This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Traded in DS Lite for Xbox 360

edited September 2006 in Everything Else
So I got really tired of the DS. Mario Kart and all those other games only get you for a few weeks. So me, in my infinite wisdom, traded my DS Lite and all it's games (5) for $150. Not a bad trade, and the guy I knew that works there immediately said when I walked in, "Trading in your DS Lite for an Xbox 360?" It's like he read my mind. Then he said the DS sucked and he did the same thing, got rid of his PSP to get it. So did I. And then he got an Xbox 360. And I had remembered him boasting about his 360 when I went to trade in MY psp for a ds lite. I realize now, that I should have just gotten the 360, instead of getting a DS Lite and a whole bunch of games.

Portable gaming in general, just doesn't appeal to me anymore. There's something about console gaming that pulls me in. One reason, is because I can just hook my 360 up to my CRT Monitor, which looks awesome by the way. Plus, I can play all those games that are coming out, like Halo3, TF2, HL2: Eps2, and Gears of War. Also, I have to say that Dead Rising is freaking sweet. It's like GTA with zombies everywhere instead of people. That and Ghost Recon were just awesome.

Anyway, DS sux. If you don't have a 360, get one. You won't be disappointed. But remember this when buying. Get the premier, cause you need a hard drive. Trust me, you NEED it. Also, wireless controllers are amazing and first experience I've had with them is on the 360. For god's sake, you can start the machine with the controller. And if you have the extra money, get a VGA cable for the 360. If you don't have an HDTV, but do have a CRT or LCD monitor, this is great.

Another thing that's sort of funny, and saved my ass by the way, when I went into gamestop, I had $255 and $150 in DS Merchandise. As you can tell, I didn't have enough money to buy the 360, and I realized I was going to over draft. But I was crazy enough to not care. However, even after the cashier counted my money three times, he counted it to be $355 instead of $255. I kept my mouth shut. He knew he did something wrong but I just didn't intervene. Then I went home, and I got a call from the store from that same guy. He said,"So how much money did you hand me, cause something definitely went wrong." I replied with," I don't know dude, do you want me to come down?" And luckily, he said no and said it wasn't a big deal. So, thanks to a stupid employee, I gypped gamestop by $100. Sweet!
«1

Comments

  • I had chance to tool around on a 360 last weekend, and I have to say, it's bee-utiful. Hooking my 19" monitor to the console and upping the rez to the max, then putting on a demo of Fight Night Round 3, my jaw dropped to the floor. Games are only this >-< far away from photo-realism, and I can't wait!

    I too will most likely trade my DS for a 360, because I haven't seriously used it in months. The same thing happened when I bought an original Game Boy many moons ago. It's a novelty for a week or so, but a precipitous drop in interest occurs after that. Also, the Opera browser doesn't look all that good, and the promise of that browser was a big selling point for me in the first place. No regrets though, Phoenix Wright was worth the price of admission alone.
  • however, even after the cashier counted my money three times, he counted it to be $355 instead of $255. I kept my mouth shut.
    Well, it is apparent that people who trade in their DS for a 360 are well not able to count. (This shows you the intelligence that it takes for this “upgrade”!) j/k

    By the way thane you do know that another Phoenix Wright is coming out relatively soon for the DS? Is there some game for the DS that you are looking for?

    Personally I would never trade in a video game system, but I guess that is the collector/gamer that I am. I hardly play my DS at home since portable gaming is well portable. But I make sure I bring it with me when I go out and find it very satisfying out in the world when I have nothing to do.

    Personally, I find the X-box 360 to be cool, except for one thing. Lack of quality games however is a major downfall. Dead Rising is really cool, but other then that I haven’t seen any games that really go above and beyond. Many of the games look very pretty but other then that there is not much behind them (Ninety-nine nights, which was not worth the 60 dollars it cost).

    DS defense force out!
  • edited September 2006
    I thought about trading in my GBA for a DS, but there are two many things I still need my GBA for!

