Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Portables (Games) Entertainment Games

When a PDA is better than a GBA for Gaming 438

An anonymous reader writes "Conventional wisdom says that it's silly to buy a $300+ PDA to play games when a $100 Game Boy Advance SP is going to be better at it. At the same time, no one says that it's silly to spend $1000+ on a PC to play games, when you can do the same thing with a $199 PlayStation 2. FiringSquad just posted an ASUS PDA review that focuses on some of the games that only a PDA has the horsepower for, and helps readers figure out how to pick out the right PDA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When a PDA is better than a GBA for Gaming

Comments Filter:
  • by Svet-Am ( 413146 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @12:34PM (#7387198) Homepage
    If all you want is portable games, buy a portable game device (GBA, NeoGeoPocket, etc)

    If you want other functionality, buy a PDA.

    Period.

    Why is this an issue?
  • Not silly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Psmylie ( 169236 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @12:35PM (#7387203) Homepage
    "At the same time, no one says that it's silly to spend $1000+ on a PC to play games, when you can do the same thing with a $199 PlayStation 2"

    Are you kidding? I see that all the time! On slashdot, even.
    Besides, who only spends a grand on a gaming machine?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @12:36PM (#7387222)
    I can sit in the back of a crowded presentation at work, or in the back of my math class, with a PDA, doing various things, but if I'm seen sitting there using a GBA, that's somehow "disrespectful". Even though either way I'm clearly not paying attention.

    This is why TI Calculator games are the most wonderful thing in the world. No one is going to see anything odd about me pressing buttons on a calculator in a large lecture hall.
  • by Thinkit3 ( 671998 ) * on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @12:36PM (#7387226)
    If it doesn't have a cell phone built in, it'll be in a scrap heap soon.
  • 'Zat so? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @12:37PM (#7387244)
    Conventional wisdom says that it's silly to buy a $300+ PDA to play games when a $100 Game Boy Advance SP is going to be better at it. At the same time, no one says that it's silly to spend $1000+ on a PC to play games, when you can do the same thing with a $199 PlayStation 2.

    My impression is that every time person X buys anything person Y doesn't have (console, PC, graphics card, game) person Y insists that it's silly...

  • by FatSean ( 18753 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @12:37PM (#7387247) Homepage Journal
    ...well, generally. While PC and Console games do overlap, there is enough of a difference in the software library to choose one over the other (or just choose both!). PDAs are clunky. I'd never buy a piece of portable electronics that expensive...my cell phones live a harsh life. A $100 gameboy getting dropped onto concrete is sad but acceptable...a $300 PDA is not.
  • Re:Not silly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @12:39PM (#7387273) Homepage Journal
    "At the same time, no one says that it's silly to spend $1000+ on a PC to play games, when you can do the same thing with a $199 PlayStation 2"

    Are you kidding? I see that all the time! On slashdot, even.
    Besides, who only spends a grand on a gaming machine?


    Hell, I say it all the time!

    Not only that, but the games you buy for PCs are barely working. At least with a console there's a QA systems that forces the developpers and distributors to only release gamnes that actually work/can be finished/won't destroy your machine.
  • Re:Not silly? [OT] (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @12:41PM (#7387290)
    The only thing I find funny is that the same people who think nothing of spending $3000 rather than $1000 on their computer because it's a "gaming rig", even though a console "gaming rig" would cost maybe $150...

    are the same people who bitch endlessly about the fact that you can't get a Macintosh for $1000, and to get a passable mac you have to pay $2000 or so.

    Now, why is it that the amount of money you spend on your gaming machine is immaterial, but if you have to spend more than $1200 or so on the machine you actually do work and stuff on, well, that's just unacceptable? Is the only reason that they bitch about the Mac price is that it doesn't play games?

    (Yes, I realize most people just don't like macs. I'm specifically complaining here about the "who'd spend that much" crowd,not everyone who uses wiows..)
  • by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @12:58PM (#7387348) Journal

    You can get Mame on a PocketPC. Thats a huge library of games there.

    Touchscreens are a great substitute for mouse control.

    I can play Gameboy or NeoGeo or NES or any 8 bit consoles in emulation mode. I even played Apple ][e games in nuclear green monochrome on my PocketPC.

