What a Difference a Screen Makes

Tom questions why the 3DS's screens look so shabby compared to the Vita's.

For the past few months, I've been immersed in Nintendo's expansive portable history. Through the wonders of the Virtual Console and the Ambassador Program, I've been in nostalgia heaven, playing decade-old games that somehow passed me by the first time around. I spent hours drifting along in a happy bliss. But then, a rude awakening occurred: The PlayStation Vita was placed in my lap, and the ignorant bubble I so happily resided in was shattered. As good as the Nintendo 3DS's library is, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why it has such a crummy screen.

Not like that blob beast is going to win any beauty contests.

Truthfully, the expansive disparity between the 3DS and the Vita was not apparent until I pulled away from my time playing Game Boy and Game Boy Advance offerings to check out something more modern, namely Resident Evil: Revelations. The game feels incredibly smooth and creates a foreboding tension even when surrounded by four-dozen strangers on a crowded train. But the tiny, dimly lit screen fails to carry its share of the slack. The richly detailed environments are lost in that outdated display, and much of the atmospheric wonder is diminished by its inability to properly showcase some of the visual elements of this frightful tale.

In contrast, it is an absolute delight just to stare at the Vita's screen. Take something as simple as Hot Shots Golf: World Invitational. Its inoffensive cartoony style has always relied more on goofy charm than technical wizardry, and the Vita launch game hardly veers from this philosophy. But the vibrancy of the screen makes it eminently welcoming in ways that the 3DS could only dream of achieving. Does this make the Vita inherently more fun? No, but it's difficult to ignore the visual advantages of its impressive screen.

Like the Nintendo DS before it, the 3DS doesn't need two screens
This isn't the first time Nintendo has put themselves at a technical disadvantage. There are undeniable parallels between the Wii and its high-definition competitors and the latest handheld battle, and it gives you an idea of where Nintendo places importance. Cutting-edge visuals take a backseat to the latest novelty. The Wii offered a radically different control scheme that (at its best) fundamentally changed how we played games. However, the innovation in the 3DS comes in the form of a optional third-dimensional viewpoint, and though it certainly looks neat, it's hardly a game changer. But I can at least understand why Nintendo decided to implement this gimmick. It's another decision that has left me confused.

Nintendo shocked the world when it introduced the original DS. Touch-screen gaming was only a pipe dream at that point, so no one realized the unlimited potential that the new interface offered. But the dual-screen aspect--the very thing the system was named after--was often overlooked by developers. Aside from a few novel uses, such as in The World Ends With You or Hotel Dusk: Room 215, the second screen was usually relegated to quick access of your inventory or map. It saved you a second or two of having to pause to check your position, but it was such a small difference that it barely affected the experience.

The Nintendo DS was a massive success (the biggest seller in gaming history), and Nintendo couldn't just walk away from those millions of owners around the world. So, at the expense of its future, Nintendo needed to continue the dual-screen theme with the next system. Like the DS before it, the 3DS doesn't need two screens. Its games rarely take advantage of having a second display, other than the ho-hum use of quick inventory reference. In fact, by making the screens different sizes, it's now far less elegant to combine them into one play area (as in Yoshi's Island DS).

The idyllic beauty of a pristine golf course

Nintendo has never been afraid to circumvent the norm. People laughed at the DS, and yet it was a huge success. When it showed off the Wii for the first time, people laughed even harder, and it was another huge success. But even though it has built its business on taking smart risks, Nintendo is still so stubborn that it refuses to see the limitations of its two-screen approach. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the 3DS offered one large screen so you could fully appreciate the many great games in the library? Shouldn't Nintendo try to push gaming further instead of recycling old ideas that never took off in the first place?

Backwards compatibility is very important for many prospective buyers, and I understand why people want to hang on to their current libraries without lugging around two separate systems. If Nintendo eliminated that second screen, millions of bitter people would have cursed the fabled company from Kyoto. But people flock to the games, especially Nintendo games, so the 3DS clearly could have survived even if it burned a few bridges. But for reasons that are beyond me, Nintendo stuck with a formula that was rarely utilized, and it has ultimately diminished the potential of its newest moneymaker.