    1) Connect to Game Cube
    2) DS does not allow for linking of GBA games
    3) DS does not play anything older than GBA games
    Post edited by Rym on
  • edited October 2006
    That's actually why I kept my GBA (original). At some point, I'll have to pick up a cheap SP for connectivity with light ^_^
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Wow.. You're probably the most fickle person I've ever heard of. ^_~

    Seriously, you need to think a little more before you purchase. I'll bet you'll be talking about how much the 360 sucks before six months are up. I mean, you bought a PSP, loved it, decided it actually sucked, traded it for a DS, loved it, decided it actualy sucked, traded it for a 360... I notice a pattern.

    The upcoming flood of new DS games is staggering, and most of them look well worth the money. There's also the fact that the primary use of the DS is still social gaming. Go to any con, and you'll see countless Tetris/Bomberman/Mario Kart/Metroit/whatever circles. Any open corner is taken over by DS players. Not owning one means you'll really miss out on that.

    Portable gaming is the best thing going in the console world at the moment. From when the DS was released until (probably) when the Wii is, the DS has been my primary console. The soon-to-be-released games for it are going to seriously interfere with my Wii action.
  • Yeah, what Rym said. Also, Gamestop must love you so much, I'm surprised they haven't proposed marriage. You need to learn a few lessons in money management. If you weren't constantly losing money by trading in games and consoles all the time, you could probably afford to have a DS and a 360 and a PSP and a Wii and maybe even a PS3. If you're going to get a video game to play, but you will eventually trade it in, why do you pay the full MSRP? Just sign up for Gamefly and save yourself some cash. Also, if you're going to buy a console, but not for the long-haul, why did you get a brand new DS lite? You could have gotten a used DS fat, that some other idiot traded in, for much less money.

    Do the world a favor. Do not become a stock broker. Long term investing is not your area of expertise.
  • edited September 2006
    The Xbox is one of those things that I've carried on for a while (2 1/2 years), and I still play it. In fact, I've have never thought of selling it. My brother has a PS2 and a gamecube, but I don't ever touch them.

    You're right Scott, I should have gamefly, and I already do. It's an awesome service, and I get three games at any time for $15 at month. It's not a bad deal, AT ALL. But the five games I bought in the beginning were from gamestop after trading in my psp. It's better than going to blockbuster for $7 for one game for five days of renting. In fact, I haven't bought any games for the 360 yet. I'm still deciding. I want to buy them all, but that would be wasteful, since I can just beat a game and be done with it. But I shouldn't worry about losing money on games, because those five ds games were the first in a long time I've actually bought instead of renting.

    The main reason I got the 360 was because I needed a gaming machine, and not a portable one, something that could play FPS's. My macbook wasn't capable of that, and was only able to play games like HL1 and CS1.6 (played HL2 fine). What's so great for me is that Halo 3, Halo Wars, TF2, HL2 Eps2, Gears of War, GTA4, Time Shift, and Assassin's Creed are coming out for 360. By the way, Assassin's Creed was originally just coming out for PS3, but the company that made the game got scared about their sales, so they're making it available for the 360 (poor Sony, do they even exist anymore).

    DS was OK, but I'm not into the whole Nintendo, cartoony, cute thing. That whole stereotype is very true and seems to make other games look like duplicates. It's like any game that starts with the word "Mario", looks like another game I've played with a differnt control scheme and goal. All I can say, is that Microsoft has the whole gaming platform creation down pat, for serious games with cinematic game play. I know, I know, I know. You guys hate that people want games for that very reason. But believe it or not, better, high rez textures and lighting and all that jazz usually make for a better game. At least for me it does. Sorry to be the rebel. The only reason I've disliked this type of game, is that my computer couldn't handle them. Thanks to the Xbox/Zune creators at MS, I can play these games on a $400 machine.

