they can do and that's that. The developers haven't really been too innovative with them. However, I can name tons of innovative games on the PS2. Games that have manipulated the systems ins and outs and come out with something that people didn't think was possible.

I guess what it all comes down to in this PSP vs DS argument is that both systems have their strong points, but in this industry features and graphics are not going to win. Sony wins in features and graphics but it's flexibility is what's going to give it an edge over DS, especially when the developers start displaying it in their games. They have more space to work with, more complex hardware that will improve gameplay, graphics and sound, and the end result is going to be better quality games in every area. You don't have to understand what I'm talking about, the developer's will.

I can imagine a PSP game coming out in a UMD set with maybe one disc as the game and another disc with music, pictures, movie clips, etc. Would that be possible on DS? Yes, but it wouldn't be as nice as on the PSP (pictures and movie clips are where graphics WOULD matter).

Or maybe you could watch an anime or drama (and I'm sure they won't have trouble getting them on PSP with all the hype) and watch special features after that because the disc size would allow for it.

I think everyone's just looking at the wrong thing.

My argument is that the PSP allows for more to be done. Sure, you can use a touchpad on DS but take that away and what do you have? Exactly. Everything besides that is less than what the PSP offers.

[Benoit]

Sony isn't innovating? Nevermind that it develops it's own NEW storage formats for its systems. Go read about the PS3 then slap yourself for saying that.

That's not going to innovate our gaming experience.

And thank God for that. N64 would have ruined it. Every game with identical graphics. I can't get over that. I don't think I ever saw a 2d game on N64. I know people here who are all hardcore Nintendo fans but if FF7 came out on N64 it would have sucked and it wouldn't be as good as it is now. N64 would have limited it too much.

You can't say that since it never happened. I doubt it would suck. There was more possible with that system than you can say at first glance. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time proved that.
The N64 had superior graphics, so it would at least not look shitty. The FMVs probably would be taken out, though. And no, having no FMVs wouldn't ruin the game. That's silly.

Also, while I was living in Japan DC was dead in the USA and still going strong in Japan. So I think it was doing better in Japan than in USA. Not vice versa.

You got there too late, it's simple as that. Some time after Sega abandoned production of its console, it announced a big price drop, which made the Dreamcast sell really well. Too bad that it didn't happen sooner.

There's already hardware out there with touch screens that you can play games on.

But those aren't designed for gaming, and don't make extensive use of the touch screen.

2) People are not just saying PSP is better because of graphics and features.

Re-read the thread again. Twice.

Some of the most innovative and industry changing games have come out on Sony's systems.

That's pretty obvious if most games get released on that system. Market share. That's not any of Sony's doing.

When's the last time you've seen a truly innovative game on N64? Or on GC?

N64 had Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
GC had Metroid Prime, Pikmin, PSO: Episode III, Eternal Darkness
I'm not that much into Nintendo, though. :P
Each console had their share of innovative games.

The rest of your post is based on non-related history and poorly thought out assumptions. More storage space equals more innovation? Please...

[Chronissz]

Originally Posted by Mavurik

When's the last time you've seen a truly innovative game on N64? Or on GC? Those systems do what they can do and that's that. The developers haven't really been too innovative with them. However, I can name tons of innovative games on the PS2. Games that have manipulated the systems ins and outs and come out with something that people didn't think was possible.

Its statements like that which make everything you say meaningless. Its widely known that every system has its fair share of great exclusive titles that do in fact introduce innovative new concepts to their respective genre, to argue otherwise is simply acting arrogant. I could pull up at least 10 gamecube titles that fit into this catagory but to make this short and simple without doing any research I'll name two, Pikmin and Animal Crossing.

Maybe you should try playing the games on each console before making such a generalized and ridiculous statement.

[Mavurik]

Originally Posted by Benoit

That's not going to innovate our gaming experience.

You're not looking at things from a developer's perspective. Have you ever programmed before? Having more possibilities allows you to do more innovative things. You have less limits. DS has two screens and a touch pad which allows for innovation, but developer's are severely limited in storage space, sound and graphical quality. If you've never programmed before I could see why you don't understand this.

You can't say that since it never happened. I doubt it would suck. There was more possible with that system than you can say at first glance. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time proved that. The N64 had superior graphics, so it would at least not look shitty. The FMVs probably would be taken out, though. And no, having no FMVs wouldn't ruin the game. That's silly.