Don't be mistaken, my outrage that the Nintendo 3DS is sporting old technology doesn't mean I don't enjoy playing it. A system's stable of games is what makes it viable, and there are enough quality games out now and planned for the future to ensure it continues to thrive. But sometimes "good" isn't good enough. Just because Nintendo made a design decision seven years ago, that doesn't mean it has to stand by it for all eternity. Progress is the driving force of this and every other industry, and Nintendo has decided to ignore that ideal to perform the same trick all over again.

Written By

Want the latest news about Yoshi's Island DS?

Yoshi's Island DS

Yoshi's Island DS

Follow

Discussion

551 comments
FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 You call it a waste of energy, I call it worthwhile. In the end, the 3DS battery lasts as long as the Vita's, so it's not like the second screen's energy cost makes the system's battery life uncompetitive. And I would prefer two screens with one of them being a touch screen. There are problems with having only one screen and making it a touch screen. For one, you smudge up the main screen. For another, your finger blocks the screen when you use the touch. In other words, using just one screen interferes with gameplay. Of course, those problems are also part of using a capacitive touch screen at all. I haven't had that problem, but if you find it so bothersome, just turn the 3D down or off.

guily6669
guily6669

But You do realize 2 screens in a portable console is a big waste of energy. I would prefer a lot bigger and better quality touch screen than having those two. And specially with 3D on, u can only be focus at one screen at a time. And when you go look to the second screen just to see a radar or something, your eyes get blurred due to the stereo vision for the 3D...

HEY_ITS_ME_
HEY_ITS_ME_

Oh yeah, and I also heard that a the Wii U controller is going to be used as an inventory or map so, they should just scrap the idea shouldn't they? It's a perk, it's a convenience to have the second screen showing the little details of a game, and it's not like there aren't any games that fully support the touchscreen.

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 Ummm, Mario doesn't have online play. It uses 1-4 players locally, and is actually really fun, though sometimes a bit chaotic. If you were really a "classic player to the old way" you would prefer the Wii to the 360. You don't get more old school than using the Wiimote on its side like an NES controller. Even if kinect is the most advanced motion control out there, that doesn't mean it's the best. In fact, many people prefer holding a controller over waving empty hands, including me. Also, it could be said that the Wii's controls in fps games are somewhat like mouse controls in PC games. Like in PC games, you often control a pointer to aim and shoot. Of course, on the Wii this is done by pointing with the Wii remote rather than scrolling with a mouse, but it's certainly more comparable than the dual analog of the 360. That said, I agree that old school PC fps fans were/are pretty hardcore, and definitely put the majority of COD players to shame.

guily6669
guily6669

About Super mario , I'm not even seeing how could I play that online... ~BOOOoooring Original super marios are just jump kill, powerups run..... I prefered a lot lot's of 2D games from the PC like the good old duke nukem, blues... About Wii, never liked it, and never will. Xbox 360 has the Kinect which is the most advanced gadget out there, it basically works just like cinema hardware; it creates hundreds of IR dots all over the room to detect the movements... But I even don't care for kinect, wiimote, ps3move... I'm a classic player to the old way. I really like the xbox360 gamepad. And also keyboard and mouse. Nothing can compete with keyboard and mouse. Any pro PC gamer would own a console player in an FPS... And I prefer a lot the 2D games on the xbox (xbox arcade) or PC to the nintendo ones. I enjoyed for example the Alien Swarm free on Steam, that would sell for 50€ here if it was a nintendo 3DS game. I finished a good 2D game on the pc not long ago, which is in Android too, can't remember the name.... I have lot's of advanced 2D games in the PC which uses the HD quality effects... I have now the Vessel, nightsky HD..........

