Nintendo Announces 3DS

[BreakABone]

Yes, a 3D capable DS. :lolz:


March 23, 2010

To Whom It May Concern:
Re: Launch of New Portable Game Machine

Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Minami-ward of Kyoto-city, President Satoru Iwata) will launch "Nintendo 3DS"(temp) during the fiscal year ending March 2011, on which games can be enjoyed with 3D effects without the need for any special glasses.

"Nintendo 3DS"(temp) is going to be the new portable game machine to succeed "Nintendo DS series", whose cumulative consolidated sales from Nintendo amounted to 125million units as of the end of December 2009, and will include backward compatibility so that the software for Nintendo DS series, including the ones for Nintendo DSi, can also be enjoyed.

We are planning to announce additional details at E3 show, which is scheduled to be held from June 15, 2010 at Los Angeles in the U.S.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2010/100323e.pdf

[magus113]

What in the hell? If experience tells me anything about 3D products, I don't think this is gonna be a cheap one at ALL.

[manasecret]

Early April Fool's joke? How do they expect to do 3D effects without glasses when no one else is able to do it?

[BreakABone]

Early April Fool's joke? How do they expect to do 3D effects without glasses when no one else is able to do it?

By changing the rules!

Really, no idea, but someone linked to this video of a DSiWare game
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SWAg1s7xfz0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SWAg1s7xfz0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Angrist]

Yeah but the article on Eurogamer now has more interesting info... apparentlly Fuji already has 3D screens.

At first I thought it had to be April Fools too, but now I believe it's true.

E³ is gonna be great. :D

[Bube]

I'd rather have Nintendo focus on online gaming and better graphics instead of gimmicks like this.

I haven't seen any videos or anything (I'm not even sure a video can give any ideas about a 3D system), but I bet that this will make people nauseous. I hope it doesn't turn out like the Virtual Boy.

[thatmariolover]

I'd rather have Nintendo focus on online gaming and better graphics instead of gimmicks like this.

I haven't seen any videos or anything (I'm not even sure a video can give any ideas about a 3D system), but I bet that this will make people nauseous. I hope it doesn't turn out like the Virtual Boy.

O Ye of little faith.

I think Nintendo saw the 3DTV thing coming and decided to hop on the bandwagon. I don't know how exactly it works, but I'd guess we'll find out soon enough.

[FuzzTop]

I'd rather have Nintendo focus on online gaming and better graphics instead of gimmicks like this.

I haven't seen any videos or anything (I'm not even sure a video can give any ideas about a 3D system), but I bet that this will make people nauseous. I hope it doesn't turn out like the Virtual Boy.

At this point in the game, I don't thiknk nintendo has a choice on whether or not to focus on these things. Those two factors are what kept nintendo back in this generation's console war. However, I'm far more interested in nintendo's new future offering than either Sony or Microsoft's. Simply because while Sony and Microsoft tend to follow tried and true formulas for consoles while injecting new ideas via games, Nintendo tends to keep the story formula congruent with its past, while providing new ways to play the same story.


As for the 3d sans glasses I'll believe it when I see it. The only way that I see it working is with an attachable headpiece which tracks where your head is. That being said, if I wanted to look like a tool, I'd just go pick up a Miley Cyrus album and save myself the trouble.

[Typhoid]

This is a ridiculously bad idea.
Almost as bad as everyone is claiming the Sony Motion Dildo/Wand to be.

[Bube]

At this point in the game, I don't thiknk nintendo has a choice on whether or not to focus on these things. Those two factors are what kept nintendo back in this generation's console war.

To be honest, these were the factors that gave Nintendo a huge boost at the beginning of the generation.

Then the appeal started to wear off.

[manasecret]

Well, looking at the Sharp tech and Fuji's products, it does indeed look to be possible to do 3D without glasses. I wonder if any of Fuji's products are out at stores so I can test drive them...

If 3D works right (as in, Pandora-right), it's hardly a gimmick.

And jeez Typhoid, troll much? Even your lover-boys at Sony are making all of their products 3D-enabled. :p

[TheSlyMoogle]

To be honest, these were the factors that gave Nintendo a huge boost at the beginning of the generation.

