Crash
08-02-2005, 04:00 PM
Hey there,
I recently picked up a PSP with Ridge Racer and Metal Gear Ac!d (and naturally, Lumines will be soon to follow), and I've had some fun putting videos and photos on my handy little system. Basically, I think this device is really awesome, especially compared to the Nintendo DS. I've seen it, I've played with it, and frankly, nothing will convince me that dual, touch-screen gaming is a particularly good idea (especially when married with nintendo 64-era graphics). My friends agree, and yet the DS keeps selling into the millions; is Nintendogs REALLY that fun? Does the Nintendo name really carry enough weight that Mario 64 with worse controls can move millions of units? What's your take on all of this?
Aaron Fitzpatrick
Toronto, Canada
First off, don't sell the DS short yet. As I've said time and time again here on this very feature, the upcoming DS lineup is super promising. Recent games like Meteos and Kirby: Canvas Curse are good examples of that.
Anyway, to answer your question...yes, the Nintendo name does carry enough weight, especially in the handheld market, to get it the kind of sales the system has enjoyed thus far. At least, that's what sold the systems. The game attach rate is still very low last I'd heard (something like two per system, or something), though I imagine that'll change over time. But, to answer your question...yes, Nintendo's name pretty much sold the majority of those initial units all by itself. -- A.N.
and when someone calls them on the carpet.....
I'm sick of people saying PSP is better then DS because it has better graphics, or Xbox is better then PS2 because of better graphics. Why do people play games just to look at them? I understand having good graphics is important but substituting good graphics for good gameplay is pointless! I don't know about you but I think that as long as the game is fun it's a good game. Take Animal Crossing for example, the graphics look like those for the N64, but it's so fun people are still playing it to this day! And I can name loads of GBA games that are fun but don't have top of the line graphics. Why do so many people consider better games as games with better graphics?
Zsky2
Earth
I already covered the majority of my thoughts on this subject in this week's Rant of the Week, but I'll just add that what, precisely, is making you think that PSP games don't have good gameplay? Yeah, there are a few crap titles on that system, but have you played Lumines? Or Wipeout? Ridge Racer? Tony Hawk? Twisted Metal? Right. Play those, then get back to me. KTHXBYE. -- A.N.
avoidinig the question, because they are retarded fanboys
:-(
I recently picked up a PSP with Ridge Racer and Metal Gear Ac!d (and naturally, Lumines will be soon to follow), and I've had some fun putting videos and photos on my handy little system. Basically, I think this device is really awesome, especially compared to the Nintendo DS. I've seen it, I've played with it, and frankly, nothing will convince me that dual, touch-screen gaming is a particularly good idea (especially when married with nintendo 64-era graphics). My friends agree, and yet the DS keeps selling into the millions; is Nintendogs REALLY that fun? Does the Nintendo name really carry enough weight that Mario 64 with worse controls can move millions of units? What's your take on all of this?
Aaron Fitzpatrick
Toronto, Canada
First off, don't sell the DS short yet. As I've said time and time again here on this very feature, the upcoming DS lineup is super promising. Recent games like Meteos and Kirby: Canvas Curse are good examples of that.
Anyway, to answer your question...yes, the Nintendo name does carry enough weight, especially in the handheld market, to get it the kind of sales the system has enjoyed thus far. At least, that's what sold the systems. The game attach rate is still very low last I'd heard (something like two per system, or something), though I imagine that'll change over time. But, to answer your question...yes, Nintendo's name pretty much sold the majority of those initial units all by itself. -- A.N.
and when someone calls them on the carpet.....
I'm sick of people saying PSP is better then DS because it has better graphics, or Xbox is better then PS2 because of better graphics. Why do people play games just to look at them? I understand having good graphics is important but substituting good graphics for good gameplay is pointless! I don't know about you but I think that as long as the game is fun it's a good game. Take Animal Crossing for example, the graphics look like those for the N64, but it's so fun people are still playing it to this day! And I can name loads of GBA games that are fun but don't have top of the line graphics. Why do so many people consider better games as games with better graphics?
Zsky2
Earth
I already covered the majority of my thoughts on this subject in this week's Rant of the Week, but I'll just add that what, precisely, is making you think that PSP games don't have good gameplay? Yeah, there are a few crap titles on that system, but have you played Lumines? Or Wipeout? Ridge Racer? Tony Hawk? Twisted Metal? Right. Play those, then get back to me. KTHXBYE. -- A.N.
avoidinig the question, because they are retarded fanboys
:-(