Nintendo 3DS Discussion Thread

Sounds like 3D movies... and 3D games.

This is why I'm not big on 3D, it's all just layers. Multiple slices of two-dimensional imagery.

 

Only when done badly. If you didn't see Avatar or a quality animated 3D movie, I'd understand why you'd think this. When something is either filmed in 3D using multiple cameras or created digitally, it actually can have full depth. That's what made Avatar such a spectacle. The thing is, most movies are filmed in 2D and then doctored into 3D, which gives that layered effect you see in movies like Gulliver's Travels and Clash of the Titans.

 

I saw Avatar at an IMAX theatre, but it still didn't look too great. I think they're using a different 3D tech over here... the US gets the glasses with the mechanical shutters, we don't. They've gotta be better or something.

 

I've only ever had polarized when going to a theatre. They're the really heavy kind with a giant tracking brick inside, but it's still polarized. Maybe the big cities on the East Coast get the active shutters, though.

 

...so three kinds then? We don't have those either. Ours just look like regular plastic lenses, nothing special about them at all. No wonder 3D isn't taking off over here.

 

The shutter lenses are only for use with 3D TVs, theaters use the polarized ones everywhere. Shutter lenses are expensive as hell, there's no way they'd hand them out to people at ticket price.

I don't know what to tell you though, I've seen several films that were absolutely wonderful in 3D. Avatar, Toy Story 3 and Coraline all had the tech gorgeously implemented. Maybe my eyes are just better at seeing the 3D effect than yours? I have heard that it can take a handful of films before your eyes get used to tracking the effect, and I spent a *lot* of time doing random dot stereograms as a child, so maybe I've just gotten good at tracking 3D images on a 2D plane or something.

 

There are theatres around us that have the light plastic polarized glasses, too. In fact, we typically go to those instead because my dad doesn't like the heavy ones; they seem to force your eyes to go slighty crosseyed, and it gets really irritating after a while.

 

I saw Up in 3D and it was the same flat objects on flat objects 3D, and that was a Pixar movie too. Was Toy Story 3 actually different from that? In fact, the most 3D looking parts of up weren't actually in 3D. That's typical of 3D movies - only small portions of them are in "3D", but hardly anyone notices.

I saw Toy Story 3 in 2D and it was wonderful. It was nice not being distracted by 3D, which really doesn't add anything but spectacle. Instead I could focus on the characters, story, acting, etc. You know, what actually makes a movie good.

Having said that, I can't wait to try out the 3DS at a local gamestop, because it's a cool gadget. Not going to buy one, though - it's too much money, and I barely play my DSi now anyway - I play my iPhone way more, and the quality games are still ridiculously cheaper. $40 for a 3DS game? Ouch.

Of course that could change after I try it out at Gamestop.

EDIT: but who isn't waiting for the 3D Sudoku game? ;^) What a thoroughly ridiculous concept. Especially if it costs $40.

 

Live feed: http://gdc2011.nintendo.com/

Iwata making a couple pointed comments at Apple's Appstore.

 

Uh.. Game Boy, Play it Loud Game Boy, Game Boy Pocket, Game Boy Light, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, Game Boy Advance SP, Game Boy Advance SP "Mark II", Game Boy Micro.

It's not a new thing for Nintendo. It's got nothing to do with Apple.

 

I would say sony have been much worse for that, all they did the first 2 times was slim it down and reposition some things. And the PSP go was worse because of lack of physical media meaning people had to pay the outrageous prices on PSN for the content.

The DS original was fat and ugly so a redesign was very much needed. The DSi was a pretty big improvement. The only particularly pointless one is the Xl IMO

 

Saying the DS was "fat and ugly" and using that as a basis for the "need" to redesign is no different to the PS3 to slim situation or the Xbox 360 one. Everyone's doing it, but Nintendo are likely reaping the highest benefits of the the console manufacturers.

 

Yeah, except in the case of the original DS it was rushed to launch. The DS wasn't even Nintendo's intended successor, the GBA2 was in development and was the main priority for the company. When news of the PSP came about and its sooner than later release, Nintendo brought out a dual-screened project from the backburner, literally stuck a touchscreen and microphone on it (per the request of former president Yamauchi) and called it a day. It's why Nintendo gave it a different name from Game Boy and went all "it's the third pillar" back in 2004, they wasn't sure how it would be received and if it wasn't they could quickly discard it without damaging their GB brand.

The DS Lite was basically the true launch of the DS platform, it isn't coincidence that with the Lite a whole new image, marketing force and killer app games were released alongside it and it was from this time (late 2005 / early 2006) the platform started to shoot past the moon in sales. All this was only fifteen months after the original launch, so this new image and marketing would have been in development before 2004 (because overhauled marketing strategies are planned that far ahead), but since Nintendo had to rush they had to settle on whatever they could bang out at the time.

The GBA2 (if it was made) was basically going to be the PSP, in similar specs and all, but released at a much later date of probably 2005 or 2006. After all, the GBA was cut short, way shorter than what Nintendo intended or would have liked to, but the PSP forced their hand and they had to scramble for anything to release to compete with it. As such, the DS was the haphazard result, and the Lite was the turnaround of that haphazard result (making the best of what they got, which in the Lite's case Nintendo got a lot of best out of it).

I mean, apart from the "what the hell" look of the original DS, if you open it up it's rather shocking (and un-Nintendo-like) how mush waste there is. That's why I think a quick redesign for the 3DS is unlikely, not because I think Nintendo doesn't want to (more money = of course they want to), but because the most notable redesign possible for the 3DS (XL) completely depends on when the parallax barrier can boast as big a sweet spot on a larger screen as it does now and for an affordable mass-produced cost. Before, it was a case of "Holy crap, did we really waste so much space with this thing / did we really go with such a crappy dull screen? Oh well, this will be a pinch to improve".

 

I didn't say Nintendo got into the habit due to Apple, but thanks for helping my case. Money suckers.

 

Wait wait wait, you expect a company expecting to turn the highest possible profit not to be "money suckers"?
Nintendo, or Apple for that matter, aren't charities.

There are arguments for redesigns but at the end of the day, especially in the case of Apple, I can't believe that some features are not held back with the intent to implement them in the near future in a new iteration of the same product.
It's just business.