Then the appeal started to wear off.

Bahaha gradually. Nintendo still owns this generation in terms of sales and that's all they needed.

I can't wait to see how the 3DS works.

[Typhoid]

And jeez Typhoid, troll much? Even your lover-boys at Sony are making all of their products 3D-enabled.

I don't love one system more than another. I just believe in objectivity when it comes to thinking what is good and what isn't.

A 3d handheld device? That seems like a really dumb idea in practice. In concept, it's a good idea. 3D anything is a good idea.

But a 3D handheld is such a dumb idea. It won't get off the ground more than just fanboys buying it up right away just to have one.

[manasecret]

Please explain. Why is 3D a dumb idea for a handheld? Because I honestly don't see where you're coming from.

[Typhoid]

Please explain. Why is 3D a dumb idea for a handheld? Because I honestly don't see where you're coming from.

Because of the price it will most likely be, and the fact 3d games for homes hasn't been tested yet.

I'm not saying people won't buy it. But to do it on a hand held first, opposed to an actual system is entirely backwards now.

It's like releasing a portable blu-ray player before blu-ray players for homes have been released, or put on the market. Would that sell? Sure. But would millions of people drop tons of money for something that hasn't been proven to be popular or generally accepted at that point? Probably not.

I didn't mean to say it was a dumb idea altogether. I even said on paper it's a great idea. I just meant to do it first is a dumb idea.

[Vampyr]

Touch screen was done on a handheld first.

And whenever the Wii and it's motion controller was announced everyone said it was a dumb idea too.

This will most likely be very successful. I think the reason they are doing it on a handheld first, as opposed to a console, is because if done on a console everyone would have to buy new TV's just to use the console.

[KillerGremlin]

You know what would be way more innovative?


Taping a fleshlight to a Nintendo DS. Now that is a handheld I could get behind. :lolz:

[TheSlyMoogle]

You know what would be way more innovative?


Taping a fleshlight to a Nintendo DS. Now that is a handheld I could get behind. :lolz:

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL A STICKY SITUATION!

[gekko]

I'm curious what the graphics hardware is going to be like on this. Even my 2-year old phone supports a programmable pipeline, unlike the Wii. If they do add one, I'll be curious to see if they adopt an existing high-level language.

[Bube]

Can somebody explain to me what this "head tracking" thing is and how it works? How does that make a system 3d-capable?

I read somewhere (probably Kotaku) that it might involve a tilt sensor similar to what the iPhone has.. I'm curious as to how that would work as well.

[Typhoid]

Well, Bube - you have to believe.

[Angrist]

I don't see how the head-tracking (DSi) stuff is really 3D. It only gives that illusion when you tilt the console or move your head. If you hold still, you won't see 3D. People won't fall for that.

[BreakABone]

I really won't comment on this being a good/bad idea until e3.

I mean really, we know nothing on the handheld other than what I started this thread with. So I'll wait for the hardware and software to present itself.

[Zach]

It sounds like there will be be some sort of film on the DS screens that makes it 3D. As long as it has good games, graphics and doesn't give me headaches, I'm in!

[manasecret]

It sounds like there will be be some sort of film on the DS screens that makes it 3D. As long as it has good games, graphics and doesn't give me headaches, I'm in!

Hopefully I'm not agreeing with a bot, but this is my conclusion down pat.

Typhoid, I honestly don't see where you're coming from at all. So you'd be ok with it if consoles did it first? Would it then change your mind knowing that consoles have done it first? The PS3 has already demonstrated it, and it will be out this summer.

[Typhoid]

Typhoid, I honestly don't see where you're coming from at all. So you'd be ok with it if consoles did it first? Would it then change your mind knowing that consoles have done it first? The PS3 has already demonstrated it, and it will be out this summer.

By "do it first" I meant released on market, not just demonstrated.
But that's okay. You don't have to see where I'm coming from.
That's the beauty of opinions.

And I don't understand how a console can have a true 3D game, without the person also having a 3D-capable TV.

[manasecret]

By "do it first" I meant released on market, not just demonstrated.
But that's okay. You don't have to see where I'm coming from.
That's the beauty of opinions.

