Nintendo Announces Dual-Screen Portable

[cthellis42]

so 2 3" diganonal screens side by side.

No, as per the comment above you take it from, she confirms that they will be one on top of the other. Hence her statement of "vertical" and not agreeing with his "side-by-side" query.

I think what a lot of people here don't realize is that in small screens submenus that are not fullscreen are way too small to be of any use on a portable ie realtime maps.

True for anything somewhat complex, but of course if they had one big surface-area screen as opposed to two smaller ones, they certainly would. Not to mention realtime maps is hardly worth noting the system as a "completely different concept" since that kind of thing is all the time on regular consoles, PC games, etc. Two screens gives a different method of doing things already done on video games thus far (widening and tightening perspective on the action/field-of-action, camera rotation, overlay maps, menuing, split-screening...), but unless their games actually provide a different experience--not a different way to experience the same thing--it fails at what they want it to do, and are claiming it will bring. My fear offhand is that most developers will just work with a few "accepted" ways to take advantage of both screens (especially since few developers out of the total amount really push their concepts and platforms, as opposed to making games cheaper and faster to increase their profits), and that the potential creativity and interest of the device will be muted by all but a few.

THAT point, of course, will only come to light as we see what kind of games it's bringing about. So wait we will...

 

[StefanS]

In that quote above Nintendo seem to hint that the DS will have a GPU to go with the ARM processors. Considering ARM licensed PowerVR MBX to pair with their mobile processors their is a good chance of seeing MBX in the Nintendo DS. In which case, graphically, it could possibly compete with PSP, even if the device itself isn't aimed at competing with PSP.

Yeah, that'd be nice, but 128 MB storage seem a bit small for graphics similar to PS2/GCN/PSP. . . I don't know :?

Nintendo seems to have still some surprises left for the DS; at least sg like that is hinted in the interview as well...

 

[hey69]

FIST PICTURE OF DS ç

 

[V3]

Well, I guess Nintendo isn't opting for a lot more graphical prowess than N64. Their gaming media is 128 MB big. So there's no need for displaying hi-res textures, etc... as we won't see multi catridge games.

128 MB is actually plenty for current portable device. So I don't see why Nintendo don't go for some beefy 3D graphics either from ATI or PVR.

Still hoping for good 3D solution, slim chance but I am optimist about it.

 

[nobie]

FIST PICTURE OF DS ç

<snip>

LOL

 

[cthellis42]

Plenty for a portable with potentially two screens to fill? It'll have more overall resolution than the PSP (unless they for some reason fill it with lower-quality screens than the GBA, which would be decidedly odd), but if it's limited to 128MB it won't be able to push anything much more than the Tapwave Zodiac. If it tries to give a decent push into 3D, one would think 128MB would limit length and variation of the games.

 

[London Geezer]

Why do we have 2 threads with people double posting the same messages in both threads????

 

[StefanS]

Why do we have 2 threads with people double posting the same messages in both threads????

because somehow both threads developed in a similar way

Plenty for a portable with potentially two screens to fill? It'll have more overall resolution than the PSP (unless they for some reason fill it with lower-quality screens than the GBA, which would be decidedly odd), but if it's limited to 128MB it won't be able to push anything much more than the Tapwave Zodiac. If it tries to give a decent push into 3D, one would think 128MB would limit length and variation of the games.

I think developers won't use different models for both screens, etc. So there'll be a lot of redundant (sp?) data. But still I feel 128 MB could reflect in somewhat shorter games if they decide have a hardware that is close to current consoles in terms of graphical power. The lower resolution though could help a lot...

 

[gurgi]

Nobody remembers the N64 with regards to cart size? Developers do amazing things when they have no choice.

 

[StefanS]

Nobody remembers the N64 with regards to cart size? Developers do amazing things when they have no choice.

Biggest N64 games were around 64 MB on a HW that pushed around 200.000 polygons with textures; now if this handheld would be arround DC level it would push 3-4 mio. polygons with textures (DC used for comparing because of possible PowerVR MBX chip). 128 MB don't seem so big to me...

EDIT: typo

 

[Tagrineth]

Nobody remembers the N64 with regards to cart size? Developers do amazing things when they have no choice.

Biggest N64 games were around 64 MB on a HW that pushed around 200.000 polygons with textures; now if this handheld would be arround DC level it would push 3-4 mio. polygons with textures (DC used for comparing because of possible PowerVR MBX chip). 128 MB don't seem so big to me...

EDIT: typo

But very few N64 games were actually that big.

The HUGE (not to mention legendary) Ocarina of Time is 32MB.

The also-quite-huge Mario 64 is 16MB.

 

[cthellis42]

Seriously? Screwy.

 

[StefanS]

Nobody remembers the N64 with regards to cart size? Developers do amazing things when they have no choice.

Biggest N64 games were around 64 MB on a HW that pushed around 200.000 polygons with textures; now if this handheld would be arround DC level it would push 3-4 mio. polygons with textures (DC used for comparing because of possible PowerVR MBX chip). 128 MB don't seem so big to me...

EDIT: typo

But very few N64 games were actually that big.

The HUGE (not to mention legendary) Ocarina of Time is 32MB.

