Tendo City

Quote:A what can only be described as Awesome looking new Music game from Nintendo, has been announced, and Nintendo have the site up and running.

The game, going under the title Electro Plankton, seems to be a Light and Music game using sea creatures. A visit to the site Here, will give you access to some wonderful looking and sounding videos (Nanocarp is my favourite looking), Wallpapers and Info (Although in Japanese, there is a little English)

Update

Scheduled for a Japanese release on April 7th 2005 including headphones, Electro Plankton is being produced by contemporary Japanese musician Toshio Iwai, designer of other musicical interactive devices, will be released through a currently undiclosed publisher.

Electro Plankton which is being referred to as a "Touchable Media Art" game, places players in a water-based world. Within this world exists ten types of "electric plankton" creatures. These creatures will react to your voice and touch, also based on your touches and voice inputs, the game will output different audio/video patterns, modifying your voice with a variety of amusing effects.

Cube-Europe

Looks cool.

Took you long enough...

Hey some people go out and have fun on weekends.

Is this what Nintendo meant when it said that DS would offer entertainment that was revolutionary and impossible on the other consoles?

Right now I'm almost believing it.

Well...you probably couldn't do stuff like that on the PSP.

Great Rumbler Wrote:Well...you probably couldn't do stuff like that on the PSP.

I can't become pregnant because I lack ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus and a vagina, but you don't hear me complaining.

After all, I'm sure modern science will allow it before I die!

Melvar: It is I, Melvar!

You're right rtan, it's obvious that Nintendo's idea of a touch screen with an additional screen is pointless and far from being innovative especially with the way they're releasing these experiment games... I mean what are they doing??? trying to find out what people like or something??? That cant be it!

They need to go back to games that expand on what we know and what we've seen countless times before, they shouldn't try new things like some stupid game where you touch characters in order to make music or light. I mean, what good would that do?? "Oh i'm Nintendo, imma big moron, i'm going to make a Zelda DS game that uses the same experiments from other DS games to create something new like puzzles that involve light and sound by touching the screen because we have small dicks *dur*"

God, what is Nintendo THINKING??? Just give us the realistic graphics so we can belittle the PS2 and XBox and do NOT innovate or try things new in a market that they basically own. I mean jesus.

The PSP gives us the PS2 experience in a hand held! Everything we saw on the home console.... but now in your pocket almost! Imagine all the ported games! Games that are taken directly from the shelf and put on the PSP with little to no new content and sold back to us with only the idea of it being PORTABLE! (even though the larger wide screen that attaches to the PS2 and makes the entire system portable is about 50 bucks cheaper than the hand held, but still!) It's just like when Nintendo released the classic series for GBA but charged 20 bucks a piece for games you can buy for 50 cents! Except now...... it's PS2 games!!!! WOOOOO!!!!!! Now that's a good idea!!! That's innovation if I ever saw it! It's never been done before!!!! IT'S BOUND TO KILL NINTENDO!!!!!

Grow up, Nintendo. No one wants you stupid 'experiments' or your 'innovations' or 'new ideas' we just want the same thing handed to us over and over and over and over until our fucking cocks bleed and the market is so flooded with the same shit that people give up and find something better to do with their time.

Can I get an amen.

I think what he's saying is "keep trying" because this isn't exactly amazing.

Oh and, lazy, I just have a question. I personally think the touch screen is a nice creation. Basically, it's like a handheld mouse only actually usable. It'll be great.

However, what's with two screens? Do you believe the addition of a second screen adds anything at all except space? Do you think that two screens does anything a larger screen couldn't do?

Funny that lazy mentioned ports since Nintendo's big DS game is a port of an old N64 game. ;)

I see the DS as mostly-untapped potential, and I just wish that Nintendo would lead the way for developers instead of just sitting around and letting them try to experiment with it. If the PSP did not exist then I could see the value of that, but since Nintendo needs to do whatever they can to hold on to their market share I think that this stance of not leading is a very dangerous one.

Mario 64 DS is not a port, OB1. It's based off the original gameplay and most of the levels but it has been completely updated and overhauled. A port is when you simply take it from one system to another.