It will be. This summer. As far as I've heard, the 3DS won't be out until 2011.

And I don't understand how a console can have a true 3D game, without the person also having a 3D-capable TV.They can't. 3D TVs are out right now. The main method being used requires active glasses that coordinate with the TV to turn each lens on and off in sync with the TV. I haven't test driven one yet, but apparently you can try them out in stores.

[Thespis721]

I've seen some of those fancy 3D TVs in videos. You know, the ones that don't require glasses. The technology is VERY new, but mostly because on a TV, you have to deal with viewable angles and a larger device.

On a handheld, you don't have that problem because there's really only ONE viewable angle and the screen is much smaller.

I was impressed with watching the 3D TVs though. Even in a video, you can see the images pop out.

[manasecret]

But a 3D handheld is such a dumb idea. It won't get off the ground more than just fanboys buying it up right away just to have one.

I don't think I caught this before, so I think I misunderstood you. You're talking sales, then. I think you're saying, the 3DS won't sell well until consumers get used to the idea, namely with consoles first. So, you don't think -- assuming the 3D aspect works like 3D should, and doesn't cause dizziness/headaches -- that the 3DS will be a hit?

I think you might have been right -- that is, if everything weren't already headed in the direction of 3D. In this case, Nintendo is far from being the leader in 3D for entertainment media. Media, post-Avatar, is a 3D world. Consumers are already well aware of and have accepted 3D (see: Avatar sales numbers). In my opinion, there's no turning back.

EDIT: But to clarify, even if Nintendo were one of the first to do 3D, I think the 3DS would still be a huge hit. Again, assuming the 3D works right.

[Typhoid]

The 3D on such a small screen would be ridicuterrible, I think. The illusion would look tacky, and lame. Because say you're looking at the middle of the screen playing Mario; Awesome, Mario is in 3D! Now say you have to do something near the edge of the screen; The 3D would be ruined because the screen is so small, and 'real life' is within your direct peripheral vision, ruining the illusion.

3D is only good, or great when you can't see the edges of the screen.
Even Avatar looked like shit when you peered off to the sides.


I don't think I caught this before, so I think I misunderstood you. You're talking sales, then. I think you're saying, the 3DS won't sell well until consumers get used to the idea, namely with consoles first.

That is 100% what I was getting at.

[manasecret]

The 3D on such a small screen would be ridicuterrible, I think. The illusion would look tacky, and lame. Because say you're looking at the middle of the screen playing Mario; Awesome, Mario is in 3D! Now say you have to do something near the edge of the screen; The 3D would be ruined because the screen is so small, and 'real life' is within your direct peripheral vision, ruining the illusion.

3D is only good, or great when you can't see the edges of the screen.
Even Avatar looked like shit when you peered off to the sides.

Ok, personal opinions are fine and good.

But when it comes to sales... :D


That is 100% what I was getting at.

So -- in terms of sales -- considering what I said about the PS3 3D and media post-Avatar, how do you think that consumers are not ready for 3D-handhelds?

[Typhoid]

So -- in terms of sales -- considering what I said about the PS3 3D and media post-Avatar, how do you think that consumers are not ready for 3D-handhelds?

Because say you're looking at the middle of the screen playing Mario; Awesome, Mario is in 3D! Now say you have to do something near the edge of the screen; The 3D would be ruined because the screen is so small, and 'real life' is within your direct peripheral vision, ruining the illusion.

3D is only good, or great when you can't see the edges of the screen.
Even Avatar looked like shit when you peered off to the sides.


:ohreilly:

[TheSlyMoogle]

Well is there anyone who is still that impressed with 3D anyway? I mean I really wasn't very impressed with Avatar in 3D, I mean it was pretty, it was in 3D, I was ok with it. Honestly though, it's kinda an old gimmick, they're trying to bring it back. EH?

Someone wake me up when they have holographic shit please.

[Fox 6]

Well is there anyone who is still that impressed with 3D anyway? I mean I really wasn't very impressed with Avatar in 3D, I mean it was pretty, it was in 3D, I was ok with it. Honestly though, it's kinda an old gimmick, they're trying to bring it back. EH?