    My sis is wanting a wii for Christmas anyway, so I guess I'll get the best of both worlds. Can't wait to pay $60 for a controller. : (

    Haha! Funny that you say that, cause I'm in this BPA club (Business Professionals of America) and a lot of the education you get from that is on the stock market. But, I went to the state leadership conference and got elected president. I guess I look the part, but I just don't know the stuff. ; )

    And if I lost any money on any of the trade-ins I did, I think the hundred dollars they added to the cash I supposedly had made up for it.

    As for Rym's statement on having a DS for cons, that doesn't make a diff in my situation. I live in KS and everbody here has a PSP and not a DS. Also, I don't go to cons because for one, I'm not a hard core geek, my friends aren't either, I don't live near to any, and I'm only 17. If I need a DS for a con, I'll borrow my brother's.

    That's also something that I should have brought up. There are still two DS Lites in my house. If I really wanted to play one I could. As often as I used to, trading it worked all for the better. Besides, my family is pretty sharing. My siblings and I play one another's games quite a bit and it's not big deal.
    Post edited by glimpster on
  • edited October 2006
    So what you're really saying is you're trading in your third DS for a X-box 360... Well, I don't have a problem with that ^_^
    Post edited by Rym on
  • edited September 2006
    Yeah, I know, big deal. What's the problem? I traded up and paid less money because an employee miscounted my money to be $100 more than it was. Now I'm ready for all the new titles that will be available in November and so on. What more could I ask for?

    It's like, when I trade in my PSP for a DS, Rym and Scott agree with my decision. But when I trade my DS for a 360, and say positive things about the console, they jump all over it. No offense, but I sense a little Nintendo fanboyism.
    Post edited by glimpster on
  • It's like, when I trade in my PSP for a DS, Rym and Scott agree with my decision. But when I trade my DS for a 360, and say positive things about the console, they jump all over it. No offense, but I sense a little Nintendo fanboyism.
    We couldn't care less that you traded the DS for the Xbox. The issue we have is that you traded the PSP for the DS for the Xbox. That's a rather silly chain of trades that really wasn't financially optimal.
  • edited October 2006
    We couldn't care less that you traded the DS for the Xbox. The issue we have is that you traded the PSP for the DS for the Xbox. That's a rather silly chain of trades that really wasn't financially optimal.
    Yea, that was pretty much the weird part for me. Why do that chain of trading so quickly? Of course now, knowing you have two other DS's, I guess it wasn't so wise to buy the third DS anyhow! Rym and Scott (and Scott (me)) just don't understand why you didn't go from PSP to Xbox 360.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • DS was OK, but I'm not into the whole Nintendo, cartoony, cute thing.
    That is totally my concern with Nintendo, and the reason I am holding off on the Wii. When I play games, I like to feel absorbed by the game and have some sort of suspension of disbelief. For some reason, when I play cartoony Nintendo games, I never forget that I am playing a game.
  • DS was OK, but I'm not into the whole Nintendo, cartoony, cute thing.
    That is totally my concern with Nintendo, and the reason I am holding off on the Wii. When I play games, I like to feel absorbed by the game and have some sort of suspension of disbelief. For some reason, when I play cartoony Nintendo games, I never forget that I am playing a game.
    I guess that's really all about your mindset. Whether I watch an anime movie or a live action movie, it doesn't really affect my suspension of disbelief or how absorbed I feel. The same goes for whether I play Half-Life 2 or Wind Waker. You just kind of have to put it out of your mind. If you keep thinking about it, you'll just be denying yourself something.
  • edited September 2006
    No doubt it's a mindset - and a preference. As a history major (don't laugh), I like games that accurately portray history. I remember playing a WWII FPS on the PS2 feeling totally immersed in my role as a sniper. That kind of stuff just appeals to me more than the fictional cartoony stuff, but I can see how people can have their own preferences. I enjoy both types of games, but I prefer one over the other.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • No doubt it's a mindset - and a preference. As a history major (don't laugh), I like games that accurately portray history. I remember playing a WWII FPS on the PS2 feelingtotallyimmersed in my role as a sniper. That kind of stuff just appeals to me more than the fictional cartoony stuff, but I can see how people can have their own preferences. I enjoy both types of games, but I prefer one over the other.
    When it comes to games I mostly care about the interactivity. The point of a video game is the interaction between my thoughts and physical actions with the video/audio, etc. in the game itself. This is why I really am not too crazy about stuff like newer Final Fantasy games which are mostly movies with uninteresting and useless interaction. Hence, the DS and Wii are the greatest things ever in my eyes.
  • I don't know about you, but playing a WWII FPS on a console is not a immersing experience.. Use a damn computer! ^_^
  • I don't agree. Call of Duty 2 on 360 is amazing and a million times more robust than the pc version, and that's from play it on many configurations. It just feels more fast paced and action packed.