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 I doubt I'd ever be convinced that free browser games, or even games that aren't free, match or surpass the excellent design present in 2D Mario games. You mentioned that free browser games have a lot of new things to do and better places, but what does that refer to? It's not like every Mario has the same levels or power-ups. Plus there's length to consider. Both modern 2D Mario games took me about 6-7 hours each to beat, without trying for 100%. That may not seem like much time for $30-50, but they both have multi-player, which I've invested quite a lot of time in, and are both very replay-able. How does that compare to those free browser games? Also, and this might just be my personal preference, the ability to use the Wiimote on its side, NES-style, is worth buying the games for. I've always preferred a physical controller over mouse/keyboard controls or iphone touch controls, and Nintendo is basically the only company to have that for 2D games, or traditional platformers at all for that matter. Sure, PS3 has Little Big Planet, and I'm sure there are some downloadable games that match that description, but they generally don't hold a candle to Nintendo's platformers, whether we're talking 2D or 3D. You do realize the Pokemon anime is entirely different than the game, right?

guily6669
guily6669

@FlameBeast4000 Well super mario 3D is kinda different... Even though from the videos I still prefer the pacman 3D. But all the Super mario's 2D versions, you can actually see better free web browser games with lot of new things to do and even better places. Even the super mario 2D version for like DS or something, cost like 35 eur here, and they are no match against lots of free web browser games out there... About pokemon, it's just not my type. I never liked it much, bot even the BD when I was a kid. I preferred dragon ball, but still I don't like the games about them...

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 Super Mario 3D Land wasn't trying to push the graphical power of the 3DS. If it had, I imagine it would have looked about as good as Mario Galaxy, or close to it at least. With this game they focused on combining 2D and 3D for something altogether unique. Some parts of the game are somewhat side-scrolling, while others are more free-roaming, and all the while the glasses-free 3D looks great and helps solve puzzles. The difference between those "innovative" browser games and Mario is that they are based on Mario's innovation. Mario's the original, the champ. They're just imitators (not that imitations can't be fun, or have some unique elements, they just rarely surpass the original). Pokemon has more depth than most realize. Though I personally don't get into them, there are plenty of complicated elements to raising competitive Pokemon.

guily6669
guily6669

@FlameBeast4000 About pokemon, it's just like I said here... It's considered a thing for little kids (It doesn't mean anything, and I my self, don't wanna say anything about that game other than I don't like it). About the super mario, I haven't played the 3D one, but at least for me it didn't looked as good as pac-man 3D which I finished all of the series... And the 2D ones, there are really lot's of good browser games with more inovating ideas than Super Mario... There's just really some infinity of coders making that kind of games in all kind of shapes. ps: Someone is giving you thumbs down, no idea why, but it wasn't me ;) (the one who is giving thumbs down... Why don't you give your opinion instead of hating?)

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 If anyone who plays Pokemon gets laughed at, why would they tell anyone if they liked Pokemon? I think you misunderstood what I meant by equivalent. Though there are plenty of platformers out there, few to none can compare well with Mario, especially when it comes to his 3D entries. The level of quality, experience, and character in Mario is hard to match.

guily6669
guily6669

@FlameBeast4000 About games... Well I still say that nintendo is a lot intended for kids... Even my little cousins don't like my 360 games much, but they love the gameboy color, DS games and they also spend all day on web browser games... They also have a Wii which I hate and don't like any of the kiddy games they have... I'm not saying they aren't good. I'm saying I just don't like them anymore (used to like when I was a kid). I also played horror games when I was a kid, but that doesn't mean it was made for kids. If you give a good "silent hill 2" to a kid he will not be able to play it, and probably would crap in his pants... I never crap in my pants, but I remember Quake2 when I was a kid, playing it after midnight and with the sound high, damn it was more scary than a scary movie, specially the terrifying sound effects... (Even though I played it when I was a kid, That things are surely not for kids, and most won't even like those kind of games)...

guily6669
guily6669

@FlameBeast4000 Super mario is getting old... And actually there are hundreds of games everywhere equivalent to the super mario which is just a plataform game... Even my friend made a game that looked alot with super mario on JAVA... Here where I live, if you go out with a pokemon game and you have more than like 15, you will be so laughed at... No one around that i know off really cares about that kind of games. If you like them, u like them, I don't care. All I know is I'm still waiting for the next game to buy, probably will have to wait 2 years as this year won't come any game that I would buy... Twisted Metal HELL YEAH!!!!! :) I enjoyed tekken, spyro. I don't really like goldeneye, not even the pc version. The ps1 had the Delta force, it had the best graphics ever back then, mission impossible was also cool, syphon filter... MGS1 is the best game ever made for me!

