Support NeoGAF

[bobafett]

I was thinking in the last weeks: Wouldn't be much better if the DS had one big touch screen instead of 2 small screeens?

Do you really think that the 2 screens add anything important to the gameplay?

What was the main reason to have 2 screens: price, design, marketing?

Discuss and please don't troll.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

yes

 

[human5892]

I have thought this more or less ever since the DS was first announced. One large touchscreen would be much, much better.

As for why it's two: isn't it because Yamauchi said so?

 

[Gattsu25]

how else could you make a Nintendo Dual Screen?

 

[Pimpwerx]

Yeah, couldn't call it a Dual Screen without having two screens, duh. It would just have been the Nintendo POS then. PEACE.

 

[Bluemercury]

Because one of the screens is a touch screen......jeeez how the hell do you play with one touch screen if you cant clearly see it youre touching it?

 

[Defensor]

No, it needs 3 screens IMHO.

 

[soundwave05]

Probably cost issues.

Just getting a bigger LCD isn't that easy.

If it were I'd buy two 17 inch LCDs from Best Buy and then return them for a single big 30 inch one.

Two smaller LCDs are cheaper than one big one.

 

[Mama Smurf]

Boy, is it that time of the week again?

 

[Deku]

no. If Nintendo had gone with one big widescreen PSP style screen, but touch sensitive, the DS would be a more interesting product to me.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

Boy, is it that time of the week again?

seems so, they are so troublesome

It is also a great sin to question Pimp Yamauchi-Sama

 

[heidern]

If you did go one screen, you'd have a system GBA/PSP style which would mean a screen in "landscape" configuration. This would be bad because in a game like say Mario 64 or Metroid your hand would get in the way of your vision.

Two screens is better because it enables a clamshell design which is better for durability. It also means the screens are in "portrait" configuration so when you use the touch screen the top screen isn't covered. Also it means you can have games where you directly touch what you are looking at(as in Warioware), but also games where you don't and use the touch screen relatively(Mario/Metroid).

In other words, in the cause of touch screen portable gaming 2 screens >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 screen.

 

[Bluemercury]

no. If Nintendo had gone with one big widescreen PSP style screen, but touch sensitive, the DS would be a more interesting product to me.

No it wouldnt,how the hell can you see the screen properly if you have your hand all over it????

 

[Johnas]

No, it needs 3 screens IMHO.

GASP

What happened to your hot asian chick avatar trend?

I think the main reason for the two screens was differentiation. It clearly looks different than any other handheld for this reason alone.

 

[ProgramFighter]

I would have preferred one big touch screen and an analog stick or two for games that wouldn't use the touch screen/stylus for control. However, the system is still young so maybe we'll eventually get some interesting uses of the dual screens. As of right now, the touch screen seems to be the big design innovation for me.

 

[Dragmire]

I think the second screen helps separate it from the Gameboy line of hardware, and I would say it worked out pretty well. One is for touching, the other is for viewing. It allows for a clamshell design, and has some applications for some games. Not a necessity by any means, but it keeps things a little different, which I like.

I'm not saying a much larger, single touchscreen wouldn't have been better, but I think the uniqueness makes up for it a little. Like some said, maybe some good ideas will come from it, like in Advance Wars 3?

 

[Kamille]

I don't think it needs it, as many of the games don't put it 2 much good use. On the other hand, some do make good use of it. Having the second screen is a nice thing to have, but no, it isn't needed.

 

[Tellaerin]

I don't like the fact that with the touchscreen, your hand's obscuring your view of the screen whenever you use the stylus. I think I would have preferred an arrangement with a single, larger, non-touch-sensitive screen on top, and a 'stylus pad' (similar to PC graphics tablets) on the bottom half of the clamshell for you to draw on rather than a second screen per se. The end product might not have had such a marketable 'hook' ('Look! You can 'touch' stuff on the screen and make things happen!'), but I think it would've worked better from a playability standpoint.

 

[Memles]

Clamshell was the real reason it works, if not their initial plan. They realized that the GBASP ended up a much more versatile system for the kiddies with its clamshell design, so using that in the new system made perfect sense.

Did it need it? No. But it's a gimmick, it does add gameplay OPPORTUNITY, and it does make it different from the normal Game Boy line.

Would I have been more likely to buy one with one big screen? Uh, no. The lack of games and price are what's keeping me away.

 

[Tellaerin]

Clamshell was the real reason it works, if not their initial plan. They realized that the GBASP ended up a much more versatile system for the kiddies with its clamshell design, so using that in the new system made perfect sense.

