Some 3DS games may not be 3D

[Canonbeat234]

Well the way how I look at it, if Nintendo wants to do something unique then that's their main focus. 3D aspect of the game usuallly is their selling point. However, I also see Nintendo trying to gain some hardcore competition w/o going gaga for eye-candy GFX. If the developers can think outside of the box and created a game that uses the power of the hardware and not the gimmick ala 3D effects. Then that will display mockery to Nintendo since they always have to be the one to created a game that uses all the gimmicks/hardward to show what their console/handheld can really do before anyone else try it themselves.

 

[DeltaBurnt]

This is pretty obvious, for example Castlevania games.
Who wants a 2.5d Castlevania game?

That would be pretty god damn awesome.

Anyways, I wonder how awesome the graphics are without the 3D effect :3

 

[ProtoKun7]

I get the feeling that turning the 3D off won't necessarily increase the detail seeing as it has the 3D information programmed and not the extra 2D details. On a game that is designed for detail rather than 3D though, then maybe.

 

[Bladexdsl]

Anyways, I wonder how awesome the graphics are without the 3D effect :3

they looked pretty good from all the trailers i've seen like KI

 

[AaronUzumaki]

This is pretty obvious, for example Castlevania games.
Who wants a 2.5d Castlevania game?

That would be pretty god damn awesome.

Anyways, I wonder how awesome the graphics are without the 3D effect :3

They would look almost real, kida like this:

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs41/f/2009/019...y_Yukilefay.jpg

 

[DeltaBurnt]

I get the feeling that turning the 3D off won't necessarily increase the detail seeing as it has the 3D information programmed and not the extra 2D details. On a game that is designed for detail rather than 3D though, then maybe.

QUOTE(DeltaBurnt @ Jul 5 2010, 06:57 AM) Anyways, I wonder how awesome the graphics are without the 3D effect :3

they looked pretty good from all the trailers i've seen like KI

No like the graphics should look better if the game is not programmed to output 3D at all because it won't have to process all that 3D info. Instead it can use that extra power to make the graphics look better.

 

[ProtoKun7]

I don't think that was quite I was trying to get at, but I think it might be a little hard to convey. In short, it could look better sometimes but it can't improve the look more than the game itself has been programmed to look.

Think of it as upscaling, but it can't make a VHS look HD.

 

[TM2-Megatron]

They would look almost real, kida like this:

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs41/f/2009/019...y_Yukilefay.jpg

Hmmm. I approve of it.

 

[coolbho3000]

They would look almost real, kida like this:

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs41/f/2009/019...y_Yukilefay.jpg

Hmmm. I approve of it.

As do I.

 

[Rydian]

You don't need 60 frames for most games, it's only really useful when there's a LOT of fast, constant camera/view movement (like in Quake/Unreal/Warsow, not MGS), or when split-second reaction is required (again, FPS games).

The number of frames internally calculated can be different than the number sent to the TV, which can be different than the number displayed on the TV. For example if you have a gamecube connected to a 120hz TV, and the gamecube's lagging a bit, it'll double up on frames to get needed calculations done in time... so it may only calculate 12 frames, but be sending the standard NTSC amount (~30), which the TV is taking and then making duplicates of again in order to display at 120hz. FPS, VIs, and Hz all mean sort of the same thing, but they can all be different amounts within the same system, and what you eventually get output is not always what's calculated by the game device.

Banjo-Kazooie run at 30 frames, Both Zelda 64 games run at 20 (MM at 60 when not rendering 3D, such as in a menu), Diddy Kong Racing runs at 30 (as does Mario Kart), and F-Zero X runs at 60, for example.

 

[Overman1977]

Won't happen. Even if it's possible, only a few games would not use the 3D-Effect. It's one of the biggest selling points of the device and Nintendo will want to push 3D as far as possible. Also even with 3D activated it can display normal+specular mapping already, what more do you want ?

Hell, the biggest selling point for the DS et al was the touch screen, and most of the games I've played fail to utilize it in any meaningful way (Pokemon, Final Fantasy, MarioKart, to name a few). There are however, a few select games that use the full capabilities of the DS touch screen, the mic and a second screen for viewing info (Zelda, Battle of the Giants etc..).

And it will be so for the 3DS, me thinks; a few select games using everything the 3DS has to offer.

Let's face it, all in all, with every console, there are not very many games that take advantage of the most that that console can dish out, and this console will be no different.

It's the special games we look forward to, and the special games that make buying the console worth while, but they're just that.... 'special'; everything else is just gravy.

So I don't expect the majority of 3DS games to be in 3D, and thus will not be disappointed. At the end of the day, time will tell if I'm right.

Cheers.

 

[DeltaBurnt]

I don't think that was quite I was trying to get at, but I think it might be a little hard to convey. In short, it could look better sometimes but it can't improve the look more than the game itself has been programmed to look.

Think of it as upscaling, but it can't make a VHS look HD.

What are you talking about? They're not going to program a game to use 3D but then just release it as a non 3D game. No they're going to program a game with no 3D components whatsoever, and use the left over resources not used to make the 3D effect for more graphical power.