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 I've played quite a few browser games lately, and though some impressed me, the vast majority have been closer to simple app games than anything worthwhile. Of the few that impressed me, I found even fewer worth money. Certainly nothing came even slightly close to Nintendo's quality. They were so far away, in fact, that it feels ridiculous to even compare them. Maybe I'm playing the wrong ones, but I don't see any Marios in there. Nor do I see any Zeldas, Pokemon, Donkey Kongs, or Metroids (by that I mean no equivalents; of course those games wouldn't actually be there). I agree that PS1 had great diversity. I played it far more than the N64 (partially because we had no N64). I enjoyed Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Tekken, and Twisted Metal for hours on end. What I said before was that the best console fps of that generation was Goldeneye, or maybe Perfect Dark, both N64 exclusives. If you think otherwise, you're liable to be in the minority.

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 Do you even read my posts? I said before the M rating means kids shouldn't play it. It does not, however, have any relation on whether or not a game is better for adults than, say, an E game. What I just said in my last post was that just as many kids play the so-called "adult" games as adults. What, then, makes them less "kid" games than anything Nintendo produces? Adults and children play and enjoy both types, regardless of the rating on the box. I'm not saying kids should play those violent games, but they do. If you don't believe it than try playing some Xbox online. There's nothing wrong with my way of thinking. When kids and adults both buy and enjoy the same game, how can it be classified as belonging to one age group or the other? Back in the day, everybody played the same games, regardless of their age. There were no ratings on the boxes, and few people would have called any game a kid game or an adult game. They were just games. That experience you mentioned having with Tomb Raider? Yeah, well, it's nothing new. Millions of people have that same experience with Zelda, and even with Pokemon. I still get engrossed in Hyrule, and to me, few games can surpass the sense of exploration and growth found in Pokemon. True, Mario doesn't have a deep story, but that game relies on perfect gameplay to be fun. It's kind of like when people play Battlefield online. There's no story or plot, just run 'n' gun fps with some strategy thrown in.

guily6669
guily6669

@FlameBeast4000 And yeah playstation one had the most diversity of games ever... I liked the crash bandicoot (It still is my favorite fun game, but the PS2 versions just killed the series)... It had lot of good FPS, it had the best car sims, basically it had every kind of games and shapes... It had hundreds of fun games too. (Good Old Times!). @DanBal76 Yeah, it was cool that 3DS already had the 2nd analog stick. But worst than that is me having to wait years for the first FPS game to come out...

guily6669
guily6669

@FlameBeast4000 Well that way of thinking is WRONG. Just because kids play COD or BF, doesn't mean it's rated for kids... However for me I always played every kind of game on any age. When I was 5 I was playing heli\plane simulators, Command and Conquer... But nowadays I appreciate more something realistic, something with a very historical impact, specially things about life. A true book that only a grown-up person can understand. Some play Tomb Raider like if it was just a game... I play it and take it like an adventure on the planet, I always get amazed with the places we kinda in it... About nintendo games, most are just like free web browser games (specially DS titles). I don't think nintendo even can compete with some browser games on some categories... (But I really don't care for those kind of games since a long time ago, maybe only bomberman and rayman, still love those 2).