Oh yes I can say that and just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it wouldn't have sucked. Ask any FF7 fan which system they would have rather seen FF7 on? The PSX was the perfect system for FF7. The art in the backgrounds, the cut scenes, the LENGTH of the game, the music. All of it was made possible by PSX and it's technology. They could fit a much more engaging game on PSX than they could on N64. Every N64 game was plagued with the same graphical style and that's one major element which would have made FF7 EXTREMELY suck on N64. It just wouldn't have been as good. Too many limitations. You can even break it down to something as simple as the controls if you want to.

You got there too late, it's simple as that. Some time after Sega abandoned production of its console, it announced a big price drop, which made the Dreamcast sell really well. Too bad that it didn't happen sooner.

I was actually there. It's as simple as that. In Japan DC was doing extremely well compared to the other markets. There were home developers making games and releasing them in stores, and many new games coming out while I was there when they had stopped production in USA a year or so before. It wasn't a price drop. It was just that developers never stopped making games and accessories for it. I can say that from actually being there and being in the stores to see the games and accessories for myself!

But those aren't designed for gaming, and don't make extensive use of the touch screen.

Oh please, there you go trying to write off a completely valid statement. They're not designed solely for gaming but they can play games. That's all that matters. Nintendo copied the idea. Get over it. Nintendo is not as original as you think. Sorry to shatter your whole world. The technology was already out there.

That's pretty obvious if most games get released on that system. Market share. That's not any of Sony's doing.

How is it not? They designed a system which made it easier for developers to develop better games. And the developers did. It's all of Sony's doing.

N64 had Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
GC had Metroid Prime, Pikmin, PSO: Episode III, Eternal Darkness
I'm not that much into Nintendo, though. :P
Each console had their share of innovative games.

Innovative does not mean a good game. Every system has its share of "good games" but I don't think N64 and GC have a comparable frequency of actually innovative titles as PS2 and PSX did. Games like FF7, Metal Gear Solid, Kingdom Hearts, etc. Those are games that shook up the industry. Yes, all systems have good games but in recent history the games that actually made the strongest impact on the gaming industry have come from Sony's console systems (unless you count Pokemon on Nintendo, but that's not even on a console).

The rest of your post is based on non-related history and poorly thought out assumptions. More storage space equals more innovation? Please...

Like I said, unless you've programmed games before you probably wont understand. More storage space AS WELL AS BETTER HARDWARE AND FACILITIES allows for BETTER GAMES and MORE POSSIBILITY FOR INNOVATIVE TITLES. Is that really hard to understand? It's common sense really. If you have more to work with you can come up with better things.


Duh

[Mavurik]

Originally Posted by Chronissz

Its statements like that which make everything you say meaningless. Its widely known that every system has its fair share of great exclusive titles that do in fact introduce innovative new concepts to their respective genre, to argue otherwise is simply acting arrogant. I could pull up at least 10 gamecube titles that fit into this catagory but to make this short and simple without doing any research I'll name two, Pikmin and Animal Crossing.

Maybe you should try playing the games on each console before making such a generalized and ridiculous statement.

Actually, I don't hate GC or anything but N64. Please. The amount of innovative titles on N64 doesn't even compare to the amount on PSX. Then you can add the amount of innovative titles that appeared on PS2. GC has its own but there's still not as many. For every one title you pull up, I can pull up 5 from PSX/PS2. There's just more games. Why? Well, there's a reason that more developers develop for Sony and it's not because Sony is paying them out like Microsoft.

When 1 in 5 people owns a PSX or PS2 I think Sony is doing something right. I also think its a bit more complicated than the notion of them releasing their system ahead of others. It's just a bit more complicated than that, I'm sorry.

[mxg]

Originally Posted by Mavurik

You're not looking at things from a developer's perspective. Have you ever programmed before? Having more possibilities allows you to do more innovative things. You have less limits. DS has two screens and a touch pad which allows for innovation, but developer's are severely limited in storage space, sound and graphical quality. If you've never programmed before I could see why you don't understand this.



Oh yes I can say that and just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it wouldn't have sucked. Ask any FF7 fan which system they would have rather seen FF7 on? The PSX was the perfect system for FF7. The art in the backgrounds, the cut scenes, the LENGTH of the game, the music. All of it was made possible by PSX and it's technology. They could fit a much more engaging game on PSX than they could on N64. Every N64 game was plagued with the same graphical style and that's one major element which would have made FF7 EXTREMELY suck on N64. It just wouldn't have been as good. Too many limitations. You can even break it down to something as simple as the controls if you want to.



