User Avatar Image

Nintendo 3DS

posted by Dragonite87 on - last edited - Viewed by 9K users

Hi Guys

What do you think about the 3DS. Is it awesome or absolute rubbish.

Mod Edit

As per suggestion, here's a list of everyone's Friend Codes for the 3DS culled from 70-odd pages of posts.

flesk: 3668-7300-2634
Irishmile: 4167-4638-8175
Harold B: 5284-1418-3404
JedExodus: 1289-8200-5637
Jen Kollie: 3652-1134-0177
Secret Fawful: 5198-2523-2237
The Highway: 3695-0084-8559

If you don't want your code here, or it's changed, let me know and I'll update this. - Darth Marsden

1.5K Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @SHODANFreeman said: 3D has been around for decades and every implementation of it has always been awful and hideous looking. I can't imagine that Nintendo would be the ones to somehow magically get it right.

    Don't you talk about the Viewmaster in that tone! You shall not sully the good name of my childhood! :mad:

  • @JedExodus said: 3D hasn't been done well in games before.

    Or films, or comic books, or anything, at all, ever.

  • @SHODANFreeman said: Or films, or comic books, or anything, at all, ever.

    I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D, it was pretty cool.

    Also they're all passive mediums, games all have gameplay which can be designed with 3D in mind by clever developers

  • @JedExodus said: I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D, it was pretty cool.

    Also they're all passive mediums, games all have gameplay which can be designed with 3D in mind by clever developers

    3D always just looks like a pile of moving colors, it never actually looks real, or even close to it.

    The only 3D images that have ever looked even somewhat decent to me are stereoscopic images, and that's simply because the eyes are being separately presented with 2 slightly different images. And even stereoscopic images don't look 100% real, because our eyes are all different and it would be impossible to create something that accurately recreates 3 dimensionality for 100% of people.

  • @SHODANFreeman said: 3D always just looks like a pile of moving colors, it never actually looks real, or even close to it.

    The only 3D images that have ever looked even somewhat decent to me are stereoscopic images, and that's simply because the eyes are being separately presented with 2 slightly different images. And even stereoscopic images don't look 100% real, because our eyes are all different and it would be impossible to create something that accurately recreates 3 dimensionality for 100% of people.

    Well, I'm sorry 3D doesn't look good to you, but it does to me. I really enjoy 3D experiences. I keep hoping that 3D equipment for the PC will become standardized, so that I can buy it without being locked-in to nVidia.

  • @figmentPez said: Well, I'm sorry 3D doesn't look good to you, but it does to me. I really enjoy 3D experiences. I keep hoping that 3D equipment for the PC will become standardized, so that I can buy it without being locked-in to nVidia.

    Yeah some of the stuff in Real 3D is so much better than 3D of a few years ago. Recent movies have really sold it to me, and I used to hate 3D because it would hurt my eyes.

  • @SHODANFreeman said: 3D always just looks like a pile of moving colors, it never actually looks real, or even close to it.

    The only 3D images that have ever looked even somewhat decent to me are stereoscopic images, and that's simply because the eyes are being separately presented with 2 slightly different images.

    gruebel.gif
    But stereoscopic is just what we're talking about when we're talking 3D here. Everything, from polarizing filter glasses to shutter glasses, from lenticular lenses to parallax barrier screens... each of these techniques is used to separate the two images for both eyes. So, which "3D" are you talking about, that are just "a pile of moving colors"?

    Anyway, some techs are better than others, of course. For example, I've never been a fan of shutter glasses, as they darken the image too much (especially in a lot of cinemas, where the projections are that bright to begin with), whereas the superior polarizing filter glasses are also lighter and more comfortable to wear. Still I'm extremely curious about the look of 3D on the 3DS' screen.

  • @Laserschwert said: gruebel.gif
    But stereoscopic is just what we're talking about when we're talking 3D here. Everything, from polarizing filter glasses to shutter glasses, from lenticular lenses to parallax barrier screens... each of these techniques is used to separate the two images for both eyes. So, which "3D" are you talking about, that are just "a pile of moving colors"?

    Anyway, some techs are better than others, of course. For example, I've never been a fan of shutter glasses, as they darken the image too much (especially in a lot of cinemas, where the projections are that bright to begin with), whereas the superior polarizing filter glasses are also lighter and more comfortable to wear. Still I'm extremely curious about the look of 3D on the 3DS' screen.

    Looking at exactly the same image, but with different colored lenses to half-ass filter out the other side of the image absolutely does not work though, as you can always partially see the other image. I was referring to instances in which your eyes are actually being shown 2 entirely separate images via stereoscopic lenses, rather than a single filtered image.

    Not only does it look inherently wrong, and nowhere near true 3D, but the colors are always clashing like mad and just look like a horrendous mess. This is true of every single type of 3D that I have witnessed in my life.

  • @SHODANFreeman said: I was referring to instances in which your eyes are actually being shown 2 entirely separate images via stereoscopic lenses, rather than a single filtered image.


    Well, technically both shutter and polarization-filter based projections ARE showing two entirely separate images. In the first cases they're just projected alternately, while the latter one has them projected on top of each other (although newer methods use alternating projection as well, using a rotating polarization filter in front of the lens). And theoretically even the shutter technology should separate them cleanly, IF the glasses would be calibrated better AND their LCDs could become completely opaque. Polarization glasses on the other hand are capable of a perfect split, especially when using circular polarization (in which case tilting the head doesn't result in ghosting). And these projections are the only ones that really convinced me until now. I've seen some lenticular screens a few years ago, and they didn't convince me either, since the lenses reduced the horizontal resolution too much. The 3DS might do better here, as it does have twice the resolution horizontally to compensate for this. We'll see.

  • @SHODANFreeman said: Looking at exactly the same image, but with different colored lenses to half-ass filter out the other side of the image absolutely does not work though, as you can always partially see the other image. I was referring to instances in which your eyes are actually being shown 2 entirely separate images via stereoscopic lenses, rather than a single filtered image.

    Not only does it look inherently wrong, and nowhere near true 3D, but the colors are always clashing like mad and just look like a horrendous mess. This is true of every single type of 3D that I have witnessed in my life.

    You have not seen it though my boy. Everything you say is conjecture. Maybe it will be pants, but from what those who have played it say, it's not. I haven't heard a negative report about the 3D other than the sweet-spot factor, which is apparently lenient enough

Add Comment