By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - I feel that we care for more on the graphics on 3DS titles than we did DS titles. Why is that?

Aielyn said:
People don't care about "the graphics", so much as "how well they can use the 3D effect". The DS was never selling anything to do with visuals as a selling point. The 3DS's primary selling point is visual. So, people pay closer attention to it. Also, better graphical capabilities = more desire to see those capabilities leveraged properly.

Kind of like how people care more about Wii U graphics than Wii graphics, yet still aren't as fussed about Wii U graphics as XB1 or PS4 graphics. And why people were quite annoyed at third parties putting out Wii games with graphics barely comparable to PS2, yet still said graphics weren't a major issue with regards to the system - because the issue wasn't "not good graphics", it was "not good enough care with game-making".

Yeah I guess this is the answer. Thanks for the insight.



http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/92109/nintendopie/ Nintendopie  Was obviously right and I was obviously wrong. I will forever be a lesser being than them. (6/16/13)

Around the Network

You got it right in your OP. It's cuz there's actually something to talk about now, whereas DS titles were mostly in 2D. It still isn't even close to the main factor when considering a purchase, though.



DS had a low rez screen but 2D art works really good on it, almost like native high rez 8-16bit art style....but if you remember 3D on the DS....yeah it was a pile of poop. Luckly the DS was dominated with 2D games so it was all good.

The 3DS has a lot more 3D games, the 3DS low rez screen hurts the IQ, there simply isn't enough pixels to display what the GPU is actually capable of, however, 2D games still look good...there's also the fact that IOS/Android games have come along way and their visuals at high rez already look far far better than what the 3DS currently produces with it's low rez screen.

The important thing to remember is that while the 3DS has a physical screen resolution of 800x240, the effective rendering resolution is actually 400x240, it generates two 400x240 images, one for the left eye and one for the right eye. These two images is what actually carries the depth data which our brains are able to process, however, what we end up seeing is just a 400x240 image with depth data. the physical resolution is higher because of the way the glassless 3D technology works, it needs to simultaneously display both the right eye and left eye image and it does this via it's parallax screen. Had it required 3D glasses like regular TVs then the physical resolution would be 400x240 and the image would flick on screen sequentially showing the right eye image followed by the left eye image and so on, the glasses would then black out one eye at a time in sync with the TV, and this would be done so fast that we could not perceive the flicker that's accouring, in any case they both have their pros and cons.

To me, the 3DS would have been better served with a high rez 2D screen, the 3DS GPU would of been able to show even more graphically impressive games than it has right now , because all the resources spent generating a 2nd image for the 3D effect to work would now be dedicated to just the one image.

It's clear that the glassless 3D novelty was just that, a novelty and clearly not the main reason why people are picking it up, despite the novelty being there people didn't care and it's its sales tanked at launch with high price and little games being the reasons, nintnedo fixed that up quite well and now the price is reasonable and it has a healthy game library. So was the glassless 3D wroth it?, right now I'd say no, and like I said the 3DS would of been better served by a better high rez 2D screen, but back during the concept phase of the 3DS, and the booming 3D TV's, content, and big 3D movies I can see why Nintendo choose the direction they did...which is unusual because they don't normally follow industry tends....oh well.

From what I said earlier, your statement "I feel that we care for more on the graphics on 3DS titles than we did DS titles. " seems fairly normal, our exposure to products from Nintendo's compeition has increased our baseline expectations, and although we can still play and enjoy 3DS games, we can't help but think 'I wonder how this would of looked like if it was on _______ (any product from PSvita to smart phones to tablets)'

Thats my 2 cents, take it as you like.



I don't care about the 3DS graphics or the 3D effect. It's all about the top quality games it has and the fact I'm gonna get to play Yoshi's Island again.



Too much planning, and you'll never get anything done.

Karl Pilkington.

RolStoppable said:
It's because alcohol does strange things to your body, that's why you feel that.

lol

@OP. It's because the 3DS really does show gorgeous graphics, and full 3D. I just played Theatrythm Final Fantasy and was really pleased by the colors and the enhanced visuals the 3D effects offered.



Around the Network
Aielyn said:
People don't care about "the graphics", so much as "how well they can use the 3D effect". The DS was never selling anything to do with visuals as a selling point. The 3DS's primary selling point is visual. So, people pay closer attention to it. Also, better graphical capabilities = more desire to see those capabilities leveraged properly.

Kind of like how people care more about Wii U graphics than Wii graphics, yet still aren't as fussed about Wii U graphics as XB1 or PS4 graphics. And why people were quite annoyed at third parties putting out Wii games with graphics barely comparable to PS2, yet still said graphics weren't a major issue with regards to the system - because the issue wasn't "not good graphics", it was "not good enough care with game-making".

Bingo. People like to see effort, and effort shows forth in graphics. It doesn't have to be technically astounding, but it does have to look good.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Otakumegane said:

It is because a lot of DS titles were 2D and the art style...

Yes, absolutely. With 2D graphics, you don't have much problems with jagged lines, flickering edges (both a big turn-off at low resolutions), wrong positioned and shaped shadows and so on...

I love "Castlevania: Mirror of Fate" on my 3DS, but when the camera zooms out, objects on the screen flickker as hell, even with stereoscopic view turned off.



At least for me, it's not about the number of polygons, shaders and texture resolution themselves, but it's about how the developer uses the hardware to make the best possible results. I was amazed when I saw many games on the DS like Metroid Prime Hunters and Mario Hoops not exactly because of their graphics, but because how those developers were able to make such great looking games on the limited hardware features they had, just like I was when I played games like RE Revelations and Starfox 64 3D on my 3DS.



The DS wasn't about the graphics. It was about the freaking two screens at once! Endless possibilities!

However the 3DS is about the visuals. The only main difference other than graphics was the 3D effect. That wasn't enough to justify a new handheld so they made it more powerful. Without the added power, it is just a DS with 3D. The graphics are supposed to make it stand out even further from the DS, so we want good graphics.

I still want Super Mario Galaxy 3DS
After seeing Mario Land 3D I know it can be done.



 Been away for a bit, but sneaking back in.

Gaming on: PS4, PC, 3DS. Got a Switch! Mainly to play Smash

mysticwolf said:
I still want Super Mario Galaxy 3DS
After seeing Mario Land 3D I know it can be done.

Yes! Or at least some GameCube-titles and many SNES-games.

But as long as most Nintendo fans are happy with NES-ports and once in a while a N64-remake, Big N don't have to bring the good stuff to its handheld.