wots ur lyks and dislyks bout the ds, and wot would u change 2 make it better?

1. Learn to spell.
2. The DS is quite nice already. It just needs more titles.

The DS is quite nice already. It just needs more titles.

suds lol



Actually no, I don't like the DS much. Sure, the enthusiasm was there but it leads to way too many mini-games, the weight isn't proportioned well and the graphics suck, because I care about graphics and everything. ;_;


PLUS THE BUTTONS ARE SMALL OK

i gyt nop pfrbldm wigh mf spellnjg

i gyt nop pfrbldm wigh mf spellnjg


DO YOU WANT TO PUT THAT IN ENGLISH ASSHOLE!?!?!?!?!?!

not really dumbass

It's well built for a good gaming session, i think it needs more titles aswell

yep agree with DarkRicky

Yeah.. DS does need more titles for it..

Its pretty damn cool too.. the touch screen is fun for Wario's games!


MIR

it's got two screens. WHAT COULD BE BAD?

It is good. But it could do with a lot more titles.

Yeah.. DS does need more titles for it..

Its pretty damn cool too.. the touch screen is fun for Wario's games!


MIR


are you asking if you are right or are you saying your initials as a signature?

Why two screens? I mean I know some games you can have the map at the top, but couldn't you have had the map in a menu inside the game? Cutting out the use of the second screen thus making it smaller?

Or is the second screen used in its second function as a "PDA"

I was just using my initials...

Nintendo is always crazy.

Nintendo is always crazy.
Care to elaborate on that?

Personally I dont like the DS. I have one. Games I play on it?...hmmm Metroid and Wario Ware...had mario...did not like it at all....I play my GBA games on it since it's the backlight seems better than the SP.

I will be rejoicing the Day for GBA and SNES emulators for the PSP :) and yes, I own a PSP, and yes I love my psp more than my DS.

suds lol



Actually no, I don't like the DS much. Sure, the enthusiasm was there but it leads to way too many mini-games, the weight isn't proportioned well and the graphics suck, because I care about graphics and everything. ;_;


PLUS THE BUTTONS ARE SMALL OK
Exactly what I was thinking.

Learn to spell.


Care to elaborate on that?

I think what he means is that Nintendo has a tendency to make products that are innovative but barely marketable.

I like how the DS's advertisement campaign consisted of it being so revolutionary and unique and original and what not, yet you can do the same thing with the PS3 as a home console and they don't need to use that angle to make it sell. :)

I am a very big fan of Nintendo! i love my Gamecube, but i really dont like the DS, i played on one in Gamestation and i really didnt like it!, the two screens might seem like a good idea, but there is really no need for the two screens, they could have got rid of the two seperate screens and concentrated on one larger screen, this would have made it alot better for me, and i think the touch screen sucks, i was playing on wario, and it was shit IMO! :) i'de rather get a sony PSP but i aint paying �200 for one! no-way!! :p

If you haven't at least played either Phoenix Wright or New Super Mario Bros., you don't get to talk about the DS.

I tried a friend's PSP, and my thumb cried out in agony over that crappy little joystick they have. Also, aside from Valkyrie profile, I haven't been too impressed with the line-up.

suds lol



Actually no, I don't like the DS much. Sure, the enthusiasm was there but it leads to way too many mini-games, the weight isn't proportioned well and the graphics suck, because I care about graphics and everything. ;_;


PLUS THE BUTTONS ARE SMALL OK

Ditto.


I like how the DS's advertisement campaign consisted of it being so revolutionary and unique and original and what not, yet you can do the same thing with the PS3 as a home console and they don't need to use that angle to make it sell. :)

I would LOVE to see you compare the two. I owned the DS for about 4 months and currently have a PS3. They may both be great in there own rights, but you can't compare them.

I actually just bought a DS this past Saturday. So far I only have Final Fantasy III and Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin, but I am overall satisfied and I think the DS is gud or God or whatever.

ds sucks in front of psp

ds sucks in front of psp

Are you suggesting the DS is giving oral while the PSP just stands there watching?

Are you suggesting the DS is giving oral while the PSP just stands there watching?

Yes, yes he is.


