Comments (101)
« 1 2 »
andrewsqual  +   1038d ago
And the 3DS is N64 HD, what is your point??
AlphaJunk  +   1038d ago
It is definitely more powerful than a PS2! However, it's screen isn't HD, it's 960x544.
Rohered  +   1037d ago
I love my Handled PS2!!!!!!

960x544 is HD for a Handled.
All other Handled is sub-DS and PS2 is only 640x480

Vita ave NextGen shaders impossible on PS2/360.

I want more PS2 ports on my Vita. Especialy PS2 RPGs.
#33 (Edited 1037d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Dj7FairyTail  +   1037d ago
more like Indie Machine with PS2 Ports.
Amsterdamsters  +   1037d ago
The Vita's screen isn't even HD though, as it's 960x544 resolution."HD" is 1280 x 720 and "Full HD" is 1920 x 1080. The screen on the Vita is "ED".
violents  +   1037d ago
But on a screen that small there is no point to make it 1080 because you would barely be able to tell a difference. The smaller the screen the less pixel count you need to make something look good. I realize on paper the screen resolution doesn't look as good as they might have you believe but since the screen is so small the pixels are more tightly packed together giving the illusion of something closer to "full hd"

Unfortunatley that's as hd as your going to get with a screen that size unless you want that handheld to double or triple in cost.
#35.1 (Edited 1037d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
FlyingFoxy  +   1037d ago
When i play games on my 15.6" 1080p laptop screen, then on my 120hz 27" 1080p screen the only difference i notice is text is not as clear on the bigger screen, when looking at games the difference is negligable unless you stare at a corner of an object, even then it only seems to be a small difference of "pixelation" because i've ran both side by side and compared, and that's a screen almost 2x the size.

Basically if you're constantly typing and never gaming, obviously go with a better screen resolution.. but honestly for games it does not matter and they still look great.
#35.1.1 (Edited 1037d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
violents  +   1037d ago

The screen on the vita is what like 5 inches or something. Any higher pixel count on that screen would be wasted, just like you said with your 15-17 inch screens, the difference is negligible. How much difference could you make with a screen as small as a vita right.
-Gespenst-  +   1037d ago
I think it's a wee bit more powerful than that. But it really doesn't matter.
GeckoPutt  +   1037d ago
Number 1: Describing the PS Vita as a "HD PS2" isn't a bad thing at all.

Number 2: If they actually released a slew of decent new games (new IPs) for the console, then it wouldn't have to rely on the amazing HD remakes/remasters that are keeping it afloat. I love my Vita regardless...
kupomogli  +   1037d ago
The Vita is far from an HD PS2. It's not PS3 either. It's more like half way between the Wii and PS3.

Then again, the Vita is really just past its first year where the PS3 and 360 have been out for seven so quality might increase exponentially further along in the systems life. Here are some Vita/PS3 comparisons that look better on the PS3 but still look great for the Vita.


I couldn't find a good offscreen video but if you compare Assassin's Creed Liberation to Assassin's Creed 2 the game looks much better with better detail in the areas, better textures, etc. Also, areas that are outside of town on Assassin's Creed 2 look terrible, where as the bayou and such on Liberation look very good.

Since AC2 isn't one of the earliest titles on the PS3 but it's also not the newest, it's a good comparison when Liberation came out less than a year after the Vita released.
TheKayle1  +   1037d ago
the vita ...just a trash bin for sony money hahaha

"Ok getting serious...vita cant NEVER reach the power of the ps3....

but is better than the ps2......but dosnt have is worst than the ps2 and the ps3....

but is an good piece of too expansive for the tech theres in.....
it can do a lots of stuff..and is portable....ok i know u got the last iphone or s3/s4...and they can do the same thing and are also MORE portable and u can do ur calls with that too.....what? ...u got a console at home too and u cant be bored to play vita just when u r on the wc doing ur poo coz the ps3 is too distant? ah and also u dont have enough space in ur pocket to take with u the mobile and the vita...yeah i think u r right"

so end...

if u got a ps tattoo on ur it...

