CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

No, I'm not a DS hater, I love my DS^^ But just a few thoughts since I got my PSP (no comparison in graphics, I know, but I'll explain...)

So at work since I work in the electronics dept., if I'm bored and end up wandering I'll check out our game stocks^^ Sad how I pretty much know everything we have, but that's beside the point! Nice to sometimes look at a game and check out its visuals and so forth, and everytime I look at the GBA ones I think "wow... that's so bad^^" Yes there has been many good GBA games with decent graphics, but some are... yeah :/

Then I go and browse at the DS games. You know what? Sometimes I can't tell the difference >_< The graphics still look greatly pixelated with little improvement. It's sad... really :/ I know I threw PSP in here, because I didn't realize it was capable of PS2 quality graphics! An amazing little device! But poor poor DS... It has potential for graphics (if anyone's seen the intro for FFIII) but game makers seem to... abuse it. Now, I'm more pointing fingers to American companies here. Japan makes awsome games and so does America with equally good graphics, don't get me wrong, but some companies don't really know HOW to take advantage and if they try, the results can be horrible:

Exhibit A: a game trying not hard enough... ouch looks bad^^ (Prince of Persia)

Exhibit B: What happens when they try TOO hard. Wow... so ugly^^ The uh top portion, that is. (King Kong)

These companies are mostly those that throw in games based off movies or tv shows, mostly always ones aimed for kids. And well not just the graphics, but everyone knows how even the funness of these games well, they hardly ever get good ratings^^

So the bottom line from me is this: I love my PSP and I love my DS, but I just hope that people can use the graphic quality on a DS for what it is: cartoony. What I mean is that Mario-esque games on it come out in AWSOME quality, along with other games which feature anime-esque features (Elite Beat, Pheonix Wright etc. Both out of japan, but they know how it's done^^) I do NOT want to see another game with equally comparable graphics as a GBA or worse, since they're trying too hard :/ I'm glad they're taking GBA out of the market, but I worry about the DS games of now and the future. Many look just so... blah, and no wonder some turn to PSPs as their portable rather than DS >_<

...and that is my rant. Comments? Anyone agree want to add? Etc?

The fact that something that size can render as well as it can is amazing. The comparison between them isn't really fair because of what they're achieving. PSP is a powerhouse of graphics because that is exactly what it is built to be while the DS doesn't have as much space in there for graphics processing because it has other things that it's working on. I'd say that any comparison you could make between the two would be partially unfair because they utilize different tupes of gameplay for different audiences.

Also, the FFIII opening was a prerendered sequence. Even the prerendereds we saw on the PS1 were not indicitive of what the PS1 could do.

The sad fact of the matter is that with great success comes the "shovelware". For those of you not familiar with the term "Shovelware" refers to the games that are produced as quickly as possible for as cheaply as possible. Typically they feature sub-par graphics and gameplay.

It's unfortunate, but it happens. The PS2 and PS1 had a great deal of shovelware, too. It's really dependent upon the devs. Also, it should be noted that Eastern devs are just as guilty of shovelware as Western devs. The reason that we see a difference here in the states is because of the cost of localization.

Rest assured the biggest piece of graphical trash after the release of the PS1 was actually considered one of the better, more addictive games... This, of course, is Katamari Damacy. Not all games have to look good.

As for your worry, trust me... The same worries me about the Wii... More than the graphics, though, is that Party Games will so greatly overtake single player epics that people will just stop making them, or only do them every once and a while... I may start to believe that the 15 year era from 90-05 was the good times, and it will all go downhill (from the perspective of a single player fan) afterwards...

If Wii stays the lead console, I hope that games like Metroid Prime 3 and Mario Galaxy and some good RPGs sell enough to match or beat the party games, because as things are now, the message getting sent to devs is "Party games make money, epic singleplayer games don't." That would be the end of games for me...

ikimasu wrote:The sad fact of the matter is that with great success comes the "shovelware". For those of you not familiar with the term "Shovelware" refers to the games that are produced as quickly as possible for as cheaply as possible. Typically they feature sub-par graphics and gameplay.