Dual Screens means two processors, one for each screen. A larger screen cut in half is just that. By creating two screens, totally independent of eachother you can litterally have two completely different game engines on each screen. For now, we have FPS on the touch and the map on top; Cool but not amazing. Zelda will probably have something similar with the map with the option to put your inventory screen on the touch screen; Switch weapons or gear while still playing without having to pause the game. Maybe even adding analoge support the same way Mario 64 DS does. Okay so that's neat, but still not amazing.

Now imagine you're playing a 2-D Zelda and you're in a submarine like in WW. You're fighting off badies with your sword on the main bridge. There's a persicope there as well. Imagine that on the lower screen you see Link fighting the baddies with full control over your character. On the top screen you're seeing through the periscope which you can turn by throwing your boomerang at the periscope on the lower screen. You recieve a warning saying that baddies are approaching from the south, you turn the periscope south to see baddies approaching by ship on the top screen in 3-D.

When you turn the periscope it will automatically target any ships in it's view. Now, while fighting the baddies on the lower screen, you can run over a switch that fires torpedos at the ships on the surface, you have to time it right since there are obstacles in the water as well. You are now playing two games at once, each using their own game engine; One being a 2-D overhead traditional Zelda type with the other being a 3-D shooter at the same time.

You're playing a 2-D version of Metal Gear. You have the night vision equipped because you're in a dark warehouse. On the lower screen, you see through your night vision goggles in full 3-D, you can use the stylus to look. On the top screen, you are controlling Snake in an isometric view; but with the goggles on the lower screen, you see sharp shooters hiding in the rafters. On the top screen, you duck behind some crates and equip the sniper rifle, on the lower screen you aim your weapon up in to the rafters, look for a head shot and fire by tapping the enemy in your view (just as in Metroid Hunters).

Using the stylus, you aim with full analoge support, trying to get that other sharpshooter. But he gets away and jumps down from the rafters. You can now see him on the top screen and fight him by either using hand-to-hand or using an equipped weapon and shooting at him using the lower screen in full 3-D. While you are aiming your weapon with the stylus you enter an aiming mode where now, the D-Pad will allow you to crouch (down), side step (left or right) and roll (down then left or right) in different directions to avoid fire. Or press L to throw your knife or if equipped, a grenade.

When you take your stylus or thumb pad off the touch screen, the game reverts back to the original control setup allowing you to engage the enemy with hand-to hand-style fighting or to run away and hide. :D

Now imagine you're playing Mario Kart DS. On the top screen you have your traditional view. On the bottom screen you have your inventory or weapons and a first person cam on the front of your kart. Now on the bottom screen when you get someone in front of you, you can aim the weapon to take out the driver or the wheels depending on what the situation is. Even down to a science where you could deflect a shot you've thrown at a racer and have it ricochet off of them and hit another player, if you aim it right you can even cause the opponent to lose control of their kart and steer off course left or right, making them fall in to a lake. You have that option now because of the dual screens. The entire time you're aiming your shot on the lower screen you have full control over your kart, tapping L makes you jump, holding it down makes you skid.

Now we're playing Starfox DS in full 3-D. You're flying through a base on Zoness and the coridors are getting pretty tight. Suddenly you're surrounded by enemies in the front and rear. Now up to this point you have been playing using the SNES setup on the top screen. On the lower screen you see how many bombs you have, hits you've gotten and the message box for when your wingmates bitch and complain about something. But now you're surrounded; Falco puts his Arwing on auto pilot and jumps out of his Arwing on to the back of yours holding a plasma cannon. On the top screen you fly as normal with the D-Pad and shoot with L. With the stylus, on the lower screen, you see behind you and you're playing as Falco blowing up the enemy swarms behind Fox. Tap the screen to shoot.

You got past the swarms. Falco jumps back on to his Arwing and now the tight coridors have giant gates that are trying to lock you in. You cant shoot through them, but Slippy notices that they have electronic locks. On the bottom screen, a series of symbols come up and now you need to use the stylus to find the right combination to open the gates. All while shooting down enemies in front of you.

