Topic: If the 3DS never had an Autostereoscopic (3D) display, and other spec considerations

One problem that the 3DS and Wii U have in common: they're expensive for the wrong reason. While the Wii U had that big tablet controller that was 1/3 of the systems price, the 3DS has that parallax barrier display. This was the most expensive component at launch according to early teardowns, and likely still is given the lower price of the 2DS XL. I think it would have been better if they instead had a higher resolution screen and a better GPU (which would be needed to render more pixels), and it would likely still be cheaper.

I know that it would need a different name. But that's not the point. Let's just assume that they gave it a name that worked.

Even from a business perspective, it may have had an easier launch year this way. I remember talking to people at the time it was new, and it seemed that many people mistakenly believed it was just "Nintendo DS, in 3D!". It may have been a bad thing to put emphasis on it's least important feature, and it seemed to undermine the fact that it was a new system. I was obsessed with 3DTV at the time, but even then, I thought the resolution was too low for it to work well. Lastly, a lower price would have sped-up early sales.

Note that the 3DS has a 800×240 upper screen, but it appears 400×240 in 3D mode. With 3D off, the pixels are taller than they are wide.

Here are some alternative upper screens they could have chosen:

• 600×360 (no 3D):
  Only 12.5% more pixels. But it might look sharper due to having perfectly square pixels, despite the 3DS as it is having a bigger horizontal resolution (with 3D off). This is the resolution you get on the Wii with the included video cables.
• 640×384 (no 3D):
  The resolution of the original DS scaled 2×. DS games would be less blurry; which doesn't matter to me, but maybe for some people.
• 800×480 (no 3D):
  Same horizontal resolution that the 3DS has with 3D off, but twice the vertical resolution. This is the resolution that the Wii can output if you bought component cables. The GPU would need to be more powerful to render the same games at this resolution. However, this is still lower than the PS Vita (960×544).
  GBA games would scale better, if they were playable on 3DS.
• 800×480 (autostereoscopic):
  Unlike the above options, this would have made the 3DS more expensive. So if they did this, it only should have been a higher-end model, not the only version. But then, maybe no-one would get this version if they had the choice.
  Basically the screen that they went with, but twice the vertical resolution. It would have square pixels when 3D is off. They could still use the same parallax barrier, as the horizontal resolution is the same.

Don't know about the lower touch screen, but it would probably make the most sense to give it the same pixel density so games like Super Mario Maker can easily move sprites between the screens.

The GPU:
The 3DS has a single-core GPU, which is rather unheard of nowadays ASIK. The PS Vita has a quad-core, and desktop GPU's now have hundreds. I believe that GPU's with more cores have better performance per watt.

I think they should have went with a dual-core GPU up to twice as powerful. A higher screen resolution takes a proportionally faster GPU to render the same thing.

So what does everyone else think? Do you think that Nintendo chose the right specs for the 3DS?

@Electric-Gecko
3DS concept actually was right.
I don't really mind with the graphic, as long the gameplay concept are interesting and have high replay value, I can play those games frequently.
Btw, DS2 ? DSS ?
There was a NDS games named with DS2, I mean DS 2 for the last title. It was Kawaii Koneko DS 2.
DSS ?? Dual Screen Screen ??
3DS was the fit name. Combination from 3D and DS. Well, 3DDS sounds weird than 3DS.

@Electric-Gecko yeeeeaaaahh but don't you remember the excitement of the fists time you turned up that 3D slider and with no glasses at all got that 3D display.
I'm the first to admit I don't the 3d function very much at all and yes it's a bit of a gimmick but it's those kinds of gimmicks that I love Nintendo doing and they do it whole heartedly. The Wii was awesome just for motion controls whereas MS and Sony couldn't even hope to replicate the same success with their efforts.
I don't know I just love that Nintendo charm and part of that is all the excessive accessories and weird ideas.
Like when I played the DS the first time and had to wake someone in Zelda I pressed every button I tried all the different moves I had then swore In frustration to discover shouting into the microphone was the answer! My mind was blown that day and Nintendo do little things like that all the time no other company consistently has that effect on me.
Sorry gone on too long.

The 3D effect was one of the most impactful and exciting things about the device at the beginning, and in the post-Switch era, one of the things that keeps the system as a whole relevant. I'm playing a recent Ace Attorney game on it, and I still stop to marvel at just how good it looks - despite the relatively paltry CPU and resolution - mainly because of masterful use of the 3D effect.

The march of time ensures that any advantage in power or resolution gained by ditching the 3D would have been eventually eroded by later systems (and now has been by the Switch - the world's most powerful handheld). By using genuinely new technology for a games console, rather than just newer incarnations of fundamentally old technology, the system became a lot more compelling, memorable, and in my mind, treasured.

