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

I prefer...

3DS 77 77.78%
 
Vita 22 22.22%
 
Total:99

3DS. Nintendo actually made games for it.



Around the Network
Leynos said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Resolution/fps, sure. Graphic wise? Depends. You can't use some ports to show 3ds is stronger or weaker. For example, Monster Hunter 3 3ds vs MH3 Wii, the "significant downgrades" didn't exist here.

MH Wii was a repackaged PS2 game.

MH3 was the best looking MH on console for a while.

Vodacixi said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Resolution/fps, sure. Graphic wise? Depends. You can't use some ports to show 3ds is stronger or weaker. For example, Monster Hunter 3 3ds vs MH3 Wii, the "significant downgrades" didn't exist here.

Resolution and framerate have an impact on the level of graphics you can display. Lower resolutions and lower framerates means that you are putting less stress to the hardware and therefore you have room to use better graphics, more poligons, better and more demanding effects...

But on the 3DS case this is irrelevant in most cases, because the system has to take into account a limited power suply and very limited heat generation due to its portable nature.

Anyway... Monster Hunter 3:

MHTri: 480p, generally better textures (rocks, vegetation...) and effects (the water is a very obvious one), locked 30fps

MH3U (3DS): 240p, lower quality textures and effects, better shadows, unlocked framrate (30-45fps)

So... The Wii is flexing double the resolution, overall better graphics and a stable framerate, while the 3DS runs at half the resolution, it mostly looks worse with some exceptions like shadows and it sports an erratic framerate.

I don't know, it don't see the 3DS coming out on top here. Not even close.

3DS screen is 240p only, handheld always has low resolution screen compared to console, but i'm comparing 3ds ver on 3ds screen to Wii ver on TV screen here. It wasn't better but also not worse, almost equal.

curl-6 said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Resolution/fps, sure. Graphic wise? Depends. You can't use some ports to show 3ds is stronger or weaker. For example, Monster Hunter 3 3ds vs MH3 Wii, the "significant downgrades" didn't exist here.

Vodacixi beat me to it as I was offline (funnily enough playing Monster Hunter) but 3 Ultimate on 3DS had cutbacks compared to Wii like worse textures and water effects as well as the lower resolution.

But on 3ds screen, those things almost didn't exist, and definitely not "significant downgrades".



Well the 3DS has more than enough JRPG's from Atlus to nourish an army, loads of first party Nintendo titles and most importantly, the best Kirby game, PLanet Robobot !



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

HoangNhatAnh said:
Leynos said:

MH Wii was a repackaged PS2 game.

MH3 was the best looking MH on console for a while.

Vodacixi said:

Resolution and framerate have an impact on the level of graphics you can display. Lower resolutions and lower framerates means that you are putting less stress to the hardware and therefore you have room to use better graphics, more poligons, better and more demanding effects...

But on the 3DS case this is irrelevant in most cases, because the system has to take into account a limited power suply and very limited heat generation due to its portable nature.

Anyway... Monster Hunter 3:

MHTri: 480p, generally better textures (rocks, vegetation...) and effects (the water is a very obvious one), locked 30fps

MH3U (3DS): 240p, lower quality textures and effects, better shadows, unlocked framrate (30-45fps)

So... The Wii is flexing double the resolution, overall better graphics and a stable framerate, while the 3DS runs at half the resolution, it mostly looks worse with some exceptions like shadows and it sports an erratic framerate.

I don't know, it don't see the 3DS coming out on top here. Not even close.

3DS screen is 240p only, handheld always has low resolution screen compared to console, but i'm comparing 3ds ver on 3ds screen to Wii ver on TV screen here. It wasn't better but also not worse, almost equal.

curl-6 said:

Vodacixi beat me to it as I was offline (funnily enough playing Monster Hunter) but 3 Ultimate on 3DS had cutbacks compared to Wii like worse textures and water effects as well as the lower resolution.

But on 3ds screen, those things almost didn't exist, and definitely not "significant downgrades".

It was the ONLY console MH post PS2 until Wii U rofl. It wasn't that special looking. Talking about a lot of small flat contained areas with load screens. Xenoblade is far far far more demanding than that. Massive open areas with a lot on-screen at once. Textures in the New 3DS version were much worse. New 3DS could not handle the game in full.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

HoangNhatAnh said:
curl-6 said:

Vodacixi beat me to it as I was offline (funnily enough playing Monster Hunter) but 3 Ultimate on 3DS had cutbacks compared to Wii like worse textures and water effects as well as the lower resolution.

But on 3ds screen, those things almost didn't exist, and definitely not "significant downgrades".

I've seen MH3U on 3DS, the downgraded water and textures are still noticeable and significant. 

3DS is simply graphically less capable than the Wii. You can talk about the extent to which the smaller screen hides this, which is subjective, but at the end of the day the 3DS just can't push as many pixels or details as the Wii can.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network

The 3DS library is far superior than Vita's. But man, I feel like the 3DS aged way worse than the Vita. I mostly don't use my 3DS at all nowadays; Its size, screen resolution and battery life really bothers me, I can't go back for it especially now that the Switch is around. But my Vita... I basically use it as a portable PS4 and I also hacked it. It's an incredible retro machine that you can also do some awesome stuff with homebrew.

So for me it's a though one. I like the 3DS library of games better, but I prefer Vita's hardware and functionalities. Based on just my recent usage I'm gonna go with the Vita, since I use it way more than my 3DS.



Leynos said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

MH3 was the best looking MH on console for a while.

Vodacixi said:

Resolution and framerate have an impact on the level of graphics you can display. Lower resolutions and lower framerates means that you are putting less stress to the hardware and therefore you have room to use better graphics, more poligons, better and more demanding effects...

But on the 3DS case this is irrelevant in most cases, because the system has to take into account a limited power suply and very limited heat generation due to its portable nature.

