Slashdot Mirror
DS vs PSP - Developers, Press Sound Off
Sean O'Neill writes "Over at GCAdvanced.com, we've got a large feature interviewing handheld developers and gaming press about the Sony PSP and Nintendo DS. Marc Nix of IGN says: 'I think a lot of system fans and game reporters are gearing up for a big Portable System War of 2005, but the problem is, gamers traditionally haven't cared all that much about handhelds.' However, it's also pointed out that 'incredible features for the new handhelds... will undoubtedly elevate their appeal' - the article then gets responses from more than 20 developers/press on their views of the conflict to come."
I think the winner will be the one who comes up with a new technology in handhelds actually worth noting - I, for one, would love to see massive multiplayer handheld combat over a small area in your neighborhood / town - but it's probably just going to be rehashes of old games, since all the new ideas are in the, well, newer fields.
I mean after all, the Nintendo DS is supposed to come out before the Xmas 2004 buying frenzy, while Sony's PSP is supposed to come out early 2005. After all, wasn't it Sony who used the "get it out early" tactic to win the current generation's console war? Technical superiority (which the PSP undoubtedly has) doesn't always win the war, its all about the games.
Gameboy won because it had VASTLY superior battery life. You had to put 6 AAs in the game gear, and it went through them in about 2 hours. The gameboy used 4 AAs, but got much much more life out of them. It was simply more portable.
The biggest problem was switching batteries out every few hours of play... that gets expensive really quick unless you want to be tethered to a wall wart. I think this, more than anything else, killed the system. I'm not saying that's it's only problem, but arguably it's biggest.
The PSP will have rechargable batteries, so you don't have to worry about battery cost (at least not for another 3-4 years). The big question is the life per charge. 2 hours avg will not be enough. 8 hours (judging from the number of iPod fanatics) will probably be just fine. 16 hours is probably dreaming :-)
Once they jump the battery life hurdle, then people will start looking more seriously at the games...
-Redundancy Man strikes again!
How is focusing on gameplay backwards? Without new gameplay mechanics the industry will stagnate. Every game will just become a remake of the last, just with slightly prettier graphics. And while, as Hollywood has shown us in recent years, remakes have a certain appeal, people will get sick of playing the increasingly pretty versions of the same games over and over again. Without a constant flow of new ideas, people will just get bored with video games and the industry will crash.
In all likelihood it will end up being the DS because they'll use the same model that Playstation itself used (and Gameboy for that matter). Backward compatability. This gets you the first months when new games are slim and all the early adopters pay prime dollar to get the latest and greatest. Out of the gate, PSP will only have the games available at launch.
Plus wouldn't you rather play something like WarrioWare rather than Madden 2005 on a portable? I'd rather view Madden on a big screen.
Also, who cares?
----
Spam subject of the moment: Offshore account secrets -nashville disrupt
They said the PSP played mp3s. Wow. Talk about a giant misstep. Sony has not embelish at ALL about the major features of the PSP. It plays MUSIC FILES on MEMORY STICK DUOs. We know NOTHING more about it. My bet? It only plays ATRAC3 files to save on licensing and because it'd help keep the price down, just like the Clies in Japan or that new iPod-ripoff. If someone isn't clever enough to notice that the PSP isn't going to play mp3s, they don't deserve my time.
The PSP, playing your mp3s, dvds and PS2 games in a handheld, but you'll need to buy them all again.
Consider Donkey Kong Country. At the time when the next-generation, 3D consoles were coming out, it was a stunning-looking SNES game. It looked 3D! But that was the trick -- it had to have the look of 3D in order to compete with the newer games that actually were 3D. So they gave the sprites the shiny, plasticky look that people associate with 3D rendering.
If Rare had hand-drawn the sprites, does anyone doubt that it would've looked better? I mean, people are still better at drawing than computers are. Once you strip away the chrome -- or see it in a negative light, as I do -- what's left of DKC is a competent enough platformer, but not something deserving of the buzz it got.
As for Halo, it got enormous hype due to Bungie's reputation (and Microsoft's deep pockets), but it has the earmarks of a game that was rush, rush, rushed to completion in order to meet the launch deadline. I have no doubt that Halo 2 will be an excellent game, but Halo was enormously overrated. And who can blame the players for continuing to spread the buzz? You're not going to go up to your peer group and say "I just spent $350 on the newest console plus its only worthwhile game, and it's crap!"
"What did people DO with their longer battery life?"
They don't have to regularly stop their game because the battery died.
"Derp de derp."
" ...what's left of DKC is a competent enough platformer, but not something deserving of the buzz it got."
No, that's not really true. People get over graphics pretty quick. If the game was only mediochre, it would have died a quick death instead of being held at the highest bar.
"Derp de derp."
I'd like to see you justify either of those claims, that Sony is "more onwards" ("looking forward" perhaps?) or that Nintendo is going backwards.
Sony is certainly going forwards, they've got improved graphics, wireless, new media, and the ability to play music and movies in some format. However Nintendo is also going forwards, they've got improved graphics, wireless, new media, two screens, and touchscreen capability.
They're clearly pointed in related but slightly tangential directions, Sony towards the all-in-one entertainment device, and Nintendo towards a more dedicated gaming machine. It would be hard to argue that either one is more "onward" than the other, and certainly Nintendo is not moving backwards.
One could attempt to argue on the basis of graphics that Sony is more "onward." However even ignoring the "it's the gameplay" argument, better graphics do not necessarily indicate a better console. Not only can other factors be a limitation (the N64 had better graphics capabilites than the PSX, but was limited by the media format) but if he technology needed for the better graphics pushes either the price or the battery life outside the tollerance range of the consumers it will not be considered a step forward in the long run (see GameGear and NeoGeo.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
The PSP won't be anything new. It won't be able to do anything that the PS2 can't, at least not game-wise. The DS on the other hand will be able to take games that can't be done on the normal consoles - not even the up-and-coming Revolution, PS3 and XB2 will be able to play certain DS games, because of the touchscreen. I don't care about two screens, that's just one screen at twice the size. With a bit of thought any games that use two screens could be done with just one. You may have to shrink each one a little, but it's nothing big. The touchscreen is going to be revolutionary. It may already be used in PDAs and things, but they aren't gaming platforms. The touchscreen will allow controls not possible with any other input system. The IPod's rotating disc thingy could be implemented with a touchscreen, but nothing else could do it. It brings your radio tuning slide, your speakers' volume knob, just about every input device ever devised can be shown off with a touchscreen. Think that Submarine game that was demoed at E3. That's what the DS is about, the two screens just gives it a cool name.
As a sidenote, although I said that two screens are no better than one, that's only theoretical. You could have two viewpoints of the same area with a single screen, but splitting one screen across the middle for single player hasn't been done before. I don't know why. With the DS you may effectively only have one screen twice as high, but it won't be used like a single screen much. There's nothing to stop developers putting a 'second screen' in console games, but on the DS they -will- do that. The two screens really just tells them, 'Hey! You know what would be cool? Instead of choosing between camera angles, if you could use both!' - whether or not they'll realise that any time soon remains to be seen.