With the DS and PSP on the horizon we are now at level of 3D graphics which we are more than used to on the consoles, will the trend of simpler graphics as highlighted above continue or will handheld gaming change into the realm of console quality graphics. The PSP is obviously taking the route of high quality graphics, whilst the DS (which is still graphically impressive when compared to the GBA) is clearly desgined with a different vision of further differentiating handheld gaming.

As illustarted Nintendo's dominance in the handheld gaming industry remained strong despite competiting handhelds offering superior graphics, the evolution of the Nintendo handheld platforms has still seen improvements in graphics from the gameboy to the gameboy color, to the gameboy advance and now to the DS however it has always been generations behind that of the consoles but nevertheless has been succesful. Given that graphics clearly hasn't been a factor in handheld gaming, will the PSP make any influence and change this trend?

I think that the PSP will make a difference once it and the DS are out and people can compare them. I'm just wondering if the extra screen on the DS will outweigh the better graphics on the PSP.

I think that if Nintendo really wants to win with the DS, they need to create some truely beautiful games that take full advantage of the DS's 3D power. 2D Stuff like that game where Yoshi has to catch baby Mario looks like it belongs on the Snes/GBA, it won't matter how innovative it is.

I think the PSP's market appeal is exactly that; a focus on trying to shift the handheld gaming market from a haven of gameplay to a minefield on eye candy. You only need to look at the hordes of seemingly superflous PSP features to see that Sony are not pushing this device with gaming solely in mind.

I feel that if a gamer wanted to play with superior graphical capability in mind, they would merely enjoy a console. Handheld devices are always a step back in terms of power (but not necessarily enjoyment) versus the grounded units at home.

Really though, it comes down more to what software developers can do rather than what hardware the major players can pump out.

While Nintendo are pushing creative boundaries by equipping a touch screen, Sony are pushing technological boundaries by having such powerful and versatile hardware in a small unit.

Why limit potential?

However that said I love 2D games, they have a certain charm that 3D graphics can't recreate so hopefully they won't be completely forgotten.

The movie playing capabilites of the PSP has also been proven to be of a high standard. I wouldn't go so far as to say the extra features of the PSP are superflous. But yes its was not built with gaming soley in mind. They are an electronics company, Nintendo are not.

Costing is an especially good reason too, in my eyes at the least.

Superflous probably is the wrong choice of words though, I agree. :thumbsup:

When you look at previous failed competiors, which were more graphically impressive than the gameboy their largest drawbacks were poor battery life and mediocre games, the big question is whether the PSP will have these same drawbacks.

I don't think it will. Because with gaming being so commercial now, it's easier to grab a share of the market to keep your system afloat. When you talk about previous systems, you obviously are thinking about the game gear, and the atari lynx. Well, despite what those offered, they came around in a time that was quite difficult to get a good enough share on the market to stick around, and Nintendo used its name (and tetris), to its full advantage.

These days though, the gaming generation is older, they buy more, and target markets are wider than ever. I really don't see how Nintendo can maintain their hold as handheld gaming kings.

Also, because gaming has become more commercial, you are getting people buying these devices which are more easily impressed, or swayed by the "pretty lights" the system has, as opposed to pure gameplay. For this reason alone, the PSP will sell quite well (i'm sure the Sony brand will help sway the opinions of the mainstream gamers).

In my opinion, the smart thing for Nintendo to do, was go ahead with their gaming "revolution", but also try to get the graphics going as well as the PSP's, to attract the mainstream market. That way, if people had to decide, it would be a no brainer in picking the Nintendo console.

True, if the DS's graphics were (in theory) on par with the PS2, and the PSP's on par with the GCN, and the DS still had the same features as it does now, I'm sure people would go for the DS instead.

But since the Gap between the PSP and DS is larger than that, Sony have the "pretty lights" advantage.

I think if Nintendo had waited a tad longer and had made their next handheld with GCN graphics(ala Gameboy Evolution) Nintendo would have had a much bigger chance of retaining their crown.

Sadly, I think we've seen an end to the days when graphics on handhelds isn't a major drawcard. :(


Oh and Manny, there have been a heap of handhelds released* since the Game Gear and the Lynx, and they have all been superior to the GB that was out at the time.


* Sega Nomad, Gamepark 32, Neo Geo Pocket Colour, Wanderswan, Game.com, the list goes on...

I know, they were just the main two competitors.

I really don't think the graphics matter than much on handhelds.

Personally, I don't even consider the graphical quality of GBA games when I buy them... my buying mentality solely focuses on the quality of the gameplay. I usually don't even bother taking much notice of the 'graphics' section in a review of the game because it really doesn't matter to me. That said, it is going to be unfortunate when the DS and PSP come along, because like a few others have predicted, I think the days of gameplay over graphics have truly ended, for good.