Someone wake me up when they have holographic shit please.

Then it'll be like Sean Connery is in your living room......... or bed room..........

[Vampyr]

Well is there anyone who is still that impressed with 3D anyway? I mean I really wasn't very impressed with Avatar in 3D, I mean it was pretty, it was in 3D, I was ok with it. Honestly though, it's kinda an old gimmick, they're trying to bring it back. EH?

Someone wake me up when they have holographic shit please.

I agree - I would prefer to see a movie not in 3D, given the option.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Then it'll be like Sean Connery is in your living room......... or bed room..........

Ahh no, that would be when they make virtual reality happen.

[manasecret]

Well is there anyone who is still that impressed with 3D anyway? I mean I really wasn't very impressed with Avatar in 3D, I mean it was pretty, it was in 3D, I was ok with it. Honestly though, it's kinda an old gimmick, they're trying to bring it back. EH?

Someone wake me up when they have holographic shit please.

Well, despite yours and Vamp's opinions, I think the sales numbers of Avatar clearly show that most people are still impressed by 3D.

Personally, I would never bother to see a movie in 2D if it was meant for 3D, given the option. Vamp, if you had to see Avatar again, and had the choice, would you really watch it in 2D rather than 3D? Why?

[Vampyr]

Well, despite yours and Vamp's opinions, I think the sales numbers of Avatar clearly show that most people are still impressed by 3D.

Personally, I would never bother to see a movie in 2D if it was meant for 3D, given the option. Vamp, if you had to see Avatar again, and had the choice, would you really watch it in 2D rather than 3D? Why?

I saw Avatar in 3D and 2D - don't get me wrong, I thought that the 3D was really cool. If I were going to watch it again I wouldn't really have a preference, but I would probably go 2D just for cost reasons, and so I wouldn't have to wear glasses.

But, looking at Clash of the Titans that is coming out, they have been advertising that pretty heavily as being in 3D - but I will definitely be seeing it in 2D the first time I watch it, then I might go back later and see it in 3D if it's really good.

Right now I feel like the 3D affects are still mostly gimmicky, and that the 2D version is more of the "true" movie. I sort of get the same feeling I do when I see something in full screen that was shot in wide screen. Avatar did a really great job of using 3D to enhance the world rather than trying to throw things in your face. Maybe if future movies continue doing that then my mind will change.

However, that being said I'm much more excited about the new Sharp TV that adds yellow to the RGB gamut. xD

[manasecret]

I saw Avatar in 3D and 2D - don't get me wrong, I thought that the 3D was really cool. If I were going to watch it again I wouldn't really have a preference, but I would probably go 2D just for cost reasons, and so I wouldn't have to wear glasses.

But, looking at Clash of the Titans that is coming out, they have been advertising that pretty heavily as being in 3D - but I will definitely be seeing it in 2D the first time I watch it, then I might go back later and see it in 3D if it's really good.

No no no, do NOT see Clash of the Titans in 3D. It was filmed in 2D, and 3D was only tacked on later after Avatar was released and the movie studios saw $$$ in their eyes. When movie studios do THAT, then yes it is entirely a gimmick. That's studios trying to cash in on the 3D craze ushered in by Avatar, by trying to pull a fast one on consumers.

On the other hand, How to Train Your Dragon was made specifically for 3D, and is 95% on RT with 77 reviews.

Right now I feel like the 3D affects are still mostly gimmicky, and that the 2D version is more of the "true" movie. I sort of get the same feeling I do when I see something in full screen that was shot in wide screen. Avatar did a really great job of using 3D to enhance the world rather than trying to throw things in your face. Maybe if future movies continue doing that then my mind will change.

However, that being said I'm much more excited about the new Sharp TV that adds yellow to the RGB gamut. xDYes, I agree. If a movie is filmed in 2D and meant for 2D, then I despise the studios that then force it into 3D for a quick buck. It's like watching some old black and white movies that were later technicolored, it just looks terrible.

And yeah I saw a commercial about that the new Sharp TV with yellow added. That sounds like a gimmick to me, I fail to see how one extra color adds all that much, when we've been creating all the colors of the rainbow and everything in between for decades with RGB. But if reviews say otherwise I will be a believer.

