Nintendo Announces Dual-Screen Portable

[V3]

I would rather have 2 3 inch screens than 1 4.5 inch screen.

Just like I have 2 21 inch monitors than 1 bigger monitor on my pc. Not only for cost reasons but because it gives me more space for things .

Just like when I play mario kart with my friends . I have a 50 inch tv yet we still hook up the second player on another 27 inch tv instead of spliting the 50 inch tv in to.

when we play 4 players the diffrence is even bigger as we have the 27 inch screen split in two and then the 50 inch tv split in to. Which gives everyone a bigger view than if we had the 50 inch split in 4 .

Look JVD, my examples are exaggeration of what's being discussed. I was hopping you would get it through that. I guess not. And I am sorry if you're offended by it.

Once again, we are all for *more screen space to view our games*

You have to realised when you double 21" screen you get alot more viewing space just by the second screen, because 21" is just alot larger than 3" screen. You have to realise this first. The same way if you add 50" to 27" you just gained alot more.

But this 3" we're talking here. Its like saying to your friends hey I am going to use this 50" to myself, I don't like split screens and you can have this 3" screen to play Mario Kart. 3" are just alot smaller than 50" or 27".

Two 3" screens is roughly equivelent to 4.5"-5" (depends on the ratio & assuming acceptable ratio). So that's still accepatable size for portable device.

That's why your reason for argument is out of place, just by the scale of it.

Furthermore, that wasn't my original arguments. My original arguments was, that Nintendo press release gaming example can be done on one screen using two vieports by using one screens that's equal in screen space to their two 3" screens. And yet Nintendo are still claiming their product as a second coming of gaming.

So this lead me to belive there is something more to it than an improve Gameboy with a second screen.

I buy the reason for second screen if it is for portability, for cost, for multiplayer, for rearrangement, etc. But for offering unique gameplay experience, and citing the example they did, that's just weak. Too weak for Nintendo. That's why I expect there are still secrets to be revealed.

 

[GHost]

I think you're forgetting the main point of the NDS, it's not about screen space at all, it's about having a full-blown live and dynamic completely separate second view on a game.

Now how would you prefer having it:

1. split screen
2. a dedicated small area in the corner
3. a full second screen

considering that in all of these cases we're talking about an acceptable screen size.

I'd go for 3.

About how much would such an idea bring to the game-play - I'd like to wait and see it in action before forming an opinion.

 

[London Geezer]

Thats what V3 and I were saying from page 1 of thise thread, maybe jvd missed it all: We need to wait until Nintendo says it all.

Nintendo are keeping lots for themselves, and until we see the full extent of this NDS thing, we shouldn't really comment.

 

[PC-Engine]

I'd like number 3 for 100. 8)

 

[GHost]

Thats what V3 and I were saying from page 1 of thise thread, maybe jvd missed it all: We need to wait until Nintendo says it all.

Nintendo are keeping lots for themselves, and until we see the full extent of this NDS thing, we shouldn't really comment.

Not exactly what I was trying to resurrect as a point of view... Consider having a Descent type of game with a combined rear/side/up/down view (spherical?), available at all times. Now, one can easily have it implemented on a 2xARM dual-screen system without the additional features Nintendo is hiding from us.

To make it even more clear:

1. On a dual-screen system it's easy to implement. It would totally rock IMO
2. On a split-screen it would suck big time, same goes for a dedicated smaller view port, compared to (1).


edit: english..

 

[maskrider]

This response applies to both of yours...

You say you understand how a small price difference can make a stunning difference?

Well, what if getting one wider screen costs 10 cents more than the two smaller screens together? What if you'd get the same (or even slightly greater!) viewing area with the two separate screens rather than the larger one? That is only a small difference, but then consider that these things will be mass produced, the screens are only one part of many, and they have to keep the pricing decent while maximising profits?

That will depends on how you would want to price your product, I am not just a guy that knows the rule, but I am the one who needs to execute the rule accurately. There is always a trade off and compromise here and there.

Maximising profit != just minimising cost, you will need to cater for the apparent value of your product to your target customers in case you need to price it higher than they should.