Personally, my favorite console ever is the DS. I guess that means "gud" and not "suck". The only contender I think for competition with the "best ever" title is the SNES, but hey! I can just run an emulator ~

I mean, the very decent DS library, the amazing GBA library, a SCUMM emulator (for old Lucas Arts Adventures) that uses the touch screen like a mouse so it doesn't suck, plus emulators for everything GBC/SNES and older, including sega sytems...

Well, it's the next most versatile thing I have for playing games to the good ol' PC.

Of course, the PSP can do most of the things I listed, and when it comes to PSP vs DS it really comes down to game preference.

Either way, homebrew/modding for the mother fucking win.

The DS its self is a neat system. I even picked it up on launch day and bought my nephew one too but traded it 3 or 4 months later because I just a) did not care for the gaming library that was lined up over the horizon and b) enjoy several more games and features from the PSP more. So I really can't say it sucks or it's gud.

I like my DS.

1. Learn to spell.
2. The DS is quite nice already. It just needs more titles.
3. Phoenix Wright <3
4. Upcomming Dragon Quest & FF:CC look promising

DS is teh winz.

Ds teh mediocrez,Psp teh well rounded, needs less spin-offs and more upfront games.

DS has been the hottest thing on the gaming market for the past several months now, and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down. It's even a hotter item than the Wii.

I see nothing but great things for the DS for a long time.

Every nintendo portable thing has been the same way add a wi-fi and of course you'll get the kids playing well... kiddy games, and talking to friends, plus that little extra screen, you'd think that wouldn't matter but you don't know kids these days, I gave up E rated games a while ago, and I'm not going back unless I play crash bandicoot. All nintendo is doing is raking up fanboys.

Oh please, don't give us more of that "Nintendo is kiddie" bullshit.

Every nintendo portable thing has been the same way add a wi-fi and of course you'll get the kids playing well... kiddy games, and talking to friends, plus that little extra screen, you'd think that wouldn't matter but you don't know kids these days, I gave up E rated games a while ago, and I'm not going back unless I play crash bandicoot. All nintendo is doing is raking up fanboys.
Are you saying all Nintendo handhelds have been the same, or what exactly?

Oh please, don't give us more of that "Nintendo is kiddie" bullshit.
But it's true especially on handhelds I mean GTA advance was shit and so was the driver. All Nintendos classic titles are Rated E or Teen for FF.

Are you saying all Nintendo handhelds have been the same, or what exactly?No but that they cash in on the same thing every release, Mario, donkey Kong, Tetris, and another assload of classic "Zombie" titles. All the do is add new functions i.e. color, lights, folding, and finally Wi-fi, and touch screen.

How the hell do you define "kiddie" games anyway? Any reasonable person would define them as games aimed at kids that would be unappealing to adults. However, a lot of the games you're probably writing off as kiddie are perfectly fun regardless of age. If you think the only games that are made for adults to enjoy are full of sex and gore, you're out of your fucking mind.

How the hell do you define "kiddie" games anyway? Any reasonable person would define them as games aimed at kids that would be unappealing to adults. However, a lot of the games you're probably writing off as kiddie are perfectly fun regardless of age. If you think the only games that are made for adults to enjoy are full of sex and gore, you're out of your fucking mind.
Ok I see where you are coming from, maybe not "kiddie" per se, but you know what I mean they are aimed at a generally young age group, but are still fun for everyone. Also I know Adults don't only like sex blood and gore, but these games have pretty simple plots, I mean jump around opstacle courses to save princeses seems pretty childish to me. Only Zelda has a generally deep plot.

the ds isn't worth it...IMO it just doesn't have anything on there that i feel like i need to have. i just got it to play gba games (ffIV-VI). i thought i was gonna like yoshi's island ds but that game was boring and a chore to finish. the only redeeming part of that game was the boss fight with the bird in mid air.

anyway, phoenix wright, elite beat agents...um, i guess thats it. the rest of the games are eh. the psp is lame too except the selling point of the psp is the ability to play gba, snes, nes, genesis, psx, etc. games on it. i might invest in one.

The DS sucks because there's no H-Games that take advantage of the touch me gimmick. :P

H-Games?