DanBal76
DanBal76

I have both, and yes, Vita's screen is much better, but i'm fine with the screen of 3DS. Of course, if i play the 3DS right after the Vita, the difference is hugely noticeable, but i don't think 3DS's screen hurts the enjoyment of the game. If there's one thing i wold criticise about the 3DS is the lack of a second analog pad (that made me import the Circle Pad Pro). If you look the design of the 3DS, there's a large space where the power button is located that would perfectly accommodate a second analog pad. All you would have done was to put the power button somewhere else Nintendo.

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guilty6669 The PS1 had he best fps's? Did you forget about Goldeneye? What you call made for kids I call made for fun. When making a Mario game there's little need to ask if content would be appropriate for kids, because anything inappropriate would be out of place in to begin with. I believe that when Nintendo makes a new Mario game they're thinking more about how to make it a great game than about how to make it better for kids. Besides, it seems to me that many, maybe even most, people who play Halo, Battlefield, and COD are between the ages of 13 and 18. Many of these kids would say Nintendo's for kids, but themselves play games they would say are for adults. The very act of them playing the games, however, makes them not games specifically targeting adults. In the same way, many adults, and kids, play Nintendo games.

guily6669
guily6669

@FlameBeast4000 I was being sarcastic... A super mario will probably never push the console to it's full limits... At least not on the full Textures scale possible of the gpu and probably not on the 3D polygons too. Because that game doesn't have much 3D polygons and doesn't really need it... They probably can push the GPU a lot only by using effects like shader, shadows and AA on those kind of fun games... But all I'm asking is more diversity. PS1 is still the console with most diversity ever, it has tons of fun games, and then it had the best FPS, best Car sims back in it's time... All I'm asking is come on nintendo give more titles for people like me who loved Resident evil Revelation... About most nintendo games, they are still for kids (doesn't mean an adult won't like, but almost all are still made for people under 18). It's just like BD, it's for kids, but there's lots of adults who like them. I used to like nintendo kind of games back when I was a kid, but not anymore since Dreamcast good old times. And I don't see nintendo making titles for the so called grown-up (+16 +18)... Even Android and Iphone has more diversity... and for a very lot cheap, and Iphone and android phones already have some crazy gameplay+graphics games on them (running on Unreal engine mobile, looks like PS3 the UE engine demonstration)...

guily6669
guily6669

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 So far no game has been able to "push it to it's full power". It's still a pretty new system after all. Nintendo may not currently own the title of "best 3DS graphics", but give them some time. Nobody knows their hardware like they do. Personally, I would be creeped out by photo-realistic denim on Mario... I don't think there's any need for them to change their style to fit the tastes of players like you who don't even like their games. Such changes would be unnecessary, and possibly detrimental, to the game's quality. Do you think Mario Galaxy would push the 3DS if ported? I wouldn't be surprised if a Mario game that looked just as good released on the 3DS in the next few years.

guily6669
guily6669

@FlameBeast4000 You can say whatever u want, but a TRUE FACT is that i didn't saw any kind of advanced graphics of any 3DS game other than this Resident Evil Revelation... All the super marios for it which I saw, all looked to me as advanced as the old dreamcast games. If nintendo continue like this, not even in a million years they will need to use even 50% of the CPU+GPU power of the console. I would be amazed to see a super mario with photo-realistic textures and using the full 3D polygons of the full GPU capacity (in that day I would be amazed with super mario title)... ps: At least until now, none nintendo games were able to push the console up to what Resident Evil Revelations and MGS were able to push... Let's see if the next Zelda, pokemon, super mario or whatever title u guys love will push it to it's full power... (I will be waiting).

guily6669
guily6669

@Scorpion_tr I don't see what's your point... Im not a fanboy of any console... It's just that I bought 3DS and only like 3 or 4 games of it's full titles. Nintendo could have had more titles like the multiplataform games that are in all the other consoles.

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

Scorpion_tr
Scorpion_tr

God, fanboys are so f-ing annoying... Just stop fighting and get the console that you like better, or the one that has, in your opinion, the better games, or if you can afford it, get both. Do you guys honestly think that you're gonna convince each other to "convert" to the other console? I swear, all this bickering is just pathetic, stop hating and start gaming!