[Vampyr]

Man, I really want to see How to Train your Dragon - and I was actually considering seeing it in 3D.

I've been taking a graphics class this semester, and we just learned about color a couple of weeks ago. I can see how adding yellow is a big deal.

Here is a picture of the RGB gamut. RGB can represent every color in the triangle:

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2006/ColorGamut.jpg

Apparently Sharp is not only adding yellow, but cyan, which will reportedly allow them to represent 99% of the colors visible to the eye.

[magus113]

Holy shit, that's crazy.

[manasecret]

Man, I really want to see How to Train your Dragon - and I was actually considering seeing it in 3D.

Yeah, I hadn't heard anything about it, until a couple days ago I heard a piece about Clash of the Titans/How to Train Your Dragon on NPR. Basically, the guy who made Dragon had been advocating up and down for 3D long before Avatar came out, back when studios and theaters were on the fence about it and weren't sure if it was a fad or not, trying to get movie theaters to install more 3D theaters. Then Avatar comes out, makes everything quite obvious for the studios and theaters, and now the studio tacks on 3D to Titans -- one of the expected huge blockbusters, which was filmed entirely in 2D -- and release it one week after the guy's Dragon movie and steal his thunder. That fucking sucks for him.

After seeing the reviews, and knowing it was meant for 3D, I really want to see it, too.

I've been taking a graphics class this semester, and we just learned about color a couple of weeks ago. I can see how adding yellow is a big deal.

Here is a picture of the RGB gamut. RGB can represent every color in the triangle:

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2006/ColorGamut.jpg

Apparently Sharp is not only adding yellow, but cyan, which will reportedly allow them to represent 99% of the colors visible to the eye.Ah, now a color chart is something I can get behind! If they had shown that in the commercial, then I would have been amazed. But then again I am an engineering guy.

[Vampyr]

Man you've convinced me about How to Train your Dragon...I just sent a text to my girlfriend trying to talk her into going tonight to see it in 3D. :lolz:

[Angrist]

I don't see how 3D for the new DS can be something bad, unless it really increases the price. And disables touch screen.

So far it all sounds good:
- Dual screens (that can be combined into 1 big screen?)
- Hopefully touch screen(s) (why would they remove it?)
- More power
- 3D screens (however it works)

They've become quite good at digital distribution in this generation, so we'll see how that goes.

[BreakABone]

I got to say I nerded out when I saw that Sharp was adding a yellow to their TVs. Granted, we'd have to get new equipment, I would assume.

And just for the record, I believe Avatar: The Game is actually in 3D so its been done on consoles before, just not well.

I know Sony is patching the PS3 to support it, and so far I know Super Stardust HD is one of the games that will support it.

And I think that 3D could possibly work if done like the video, and not actually having you in 3D, if that makes sense.

[Typhoid]

Well, despite yours and Vamp's opinions, I think the sales numbers of Avatar clearly show that most people are still impressed by 3D.


Wait wait wait wait.
Hold the train.
Are you comparing the 3DS to Avatar?
Because two major differences I can point out:

3DS will be over 100 dollars.
Avatar was 18.
3DS has a screen a few inches wide.
Avatar's was stories high.

Not to mention Avatar wasn't '3D', it was a new technology James Cameron invented; so to actually compare the visuals of the two expecting Avatar-esque 3D in a handheld that will most likely give no more than a Goosebumps holographic keychain circa 1994 image is sort of funny.

[manasecret]

Wait wait wait wait.
Hold the train.
Are you comparing the 3DS to Avatar?
Because two major differences I can point out:

3DS will be over 100 dollars.
Avatar was 18.
3DS has a screen a few inches wide.
Avatar's was stories high.

Not to mention Avatar wasn't '3D', it was a new technology James Cameron invented; so to actually compare the visuals of the two expecting Avatar-esque 3D in a handheld that will most likely give no more than a Goosebumps holographic keychain circa 1994 image is sort of funny.

The only point I am making bringing up Avatar is that its sales clearly show that consumers are ready for 3D.

