Well, I was cheking StarfoxDS video to check out how the series was being ported. To my surprise it isnt a just a port, is the lost Starfox2 for Snes overhauled in Starfox64 graphics. So far so good, then I check the video: WTF? not only the explosions look pixelated and lame, 3D graphics look grainy too, and low-poly is everywhere. There's also the lack of many FXs from the N64 version, like 3D explosions and impact sprites. Music and SoundFXs were lame too, like something out of a GBA game. Overall, it looks closer to the Snes version rather than N64's one. My point: is the DS weaker than N64 was? the grainy graphics show the lack of AA, the low-poly models and missing FXs may be due to lower processing capabilities, and the music is the most anoying one since both games were in cartridges, so the only explanation would be a weaker sound processing in DS. If this is true and DS IS weaker than the N64 then I've to say I'm dissapointed. The GBA was crearly supperior to Snes, and even then some people considered it underpowered at the time, yet DS being under the N64 specs is a real shame, specially since PSP is way above both of them, being almost a portable PS2. StarfoxDS video
I dont know what looks the worst: pixelation or blurryness. And there's still the problem of explosions and SFXs...
I'd say to give it some time - its not due out for a fair amount of time yet, and to judge a system on one game seems a little daft to me. I'd say it is slightly above the N64 - Take a look at metroid prime hunters, and Mario 64 (despite being a launch game on both systems) is noticeably sharper in places. Sonic Rush's Bosses are pretty impressive too. The main problem with the Ds graphically is that with nintendo not pushing it as a graphics beast, no dev is pushing it to its extremes yet.
the blur problem in the N64 i would blame it on the RCL(part of the RCP), which had 16K only - I imagine if it held something more than that it wouldn't be as awful. The "perfect ratio" of textures/polygones if I remember from speaking to someone back in the day, is 3 to 5. Also, the lack of floating point on the DS is an obvious drawback.
the DS can only show 2000 Polygons on screen at the same time. that explains the lowpoly stuff. On the other hand, Nintendo never used the full power of there systems...
My eyes hurt a lot after playing some N64 games. Some games are a blurry mess. Hexen was one of the worst if i'm not wrong.
The DS is not as powerfull as the n64, but remember that you were looking at videos on your computer, not original hardware. Check a video of metroid prime hunters and then play the thing on your DS, it will look way better. Heck, it does look better than most n64 games. Mario 64 DS also look better than the original.
The N64 might have had a more powerful processor (R4300i) than the DS (ARM9) but it was never fully utilized until the end of its lifetime. The main reason for this was the N64's 3d microcode - it was developed by SGI and was too accurate and slow for a game. Later, as the N64 died in popularity, Nintendo finally released the tools to rewrite microcode to developers. The best examples of this are Rare's CBFD and Factor 5's Indiana Jones. They rewrote the microcode to fully realize the power of the N64 and as a result the Indiana Jones game was even better than its PC counterpart (ran at 640x480!) So no, the DS is not as powerful but it is much easier to code for. It also has less design flaws (the N64 only has a measly 4KB texture cache for example.)
The PS2 is a lot more powerful than the games show, but the machine is a real bugger to code for. It's like over-engineered European vehicles, high on performance, but also high on maintenance, considering lots of factors that can go wrong.
Ds is a disapointment in many fronts. Its 100% an upgraded gba with a 2nd screen slaped on later in its development cycle (if you dont belive me, ask a ds developer what Iris is). My huge disapointments with the ds (on a coding level) are as follow .) fixed polygon & vertex memory (once full, your screwed till next render frame) .) Renders to lcd not framebuffer, All effects are done copying it from lcd to vram then showing as an bg image. .) No controll over the arm7. .) Wifi libs are shit. .) Ds carts. Too many anoying restrictions (i miss gba style rom setup). there is probably more but i'm too tired to complain about the others.
So it's true... Honestly I knew (kinda) it was a GBA 1.5, the mere mention of the screens resolutions leaves no doubt about it. Now the lack of FPU is just shameful, and subbie's comments were a kick in the balls for a future buyer of the DSlite (me). Anyways, this info (which couldn't be posted in a nintendo-fanboy forum without the risk of being burned alive) makes my theory more sustainable, and that's that the PSP may win the war down the road, when graphical differences become more and more apparent between the two portables. Then the only choice for nintendo would be to release a GBA2 with enough power to go head to head with PSP.
Graphics mean shit in the hand held market. Just look at the sales of stuff in Japan with wank graphics ! Some of the best selling software here looks like crap but they don't care as long as it is fun to play. The western market on the other hand is a totaly different story. In Japan at least the PSP will NEVER out sell the DS. They are even copying some of the DS ideas for games with little success. DS first with - Brain power games, Nintendogs, education software PSP releases all their own versions of the above without shame even though they are full on copies. Did it help them in Japan? Nope ! The games all looked better than the Nintendo versions but without that touch screen they were nothing more than the sme stuff you can play on a home console. This is where the DS wins. I'm no DS or PSP fan but if I had to choose from one or the other I'd have to go for the DS. Yakumo