Now we're playing Resident Evil DS. The "Plagas" have figured out a way to manipulate machines and you're in a machine manufacturing facility in South Asia. Guns dont work on these machines but you have EMP grenades and a cattleprod. This game uses the static backgrounds with 3-D characters like all past RE games. Now while you're in this facility, Ada has been wounded and is in the control center. She sees you on the security cameras and sees that you're about to be ambushed by a large group of Plagas robots.

As Leon, on the top screen, you run from the robots and find places to hide along the way. Your goal is to find a servo to run the mechanism that will dump the molten steel on to the robots. But first you need to find it.

On the bottom screen you're playing as Ada in the control tower. In front of you are 6 security cameras and you can see Leon running from the machines. In front of the monitors are controls for all the different aspects of the facility such the steel cutters, compactors and other machinery. Now when you see Leon on camera 4 which is next to the steel cuting area, you can tap the controls marked "Steel Cutters" and cut those robots to shreds if your timing is right. Now you see Leon on camera 2 next to the metal compactors. Leon, on the top screen, has to get inside the metal compactor to lure the robots in and then get out the other side while Ada, on the lower screen, uses the 'Compactor controls' to squish them flat... if your timing is right.

Leon finds the servo and climbs up to the controls for the molten steel holding. Someone sabotaged it; On the lower screen you see the controls in front of you and the sabotaged wires and mechanisms. You see an icon of scissors, an icon of a hand, and an icon of tape (dont ask me how he got the electrical tape), and the actual servo.

Using the stylus, you click on the scissors so that you equip them and cut the faulty or damaged wires. Use the hand icon to connect the color coded wires and twist them together (you must connect red to red, blue to blue, etc), then use the tape icon to of course, tape them up. It has power now, but it still needs that servo, you start putting it in but now there's an electrical current flowing through the controls. You have to be super careful getting the servo in and you cant touch the sides of the socket with the servo.... other wise you'll get shocked. (Think of the board game Operation)

Just then you hear Ada yelling over the PA, the robots are climbing up the walls and ladders to your location. You only have a few seconds to get the servo in, and when you get shocked you fall on your butt and have to start over. But Leon gets the servo in and presses the button to dump the molten steel. The entire facility is flooded with a 3 foot layer of white hot steel, killing most of the robots. but some are still on the walls and the ladder coming to get you.

On the top screen, Leon uses his EMP grenades and cattle prod to knock them down in to the molten steel but is quickly becoming overwhelmed. On the lower screen, using the stylus, Ada views the action from her security cams (only two of them are working now) and controls the large cranes to knock the robots down to their deaths.

I could take any mascot game and show you how cool the dual screens can be and how the touch screen can be implemented, but it's up the developers on how they do it. For now, they need to experiment to find what works, what doesn't work and discover what people like to play. This has never been done before, so it's going to start out slow of course.

PSP can start out stronger since its doing more traditional games which are essentially the same games for the PS2. The GBA had no problem having a huge launch with swarms of games, but the DS is undiscovered country, so developers are taking their time to experiment. Nintendo released Mario DS, a Metroid demo and Wario DS, all 3 games make good use of the system's capabilities as far as mechanics go and give us a general idea. Once Nintendo sees how those games fared along with the third party stuff (like Feel the Magic), they can start making bolder choices and leading the way for devs.

Just as they did with the Gameboy and the GBA.

Quote:Mario 64 DS is not a port, OB1. It's based off the original gameplay and most of the levels but it has been completely updated and overhauled. A port is when you simply take it from one system to another.

It's an enhanced port. An enhanced port that controls very poorly compared to the original version, and does not make good use of the DS features outside of the minigames.

That's why they're there. Well, that and the wireless multiplayer and the fact that it's still one of the best games ever made.

If all ports had as much overhauled as Mario 64 DS has, we'd all die happy. Unfortunately most ports are just that. With all the additions Mario 64 DS got, you cant really just call it 'enhanced'. It's more like a remake or even a 1.5 inbetweenqual. :D

It is a very nice *enhanced* port, but I would have traded all of the better textures, extra levels, and extra characters for an analog stick. No question.

Yeah, it's too bad that Mario 64-enhanced is only available on a platform without analog... if Nintendo made one mistake with the DS, it's the lack of analog. Oh, it's not a feature that will decide many 'will I buy console X or console Y' decisions, but it greatly affects gameplay... and touchscreen control clearly just does not match up.