Ah, so they have a name for it. I have seen... TOO many of these for GBA and DS isn't getting any better with it :/


[quote="Bobtheduck

If Wii stays the lead console, I hope that games like Metroid Prime 3 and Mario Galaxy and some good RPGs sell enough to match or beat the party games, because as things are now, the message getting sent to devs is "Party games make money, epic singleplayer games don't." That would be the end of games for me...[/QUOTE"]

Some of the party games are fun, I'll admit but it's true that it's the majority of games that are popping up because of how they're trying to make it popular with non-gamers or whatever (such as preppy girls who would probably not stand a 10 ft pole from regular games :/)

Nintendo mostly focuses on new ways to play.

Sony and Microsoft focuses on better graphics than ever.

And even still Nintendo has fantastic graphics. Examples: New Super Mario Bros., Pokemond D/P.

Yes, they are small graphics. So they don't need so much to be good looking, but whoever makes Mario and Pokemon apparently know what they're doing well enough to see the graphic limitations.

The graphic problems don't seem to be in the polygonal figures. (Except in the King Kong game @.@) But when you say they look pixelated, you're talking about screen size. I don't think you can turn a touch screen into high def pixels. Not only that, but the screen is so much smaller, it makes the pixels look bigger.

I heard somewhere they would update something to hold thousands of polygons at a time or some kind of improvement along those lines.

That King Kong game is the worst. I wouldn't say in any way, that they were trying too hard. I think their effort compares to that of the Prince of Persia game. They want to make a low budget game that people will buy because it's one of the only games on the market. No, I tell you the truth, with the right software, you can far surpass the King Kong graphics... what they did is about on my level. Aside from any memory limitations, they could make some outstanding graphics if they tried. And I don't exactly know how much of a memory limitation they might have, but they could at least try to hide their imperfections. Make it foggy, so people can't see the background, but the system won't have to draw the whole thing. Put something in front of something to hide it... That game is definitely not trying their best.

Ditto ikimasu's statement. Really though, it often seems to work far better (graphically) when developers manage to 'make use' of a handheld's power without pushing it so far that it looks, well, ugly. Look at Elite Beat Agents: the only polygons are used for the world map and the agents themselves, but they kept it simple enough that it fits the rest of the game without looking bad.

Crap will always exist, no matter what the system or medium, and it will (unfortunately) mostly be in the majority; you just have to find the 'gems' hidden somewhere in all of it. D8

Jack Bond wrote:And even still Nintendo has fantastic graphics. Examples: New Super Mario Bros., Pokemond D/P.

I personally wouldn't call the new gen Pokemons as having "fantastic" graphics. 3Dish, yes, but even IGN didn't give them an awsome scoring for it because it's pretty close to their GBA graphics. They did polish the graphics a bit, but not too far over the top. Maybe they MIGHT have really been able to clean them up, but for what it is, it isn't bad either^^ Besides, there's always Revolution for Wii which in fact, came out today. I'm actually curious about that title^^ Only even played the first Pokemon Stadium...

the ds does lack the graphical processing of the PSP but after playing brothers in arms DS i was blown away at how well the little ds could handel a complex 3d shooter, i think the biggest problem with the DS and 3d games is not its power, but the Dev's its much easyer to port titles to the PSP than the DS and making the graphics shine takes time, so the vast majority of DS games out there just havent been given the proper dev time to compete.. most of them anyway

Bobtheduck wrote:Rest assured the biggest piece of graphical trash after the release of the PS1 was actually considered one of the better, more addictive games... This, of course, is Katamari Damacy. Not all games have to look good.

As for your worry, trust me... The same worries me about the Wii... More than the graphics, though, is that Party Games will so greatly overtake single player epics that people will just stop making them, or only do them every once and a while... I may start to believe that the 15 year era from 90-05 was the good times, and it will all go downhill (from the perspective of a single player fan) afterwards...