How did the GBA-SP's clamshell design make the system more versatile? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

 

[Redbeard]

Nintendo SS just doesn't sound the same.

 

[Memles]

How did the GBA-SP's clamshell design make the system more versatile? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

The screen wasn't open at all times, meaning it can be thrown into pockets, or backpacks, with no screen damage. I think I was searching for like "Indestructable" or something more regarding damage, but versatility in everyday situations. Seeing Paris touching her PSP screen only shows us this was a good idea.

 

[ProgramFighter]

Clamshell was the real reason it works, if not their initial plan. They realized that the GBASP ended up a much more versatile system for the kiddies with its clamshell design, so using that in the new system made perfect sense.

I like the clamshell design, but the GBASP only had one screen so two screens isn't necessary to have a clamshell. It seems more like filler than anything else. Don't get me wrong, I like my DS, but having a PSP also, I see how great a nice, big screen would have been. I would have loved if Nintendo would have added some extra power to the system, put the analog stick(s), and had a big, 16:9 (Is that the correct proportion?) touch screen. In that case it could have just been the next Game Boy and had it backwards compatible with all previous editions in the GB line instead of just the GBA, but I guess there wasn't enough time for that.

 

[Tellaerin]

The screen wasn't open at all times, meaning it can be thrown into pockets, or backpacks, with no screen damage. I think I was searching for like "Indestructable" or something more regarding damage, but versatility in everyday situations. Seeing Paris touching her PSP screen only shows us this was a good idea.

Ah, I see. Yes, a clamshell design definitely helps protect the system. I hope it eventually becomes the standard for all handheld devices with screens.

 

[Memles]

I like the clamshell design, but the GBASP only had one screen so two screens isn't necessary to have a clamshell.

Except, with a touch screen, it would have to be on the bottom of the clamshell...which would leave basically a glorified piece of plastic. And that's just kind of pointless. While not necessary to have a clamshell, the two screens facilitated it, and probably made it an attractive option for Nintendo...that and Yamauchi's death threats that they had to go with it.

 

[monkeyrun]

otherwise I'll be called Nintendo SS

 

[ProgramFighter]

Except, with a touch screen, it would have to be on the bottom of the clamshell...which would leave basically a glorified piece of plastic. And that's just kind of pointless. While not necessary to have a clamshell, the two screens facilitated it, and probably made it an attractive option for Nintendo...that and Yamauchi's death threats that they had to go with it.

Good point. I should have thought of that.

 

[Ranger X]

Looking at Kamille i prefer 2 instead of one but bigger.

 

[heidern]

I don't like the fact that with the touchscreen, your hand's obscuring your view of the screen whenever you use the stylus. I think I would have preferred an arrangement with a single, larger, non-touch-sensitive screen on top, and a 'stylus pad' (similar to PC graphics tablets) on the bottom half of the clamshell for you to draw on rather than a second screen per se. The end product might not have had such a marketable 'hook' ('Look! You can 'touch' stuff on the screen and make things happen!'), but I think it would've worked better from a playability standpoint.

Erm no. Stuff like Wario ware, slice wouldn't work. Neither would many of the Mario 64 DS mini games. Or how about card games? Or menu driven games? Or an rts when you can point at which units you want directly? What about pictochat? Having the touchpad an actual screen in and of itself offers many many opportunities. I can see the argument for one large touch screen, but not a touch pad, no thats a blatant regression.

 

[Tellaerin]

Erm no. Stuff like Wario ware, slice wouldn't work. Neither would many of the Mario 64 DS mini games. Or how about card games? Or menu driven games? Or an rts when you can point at which units you want directly? What about pictochat? Having the touchpad an actual screen in and of itself offers many many opportunities. I can see the argument for one large touch screen, but not a touch pad, no thats a blatant regression.

Have you ever even used a graphics tablet and stylus for the PC? It doesn't sound like you have, honestly. Moving the stylus on the tablet moves a pointer in the corresponding position on the screen. It's not like there's a disconnect between what your hands are doing and what's happening on the screen, even though you're not 'drawing' on it directly. Every game you described could be done just as well with a touchpad and stylus, if not better (again, not having to worry about your hand obscuring the view while playing is a major plus), so dismissing the idea as a 'blatant regression' is bullshit. About the only thing that would be diminished is the marketing hook, namely other people being able to see the player touch the screen directly to make things happen. (For the person actually playing, I honestly don't think it'd diminish the experience for them to use the touchpad.)

