DS boxart / launch package revealed

American box art always sucks shit.
What's the JPN box look like I wonder?

 

It's definetly going to say "touch" or "touch me" I can tell you that.

 

I'm still not covinced by the DS. Nor am I going to buy a PSP at lauch for the crazy asking price but I think the PSP has a better thing going. Biger screen, no likely-yo-be-sriously-underused (cough, VMU, PocketStation,XBOX/PS2 HDD, cough) dual screen business, no ridicukous cart media - about time it was dumped - and of course, more power, apparently.

 

Don't believe the hype. The only PSP price-related article on the net worth anything JG post[/url[.

My guess, they were toying w/ a $300 price tag, and Nintendo Sony'ed Sony.

 

i don't really care about the psp for now. sure , the big 16:9 screen and the style of the console is a plus but for now , i just see a machine that read MP3 , read movies on UMD , Eat batteries like we breath , and have ps2 remakes. not really interesting for now... i have a mp3 player, UMD won't be a succes, and i don't whant to pay for a portable and home version of a game.

plus , i don't care if it have better graphics or not, its all about games.

i don't say i'll never have a psp, its sure ill have one.... but not soon after it started.

i don't think sony will take the portable industry too.

 

God no, not this 'all about games' bs again.

I'm so sick of this 'hardcore-gamer' argument. While gameplay and innovation are undoubtedly more important then visuals in the sense that visuals are worthless withotu good gameplay, I'm sick and tired of people clamouring on about how visuals don't matter AT ALL, and that htye do NOTHING for gameplay and the enjoyment of the game. That's just bullshit, plain and simple.

Improved visuals from improved emdia are not just a serious factor in increasing a game's immersiveness and experience, they are the neatural step forward - a step SEGA and SONY took int he home market but Nintendio has ALWAYS stagnated with their our of date handhelds, especially the disgustinfly drawn out lifespan of the GB and GBC.

Gameplay is THE factor in a game's success as a game but NOT at the expense of visuals - just because gameplay means the most to a game does not mean visuals mean NOTHING or indeed even that visuals do not contribute towards a game's immersiveness and playability.

And what's this business about 'UMD won't be a success'? Uh, that is the console's native MEDIA. It makes no sense to say that the media will not be a success; it depends on the games and game sales. Who cares if the movies released on UMD are a success or not? They're secondary, just as are the GBA's cartoon carts.

And I for one would much rather go for the PSP's prowess than the DS' gimmick of a touch/dual screen, a concept I honestly do not see as being used to any of its full potential - just like teh GBA-GC linkup, VMU, XBOX and PS2 HDD, et al.

 

Visuals don't matter at all, it is all about the game, how well it plays and how much fun you have playing it. Granted without the visuals you can't really play the game (I do remember a game with no visuals - just audio, on purpose!) but how amazing they look or how high the resolution is really is not important at all. Many Old school games from older generations managed to make great games with low-res visuals. Current generation of games are high-res visuals but totally shit games. It's all fine and dandy having the best looking game in the world which idiots will buy because it looks so WOW, but without the good gameplay why buy the game?

 

Did you even so much as read what I said? Gameplay is king but not at the expense of visuals. Just because gameplay makes the game does not mena that visuals can be a significant and indeed huge part of what makes the gameplay and experience immersive.

If gameplay is the be-all and end-all of the game and visuals 'do not matter at all', Shenmue would be the exact same experience on the MegaDrive. Phantasy Star Online would be lovely on the Master System with a 3k modem.

Higher tech and advanced visuals indeed, are such a hugely contributing factor to the gameplay of many great titles that these ttitles would not be what they are without advanced media and hardware. It is in fact what made these experiences possible.

 

for the visuals problem , legit have said everyhing i whanted to say. but what i was talking with the vmu wasn't vmu games, it was about vmu as a new media, just like the dvd.

i think this is stupid and i don't understand why sony whant to change the dvd media that much. maybe they just whant to conquer things one by one just like miccrosoft... UMD won't work, because its future is uncertain and unstable. not allot of compagnies will try it so not allot of customers will buy it ( for movie and music ) , and the circle will go on.

for games , it will work , sure. but for other things than this...

oh...and about the graphics again, i won't be immersived if the gameplay is shit. that's all about games not what it wears.

as an exemple, DeuxEx is far more immersive than unreal 2. and its not because deusEx have great graphics.

DeuxEx is still one of the most imersive game to date.

 

Some people just do not read.

