Platina said:
Soundwave said:
Better battery life, lighter system, more money to spend on the chipset or main display, more space for a more powerful chip, cheaper cost, more room for a real second analog + bigger buttons all-around ...
I say ditch the second screen. It's useless in like 90% of 3DS games anyway and there would be many, many benefits to doing so.
I'll take a cheaper, lighter system with better controls and a better chipset than having a second screen for the sake of having a ... second ... screen.
|
It's basically preferences, really but I really like two screens. Unlike the Vita, where the system is really wide, you can get a more narrow and compact handheld. Two screens may not be necessary if 90% of the games, but it still has some useful functionality (adding a map, menu) where it is in more convient location. You can get some really awesome ideas for screen splitting like TWEWY. Maybe, because I got really use to playing games and viewing two screens at the same time or consistantly, but it can be really handy.
|
Why would the system have to be wider? They could still use the same clamshell layout if they really wanted to, just no bottom screen.
I don't think people realize too the bottom screen really limits what Nintendo can use for a chip and limits the size of the battery they can put on the bottom side of the portable too because the screen hogs up a lot of space.
That said the Vita is honestly more comfortable to hold than any 3DS model IMO. They really nailed the ergonomics with that one more or less.
