Topic: If you bought a 3DS and are hoping for games NOT in 3D, you got your wish.

Yes! Sorry, am I too excited?

Well I read the article more in depth and all it's saying is Iwata wants any company to use different features of the 3ds and not just 3d. If a company does use 3d that's fine but he doesn't want the 3ds becoming a waggle fest like wii. That's why nintendo will more than likely make a game or two without 3d and use some other feature of the 3ds. Or maybe just have a game or two in 2d.

To be honest I suspected this. The 3D was a gimminck from the beginning thats all. Truthfully it doesnt bother me I rather have a bunch of good games without 3D than a bunch of shovelware with 3D. Besides I buy a system for the games not the gimmicks. I didnt buy a N64 for the rumble feature and I didnt buy my Xbox 360 for Netflix. You see where I am going with this.

Netflix is a gimmick?

People need to learn the definition of a gimmick. The 3D isn't a gamechanger. There's nothing that can be done in 3D that can't be in 2D. But it is a significant enhancement to the feel, presentation, and value of a game, and at times it even helps the gameplay in granting greater perception of the distance between objects. It's an improvement, not a gimmick. As such, I don't see why games need to be made that don't have the option. Do they need to be designed around the 3D-ness of the display? No, they should be good games in 2D or 3D, regardless of your preference. But to make a strictly 2D game for the system is to disregard something that is an aid to the overall package and which (with the ability to turn off the 3D at any time) in no way acts as a detriment, either, unlike implementing motion controls solely for the sake of implementing motion controls.

I don't think the 3d is a gimmick I mean it was built into the system. Yes some games just don't need it but it can be helpful in others. Plus this article isn't saying no 3d it just says Iwata wants companies to use the other 3ds features not just focus on 3d they don't have to just do that.

Personally as long as they make it where you can get the same enjoyment and play experience out of turning the 3D on and off than I dont mind it. Personally every time I have tried the 3DS with the 3D effect on at the store I always ended up having to stop playing it after 5 mins or so cause my eyes begin to hurt so I usually turn the 3D off when I play it.

[quote=17124The 3DS was marketed to be in 3D without glasses, overwise it's just an upgraded DS with improved graphics.

[/quote]

And the GBA was just a Gameboy with improved graphics. The extra processing and graphical power can be used to create longer, deeper games with better AI and more complex environments - not just pretty pictures. DS -> 3DS is basically like jumping from the N64 to the Wii almost, even if you disregard the 3D. If anything the crack in NIntendo's advertising has been to over-emphasize the 3D, since it seems there are still a lot of people that don't recognize this device as the true next-generation handheld.

No, I don't work for or have any stake, financial or otherwise with Nintendo, though if I can get a job with them doing something like developing games for them, hells yeah I'll take it. Additionally, I haven't disregarded everything you've said; I simply don't agree with your points and offered my own opinion about them instead of questioning your sanity by backing them up. Furthermore, I don't support everything Nintendo has done, is doing and will be doing. I just don't post my opinion about everything for four reasons: 1. I'm not the most articulate person. I can't formulate an end-all "I'm right and you're totally wrong" response very quickly, as evidenced by an argument I got into with one of my friends on Facebook and a different friend of mine practically defended my side of the argument by himself. 2. I'm usually not the first person to state the opinion I have on a topic, so I often don't state it specifically on the basis on redundancy. 3. I've been known to be "late to the party" on forming my opinion, so the debate is often over before I can jump into it, and 4. People need to remember that Nintendo is a company, not a dream factory, so when they make decisions that may piss off some people or make little sense, I keep that in mind, so their side usually comes out as the more logical one (usually, I still don't know what finally compelled Nintendo to revive the Kid Icarus franchise). I take part in many non-Nintendo based discussions, but the ones focused on this site are ones that I'm not interested in or know nothing about, so I stay away from topics like Star Wars, My Little Pony, Adventure Time (man I hate that show), etc. And I don't celebrate everything Nintendo has put out; I've never played franchises and games like Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, LoZ (a crime, I'm sure), etc. Anything else?

I think this is logical good news. I mean as is no game requires it, it's a perk. Also when it has to render 2 copies of the same game on that 800 pixel wide screen (a pair of 400 pixel boxes offset) it ends up using like twice the Video RAM, more normal RAM, and a good bit more processor. The video chip and main cpus it uses can really output stuff that would make stuff like Dead or Alive look pretty boring and low tier if it wasn't saddled with doing two of the same image. I guarantee certain people earlier and more later on will likely drop 3D or use it for certain events just so they can tax the system far more heavier for better visual and audio output while leaving more cpu to do calculations for AI routines and what not. I'm not saying it'll make the system quite the equal to the Vita, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a few games ported between the two with some similar assets given the option to ditch the 3D to use the parts more efficiently.

I know what you mean, but I disagree. As I said, It's only a bit more than a gimmick. The only augment it provides is depth perception. I think it's been marketed poorly as a "3D DS", when in reality it's the increased power and overall functionality of the system that warrants a purchase.

I don't think Nintendo, or any third party company, should be forced to put in the extra hours to make a 3D game when 3D may have nothing to add. I don't want to play 2D platformers in 3D, and I don't want to pay more to play said platformers in 3D.

Good. The games will look better this way, and I hate 3D anyway.

Dear people saying 3D is just a gimmick - play Samurai Warriors or Dead or Alive. In the hands of a development team that understands 3D, games can become a whole lot more cinematic and vibrant when in 3D.

For anyone that says that visuals arent an important part of a game experience, that's a load of tripe. That graphics vs gameplay argument is silly - one can't exist without the other.

I wouldn't by a 3DS game without 3D. That's what the Vita is for.

It you don't like 3D, then get a PSVita
It's so much better then a silly little 3DS, and it's poor line-up of games

Lol wtf is going on I am so confuse

^This (sorry I dont have Samurai Warriors..... Yet) but I agree DOA is amazing in 3D

Dont take him serious he's not actually bashing Nintendo, he's poking fun of what Sony Fanboys and Sony's JackTretton (hence his name) does

You mean that's not really Jack Tretton?

@MiracleBlaze, I'm not a Sony fanboy, but Vita is already generations ahead of 3DS, and current 3DS games are terrible and few. These are facts. And if you need arguments, go and get the specs of both devices and compare them, then go and the get the list of near 80 (80, not 8) games under development for Vita and compare it with what we have for 3DS after half of a year and what we might expect to have before 2012, and finally, get the list of game devs that already have a strong position to support Vita and compare it with these openly supporting 3DS.

No, it's kind of like when kids sit on Santa's lap, but it's not really Santa.