I enjoy every gaming system (except phone games and Wonderswan, Gamepak, and all those asian exclusives you find on liksang.com), without worrying about the graphics. But then, I do sometimes compare graphics between similar games and systems (PSP vs DS) to aid in making my decision at times.
I enjoyed FF:Tactics Advance and Super Mario A2, and the Castlevania games are cool. But after the PSP and DS, I doubt I'll go back to the retro handhelds, just like I'm not playing PSone games anymore.
Hey, videogames are all about the VIDEO, no? :P

I don't think you would buy a handheld console in the first place if your purchasing decisions were so heavily focused on the graphics in videogames.

While handheld systems are rapidily catching up to their console counterparts, once the PSP is released, I can't ever see a portable system better home console graphics and generally handheld gaming will always be one step behind graphics-wise.

It does seem pretty clear that the PSP has caused a shift in Nintendo's handheld dominace, given its sales in Japan thus far. However it is still too early to tell what will happen exactly.

It's interesting that if the gaming industry has changed, with older gamers that are willing to pay more and love the trendy gadgets with flashing lights, then why did Nokia's N-Gage fail? The idea seemed like it would work, taking advantage of the increasing popularity in mobile phones and videogames, but it clearly fell flat on its face. This was a recent machine that again and much more features than the gameboy could ever dream of, yet it too didn't really take off. Were consumers confused about the machine, is it a phone or a game machine? Did it have too much features?

I think it's ridiculous to think that graphics have absolutely no implication on gaming, whether it be handheld, or console. I think anyone would rather play a minnish cap version of Zelda, as opposed to a Link to the past version of Zelda.

Sure, it's 2D, but that doesn't mean the characters or environments have to look like crap.

The Ngage had 2 problems. One, the whole design was crap, cells are all about the style and the gage seemed so stupid with the "sidetalking" only jerks would buy one. Second, the screen is vertical and not wide enough.
Oh, and the QD is just simply too late... :whistling:

And like manny sez, what would vg's be without the graphics?? If Gran Turismo had bad graphics, would it be as successful? I don't think so. Games depend on graphics to sell, do not deny that.

Graphics do play a big part in game sales, but they don't apply to all gamers. Games targetted at the mainstream/ ignorant gamer rely heavily on graphics. Games like Ikaruga, praised by hardcome games, survive solely on gameplay. The majority of the GBA library does the same.

The upcoming handheld war will be, once again, split into two main groups:

A) The kind of people that buy games solely for their graphics (these people will be looking forward to the PSP and it's vast array of PS2 ports, such as GT, MGS, GTA etc.) Unfortunetely for the gaming industry, these people will eventually kill off 2D gaming. Current console games on the go is on the agenda.

B) The kind of people that care more about gameplay. Hardcore gamers, with a soft spot for the old 2D. They are more concerned with keeping handheld games sacred, and leaving console games to home consoles. These will be the DS owners. Heavily outnumbered, and destined to lose from the beginning.

I think the PSP will hurt the DS severly. Nintendo will be forced to utilise better graphics next time round.

What I haven't taken into account though is the child sales. Will kids opt for the DS, father of the GBA and relatively cheap for mum to buy, or will they nag and nag till they get a PSP, and become the "cool" kid on the block. Most kids seem to have jumped over to the Sony camp this generation, so it's probably safe to say the Sony name will stay true to it's fanbase. I personally can't see young kids coping with either handheld consoles. Both are targetting a more mature audience, no matter which way you look at it.

Uhh, wha? Link To The Past was far from being built on some form of inferior graphics engine... I think you need a better comparison. :huh:

I've never tried to deny anything, I've merely questioned the importance of graphics in handheld gaming, which has brought up some interesting posts on where people stand in this area. Consoles will always be superior in the graphics department, if only because of the fact that they are played on a larger screen. I certainly love great graphics, hence why I own a GCN and Xbox (and not the PS2 :P). It's just that when we look at handheld gaming, graphics have never been a significant factor. Look at the recent adoption of games on mobile phones, I'd say that the black & white 2D Snake is more popular than any of the flashy Java games that you find on newer mobile phones.

In the past they haven't really been significant at all, but I can see the PSP changing that.

:D I never said you deny, but anyone who beleives good graphics don't contribute to the whole gaming experience. I get your point, dude. Except for why you don't have a PS2... :huh:

Because he said he loves consoles with great graphics. :P

:lol:


DZ, when you said "Games depend on graphics to sell, do not deny that" I assumed that was directed towards me, but yeah anyway the point has been made, and it looks as though many believe that the PSP has the potential to change the signifacnce of graphics in handheld gaming, it'll be interesting to see where we are in say a years time.

Frankly, I think that's bullshit.