I was actually there. It's as simple as that. In Japan DC was doing extremely well compared to the other markets. There were home developers making games and releasing them in stores, and many new games coming out while I was there when they had stopped production in USA a year or so before. It wasn't a price drop. It was just that developers never stopped making games and accessories for it. I can say that from actually being there and being in the stores to see the games and accessories for myself!



Oh please, there you go trying to write off a completely valid statement. They're not designed solely for gaming but they can play games. That's all that matters. Nintendo copied the idea. Get over it. Nintendo is not as original as you think. Sorry to shatter your whole world. The technology was already out there.



How is it not? They designed a system which made it easier for developers to develop better games. And the developers did. It's all of Sony's doing.



Innovative does not mean a good game. Every system has its share of "good games" but I don't think N64 and GC have a comparable frequency of actually innovative titles as PS2 and PSX did. Games like FF7, Metal Gear Solid, Kingdom Hearts, etc. Those are games that shook up the industry. Yes, all systems have good games but in recent history the games that actually made the strongest impact on the gaming industry have come from Sony's console systems (unless you count Pokemon on Nintendo, but that's not even on a console).



Like I said, unless you've programmed games before you probably wont understand. More storage space AS WELL AS BETTER HARDWARE AND FACILITIES allows for BETTER GAMES and MORE POSSIBILITY FOR INNOVATIVE TITLES. Is that really hard to understand? It's common sense really. If you have more to work with you can come up with better things.


Duh

With a post like that maybe ppl will stop arguing now
Thanks for breaking that down
SONY owns

[Gevurah]

I really think that depends on how you define "innovation," in which I think you're overusing the word. When you name Kingdom Hearts "innovative," I see it differently. Think of the first game that really made the 3D battle lock on system come to life... and innovative: Zelda OOT for the N64. Kingdom Hearts basically built upon that system and added a few things here and there to make is somewhat unique. I don't find that innovative. I'd rather play on Zelda's system to battle than Kingdom Hearts' but that's just me talking. For me, innovation in gaming is a way of playing that is generally not of the norm, yet improves the experience. Materia in FF7 wasn't all that special to me.

As for the whole Market Share vs. system programming for the PS2, developers have said it is easier to create on the GC vs the PS2, but money makes the world go round. Look at the recent trends with Capcom i.e. Viewtiful Joe and Resident Evil 4.

To stay on topic, in terms of innovation, I think the DS has something. I have one and am pretty impressed with what it can do so far. Again the only thing that's really allowing me to give a final opinion on the system is the wait for more games. The same goes for the PSP, which I have not tried yet but am really wanting to use.

One thing I am going say which helped the PS2 and the GB colors and GBAs is the use of backwards technology. Useful feature, especially when you don't have enough games for the system. In reality though, of all of you who have PS2's (including myself), how many times do you play old PS games (RPGs not included because they take forever to finish i.e. FFT) on the system? I know I don't, minus the RPGs. But when the PS2 and GBA came out, people were preaching to me how it plays old games... whoopdie doo! But convenience wins the American market. Yet, so do flashy things as well.

I already have my DS and am happy with it. If the PSP really is as great as the "board gods" say they are, cool. A bunch of you just sound retarded and childish with your "OMG SONY PWNS!!! and NINTY = l337!!!" And this board is way off topic! Keep it up y'all!

[JubeiYamazaki]

Originally Posted by mxg

With a post like that maybe ppl will stop arguing now
Thanks for breaking that down
SONY owns

I wasn't going say anything until I read that. ^

Originally Posted by Mavurik

Oh yes I can say that and just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it wouldn't have sucked. Ask any FF7 fan which system they would have rather seen FF7 on? The PSX was the perfect system for FF7. The art in the backgrounds, the cut scenes, the LENGTH of the game, the music. All of it was made possible by PSX and it's technology. They could fit a much more engaging game on PSX than they could on N64. Every N64 game was plagued with the same graphical style and that's one major element which would have made FF7 EXTREMELY suck on N64. It just wouldn't have been as good. Too many limitations. You can even break it down to something as simple as the controls if you want to.