I haven't experience the film-3D myself, and neither have you. From what I've read from reviews of the Fuji cameras, though, is that it looks pretty damn good when it works.

And I'm not sure how you think Avatar wasn't 3D... yes, Cameron invented or had invented a lot of the stuff to make the visuals in his movie as amazing as they were, but it's still 3D...

[manasecret]

So -- in terms of sales -- considering what I said about the PS3 3D and media post-Avatar, how do you think that consumers are not ready for 3D-handhelds?Because say you're looking at the middle of the screen playing Mario; Awesome, Mario is in 3D! Now say you have to do something near the edge of the screen; The 3D would be ruined because the screen is so small, and 'real life' is within your direct peripheral vision, ruining the illusion.

3D is only good, or great when you can't see the edges of the screen.
Even Avatar looked like shit when you peered off to the sides. :ohreilly:

But those are two different points, and the 2nd is not a valid reason for the 1st. Namely --

1. The 3DS will do poorly in sales because the consumer is not yet ready for 3D. I submit that this is false for the reasons given, namely the humongous success of Avatar.

2. The 3DS will do poorly in sales because the 3D technology on the handheld doesn't work that well, for the reasons you gave, or others. This could be a valid point, but no one outside of Nintendo yet knows how well it works.

So, really, it sounds like the reason that you think it will do poorly is number 2 and has nothing to do with number 1.

I think the 3DS will do very well regardless, for Angrist's reasons. Unless the 3D film screen makes playing 2D games suck and Nintendo changes everything else about the DS, then really it's just an added bonus, which doesn't hurt anything.

[Typhoid]

yes, Cameron invented or had invented a lot of the stuff to make the visuals in his movie as amazing as they were, but it's still 3D...

Avatar was to 3D what current movies are to silent films.

[Typhoid]

The 3DS will do poorly in sales because the consumer is not yet ready for 3D. I submit that this is false for the reasons given, namely the humongous success of Avatar.

Avatar was 3 hour 20 dollar movie.
The 3DS is a handheld game system with a screen smaller than your hand.



I don't know what you're not getting about the fact that the 3D illusion is ruined when you look off screen. 3D in any movie is shit when you're looking at things not in 3D.

Being that the screen is so small, the real world will always be in your peripheral vision, unless you're jamming your face against the screen.

I wasn't saying people aren't ready for 3D as a whole. 3D has been around for 20+ years.
I said 3D hasn't been tested in consoles or handhelds, so nobody including myself can definitively say it will or will not work. Which is why I'm stating opinions which you feel have to be needlessly argued with.

3D is tacky. It's a fad.
The reason Avatar sold well was because it wasn't standard 3D, it was like 3Dplus, not to mention it meshed real visuals with CGI seemlessly.
It didn't sell well because of 3D.
3D being viewed as successful is a by-product of Avatar releasing it in 3D.
If they didn't do it in 3D, and just had the human/CGI mesh, would you say that the next handheld should combine CGI and real life characters? Why not focus on that, instead.

[manasecret]

Avatar was 3 hour 20 dollar movie.
The 3DS is a handheld game system with a screen smaller than your hand.



I don't know what you're not getting about the fact that the 3D illusion is ruined when you look off screen. 3D in any movie is shit when you're looking at things not in 3D.

Being that the screen is so small, the real world will always be in your peripheral vision, unless you're jamming your face against the screen.

I wasn't saying people aren't ready for 3D as a whole. 3D has been around for 20+ years.
I said 3D hasn't been tested in consoles or handhelds, so nobody including myself can definitively say it will or will not work. Which is why I'm stating opinions which you feel have to be needlessly argued with.

I'm not arguing your opinion on the matter. I'm arguing about sales. Which you still are dodging the issue on, I think. As for "needlessly arguing", well yeah, this is all in fun, I'm just having a bit of a fun (IMO) discussion. :D


3D is tacky. It's a fad.
The reason Avatar sold well was because it wasn't standard 3D, it was like 3Dplus, not to mention it meshed real visuals with CGI seemlessly.
It didn't sell well because of 3D.
3D being viewed as successful is a by-product of Avatar releasing it in 3D.
If they didn't do it in 3D, and just had the human/CGI mesh, would you say that the next handheld should combine CGI and real life characters? Why not focus on that, instead.Well, I agree with that, but I think our terminology is differing. I would say movies in 3D before Avatar, broadly speaking, were a fad. Avatar, in my opinion, is 3D. Anything else shouldn't be considered so.