I'm not saying the DS is a bad idea, I merely think Nintendo will fail to make the most of it, and instead of making some truly innovative gaming ideas come to life, they're going to force established game types to awkwardly infuse the touch-screen technology (see Metroid Prime: Hunters).

So far, Wario Ware is the only application for it that I think is truly worth all the hype.

I had no problem using the thumb pad with Mario 64 DS... It felt like a weird control stick, to me anyway. But yeah, the DS cries out for an anal stick. It doesn't have to be a super sensitive one, but it should have one.

The demo of Metroid Hunters I played with the stylus controlling your 'look' functions and tapping to shoot was alot of fun. You ran with the D-Pad and jumped with the L button. It felt good to play. I hate it that there's no lock on though, that's the central core of Prime's gameplay mechanics.

but regardless, nintendo wanted to keep costs down as much as possible, so it got a d-pad instead of an anal stick. For 150 bucks more, you can get an anal stick, but no dual screens, no touch screen, no twin CPU's and no microphone. Or wait... does it have a mic?

Anyway, to say a system is a doomed failure or "nintendo's going to fuck us" at this early in the game is definitely not fair. The hardware is good and takes us in a new direction. The software is good, but slow. She just needs time to warm up.

By the time they've warmed up people might not care, though. They'll be too obsessed with the PSP.

OB1, it's not like the DS is bombing! You sound like the thing is selling two units for every two thousand the PSP sells... it's simply not true... once the DS software starts getting better (and more frequent!), it'll speed up again.

not to mention that DS software is outselling PSP software by quite large margin, last I checked. And the DS hardware has been selling like mad months before PSP existed on the market, so it definitely needs to play ketchup.

How do you read the sentence "By the time they've warmed up people might not care, though. " as "OMG the DS is BOMBING it's DEAD OMGH!!!!"? I'll never understand you, Brian.

The fact of the matter is that PSP hardware has been outselling DS hardware basically since it launched in Japan, and when it launches this month in the U.S. with a lineup of games far more impressive than the DS' current lineup, Nintendo will have to start worrying about the games they have to offer. The DS really is a system that needs time to get into its groove, but with the PSP ruining the party Nintendo doesn't exactly have all of the time in the world to experiment with the system.

We'll see how the charts look in two months time.

lazy, I need to point something out to you. Two screens doesn't mean that. It CAN be done that way, but it's not needed. As I've said before, to the computer, a second screen is something it can be completley oblivious to. You see, the part where it decides how the image should be shown is done by the actual moniter itself. All that need be done is have the extra moniter hooked up and a program designed to use it. Two totally different game engines, as you say, can ALREADY be run simultaneously. As for duel processing, that doesn't require two screens, and two screens doesn't require that.

What I'm saying is, they seem to have set up some duel processing, but it doesn't NEED two screens to work. The programs can easily be set up to simply partition one really big screen into the two displays. It is exactly no different than 4 Swords Adventures where when everyone is on the "move to next screen" zone a big image showing exactly where the missing player is underground will show up. The second screen wasn't needed for that to be shown all at once at all. In the case of that game, there is lots of power to spare, but my point is the same.

A SECOND SCREEN DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN RUN TWO STUFF AT ONCE. Programming is all that does that. Let me describe one last thing. Basically, they could simply divide the image, via programming, so that it is partitioned VERTICALLY, so the left half of both screens shows one set of stuff and the right half of both shows something else.

You know, that is pretty much true now that I think about it. Nintendo probably could have just made a single PSP-sized touch screen for the DS and just about all of the same gameplay potential would be there. A single, wide touch screen. But would it have made things more expensive? Possibly. I think so.

Yeah, as I said to GR a few times, I realized later that in fact the duel screen serves a couple purposes, just nothing for gamplay. A really wide screen would mean a wider system to fit those controls in there. Wider system takes up more space. Also, no foldyness to protect this massive target from whatever else it may be rubbing against when you put it away. I think they picked it purely for these reasons, and then claimed it was for gameplay.