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 Quote, "3DS will probably not improve much more than Resident evil graphics..." You said it probably won't achieve better graphics than a game that came out in its first year. Just because you prefer realistic graphics doesn't make them better, or even more high tech. Compare any realistic game on the Wii to Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Galaxy 2 will almost always be the clear winner. Also, non-realistic graphics can push the hardware as much as realistic graphics. Games like Skyward Sword have proven that.

guily6669
guily6669

@FlameBeast4000 Currently from the giant list of all nintendo titles All I like is: - SPlinter Cell (however I won't ever buy it, since I finished all splinter cell in the PC or xbox or xbox 360); - the upcoming Rayman (will probably be better than the Vita because of the 3D, however it really looks freakin awesome on the Vita's GIANT High quality screen; The 3DS version looks very little in the little screen ); - Resident Evil Revelation (a Real Masterpiece, and shows that the console is capable of having high quality graphics which are very far from traditional nintendo fun games). - MGS3D (however I don't care for the game anymore, I bought the HD version for my xbox360 which comes with 3 games. MGS2, MGS3 and Peace Walker all in an HD remake for the same price of just MGS3 3D for the 3DS). And I think that there isn't a single more game that I like. Even though I like Driver, it looks pretty bad, and I already finished all drivers in the PC, PS1, xbox. ps: basically I bought 3DS because of the 3D which I always wanted to know how it looked like, and second because I knew the console was lot better than the crap original PSP. But I never thought it didn't had the games I like. I though there would be silent hill, FPS games, all kind of games... Now I have to wait until they make the next game like Resident Evil, specially because games cost like hell here, and I can't just waste money on every kind of game...

guily6669
guily6669

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

guily6669
guily6669

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

guily6669
guily6669

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

guily6669
guily6669

@FlameBeast4000 I never said the 3DS has reached it's full potential. And actually it won't ever show the full hardware power on the kind of games that 3DS has at the moment... You say that there's a big difference from realistic graphics to good graphics... For me good graphics is not the graphics which super mario 3DS has... That's even far from beautiful graphics, the 3D needs a lot of AA which the 3DS GPU supports and they even didn't bother using it. I hate to see the lines distortions... For me beautiful graphics are the ones used in the new upcoming RAYMAN, that's one of the best 2D games out there. However realistic graphics are far away from those kind of graphics that most 3DS games have. Realistic graphics have higher resolution textures, lot more 3D polygons used, lot more lighting effects+shader, That's the most complicated games and the ones that push the hardware to the limits. For now after a year 3DS only has one game like that which for me is only Resident Evil Revelations (the other sucked). ps: Having only a splinter cell, and one resident evil, and non FPS, doesn't mean in any kind that nintendo has games for ppl with my taste! (it needs way more titles like those coming out, and have checked all games for this entire year, and only liked rayman).

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 Why on earth would you believe the 3DS has already reached its maximum potential with Revelations? That game came out in its first year, and you think developers have already mastered it? I don't think so. Also, why do you think the 3DS won't get more titles like Revelations? It has already had 2 Resident Evils on it, and Capcom has stated they would consider more. There's also Monster Hunter coming, if that's comparable.

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 What do you mean Nintendo is glued to the 80's? What do you mean they make too many 2D titles? It's true Nintendo has many old franchises, some dating back to the 80's, but they haven't been rehashing them. To compare their modern games to the games that actually released in the 80's makes absolutely no sense. The gameplay, graphics, style, and just about every aspect of the games have changed enormously over the last few decades. And which 2D game makes Nintendo have too many? Which of the 4 on the Wii pushed them over that line? I thought we already discussed this, but heavy duty coding, though expensive, does not necessarily add even the slightest amount of value to a game. Nintendo's games up to this point have almost always required less coding than the competition (this gen only), but their value has been just as high or higher. The quality of design implemented in their games surpasses almost every competitor out there.