    That also brings up another issue. The PC game market is dying for several reasons. One, having to buy new hardware is just as expensive as getting a new console, so people want the most for their money and get a new system. Another is that consoles have many more titles than that of the pc. In fact, that's partly why many PC games are translated over into console games, like FEAR for example. It was great on PC, but the demo of FEAR on the 360 just looks and runs better in my opinion.

    I do agree. I should have gone straight from PSP to Xbox. But hey, at least I know now I don't like the portable consoles. I'll just stick with the old, nobby controller. But right now, I'm just going through this shock on how good it looks. I used to have a high end gaming PC, and that was nothing compared to the graphics processing you're getting with this machine.

    Custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU
    - 3 symmetrical cores at 3.2 GHz each
    - 2 hardware threads per core
    - 1 VMX-128 vector unit per core
    - 1 MB L2 cache

    CPU Game Math Performance
    - 9 billion dots per second

    Custom ATI Graphics Processor
    - 500 MNz
    - 10 MB embedded DRAM
    - 48-way parallel floating-point shader pipelines
    - unified shader architecture

    Memory
    -512 MB GDDR3 RAM
    - 700 MNz DDR

    Memory Bandwidth
    - 22.4 GB/s memory interface bus bandwidth
    - 256 GB/s memory bandwidth to EDRAM
    - 21.6 GB/s frontside bus

    Audio
    - Mulitchannel surround sond output
    - Supports 48khz 16-bit audio
    - 320 independent decompression channels
    - 32 bit processing
    - 256+ audio channels

    With these specs, it's hard not to notice why. But the truth is, PS3 games are going to look better. I don't like the sound of it but it's true. One of the biggest reasons is that Blue Ray can hold more high rez textures and information. The 360 could process those, but it doesn't have high capacity media disks. You're comparing 10GB to almost a 60GB disk. However, I've heard that Microsoft will start releasing HD-DVD games in the same package of the DVD game, but with higher resolution textures.
  • Looks like someone drank the graphics kool-aid. Gotta do a show with the "graphics don't mean shit" rant.
  • I don't know, so far my computer has kept up with everything my friends X-box 360 can do. (and my computer can do a lot more!) On top of that, most games that come out for the 360 get ported over to the PC (which is microsoft's plan anyway with the games for windows initiative). What you missed is my real point that the control scheme for a FPS on the 360 will never compare to the grace of the keyboard and mouse. Only the Wii with it's pointing device has any chance of comparing.

    However, I've heard that Microsoft will start releasing HD-DVD games in the same package of the DVD game, but with higher resolution textures.
    just a rumor!
  • edited October 2006
    One nice thing about a console is that you know that games will work on it. There is nothing worse than buying a computer and having it become outdated for certain games within a matter of months.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • One nice thing about a console is that you know that games will work on it. There is nothing worse than buying a computer and having it become outdated for certain games within a matter of months.
    I've got a computer that's now three or so years old, and it plays Half-Life 2 just fine. The only eciting non-Steam PC game on the horizon seems to be Spore, which I'm sure will work on my PC as well. There are some other exciting PC games, but they are mostly in the same category as defcon in that they are not graphically intensive.

