Nintendo moves into the next dimension: 3DS in stores February 2011

[dman_dustin]

Also, 3D is a definite gimmick that cannot possibly enhance gameplay

But it can. I think people are missing the point of 3D.

Seriously, think of virtual reality, or think of Star Trek's hologram system.

The logic that it cannot enhance gameplay could not be applied to that. And thus that's why people are missing the point of 3D. It's supposed to be like you're there so it can enhance the experience and gameplay.

The Resident Evil Creator or whatever said that with the 3D option you have depth, thus with the other features you would want to look behind a couch or something.

Wanting to look behind a couch isn't nearly as interesting as it sounds without 3D. Because without 3D it's simply just the character looking behind the couch for whatever crazy ass reason you would want to. But with 3D you yourself are looking behind the couch as if you were the character.

How anyone could miss the main point of 3D is beyond me. If you have eye problems with 3D than that's a great excuse but still for those who have no problem, I don't see why they are missing the point.

as you can not interact back with it

That cannot be the sole definition of Gameplay since most games are not nearly as interactive as you may think. A lot of it is pre-programmed. Like Halo for example it doesn't feel like your shooting the game, but how can having multiple weapons enhance gameplay when 3D doesn't after all their just weapons. Oh sure they shoot out different things and have different power but they still require the same buttons. So yeah shooting a pistol is honestly no different than shooting any other weapon.

Likewise I don't see the difference between something like the sniper and 3D. I mean one would argue that with the sniper a new screen shows up and you can zoom in and shoot characters far away. But how can that same logic not be applied to 3D. With 3D you can likely see characters behind characters because of depth. You can't tell that with 2D at all because most likely for the first time playing through you'll probably think its some horrible graphics thing, and the person you see is just horribly mutated. Up until a sword stabs the person causing you to realize "Oops I was wrong, looks like it was just someone behind him."

The main point of 3D in case you missed it is quite simple. It's supposed to add depth to games and make the gamer feel more important by making it seem like the gamer is actually the character they are playing or hell make it seem like the gamer is at least a part of it from a 3rd person type of situation. 2D games even with 1st person perspective cannot pull it off, because the gamer doesn't have anything to relate to. 3D on the other hand can do that, since we live in a 3 dimensional world.

 

[Suikun]

I thought about it, and I doubt I'll get one. Black and White are just fine on a Lite, from what I hear. Besides, the upward price trend from the DSi is making me reluctant to shell out that much money.

 

[Shiron]

Also, 3D is a definite gimmick that cannot possibly enhance gameplay.

Sure it can. First, take platforming for example. Right now, video games are using what are essentially optical tricks (shading and the like) to try and emulate the feeling of 3D. Why do they do this? Well, because it looks better, and it gives the player a feeling of depth, which allows the game developers to do things like actually giving platforms an amount of depth instead of all objects having essentially the same amount.

However, the thing is, that's still just an illusion of depth, as it's being projected onto a flat screen. This becomes most apparent during sidescrolling segments, which can make it a bit accurate to judge how far you should jump to platforms in the foreground/background, at least not without a bit of practice. With actual 3D though, it's not simple optical tricks anymore: the images from the game have actual depth, which makes it much easier to judge the distance to to a nearby platform and as a result making platforming segments of games easier.

And that's not even to mention puzzle games (and puzzles in general), which I'm sure will find some way to take advantage of the extra dimension.

But in any case, it's definitely not just some visual gimmick and it will affect how some of these games are played.

 

[fate]

While I don't disagree with your points about immersion, a simple 3D handheld will not accomplish that degree of immersion. That won't happen until true virtual reality is realized.

Also, parallax barrier does not produce the "coming at you" 3D, it produces "going away from you" depth. Which, can work wonders if used properly on side-scrolling games. However, it's applications for immersion are a bit limited.

I'm not saying the 3D won't work for some things, but we aren't getting that level of immersion here.

 

[SaffronGamer]

$h!t.........
there is no way i can gat a 300 doller handheld console.......

 

[dman_dustin]

Also, parallax barrier does not produce the "coming at you" 3D, it produces "going away from you" depth.

Why would Nintendo advertise it as 3D without glasses? You get going away from you depth simply from a camera and position of person to screen/camera. I saw the DSi sample of this and it we/I saw this on a 2D only monitor and I saw how depth works.

Why would you need special glasses for that?

I mean yes I'm sure a lot of the games will have that kind of depth, obviously, but they wouldn't advertise "3D without glasses" since the main reason to have specialised glasses is for the "coming at you feature in movies. Yes there is some depth involved but you really wouldn't need glasses for that. Especially when just having a camera can already give you that feeling (even if it would be more fake).

And I remember seeing a video where my 2D monitor did sort of show things popping out at you even if it really was just emulated.

The paralax barrier thing, might be the easiest way to pull off the depth you speak of, but with other methods, I cannot see why you would need special glasses for it, as Nintento said "3D without glasses."

Not to mention their 3DS commercial heavily implied things popping at you 3D.

