Enterbrain / Famitsu soft/hard sales for January 10th - 16t

[Teasy]

Almasy

RTS games would not be a problem on DS.

Command and Conquer 64

Would you rather have those kind of graphics with perfect RTS controls or the following graphics using a stick to control the game:

War Craft III

On FPS's, well its a choice between downgrading graphics and AI (DS) or downgrading controls (PSP).

 

[jvd]

I would agree with you if it was a home system. I would allways take the better graphics with the same gameplay than the uglier graphics with the same gameplay


But this is a portable hand held . A system which i will be traveling with and a finite charge on it in which i can enjoy the games and i'd much rather have the longer battery life with the game play being equal then some what better graphics .

Get a new battery...problem solved. The charger should fit in your car, and it´s not like DS lasts that much longer. But as I said, if you like inferior products as long as they don´t have anything to do with Sony, then that´s your right.

There are 3 of us and 1 outlet , even if we got a spilter that would be adding money that i much rather spend on more games , liquer , disney world , or women .

Batterys are the same thing , in which i can also get a second one for my dc and still have twice the time as my psp.



graphics just aren't important in a hand held no matter how much the sony zelots will argue it .

 

[Ty]

jvd,

You've made your priorities clear in a hand held. Battery life. I see no issue whatsoever with that. But I disagree with your statement that graphics on a hand held make no difference otherwise you'd be sticking with your black&white GB.

On FPS's, well its a choice between downgrading graphics and AI (DS) or downgrading controls (PSP).

Totally agree with your statement re: RTS'.

On FPS' however, I don't see the touchscreen besting the analog thumb pad. Neither are perfect but neither is one heads and shoulders better than the other (even using Metroid on the DS as an example).

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I will get a DS simply because it is compatable with all of my GBA games and soon the price will be $99.

 

[jvd]

jvd,

You've made your priorities clear in a hand held. Battery life. I see no issue whatsoever with that. But I disagree with your statement that graphics on a hand held make no difference otherwise you'd be sticking with your black&white GB.

I don't have a black and white gameboy . I have a green gameboy though and i still play it sometimes . Not all the time mind you . But i was very happy with that , so happy that i never got a color gameboy or a gba , my sister bought me an sp though and i got a ds specificly for my trips to florida so that i can play more multiplayer games with out the wires on my trips .

SOmething the orignal gb was missing .

 

[PC-Engine]

People who don't have a DS or haven't seen one in person shouldn't talk about poor graphics quality...

It's not as bad as some like to think.

 

[Almasy]

Almasy

RTS games would not be a problem on DS.

Would you rather have those kind of graphics with perfect RTS controls or the following graphics using a stick to control the game:

You really want your RTS games to look like that? I don´t. Controlling the units with the touchpad would be neat, but after playing Warcraft 3, going back to something like StarCraft is kind of hard.

I didn´t said I would prefer to see WarCraft on PSP though, so I doubt what point you´re trying to make. It´s obvious that not all games will work on PSP/DS.

As for FPS, I think the last thing one would want is to use a touchscreen to play them. Takes away the skill involved in aiming, and that´s a big part of the FPS shooter genre.

People who don't have a DS or haven't seen one in person shouldn't talk about poor graphics quality...

It's not as bad as some like to think.

Well, I have seen and played the Metroid Prime Hunters demo in person, and aside from some clever art related tricks, it looks awfull. Couple that with the poor screen quality and I have to say DS didn´t impress me.

I was surprised by the size, though, it wasn´t as big as I thought it would be.

 

[PC-Engine]

Well, I have seen and played the Metroid Prime Hunters demo in person, and aside from some clever art related tricks, it looks awfull. Couple that with the poor screen quality and I have to say DS didn´t impress me.

A small screen does not equal poor screen quality. As a matter of fact it uses one of the best small LCDs out there. Also I'd try out a few other games before making judgement. MPH demo was showiing a very dark stage so you really couldn't see much anyway.

 

[Kalin]

Couple that with the poor screen quality and I have to say DS didn´t impress me.

Would you care to elaborate? I've only heard good things about DS's screen so far, it'd be interesting to know what did you find it lacking (except size, and that's only if you go comparing it to a PSP, which IS huge). It's a genuine question.

 

[Teasy]

Ty

Well its up to you of course but controlling a FPS on DS seems great to me (I think it'll be even better in a true FPS game, which MH isn't). Its pretty much just like mouse controls. The stick on PSP will create all the accuracy problems of any console FPS AFAICS.

Almasy

I didn´t said I would prefer to see WarCraft on PSP though, so I doubt what point you´re trying to make. It´s obvious that not all games will work on PSP/DS.

We're talking about making use of the touch screen in ways that make games better then their PSP counterparts. So my point is this is one obvious example of that (RTS games)

Would I want my RTS games to look like that pic? Yeah of course why not? Seriously I don't see the need for beautiful 3D and great lighting ect in a RTS game. Those kind of graphics are absolutely fine for a RTS on a handheld AFAICS (I'm sure they could improve them anyway on DS).