    Just what PC games are you playing that require you to buy new computers so often? For under $1000 I can build a computer that will serve as an excellent gaming box for at least five years.
  • edited October 2006
    Just what PC games are you playing that require you to buy new computers so often?
    I don't buy PCs often at all. The problem with my current machine is that it has on-board graphics and only a simple little old PCI slot. The only game that I play is Flight Simulator. (I'm a licensed pilot in real-life.) I use Flight Simulator 2002, which will soon be two editions old. The problem with flight simulator is that it is all about realism, which is very graphics and processor intensive. The shots you see on the back of the box are only capable with real souped up machines. Sadly, pretty much any machine that you buy today will not run Flight Simulator as well as you want it to - it's just that type of game.

    However, my three year old $400 IBM "employee discount" computer does everything else just great. Since I only play one game, I can't justify buying a new computer - whereas a console like the Wii would make sense.

    Let's face it, if it weren't for games, most people would do just fine with a cheap computer. The only exception might be video playback, but I suspect that's not a big problem. It's not like sending email, surfing the web and word processing need that much power.

    As a total aside, have you guys seen this Java NES emulator that was "dugg" yesterday? It's a little clunky, but there are some nice games for a quick diversion at work.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • So what you said before about needing to buy a new computer all the time for games, it's not true. I just went to EBworld.com to see what the newest PC game is. Apparently 2142 Battlefield is the new hotness. Here are the minimum requirements.

    Operating System: Windows XP (32-bit) with Admin rights
    Processor: 1.7 GHz Intel Celeron D / Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon XP/ Sempron or greater
    DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card
    Video Card: 128Mb Video card or more
    Disk Space: 2.3 GB free hard drive space or more
    CD Speed: 8x or faster DVD drive
    RAM: 512 MB of RAM or mor

    My three year old computer exceeds these requirements. For $400 I could easily purchase a computer that blows these requirements out of the water. At this point in time, buying expensive computers to play games is just a penis-measuring game.

    As for the Java NES emulator, that's been around for years. Maybe that particular incarnation is new, but I have been seeing emulators embedded in web sites for years. I guess it would be useful if you can't install software on your work PC.

    Lastly, I don't know jack about flying. Regardless, I do know that X-Plane is the be-all end-all of flight simulation.
  • Minimum requirements don't mean squat. Most games are unplayable at their "minimum" specs.

    I wouldn't play an FPS I couldn't get at least a solid 60fps in at reasonably high quality.
  • edited October 2006
    So what you said before about needing to buy a new computer all the time for games, it's not true.
    It's true for the game that I play. Like I said, you could get a totally kick-ass machine and still feel wanting. It's just the nature of Flight Simulator. It's the one game where, in my opinion, scaled back graphics really bum you out.
    Lastly, I don't know jack about flying. Regardless, I do know thatX-Planeis the be-all end-all of flight simulation.
    That's a huge debate that will probably never end.

    One thing I have used is VATSIM, which is pretty amazing. It's a network of pilots and air traffic controllers. The controllers provide real-time air traffic control. I've been a controller, and the training is pretty impressive. It's quite realistic.

    I go through phases with flight simulator where I will play it for a while and then shelve it for a few months. I have to admit that it can be boring. I've never been one for an 8 hour flight. It is, however, a pretty good educational tool. It's actually harder for me to fly a plane on Flight Simulator than in real life. You don't get the peripheral vision, motion detection, etc. that you get in real life.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • It's the one game where, in my opinion, scaled back graphics really bum you out.
    I'm not disagreeing with you in the slightest. I do note, however, that the F-16 simulators at SANG, despite having full functioning cockpits, had graphics that consisted of a horizon line... and nothing more.

    Damn, I hated that thing.
  • I wouldn't play an FPS I couldn't get at least a solid 60fps in at reasonably high quality.
    You guys should do a show on this. I've heard two theories:
    1) Anything above 20 FPS is absolutely fine since the eye won't notice the difference.
    2) Computers work differently than film, and the eye will absolutely notice the difference between 30FPS and 70FPS.

