I think the 3DS is a great system; I love it. However, I do wonder how well the system will do in comparison to their other hand-helds (Virtual Boy will be left out). Nintendo has had a very solid track record concerning portable gaming, and they've kept a grip on it for decades. The 3DS, in my opinion, is a good next step Nintendo, but the system has a lot of shortcomings, a lot of which are related to what it is: a 3D DS. Of course, the system had to be a DS; after giving everybody a 2nd touch screen, it would be strange to make a new system with only 1 screen. The DS was upgraded with more power and a 3D screen. This was logical. Most people would have probably been fine with just a more powerful DS, so the 3D made it even better for gamers excited to play a new DS. But that very 3D also was a bit problematic: it was (relatively) new, and scary.
The DS was a nearly perfect system. It was a system for everybody. In addition to gaming, the system had a variety of puzzle games, brain training software, educational software, study aids, book readers, and health programs. The DS attracted the attention of people of all ages. The touch screen made it easy for people who were unfamiliar with games. Also, having a touch screen increased the possibilities of what could be done with a game. We saw new, innovative control styles and games, and both hardcore and casual gamers were excited to play a lot of these games. Now, looking at the 3DS, it is a lot more intimidating compared to its predecessor. It's not as accessible. It's no longer the system that you can train your brain on, or read a book, it's the system that was rumored to cause eye problems (this is, unfortunately, a stain that will probably not go away any time soon). To skeptical people, and many hardcore gamers, the 3D is little more than a cheap gimmick. So, the 3DS is already on a shaky middle-ground where it's too “hardcore” (or even dangerous) to many casual and non-gamers, and too “gimmicky” to many hardcore gamers.
Also, while 3D is a great draw, it's not much compared to the introduction of a touch screen. The touch screen changed things. An entire game could be built around the touch screen. A game cannot be built around 3D. There's nothing that can be done in 3D that can't be done without it (at least as far as I can imagine at them moment), so while I don't want to go so far as to say it's a gimmick, the 3D isn't much more than an expensive bonus. In addition to this, the 3D also hurts an addition that could potentially be great. The 3DS has pretty nice gyroscope controls that allow for motion control, but having motion controls on a system that requires it to be stationary to be properly viewed seems contradictory (though I'm confident Nintendo will find a great use for it).
This brings me to another point: Please forgive me for my lack of understanding, but from what I understand, displaying 3D requires things to be rendered twice, which drops frame rates, and could potentially limit what can be done on the system. What if someone wanted to really push the system, and opted to make a non-3D game in order to get the best performance/graphics/speed/whatever out of the system? What if, for any reason, someone wanted to make a non-3D game? Would people care? Would people just ignore it, thinking “why would I get a 3DS game that isn't in 3D?” I really hope the system and the developers don't get tied down to the 3D, where all games just HAVE to be in 3D.
The DS was a nearly perfect system. It was a system for everybody. In addition to gaming, the system had a variety of puzzle games, brain training software, educational software, study aids, book readers, and health programs. The DS attracted the attention of people of all ages. The touch screen made it easy for people who were unfamiliar with games. Also, having a touch screen increased the possibilities of what could be done with a game. We saw new, innovative control styles and games, and both hardcore and casual gamers were excited to play a lot of these games. Now, looking at the 3DS, it is a lot more intimidating compared to its predecessor. It's not as accessible. It's no longer the system that you can train your brain on, or read a book, it's the system that was rumored to cause eye problems (this is, unfortunately, a stain that will probably not go away any time soon). To skeptical people, and many hardcore gamers, the 3D is little more than a cheap gimmick. So, the 3DS is already on a shaky middle-ground where it's too “hardcore” (or even dangerous) to many casual and non-gamers, and too “gimmicky” to many hardcore gamers.
Also, while 3D is a great draw, it's not much compared to the introduction of a touch screen. The touch screen changed things. An entire game could be built around the touch screen. A game cannot be built around 3D. There's nothing that can be done in 3D that can't be done without it (at least as far as I can imagine at them moment), so while I don't want to go so far as to say it's a gimmick, the 3D isn't much more than an expensive bonus. In addition to this, the 3D also hurts an addition that could potentially be great. The 3DS has pretty nice gyroscope controls that allow for motion control, but having motion controls on a system that requires it to be stationary to be properly viewed seems contradictory (though I'm confident Nintendo will find a great use for it).
This brings me to another point: Please forgive me for my lack of understanding, but from what I understand, displaying 3D requires things to be rendered twice, which drops frame rates, and could potentially limit what can be done on the system. What if someone wanted to really push the system, and opted to make a non-3D game in order to get the best performance/graphics/speed/whatever out of the system? What if, for any reason, someone wanted to make a non-3D game? Would people care? Would people just ignore it, thinking “why would I get a 3DS game that isn't in 3D?” I really hope the system and the developers don't get tied down to the 3D, where all games just HAVE to be in 3D.