If Wii stays the lead console, I hope that games like Metroid Prime 3 and Mario Galaxy and some good RPGs sell enough to match or beat the party games, because as things are now, the message getting sent to devs is "Party games make money, epic singleplayer games don't." That would be the end of games for me...

I would hardly call Katamari Damacy graphical trash. Sure, it hardly pushed the system's capabilities but it was intentionally stylized instead of graphically lazy or even graphically stunted like, say, Megaman Legends (which wille ever and always be one of my favorite games). MML suffered from a curious inabbility for the textures to actually stay where they needed to be on the models.

Mario Party is an old Franchise. Three consoles old. It is fun in group play, but I hardly think it will dominate the market. Right now the party games are a mainstay on the Wii because of their ease of development, but unless you have an appartment full of people constantly wanting party games all the time you're going to seek out other games, and thus, those games will continue to be bought, and thus, the market will stay just fine.

Keep in mind, also, that the average gamer has gotten older. With age comes a career, marriage, and inevitably for some, kids... These things do not allow one to game as much as they used to. In a recent conversation with my older brother (a married man with three kids) he told me he'd like to try out games like the Zelda series and epic RPGs, but he doesn't have time. Instead, the only games he can afford to play are racers, fighters, etc which offer fifteen minutes of gratification and can be picked up and played at any time for any length of time without requirements like save spots and remembering plot points.

Graphically, I don't think that there is anything wrong with falling behind the competition a little if something else is brought to the table in its place. Honestly, graphics never mattered much to me. If you can do a lot with very little visually, I'll honor you more than the schmoe who put all their power in to creating top notch visuals (that may or may not actually look all that good at the end of the day) and crap gameplay. This isn't a broadbased accusation at either microsoft OR Sony, but merely an observation I've made on a few games attributed to either side.

Honestly, I think people care too much about the graphics and not enough about the thing that games were made for - fun. If you can have fun playing a game - if you can say after the credits have rolled that it was your favorite game ever - who cares if it made use of bump mapping, particle effects, low gloss, HD2100maxextremedexterity21charisma18AC26, etc? Yes, visuals add in, but we're starting to focus too much on that one aspect. I don't care if the game is pretty if it sucks! Some of the most critically acclaimed games (and games that I've added to my list of personal favorites) were lagging in the graphics department: Beyond Good and Evil, Psychonauts, Disgaea...

The games industry will continue to focus too much on graphics despite proof that you don't need cutting edge graphics to have a good game, and the truley good games will continue to be under appreciated, but I don't think you need to worry about marioparties taking over the world. The industry will continue to develop weird problems every few years, but so long as people want to experience a good story, or high adventure, sologames will continue to be built. Remember, man, Marioparty, Raving Rabids, and all those other games like them are intended to be group experiences and no one wants that all the time. It's cool. ^-^

Etoh*the*Greato wrote:I would hardly call Katamari Damacy graphical trash. Sure, it hardly pushed the system's capabilities but it was intentionally stylized instead of graphically lazy or even graphically stunted like, say, Megaman Legends (which wille ever and always be one of my favorite games). MML suffered from a curious inabbility for the textures to actually stay where they needed to be on the models.

I knew someone would take exception to me saying Katamari Damacy was graphical trash... I'm sorry, I do have a bit of a difficult time playing a PS2 game that looks like it came from the first generation of Saturn games.

Mario Party is an old Franchise. Three consoles old. It is fun in group play, but I hardly think it will dominate the market.

I was referring to party games in general... Wii Sports, Wii Play, Rayman Raving Rabids... I suppose it would be more accurate to say "Casual Games"

Right now the party games are a mainstay on the Wii because of their ease of development, but unless you have an appartment full of people constantly wanting party games all the time you're going to seek out other games, and thus, those games will continue to be bought, and thus, the market will stay just fine.