FlameBeast4000
FlameBeast4000

@guily6669 I'm back! I wasn't going to post here anymore, but out of curiosity I came to check where things had gone. What do I find but you saying Nintendo doesn't make "grown-up" games and will never bring out the potential of the 3DS with any of their current franchises. You are extremely wrong on both accounts. Just because a game is rated E-T doesn't mean it's a "kid" game. This may surprise you, but I'm a grown-up, and I love Pokemon, Mario, Zelda, and most of Nintendo's other franchises. This might surprise you too: I'm not alone. The M rating on M games means kids shouldn't play them (not that it seems to matter), not that the games are particularly fun for adults. As you've said, it's all about preferences. I tend to find many M games too simple/childish, and prefer exploring Hyrule or fighting Bowser to getting headshots. To say Nintendo's franchises can't bring out the potential of their systems is ludicrous. You're confusing realistic graphics with good graphics; they aren't equivalent. The best looking games on the Wii are 1st party. Games like Mario Galaxy 2 and Skyward Sword pushed the system to its limits. They can and will do the same on the 3DS.

yoyou225
yoyou225

@guily6669 Yah, Um... that back touch panel seism cool now for maybe mini games, but until I see innovate gameplay concepts that really work with it, I won't buy in to the "more tech is better" train. Oh, and that touch screen comment you made, the seamless connection of stylus to bottom to top screen allows for basic communication like Kid icarus's aiming. Throwing a grenade and using touch screen trajectory could be just as easy with a 3DS.

wowwow27
wowwow27

....did i mention I cashed in on all my retro games growing up (mint in the box)?

wowwow27
wowwow27

@guily6669 never cared for Horror, unless it has a Psycho-logical twist that teaches you something. otherwise its all fluff. ...rather get lost in a light hearted colorful nintendo game then deal with realistic blood and gore ( although Mortal Kombats shock value was cool growing up). realism gets old too fast for me, but something different is always nice (can't wait to play Journey someday). I love Sony and Nintendo, but Im getting old and boring. Im anticipating the next Zelda on the 3DS or wii-u, and boy do I have a wait! I understand the price thing, but it will teach you not to waste your money and take care of your stuff, although they should price differently in areas to sell as many as possible.

guily6669
guily6669

I got really a lot impressed with the 3DS on the Resident Evil Revelation. And I don't know for real how much it could still improve. But I think we will never see it's full potential. Nintendo is still too much about 2D, funny gameplay, but they forget the true simulation games, games for the grown up like HORROR games (silent hill, doom....), after almost a year of release, there isn't still one FPS out there for the 3DS... I do understand them. Let's say if I was a coder and could sell a 2D game or a funny game which doesn't require much knowledge for 45 eur, why would I bother killing my brain working on a monster physics+graphics game that would sell for the same price or like 50 eur... That's kinda what's happens in the nintendo. M$ and Sonny tend to call a lot more complicated titles (you may not like them, but they have so much technology behind them). And then here like I said earlier, games are very expensive in my country. But like in the android market I saw a game for 50 cents (half a euro) and it's just at the level of a lot of nintendo titles which cost 35 eur...

guily6669
guily6669

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

guily6669
guily6669

@wowwow27 The Cell CPU is still harder... For example Bethesda don't code much well for the PS3, that's why the PS3 skyrim doesn't work any good. The xbox360 version work pretty well for me... About the 3DS, I can't say I dislike the hardware, because it's the first handheld device I really liked and Vita is the second I like because it came last. 3DS this time has a good hardware, however nintendo is the problem, they stay glued to the 80's too much.... And they tend to have only games like pokemon, dogs, super mario, zelda.......... They need to make more games like Resident Evil Revelation. But basically 3DS still isn't powerful enough for a true GTA V version for example (only a very adapted version can run in it). However Vita is pretty enough for a good GTAV version (doesn't really need to be an adaptation like in the old ~crap PSP). ps: Basically 3DS is capable of good graphics already, however we won't ever see it's full potencial, at least not with pokemon, not with super marios, not with zeldas... We can only taste the hardware in non nintendo titles such as the Resident Evil Revelation...

