Gaming Forums => General Gaming => Topic started by: tendoboy1984 on November 14, 2012, 10:20:47 PM
Title: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: tendoboy1984 on November 14, 2012, 10:20:47 PM
Why does it seem that gamers and developers care more about graphics on consoles than handhelds? Case in point: The DS & 3DS received more support than the PSP & Vita; the monochrome Game Boy received more support than the colored Game Gear.
On consoles, it's the opposite situation. Developers and gamers prefer the console with the most realistic HD graphics. Look at all the top-selling (and most popular) games this generation; most of them were on Xbox 360 and PS3.
Why are HD graphics so important on consoles, but not handhelds?
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 14, 2012, 10:25:55 PM
Well, first, the system with the most graphical power among the current home consoles is in third place. The best graphical system also didn't win last generation, or the previous generation. Really, the only time the system with the most power won was the Super Nintendo, and there were things the Genesis did better than it.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: tendoboy1984 on November 14, 2012, 10:41:23 PM
I'm not talking about console sales. I'm taking about how popular the consoles are among gamers and developers. The Xbox 360 and PS3 get all the big games, and are more popular than the Wii among (core) gamers. That's the audience I'm talking about here. And realistically, most (core) gamers thought the Wii was a joke.
With handhelds, people don't seem to care about graphics, or else the Vita would be getting more games than the 3DS.
Or maybe no one takes Nintendo seriously. Is that it? That would explain why the Wii rarely got any multiplatform games. It's a huge industry bias against the Big N.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 15, 2012, 12:04:16 AM
The Wii didn't get multiplatform games because it was basically impossible to port from the 360/PS3 to it. The Wii version would have to be made entirely separately, and sales for third party Wii games were almost never good enough to justify that. It's not a bias or not taking Nintendo seriously, it's a straight up numbers thing.
The DS and 3DS are different because for whatever reason third parties have seen sales success there. It also doesn't hurt that Vita sales might as well be in negative numbers at this point.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: UncleBob on November 15, 2012, 02:17:00 AM
I'm not talking about console sales. I'm taking about how popular the consoles are among gamers and developers. The Xbox 360 and PS3 get all the big games, and are more popular than the Wii among (core) gamers.
The "Developers" part of this doesn't quite hold true either. The PS2 was quite a bit below the power of the XBox and the GameCube - yet developers flooded it with a lot of top notch exclusives and titles.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: MrPhishfood on November 15, 2012, 06:09:46 AM
Popularity is something vague and hard to grasp, it can't be quantified or properly surveyed for all gamers around the world. Sales on the other hand is a solid number, something we can grasp.
Publishers and developers can look at a system and the games sold on it and say "This console has X install base, these genre of games tend to sell an average of X amount, new IP's can roughly sell this much".
I think its all a big numbers game where they try to mathematically work out the success of any given project. I suppose that also means Nintendo consoles tend to get more whimsical and child friendly games because people who buy Nintendo tend to buy it for Mario games.
The answer to your question could be so many different things. I think with the Gameboy vs Game Gear it was a difference in marketing. When I was a kid the Gameboy was in the "IN" thing, because someone else had it I wanted to have it. Nobody I knew and no one on the playground even had a Game Gear. Could have also been a price difference too but I don't know anything about the prices back then.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: Kytim89 on November 15, 2012, 11:47:47 AM
One of the main reasons as to why handheld consoles are not up to par with home consoles in the graphic department is battery life. In order for a handheld console to have graphics processors like home consoles then it would require a powerful battery to maintain the system. This is one of the main reasons why most of the Gameboy's competition always failed. The Gamboy was operation with processors that were about a decade old and it had no backlit LCD screen. Handhelds such as the Game Gear opted to have fancier graphics and a backlit screen, and as a result, the owner had to change out six batteries pretty often to play the games for it.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: lolmonade on November 15, 2012, 12:39:51 PM
Graphics have never been the driving force for me as to what system I played, handheld or otherwise.
From my understanding, handhelds typically sacrificed graphics for the sake of keeping the cost reasonable to consumers as well as ensuring a battery life that wouldn't be completely pathetic (remember the Game Gear that took something like...6 AA batteries, and chomped away at them?!?!).
I also think it's a misnomer to say that the reason DS & 3DS are doing better than PSP/Vita is because people don't care about graphics. Games will always be a driving force, and people typically want a certain type of game for mobile devices.
My biggest issues with PSP/Vita games are that I look at them, and think to myself "that looks like a good game, i wish they would just release it on the PS3". What I love about most of the 3DS/DS games I own is that they are things I can spend hours on if I really want to, but they are broken up into bits I can enjoy on a short 15-30 min as well.
That's not to say there aren't "handheld" experiences on PSP/Vita, it's just that Sony markets the things as "console experiences on the go".
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: tendoboy1984 on November 15, 2012, 01:04:49 PM
And there's nothing wrong with having a console experience on the go. The "cross-play" thing that Sony is promoting is something I'd love to see Nintendo implement with 3DS and Wii U games. Play the same game at home or on the go, with nothing hindering the handheld experience.
The Wii U is basically the same concept, playing (certain) console games on a portable device (the GamePad).
