dharh said:
jarrod said:
dharh said:
jarrod said:
dharh said:
I guess it depends on what you call a DS. The original DS (and DS Lite) would probably need quite a bit of re-engineering to run FFVII and more specifically FFVIII. The DSi is a about 2-3 times more powerful than the original DS, which might even make it more powerful than the PSP, even though the PSP actually has a little over 2 times the clock speed of the DSi.
My only point is I want to play the original, as was, FFVII and FFVIII, on a portable unit. This re-make stuff doesn't really interest me unless its truly fundamentally better, which really, for me, could only be done with upgraded graphics and FMVs. The successes of the FFIII and FFIV remakes on the DS were largely due to upgrades of the game engine (bringing them up to par with FFVII and FFVIII, although imo not really better).
In any event, FFVII and FFVIII could actually be re-done on the PS1 and could be improved on it as neither of these games pushed the PS1 or the PSP to full capabilities. I've been arguing about the purity of a port, you've arguing about fundamental changes to the games so they could fit on a different system.
|
No, they wouldn't. In terms of technical ability the original DS/Lite could easily handle FFVII/VIII. And make no mistake, DSi isn't nearly as powerful as PSP either. FFIII/IV DS were both also far more technically complex than the PS1 trilogy btw.
I'm arguing that PS1/DS class games don't really highlight PSP's unique handheld experience. I mean, unless you're really suggesting it's best possible use is as nothing but an emulation machine?
|
My original point, really, was just that FFVII/FFVIII was on the PSP and thus made it superior  (I wasn't even thinking about PSP/PS1 being more capable than the DS, at the time).
|
PS1 isn't more capable than DS. It has a larger (and much slower) stock media and a better audio chip, but also far less memory, weaker 2D, weaker 3D, a weaker CPU and no wireless/online networking capability.
|
Take a closer look at the memory. 4mb of memory for the DS and 2(main)+1(vid)+.5(sount)=3.5mb of memory for the PS1. That doesn't seem like far less memory to me. Also the highest reached polygon count of the PS1 was about 150k textured lit polygons, though SONY ( ) said the theoretical output was 1 million 'flat, unshaded, unlit polygons.' Ultimately its the DS additional features which limit the DS to match raw power of PS1 and PSP. The wireless, the 2 screens, the touch sensitivity, the lockout limit on polygons, the smaller media.
Of course the DSi trounces all of those systems.
|
No, 150k textured was the original peak N64 figure (later revised down to 100k). Peak PS1 was 180k textured polys (revised down from 500k), peak Saturn was 200k textured "quads" (original figure, never revised). None of them were "in game" figures, none of the manufacturers actually gave "in game" specs until Nintendo with GameCube. Also, I was off on the DS "in game" figure, it's 120k. It also has a higher pixel fill rate (30 million/sec versus just 4000/sec for PS1). The big advantage for DS 3D comes it in having hardware Z-buffering however, which keeps polygons more stable and "in order" and also allows a lot of post processing effects that'd be impossible on PS1. It's basically a class ahead of it for 3D (like N64 was).
Also, I was only comparing main RAM. DS also has a 656KB video buffer, 512KB dedicated for texture memory, 64KB work RAM for the ARM9, 32KB for the ARM7 and 256KB flash for the OS and WiFi settings. Plus, DS is RAM expandable, unlike PS1.
edit: DS does have a lockout ceiling for polys though (the 120k figure). This is to ensure locked framerates (120k pps is for 60 fps). Sega's Model 2 board (which was used for VF2 and Sega Rally) actually used a similar locked limit method.