Keep in mind, also, that the average gamer has gotten older. With age comes a career, marriage, and inevitably for some, kids... These things do not allow one to game as much as they used to. In a recent conversation with my older brother (a married man with three kids) he told me he'd like to try out games like the Zelda series and epic RPGs, but he doesn't have time. Instead, the only games he can afford to play are racers, fighters, etc which offer fifteen minutes of gratification and can be picked up and played at any time for any length of time without requirements like save spots and remembering plot points.

There is a lot of truth in what you say, but I think that's just it... The gaming generation really is stuck in the early childbearing days... Perhaps when things start to cool down, once all the children are in school, those same people may start going back to the epic games, but that won't happen if the market starts to choke out the epic games. The industry is really not a patient one.

Graphically, I don't think that there is anything wrong with falling behind the competition a little if something else is brought to the table in its place. Honestly, graphics never mattered much to me. If you can do a lot with very little visually, I'll honor you more than the schmoe who put all their power in to creating top notch visuals (that may or may not actually look all that good at the end of the day) and crap gameplay. This isn't a broadbased accusation at either microsoft OR Sony, but merely an observation I've made on a few games attributed to either side.

I disagree, really. I think top-notch effort should be put into every aspect of game making. Art, gameplay, story... They should all be great. The message being sent to devs with the wii is "Oh, if we make a gimmicky game that draws non-gamers, we don't have to put any effort into making it look good" First off, it means a shift in the work world. A lot of people are out of jobs. Secondly, it means the people who appreciate the pretty games get left out in the cold.

Honestly, I think people care too much about the graphics and not enough about the thing that games were made for - fun. If you can have fun playing a game - if you can say after the credits have rolled that it was your favorite game ever - who cares if it made use of bump mapping, particle effects, low gloss, HD2100maxextremedexterity21charisma18AC26

Video games are a decidedly visual medium. Visuals are very important to the hardcore gamers. When people put no effort into making a game look good, it becomes very difficult to get into them.

The games industry will continue to focus too much on graphics despite proof that you don't need cutting edge graphics to have a good game, and the truley good games will continue to be under appreciated, but I don't think you need to worry about marioparties taking over the world. The industry will continue to develop weird problems every few years, but so long as people want to experience a good story, or high adventure, sologames will continue to be built. Remember, man, Marioparty, Raving Rabids, and all those other games like them are intended to be group experiences and no one wants that all the time. ]

I agree, no one wants those all the time, but the game industry heads think very linearly and one dimensionally... There's either big sellers or weak sellers, and if they see an epic game doesn't sell as well as the party games, they put less and less money into them, and in return they get worse and worse... It's sort of self replicating.

Jack Bond wrote:Nintendo mostly focuses on new ways to play.

Yeah, they do. That's neither a good nor a bad thing, in and of itself.

Sony and Microsoft focuses on better graphics than ever.

While that is a HUGE focus, I would say it's not the only focus... Sony also focused on new ways to play when they experimented with image recognition and motion detection on the eyetoy in 2004, as well as embracing online play by being the first console to have broadband internet capabilities. It hasn't been all graphics for them, and they've made some very innovative and fun games.

And even still Nintendo has fantastic graphics. Examples: New Super Mario Bros., Pokemond D/P.

There's nothing on either one of those that couldn't have been done on the PS1. See "Legend of Mana"

Yes, they are small graphics. So they don't need so much to be good looking, but whoever makes Mario and Pokemon apparently know what they're doing well enough to see the graphic limitations.

Um... Ok. You're right, the DS doesn't need the power of the PSP to be fun, but it's not the power that bugs me... it's the storage space... You can push a DS cart to 1.5 gigs, but if you did the cart would cost more than the game could be sold for. UMDs, on the other hand, are DVD based and therefore infinitely cheaper... Whenever a company makes a big DS game, they lose profits. That discourages the bigger games from being made on the system.

The graphic problems don't seem to be in the polygonal figures. (Except in the King Kong game @.@) But when you say they look pixelated, you're talking about screen size. I don't think you can turn a touch screen into high def pixels. Not only that, but the screen is so much smaller, it makes the pixels look bigger.