I ONLY LIKE PLAYING NON HAND-HELD CONSOLES

SORRY NINTENDO YOU LOSE OUT ON A GOOD CUSTOMER LIKE ME AND SO DOES SONY ON THE PSP

seriously. i thought i couldn't spell. the DS is great as is.

Smarties: I challenge you to find a game on the PSP as mature and adult oriented as Hotel Dusk: Room 215.

Umm there are a lot of Adult oriented titles on PSP, GTA LCS/VCS. MGS Portable ops The warrior. And I believe that title is Rated "T"

The rating means nothing. Try looking for a bit of information on the game. Hotel Dusk is by far more adult-oriented than any of the games you mentioned.

Also, it may carry the M rating, but everyone knows that GTA is primarily made for and marketed to teenagers.

The DS is alright. Nothing too special, but it's a fun little handheld.

Besides, nothing can beat a device whose tag line was "Touching is good." lmao

I believe the games that Nintendo is releasing/ has released for any of its consoles/handhelds are actually games. Other companies try to throw you in with blood, gore, action, special effects, and twisting plot. Much like how you would try to attract with a movie. The games on the DS are more of an actual game type where you have something to accomplish.
Colorful graphics and and ESRB ratings should not have so much of an effect on the playability for older gamers. Plus I believe the "E" rating stands for "Everyone" not "KIDS."

Hey don't get me wrong I love a "E" game every now and again, but you cannot say any of these games have plots. I mean jump through an obstacle course, to save pricess Peach gets pretty old.

If you play games for their plots, you'd be better off hanging up your controllers and reading books. Games are, by their very nature, meant to challenge their players. No matter what kind of plot a game has, it's been released in the wrong format if its primary highlight isn't its gameplay.

Prak is right again. Haha I hate to add on to what other people just said but hell...

For me it is not really "Oh Peach is not in this castle, go look in another over and over..." I find it to be broken down into more of a "Damn, I have to jump over this, dodge that and grab this.." and play through collecting everything. haha.
I really think the series that has done this the best is of course, with no doubt Zelda. They have taken that whole "Ganon is ruining shit" story, stuck with it, and have made it into so much more of a game. They even make almost every game the same with the same character models, some of the music, and you even get the same items in the same order in most of the games.
You have to look past that and find the fun in doing it.

I've played some games with good stories, but if the story is the primary focus of a game something is wrong. Stories don't need to be told via games; we have printed and filmed material with which to do that. E.g. something like Chinatown; how would that work as a game? Badly.

If you play games for their plots, you'd be better off hanging up your controllers and reading books. Games are, by their very nature, meant to challenge their players. No matter what kind of plot a game has, it's been released in the wrong format if its primary highlight isn't its gameplay.

Nonsense. Games can be the best media for an awesome plot BECAUSE of their interactivity. Just look at Oblivion. I've been playing the game since October of last year, and I'm still discovering new aspects. I've played as a good guy, I've played as a bad guy, I've focused on the main quest, I've focused on side quests. Each time I play the story is a little different. No book could ever come close to that kind of experience.

There's also something to be said about the kind of character interaction that you could never get from a book. Anyone who hasn't had at least one character they've made a connection with isn't playing video games right.

Gameplay is definitely an important factor, but without a plot, you're just pushing buttons.

About the only video game in the history of video games I can think of that didn't include a plot is Pong or any sports game. Playing a video game more so for it's plot only adds to the interactivity and makes the game just a little more intriguing. Books by nature are also meant to challenge the reader in terms of anticipation for what comes next in a story or books that are meant to teach. If this interest of plot in video games meant absolutely nothing then I'm sure we wouldn't have RPGs.

Nonsense. Games can be the best media for an awesome plot BECAUSE of their interactivity. Just look at Oblivion. I've been playing the game since October of last year, and I'm still discovering new aspects. I've played as a good guy, I've played as a bad guy, I've focused on the main quest, I've focused on side quests. Each time I play the story is a little different. No book could ever come close to that kind of experience.

There's also something to be said about the kind of character interaction that you could never get from a book. Anyone who hasn't had at least one character they've made a connection with isn't playing video games right.