 

[TheDiave]

First of all... This warrants an "Every other fucking day I swear."

And second... You say no trolling, but recent events have shown that trolling Nintendo threads is not only condoned, but encouraged, and only someone aching for a ban would post any thread Nintendo related.

*shrug*

 

[heidern]

Have you ever even used a graphics tablet and stylus for the PC? It doesn't sound like you have, honestly. Moving the stylus on the tablet moves a pointer in the corresponding position on the screen. It's not like there's a disconnect between what your hands are doing and what's happening on the screen, even though you're not 'drawing' on it directly. Every game you described could be done just as well with a touchpad and stylus, if not better (again, not having to worry about your hand obscuring the view while playing is a major plus), so dismissing the idea as a 'blatant regression' is bullshit. About the only thing that would be diminished is the marketing hook, namely other people being able to see the player touch the screen directly to make things happen. (For the person actually playing, I honestly don't think it'd diminish the experience for them to use the touchpad.)

First off, if you are not drawing directly on the screen there is a "disconnect". Not in that it's unintuitive, just that touching an object directly and having it react is different to the abstract of touching a controller and seeing a reaction on some other screen. In some cases this is better(Warioware), in others it is worse(Metroid Hunters).

Secondly, no I haven't used a graphics tablet, but I was under the assumption it was just like a mouse, just with a different form factor. Take the example of two of a kind(8 cards face down, pick two at a time, if they match you win).

With a mouse you move the mouse till the cursor is over the first card and click. Then you drag the mouse till the cursor is over the second and then click. With the touch screen you simply point at the first card and then point at the second.

So the question is, is a graphics tablet like a mouse or like the touch screen? Do you have to drag a cursor over what you want and then perhaps press a button to register the action? Or can you lift the pointer off the pad and then put it back down exactly where you want it?

If it's the first, then that is way inferior to a touch screen. If the latter, then you might as well go for the touch screen instead of the pad. I dunno about you, you may have highly superior hand eye coordination, but if I was using a touchpad, I know that I would miss what I wanted a heck of a lot. Gotta ask, have you actually used the DS? Whether you have or not, I suggest you try Sort or 'Splode in Mario 64 DS. There is no fucking way in hell a touch pad would come anywhere near a touch screen for playing that game.

 

[Tellaerin]

So the question is, is a graphics tablet like a mouse or like the touch screen? Do you have to drag a cursor over what you want and then perhaps press a button to register the action? Or can you lift the pointer off the pad and then put it back down exactly where you want it?

The second. The tablet registers where you touch it with the stylus--it registers input similarly to the touchscreen, just without the 'screen'. Art programs'll display a pointer on the screen to show you where the tip of your 'pen' or 'brush' is, and you tap/drag/draw/paint/etc.

If it's the first, then that is way inferior to a touch screen. If the latter, then you might as well go for the touch screen instead of the pad. I dunno about you, you may have highly superior hand eye coordination, but if I was using a touchpad, I know that I would miss what I wanted a heck of a lot.

I really don't think you would, though. As long as there was a faint little circle or crosshair displayed on the screen to show you what the stylus was 'touching', I don't think you'd have any problem manipulating stuff on the screen. Not to mention the fact that your hand wouldnt' be obscuring the action.

Gotta ask, have you actually used the DS? Whether you have or not, I suggest you try Sort or 'Splode in Mario 64 DS. There is no fucking way in hell a touch pad would come anywhere near a touch screen for playing that game.

The only thing I've checked out so far was the MP: Hunters demo. I really do think the current DS games would work just as well with a separate, dedicated tablet-type area for input, though, from everything people have said so far.

 

[soundwave05]

They could have called the system Nintendo Touch, isn't that the slogan for the machine in Japan anyway ...? Or Nintendo TS (Touch System) for short.

That relays more of what the system is about anyway than "DS", which means nothing to the average consumer.

Anyways, the thing about the touchscreen is it requires such a thick layer of coating that its not as bright as the regular LCD, so that would be another drawback. Hopefully this isn't the case with GB Next if they opt to go the single touchscreen route.

 

[heidern]

I really don't think you would, though. As long as there was a faint little circle or crosshair displayed on the screen to show you what the stylus was 'touching', I don't think you'd have any problem manipulating stuff on the screen. Not to mention the fact that your hand wouldnt' be obscuring the action.