 

[Zidapi]

Won't happen. Even if it's possible, only a few games would not use the 3D-Effect. It's one of the biggest selling points of the device and Nintendo will want to push 3D as far as possible. Also even with 3D activated it can display normal+specular mapping already, what more do you want ?

Hell, the biggest selling point for the DS et al was the touch screen, and most of the games I've played fail to utilize it in any meaningful way (Pokemon, Final Fantasy, MarioKart, to name a few). There are however, a few select games that use the full capabilities of the DS touch screen, the mic and a second screen for viewing info (Zelda, Battle of the Giants etc..).

And it will be so for the 3DS, me thinks; a few select games using everything the 3DS has to offer.

Let's face it, all in all, with every console, there are not very many games that take advantage of the most that that console can dish out, and this console will be no different.

It's the special games we look forward to, and the special games that make buying the console worth while, but they're just that.... 'special'; everything else is just gravy.

So I don't expect the majority of 3DS games to be in 3D, and thus will not be disappointed. At the end of the day, time will tell if I'm right.

Cheers.

I think you're right on the money.

Let's not forget that Nintendo sees the DS as meaning Developers System, and they have philosophy that goes with that.
Which is that Nintendo provides a number of elements for developers to use (Touch Screen, Dual Screens, Mic, Cameras, and now 3D), to encourage developers think outside the box and develop new ways to play.
They're not obliged to use all, or even any of them.
Those that use all the extras just for the sake of it face over complicating things and their games are usually worse off for it. Spectrobes would be the obvious example here.

The point being that despite 3D being a major selling point to us as consumers, for developers and Nintendo it's another 'extra'.
I think in the beginning most games will use 3D solely to enhance the experience and not as a device to drive gameplay.

 

[ProtoKun7]

I don't think that was quite I was trying to get at, but I think it might be a little hard to convey. In short, it could look better sometimes but it can't improve the look more than the game itself has been programmed to look.

Think of it as upscaling, but it can't make a VHS look HD.

What are you talking about? They're not going to program a game to use 3D but then just release it as a non 3D game. No they're going to program a game with no 3D components whatsoever, and use the left over resources not used to make the 3D effect for more graphical power.

That I understand, but some of the conversations here I think were regarding to standard 3D games with just the effect turned off, I was talking about those. Yes, a game designed without 3D features could make other use of the power of the console.

 

[Deleted User]

Well, there will obviously be very many, for a wide range of reasons-

-Many DS games had very little, if any touch-screen elements in them, and many made by the popular SQUARE ENIX company

-3D is hard to actually implement, and some developers will take the easier route and develop a high-quality PSP-quality game on a PSP-size screen.

 

[TM2-Megatron]

-3D is hard to actually implement, and some developers will take the easier route and develop a high-quality PSP-quality game on a PSP-size screen.

Even with the 3-D on, it seems the 3DS can render a better quality image than "PSP-quality". And I'm not sure how difficult the 3-D really is to implement... I recall a quote from one of the big names at Nintendo saying it was relatively easy to do, especially for games which already take place in a 3-D space.

 

[Veho]

-3D is hard to actually implement

No it's not.

 

[DiscostewSM]

-3D is hard to actually implement

No it's not.

Veho is correct. 3D (not the effect) is done from a "camera" perspective, which has a position, direction, etc. Now, imagine you take that information, split it in two down that center line that the camera was originally pointing to, separate them out a little, and then tilt the 2 cameras down toward that center line. Add hardware that takes and displays those 2 perspectives, and bingo, you now have the 3D effect.

 

[Bri]

The "3D effect" people are referring to in this thread should be referred to as "stereo" so as to not confuse it with the use of the 3D hardware like the DS currently has (which is 3D but is not stereo).

I'm guessing that most games that utilize the 3D hardware will also support stereo since it's extremely easy to implement a second camera in almost any 3D environment. Basically, games that are already rendered using the 3D hardware will get stereo for free.

I'm guessing that only a handful of games that don't use 3D will offer stereo, although I'm sure some will.

Given the availability of stereo, I wonder if the percentage of games that will now be implemented using 3D will increase. I imagine it would depend on just how cool the stereo is, or if it's just a gimmick that people get tired of quickly.

-Bri

 

[Veho]

Discostew, you make it sound complicated

A 3D game renders every frame from one viewpoint. To get a 3D effect, all you do is render it again from a slightly different viewpoint, show each frame to its respective eye, and you have 3D. The same math is used to render both frames, the same formulas, the same code, line by line, only the hardware is crunching slightly different numbers for each frame. It's not harder than coding a regular game that's displayed in 2D, only the rendering takes twice as long because you're rendering two frames instead of one.

So if they get rid of the 3D effect, they could get twice the framerate. Simple as that. Or they could cram some fancy texture and lighting effects into the empty cycles, but that would be complicated. So it's up to the developers to decide: the simple 3D, the double framerate 2D, or the complicated but slightly better looking 2D.