Gameplay is definitely an important factor, but without a plot, you're just pushing buttons.

What you're describing is gameplay. RPG gameplay focuses heavily on player interaction with the world and its inhabitants. It's what separates the genre from all others; the element of the player taking a hand in the storytelling. That's also why a lot of games that are called RPGs (Final Fantasy, for example) are really just adventure games.


About the only video game in the history of video games I can think of that didn't include a plot is Pong or any sports game. Playing a video game more so for it's plot only adds to the interactivity and makes the game just a little more intriguing. Books by nature are also meant to challenge the reader in terms of anticipation for what comes next in a story or books that are meant to teach. If this interest of plot in video games meant absolutely nothing then I'm sure we wouldn't have RPGs.

Plot in games is all well and good, but that's still no excuse to forget that games are about interactivity and challenging players. If a game has a great story and awful gameplay, then it is a failure as a game and the story would have been better off in another medium.

Yes, but that gameplay is enhanced by the story. It provides the motivation for doing these things. Why are we gunning down these aliens? Who is that menacing shadowy figure in the background?

And likewise the story is enhanced by the gameplay. Imagine if Oblivion was a book. Would you be able to choose if you were evil or not? Could you decide if you went to Chorral or Anvil? No, because it's already been pre-determined.

And it's not just RPGs. Imagine Half-Life, or it's sequels without any form of story. Do you really think it would be as acclaimed without them? Compare HL with Quake (HL does run on a heavily modified Quake engine, after all). HL has one of the most intriguing story-lines of all time. Quake just drops you into the middle of things with an axe and a shotgun.

Yes, but that gameplay is enhanced by the story. It provides the motivation for doing these things. Why are we gunning down these aliens? Who is that menacing shadowy figure in the background?

And? What point are you trying to make? You're not addressing anything I said. It's like you're going in circles without a clear idea of what you're even replying to.


And likewise the story is enhanced by the gameplay. Imagine if Oblivion was a book. Would you be able to choose if you were evil or not? Could you decide if you went to Chorral or Anvil? No, because it's already been pre-determined.

Now how about making this relevant to my own post? I don't see any form of disagreement here. If you want to argue, please make an effort to at least understand what you're trying to argue against.


And it's not just RPGs. Imagine Half-Life, or it's sequels without any form of story. Do you really think it would be as acclaimed without them?

Yes. Half-Life's story was a big step up from other shooters, but it was revolutionary in a lot of ways, most particularly in its control scheme. Everything since then has cloned it, so it would definitely be just as acclaimed even without its story.


Compare HL with Quake (HL does run on a heavily modified Quake engine, after all). HL has one of the most intriguing story-lines of all time. Quake just drops you into the middle of things with an axe and a shotgun.

You're certainly easy to please if you find Half-Life's story to be one of the most intriguing of all time. It's fairly stock. And anyway, you'd be pretty dumb to deny that Quake was an excellent game when it was made, regardless of its lack of plot.


And just for the record, I figure you're one of the better new members we've seen here lately. I don't say that lightly, so don't blow it by turning into a total retard.

1. Piss off.
2. My point is that when gameplay and story are interdependant, it makes the game that much better. They're sort of like the yin and yang of gaming.
3. I wasn't disagreeing with you with the Oblivion part of your post. I was merely furthering my own point. It isn't always about you.
4. How is Half-Life's control scheme an improvement? It's still a mouse and keyboard. FPS's had been doing that for like 7 or 8 years when HL came along.
5. Quake was an awesome game. When it was made. I wasn't saying it never was great, I was merely pointing out how outclassed it was.
6. OK, fine. Half-Life's story wasn't the greatest of all time. My point still stands that it enhanced the experienced.

Finally, if you really want me to get to a point it's this: There is no silver bullet in gaming. There is no one make-or-break feature that all games must have. But to trivialize one, whether it's story, gameplay, graphics, sound, whatever, takes away from the experience. THAT'S what I'm trying to get at.

Plot in games is all well and good, but that's still no excuse to forget that games are about interactivity and challenging players. If a game has a great story and awful gameplay, then it is a failure as a game and the story would have been better off in another medium.

