I'm thinking Nintendo might offer a later 3DS model without the 3D.

[LordTheNightKnight]

Viper1 said:

LordTheNightKnight said:

The games were also part of that. And just because some 3DS games will require that does not mean they will be enhanced.

I wrote it's possible to add depth perception, but it's very unlikely, due to the fact that 3D does not work the way real life space through human vision works. It's instead a bunch of layers that even then don't always tell you the precise depth difference. Hence the games are not truly enhanced.

Geez, man.  Just go ahead and admit you've never seen a 3DS already.  If this is your perception of the 3DS, then no wonder you're making threads like this.

Why not ask people that have actually played one?  Why not ask if the 3D creates a more measured sense of depth perception?   Why not ask if the games feel enhanced by the increase in depth perception?  Why not look at the possible gameplay elements added depth can generate? 

I wrote "unlikely", didn't I?

But again, even if it is, that's not enough to justify the price. All of you thinking this somehow adds more to the system than a second touchscreen or motion controls (and I'm including Nintendo, other developers, and you all on this board) really don't get how those other things actually added to those games. You all just seem to see them as gimmicks, but since this is a gimmick you like, you can't consider that it might not work.

This is the same crap that was spewed about HD a few years ago. Everyone behind it would not accept that the mainstream might not care about it, or those that did would realize it doesn't actually make films or TV shows any better (sports are an exception as the details really are too small to properly show in SD). And it turned out streaming video caught on (netflix has 20% of at least the US internet traffic), because it's more convenient, not because of increased picture quality.