No, you have it backward... The small screen minimizes the graphical problems... It's when things are on a large screen that you really see problems with it. Same with PSP... It's probably why Sony's never made a PSP reader for the PS3... They're afraid what people are going to think once they see how horrible the games look on a big screen.

I heard somewhere they would update something to hold thousands of polygons at a time or some kind of improvement along those lines.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here... Unless you mean they're going to do a ram upgrade via the GBA slot or something, there's not much more they can do to boost the DS's power.

That King Kong game is the worst. I wouldn't say in any way, that they were trying too hard. I think their effort compares to that of the Prince of Persia game. They want to make a low budget game that people will buy because it's one of the only games on the market. No, I tell you the truth, with the right software, you can far surpass the King Kong graphics... what they did is about on my level. Aside from any memory limitations, they could make some outstanding graphics if they tried. And I don't exactly know how much of a memory limitation they might have, but they could at least try to hide their imperfections. Make it foggy, so people can't see the background, but the system won't have to draw the whole thing. Put something in front of something to hide it... That game is definitely not trying their best.

Oh, definitely, but fog gets annoying after a while if it doesn't fit... So many PS1 games did the fog thing simply to cover what they couldn't do... There are other ways of doing it.

When it comes down to it, this generation worries me altogether... I hate Microsoft and all that they stand for, and whenever they throw their money around to bumble their way through the console world, it makes me very nervous. And Nintendo, which I had no problem with, started to worry me with the pushing of the casual games. Both of them worry me, because I see the game world changing in a way that I may not be able to adapt to. Much like the PC gaming world, I may be driven from the console gaming world by the market trends.

Bobtheduck wrote:I knew someone would take exception to me saying Katamari Damacy was graphical trash... I'm sorry, I do have a bit of a difficult time playing a PS2 game that looks like it came from the first generation of Saturn games.

I'm merely approaching it from the standpoint of videogames as art. Just because they're not consuming every graphical process the system is capable of does not mean they're not good. They're very stylized and, though blocky, well rendered and bear a distinct artistic style. Yeah, they do look very PS1 but they definitely have their own artistic flair. There are similar ways in which certain artists have made a name for themselves making less realistic images, but images that are still enjoyable for some people to look at. Not everyone, but then not everyone is going to enjoy looking at the same thing. It's why some people preferred Vanguard's realistic touch over WoW's cartoony styles. I'm a WoW guy myself.
To summarize, I don't think a good art direction necessarily means state of the art graphics.

BobtheDuck wrote:I was referring to party games in general... Wii Sports, Wii Play, Rayman Raving Rabids... I suppose it would be more accurate to say "Casual Games"

There is a lot of truth in what you say, but I think that's just it... The gaming generation really is stuck in the early childbearing days... Perhaps when things start to cool down, once all the children are in school, those same people may start going back to the epic games, but that won't happen if the market starts to choke out the epic games. The industry is really not a patient one.

I have good trust. Yeah, we of the old guard are starting to squirt out pups, but we're also well aware of videogames, and we'll likely raise our kids to love videogames as well. Those kids will want many of the things that we did (storytelling has never once in the history of Mankind gone out of fashion. Hehe), and so they'll seek out the videogames that are capable of providing those things for them while those of us still with a bottle in hand can at least watch the DOA girls duke out their fisticuffs. This stuff goes through cycles. There was a long time when there were hardly any casual games to be found. People wanted deeper more insightful experiences, but now those people can't take advantage of it as much as they used to but they still want gaming. The next generation will continue to want them, though. Epic games aren't disappearing. They're just gonna have to share the market with someone else. The industry is still absolutely packed with people who want to tell a story, and it will for ages to come, so we'll keep getting them. I have all the trust in the world.

As for you graphical argument, I'm not trying to diminish the importance of graphics in an obviously graphic medium but I honestly think too much weigt is being put on them to the detriment of other aspects of the medium in all honesty. Yes, it is a graphical medium - but it's also an audic medium and as well as a medium of the... more imaginative dimensions that I lack words to describe.