That's really a shitty comparison, since no one knows what FF7 would of looked like on the N64 because its never been made. FF7 was graphically and musically a piece of shit on the PSX. Compared to FF8 (also note FF8 was the first FF with orchestrated music) was crap. FF7 had the ugliest polygons for a "next-gen" RPG. As for the gameplay, all they added was the materia system but with the same wait system ALL FFs have and made it look as pretty as possible. As for the "length" of FF7, that's all crap, because CD1 was long as hell, CD2 was barely half that time, and CD3 was only one fight. Anyone whose done the "FMV trick" knows that each CD carries all the same cinematics so the problem for the CDs weren't because the cinemas took up space. But why was FF7 3 discs people? Because Square had to make FF7 the biggest deal possible in every shape and form. Because when I was a 3 disc RPG from Sqaure I was like.

Originally Posted by Mavurik

Innovative does not mean a good game. Every system has its share of "good games" but I don't think N64 and GC have a comparable frequency of actually innovative titles as PS2 and PSX did. Games like FF7, Metal Gear Solid, Kingdom Hearts, etc. Those are games that shook up the industry. Yes, all systems have good games but in recent history the games that actually made the strongest impact on the gaming industry have come from Sony's console systems (unless you count Pokemon on Nintendo, but that's not even on a console).

Just because those games came on that system doesn't make the system innovative itself, if Sony never existed, and they had to make games for Nintendo it still would of been the same crap. I don't see how MSG, FF7, KH or anyother game could not be done on Nintendo's respective platforms. Resident Evil 2 for the N64 had BOTH Leon and Claire, AND cinematics ALL on a cart, although with slightly grainy graphics, and without the loading time, while the PSX had 2 CDs, slightly better graphics and loading times. So really to say Sony "opened" awhole new world of gaming is crap because like I mentioned before, CDs were in, carts were not so developers went for what was easier to mess with and what was seen as the "future" not for consoles but for technology period.

Originally Posted by Mavurik

Like I said, unless you've programmed games before you probably wont understand. More storage space AS WELL AS BETTER HARDWARE AND FACILITIES allows for BETTER GAMES and MORE POSSIBILITY FOR INNOVATIVE TITLES. Is that really hard to understand? It's common sense really. If you have more to work with you can come up with better things.

From Next Generation (the holy grail here)
-------------------------------------------
NG: Playstation is criticized for restrictiing developers to a fairly rigid Operatng System (OS). At the other extreme, developing for Saturn is often described as unnescessarily complicated. How does Ultra 64 compare.

George (George Zachary tech creator from SGI): We provide Alias and MultiGen tools that are used to create 3D models and texture maps, and people can use other tools as well if they want to. There's a full set of converters availiable that convert into Ultra 64 data formats to provide all the low-level compliation and linkage routines.

NG: How have you dealt with the problem of not knowing what kind of format games will be stored on? Does it make any difference to Ultra 64 if games come on CD, cartridge, optical disk, via the internet, or whatever else Nintendo might of planned?

George: No, we have really high bandwidth interfaces in Ultra 64 which have all kinds of capacity, and essentially, they can handle pretty much any kind of input.
-------------------------------------------

Sony had a really messed up OS while Saturn had a more complicated method, Ultra 64 seemingly had none of those limitations. So as I said before, developers went with CDs because it was considered the wave of the future.

[Yuiichi]

I want to put in a word for innovation on both Sony and Nintendo's parts.

Sony: Take a look at the Eye toy. If that doesn't spell innovation, i don't know what does. Even though it is not used for much other than nifty little games, i think it will be big in the future.

Nintendo: Going back deep into the archives, i will pull out the Virtual Boy. Now i do know it was a failure, but what it attempted to do was way beyond it's time. Virtual reality. Thats just plain cool. If it were attempted today, Nintendo would surely succeed.

Each company has it's own share of innovations and no one can say that one company did it all. Each has their own ups and downs.

[rcxAsh]

I haven't had the time to read the whole thread, and I haven't read too much about the DS and stuff.

But in regards to innovation, I think that Sony has always been absolutely awesome at it. I'm coming from a dying Clie community. But in it's better days, Sony Clies were always way ahead of their time. Even today, my friend commented on how my UX40 looks nothing like a PalmOS device, even though that's what it is.

If they've done it in the past, I'm sure that the PSP will have some nifty innovations to come.

The only thing about Sony.. Proprietary. However, you can't say that Nintendo isn't much better either. The Gameboy Advanced SP. What the heck!? I have to buy Nintendo headphones!? What happened to good old standard headphones? Even Sony stuff use standard headphones.

