What is the full hardware specs for Nintendo DS?

[macabre]

i find it funny that you complain about the reflectivity of the GBA but have a clear love for the psp. my psp has an extreamly glossy screen, and i find that to make it very angle dependent, especialy in daylight.

I think he refered to the 1st gen GBA without backlight.

 

[mech]

i was talking about companies who's marketing strategy almost solely "our technology is superior". the industry is full of examples. 3do did it, apple did it, atari did it (with the jaguar) and it didn't work. sure, sony hyped up the ps2, and quickly changed tactics as soon as they got some worthy software. the same tactic worked for nintendo with the snes. more powerful hardware doesn't automatically equal better games, it's a time proven fact.

Funny, because like I said, many companies' marketing strategies DID depend on their superior hardware, and it helped them succeed. Sony's assertion that PS2 was much, much more powerful than the Dreamcast did wonders for them - it killed the Dreamcast, and the PS2 had few killer titles in its first year, but still managed to do well. Like I said, Xbox was marketing on its superior hardware. Not sure how you can say the 3D0 or Dreamcast had significantly different tactics to these guys. If you'd care to elaborate though, feel free.

At any rate, I never said more powerful hardware automatically equalled better games. What I said was:

More powerful hardware can lead to more rewarding game experiences

If you disagree with this, then all you need to do is look at a PC XT, or Atari 2600 and compare it to today's computers and consoles to see how much more powerful hardware can lead to more rewarding game experiences.

...
i'm really not sure what you're getting at here. games like driver 1&2 and die hard trilogy (the driving parts) show that mission based, drive anywhere type games are capable on hardware as archaic as the ps1. hell, driver 2 got ported to the GBA and was pretty gameplay intact, all things considering. what's so special about GTA3's gameplay that i couldn't be done on the DS? the DS has already proven itself at least as competent as ps1.

Neither of the games you mention have worlds as big or as rich or restriction free as in GTA3. DS could not support a 3D world in the same calibre as GTA3's.

salecharts show one simple thing - that fact that the consumer does not equate 'power' to gameplay experience. and the vendors are well aware of that, to the point that some of them actually exploit that fact.

Read above. You guys are misconstruing my original statement. Your final statement is actually agreeing with what I've written.

I think he refered to the 1st gen GBA without backlight.

Yep. If he realised that and is comparing the difficulty in seeing the GBA screen to the PSP one, he's on another planet.

 

[see colon]

Yep. If he realised that and is comparing the difficulty in seeing the GBA screen to the PSP one, he's on another planet.

nope, i'm on this planet. maybe it's not as sunny where you are, but i find the psp to be difficult to see in high light situations. the darker it is the better it looks. you specificly mentioned that looking at a GBA screen was like looking at a mirror. the highly relective plastic on the psp does the same thing in high light situations.

Sony's assertion that PS2 was much, much more powerful than the Dreamcast did wonders for them - it killed the Dreamcast, and the PS2 had few killer titles in its first year, but still managed to do well.

sony's claims of technical superiority disapeared after about a year (when they got real competition from microsoft and nintendo). strangly, sega dropped out of the hardware race about the same time, when sony began marketing GAMES (live in your world, play in ours). ads weren't showing off the hardware, they were showing GAMES, followed by the ps2 sound and logo. this is a far cry from what i'm talking about. for the saturn, almost every ad bragged about "three 32bit proccessors", atari marked the jaguar bragging about "64bit" and "do the math" in every ad, and 3do had ads with flames shooting out of peoples heads beacus the system was so fast and "real". these things were in almost every ad for these systems (print, tv, ect).

Like I said, Xbox was marketing on its superior hardware.

i can't believe you are actualy using this as your argument. you might thing that the xbox was a successfull piece of hardware, but in fact it was a failure in terms of installed base, software sales, and profit compared to sony. had any other company been behind the xbox they would have folded, or at very least closed their console devision years ago. you're talking about a piece of hardware that wasn't ever supposed to make money.

If you disagree with this, then all you need to do is look at a PC XT, or Atari 2600 and compare it to today's computers and consoles to see how much more powerful hardware can lead to more rewarding game experiences.

it can, but doesn't always. i'd rather play kaboom on the VCS than play daikatana on a modern PC. i prefer lemmings on the amiga to lemmings 3d on the pc. and i'd much rather play legend of zelda on the nes than shinning wisdom on the saturn.

 

[mech]

nope, i'm on this planet. maybe it's not as sunny where you are, but i find the psp to be difficult to see in high light situations. the darker it is the better it looks. you specificly mentioned that looking at a GBA screen was like looking at a mirror. the highly relective plastic on the psp does the same thing in high light situations.

I'll give you this - I don't play the PSP outside much, so I can't offer an opinion on that. But then I don't play any videogames outside - if I'm outside, I'm generally enjoying the outdoors

sony's claims of technical superiority disapeared after about a year (when they got real competition from microsoft and nintendo). strangly, sega dropped out of the hardware race about the same time, when sony began marketing GAMES (live in your world, play in ours). ads weren't showing off the hardware, they were showing GAMES, followed by the ps2 sound and logo. this is a far cry from what i'm talking about. for the saturn, almost every ad bragged about "three 32bit proccessors", atari marked the jaguar bragging about "64bit" and "do the math" in every ad, and 3do had ads with flames shooting out of peoples heads beacus the system was so fast and "real". these things were in almost every ad for these systems (print, tv, ect).

Riiiiiiiiight. And so Sony's hype about "emotion engines" and total trashing of the Saturn for technical prowess don't count as them pushing the ability of their machines? I think you're trying to pick and choose things to suit a hypothesis that just isn't sound.

i can't believe you are actualy using this as your argument. you might thing that the xbox was a successfull piece of hardware, but in fact it was a failure in terms of installed base, software sales, and profit compared to sony. had any other company been behind the xbox they would have folded, or at very least closed their console devision years ago. you're talking about a piece of hardware that wasn't ever supposed to make money.

Xbox beat Nintendo this generation and established Microsoft as a major player. Although it lost money for Microsoft, it could hardly be considered a failure. At any rate, your original argument was:

historicly videogame companies who brag about how much better their technology is fall out of the hardware buisness rather quickly

And Microsoft hasn't fallen out of the hardware business at all. Stop trying to change your argument when I refute your original one.

it can, but doesn't always. i'd rather play kaboom on the VCS than play daikatana on a modern PC. i prefer lemmings on the amiga to lemmings 3d on the pc. and i'd much rather play legend of zelda on the nes than shinning wisdom on the saturn.

Did I say it always did? Why are you trying to argue against stuff I never even said?

 

[see colon]

you know, mech, i getting tired of repeating myself to you. this thread is completely off topic now, and it's obvious we'll never see things the same way. i've only got one comment...

Xbox beat Nintendo this generation and established Microsoft as a major player. Although it lost money for Microsoft, it could hardly be considered a failure.

why are you comparing the xbox to the gamecube? neither console was particularly successfull. do you thing before 3do pulled out of the hardware market they said "well at least we beat the jaguar". compared to the ps2 the xbox (and the gc) were failures in hardware and software sales. on top of that, the xbox was a financial failure.

everything else i've said before and don't care to repeat myself. reply if you want, i'm done posting in this thread.