Iphone/ipod vs psp vs ds.What do you think?

This is probably the wrong forum to talk about gaming platforms other than the iDevice...

 

That's great advice, 15 pages into the topic.

 

I haven't picked up my DS since I got my iphone 3 months ago and have bought at least 200 apps !!!


BUT, personally I can not stand any type virtual buttons and I can not fully enjoy platform games with these controls. Oor ant other type of game for that matter) For me , the controls should all be touch style to suit the iphone / ipodtouch capabilities.

As hard as I tried, I could not get into Castle of magic , This would be best on the DS

I need d-pads for serious platformer action


Tha being said I LOVE my iphone for gaming and have not been this addicted to games since my SNES

 

When said self centering mechanism is a steering wheel controlled via rotation and the non-self centering device is used in a similar rotation movement while the self centering device in opposition is used via thumb controls moved left and right.

I'm rotating the motion controller as I would a steering wheel. That it isn't self centering is beside the point, even though you are focused so much on it. It doesn't have to completely mimic something but more closely mimic it to be more immersive than comparable control interfaces. In this case, a thumbstick, while self centering, does not mimic the motion one uses to control a car steering wheel.

But, again, that does not take into consideration the fact that regardless of tactile feedback the fact is that a thumbstick is not used in the same rotational motion while playing a racing game as is a motion sensing device or a steering wheel. How can one really think: I'm driving a car while fiddling with a thumbstick, self centering or not? One can more closely feel that way when rotating a motion device in a similar way to doing so with a steering wheel.

And that's why motion sensing has to be done right. If done wrongly then the high reflex action required suffers, but if done correctly, as it was in Real Racing, for instance, then the high action reflex action, however demanding, can be adjusted to as one gets used to the controls. Now, I concede that there are those that will not get used to it because for some odd reason they don't "get" slight movements are needed rather than spastic movements, or their brains don't "register" how far they need to tilt to go this far, and how far they need to tilt to get farther still. That stated, for those that do "get it", such motion sensing proves more immersive than physical controls that in no way mimic the motions performed with the task at hand (as in driving a car) whether self centering and with tactile feedback or not.

Not really. I can make an argument that moving the device that has a screen more accurately mimics the feeling of flight than staring at a static screen while moving a joystick. It would be great if one could combine the two (moving screen and joystick, better still if an actual flight stick) as that would prove a greater amount of immersion than either alone.

It might also depend on what kind of flight game is being discussed. If it were a flight sim, it could go either way, if a character flight game, ala NiGHTS or Glyder, then I would gather the player/character connection is closer still with motion sensing.

And I would gather a thumbstick would only feel more natural to those used to playing video games.

Mind you, I'm not talking physical tactile controls as a whole vs. motion sensing as a whole, but rather the specific comparison of thumbstick controls vs. motion sensing particularly on iPhone/touch. Perhaps that's where the confusion lies in our debate. One can bring up a steering wheel peripheral on PS3 having more immediate immersive qualities than the Wii steering wheel for Mario Kart Wii, and I'd have no argument with that. But if we were to compare using a PS3 analog stick for controlling a racer vs. using a Wiimote or even the Dual Shock 3's motion sensing, I'd go with the latter if it were implemented well enough as it would more accurately mimic controlling a steering wheel. That said, we're talking specifically thumbstick vs. device tilt/rotation here. In that specific case, I'd rather motion sensing if it more closely mimics the movements I'd make irl.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the vast majority of the DS library, and even the PSP library are filled with shorter more pick up and play games. RPGs are prominent, but they are not the bulk of the DS library nor the PSP library.

I never stated they were "short on content", just shorter on first playthroughs (replay value is a different matter) on average, and more pick up and play.

You are somewhat right in that home console games have gotten shorter this gen, though. I think it's due to more dev costs going to glitz rather than content, but that's yet another reason for this gen on home consoles not being as good as last

Just gentle friendly needling. Take no offense.

I actually like our debates on these forums. So few appreciate a good lively one nowadays, particularly on the net.

 

The PSP's actual main focus is RPG, the only reason it doesnt show is because most of the titles are japan only games. I owned my PSP ever since it came out and had just about 62 titles that were RPG. Full fledged RPG's, Some were turn-based strategy RPG's some were traditional. If you take the amount of Final Fantasy's, Tales of, and Disagea's there were on the PSP it makes up over half of the library (I would say thats the bulk of) of PSP games. Lets see I can name about 30 good PSP RPG's off the top of my head.

 

True enough. But as a world wide product, however, can we truly state that it is an RPG focused portable game system if most of those games don't leave said region of Japan? And, for that matter, it speaks less to the PSP as a platform and more to the taste of gamers in Japan. They are more into RPGs than just about any other genre, hence more RPGs are released there than other genres, and more than in any other region, across all platforms.