Attempting to fit the effect onto the Switch would be awkward and create a disparity between TV and handheld modes. But through its incarnation in the 3DS, I think the effect thoroughly justified itself, and the system's existence.

I guess the good thing is, if you wanted Nintendo to release a handheld that focused on power and resolution above 3D effect, you've now got one; they have just released the most powerful, highest resolution handheld ever. Which makes retroactively wishing the 3DS were just a worse version of that not feel particularly tempting - to me anyway.

@Filth_Element Yeeeeaaaahh I was curious to see it. I actually went to a store around launch day (where there was no line-up or anything to indicate the launch of a new console), and asked the clerk if they had a 3DS I could see. It wasn't set-up on a stand yet so the guy brought it out just for me. I did think it was cool to see, but the low resolution was clear, and even then I didn't expect lasting appeal from this feature.

But it was still short-sighted, and short-sighted isn't wise; the opposite in fact. The fact of the 2DS shows that Nintendo themselves decided that it's an unimportant feature, even for the games made for it. I don't mind little, inexpensive hardware gimmicks that can be used in games like the mic you described (was that Phantom Hourglass? I don't remember that scene.). But even cheap unobtrusive hardware features like that are best kept discrete. Can you imagine if the mic on the DS was advertised as it's "big feature"?

Since you said that MS & Sony could never succeed with these things; Did you know that the kinect is the fastest-selling consumer electronic of all time?

WTF? Post-Switch era? It's still early on in the "Switch era", and the "post-Switch" era is still too far to be foreseeable. I sure do wonder what Nintendo will be like years down the road, but we definately don't know now.

What you're saying here doesn't really work. The Switch is a new platform that's not backwards-compatible. It has better specs, but that only matters for newly released games. 3DS games are still stuck to that crappy screen resolution. In fact, they're still making 3DS exclusive game, so even some new games will remain stuck.

The 3DS has some good games, but the system and the games would have aged better if there was a plain 480p or 360p display. In fact, "aged" isn't such a great word to use. A 480p display of that size was nothing fancy when the 3DS was released. Instead, the screen they gave it was arguably worse than the then 7-year old PSP. A 480p display would have been far from over-the-top at the time (even scaling-up the GPU to accommodate it).

@Electric-Gecko yes it was Phantom Hourglass.

I did know the kinect sold well but how many games did you play on that system? When Sony and MS jumped aboard they didn't implement it as well as Nintendo did they. Let's be honest.

I agree with you that the games on 3ds would look great with better graphics but like anything with Nintendo they just go their own way and I've come to accept that because again (I know I'm repeating myself) it's the experiences I get with their games and their systems I really appreciate.

Also the 2DS was introduced later on as a budget option I personally believe it wasn't because Nintendo thought the 3D was a waste it short sighted.

But I suppose I'm not the only one that struggles to understand Nintendos decisions over the years I've just grown accustomed to their idiosyncrasies. Lol.

@Filth_Element Yeah; Kinect was a success in sales, not quality. I doubted the idea right from when it was announced (when I was 11). I only tried it once at the store playing Dance Central (I believe). It was actually a very great utilization of the Kinect. But then, I can't see it being any good beyond that.

I didn't try Playstation move much either. I read about better tracking the Motionplus, but I never actually tried motionplus. I don't know how well the games themselves utilized it. But TBH, I don't think the motion controls on Wii were often utilized in the right way. When you say that MS & Sony didn't implement it as well, did you mean it on the hardware or software side?

But I feel what you mean that Nintendo is better than other game devs at actually utilizing weird hardware features in games. I was recently reading about the PS Vita (which I haven't really heard much about since it's launch), and read that the rear touch panels are rarely utilized. WTF? It's such a promising feature, and it should be stupidly easy to find use for it in this age of touchscreens.

If Nintendo ever did go third party, I wonder if they would be the ones to find uses for little-used hardware features on devices they didn't create.

Nintendo makes great games. But unfortunately, cutting back on screen resolution to the extent that they have makes their games feel like being "cheated of the full experience". I have recently played Wii games on Dolphin Emulator, and have realized that many games on the Wii are very nice looking if their in HD. Super Mario Galaxy is the prime example. It was very impressive to see the wonderful graphics that were always locked away on the Wii, or even Wii U. Nintendo should be embarrassed by the fact that playing one of their games on an emulator gives a better experience than any "official" way to play it, especially given how Nintendo insists that they can give better experiences using their own hardware.