I think that price was a large factor, too. Remember how they didn't have to produce new types of screens for the DS? They just got some from the GBA/SP factory, so to speak. And the two ARM processors, that was probably cheaper than making a new single powerful one (more powerful than the more powerful ARM processor, that is). Just my guess.

Yeah, that's good thinking... I mean, the two screens are still bigger than the GBA screens, so like, was that really cheaper? They still had to make a new type, just not as big... hmm probably... I am pretty sure that only having half the screen space be a touch screen saved some money...

OH! I just realized that, well, have you noticed that the non-touch screen has a clearer image because the touch layer isn't sorta blurring the light? Not anything major, but somewhat clearer? That may have been a small part of their choice...

And oh yes, actually the two screens aren't a totally invisible thing. The code still needs to determine what part of the image is going to what screen (okay, this is on the top, this is on the bottom), but that's a last step thing, done after everything else, so again it doesn't really matter.

This is just making my point a bit clearer to lazy: Those two processors having dedicated tasks is nice and all, there's a reasons duel processing is done outside of DSs after all, and having two different graphics engines dedicated to a specific processor will speed things up, but that's not actually needed for the screens. It's probably the better way to do things, but not needed. In the reverse, as I said, even with two screens rendering two images, being assigned to two seperate screens is not required at all. It looks a lot better TO assign each one to an individual screen, but they could easily, for example, have just half of one screen use the 3D processing while the other half and the entire other screen is doing the 2D, or my other examlpe of the left half of both having 2D and the right half of both doing 3D. Also, dividing it up like that is needed in the context of there being only one touch sensitive screen... Well actually, what if a game is made where both the 2D and the 3D stuff has touch parts? Maybe in a few it might actually be needed to partition it as I described?

More than that though, they could just do 3D on both screens at once. Due to the larger area, the maximum poly and texture count would have to take into account all the stuff that could be shown at once using this, thus limiting it a bit, but it could be done, and in fact, it is done in a few of the minigames in Mario 64 DS (specifically, the ones where a bunch of Marios are flying around both screens at once).

I thought the screens they used were identical. The outer screens. Just the inner-most ones were higher-res.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that...

The DS uses the same 3-inch plastic screens as the GBA. At least I think I remember reading that a while ago...


...

By that do you mean the actual display unit itself or just the protective screen cover built into the system over the screens?

The latter.

There are two screens and TWO PROCESSORS running inside the DS. Each screen has its own processor which means each screen can handle an entire game engine without hindering the other CPU. It's not a 'split screen' it's litteraly two different Gameboys, or has the potential to be.

Having one large touch screen split down the middle means that the processor now has to handle twice (cumulative) the work load. meaning it has to display the graphics on both sides of the screen and calculate the movement of the stylus on both sides. Not to mention EVERYTHING I talked about in my above post could only be possible on a two screen system.

With the DS, the work load can be shared. CPU 1 handles graphics, CPU 2 handles touch recognition (Like in the new Kirby game). Or CPU 1 handles touch recognition and graphics on the lower screen while CPU2 handles graphics on the upper screen (like Metroid Hunters).

They already took one a part over at Fullsail and they're trying to make a dev kit for it. I think it's going to explode, but hey they have to try. :D It's broken down in to modular pieces for students to examine and sure enough the heart of the DS is two CPU's. I think each one is a 32 risc but i'm not sure.

Oh I see. Lemme check that...

Well, I found out a few things. One, the screen really is bigger. Not horizontally, so yes you are right, it has a higher resolution, but vertically. Two, because of this they couldn't use just a cut down version of the GBA screen, they had to make a different size altogether... Oh well.

Um lazy, as I just explained, yes it does have w processors, and yes that means one CAN be used for each screen, but nothing would be hindered at all if they just had one big screen and, for example, split the work load for the top of that large screen to one and the bottom to the other. And um, calculating stylus positions takes a very small amount of work. Also, just because there are twice the number of potential positions doesn't mean that would be twice the work load. It would actually be pretty much the same, just with more addresses. It's not that the screens each have their own processor lazy, it's that the system has two processors and it also happens to have two screens. Trust me on this. I've seen heavy 3D on both the top and bottom while the alternate uses the weaker 2D. I've also seen light 3D done on both at the same time. I also happen to know something about programming myself I'd say, so I'm not just making all this up.

