Topic: Do you think the 3DS's graphics are good enough?

...Another old thread bumped...sighs

@Mizore at least this one isn't from 2011

Yeah I guess, lol...

should we play games for seeing high graphics ?
or we mostly play games for for gameplay and contents ?
i'm not against high graphics but without gameplay and good contents , i can say that's almost a graphical showcase ! not a game !
as i say i think 3ds graphics power is almost enough .

Fun fact, 30fps is faster than standard video frames for multimedia. Another fun fact, the human eye can only see about 65fps, give or take a few, as it takes about 3 milliseconds for the brain to receive all input from the sensory organs, then it has to process that information and filter it, as well as severe limitation to the optical nerves.

The "this has the bestest graphics ever" is flawed, primarily because people often look at the numbers and think the higher the better. What makes the graphics of the 3DS so awesome is that it has stereoscopic information available at a level considered standard, or better. The resolution is a bit lacking, but considering the cost is kept low by that, it's well worth it. As @gp993 pointed out, gameplay is much more important than graphics. Tetris is still the most popular video game of all time, and it has no need for anything better than 4 bit graphics.

Graphics don't matter that much to me. I mean, don't get me wrong, I want developers to push the system some, but smooth and comfortable gameplay is more important than how pretty it looks.

Besides, I have a Vita for that.

"Graphics mean everything!!!" - fools

No.

I honestly think they are. It sits between the GameCube and the Wii powerwise. I hope that 3DS lasts some 4/5 years more or so, if the general public perception is matched by mine. I just want it to keep getting games.

excuse me i think it's better we don't call them fools
but i think they thoughts aren't correct ! (who's thinks graphics are everything!!!)

3DS is more capable than Wii. It has Street Fighter 4, Dead or Alive, RE, etc. None of those games could have been done on Wii(as well, anyway).

There were advantages in Wii's hardware, but physics, AI, graphic enhancements not seen on Wii, are in the 3DS.

Most developers just don't make use of it, as that's why they put it on a handheld in the first place...cheaper game to make. It's capable of a lot more than what most games put out there...which is sad.

My only complaint graphics-wise is the screen resolution. The jaggies are rampant.

The 3DS strikes a perfect balance between power and development cost. It's cheap, quick, and easy to put out a decent looking game on the 3DS.

The Vita can say "no" all it wants. Alone in its corner, because nobody wants to waste two years of their life developing a pint-sized qHD game that nobody's going to play anyway.

Nah I dont' think 3DS graphic are good enough. Its need flat screen OLED 4K HD, 120 frame per seconds, two HDMI ports for TV or Dual Monitors, DLNA server, and some sexy bikini swimsuit shows!

You forgot the kitchen sink.

@Patriplexity P stands for Progressive

Anyway, I think on the graphics debate I would of liked to see a small increase to resolution for the 3DS XL. But i think the next big push should be 60 FPS as that actually effects gameplay (see Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D)

Yes i do believe the 3ds graphics are good enough. Than again thats also what i said with the ds and gba(since they looked way better than their predecessor).

60fps and antialiased would have been fine (Ideally exactly double the resolution of the DS as well) . As it stands it is borderline unacceptable.

They could give the option of 3D or 60fps and antialiased. (Dead or alive dimensions has a similar sort of choice so I don't think it would be difficult.)

If it is not acceptable, then why do you buy one? I think you mean preferred?

Anyhow, the frame rate being the same with, or without, the stereoscopic is dependent on the game itself, I believe. For Pokemon X and Y you can see a difference between the frame rates in many instances, especially with a Vivillon in a singles battle. With the stereoscopic effect on there is a noticeable frame rate decrease. The display does have an upper limit, though I can find no definitive source on the exact limits, that will be an effect of how fast the screen can refresh and the GPU.

Based on my research, the devs are to blame for most of the low frame rates, not the system. However, anything above 60fps would be wasted anyway, so meh. I tend to play RPGs, turn based more than anything as well, so frame rates hold little interest to me, as long as it's pretty. Many games use great antialiasing when the stereoscopic effect is turned off, with the stereoscopic though, only with an increase in resolution, and thus huge increase in cost, would the issue be resolved. It's just a side effect of the great new feature.