I'm happy that games developed for the Switch won't feel held-back like Wii, DS, and 3DS games. Too bad that theres no better way to play some games from those consoles though.

BTW, I'm not really a high-end type of person. I just really like things to be "better than suck".

Yeah; You're not a true Nintendo fan without having some issues with them.

I just joined these forums, and only got back into Nintendo fairly recently. But even before I payed active attention to the Nintendo fan community, I always had the impression that Nintendo has a fairly bittersweet fanbase; a fanbase that by no means viewes them as a "perfect company".

@Electric-Gecko lol I'm gonna disagree with you there about not being a true fan just cause I'm not complaining enough. Famicom was my very first console (I grew up in South Africa and they didn't have NES's till much later on) and been playing Nintendo most of my life, I'm 33 now. Reckon it's just cause I'm long in the tooth and now accept that they are just not gonna change no matter what I think or do.

Side note: After a brief love affair with Sega. I was the one at school missing out on key games like Resident Evil and MGS as I argued with friends the N64 was more powerful, ignored the PS2 and its goodies as I bought a Gamecube etc etc.... Later on I had Wii and PS3 then the PS4 whilst I left the Wii U in the shelf until it was discontinued.

Anyway back to the point. I recently started playing some Wii games on Wii U and impressed by the bump in picture quality just with a HD output. It's made me want to find the HD output cable you can get for the Wii and the Gamecube (is there one for N64 I should research that, cause that'd be awesome!). So yeah I want the graphics to be better I'm not crazy... 😋 I just choose not to get frustrated with their ways anymore. In fact I've started to actually appreciate their strange way of operating, they are like a weird uncle, it's just the way they are, it's kinda comforting that they don't change.

Lol "Oh Nintendo how I love thee" 🤣

@Electric-Gecko I think a big difference is that Nintendo's systems come with ''different'' controls, whereas they're often optional in the case of PlayStation and Xbox. The motion controls for example, the Wii came with those out of the box, whereas you have to buy the PS Move separately, thus the potential user base you're selling your motion controls games to is smaller than if you didn't require motion controls at all. That's why you rarely see games on the PS4 that require PS Move (unless they're made by Sony themselves). The DS4 has gyro controls too, but I don't think any developer ever bothered to utilise them, except in a few games, again, made by Sony.

On the other hand, Nintendo has the tendency to try and justify the existence of their alternate control schemes in games where they don't belong. So you end up with a game like Star Fox Zero that relied more on selling the concept of the GamePad (and it didn't succeed IMO) than actually making a good game. Or the second screen in Mario Color Splash, completely redundant, and it only made the battles last longer than they should have.

The best situation would be a compromise between the two.

3D was one of the biggest reasons for me to buy a 3DS at launch and i don't regret it. they should have added a second analog nub though.

The "3DS" family as a whole would have done a lot better if it was the 2DS right from the beginning.

Nintendo wouldn't even have needed to resort to the price cut, because 2DS price would have been lower from the beginning and the system would have been more popular.

@Electric-Gecko Poor choice of words on my part. Post-Switch = Post-Switch Launch. The Switch era obviously hasn't ended, it's only just begun.

Anyway, my main point is that every time I sit down and play the AA prequel, I think "this is cool", because the 3D effect is so well applied. Everything pops, the set pieces look impressively deep and 'full', and the whole experience just feels more dynamic and theatrical; it's like you're staring into the environments themselves. If I had the same on a slightly higher resolution 2DS, I'd likely just think "this looks like a worse version of what I can get on my Switch". The 3D gives me a reason to go back and still think the device is doing something nifty other than having access to a bigger games library.

I suppose it just comes down to, "do you like the 3D effect". I do. I like it a lot. Some have it permanently set to off, however, and couldn't care less about it. For them I'm sure a higher resolution would be preferable. Personally, I find it hard to get too excited about - especially when I've got a shiny new portable with a gorgeous 720p screen to play with.

Resolution doesn't make the games, the gameplay and content makes the games.

I don't like the 3D effect but I sure as hell don't want to play on a PS Vita or a Switch just because the resolution is higher, when the games are lower quality than what I can play on the 2DS.

No; I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say that you are not a Nintendo fan. I was actually agreeing that you're "not the only one that struggles to understand Nintendos decisions over the years". I just added one word to my post , "Yeah" just to make it clearer.

What I meant was that Nintendo fans don't view Nintendo as a "perfect company" by any means. Nintendo has a mix of very good and very bad.

I don't personally see the big need for it myself, but that was resolved with the New 3DS. It would be nice though if more games were updated to take advantage of it, such as Ocarina of Time 3D (for camera control). Sadly though, they didn't upgrade the screen resolution or GPU.