As for FPS, I think the last thing one would want is to use a touchscreen to play them. Takes away the skill involved in aiming, and that´s a big part of the FPS shooter genre.

Ah, you obviously haven't played Metroid Hunters on the DS though. Because while I can see what you're getting at, when you actually know more about it (especially when you play it) you'll see that its not like that. The touch screen controls on DS don't take away skill anymore then a mouse does for a PC FPS. The bottom screen is used to aim and the top screen displays the main first person view.

 

[Ty]

Well its up to you of course but controlling a FPS on DS seems great to me (I think it'll be even better in a true FPS game, which MH isn't). Its pretty much just like mouse controls. The stick on PSP will create all the accuracy problems of any console FPS AFAICS.

Yes, I actually view the touch screen as a mouse as well in mechanics on how the two are used.

The problem for the touchscreen as I see it though, is that I'd constantly need to 'pick up my mouse' because the screen is small which begins to be borderline annoying when you're playing a competitive FPS. Also I doubt the resolution & sampling rate of the touchscreen doesn't come close to my mouse (800DPI & 5.8 MegaPixels/sec) so it's no where near as accurate. (Yes, I'm a VERY competitive FPS player ) Note that I am NOT faulting Nintendo for this as I believe this is just current technology in place.

That said, the analog thumb pad will TOTALLY recreate the same accuracy problems of consoles - in fact I'm betting the PSP will be worse but can't say for sure until I try an FPS (on both). So that's why I currently don't think the touchpad necessarily bests the analog thumb pad.

 

[Teasy]

Ty

Having to lift the stylus or thumb nub from the screen is a very small issue though. Something that I think will become a none issue after a bit of play time. The reaction times also seem very good.

The touch screen controls aren't 100% as good as a mouse and keyboard, I agree with that obviously. But IMO they're as good as FPS controls can get on a handheld system and a lot better then analog stick control IMO (or I can't imagine anything that would be better anyway).

BTW do you play Battlefield 1942? If so I'll have to play you sometime

 

[Almasy]

A small screen does not equal poor screen quality. As a matter of fact it uses one of the best small LCDs out there. Also I'd try out a few other games before making judgement. MPH demo was showiing a very dark stage so you really couldn't see much anyway.

It could have been that, probably. Granted, I didn´t spend more than 10 minutes with the unit, but the screen was too dark, colors were too faint and when looked at an slight angle the view of the screen wasn´t good enough.

I also don´t really like LCD displays that much, colors do not have enough contrast to stand out. I know that doesn´t bother a lot of people that much, but it does to me.

I haven´t seen the PSP in person though, so maybe I sould wait to compare it to that, but as of now, I didn´t really like what I saw of the screen.

Almasy

We're talking about making use of the touch screen in ways that make games better then their PSP counterparts. So my point is this is one obvious example of that (RTS games)

Would I want my RTS games to look like that pic? Yeah of course why not? Seriously I don't see the need for beautiful 3D and great lighting ect in a RTS game. Those kind of graphics are absolutely fine for a RTS on a handheld AFAICS (I'm sure they could improve them anyway on DS).

You see, we have arrived at a certain level in graphics standards, and I don´t believe that going that far down in graphics quality is "cool", no matter how highly some people think of their DS.

We have know fluidly animated 3D characters with some pretty good AI going on in RTS, and for a portable version I don´t want to see graphics reduced by a pretty big factor while most likely dumbing down the AI as well. I can stand a bit of a hit in graphics quality, but it´s too much to ask to go that far down in graphics quality.

It´s doable, but I don´t think it´s even close to being ideal, IMO.

 

[Ty]

Teasy,

I forgot about the TWO inputs for the touchscreen (was only thinking the stylus - and not the nub) so let's discuss them separately.

Having to lift the stylus or thumb nub from the screen is a very small issue though. Something that I think will become a none issue after a bit of play time. The reaction times also seem very good.

I think picking up your thumb nub would be blazing fast for sure (flicking a thumb is very easy) but the bio-mechanical precision of your thumb is pretty poor to begin though admittedly it may be something one can train up.

The stylus is nearly the opposite. You'd have much more precision but picking it up and placing it again is slower. That plus holding the stylus and the DS is awkward.

The touch screen controls aren't 100% as good as a mouse and keyboard, I agree with that obviously. But IMO they're as good as FPS controls can get on a handheld system and a lot better then analog stick control IMO (or I can't imagine anything that would be better anyway).

In the end, we'll need decent candidates to judge our beliefs against.

BTW do you play Battlefield 1942? If so I'll have to play you sometime

Not really. It's a fun game but a sloppy skill based FPS imo.

 

[Teasy]

Almasy

Personally I don't see why detailed models and pretty graphical effects are at all important in a RTS game. I mean its all about strategy to right? All you need is reasonable representations. A tank needs to look like a tank ect. But it doesn't need to be great looking when zoomed right in. Surely that's missing the point of a RTS game. Ok if you can have better graphics and it doesn't obstruct gameplay then fine. But the question is would you prefer pretty graphics with terrible RTS controls on PSP or functional graphics (a bit better then that N64 pic) with perfect RTS controls on DS?