But unless you have a rental account, have played a demo - which can still be an incomplete game in terms of of gameplay and/or challenge or have a reliable source of gameplay reviews; since many can be bias and/or too many mixed reviews, you may not have any choice but to go off of plot and hope for the best, but let me also remind some that a good plot does not promise a good overall story. I agree horrible gameplay can personally ruin a game for some, in my personal case - Metal Gear Solid: Portible Ops, but for others that same gameplay may be to there liking, but it was plot that got them excited to begin with.

I keep playing games like Gradius 5, which barely has any plot, and enjoy it even more than my MGS3, who has 10 hours of storyline and 3 hours of gameplay.
What's important for me in a game is the gameplay first. It helps if there's a plot that motivates the player. But if the gameplay is awesome, the game will be awesome even if the plot is lame.

As for the comparison between the DS and PSP... I prefer the DS all the way. Sure the games aren't as beautiful, but playing on this systems give me the same feeling I had when I played on my SNES decades ago. At that time, flshy stuff was not important if the game was fun and challenging. And that's what I get from the games I play on it.


Annoying fact:
Many people who try to say one of the system is better than the other always give the same arguments: If you like this one, you're a fanboy. This system is for kids, this system is more mature (yeah sure, going around the city killing people, doing drug traffics and stealing cars are the most mature things to do... or... is it just because there is sex, blood and gore in them that you think it is more mature? If your definition of mature is that, then go see a psychiatrist, you definitely need help.)
In any case, there is plenty of games for everyone and every type of gamer out there. Nobody is wrong or more childish or mature if they play either system. I prefer the DS, I'm no fanboy, I just prefer the gameplay and the innovations made on this system. The PSP has some great games on it too. And I'll probably end-up buying one, but right now, the DS has many more games in its line up that interest me (for example: Dragon Quest IX and FFXII Revenant Wings).

1. Piss off.

Not likely to happen anytime soon, Bunky.


2. My point is that when gameplay and story are interdependant, it makes the game that much better. They're sort of like the yin and yang of gaming.

Okay. You won't get any argument from me on that, but what the fuck are you disagreeing with me about? I only said that playing games just for the story is idiotic and you called that nonsense. However, by your admission just now, gameplay is at least equally important. You're the one arguing over nothing, amigo.


3. I wasn't disagreeing with you with the Oblivion part of your post. I was merely furthering my own point. It isn't always about you.

Fair enough.


4. How is Half-Life's control scheme an improvement? It's still a mouse and keyboard. FPS's had been doing that for like 7 or 8 years when HL came along.

Half-Life did a lot of things that hasn't been done before. For instance, the lack of distinct levels. Ease of switching weapons. Little touches like extra ammo and health coming from believable sources instead of lying around on the floor. The game's design is what made it truly outstanding, not the fact that it had a story.


6. OK, fine. Half-Life's story wasn't the greatest of all time. My point still stands that it enhanced the experienced.

Fair enough, but that still doesn't mean that the story alone made the game worth playing. Without the absolutely brilliant gameplay, the game would have been pitiful, while it still could have been a huge hit if the plot was no deeper than "Here there be monsters. Kill them all."


Finally, if you really want me to get to a point it's this: There is no silver bullet in gaming. There is no one make-or-break feature that all games must have. But to trivialize one, whether it's story, gameplay, graphics, sound, whatever, takes away from the experience. THAT'S what I'm trying to get at.

I have not tried to trivialize any of them; merely point out that there is a hierarchy to their importance. First and foremost, games must have solid gameplay. Without that, they fail. They can succeed without a complicated story, however, as can be proven by the overwhelming recent success of New Super Mario Bros.

Man, what the hell is your problem? If you find so many faults with my posts, I have an idea: you don't have to respond to them.

And yes, there are games that don't need story lines, and New Super Mario Bros. is an excellent game. It's great for a couple of hours of mindless entertainment. But the games that tell a story are the ones that keep me coming back for more. They're the ones that get my blood burning.