Then there's the little idea that I've got that PSP selling as well as it did after the 2000 was introduced had as much to do with the inclusion of TV output as the "slimmer" design or limited pack in deals with hot game properties, or even stuff like Monster Hunter being released. I truly do think that in Japan it is used as a portable/home console hybrid. But that's a topic for another time on another board.

Still, we can't ignore that PSP was positioned as a paradigm shifting device by Sony in the portable game system marketplace. Their attempt to "take handheld gaming out of the ghetto" in large part drew from the idea of putting home console games on a portable. It worked in Japan as far as RPGs are concerned, perhaps, but failed to really take hold elsewhere. This is why they're rededicating efforts to bring more easily pick up and play titles to PSN, IMHO.

And even then I'd say the RPGs on PSP are not as "deep" (by this I mean as in "takes long to get into") as their home console counterparts. They're still more "pick up and play" more "instantaneous" than home console games. Same deal with DS, but to possibly a slightly greater extent. That Nintendo hasn't kept their eye off of the traditional portable game system paradigm of offering more of those games is likely part of why they have such a lead over Sony's PSP.

 

Haven't you saw what I said before? PSP is no where near a stake... It's a Hot Pocket.

 

You obviously don't get the point of my argument. Someone said that the PSP is more powerful than the iPod Touch in hardware, and no matter what you try to spin up my ass, it's just not true..

533 Mhz will always be more than 333 Mhz, no matter what else the 533 Mhz is doing. 128 MB RAM will always be better than 64MB, no matter what else that 128MB of RAM is doing.

PSP doesn't have better hardware just because the iPod Touch is running other processes.

 

is does for games. Its ture the iPod is more powerful, but the fact that the resources are taken up make it less powerful gaming wise. The PSP outputs all its power to one game the moment a game is started making the game run more smoothly. The fact that the 128mb of ram is also used mostly by system resources (you only get 45 mb compared to 64) and that really it only uses the left over 346 mhz for anything other than background apps is the reason it looks like the hardware doesnt compare.
Yes its better, but to a certain extent.

 

Specs don't always tell the truth, though, do they?

I've played a lot of iPod games and a lot of PSP games and even the best iPod games don't look as good as the worst PSP games... Which really shouldn't be the case if the iPod really was better.

 

im pretty sure my response explains everything hardware wise.

 

Yeah I believe I've heard this as well. Because the iPod is not specifically designed for games, and the PSP is, the iPod actually does have less usable ram than the PSP. However, in an overall picture, if the iPod did not run all the background stuff, it would be more powerful. And while, I'm not going to argue which one is better than the other, I do personally spend more time on the touch, primarily because of the rush of new games, that keeps you coming back. But, the psp, imo still wins in hardcore, polished games, which is well reflected by the price difference as well.

 

You know, I'm seriously about to cry right now, because I don't think anyone really listens to me. JK I'm not going to do that..

But anyway, I'm well aware that processes are running 50% of the RAM usage. AND I am well aware that the PSP uses all of it's power for gaming! I KNOW THIS!! In fact, I STATED THAT I KNEW IT IN THE COMMENT THAT YOU JUST REPLIED TO.

Listen, Buddy. My original statement was only to argue with some guy who said that "The iPod Touch/iPhone does not have the graphical power the PSP has" NOT "The PSP puts more of it's graphical power in games than does the iPod Touch".

You want proof? Here you go.

 

Ipod Touch, DS and PSP FTW!

anyway- I think the main problem with both the PSP and the Touch is the battery life, i can't even get 6h on them, but with my DS, i can get 24hours. So day to day, i use my Touch more, mainly because i can listen to music at the same time. But when on long journeys/holiday, the DS rules supreme for me!

 

Really? The Best iPhone games don't look as good as the worst PSP games? What about Gran Tourismo? Everyone, for the past five months or so, has been saying that's going to be the best PSP game, and has been using that as an argument to say PSP games look WAY better, when really, Gran Tourismo doesn't look as good as Real Racing (I know that those better looking screenshots are from the 3GS I was just using that to say Gran Tourismo doesn't look as good as Real Racing).

And how do you know that the games mean the power of graphics in this situation? Have you considered that all of the PSP companies have higher game budgets than iPod Touch game companies have?

 

Okay, all you stated was that it had 128 mb of ram, and 533 mhz power... Not how much was used for resources, even in the post you sent me too... nothing stated on it. Technically the iPod has more power than the PSP as I stated also, and I will reiterate my post, it still uses up more resources for other things.
That seems to be the one thing your not understanding, yes the 3GS has the ability to output way better graphics than the PSP (yes I mean WAY BETTER) but the potential has yet to be unlocked. I'm not disagreeing with you, just telling you something I think you should get through your head.

 

Whaaatttt? My DS lasts five hours on a charge if it's lucky. Are you playing it with the backlight and sound off?

 

Oh my god, seriously.. How much of my post there did you actually just read? Did you see that bold, underlined, red lettering, saying that I understood that the PSP uses more of its resources for gaming that the iPod Touch does and that I was arguing about something different?

Ehh, screw it, I give up....