if u dont....just dont lose the time to find out what world will forget about this HH very soon
#39 (Edited 1037d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
violents  +   1037d ago
How is the vita too expensive for what it is when people will dish out 600 plus for a phone on a daily basis. 250-300 dollars for a portable gaming platform that you can technically use online anywhere you have wifi or a 3g signal is not too much in my mind. Especially when it pulls off graphic quality that is so close to ps3 standards. People were saying this same kind of crap about ps3 when it came out (ie, no games, shitty ports, blah, blah, blah) But look where it is now, beating xbox in sale and everyone praising sony for services like ps+, and there are lots of games.
#39.1 (Edited 1037d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Smokingunz  +   1037d ago
The vita is wack!!! But its far from an hd ps2! Sony's biggest mistake was advertising the vita as a portable ps3.they need to advertise the vita as nust a handheld and make creative and original games on dont see Nintendo advertising the ds as a portable wii!
profgerbik  +   1037d ago
Well TronEOL pretty much said what I was going to.
violents  +   1037d ago
I bought a vita at launch and I have put countless hours on it since, Its my favorite handheld to date and totally crushes any other handheld in graphics and gameplay. the only problem right now is games are too few, however people said the same for the ps3 the first year it came out and look at where we are now. Be patient people there are some awesome looking games on the horizon and if the vita follows sony's usual slow burn mentality it will only get exponentially better as time goes on.

And calling it an HD ps2 is stupid, you cant pull off Uncharted golden abyss or gravity rush on a ps2. Just because there is a market for older games doesn't mean its the only thing it can do.
#42 (Edited 1037d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Mister_G  +   1037d ago
PS2 was very successful, so been like PS2 isn't a bad thing surely :)
Superkarga  +   1037d ago
please dont write any articles from now on.
FlyingFoxy  +   1037d ago
What a stupid article, how can this even exist when we have PS3 PORTS! that are practically up there with it graphically?, i'm almost certain the Vita is closer to the PS3 than the PSP was to the PS2. you only need to look at Uncharted, or the new DOA game to see how close it is to PS3.

Also don't argue about the 3DS next, the graphical style of well made games like Luigi's Mansion 2 prove it can pull off more than good enough graphics for a handheld.
YoloSwag  +   1037d ago
How can you even compare the two systems?
chukamachine  +   1037d ago
I've seen all the top titles on the 3ds, none of them come close to vita's graphics.

Not saying it's a bad machine, both are good. But PS2 could not do pixel shading. Vita does.
killerorca258  +   1037d ago
Stupid article, "Until he gets a little drunk, he (Vita) won't be popular with the other kids (devs)." That is a horrible unprofessional statement. Firstly, my brother never drank, never smoked, never bullied people, never did drugs, and never had a girlfriend, and he was the most popular guy in our school of 200+ students. He went on to get married, become an avionics technician in the RAAF (80,000 a year), duxing his training classes, and going on to serve Australia in Afghanistan. Don't stereotype like a tunnel-visioned moron, writer. Secondly, unlike 3DS, the PS2 games that were ported to the console are cult classics, MGS check, Persona 4 Golden check, FFX and X-2 (probably not cult) CHECK. I would rather play a brilliant ps2 game than a crummy brand new 3rd party game.
abzdine  +   1037d ago
what is bad about it? and buy yourself a new pair of glasses, that's my advice to you
Dan_scruggs  +   1037d ago
I remember when the plan for the Vita was to have all games released on the PS3 have a hand held counterpart that could go anywhere. That shared the game data over the PSN network. In reality what we got was a poor mans PS3 with cheap versions of out favorite games. Why was there no port of Uncharted 3 or Killzone 3 or God of War: Ascension? Where was the cross play for all the games being released on the PS3? What the hell happened to that Call of Duty game? It sucked ass. Vita can still live but the hand held port has to be worked into the pipeline of the AAA games currently in production for simultaneous releases. More games that people know and want to play. Wasn't that the original promise. When I think of Sony all I see is that huge E3 banner for the MOVE of Kevin Butler with the slogan "THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING" but in reality it changed absolutely nothing and neither did the VITA.
Jirachi  +   1037d ago
except it's not hd,it just LOOKS hd because the smaller the screen,the easier it to "look" high res.
a gameboy micro would look hd with sub ps2 graphics
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login