guily6669
guily6669

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

wowwow27
wowwow27

@guily6669 hope your right about the hardware, but it seems like cell processors and such are pretty standard on most devices, and developers already understand limitations. Not to mention the fact that developers are coming out of school nowadays with 3D development knowledge. but time will tell.

wowwow27
wowwow27

@redrabbit65 Im not satisfied with Nintendo s hardware offerings so far.

guily6669
guily6669

@wowwow27 Well, Almost all the hundred of games I played, I only finished once and then garbage with it... About the improvements, a console improves a lot more than 10 -15% on the graphics over time. When 360 started, it looked almost like XBOX1(on CRT), but just as good as that on a LCD. (like Forza 1 from xbox to forza2 on xbox360, I couldn't even see much difference, specially on laguna seca, which I even prefered the xbox 1 version graphics)... Nowadays, xbox360 as a huge improvement, and it still can make wonderful graphics compared to a PC with 7years of more advanced technology (PC games aren't much far from xbox\360 games). However of course there are some crazy mods that can run in a good PC, that will increase the graphics of a certain game and make it look already with the next gen of games coming soon... 3DS will probably not improve much more than Resident evil graphics, specially because they don't even care about those big titles... Vita will probably improve a damn lot over time and can easily have titles such as GTAV, GT...

redrabbit65
redrabbit65

wowwow27: I'm not defending the Wii as a system, my point was more to the way that Nintendo's hardware is usually best utilized by Nintendo's in-house developers. Nintendo tends toward the unique in their hardware designs and unfortunately many developers think too prosiac to make the most of it. 5 years is pathetic to deliver that one defining title but it did come eventually, better late than never. I don't want to be ruined for the 3ds and frankly I highly doubt the VITA could accomplish that. If it feels like '97 it's because it is, Nintendo is rocking, Sony is bringing up a distant 2nd.

wowwow27
wowwow27

@guily6669 uncharted is a novel first attempt, but it isn't great (other games keep you playing longer), once you beat it it gets boring, like sitting through the same movie again and again (plus its pretty short, 5-8hrs?). I also slightly disagree with the idea about the untapped potential of new systems, i think programmers have come a long way from those days, we may see a 10-15% improvement in graphics, but uncharted is about what we need to start expecting graphically in other games. also,..Gamespot have reasons for some of there scores, and i feel they are a bit low sometimes, too. but, hey! if they were too high you would only be disappointed.

wowwow27
wowwow27

@redrabbit65 sadly skyward sword took way too long to come out on the wii, lets face it 5 years is forever in gaming years (especially considering the wii is obsolete technology-wise, 480p?)! and if you want to be ruined for the 3DS you should experience a Vita of your own. love Nintendo's software, but Sony has the hardware! I feel like I am right back where I left off in 1997.

wowwow27
wowwow27

I agree with u totally. I just hope I don't have to buy a new 3DS, although I do wish I had that option for a larger, more vivid screen. : (

redrabbit65
redrabbit65

IanNottinghamX: Sometimes you end up with games where features feel tacked on, the DS had a lot of that with the touch screen, afterthought ideas, half-baked. It seems like Nintendo are the only ones who really utilize the potential of their hardware to the most, ahem-Skyward Sword-. The hardware developer gives people tools, they can either run with it and make it awesome or just add it on an existing game as an afterthought, too often the latter.

redrabbit65
redrabbit65

I don't own a VITA so I can't comment on that aspect, but I do own an iTouch that shares many features with my 3ds. I recently sent my 3ds in and had only my iTouch to stream all the Netflix shows that are devouring my life and I found that the shows look terrible on it and the interface is way inferior to the 3ds. I believe Netflix scales the shows it streams based on your internet connection and mine is pretty lame, but as it happens the resolution on the 3ds is perfect for the low rez streaming I get from Netflix on those devices, it looks very good as a matter of fact. I could see how the screen resolution would look better on the VITA (my iTouch screen is gorgeous) but whattyaknow, the 3ds is a better option for my viewing.