Just trust me when I say that the duel processing, while it does have some advantages, is neither needed for nor needed by the two screens. And yes, every single thing you listed COULD be done with just one really big screen.

One final thing. The two processors are not completely independant. Even though they can each be assigned the tasks of working out really complicated things that need exclusive work for the timing to work out, they both must recieve instructions to do this from some central thing, the central processor. It's really no different than when your computer's CPU sends instructions and data to the GPU of your graphics card so that the graphics card can render an image without constantly interrupting the CPU during every single step and just send a finished product back there, or straight to the moniter, or however it's designed to work. The only differnece is there's two of those external GPUs instead of one.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Oh I see. Lemme check that...

Well, I found out a few things. One, the screen really is bigger. Not horizontally, so yes you are right, it has a higher resolution, but vertically. Two, because of this they couldn't use just a cut down version of the GBA screen, they had to make a different size altogether... Oh well.

Ah, well, I have no idea what I read then. :crap:

Eh, it doesn't really matter I guess. They had some good reasons to go with the duel screen instead of one really large screen, it's just that none of it applies to the gameplay.

They did mention different perspective stuff when the system was first announced, but yeah I suppose that could have been done in split screen.

Basically the only thing that would need be done is split it up via software and have one processor responsible for this part of the screen and another responsible for the other side. I'm pretty sure that could be done using a VERY small amount of processing power, the amount needed for, like, SMB3's menu screen being seperate and not scrolling and the actual level being able to do all manner of things without it above. And besides, the system already needs to determine which processor is responsible for what, and in the case of dividing up the screens, which one sends it's finished image to what screen.

Quote:How do you read the sentence "By the time they've warmed up people might not care, though. " as "OMG the DS is BOMBING it's DEAD OMGH!!!!"? I'll never understand you, Brian.

The fact of the matter is that PSP hardware has been outselling DS hardware basically since it launched in Japan, and when it launches this month in the U.S. with a lineup of games far more impressive than the DS' current lineup, Nintendo will have to start worrying about the games they have to offer. The DS really is a system that needs time to get into its groove, but with the PSP ruining the party Nintendo doesn't exactly have all of the time in the world to experiment with the system.

We'll see how the charts look in two months time.

Standard OB1 here: strong statements of a position, angry retorts when the statement is taken to mean what it means, and then a more reasonable body of the reply. Hmm... let me guess, is the 'insult everyone in sight' phase next? :)

(for the first part) Lazy obviously interpreted what you said the same way, given his post right after mine. It's not just me. It's the way you say things.

"By the time they've warmed up, people might not care, though".... that's a pretty clear statement that you think that the PSP will do really well, get a lot more press and popularity than the DS, and by the time Nintendo releases stuff that really uses the hardware no one will care because the PSP will be victorious. It's a typical statement of yours on this subject... DS is going down, PSP will win big, etc, etc... "realism"? It's not all that because these things haven't happened yet. It's stating what you think will happen, and you REALLY make it sound like that's what you want ot happen as well. So of course, this being a NIntendo place, you'll have people disagreeing. :)

Here's where you say "You're fanboys" of course. And that's probably partially true. But you are not oh so much better and mroe accurate than anyone else here. Sure, the PSP might 'win' overall. It's definitely possible. But given that the DS HAS done so well so far -- beating Nintendo's expectations in hardware sales, in fact -- I'm not exactly about to just give up and award Sony overall victory like you have so badly wanted to do for so long... Nintendo could lose it, but if they do the right things they won't. And they have all the opportunities in the world to do the right things. (Oh, the PSP will be a success either way, but Nintendo doesn't have to lose the handheld market, not by a long shot... and honestly? I think that their policy of keeping the GBA alive at the same time is a good thing. That's a very successful console that is perfect forchildren, which are Nintendo's favorite market... I really doubt that the PSP will be making strong inroads into THAT market anytime soon.

The GBA, really, is Nintendo's solution to your issue that they don't have time to experiment. They have some, thanks to the GBA.

The child market is not the largest market anymore, not by a long shot. It's the 15-30 crowd that brings in all of the dough, which is why Sony has been dominant over the past several years.