Your missing one very key point though. What happens when you lift your stylus off of the pad? In that case the pad would not be receiving input and so the cursor would be useless.

The only thing I've checked out so far was the MP: Hunters demo. I really do think the current DS games would work just as well with a separate, dedicated tablet-type area for input, though, from everything people have said so far.

In Metroid it's fine, because you use the pad relatively dragging it around the screen. But any game which requires pointing won't work. Honestly, in Sort or 'Splode even with the touch screen you sometimes grab the wrong thing, with a touchpad it would be unplayable. Or how about Zookeeper/Bejeweled? With a hundred icons on the screen, there's no way you'll accurately point at one in the bottom left, and then one at the top left. It would require you to guess, and then drag a little.

 

[SaitoH]

Because one of the screens is a touch screen......jeeez how the hell do you play with one touch screen if you cant clearly see it youre touching it?

But Castlevania is played on the touch screen...

 

[jarrod]

Dropping the 2nd screen would've been fine, it's mainly used for nongame fuctions now anway (ie: map, stats, etc). Plus it would've shaved about a quarter of the DS per unit production costs, meaning Nintendo likely could've gone down to $99 for launch.

Personally, I think Nintendo should've just done that and made DS the next Game Boy to ride out for 3 years. With the savings from going single screen, upsec the chipset a bit (faster ARM series, more hardwired effects, etc) and add dual analog nubs/pads. Charge $99 and they're all set.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

But Castlevania is played on the touch screen...

Yeah, but not extensively. It is used for certain moments, so it's not going to be an issue for trying to see. A game like Metroid Prime Hunters would be impossible with one screen, you wouldn't see well at all.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Well, it wouldn't be called the DS without 2 screens now would it? :lol

 

[jarrod]

Yeah, but not extensively. It is used for certain moments, so it's not going to be an issue for trying to see. A game like Metroid Prime Hunters would be impossible with one screen, you wouldn't see well at all.

Outside fps, most games that use the touchscreen in engaing ways have the action on that same screen (Kirby, Yoshi, Meteos, Zoo Keeper, Advance Wars, Pac-Pix, etc). For most games that place the action on another screen (Mario 64, Rayman, Ridge Racer, etc) touch interface would be better off replaced by analog controls anyway.

 

[CrisKre]

I like the two screen concept. I think it is a good idea. I would like two bigger screens, but thats another thing :/

 

[kaching]

If you did go one screen, you'd have a system GBA/PSP style which would mean a screen in "landscape" configuration. This would be bad because in a game like say Mario 64 or Metroid your hand would get in the way of your vision.

"silkscreen" it then, like PDAs do it now. i.e. have a specific section of the screen reserved for specific touch input. Make one big landscape screen that's the same total resolution as DS's two smaller screens now. For a game like Mario 64 or Hunters, split the screen vertically and have one side for touch input and the other side for depicting the game. No obscuring of the game as a result. Nice thing about this approach is that it also gives the developers more flexibility in determining the absolute area of touch input they need since they'd essentially be able to "turn it off" on as much or as little of the bigger screen as needed. It also gives devs more control over the position of touchscreen controls relative to the game action.

Two screens is better because it enables a clamshell design which is better for durability.

I disagree about the durability being better, but if you really want clamshell design, you don't need two screens to "enable" it. Put the speakers in the top half of the clamshell if you feel that having a piece of plastic that functions as nothing more than a cover is insufficient to justify its existence.

 

[refreshZ]

Well, it wouldn't be called the DS without 2 screens now would it? :lol

Welcome to 35 posts ago.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

I wish they would have waited things out and unveiled a more worthy successor to the GBA. And supported the GBA more robustly for a bit longer. In a sense, the comparisons between the GBA and PSP are less obvious because their market and product seems so different in comparison. There isn't the same choice to be made. The DS on the other hand does a middle ground contrast to the two systems, akwardly. I don't think it will ultimately justify itself as a hardware unit beyond a few games.

The only thing it does better than the GBA is play GBA games brighter. It's own games could have been reinventions on a more powerful and conventional Nintendo unit. The GBA is more attractive, affordable and handy. Basically, the second screen and touch interactivity aren't worth it.

The GBA rulez!

 

[Red Scarlet]

Wouldn't be much better if the DS had one big touch screen instead of 2 small screeens?

Maybe, maybe not. It's still a stupid idea for a portable. Touch screens work fine at grocery stores, but for gaming, it's stupid.

Do you really think that the 2 screens add anything important to the gameplay?