    I've read compelling arguments on both sides, although it's been a while so I don't remember the details.
  • The 20fps thing is utter bollocks. Low framerates work for film due mostly to the persistence of the image and projection techniques, coupled with the non-interactive nature of film. Most humans can recognize discrete light pulses up to around 70Hz, and some can perceive as many as 85Hz.
  • The short answer is that it's all about vertical sync. Your monitor, be it LCD or CRT has a vertical refresh rate. That is how many times each second the screen is redrawn from top to bottom. If you have a monitor with a vertical refresh of 75hz, that means that it will read the framebuffer and draw it to the screen 75 times every second.

    In just about any serious 3D game there is an option to enable vertical sync. Enabling this will tell the GPU to render the same number of frames per second as your monitor will display. It will place these frames in the framebuffer with exact timing, so that each and every one of them will be drawn on the monitor. Your hardware will not waste resources rendering extra frames, but your GPU might expend a few extra resources to keep the exact timing.

    The problem with vertical sync is that your computer usually can't render that many fps all the time. 75fps or even 60fps is a pretty high number for a very advanced game. As you may know, framerates often fluctuate wildly during actual gameplay. Walking down an empty hallway will usually be a pleasant experience at 100fps+. A large field with lighting, water and a million enemies will drop those fps down to 40.

    In any individual game I would suggest you first play without vsync and display the fps meter. If during gameplay the fps never drop below the vertical refresh of your monitor, then set vsync for that game. If your fps go below the refresh rate of the monitor, do not set vsync for that game. Having vsync enabled while the fps drop below the refresh of the monitor is much worse than having the fps drop when vsync is disabled. The video card will be unhappy if it is trying to synchronize framebuffer swaps while no new frames are available.

    Vertical sync between the framebuffer and the monitor is the best you can possibly do. If you render more frames than your monitor can display, then your video card will be swapping the frame buffer before the frame is rendered to the screen. So on a 75hz monitor, 100fps and 76fps will be essentially identical because only 75 frames actually go to your monitor and your eyes. The actual 75 frames that show up might be slightly different, but unless other options like anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, etc. are different, it doesn't make a meaningful difference which 75 frames you see.

    Is rendering more frames than your monitor displays always bad? No. It means that when the game gets hot and heavy, you will still render enough frames to maintain vsync. It also means that you might be able to afford cranking up the rendering options to make the frames prettier without causing rendering lag. But if your vertical refresh is 60Hz, maintaining 100fps is no different than maintaining 80fps. That is the reality of the technology.

    Now, when it comes to eyeballs, I have no clue. Can the human eyeball detect 80fps vs 60fps? Can it see 16.7 million colors at once? Will you be able to tell apart two different frame rates in a double-blind test? These are not things I know about. Do not ask me.

    I can tell you that I have seen monitors with 80Hz refresh rates running games at perfect vsync, and it looked damn smooth. I can tell you that your game will look nicer if you enable the higher quality graphics options. The higher texture resolution you have, the more advance lighting algorithms you employ, the more advanced bump mapping, the more anti-aliasing, the more anisotropic filtering, etc. will all make the game look better and decrease your frame rate. If you are playing a game for its good looks, I suggest you turn the graphic settings up as high as you can while keeping the fps above your personal tolerance level. If you are playing a game to compete, I suggest you turn off as many graphical enhancements as you need to in order to achieve perfect sync.

    Personally, if I am playing any sort of competetive 3D multiplayer game on the PC I turn every rendering option down to the minimum, unless it gives me an in-game advantage. A good example is Tribes 2 where I maximize the viewing distance and disable nearly all the textures. The only exception to this is if my computer is so powerul it can play the game at max graphics without breaking a sweat.
  • I guess that wasn't the short answer, was it?
Sign In or Register to comment.