Think back, to as far as you can remember, and you'll see that graphical improvements have been a part of gaming, and any visual entertainment as a whole. The PSP or mainstream gamers aren't to blame for this, we as humans regardless of what stance we take, are the ones to blame if anything, as we're always looking for ways to improve on something. Regardless of whether it's 2D or 3D, visuals improvements have always been a core element in increasing the value of the next new title, it's just that because gaming has become mainstream, you are getting so many developers, churning out absolute crap, that it's becoming noticeable. There's always been graphical enhancements, and there's always been crappy games, so to blame sony, or the PSP for that, is ludicrous.

Do I?





Now if anyone, who hasn't got fond memories of LttP and uses that as a factor in this, is asked which one they'd rather play, i'd be 99% positive they'd choose Minish Cap. Why? Because aesthetically, it's more pleasing to the eye. Why in heavens would you want something that's visually inferior? If we as humans didn't care, we'd be wearing only one colour as clothing, just to reduce costs...

Very good point manny. Graphics make a game enjoyable. Good graphics help in setting a good atmosphere. Splinter Cell hmm?

I have to admit that I haven't played minish cap yet, but from what I've heard, it's pretty short, at least relative to LttP. I'd possibly rather prefer LttP on the basis of its larger adventure. I just didn't get it for GBA because I was rather opposed to SNES ports.

And whilst aethetics might play a role in our choices, it isn't quite an overriding factor. Just like how most people here I'm assuming wouldn't buy a game that was aestetically pleasing but frustrating as hell due to crappy gameplay.

Well, for starters, comparing two titles of the same series with a gap of about eight years between them probably isn't the best way to go. Link to the Past's graphics may be inferior to The Minish Cap, yes, but they are not inferior full stop.

That's like comparing Populous to Black & White.

I never doubted your point, I just think you need a better example, namely two games that have both been developed in roughly the same time period with similair resources available.

Of course, the real problem is more often that not, most gamers are well aware of aesthetics before the gameplay, seeing as nine times out of ten you have to play the game to figure the latter out. Pity you have to shell the money out first to find that out (most often), so a lot of people will make a decision based on aesthetics as they will think the rest of the game's elements to be on-par with the quality of those.

I'm not blaming sony or the PSP, but rather the values a mainstream gamer adopts when choosing a game/console.

I'd choose Minish Cap on the basis that I've finished LttP 3 times (the last time was late last year) and I'm yet to play Minish Cap. I don't give a stuff about graphics. If the new Zelda ends up being total crap I'd much rather player OoT or MM again instead.

No, I used it primarily as an example of how graphics progressing over time is a good thing. People, mainly "retro" or "hardcore" gamers, tend to scorn the progression of graphics, because they believe it's killing gameplay, and I think that's bullshit. There were crappy games back then, and there are crappy games now. The only difference, is there are a higher number of crappy games because of gaming becoming mainstream, but keep in mind that the number of great titles are coming so fast we can't keep up with them (or I can't anyway).

That being said, one thing I do not like about graphics progression, is the need for everything to be in 3D these days. 2D is still a great method for different types of gameplay, so only producing 3D games is limiting what is coming out, and that is what I think alot of people have a problem with. Luckily, some developers still see the value in 2D, and are releasing some great games with it.

Well if you were trying to show the progression, I feel you were doing quite a poor job getting it accross. Especially seeing as your original arguement seemed to be quite simply suggesting that Link to the Past's graphics engine, built around the famed Mode 7 if I remember correctly, was quite crap. Not in comparison, just bluntly crap.

The gamers you refer to probably don't scorn new-age titles as much as you'd like to think. I know dedicated retro gamers who still give titles such as Grand Theft Auto: Vice City the odd whirl. They're just trying to make a stand by generally sticking to the older titles as they are testament to the fact that graphics rarely make the game. They're not graphics-nazis.

I also feel your explanation for the amount of, "crappy", games filtering out into the market these days is rather lacking and possibly even misguided.

I think it's probably also our expectations increasing quite a bit. Some of the games we wouldn't even consider looking at let alone buying would have probably been mind blowing quite a few years back.

Ah, the curse of the mainstreaming of video games.

It is a shame that 2D games are dying off, the GBA was the only source of quality 2D games, with the DS and PSP it looks as though the 2D games will be dead, however the DS is getting some 2D games, the new Castelvania is 2D. :)

Conversely, I think Pauly nailed it. Other than his comments that Nintendo will falter quite severely at the hands of the PSP, I agree totally with what he is saying.