Anyways... The DS is pretty innovative though. Dual screens.... interesting idea indeed.

One thing about the PSP, is that it should definately apparently be able to play movies and stuff. I'm sure that the DS can too, can it? Haven't researched it much.

The PSP is apparently going to use the same (or similar) Image Converter that Sony Clies use (the newer version, like the VZ series has). So this would be a definate plus for Sony Clie owners. Why install two pieces of software that do the same thing.

[CowPower]

I'd go for a PSP over a DS anyday. Reasons:

1.
DS styling is as exciting as a house brick.

2.
The whole touchscreen idea, although brilliant and innovative is highly flawed. Anyone whos ever owned a laptop with a touchpad can atest to this. Sure its working and great not. Give it some serious workout over a period of say 1/2 a year and lets see how brilliant that touch pad still is.

3.
Acient gfx. Lets face its crap. My IPAQ pad can pump out better gfx then the DS. Compare the screen shots of Ridger Racer DS and Ridge Racer PSP. To say the difference is light years apart would be giving N credit for selling +10yr hardware.

And to the person saying the Dreamcast is more powerful then a PS2. WTF were you smoking sunshine?

Dreamcast has 16 MB RAM, of which 8 MB is video RAM.
PS2 has only 4 MB video RAM.
That, and the PS2 has a bad bus system.

Rather selective with the facts weren't we?
And what was is so bad about the PS2 bus system? 256bit all round and with large amounts of the memory been embedded and thus running full bus speed across the full bus width with virtually nil latency and maximum read and write speed due to it been embedded. There is nothing wrong. If anything its still better then anything out there atm, and the only reason we do see more of it is because its damn expensive to add embedded memory onto devices.

The Dreamcast CPU was a Hitachi SH4 RISC unit on a good day it operated at 200MHz at 360 MIPS/1.4FLOPS, nothing brilliant really especially when you compare it to the PS2 later on. The basic sound processor was made by Yamaha, 64 co-current voice + 3d audio processing. The GFX was essentially powered by a PowerVR2 GFX card that anyone can buy for their standard PC. The theory limits of the PowerVR chip was that it could do 3million polygon per/sec that included effects the raw output was rated somewhere close to 6million polygons. The DC only had 16MB of main memory, 8MB of video memory, and 2MB of sound memory but then again its not that much different if your talking about raw size to the PS2. The total system memory of the DC is 26MB.

Now lets look at the PS2 specs.

# System Clock: 294.912 MHz
# Bus Width: 128 bit
# Cache: 16 kb
# System Memory: 32 MB Direct Rambus
# Memory Bus Bandwidth: 3.2 GB per second
# Co-Processor: FPU (Floating Point Multiply Accumulator x 1, Floating Point Divider x 1)
# Vector Units: VU0 and VU1 (Floating Point Multiply Accumulator x 9, Floating Point Divider x 1)
# Floating Point Performance: 6.2 GFLOPS
# 3D CG Geometric Transformation: 66 million Polygons Per Second

Hmmm.... yes we can already see its *just* a tad more powerful then the DC. Lets have a look at the GFX sub-system.
* Clock Frequency: 150MHz
* DRAM Bus bandwidth: 48 GB Per Second
* DRAM Bus width: 256 bits
* Pixel Configuration: RGB:Alpha:Z Buffer (24:8:32)
* Maximum Polygon Rate: 75 Million Polygons Per Second
* Memory: 4 MB VRAM
O dear. Completely trashed the DC is. That 4mb VRAM is embedded aswell. 4mb embedded memory running full bus speed @ 256bit > 8mb memory that isn't. Ignore the sheer bandwidth advantage this has for a mintue and just think. Embedded memory will be faster in every aspect of operation from reading to writing to memory. And also since its embedded there is by virtue of been embedded little to no latency.



The only area where the DC is better is the audio. The PS2 can only do 48 co-current voices.

Remember when the PS2 came out? The launch games were crap in terms of graphics compared to the Dreamcast's launch titles. Ports of games were grainy on the PS2, thanks to no anti-aliasing, which every other console since the Nintendo 64 had. It was very difficult to program as well, and developers complained that Sony wouldn't offer any solution. Meanwhile, the Dreamcast was very easy to program for.

Now call me crazy.... but could it be that the launch titles gfx wasn't brilliant cause the developers were more concerned about getting the games out the door and then focusing time on improving the gfx because they were working on a completely new system that literally very few people had experence in? But nah that could never be............