Anyway... Monster Hunter 3:

MHTri: 480p, generally better textures (rocks, vegetation...) and effects (the water is a very obvious one), locked 30fps

MH3U (3DS): 240p, lower quality textures and effects, better shadows, unlocked framrate (30-45fps)

So... The Wii is flexing double the resolution, overall better graphics and a stable framerate, while the 3DS runs at half the resolution, it mostly looks worse with some exceptions like shadows and it sports an erratic framerate.

I don't know, it don't see the 3DS coming out on top here. Not even close.

3DS screen is 240p only, handheld always has low resolution screen compared to console, but i'm comparing 3ds ver on 3ds screen to Wii ver on TV screen here. It wasn't better but also not worse, almost equal.

But on 3ds screen, those things almost didn't exist, and definitely not "significant downgrades".

It was the ONLY console MH post PS2 until Wii U rofl. It wasn't that special looking. Talking about a lot of small flat contained areas with load screens. Xenoblade is far far far more demanding than that. Massive open areas with a lot on-screen at once. Textures in the New 3DS version were much worse. New 3DS could not handle the game in full.

MH Wii looks better than MH PS2, a game built from ground up for 3ds has no problem to compete with Wii game, graphic wise.

curl-6 said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

But on 3ds screen, those things almost didn't exist, and definitely not "significant downgrades".

I've seen MH3U on 3DS, the downgraded water and textures are still noticeable and significant. 

3DS is simply graphically less capable than the Wii. You can talk about the extent to which the smaller screen hides this, which is subjective, but at the end of the day the 3DS just can't push as many pixels or details as the Wii can.

To me, 3ds is GC portable, and New 3ds is Wii portable, if MH3 was built for New 3ds only, i don't see the "significant downgrades" still exist.



HoangNhatAnh said:
curl-6 said:

I've seen MH3U on 3DS, the downgraded water and textures are still noticeable and significant. 

3DS is simply graphically less capable than the Wii. You can talk about the extent to which the smaller screen hides this, which is subjective, but at the end of the day the 3DS just can't push as many pixels or details as the Wii can.

To me, 3ds is GC portable, and New 3ds is Wii portable, if MH3 was built for New 3ds only, i don't see the "significant downgrades" still exist.

MH4 and Generations were built for 3DS and still had worse textures and effects than Tri on Wii.

Vita existed partway between the 6th gen/Wii and PS3/360; 3DS was much weaker and was more like a PS2 or Dreamcast with more modern shaders, though at a lower resolution than even those systems.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 11 April 2021

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

To me, 3ds is GC portable, and New 3ds is Wii portable, if MH3 was built for New 3ds only, i don't see the "significant downgrades" still exist.

MH4 and Generations were built for 3DS and still had worse textures and effects than Tri on Wii.

Vita existed partway between the 6th gen/Wii and PS3/360; 3DS was much weaker and was more like a PS2 or Dreamcast with more modern shaders, though at a lower resolution than even those systems.

They even look worse than MH3 on 3ds. Graphic: MH3 3ds > MH4/MHG 3ds, but gameplay: MH4/MHG > MH3. Capcom sacrificed the graphic for better gameplay. And where are MH Stories or E.X.Troopers? Are they look bad too?

https://youtu.be/r46Jbq-ZNok

https://youtu.be/odBFeO5VOzM

About vita, i always want to recommend this:

https://youtu.be/STdtSa9kiXA



There are a couple of things the 3ds could do better than the Gamecube-Wii, such as shaders. This is a result of it being slightly more modern tech. It also had significantly higher ram and higher storage capacity than the Gamecube mini disks allowed for. But it is still overall a weaker system when it comes to number of polygons and texture quality. Comparing it to the Wii, it still has more ram, but the difference isn't as pronounced, and the Wii could push even more polygons and better textures than the Gamecube since it was more powerful in every way than the cube.

Not that many games really took advantage of what the 3DS could really do. Capcom's Resident Evil and Monster Hunter games, Kid Icarus Uprising, Mario 3D Land, Metal Gear Solid 3, Dragon Quest 8 and the fighting game trio of Smash Bros. Super Street Fighter 4, and Dead or Alive Dimensions are the only games that come to mind as really pushing the system and showing off its strengths. Resident Evil Revelations in particular is so advanced that it's hard to see it running on the Wii and especially the Gamecube without significant downgrades to its shaders. One thing I'm not sure of is whether the 3d effect ate graphical resources that could have gone to things like polygons and textures. I know there were games where it hurt the framerate or resulted in anti-aliasing being turned off.

What we see in Gamecube ports to the 3ds is interesting. Luigi's mansion has small downgrades from the original, and the Melee levels in Smash 4 are basically 100% conversions. Both were launch window Gamecube games, so not the biggest hardware pushers, while the 3ds versions launched later in the system's life and seem to be among the most advanced games on the system. I'd say that the 3DS at its best could push what you'd expect from a very early Gamecube title, but that would include Rogue Leader, which was very much a hardware pusher and probably far beyond what the 3DS could handle.

The New 3DS had one major flaw that held it back - they didn't improve the GPU performance at all. This meant that older games didn't run any better and was a serious bottleneck on getting the most out of the improved CPU and ram. The CPU allowed for much better performance as well as more enemies on screen in Hyrule Warriors and the ram allowed for better textures in Monster Hunter 4 than the same games for the base model. But very few games take any advantage of those improvements. Xenoblade was in my opinion a bad choice to show off the upgraded system's power because while it was impressive to see such a huge game on the handheld, the 3ds was never meant for games like that and the big environments were wasted on the small screen, Plus it had one of the worst uses of 3D I've seen on the system. Resident Evil Revelations looked as good as it did because it kept the environments small and packed with detail.