How many times must I repeat myself - GAMEPLAY IS EVERYTHING - IT MAKES OR BREAKS THE GAME, NO MATETR HOW UGLY OR PRETTY IT MAY BE VISUALLY. BUT TO SAY THAT GAMEPLAY IS EVERYTHING AT THE EXPENSE OF VISUALS IS BLATANTLY DELUSIONAL. You CANNOT deny that the immersive experiences of so many games would be impossible without the visuals and environments the hardware behind these titles provides.

If visuals mean nothing then go port Metroid Prime or Outrun2 to the 2600 for yourself and have a blast. Then again, fuck the hardware - just grab yourself some pipe cleaners, turn on some techno shit on the stereo, and immerse yourself in your own version of REZ.
Gameplay is the most important factor but to trash visuals and say they matter worth nothing is plainly idiotic - thee are far too many games to count that were made possible only through advanced hardware and media thatallowed for the environemnts and visuals that made these games such amazing experiences.

As I said, this thrashing of visuals and saying they mean absolutely nothing -as if the gameplay of some of the greatest games in history was not made possible by advanced tech that allowed for better visuals and environments, NPCs and interaction - is a retarded, parroted, pseudo-hardcore mantra of the pseudo-hardcore. And it's a ridiculous, delusional and unrealistic mantra.

Gameplay is everything, for it makes or breaks the game no matter how pretty or ugly, but that hardly entails that visuals mean *nothing*.

 

Stop. don't mix 3d and 2d with graphics quality and imersiveness, that's not the same thing.

3d can do games that 2d can't. you can't do a fps with 2d. as you can't do (well, i imagine you can't do) a potable metal slug in 3d. 2d and 3d are a way to do things and have nothing to do with graphic quality and imersiveness. graphic quality is how you use the 2d or the 3d. and you can't do 3d game style (like a fps (metroid prime) or a racing game (outrun 2) ) on a 2d machine.

i don't say i dislike graphics , i just say it have nothing to do with fun , imersiveness and gameplay. Stop, i hear you say ''you've just said 3d can do some gameplay 2d can't ...so if you really love gameplay , why don't you love 3d?'' well, 3d have nothing to do with graphic quality.

you can make metroid prime using the n64's graphics... and the game is still here. you play for the game , not what it wear , do you?

and you are not reading , not me. i said graphics do not always make a game imersive. DeusEx is still one of the most imersive game ever , and the graphics of the game are shit compared to todays game. DeusEx is the perfect exemple. everyone know the imersion can have a good inflluance on the fun factor. but graphics do not always make that influance. and it never make it all.

i don't say graphics is shit, calm down. i enjoy graphics , but that's not important in the fun at all. Dunk hunt is still one of the most imersive game ever (didn't say the most imersive, but its still imersive in a way) , graphics is shit, but you have the gun in your hand and you trigger , you don't push a button. that's a stupid exemple but that's still true. :smt043

there's more than graphics to make an imersion.

we won't go in a flaming war, ok comrade? :no

;-)

 

i don't think the most techniqually advanced video game graphics mixed with a linear game where you just need to push one button to play (direction and action inclued.)would be imersive you know?

oh...i hear you say ''you said dunk hunt was imersive , but its a one button game! '' right , but you need to watch in your aim, aim , press. you can play the game upside down , at a far distance or at close range. its not just ''i press a button and i won.''

 

Arguments against what i said are very one-sided here. I am hardly discrediting the hugely playable classics and 2D titles or even old school 3D classics; what I am saying is that visuals play a siginificant part in the experienc eof to many gaems to be said to not matter at all. So many recent masterpeieces are only possible on modern paltform and through modern tech - where would Seaman be? ?

 

but some 2d machines made "sorta" 3d games. :-D

 

You really don´t wanna know ...


As for the box art I think it looks cool its just a BOX afteral, has a mature look to it if Nintendo name wasn´t there I would never guess its a Nintendo console.

 

indeed , if it wasn't the fact that we see the nintendo logo and that we already know about the ds, i wouldn't think this would be a nintendo product! (well it look a bit like a gba sp boxe if you look at it a second time) and that's good new , probally (and hopefully ) means that nintendo try to change.

 

anyway, i think the metroid demo would be a big hint that its a nintendo console. :smt043

 

darr.... if there was no metroid too. tsssss...

:smt043

 

You know its great that were getting the system first, but what the hell is gonna be avaliable at launch? Has there even been a remote confirmed list?