5 ms·

"Most of what runs and plays on DS units can run and play on iPhones." All of what can run and play on a DS unit can run and play on an iPhone, if you're talki

"Most of what runs and plays on DS units can run and play on iPhones." All of what can run and play on a DS unit can run and play on an iPhone, if you're talking about pixel pushing horsepower. But a lot of it will never play correctly (in terms of gameplay feel) because of the iPhone's lack of any physical controller. There are quite a few games (eg. Plants vs Zombies) that work great on a touchscreen, but there's an entire universe of games that really need a physical controller to feel right -- which is why many, many DS games are d-pad controller focused for main gameplay despite the touchscreen being available as an option. It'll be a horribly sad day when Nintendo (and to a lesser degree, Sony) concede the entire market to touchscreen-only devices. As a for-example, you will never play a true Mario Brothers platformer game on an iPhone. You simply can't capture the feel of that experience on a touchscreen-only device.

cageface 15y ago
I refuse to play any game that uses a virtual d-pad on a touch device. It's the absolute worst of both worlds.
Sephr 15y ago
They could sell input devices along with their games. Most mobile devices aren't "touchscreen-only" devices. Android, for example, supports bluetooth and therefore wiimotes as input with the proper IME app. Since Honeycomb, you can also use bluetooth and USB mice and other USB peripherals, such as PS3 controllers.
kalleboo 15y ago
It would be nice if more Android manufacturers could create devices like the Sony Ericsson Xperia Play - phones with physical game controls. Sadly it seems to be a dead-end, since developers won't rewrite games for a single handset.
chrischen 15y ago
People don't play Call of Duty on a DS. Most of those DS games don't require precision or complicated dual analog stick controls. There's no reason why something like Pokemon can't run on an iPhone with good controls.
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  Well, I should hope "those" DS games don't require complicated dual analog stick controls since the DS only has one input pad (though some games do use the 4 cross buttons as something of a second dpad) and it is digital. Pokemon could arguably work okay on a touchscreen-only device, but that's one title cherry picked out of thousands, there are tons of DS games that would suffer greatly by being stuffed into a touchscreen control scheme, and that includes lots of games that are nothing like "Call of Duty". It isn't about how complicated the control scheme is, it is about the need for actual physical switch controls. Even games with dead-simple control schemes like Bomberman or Tetris have this issue (and yes, I know there is Tetris for the iOS -- it is an abomination that proves my point nicely, IMO).
  - chrischen 15y ago
    Actually the DS has a touch screen which allows it to almost replicate the dual-analog sticks. So there are FPS games for the DS that use this. Admittedly it's a bit tough to play FPSs on the iPhone still. I've played Tetris for iPod (with the circular wheel) and that was playable and enjoyable. Controls just need to be adapted properly. There's no reason the D-pad and physical buttons are required for good controls. Just because current game ports have bad touchscreen control implementations doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, the bad implementations are probably due to the fact a lot of them naively try to simulate DS-style controls on a touch screen. There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games. It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras.
    - georgemcbay 15y ago
      "Actually the DS has a touch screen which allows it to almost replicate the dual-analog sticks. So there are FPS games for the DS that use this." With that I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. IMO just because you can slap a couple of "virtual joysticks" on the screen and pull input data from them does not mean you have a system that replicates dual-analog sticks, and I say that as both a programmer and a gamer. "There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games." Like I said, for some games, yes, you can have good touchscreen controls. But by limiting the system to only touchscreen controls you're cutting out a giant amount of games that could otherwise run fine on the hardware but whose controls do not naturally map to touchscreen. Yes, you could produce a version of New Super Mario Bros that used a virtual touchscreen joystick, but it wouldn't be the same game, at all, because the physical nature of the controller has a huge impact on overall gameplay. Nintendo above all other companies recognizes this (thankfully), which is why they have continued to find success even after down periods in their hardware cycles. If they gave all that up and just focused on the iOS market, that would be the worst thing to happen to gaming since Looking Glass went under. "It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras." When the DS first came out, games went crazy trying to support the touchscreen because of the novelty, yes, but well within a year of the system's launch they started to pull back on that and produce games with largely classical controls that only used the accessories for little flourishes and not for main gameplay. Why? Because there are a LOT of games that require physical switch controllers to play correctly. (The same applies to the Wii where they went nuts with motion control and eventually started using that primarily as a flourish for most games, because not all games are a natural fit for motion control).

cageface 15y ago

I refuse to play any game that uses a virtual d-pad on a touch device. It's the absolute worst of both worlds.

