By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
NYANKS on 28 November 2010
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
NYANKS said:
RolStoppable said:

If things stay this way, then all future winning handhelds should outsell the winning console of the same generation. I don't think asterisks should be used though, because home consoles also shouldn't get one such as this: got all the AAA games*.

So would you say....when handhelds are executed to their greatest possible level, they should normally, naturally exceed consoles?  This would cause some headway in this debate lol.

Edit: And people, stop with the definitions. We know what it means.  But certain things have to be taken into account to get any meaning from statements. 

Yes, they should.

Whenever this DS vs. PS2 subject comes up, there always are some people who say that it is nothing special because handhelds sell more by default anyway, even though it actually never really happened before. But the DS beating the PS2 is actually a big achievement, because it means that handhelds are finally making big steps away from being considered second rate gaming. If this trend that more and better games are made for handhelds keeps up, then gamers will play their portable consoles more and more at home and not just mainly on the go.

Yeah. I kinda feel like this is happening with consoles too to an extent.  It feels like so many good quality games are being made, or so much content at least, that it's hard to savor it all.  I would agree it is an achievement in what it means, but I also see it as the realization of what happens when handheld gaming performs to the extent it can.  So many people have the illusion (or relative illsuion at least) that handhelds sell better, because they really should, when all things are right.  I just hope people put it into perspective when they think about the numbers.  I am also curious to see how well handhelds can sustain this, seeing as a lot fo things went right for the DS that aren't always guaranteed.