NDS Graphics | They suck?

but other that that For example KH: days i can say have more better graphics than FFs in ps one, that proves that DS can be pushed to it's limit, because from what i heard ps 1 hardware is still stronger than DS. some of ds games have good graphics and it's usually from first rated developer (Square enix, And activision, anyone?) ( Days and mobilized )

 

ok, YOU go and make a handheld console with 2 really bright 4 inch screens, 1 being a touch screen, a mic, and camera, internet browsing, can listen to music, play videos, read sd cards, has better sound quality than psp, AND has awesome graphics!
tell me how much it cost to make, and how often it overheats.

 

i would say for some games the graphics are completely shit but some are quite good

 

FFIV probably has the best 3D I've seen in a DS game. The RAM limitation shouldn't be much of a problem for developers, especially in the case of larger data (appended to a filesystem (which can store larger data past the addressable memory allowing a ROM over 4MB) and then drawn/cleared as necessary). Textures are stored in VRAM and Main Memory stores the ARM9/7 executable/game data, so the size of main RAM is partially irrelevant here, the 3D core just lacks in performance but is able to perform those special features (toon shaded rendering, hardware fog).

The DS really just isn't meant for good 3D, this is supported by the limitations of the hardware and the lack of performance in the OpenGL like designed machine. The 2D hardware is fantastic and supports many interesting features, and supposedly a better designed API furthered from the development of the GBA.

 

Yes! And come to think of it, the N64 sure has a huge cardtridge!
But on the other hand, the GBA cardtridge was big... The reason maybe one card has to store a lot of memory... Which is actually around from 1-40 mb.
And the GBA had hardware limits. NDS does, too

 

words of truth

 

That's debatable. The N64 was much more capable than the PS1 in everything except media capacity. The DS is only a little weaker overall than the N64; I'd place it between the two.

 

I think it has got a lot to do with the fact game development is very modernised today, and are generally more skillful and experience with new software.

I think if PS1 games were still being made today with current developers, games would look MUCH better then DS games.

 

In terms of resolution and texture detail, yes. The PS1's usual output (as well as the N64) was generally 640x480. The higher capacity CDs would allow for better looking textures, too.

It cannot do the same effects that the DS is capable of, however. Cel-shading, for instance. Cel-shading wasn't possible on any console until the Dreamcast came out.

 

The DS is not for looks
It's strictly fun

 

If it was only graphics that I cared about, I wouldn't have bought a DS in the first place. Simple as that. But I did expect more games for an old-school gamer like me. You know, more classic arcade compilations and shmups. But what I got instead is a bunch of cutesy flower-and-bunny games, pure shovelware, RPG hell and a distinct lack of many games an old-school gamer like me would care about. Sure, there are a few, but too few, and too far between.

Seriously, most games that people seem to go nuts over for the DS are just lame to me. I'm sure the feeling is mutual, but the DS is supposed to cater to ALL gamers. They aren't really doing that.

 

Im just like you, and i think there are plenty of games that fit my needs. not big compilations or anything, but plenty of individual games.

 

the consoles of nintendo always were weak in graphics (ds - psp, wii - ps3 & xbox360, gameqube - ps2...) but there are some games which show us that ds has good graphics (final fantasy ring of fates, hotel dusk, super mario 64...) and others (call of duty modern warfare mobillized, fighting fantasy...) whose graphics really suck

 

Chris,Im in total agreement.I think the Nintendo DS is a pile of crap,compared to the PSP.The comparison is the same as using a 10" Acer netbook or a 17" Toshiba.I would say though that the DS is better in terms of volume of games and cheaper memory cards etc.

 

I sure hope people don't forget that graphics is not everything in a game.
Sadly I don't think many will share the same view as me.

 

Most of my favourite games are 2d.

 

That peice of crap is not only my favourite console, but that peice of crap has also sold over 100,000,000 sales.

 

*buzz* Wrong! The NES outperformed the Commodore 64, Atari 2600 (possibly the 5200 and 7200 too), as well as the Master System. The SNES outperformed the TurboGrafx and the Genesis, and the N64 outperformed the PS1 and was about on par with the Saturn. The GameCube was dead middle last gen.

Please, do your research before spouting lies.

Nintendo's "weak graphic" systems are mainly handhelds + the Wii. The GameBoy line was mostly weaker than the other systems that competed with it. The only handheld that even stood a chance was the Game Gear, which featured a backlight and colors. It still lost. The N-Gage came and went last gen, the Wonderswan and GP32 were left in the GBA's shadow...

So really, Nintendo's only had 'weak graphics' recently when it comes to consoles. They made the right choice with the Wii; in 2006, high-definition was not widespread enough to warrant putting it in. Market penetration for HD is higher today, but there are still many homes out there that cannot afford HD. Nintendo has always aimed for the family, so until the average family has HD in its home, you won't see HD on a Nintendo console. Unlike other companies, Nintendo focuses solely on video games. They cannot afford to take a loss in console production.

That said, I don't think there's much else to say in this topic that won't lead to a petty flamewar. Play what you like and stop caring how pretty the graphics are. If the graphics bug you that much, play something that has better graphics.

 

True, also the ds isn't powerful from the begining, they just make the games look good sometimes.

Also the dsi and the newer bigger one are the same power, just bigger, both of them screewise.

 

Again, not true. The DS Phat and Lite's processors operate at 67 MHz (33 for the ARM7) while the DSi's processor operates at 133 MHz. Its onboard RAM is also 4 times as much, for 16 MB total.

The hardware graphics capabilities, however, are the same. The faster ARM9 and higher RAM could mean better looking games with a smoother framerate, but only for games that are explicitly developed for it.

The screens on all 3 models are 256x192 pixels each and support 262,144 (18-bit) colors.

For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS#Technical_specifications