Am I confused, or are people misunderstanding the 3DS? I mean I'm pretty sure that Sony device video displayed actual 3D popping at you because of its technology. I don't see how depth is so fascinating when simply position of certain things (camera and person) can already give you that feeling, why would you need glasses, unless the glasses are simply for stationary people since the method I refer to actually require the person to move.

 

[KidWithTheGoldenArmaldo]

I am really excited about the 3DS. The glass-free 3D, the incredible lineup, and the improved graphics are just the tip of the iceberg. I can't wait to send my Mii to my 3DS (with more creation options), and those AR games sounds cool. I'm hoping they get something like Invisimals for the PSP. Search if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Plus, GB/GBC VC games!

 

[GoldenSandslash15]

I'm not saying that the 3DS doesn't interest me. I'm saying that it doesn't belong on Bulbanews of all places.

Because every new main game of pokémon is released on a Nintendo Portable.Knowing about the machine we will need to play the games is important.

You don't need a 3DS to play any Pokémon games at all. We don't know that there will be any Pokémon games on the 3DS.

There weren't any Pokémon games on the Virtual Boy, which was Nintendo's last 3D portable system. What makes the 3DS different?

 

[Dogasu]

The Virtual Boy predates the first Pokemon game. So of course there weren't any Pokemon games for the system.

That's like saying that there weren't any Pokemon games on the NES, so therefore we shouldn't expect to see any Pokemon games on any future home consoles. It's ridiculous.

OF COURSE there's going to be a slew of Pokemon games released for the 3DS. There's absolutely no way in hell there won't be.



Also,

I wish the article had made it more clear that the price for the US has not been confirmed yet. I'm so tired of seeing people whining about the system costing $300 when that's definitely not going to be the case for the US.

 

[GoldenSandslash15]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Game Boy predated the Virtual Boy.

Edit: Never mind. I looked it up.

Jul 21 1995 - Virtual Boy in Japan
Aug 14 1995 - Virtual Boy in America
Dec 22 1995 - VB cancelled in Japan
Mar 2 1996 - VB cancelled in America
Feb 27 1996 - Red & Green in Japan
Oct 15 1996 - Blue in Japan
Sep 30 1998 - Red & Blue in America
May 10 1999 - Red & Blue in Europe

 

[Ino-Chan]

Well, no matter what people say, I'm still getting one, along with at least two of the new games.

 

[Dogasu]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Game Boy predated the Virtual Boy.

I was talking about the overall lifespan. The Virtual Boy was a dead system before the first Pokemon game came out, where the Game Boy was not.

 

[Sheep]

Personally, I don't think spending $300 on this thing is worth it. Sure, if you're spoiled or plain really want it, go ahead. It'll be outdated in a year anyway, though; technology moves too fast. P: I'll stick with my Lite and get the 3DS if it ever drops by a lot (which probably won't happen /stares at Brawl) and games I REALLY want are released for it.

They'll make the handheld smaller and screen bigger or something and call it Nintendo 3DS X. Because that's what Nintendo does.

 

[Dogasu]

It's not going to be $300.

I wish people would stop acting like it will be.

 

[Mijumaru]

It's not going to be $300.

I wish people would stop acting like it will be.

I think that what you mean is that that's only the translation from the Japanese price to the American price.

When it comes out, I believe it's going to be around $190-$200.

 

[Pokémad]

I hope it's less or It will not get bought by me, let's just hope it's £150 for all us Brits.

 

[Red G]

I think that what you mean is that that's only the translation from the Japanese price to the American price.

When it comes out, I believe it's going to be around $190-$200.

Thank goodness. Changing the price makes sense when I think about it. I was getting worried about that $300 price tag XD

 

[JordanN]

Unless if things change, there is no way I'm going to get a 3DS -- at least, not yet. US $300?

As stressed numerous amounts of time, that's Japan's price for the handheld, not the international price.

That's not to forget things in Japan are already more expensive than things in the west and the price also includes tax. It's definitely going to be listed for much lower when released in North America and Europe.

Edit: It was a lie? Frak.

Finally, Nintendo always comes up with multiple models for the same kind of handheld, so I can easily see getting an original model of a 3DS, only to find that a newer one is going to be announced a few weeks later. I remember being infuriated when I got a DS in 2005 and heard about the then-new DS Lite a month or so later. Sigh.

You were obviously late to the party when you bought a DS in 2005. The handheld was out in 2004 so a new model didn't come out until nearly two years later.

 

[fate]

Wrong. 3DS has a virtual console that supports GBA emulation.

No... that was not formally announced yet. Someone on a liveblog said it and it grew for there as a rumor, but it was never actually stated.

When it comes out, I believe it's going to be around $190-$200.

Not likely. The general consensus is around 250$.

 

[The Outrage]

Not likely. The general consensus is around 250$.

In US, and in Canada, it would probably be $20-30 more (hey, the DSi managed to cost way more even when the USD and CAD were about equal), applying tax it is over $300, so I don't think people should go around saying that "everyone's overreacting because it won't cost that much in the US" when not everyone saying that is in the US.