In article <132bo21pgd2kuiql8all1u60q708v1k5r6@4ax.com>, Rob Browning wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:24:15 -0500, "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Rob Browning wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:09:45 -0500, "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> The only difference between having it on the DS and on the PS3 is it
>>>> won't be as pretty.
>>>
>>> And it will be on a portable.  That itself either means that it will
>>> be unsuitable for the system or it will be changed to be made suitable
>>> for the system.  Reports make it sound like the latter will be true.
>>
>>You keep throwing around the term unsuitable as if it has any meaning.  The 
>>fact that it has a battery instead of being slave to the nearest electrical 
>>outlet doesn't make it unsuitable.  There is NOTHING, other than the size of 
>>the screen, that a "full" gaming system brings to the table, that is not 
>>also present on a portable of equal power.  So anything that's suitable for 
>
>Yes, keep on brushing aside the rather major factor of the size of the
>screen, as well as the rest of the things that make portables less
>comfortable to play than consoles.  I'm sure that helps your argument.
>

I am still trying to figure out why you think CRPGs are unsuited to 
portable formats when they have a long and successful history there,
going back fifteen years or more.  The first computer RPG I ever
played was Defenders of Oasis on the Game Gear (still have the game
and the Game Gear, as a matter of fact).

-- 
             Christopher Mattern

"Which one you figure tracked us?"
"The ugly one, sir."
"...Could you be more specific?"