(I am probably overstating that a bit, because Avatar is actually the only movie I've seen in 3D, though I've seen some clips of crappy versions of 3D in 3D.)

But, in my opinion, that doesn't mean Avatar's combination of CGI and real life characters is the only 3D worthy of the name 3D. I would consider any film that is filmed in 3D and meant for 3D, as worthy of the name 3D. The Dragon movie probably being one of them.

So, real 3D is not a fad, in my opinion. It is here to stay.

[Typhoid]

Which you still are dodging the issue on, I think.

I was never talking about sales, and I rarely ever comment on sales.
Especially future sales.
Nobody can comment on how it well sell.
It hasn't sold yet.

[thatmariolover]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WkgMUk_5p2A&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WkgMUk_5p2A&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Here's a video... ;)

[Angrist]

Haha :D.

[manasecret]

I was never talking about sales, and I rarely ever comment on sales.
Especially future sales.
Nobody can comment on how it well sell.
It hasn't sold yet.



I don't think I caught this before, so I think I misunderstood you. You're talking sales, then. I think you're saying, the 3DS won't sell well until consumers get used to the idea, namely with consoles first.

That is 100% what I was getting at.

Say what?

And saying nobody can comment on how it will sell is kinda silly. Is that a joke? I already did comment. Lots of people comment on future sales all the time. It's like the main argument of all console warz.

So basically, going back to your first comment, you were trolling, and then you used a bunch of circular logic to make it seem like you weren't. That is pretty much my conclusion. If you disagree, well, that's fine because it's just my opinion. :p

Man you've convinced me about How to Train your Dragon...I just sent a text to my girlfriend trying to talk her into going tonight to see it in 3D. :lolz:

Did you end up seeing it?

[Typhoid]

Say what?


I mean specific figures when I refer to "sales" opposed to something 'selling'.
Blame the painkillers.
I don't consider saying "I don't think it will sell because ___" talking about sales, I've always viewed talking about sales as specific figures and all that jargon.

And saying nobody can comment on how it will sell is kinda silly. Is that a joke?

Somewhat, it was. Because as I was saying it, I was commenting on it. But I also meant nobody can be sure how many units it will move because it's all just speculation.

If you disagree, well, that's fine because it's just my opinion.

Now you're getting it.

[Typhoid]

Also, if I recall - didn't the Virtua Boy fail miserably?

[thatmariolover]

Also, if I recall - didn't the Virtua Boy fail miserably?

It did but it's not really a fair comparison. The 3D was so different then, using the anaglyph 3D technique with alternating black and red patterns for the left and right eye (similar to old movies using the blue/red glasses). The 3D was terrible, monochromatic, and caused massive headaches. The effect doesn't work nearly as well as say, the parallax barrier screens that the DS is supposed to use. Newer polarized 3D glases (with shutters) can still cause headaches but they're much more usable for longer periods of time. It will be interesting to see how your head will feel with the new (glasses free) 3D.

If the 3D looks great, that's fine and dandy. I'm more worried about what they'll leave out in focusing on the 3D functionality.

[Typhoid]

I'm more worried about what they'll leave out...

Fun. ;)

[BreakABone]

This isn't from the 3DS, but a simple example of how 3D can possibly work I guess

http://i43.tinypic.com/15zme88.jpg

[BlueFire]

wow, that hurts the eyes

[Fox 6]

wow, that hurts the eyes

I dont have a problem with it

[Angrist]

That's terrible. It hurt my eyes and it wasn't 3D enough. And how would we need a new console for this, we can do it on the DS already.

If it's a cheap and sorry trick like this, Nintendo will lose a lot of hype.

[Bube]

I was actually very impressed by that!

[BreakABone]

Seems like it may be slated for an October release, which is rather early.

Especially since the other DS-es have launched in off-months if not mistaken

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=243473