Raiko101's forum posts
[QUOTE="Resimaniac"][QUOTE="TankZorz"]How DSi is DS 2 when their games are the same? Is Gameboy Advance able to play DS games? NO. DSi its the next level of DS (the 3rd) but its not a DS2... We don't know when DS2 is coming out...I've seen a lot of posts by people who obviously think the DSi isn't the next level of the DS.
The hardware upgrades and new features make it clear to me that this is the DS2. If Nintendo had merely added a couple features and made it slimmer I could understand why people would not consider this the DS2. The bigger screens, faster processors, and all the other new features mean that we will see new and more impressive games that would not have a chance of working on the DS and DSL. There is already a new Warioware download available for the DSi in Japan that demonstrates one of the many possible uses of the camera.
With every generation of Nintendo handheld some backwards compatibility is lost. The DSi no longer supports the GBA just as the original DS didn't support GB and GBC games.
Tubenz
DSi will have exclusive games that DS won't play. Games that use the camera.
There's an external camera for the DS that plugs into the GBA port already. Came with a face training game.A healthy variety in taste you have! :PPs2- CoD series
Ps3- MoH Airborne
PsP-Medal of Honor
GBA-MoH Infiltrator
Xbox 360- CoD 5
PC- Company of Heroes
StealthKing93
The frames per second of a game has NOTHING to do with what you see but with how it PLAYS. A game with a higher framerate will play much smoother than a lower framerate. You don't play TV so that is why it doesn't matter to have it so low. channtheman1
It has everything to do with what you see. Whether playing a game or watching TV you are watching interchangable frames, or if you like, images. Frames per second refers to how many of these frames, or images, are displayed within a single second. If something is running at 30fps, it is displaying 30 frames or images every second. This is what you see.
I don't have a clue what you mean when you say framerate is determined by how a game plays. As i've said, when you play a game you are watching interchangable images on a screen. That is no different to watching a TV show. The fact that you interact with a game does not effect how many frames, or images, your eyes will pick up in a single second. Of course a game with a higher frame rate will appear smoother. That's because with more frames you can display a smoother transformation between images. Animations become more detailed and fluid, and that's what you notice with your eyes when looking at the game. I don't know why TV programmes use fewer frames per second than modern games, but it probably has something to do with your own eyes only picking up around 30 frames per second themselves.
Although you may notice minute differences between a game running at 30fps and 60fps, you'd literally be kidding yourself if you said you noticed further improvements beyond that.
Sorry if this sounded like I was having a go at you. I'm really not. I'm merely pointing out what most other users have already done.
:)
Edge magazine doesn't hand over high scores so easily. I think only 6 games have ever scored a full 10 and very few earn a 9. Make of them what you will, but in terms of publishers, developers and industry insiders, they're one of the most respected gaming magazines in the entire industry. They know their stuff.I'm quite surprised Lets Tap got an 8 - I'll have to get me that.
As for Edge's score for KZ2 I've never played the game but if I listen to everyone else it's got to be a solid 9.
Nomad0404
[QUOTE="clicketyclick"][QUOTE="evrdayblues"] Yup. People are crazy like that nowadays... And on top of that, the off topic discussion about movie tickets and dvds needs to end...evrdaybluesHey wait a just a moment now! I think the very fact that I have not yet been moderated for those supposedly off-topic comments by the omnipresent moderators (seriously, I think they're paid on commission) shows that my motives were terribly transparent and as follows... For anyone who has bought a movie, it doesn't make sense to complain about a 10 hour game @ $50. The low end price of a new DVD movie release is $20, and movies usually only last 2 hours or less. That means that you're paying about $10/hr for entertainment. A $50, 10-hour game works out to a mere $5/hr: TWICE the value!! And does a movie innately have more replay value than a game?! You don't even have something equivalent to a harder difficulty setting for a movie. Someone might point to the bonus features you get on a DVD as adding value above and beyond the movie itself. But the review of Deadly Creatures said it has unlockable bonus content too. Considering that Deadly Creatures utilises movie actors, I think the comparison between movies and games is quite apt. This all goes to demonstrate that the game is worth buying right now, and that it doesn't make sense to complain about it. Now, aren't those the very two points you were trying to make too? You are absolutely right. I though you were just arguing with HeadofGamers or something. I apologize for that Clicketyclick. The comparison (to dvd movies) is valid and It does help justify a purchase. Peace. Don't think the DVD / Video Game comparison works because although I spend as much time playing games as I do watching DVDs, my DVD's have a far greater replay value. When you have favourite movies, you'll watch them time and again. I've seen Wayne's World about 50 times now and i'm still not bored lol. Only the most retro or Arcade-like of games could come close to a DVD in terms of replay value. Assuming they were among your all-time favourite games. My all-time favourite game is Super Metroid. It takes me around 3 hours to complete from start till finish. I've probably only completed it around 10 times in 15 years. That's about as long as i've been watching Wayne's World for too.
Log in to comment