 

[Teasy]

Ty

We do need good examples of FPS on both systems to judge exactly how good each control system is. But which system will have the best FPS controls just isn't in question to me. What I've already played of MH is better then normal console FPS controls by some way. Obviously we disagree though.

BTW what do you mean when you say that BF1942 is a "sloppy skill based FPS"?

 

[Ty]

Teasy,

I think you're guilty of hyperbolating the problem of playing an RTS with a console control scheme. It certainly isn't the best but I don't recall the N64 one suffering that much that I would call it "terrible". And the argument that graphics don't matter in an RTS is similar to the one that could be made about FPS and graphics. It's all about shooting so why does the model have to be 2.5k polys when it could be 1k? The answer is immersion which doesn't really have to do with the genre of the game itself.


Skill based games have a curve with the steepness of said curve directly proportional to the 'difficulty'. That is, some games are more difficult to master than others (Note that 'difficult' is in quotes as the definition of this can vary wildly).

Let's take Counter Strike vs. UT as an example. When looking at ONLY the twitch-based factor of dodging incoming shots and aiming (which is what I care about), UT is MUCH more difficult to master. One reason why is because in CS (which I play more than UT so I'm NOT disparaging it) the ratio of projectile speed to avatar speed is much higher than it is in UT. Err, let me put it this way in relative terms

CS
Avatars slow movement (this means you can't dodge shots)

Projectiles fast movement (this means it's easier for EVERYONE to hit their targets)

Aiming not pixel perfect (this means that the MOST accurate shooter in the world still may NOT hit his mark)

UT
Avatars fast movement (better chance to dodge but need to manage your avatar more - wall jumping, etc.)

Projectiles slower movement (depending on the projectiles of course) - this means your aiming needs to be a lot better timing-wise. Think about shooting a gun at a moving target and then compare that to shooting a gun with the projectiles moving MUCH slower. Now you have to lead shoot so your projectiles get to your target.

Aiming can be pixel perfect - which means that the MOST accurate player in the world CAN be the most accurate, i.e. there is no contrived aiming cap on him.

In the end, it comes down to how much control the player has of their actions. In CS, the players are more limited than they are in UT. In BF1942, I found the soldier to soldier combat lacking because it was even more sloppy feeling than in CS. I love the vehicles and combined arms but not the soldier to soldier combat.

 

[Almasy]

Almasy

Personally I don't see why detailed models and pretty graphical effects are at all important in a RTS game. I mean its all about strategy to right? All you need is reasonable representations. A tank needs to look like a tank ect. But it doesn't need to be great looking when zoomed right in. Surely that's missing the point of a RTS game. Ok if you can have better graphics and it doesn't obstruct gameplay then fine. But the question is would you prefer pretty graphics with terrible RTS controls on PSP or functional graphics (a bit better then that N64 pic) with perfect RTS controls on DS?

We have reached a certain level in graphics. Maybe you´re satisfied with ~10 year old graphical presentations, but I´m not. Frankly, I wouldn´t want to see a RTS on either DS or PSP, IMO.

 

[Teasy]

Ty

Seriously I'm not exagerating, for me its terrible. I never play console RTS games and I never would. In general though I think most people aren't interested in playing a RTS using anything but a mouse and keyboard. Just look at the lack of RTS games on consoles.

And the argument that graphics don't matter in an RTS is similar to the one that could be made about FPS and graphics. It's all about shooting so why does the model have to be 2.5k polys when it could be 1k? The answer is immersion which doesn't really have to do with the genre of the game itself.

The massive difference in view/perspective alone makes them not similar at all IMO from when looking at what level of graphical quality is needed. In a RTS you're far away from the characters in the game. You don't need to zoom in an look at how beautiful a tank is.. you want to send 50 of them into battle and be able to see them all and the enemy coming over the hill towards you. That's what I mean when I say its about strategy, being able to see hundreds of units of space at any one time so you can make strategic decisions. That is very different to a FPS.

I've tried a few online FPS and BF1942 is by far my favourite. The battles are epic, the atmosphere is great and I really like the variety of vehicles. When it comes to online battles I prefer real life style scenario's rather then fantasy ones (like UT).

 

[Evil_Cloud]

So to date Nintendo has already sold a total of 3 million DS units in Japan and NA?

PSP:
Sold 64,602 units this week, sold 62,052 units last week, sold 126,654 units in total for 2005, sold 482,252 units in total for 2004.
Total: 608,906 units

NDS:
Sold 53,527 units this week, sold 108,561 units last week, sold 162,088 units in total for 2005, sold 1,495,596 units in total for 2004.
Total: 1,657,684 units

That's Japan alone, for a worldwide number you should add the 1,000,000 units that were sold in 2004 and the 100,000 to 200,000 units that were bought in 2005 in North America.

Total shipments are around 3 million I reckon, with two million more being shipped before the end of March. Very impressive.