The DS has done well with no competition but Nintendo's old GBA system, so the pre-PSP numbers mean very little. It's been selling worse than the PSP now almost every single week since that system's Japanese launch, and I expect no different with the U.S. and European markets. DS software sales have dropped considerably in Japan and the U.S., and with Sony's far superior lineup of games you'd have to be a biased Nintendo fanboy to think that the DS is going to come out on top this year. Nintendo does not have time to experiment with the DS, they have to deliver NOW. And unless they announce some really awesome-looking games at E3 and release them soon, they are going to fall behind the PSP.

You and others here have been mocking the PSP since it was first announced, saying that it would be yet another failed challenger to the Gameboy. Then the DS was announced and you admitted "okay, so maybe Nintendo needs more than the GBA to combat the PSP", and now that the PSP is selling better than the DS in Japan you are still in denial. The only fanboys here are you and several others here, ABF. Not me. I love Nintendo games more than you ever will, but I do not let that blind my judgement. I have no biases one way or another.

Sucks to be wrong, don't it?

Uh, OB1, pre-PSP DS numbers are not irrelevant! They are an installed base. Not all of those people are going to go out and get PSPs. So you can't just ignore them, start from when the PSP comes out, and start counting then. The sales from before then are just as relevant in the overall sales picture as the sales after the PSP launch will be.

Sure, a continual loss of the overall market share isn't good, but if you look at the total sales you see Nintendo at least has some time to do something to stay ahead... it's not until they're behind overall that there's a big problem. And that won't happen in the next few weeks. Or months, probably, given Sony's normal production and distribution problems that have been mentioned here...

Quote:The child market is not the largest market anymore, not by a long shot. It's the 15-30 crowd that brings in all of the dough, which is why Sony has been dominant over the past several years.

This is true, and it's why the DS is being aimed older. But keeping the children's market means something, anyway... especially, in Nintendo's case, for handhelds -- I'm sure plenty of kids have PS2s, but they all have Gameboys, and not too many will actually be able to get PSPs no matter how much they want them.

Quote:You and others here have been mocking the PSP since it was first announced, saying that it would be yet another failed challenger to the Gameboy. Then the DS was announced and you admitted "okay, so maybe Nintendo needs more than the GBA to combat the PSP", and now that the PSP is selling better than the DS in Japan you are still in denial. The only fanboys here are you and several others here, ABF. Not me. I love Nintendo games more than you ever will, but I do not let that blind my judgement. I have no biases one way or another.

Sucks to be wrong, don't it?

As usual, Nitendo's problem wasn't the competition, it was itsself... you never had any hope NIntendo could win despite itsself while I do. I still do, and they've made progress. The question is if that progress will mean substantive change fast enough for it to win or if it'll be too little too late... and at this point, for handhelds, it's really too early to say. Sony HAS NOT won yet. But Nintendo hasn't defeated them. And unlike the NGPC, Sony won't helpfully go belly-up and self-eliminate an until-then successful competitor to the GB...

So let's hope we see Nintendo's internet strategy soon...

Oh yeah, and as for the PSP vs. the DS hardware-wise, the PSP ended a bit better than I expected (low battery life, but not as low as it could have been. High price, but not as high as it could have been. Analog. Pretty good graphics... though so far they haven't exactly lived up to their potential for sure...) and the DS a bit worse (no analog? Shorter battery life than the GBA? :().

A six-month head start isn't going to make a big difference, especially when the software lineup is still worse than the competition's.

Have you seen any recent demographic numbers? Like I said, the 15+ market is where it matters. Nintendo had the kid market with the N64, too, and look what good that did.

And again, I love it how you have to warp everything I say to fit into your delusional perspective. Did I say that Sony ALREADY WON? NO. I said that they are very likely TO win. That's FUTURE TENSE. Allow me to help you with this strange and amazing concept:

Quote:past tense

n : a verb tense that expresses actions or states in the past [syn: past]

Quote:present tense

n : a verb tense that expresses actions or states at the time of speaking [syn: present]

Quote:future tense

n : a verb tense that expresses actions or states in the future [syn: future]

Quote:A six-month head start isn't going to make a big difference, especially when the software lineup is still worse than the competition's.

