3DS has "fundamentally different" strategy than PS Vita, says Nintendo

[osed125]

badgenome said:

forest-spirit said:

Why? Moffitt just explained that Sony and Nintendo have different strategies for their handheld systems, which is true. It's not like he said anything insulting.

It's not insulting. But it's not true, either. This isn't the DS vs. the PSP. The 3DS and Vita have remarkably similar offerings when it comes to the size and scope of their games. If anything, Nintendo seems to (perhaps consciously, as a pushback against cheap, disposable smartphone games) be going with meatier games on the 3DS. A lot of the library is just straight up ports of old console games. Whereas the Vita, probably more out of a necessity to have some games, any games, than out of some kind of "vision" on Sony's part, has morphed into an indie game wonderland.

I have to disagree when it comes to Nintendo first party tittles. Most of their games can be played in a short session. You can do a couple of 3D Land levels, a couple of courses in Mario Kart 7, a single mission in Fire Emblem (or definitely more than one if you are doing overworld missions), a course in Kid Icarus (aside from the fact that it will be uncomfortable to play outside), while waiting for the bus. Sure it's not as simple as playing Angry Birds but they are not heavy enough to be compared to a AAA game.

Now most 3rd party games do indeed have more heavy gameplay which are not very suited for small sessions.