For sure I don't know about the cost structure of the GBA or the new N DS to begin with. I am saying that I understand the rule very well any my preference on PC for a wide screen 17" than 2 x 15" 4:3 screens.

 

[Teasy]

V3

Well I remember playing Dragon Ball Z game on SNES along time ago that split the screen into two. Not too mentioned alot of multi player games feature split screen.

Multiplayer split screen gaming is completely different. We're talking about single player games using multiple views. You've mentioned only 2 games using a small amount of this type of gameplay, that proves my point right their. A device with a single screen does not lend itself to innovation in dual screen games like a dual screen device does.

Using single screen Nintendo could do it themself, and let other follows if it works.

You seem to be suggesting that Nintendo should do the following. Release a standard GBA-like device, make a few multiple view games, and hope that other dev houses follow them. But why should they do that? I can't see a single advantage that would come from it. On the other hand I can see quite a few disadvantages:

1 = It would take longer to get devs working on multiple view games
2 = Confusion with consumers not realising this machine is focused on DS gaming.
3 = Muddying the water in Nintendo's core handheld market
4 = Less compact machine
5 = Possibly more expensive

Like the Football example you gave, having to look at the second screen, which in this case is still very small, and analyse the way you did, you just lose attention to the main game screen unless you pause the game. Its still better to superimpose it like Diablo map, if you like it like that. Information just flow better to you.

Looking at a second screen for a couple of seconds when I need to would be easy enough for me. It would be far better then a tiny overlayed map at the bottom of the screen, which is pretty pointless really, especially in a handheld game. If your not an experienced Football gamer then I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying. I can see that it would sound difficult to people who might just casually play Football games, or not play them at all. But then multiple view games aren't really going to be for the average gamer.. not most of them anyway AFAICS.

London Boy

How about those games that do not NEED multiple views?

Those games go on GBA/GBA2

Thats what V3 and I were saying from page 1 of thise thread, maybe jvd missed it all: We need to wait until Nintendo says it all.

When did V3 say that?

 

[London Geezer]

Thats what V3 and I were saying from page 1 of thise thread, maybe jvd missed it all: We need to wait until Nintendo says it all.

When did V3 say that?

here (well, very loosely...)

So this lead me to belive there is something more to it than an improve Gameboy with a second screen.

That's why I expect there are still secrets to be revealed.

Also that's what we were saying all along at the beginning of the thread

 

[London Geezer]

How about those games that do not NEED multiple views?

Those games go on GBA/GBA2

That would limit the already-quantity-draght-stricken Nintendo output... Output would reach N64 levels, if not worse...

oh well, that's my opinion anyway..

 

[cthellis42]

Ghost, you forget #4: One larger overall screen that can be split in any fashion the developer wants, and can also be used as one large screen without interruption.

That's more the trade-off we'd be talking about.

 

[London Geezer]

Ghost, you forget #4: One larger overall screen that can be split in any fashion the developer wants, and can also be used as one large screen without interruption.

That's more the trade-off we'd be talking about.

THANK YOU. Maybe the italics will open their eyes on our point of view... Should i bold it too...?

 

[Teasy]

London-Boy

I think GHost was talking about waiting to see what sort of new gameplay could be done with multiple view gaming. Not waiting to see if DS has a significant secret feature appart from dual screen gaming, which is what V3 meant.

That would limit the already-quantity-draght-stricken Nintendo output... Output would reach N64 levels, if not worse...

N64 levels would be more then fine. After all we're talking about a different kind of gaming device here, its not supposed to be mainstream AFAICS.

 

[London Geezer]

N64 levels would be more then fine. After all we're talking about a different kind of gaming device here, its not supposed to be mainstream AFAICS.

Then that's different. They did say it would compete with PSP, which i don't think will be mainstream at that price point after all... So it kind of makes sense...

 

[GHost]

Ghost, you forget #4: One larger overall screen that can be split in any fashion the developer wants, and can also be used as one large screen without interruption.

That's more the trade-off we'd be talking about.