It helps, though, as long as your console has sold well during that period (that little issue did in the Saturn when it launched several months before the PSX... :D)...

Quote:Have you seen any recent demographic numbers? Like I said, the 15+ market is where it matters. Nintendo had the kid market with the N64, too, and look what good that did.

The children's market isn't big enough to give Nintendo overall all-console victory, but it is large enough to make them a lot of money. And it's the majority of the current handheld market. How much Sony changes that will determine how well the PSP really competes with the Game Boy.

Quote:And again, I love it how you have to warp everything I say to fit into your delusional perspective. Did I say that Sony ALREADY WON? NO. I said that they are very likely TO win. That's FUTURE TENSE. Allow me to help you with this strange and amazing concept:

Sure, you say 'likely to win', but so often and so decively that you make it quite clear that you believe it is inevitable. I definitely do not agree.

I'm almost always right about this stuff, though. You're not. You even thought that the GBA was enough competition for the PSP, that no other hardware from Nintendo was needed.

Yes, yes, of course you're always right...

(just make his ego happy and leave, it's the only sane thing to do..._)

I've been right so far.

Not 100%. You're just really good at changing your facts slowly to make it look that way... have you considered politics? :)

Only in your mind, my very delusional apprentice.

I've said from the beginning that the PSP was going to be a huge success, and you've said the opposite since it was first announced. You've said everything from "the GBA is enough to compete with it" to "the battery life and price is going to kill it". You've been wrooong, bucko. And I've been right. And you can bet your ass that I enjoy rubbing it in your face when you force me to.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Basically the only thing that would need be done is split it up via software and have one processor responsible for this part of the screen and another responsible for the other side.

That cannot be done, since you're actually splitting the screen you are not creating an independent source for the graphics. You can use 2 CPUs while splitting the screen, but it wont use one on each 'side' of the screen. It will kick each CPU depending on what is needed for both sides of the screen. If there's an explosion on the left side, both CPU's will render it. They'll act like one, larger CPU. Hence the whole "64 bit Dreamcast" argument. If you split via software YOU ARE WASTING CPU RESOURCES.

Quote:I'm pretty sure that could be done using a VERY small amount of processing power, the amount needed for, like, SMB3's menu screen being seperate and not scrolling and the actual level being able to do all manner of things without it above. And besides, the system already needs to determine which processor is responsible for what, and in the case of dividing up the screens, which one sends it's finished image to what screen.

1.) One larger split screen takes TWICE THE CPU's POWER TO RUN.

2.) I'm not talking about an overlayed menu, i'm talking about an entire game. With physics, animations, a game engine. A menu is not a game engine. It is a menu overlay.

3.) The CPU's do not decide what image to send to what screen. That is done through software, the software must tell each CPU what to do so that they can act independently.

Stylus programing is easy on a touch screen. You just use the guidepoints on the screen and the Stylus will act as a reference. But using a stylus for gameplay adds an entire deminsion to the programing which now includes animations, physics and the game engine itself. Now, your guidepoints have to include the weight of a ball, the spin, the velcocity, etc. That is not easy to program.

Yes, both CPU's can handle the same amount of work, that is how they can act independent. And that is why you can have two game engines running simultaneously with fluidity through hardware, not software. In other words, on the DS, you can simply slap two game engines in to it instead of having to create a single game engine that can run both engines. Which means more R&D and more money.

Touch screens are incredibly expensive. Just the lower touch screen on the DS costs as much to manufacture as the entire PSP screen. The reason touch screens are so expensive is because it's not just a screen, it actually has a completely different methodology.

The entire point of the DS is to have two screens that can display whatever the designers want independently without hindering the other CPU while one of the screens offers touch. A split screen game cannot show, for example, a 3-D fighting game on one side with a 2-D puzzle game on the other without draining the CPU(s) drastically since they'll act as one and try to render everything on the entire screen.

If you think the examples above can be done on one screen, show me how it would be done.

I talk to game designers constantly and I get to talk to R&D and testers for companies like EA and Sega and I get all my info from them. It's great that you know some programing but i'll take my chances with the info from the people who actually program for the DS.