Another interesting thing I see with the graphics deal...

At work, I actually have parents practically forcing their kids to get DS games instead of GBa because they're "better". Now, I wish I could be the one to say "sheesh let the kid decide what game they want on their own!" but I see parents doing this very often, like today too. Today I said to a parent "really, the graphics aren't all that much better" (in many cases) and she sad something about not wanting to spend the money on something with bad graphics. Well excuuuuse me! I happen to know dozens of classic games with less than average graphics!

Interestingly enough, the child was eyeing Dogz 2 for GBA and Dogz for DS. I looked at the back of the packages at the graphics an whoa... almost EXACTLY the same! So I don't know where people are saying that it's always "better". The real technological aspect is the sometime 3Dness, and dual screens with touch, but not always the best graphics (ESPECIALLY the American games for it, sadly :/)

...just something to add that's interesting :/

the ds is allright

I think the 3D capability and the touchscreen are supposed to be the big deals there, with the major emphasis on the touch-screen. Other than that, I think the graphics cap out at about the same between the two.

Regarding the OP:

I think there is a lot to be said and done for pixellated, sprite-based graphics. Polygons can look horribly unclean, with their jagged edges, blurry or distended textures, and the messiness you can get when they collide... Polygon-based games can look great, but well-done sprites are very sleek, tidy, and they can be much better at showing detail. Also, sprites take up less space (generally) and leave more room for things such as an improved soundtrack or extended game. Polygons are also much laggier. (However, I must note that the DS [I can't speak for the PSP, having not played one] has a surprisingly excellent framerate, and I've got at least one game that, despite its cheesy models, looks so silky smooth it stuns me.)

I'm not saying polygons are all bad. 'Course not. But sometimes, 16-bit sprites do a better job than 32-bit polys. If you're making a side-scrolling platformer (which the world needs more of these days--Treasure, I know your policy about sequels, but at least talk Nintendo into putting Mischief Makers on the VC), you needn't bother with fancy polygons when all you really need is sprites. RPGs work pretty well this way too. Now, if you want to make, say, a racer, of course 3-D is probably a better option. It all depends on the style of game. Personally, I kinda wish O!T!O!/Elite Beat Agents was all sprites, 'cuz gosh, those 3-D agents are awfully jarring to me against the cartoony backgroungs.

I suppose it's all a matter of taste, really. It's not like I'm so super hardcore retro gamer who believes in the superiority of sprites no matter what--my first home console was an N64--I just think sprites look better sometimes.

Speaking as someone who owns both a PSP and a DS (lite), the DS does seem to fall short of the PSP in terms of graphical quality; unfortunately, other design features prevent the PSP from being superior as a portable handheld system. The UMD based format means long load times, which is major hindrance to casual games that should be quick and effortless; moreover, the graphical power comes at the cost of battery life, meaning that the PSP needs to be charged every few hours, which is a major disadvantage for a portable device. While the clamshell design of the DS protects the screens from scratches and smudging, the exposed PSP screen constantly gets dirty and requires cleaning. PSP games do have better graphics, but those graphics come at the price of reduced convenience and accessibility.

As with most Nintendo systems, Nintendo first-party titles are the games that set the standard for the DS; thus, it is not surprising that the upcoming Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass looks much better than Prince of Persia or King Kong.

So, CBWing, if I may ask, what's the PSP's framerate like? I know that in terms of resolution and polys, the PSP is superior, but I'm curious to know how it "glides," if you will. Smooth or more herky-jerky? Somewhere in between.

Freezair wrote:So, CBWing, if I may ask, what's the PSP's framerate like? I know that in terms of resolution and polys, the PSP is superior, but I'm curious to know how it "glides," if you will. Smooth or more herky-jerky? Somewhere in between.

The framerate is smooth in every game that I have played; however, the long and frequent load times do a lot to slow down the play experience.