Sephr 15y ago

They could sell input devices along with their games. Most mobile devices aren't "touchscreen-only" devices. Android, for example, supports bluetooth and therefore wiimotes as input with the proper IME app. Since Honeycomb, you can also use bluetooth and USB mice and other USB peripherals, such as PS3 controllers.

kalleboo 15y ago

It would be nice if more Android manufacturers could create devices like the Sony Ericsson Xperia Play - phones with physical game controls. Sadly it seems to be a dead-end, since developers won't rewrite games for a single handset.

chrischen 15y ago

People don't play Call of Duty on a DS. Most of those DS games don't require precision or complicated dual analog stick controls. There's no reason why something like Pokemon can't run on an iPhone with good controls.

georgemcbay 15y ago
Well, I should hope "those" DS games don't require complicated dual analog stick controls since the DS only has one input pad (though some games do use the 4 cross buttons as something of a second dpad) and it is digital. Pokemon could arguably work okay on a touchscreen-only device, but that's one title cherry picked out of thousands, there are tons of DS games that would suffer greatly by being stuffed into a touchscreen control scheme, and that includes lots of games that are nothing like "Call of Duty". It isn't about how complicated the control scheme is, it is about the need for actual physical switch controls. Even games with dead-simple control schemes like Bomberman or Tetris have this issue (and yes, I know there is Tetris for the iOS -- it is an abomination that proves my point nicely, IMO).
- chrischen 15y ago
  Actually the DS has a touch screen which allows it to almost replicate the dual-analog sticks. So there are FPS games for the DS that use this. Admittedly it's a bit tough to play FPSs on the iPhone still. I've played Tetris for iPod (with the circular wheel) and that was playable and enjoyable. Controls just need to be adapted properly. There's no reason the D-pad and physical buttons are required for good controls. Just because current game ports have bad touchscreen control implementations doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, the bad implementations are probably due to the fact a lot of them naively try to simulate DS-style controls on a touch screen. There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games. It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras.
  - georgemcbay 15y ago
    "Actually the DS has a touch screen which allows it to almost replicate the dual-analog sticks. So there are FPS games for the DS that use this." With that I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. IMO just because you can slap a couple of "virtual joysticks" on the screen and pull input data from them does not mean you have a system that replicates dual-analog sticks, and I say that as both a programmer and a gamer. "There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games." Like I said, for some games, yes, you can have good touchscreen controls. But by limiting the system to only touchscreen controls you're cutting out a giant amount of games that could otherwise run fine on the hardware but whose controls do not naturally map to touchscreen. Yes, you could produce a version of New Super Mario Bros that used a virtual touchscreen joystick, but it wouldn't be the same game, at all, because the physical nature of the controller has a huge impact on overall gameplay. Nintendo above all other companies recognizes this (thankfully), which is why they have continued to find success even after down periods in their hardware cycles. If they gave all that up and just focused on the iOS market, that would be the worst thing to happen to gaming since Looking Glass went under. "It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras." When the DS first came out, games went crazy trying to support the touchscreen because of the novelty, yes, but well within a year of the system's launch they started to pull back on that and produce games with largely classical controls that only used the accessories for little flourishes and not for main gameplay. Why? Because there are a LOT of games that require physical switch controllers to play correctly. (The same applies to the Wii where they went nuts with motion control and eventually started using that primarily as a flourish for most games, because not all games are a natural fit for motion control).