No, just adds to the gimmick. In the 2 games that look interesting to me, the 2nd screen is just a map that you don't need a 2nd screen for.

What was the main reason to have 2 screens: price, design, marketing?

For the touch gimmick that if I wanted to use something as a pointer, I'd be using my mouse to begin with on my PC.

Discuss and please don't troll.

Don't ask a question that has 2 answers where 1 could be considered a troll.

 

[StRaNgE]

Have you ever even used a graphics tablet and stylus for the PC? It doesn't sound like you have, honestly. Moving the stylus on the tablet moves a pointer in the corresponding position on the screen. It's not like there's a disconnect between what your hands are doing and what's happening on the screen, even though you're not 'drawing' on it directly. Every game you described could be done just as well with a touchpad and stylus, if not better (again, not having to worry about your hand obscuring the view while playing is a major plus), so dismissing the idea as a 'blatant regression' is bullshit. About the only thing that would be diminished is the marketing hook, namely other people being able to see the player touch the screen directly to make things happen. (For the person actually playing, I honestly don't think it'd diminish the experience for them to use the touchpad.)

I use wacom's for work all day long.

a small one for on the go and a huge one at the desk.

althought they are great for what they are i would not want to replace my touch screen with one. it would not be anywhere near as good or fun as an actual screen for gaming.

 

[heidern]

"silkscreen" it then, like PDAs do it now. i.e. have a specific section of the screen reserved for specific touch input. Make one big landscape screen that's the same total resolution as DS's two smaller screens now. For a game like Mario 64 or Hunters, split the screen vertically and have one side for touch input and the other side for depicting the game. No obscuring of the game as a result. Nice thing about this approach is that it also gives the developers more flexibility in determining the absolute area of touch input they need since they'd essentially be able to "turn it off" on as much or as little of the bigger screen as needed. It also gives devs more control over the position of touchscreen controls relative to the game action.

You're idea sounds great, but there's one major problem. If you split a large landscape screen vertically, you'll end up with two portrait screens. Now that's great for Ikaruga, but as the N-gage shows, it sucks for most gaming. Human vision is in widescreen, hence gaming screens should be widescreen. The only way this works is if you have a large touch screen in portrait config, split to two widescreen screens. Think of the 2 DS screens joined together. The problem is the screen is big vertically. but adding a dpad and buttons makes the unit also big horizontally and hence not very portable.

I disagree about the durability being better, but if you really want clamshell design, you don't need two screens to "enable" it. Put the speakers in the top half of the clamshell if you feel that having a piece of plastic that functions as nothing more than a cover is insufficient to justify its existence.

That won't be good either since you're just making the unit bigger. That's the whole point of the clamshell in that not only are you increasing durability, but also that in splitting the real estate between the two parts you are also maximising portability.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

The big big thing is to differentiate itself from GBA and PSP.

Expansion of the GBA-GCN connectivity that used two screens.

Flip system very popular with the SP, and even more useful in this case to help protect the touch screen. Also better to have people touching on the base that they're holding, rather than a flip-up portion. Going from those two things, you've already got a wide screen plus a flip design, which gives a lot more space to work with. Obviously you can't fold a screen, so having one on each section is the next best thing.

Touch screen being presumably more expensive, perhaps rather than 256x192x2 with one being touch, with one touch screen we'd get something like 320x224. Better than either of the DS's current screens, but not insanely so.

Having a touch screen on the bottom really allows for custom controls. People get freaked out when rumors go around of Revolution having a touch screen controller, but in addition to other buttons it allows for a great deal of customization. I'm not talking of scratching or drawing here, but merely presenting more unique sliders, button shapes, or whatever to be used as part of a game's controls. Not something we've seen a lot of developers take advantage of yet, unfortunately. DS is like such a controller, with the regular screen right above.

 

[kaching]

heidern, I think you misunderstood, but then I don't think I explained myself as well as I could have. I wasn't talking about fusing the screens and keeping the vertical orientation, I meant fuse the screens and switch to a horizontal widescreen orientation...so 256x192x2 becomes 512x192.

 

[Tellaerin]

I use wacom's for work all day long.

a small one for on the go and a huge one at the desk.

althought they are great for what they are i would not want to replace my touch screen with one. it would not be anywhere near as good or fun as an actual screen for gaming.

Whereas I'd much prefer using something like my Wacom to manipulate stuff on a screen than I would touching it 'directly', because I can't stand having my hand obstruct the view. I guess it just comes down to preference.