    With removeable memory cards I can carry around a large number of games in the equivlent size of one carterage of a portable game device.
  • Yea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @12:58PM (#7387350) Journal
    A console can still not achieve the versatility of a PC when it comes to gaming. I prefer consoles to PCs due to convienence, but I do recognize that gaming on a console is still laregly confined to the "local area". Only the Xbox has truly brought full-fledged online gaming to the console masses (local storage, patches, large centralized gaming network, etc - basically everything that makes online PC gaming so good).

    The problem with this, is that Microsoft has been using its endless bags of cash and an unfair monopoly status to swing this much weight into a new market. If they weren't able to lose hundreds of millions of dollars to do this, it would have never happened. Online console gaming would still be largely non-existent. Just something to think about: is Microsoft good in this case, or are they bad?

  • by XaXXon ( 202882 ) <xaxxon.gmail@com> on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @01:17PM (#7387512) Homepage
    I dunno if you actually played any of those hdtv games for xbox, but I was unimpressed by it.

    I bought the kit for pushing component video out of an x-box and took it over to a friend's house who has a 56" Sony HDTV projection screen. I cranked it up to 1080i and pretty much the only thing I saw was that it slowed down. The loading screen with the matrix letters were crisper, but that was it. I noticed no change in-game other than it being slower (noticably chunky in spots that were smooth in standard resolution).

    This doesn't really surprise me, though, as all an xbox has is a slightly upgraded geforce3. That card doesn't exactly have an amazing fill rate -- it's 2 generations old. My Radeon 9700, however, pushes 1600x1200 in games quite well. Granted, it cost $200 more than the entire xbox, but that's the price if you want high-res graphics. Just don't be saying that 1080i on an xbox touches my computer.

    Everyone whines about cost.. I say get a real job and don't worry about it. Gaming is a hobby. Hobbies take money. Some people work on their car and buy 20" lift kits. Some people fly remote control airplanes. I pimp the hell out of my computer. I buy lights, I buy fans, I drill holes in the case, and I buy damned expensive video cards, and I don't complain about it (well, maybe a little, but I still buy 'em)

    I guess it's all about how you want to spend your money. I work hard; I play hard.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @01:29PM (#7387663)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:'Zat so? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @01:30PM (#7387670) Journal

    My impression is that every time person X buys anything person Y doesn't have (console, PC, graphics card, game) person Y insists that it's silly...

    And it's certainly true if the item that person X has bought outpermforms and costs less than the item person Y has.

    However, this 'wisdom' that is refered to in the ingress is what I like to call 'beancounters wisdom'. While it may appear ecomomicaly reasonable to "save" around 800$ by buying a dedicated gamingconsole instead of a multipurpose computingplatform (ie, a personal computer), I find that it isn't. A PC (or a Mac for that matter) is seldom used solely for gaming - it can be used as a typewriter, to help you organise your life (and remaning money =) ), get you online and so on. That, and a PC will often be superior at certain sorts of games, as well as often arriving with its own display device, which means that mum and dad can watch the news without junior having to break of his game...

    That aside, I own myself two PCs (three if you count the old 486), one PSX, one PS2, one Plam and a GBA... so perhaps the wise thing to do is to get them all and use the one best suited at any one task?

  • Re:Not silly? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @01:35PM (#7387725) Homepage Journal
    "Are you kidding? I see that all the time! On slashdot, even."

    It's a ridiculous statement anyway.

    1.) PC Games are not like PS2 games. Comparing the two is like comparing Deep Space Nine to Babylon 5. Very distinct audiences and tastes here.

    2.) Since PC games are so different from console games, people like to indulge a little here in there to make their machine a better game machine. Only they don't spend $1,000 for a game machine, they spend $1,000 on a computer and a hundred bucks here and there to make it a better game machine.

  • What you want (Score:3, Insightful)

    by neglige ( 641101 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @01:40PM (#7387796)
    At the same time, no one says that it's silly to spend $1000+ on a PC to play games, when you can do the same thing with a $199 PlayStation 2.

    It heavily depends on what you can do with it besides playing games. Ever tried to write a letter with a PS2? Or run a database? No, modding the XBOX to run Linux does not count. Truth is, it is silly to buy a PC just to play games. But the PC will still be with you a few years from now. And it might even be useful. And you can do more with it than with a console.

    The same holds true for PDAs. If you want to store your contacts, adresses and events, a relatively cheap Palm device will do nicely. If you want to have insane multimedia capabilites and all those nice little extras, you want a PocketPC -- which costs about 3 times more (YMMV). And those devices can also play games.