As in one wider screen? To make such a screen functional for the dual-view concept wouldn't it need be a little too wide? I might be misunderstanding something here, please explain what kind of larger screen (e.g. 16:3?) would be useful.

Edit: That should have been 8:3, my bad, or 4:6 probably? seems more feasible, except it's not foldable...

 

[Clashman]

Actually, they state over and over that it is NOT in fact designed to compete with PSP. They are developing a successor to GBA that is supposed to do that.

 

[London Geezer]

Actually, they state over and over that it is NOT in fact designed to compete with PSP. They are developing a successor to GBA that is supposed to do that.

Ooops....

Ok, so Deadmeat's (many) locked threads were all BS right (aas usual after all)... Just trying to get it all together, since we keep hearing different things from different people....

 

[jvd]

But this 3" we're talking here. Its like saying to your friends hey I am going to use this 50" to myself, I don't like split screens and you can have this 3" screen to play Mario Kart. 3" are just alot smaller than 50" or 27".

No its not .

Your example is flawed.

It be like keeping the 50 inch screen for myself and giving my friends another 50 inch screen.

See the thing your missing is that they are two screens of equal size .

One screen of 4.5 inchs would have icons and other status bars on it .
It would clutter it up so even though the two 3 inch screens may equal 1 4.5 inch screen There would be more room for the actual playing field.

Not to mention being able to display secondary views or in a link up co op game a view of what your friend is doing and where they are .


By splitting a 4.5 inch screen in half either verticly or horizontally the viewing area will become less than that of the two 3 inch screens .

 

[rabidrabbit]

Two screens (no matter what size) are good for some games and applications.

2 screens good:
- Working on PC where you can put the toolbars on another screen and leave the other screen clear for creating and editing. Browsing the Internet and other 'multitasking' where you can have several documents open at the same time.
- Games on PC, home- or handheld console: Strategy games and RPG's with lots of statistics, flight/driving simulators with multiple views around you and dashboards.

2 screens no added value:
- High-speed arcade games like fps games where you focus mainly on the action in front of you.
-Adventure games, where there are not as much statistics. Displaying a map on the other screen is 'nice bonus' but would not make the games significatly better to play. On the contrary, it would lessen the athmosphere as much of the game would be played 'on the map' liek for example the dungeons on Dark Cloud/Dark Cloud 2.
- Sports games. The different angle views are nice for outsider spectators, but distracting for the player.
- Arcade racers. A speedometer/gear sisplay overlaid on the screen is often enough.

So IMO the 2nd screen will be a nice bonus, but with current knowledge on the games it is hardly a factor that would make my buying decision.

 

[V3]

Multiplayer split screen gaming is completely different. We're talking about single player games using multiple views.

DBZ can be played single player too, you can do VS CPU

You've mentioned only 2 games using a small amount of this type of gameplay, that proves my point right their.

I could list a lot more, it just I have to recall the titles from 15 years ago, its stretching my memory. And most of this title wasn't very memorable.

I remember a baseball game using three way split view, some basketball game has top bottom splitview with overhead view of the court on the top and perspective Super Deformed characters on the bottom. Some horse game, features close up, position, etc.

Yuyuhaksyo fighting game, features splitscreen with characters view and menu at the bottow. I remember the menu to be quite significant portion of the screen anyway. Which leads me to remember, alot of 8-16 bit games don't overlay the menu but actually divide the screen for menus.

So going back, you just have to pick a game that don't use overlay, and there are alot of those.

Splitscreen normally use for multiplayer, heck Herzog Zwei done it ages ago.

But Now let me introduce, a Dreamcast game that was overlook and took a beating. ESPION-AGE-NTS

So please, there is nothing new to dual screen, or multiscreen gameplay. I still belive there is something more to it to this Nintendo DS.

A device with a single screen does not lend itself to innovation in dual screen games like a dual screen device does.

You didn't read this NOA interview ?

Billy: I also read that developers can use both screens as one if they so choose.
Beth: Yes, you can use the two screens as one big monitor. I think it?s one of those things that the developer will have the freedom to do what they want to do.

 

[chapban.]

There are PC flight sims which display the plane body and your surroundings on one side and the controls first person view on the other side.