Gametrash.com Forums

Looking for something small that fit's in the pocket and has a long lasting battery.. With many diffrent games to choose from and lot's of memory space.

As in consoles?

The PSP only if you're willing to hack it for emus and such. Otherwise, the DS seems the best choice.

although i've never played it, i saw a friend playing Grand Theft Auto (or what i think was GTA) on his PSP. I thought it had very good graphics and from what i saw it seemed fun.

If you have access to a 2-4gb memory stick, USB cable, and a fast internet, then get a PSP and hack it so you can play PS1 games, and downloaded PSP games.

If you don't want to go through that hassle then get a DS. I've been carrying my DS around more then my PSP after I was done playing Metal Gear Portable OPs.

Mikey wrote:If you have access to a 2-4gb memory stick, USB cable, and a fast internet, then get a PSP and hack it so you can play PS1 games, and downloaded PSP games.

If you don't want to go through that hassle then get a DS. I've been carrying my DS around more then my PSP after I was done playing Metal Gear Portable OPs.

1gb is fine, just less games.

If you want a multimedia device that can do everything, then get a PSP.

If you want something that is built around video games only and not bother dealing with the PSP's hassles, then get the DS


Also with battery life, the DS lasts longer, in case you are going to be stuck in a car for a couple hours.

If you are just hanging around and want to play some old school games, then grab a PSP.

lol dont understand what you guys are saying, but i have noticed that playing some games on handhelds (like the game boy) took less time loading than games for consoles (like the ps2) i dont know if its because the console games had more information that needed to be read but it was a pain having to wait for 20 seconds to a minute for a fight scene to load on ps2

Vega wrote:lol dont understand what you guys are saying, but i have noticed that playing some games on handhelds (like the game boy) took less time loading than games for consoles (like the ps2) i dont know if its because the console games had more information that needed to be read but it was a pain having to wait for 20 seconds to a minute for a fight scene to load on ps2

See there's a reading time diffrence. CDs need more time than cartidges bececause, with cartridges, all the infomation is on a electrical board and there is no moving parts. CDs are read by a laser and the CD needs to be moved in a circle to be read. Thus, slower the spin, the slower it loads. Though console come with prefabbed speeds that suits the needs of the console, your drive might wear out in terms of spin speed.

JackThompson wrote:See there's a reading time diffrence. CDs need more time than cartidges bececause, with cartridges, all the infomation is on a electrical board and there is no moving parts. CDs are read by a laser and the CD needs to be moved in a circle to be read. Thus, slower the spin, the slower it loads. Though console come with prefabbed speeds that suits the needs of the console, your drive might wear out in terms of spin speed.

Jack is pretty much right. Nowadays, though, DVDs (including Blu-ray and HDDVDs) load fast enough to make that load time virtually unnoticeable. For example, most PS3 games (Resistance in particular) actually dump things onto the HDD for faster loading. But yeah, that doesn't apply all the time.

The issue with the PS2 was that the DVD reader was so insanely new that it took ages to load. The PS3, by comparison, loads faster because the drive is upgraded. Same for the XBOX vs the 360.

So by a couple more years, you think we will see no more loading times in most games?

its probable

the kid inside of me hopes that in the years to come we can develop a way to play games in virtual reality, and consoles and remote controls will become a novelty

Vega wrote:its probable

the kid inside of me hopes that in the years to come we can develop a way to play games in virtual reality, and consoles and remote controls will become a novelty

It already happened, and failed. Wait till version 2.

when was this?

Vega wrote:when was this?

1982 I think.

can you tell me who developed it?