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: Oblivion on November 15, 2012, 01:15:01 PM
They're doing cross play with Monster Hunter 3, but too bad the games come separately.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: tendoboy1984 on November 15, 2012, 01:17:26 PM
And there's nothing wrong with having a console experience on the go. The "cross-play" thing that Sony is promoting is something I'd love to see Nintendo implement with 3DS and Wii U games. Play the same game at home or on the go, with nothing hindering the handheld experience.
The Wii U is basically the same concept, playing (certain) console games on a portable device (the GamePad).
I disagree on two of your assumptions here:
1). I don't think Sony's strategies with the Vita are doing well, especially given their sales numbers so far. I don't think enough people are wanting to purchase console games for mobile gaming.
2). Nintendo's Wii U game pad is hardly a "portable device", as its something that needs to be within range of the console. It's not like you're going to see people with game pads on the train.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: TJ Spyke on November 15, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
They're doing cross play with Monster Hunter 3, but too bad the games come separately.
Do they share save files?
Yes they do.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: Oblivion on November 16, 2012, 09:04:21 PM
How?
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: TJ Spyke on November 16, 2012, 09:07:29 PM
What do you mean? I can find an article with Capcom explaining it, but you can transfer save files between the 3DS and Wii U versions so you can play it at home, then transfer the save to the 3DS version to play on the road (and vice versa). You still need both versions of the game, but you can share the same save file.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: KDR_11k on November 17, 2012, 04:45:58 AM
It's the games, not the graphics. You're going for the wrong conclusions here. The Wii's game lineup was affected by the combination of the Gamecube doing badly and alienating third parties, the 360 having made many devs target their current games at HD specs and initial third party efforts being about, well, party games. That led to a massive misallocation of resources with minigames and other cheap crap being thrown on the Wii. Also the HD games more consistently sold based on their production values* which are easy to control compared to harder to grasp factors like what makes a game good in the eyes of the "casual" gamer.
The Vita is flopping precisely because of its game lineup which seems to be driven by publishers not expecting many sales from the platform and thus putting less effort and worse teams on it along with targeting the games to be non-canonical spin-offs (i.e. second class games). Well, okay, that seems to be a general issue for handhelds ranging back to the days of the original Game Boy (think Super Mario Land). When a home console series receives a portable version that often ends up as basically a licensed game except it's not licensing a book or a movie but another game and the same rules apply (for an example just look at the new Call of Duty on the Vita).
Unlike the Vita the 3DS's primary catalog is not based on these second class spin-offs. Nintendo itself has learned to make the handheld games on par with the console ones (except NSMB2) by treating them as separate games instead of tie-ins (e.g. Mario Kart) or just going for completely different games (e.g. Kid Icarus), third parties have shifted to primarily making dedicated DS/3DS games rather than those spin-offs. The Vita has a few of its own games and usually these are considered the best for the platform but most of its games are these second tier spin-offs. Plus there are some additional features needed for a handheld game that a home game doesn't need as badly such as easy quitting/continuing and being engaging even in short bursts.
Also fun is that people somehow expect a handheld to be cheaper than a home console. Think about it, in addition to everything a home console has the handheld needs to be small (affects heat handling, the components must be more efficient), have a sizeable battery and includes a screen (which can get pretty expensive) and speakers. The only thing a handheld (better) doesn't have is a drive for optical discs. With PCs it's entirely normal that a laptop costs waaaaay more than a comparable home PC and often still includes a lot of drawbacks (unable to upgrade, OS bloated with what amounts to advertising, etc).
I'm not talking about console sales. I'm taking about how popular the consoles are among gamers and developers. The Xbox 360 and PS3 get all the big games, and are more popular than the Wii among (core) gamers.
The "Developers" part of this doesn't quite hold true either. The PS2 was quite a bit below the power of the XBox and the GameCube - yet developers flooded it with a lot of top notch exclusives and titles.
That would be publishers, developers hated working with the PS2's contrived hardware and its many limitations. They rejoiced when they got a new hardware generation that freed them from those BS constraints. However I do not believe that rejoicing affected the platform decisions of their companies, those are 100% driven by economic plans.
*= Of course not all the time. I think the expectation that production values = sales is what made EA cry foul over having MoHWf slammed by critics, in their economic models a game with that much money spent on it has to receive higher scores.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: Blankfall on December 06, 2012, 11:49:33 PM
I have meet me a lot of hardcore gamers. I mean face to face, and I never heard one make jokes about Nintendo. Yes the system may house childish games that tend to sell better, but thats the consumers fault not the consoles creator. Microsoft and Sony would be happy to have childish games move major units. Those so called core gamers that consider Nintendo a joke or the Wii a joke IMO are just fan boys or plain haters.
The Xbox is easier to work with for a lot of developers because Microsoft is smart. they offer very resourceful tools for developers that are use to pc developing. If Microsoft would least Direct X to Sony then games wouldnt be so crappy when ported over. (speaking of next consoles not ps3 with direct x).
I will say the 3DS graphics are a major improvement over the PSP, and back when the psp was in its hey day it housed some of the most impressive graphics i've ever seen in a handheld.
Title: Re: Graphics aren't an important feature on handhelds?
Post by: pokepal148 on January 05, 2013, 04:09:00 PM
What do you mean? I can find an article with Capcom explaining it, but you can transfer save files between the 3DS and Wii U versions so you can play it at home, then transfer the save to the 3DS version to play on the road (and vice versa). You still need both versions of the game, but you can share the same save file.
because we dont have something on the 3DS for that called spotpass