The also-quite-huge Mario 64 is 16MB.

I am aiming at worst case scenario here. We don't know at the moment if the DS is going to have a full fledged 3d chip or not. Storage won't be any problem if not. The performance would probably 1-5x N64 power (just a rough estimate) However, if there's strong 3d chip, we could likely see sg. of DC graphics. In that case that would mean more detailled models and more detailled textures and thus more data. This is only speculation though.

The Turoks had 64mb catridges, didnt they?

 

[Natoma]

hey69



That's hysterical. Where do you people find these mockups?

 

[Fox5]

I think what a lot of people here don't realize is that in small screens submenus that are not fullscreen are way too small to be of any use on a portable ie realtime maps.

Why are you jabbing the GBA ? We don't need a flame war on that thank you. Its best to avoid

Well what I was trying to say was that it makes sense to have a second screen for realtime maps etc. because with only one screen you can't really have a detailed realtime map ie corner of a small screen. Moving the map to a separate fullscreen would help in this specific situation allowing uninterupted gameplay. Since Nintendo has said this technology gives a hint a the next GCN...my guess is that the GCN2 might have color LCD goggles as an accessory? Maybe this device is configured as a handheld controller unit with LCD goggles?

Metal Gear Solid was on gameboy color(which was an even lower res screen) and the map in the top right corner worked fine, though it could be off by a few pixels sometimes or have some things blend together, but even with just GBA res I think that could be fixed.

Well, I guess Nintendo isn't opting for a lot more graphical prowess than N64. Their gaming media is 128 MB big. So there's no need for displaying hi-res textures, etc... as we won't see multi catridge games.

N64 definetely could have used more power, even with the media it had. Maybe not for the early games that were only 8 MB, but the later games could have made use of it. Take out the need for high quality sound since it's a handheld, and I'd say they'd need at least voodoo2 level graphics.

I can do better than that, I can name three. There are undoubtedly more, but these are off the top of my head: Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark.

Somehow, I knew that Perfect Dark would be on that list. But it is incredibly blurry and has tons of display artifacts, even in hi res. Goldeneye and Turok were nice and clear though(niether was hi res.....), but I think Turok had a draw distance of only about a few feet.

Ok, well right after that you explained it doesn't help with blurriness, but I don't recall "crawling ants" as a problem in any game, at least no more so than perfect dark.(never played shadowman) BTW, how come in goldeneye and perfect dark if you looked straight down the ground textures looked really wierd sometimes? Just low quality or were they being distorted?

The also-quite-huge Mario 64 is 16MB.

Pretty sure it was 8 MB, and some Lambourgini game was 4 MB.
In comparision, Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day are 64 MB and packed with voices and high quality graphics.
Starfox 64 had a decent amount of voices and good graphics and I think came on an 8 MB cart.
Turok 1 I think was 8 MB, Turok 2 I think 32 MB, and Turok 3 also 32 MB, and I think Rage Wars may have taken a step back.
I think Paper Mario was 32MB and it had good graphics, but no voices. I forget about the sound quality, I don't think it reached high quality SNES sound quality though.(Donkey Kong Country or Super Mario RPG)

Anyhow, wasn't halflife a 200 MB game? And they could use compression of some sort, though most PC games already do.

 

[hey69]

ridge racer for playstation was even 2megabyte . (without off course the audiotracks)

 

[wazoo]

Pretty sure it was 8 MB, and some Lambourgini game was 4 MB.
In comparision, Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day are 64 MB and packed with voices and high quality graphics.
Starfox 64 had a decent amount of voices and good graphics and I think came on an 8 MB cart.

Turok 1 I think was 8 MB, Turok 2 I think 32 MB, and Turok 3 also 32 MB, and I think Rage Wars may have taken a step back.
I think Paper Mario was 32MB and it had good graphics, but no voices. I forget about the sound quality, I don't think it reached high quality SNES sound quality though.(Donkey Kong Country or Super Mario RPG)

You should check some ROM sites for having the real size of those games It is terrible to see that most N64 games were not over 16MB

Mario 64 was 8MB. 1080 was 16MB
OOT ET MM were 32MB. Turok 2 was the first 32MB and half of it was for the sound, not for textures.

GE was 12MB but PD was 32MB

They were more 32MB at the end of N64 life but mainly by Nintendo/Rare/Factor5.

Paper Mario and Ogre Battle 64 were the only 48MB cartridges.

RE2 was the first 64MB and most of it was for thr cinematics.

Conker was the second 64MB (and the last). It was also one of the most magnificent N64 game.

 

[Tagrineth]

Conker was the second 64MB (and the last). It was also one of the most magnificent N64 game.

Pokémon Stadium GS was also 64MB.

In other words, there are THREE 64MB N64 carts, TWO 48MB, and the rest are 32MB or less.

 

[Fox5]

Well, anyhow, without high quality sound(probably snes or n64 quality, maybe dreamcast) and without voices and movies, many games could fit on nintendo's 128 MB carts. Wasn't Rogue Leader supposed to be only around 200 MB?
However, I could see sony trying to undercut nintendo's prices and selling the average PSP game for $20-$25.

 

[nobie]

I think pricing would be up to the games publisher, not Sony.