    But can the GBA store your appointments?
  • by schapman ( 703722 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @01:50PM (#7387920)
    if you want a good mouse for gaming.. check out Logitech mx700 [logitech.com] you can't beat logitech for mice. and they will soon have that mouse in bluetooth w/ a sweet keyboard combo. Logitech(R) diNovo(TM) Media Desktop(TM) [logitech.com]
  • by Frederic54 ( 3788 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @01:57PM (#7388000) Journal
    yup, and the price for a 60 inches 16:9 HDTV is?
  • Re:Not silly? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MoneyT ( 548795 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @02:04PM (#7388088) Journal
    How are they different. Be honest here. Name a large difference between console and PC games.
  • $1,000? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @02:35PM (#7388425)
    At the same time, no one says that it's silly to spend $1000+ on a PC to play games

    I might. I was able to put together a very capable system for less than half that (good enough to play PlanetSide without any problems). I guess the price might be somewhere near $1,000 if you absolutely had to have the best graphics card available, but for me (and many others, I suspect) it's an unncessary luxury. 250 fps? Please. Who cares? As long as it does at least 30-40 fps most of the time, the rest is all surplus.
  • by stonecypher ( 118140 ) <stonecypher@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @02:56PM (#7388671) Homepage Journal
    Except that it never works. That's what Sega Game Channel was, that's what Intro Distro was, that's what the eReader is. People won't buy it if it has a limited life, and people think of things they download as impermanent. For some reason, media matters at one level or another.

    Granted, Sega had bigger infrastructure costs than you'd have these days, and the nostalgia is stronger now than it ever has been before. But really, for just how long do you think people will extoll the virtues of Dragon Warrior 1 after they actually start playing it again? I found a copy and a working NES at funco land for $8 together, and I shugged and what-the-helled it.

    I got into the first dungeon, and opened the locked trunk that had the key to get me through to the other side. As my inventory was full I could not take the key. I dropped an item, looked in the box again, and it was gone. I fought my way back to ground and then back down; still gone. I'd have to recreate 6 hours of gameplay over that I didn't know there was an inventory limit, much less that trunk contents were a one-time-only grab.

    Granted, many games do hold up to the test of time - crysalis, koei games, et cetera - but the market is still too slim.

    $10 "greatest hits" discs will always win. Besides, that's $2/rom, and you can take it to friends' houses. Good enough?
  • Re:Not silly? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DunbarTheInept ( 764 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @03:25PM (#7389007) Homepage
    I'd rather have a game that's barely working, but intellectually challenging, then yet another brain-dead button mash fest.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @03:42PM (#7389181)
    I think it's going to fail, for the same reason that the GP32, the Cybiko, the Wonderswan, and the other parade of near misses have.

    None of the above are fully blown, high-end palm PDAs. Please note that Tapwave has prized the Zodiac comparately to other Palm devices of similar spec. Additionally, it's a game device.

    1) Nobody's ever heard of the damn thing. You're on slashdot and people are all "the what?"

    On the other hand, just about anyone who has heard of n-gage has heard of the zodiac, as it's mentioned in just about every news report on n-gage.

    2) Tapwave can't undersell the hardware like Nintendo can. $300 for a portable gaming machine has never gone over well, and it never will.

    Underselling hardware is a myth. Only microsoft, out of all game device manufacturers, has actually undersold entertainment hardware.

    3) This thing isn't getting a game library of any real size.

    Too early to say. In addition to major companies starting to be interested in it, it is a very open platform where basically anyone can make software. This means ports of open sourced games, emulators, and also hobbyist games.

    4) I can buy a tapwave at: (retail chains)

    You can, early next year.

    In any case you're missing the point in several ways. Zodiac is not a heads-on gameboy competitor. It's not a heads-on n-gage competitor. Heck, it's not even a heads-on PSP competitor. It's something new.
  • by batura ( 651273 ) on Tuesday November 04, 2003 @04:49PM (#7389871)
    "My guess is that a good 50% or more of PDA users bought the PDA for playing games."

    My guess is that he's wrong. Totally wrong. Buying a PDA for games doesn't seem to make much sense at all. The fact that are games is a nice distant second use, but for most people, I doubt this has any revalence at all. Wall Streeters playing Puzzle Bobble on Lunch? hmm, maybe, but I wouldn't think so.

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...