As far as your original post, you said that playing games just for their story is idiotic. I called BS because I can think of quite a number of games that had less than stellar gameplay, but wicked cool plots. Anyone remember the God-awful magic and summoning system from FF8? How many of you put up with that so that you could see what happens next? Or the clunky controls of the first Resident Evil game? And there are other examples too.

And as of that, I am officially done with this topic. I'm ready to move on.

My "problem" is that I'm naturally argumentative and you voiced disagreement with me. You initiated the conversation. You. Not me. Saying I should disregard your posts is moronic.

By the way, you have lost just about all of the neat-new-member points I had given you.

And guess what. I quit playing FFVIII because it was so ridiculously painful. I also quit playing FFXII and every Metal Gear Solid game I've tried for similar reasons. I've done the same thing with many other games. There are a lot of us here who won't continue with a game that plays like crap, no matter how the story is. Just because you'll suffer through a shit game to see its story doesn't mean everyone else will. A great many of us will simply look up a script or summary of the game's plot to see what happens if we care that much. In cases like that, it means the game is totally wasted to us and we'd be better off if it was published as a book.

You can never beat a good debate *gets some popcorn*

most plot based game collect dust after you went throught them once. Gameplay based games are those you'll enjoy even once you've completed them.

Which is why I had been playing the living hell out of Tales of Eternia. The plot was weak, the characters were slightly retarded, but the gameplay was ace. :D

And guess what. I quit playing FFVIII because it was so ridiculously painful. I also quit playing FFXII and every Metal Gear Solid game I've tried for similar reasons. I've done the same thing with many other games. There are a lot of us here who won't continue with a game that plays like crap, no matter how the story is. Just because you'll suffer through a shit game to see its story doesn't mean everyone else will. A great many of us will simply look up a script or summary of the game's plot to see what happens if we care that much. In cases like that, it means the game is totally wasted to us and we'd be better off if it was published as a book.

QFT (though, personally, I didn't find FFVIII's system that bad. Then again, I haven't played it for years).

I mean, plenty of games have an interesting story but gameplay is what keeps me coming back/liking a game. Very rarely have I played a game for its story or anything when the gameplay sucks. If I want story, I'll read a book.

*Grabs some of M~C~P's popcorn* http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a202/nine_fenrir/robot%20faces/16x16_robot-happy.gif

Take a game like Trauma Center. The storyline is poor, but the gameplay is refreshing and innovative. The game is really fun even if the story is lame.
Metroid Prime only have a background story, not much of it is implemented to its gameplay, but I always come back to the game even if I already did it countless times. Good gameplay is all that matters. The story is only there to complement the gameplay. When it's the other way around, I often overlook the game and go see elsewhere. Like the Xenosaga series.

*Grabs some of M~C~P's popcorn* http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a202/nine_fenrir/robot%20faces/16x16_robot-happy.gif



You want fries with that?

Plot in games is all well and good, but that's still no excuse to forget that games are about interactivity and challenging players. If a game has a great story and awful gameplay, then it is a failure as a game and the story would have been better off in another medium.

The Legacy of Kain games would like a word with you.

EDIT: Because the gameplay is mediocre at best, it's the plot that really drives them.

This is true, but I do often wish that the games had been released in some other format so I wouldn't have to deal with the below average gameplay.

FAY VICTAS!!! (or something)

Vae Victus

I remember I would turn the volume off because he would say this every 2 sword swings or so. It was really annoying. But the game was fun in its own way and the story was great.

I like the DS but I do think its a bit too gimmicky, and the wii seems to be a bit like that as well

DS is good, but like everyone said, not enough good titles, and when it first came out too many gimmicks.
Although it's beginning to get some good games on board now.

Games are a bit pricey but definately the better out of the 2 portables. Some very enjoyable (and more importantly fun) games.

Well, Although I personally like the DS the way it is, if there's 3 things I'd change about the DS:
1. Try to implement a wrapper to allow GBA game carts to go multiplayer via the DS WiFi system.
2. Change the proprietary microphone connector to a standard 3.5" jack so I can use a RM15/~US$4 standard multimedia headset.
3. Ergonomics - maybe they should make one of those clip-on grip enhancers like those for the GBA. Which could also include a built-in converter to solve problem #2.