@Octane You're right that it's less often utilized when it's an optional accessory. In fact, motionplus may have had worse adoption than Playstation move. I think that these accessories should be treated like new consoles in that the games are used as a reason to buy them. I remember when the motionplus got released when I was about 12 and I thought "Don't need it yet. I'll just wait until there's a game I want that uses it.".

But about the Gyro controls on the Playstation; The PS3 controller had them too, and you might be surprised by how often they were used. In many cases, they were akin to that example of how Nintendo used the mic in Phantom Hourglass to wake someone up. In Killzone 3, there was an occassion where it asked the player to turn a valve wheel. In heavy rain, it was used to little tasks like that and quick-time events. Little Big Planet used it in a purely cosmetic way; tilt the controller to tilt the sackperson's head. But they didn't use it to nearly the extent of Nintendo on the Wii, and not in intense situations that value player performance.

When you speak of compromise, I agree with you there. In fact, I think that Nintendo has a very big tendency to come up with good ideas but then push them too far. For example; making the Wii smaller and with cheaper specs could have been a good way to differentiate it from PS3 and 360, but they went so far on this idea that the Wii was taken less seriously as a gaming console. There's probably some better examples of my point.

@Mahe But it's not like the games would have been worse if the 3DS had a higher resolution. As I said, they could have had a higher resolution non-3D screen and still be cheaper, or a 800×480 3D screen and be only slightly more expensive. So, why wouldn't they?

@Maxz Alright, I suppose that some people like it. But I feel like there's too few people that use it for it to be considered a successful feature, especially as it added significantly to the systems price.

While there are some people who just can't appreciate 3D, I actually quite like it if it's "done well". I would really like it if I could do that with my desktop computer. But with the 3DS, I feel like the resolution is too low for it to work well. Even if it was 480p per-eye and with MSAA, I think it would be worth using if they had it (when plugged in), but still not worth the extra $50.

@Mahe Agree with this 100%. I just meant that if given the choice between a 3D effect that was never used, and a slightly higher frame resolution, most people would choose of the later. Of course, the third option is 'no 3D, same res, lower price point', which is just the 2DS - something a lot of people are happy with.

The only people who missed out last generation are those who wanted an 'HDS' - potentially a sort of PS Vita for Nintendo games. Not literally HS resolution, but I like the name so I'm using it. But as I've said, I'm personally much happier we got what we did, though I'm happy to see the 'high spec handheld' thing attempted now that tech had advanced to a point where we can comfortably eclipse the last generation of home consoles in a tablet format. Switch games really do feel like 'home console games', on the go.

@Electric-Gecko lol, oh ok all good. Don't worry didn't take offence anyway haha.

This thread has made me pick up my 3ds xl and flip that switch skyward. I have the new 2DS xl and been playing A Link Between Worlds. I love my new 2DS. But reading this made me question my choices and take my 3ds xl off my wife and turn the 3d on.

........You know what it looks great in 3d the cliffs in Lorule look intimidating, when Link gets burnt he flies towards me... I'm a 3d convert way late in the game. I used to try it for like five minutes and go yeah thets cool, move on and turn it off. Thanks to this thread I'm gonna turn it on waaaaay more and I reckon others should try doing the same!

Cheers

@Filth_Element You mean Ocarina of Time 3D? In that game, I occasionally flip it on just to take a look.

But here's what I mean when I say the 3DS is underspeced for it: When you look at the trees in Hyrule, you sometimes get a different image in each eye, which messes with the head. Because of the low resolution and lack of anti-aliasing, you can see some leaves in one eye and not the other, which gives you a strange double-imaging effect.

For stereoscopic 3D, multisample anti-aliasing might as well be required by law.

@Electric-Gecko no A Link Between Worlds 3ds exclusive made for. And I can't wait to see new Metroid Samus Returns as I've heard very very good things about the 3d visuals for that game. One last hoorah.... I hope not😰

@Electric-Gecko For whatever reason, the resolution changes the game development spec. Higher resolution means more expensive games, and that changes the kind of games that devs make, and how much they charge for them.

Just look at PS Vita and Switch. I'm sure you can agree that most of the games on those systems are not the same as the games on 2DS. Nintendo could make 2DS style games on Switch if they wanted to... but for some reason, they aren't making those games. And PS Vita didn't get the 2DS style games either.

That means that sometimes you really have to choose a lower resolution to get better games.

I agree the 3d gimmick was useless. Also second screen gimmick 90% of the time. We could do without them and trade them for faster CPU/GPU and better resolution. PS Vita with 3ds games would be a match made in heaven