Every time I return to my SNES and revisit an old favourite, I play through it and I am continually amazed at the clear focus on gameplay over graphics. There is no denying it, but back in the days of the 8-bit & 16-bit areas, creating and executing a brilliant gameplay idea was the key to developing a successful video game title. Because the visual capabilities of the two hardware systems were quite limited in their ability to achieve outstanding graphics with the primitive SNES & MegaDrive hardware, game development was focused on the gameplay, and the graphics came a distant second. Personally, when I hear of a gaming fan who lovingly recalls the 16-bit era as the golden years for gaming, I come to the conclusion that the focus on gameplay over graphics was the main reason that so many older gaming enthusiasts rate it as the best period.

Ever since the N64, the mentality has shifted, and now graphics are the most important aspect of a game, with gameplay relegated to the background in many cases. So when I read of the death of 2D games, I sadden, because with the limitations of a 2D visual engine, the years when 'gameplay over graphics' has long gone.

I agree that the progression of graphics is a good thing for the gamers, but it is not a good thing for the developers. It only breeds developer complacency in the area of gameplay.

Misguided?

Ok, so you're denying the fact that gaming itself has become a more mainstream and acceptable leisurely pastime, and because of that, there are more games available now then there were 10 years ago? The percentage of crappy games may have stayed the same, but as the number of titles available grows, isn't it more than likely that the number of "crappy" games grows with it?

But if we're purely going by numbers, isn't it conversely likely that the number of good games will grow as well? I think if anything, the mainstreaming of video games has probably resulted in money rather than the game being the ultimate focus for the publishers and perhaps even developers.

I say misguided because I don't really believe in mainstream. It's just a buzz-word used to ultimately encompass the entire situation, except it's meanings seems to be mis-interpeted every so often. As a result, we can end up with a term that has become warped and no longer has the same meaning it was originally supposed to over several passings, kind of like a bad, bad game of Chinese Whispers... Purple monkey dishwasher. <_<

I feel the increase of low-quality games on the market is due to a lack of quality-control on the part of the development teams and often also poor planning in the conceptual stages. You can run down causes of this to this so-called mainstream effect, but just because gaming is becoming a much more acceptible hobby in the community isn't an excuse for these atrocities to go ahead.

It's almost bigotry to believe in mainstream in my eyes, but hey, that's just me. Keep in mind I want to be a part of a games development team and I have some qualifications to help me get there and emphasize my point, too. :P

There is one point that has not been brought up here yet. That is the power of a gaming platform and the graphics can make the gameplay better.

More power means more objects on screen, bigger worlds, better AI, more realistic (or complicated) physics engines.

Look at some of the games that are on PS2 that would simply not run on an N64. GTA3, killzone, gran turismo and so on and so on.
Those games would not work on N64 because of the amounts of objects the platforms can draw, the expansiveness, sound, and physics.

My argument is that the PSP will be able to do many things gamewise that the DS can not do. Forget the touch screen for a second and think about how many villains you want to plow thru, and whether the rain will affect your plow mobile.

My point will be more obvious at the end of the year when the new home consoles start to arrive, and regardless of how good a game looks, they will play very differently.

Though I think one of the appeals of handheld gaming so far is that they've been relatively simple compared to their console counterparts. I think it works very much in favour for them given the intent of handheld gaming - namely gaming on the run.

One of the concerns I possibly have with something like the PSP is games getting too complicated and requiring more of my attention and concentration. Not that the two are necessarily bad, but the outside environment probably aren't the best conditions for trying to play a complex game.

And whilst the PSP will be able to achieve more technical feats, I don't find it all too significant, given that it's already being achieved on current consoles and to a better degree - I guess kind of like how you could get a high end laptop, or you could get a PC with the same specs or better at a much lower price.

There is no denial that graphics have not only made games look better but have allowed for more enjoyable games as well, the problem with your comparsion ultracrazy is that you have made this comparsion based on console games.

As you put it more power means more objects on screen, bigger worlds, better AI, more realistic (or complicated) physics engines. I couldn't agree more, this is why advacments in gaming consoles has been a good thing, if it wasn't then we would be back in the NES days, games that we play today on PS2, Xbox and GCN are not possible on the previous consoles and as a result we have seen improvements in the games and ultimatly the games have been more fun.

The question raised however, is whether such graphical improvements are signifacnt to handheld gaming. Can you really imagine playing an epic game like Metal Gear Solid 3 on the PSP? Sure it would be technically possible, but you need a large TV screen, surround sound speakers, and the comfort of your lounge room to enjoy a game like that. Handheld gaming isn't designed for such complex games, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be playing MGS3 on my PSP whilst on the train only to arrive at my station during an important cutscene. Such complex gaming should be left to the consoles, where the gamer can't be interrupted, but for the purpose of handheld gaming something different is what the gamer is looking for.

Just on a slight tangent, doesn't the PSP have the ability to let you turn off the unit and turn it on and go to where you just were in he game (and maybe cutscene too?)