As EA has shown, innovation isnt needed to make successful games. Too many consumers will buy the same game again and again for that new player, or an extra frame in the hair animation, as long as the game has a different number after its title.
Its funny how they even release games for years, a year in advance.
I agree with EVERYTHING, but I believe the XBOX controller is perfect as it is.
I only ever use Xbox controllers rarely (eg: at freinds), so really i dont have experience with them. But i do know that evertime i go to use them again, ive forgotten what does what (especially with the sticks).
Sony has stuck with the same controller design for three generations. The only major addition has been analogue sticks, and the at-the-last-minute addition of motion (read- tilt) sensors.
Some people would (this is just a point - not coming from me but rather what i believe others would say etc..) say that is a great thing: Being able to use their old controllers, and already knowing and being used to the shape and configuration.
They might say 'if it aint broke, dont fix it', though the Playstation controllers incredibly small, and i want back the blood my hands have lost to it.
A few reasons why the PSP is better than the DS:
1. Better, newer hardware.
2. The ability to play music, movies, etc.
3. Easy-to-use design.
One, only reason why the DS is better than the PSP:
1. Touch screen.
Funny that.
Breaking it down:
Better, newer hardware.
I suppose the Dreamcast was better than the N64, and the N64 better than the Ps1?
Even the Xbox was like a lesser dreamcast with improved memory subject to the cheapness at the time.
2. The ability to play music, movies, etc.
This is good: Playing movies while on a bus etc.
But, well, the screens small. Big for the handheld, but still too quite for me to watch movies on.
I'd rather listen to music on the bus,, than be plugged into a small movie screen, every other brit feeling uncomfortable with my occasional burst of laughter.
Really though i'd rather be playing a game on a games device than watching a movie, while sitting waiting. A: a game can be picked up and put down at much shorter intervals, and b: A game is more suitable on a small screen. 'Some might say' "Games for my games console"
3. Easy-to-use design.
Ease of use was slightly sacraficed for a larger screen, buttons on edge.
The point in the touch screen and stylus was to make using games more intuitive to already existing tasks => easy.
4. Widescreen.
Just one?
Quote
Technically, Nintendo stole using compact discs. Sony did it first.
As shadow_caliber pointed out, the Playstation was originally going to be an addon for the SNES. So originally Nintendo was going to use CDs. They apparently decided not to, and therefore the N64 used cartridges. You are right though - the PS1 was the first major console to actually use CDs. The only question is the origin of the idea.
Ive a Snes Force magazine from 1992 infront of me, with a picture of a Snes with a disc hatch in perfect replace of the cartridge slot. Ok it was a crappy laserdisc, but as CDs were going to taking over, there was an obvious step to be taken next.
Nintendo decided not to introduce horribly long loading times into the market, as they believed it wouldnt be tolerated.
They were wrong.
I once read a (rather hefty) book on the design of computer games: Quote: "The Playstation was quite possibly the most effectively advertised product in existance".
It was, afterall, the worst piece of hardware of its generation. But everyone saw it as the 'next generation', because thats what they told everyone.
I suppose they are doing the same again, only with the mistake of uber-high prices. Who knows how it'll go.
Im getting a Wii. My brother'll probably get a DS soon, and well get (maybe another and play each other) Phantom hourglass when its released, Mariokart, Hunters etc.
My other brother will probably get a PS3 or 360 anyway, so i suppose i dont have to worry, but either way i'll be happy: My choice this time around is Nintendo.
