Is it possible? I'm considering getting a 3DS, but don't want to play those awesome games games on a crappy tiny screen. Is there anyway (via interface or something) that can put it on a TV? sort of like a Super Gameboy or gba player, but for 3dS?

At 4/18/13 07:47 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Is it possible? I'm considering getting a 3DS, but don't want to play those awesome games games on a crappy tiny screen. Is there anyway (via interface or something) that can put it on a TV? sort of like a Super Gameboy or gba player, but for 3dS?

I don't think so.

I don't see the issue with the screen though it's not that bad. Also there is an XL version with 90% bigger screens.

At 4/18/13 08:49 PM, Emlfuryoflion wrote:

At 4/18/13 07:47 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Is it possible? I'm considering getting a 3DS, but don't want to play those awesome games games on a crappy tiny screen. Is there anyway (via interface or something) that can put it on a TV? sort of like a Super Gameboy or gba player, but for 3dS?

I don't think so.

I don't see the issue with the screen though it's not that bad. Also there is an XL version with 90% bigger screens.

the XL is pretty great honestly Lemon, the screen size is much bigger then any other handheld.

At 4/18/13 10:15 PM, Ceratisa wrote: the XL is pretty great honestly Lemon, the screen size is much bigger then any other handheld.

if it's my only choice, I suppose I'll look into it.

However, i have a hard time believing playing something like metroid will be as good on a handheld as it is on a surround sound system lol

I'm mostly gonna buy it for the old GBA games i love, and few newer interesting things like Contact...I just want the best possible experience and I feel like the greatness of something like Ocarina of Time 3D will be lacking on a handheld

At 4/18/13 10:37 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 4/18/13 10:15 PM, Ceratisa wrote: the XL is pretty great honestly Lemon, the screen size is much bigger then any other handheld.

if it's my only choice, I suppose I'll look into it.

However, i have a hard time believing playing something like metroid will be as good on a handheld as it is on a surround sound system lol

I'm mostly gonna buy it for the old GBA games i love, and few newer interesting things like Contact...I just want the best possible experience and I feel like the greatness of something like Ocarina of Time 3D will be lacking on a handheld

The real problem with the 3D update isn't the screen, it is the hardware (lots of drawing all at once can cause some lag)

Quality headphones if you can't find some sort of work around. I'm pretty sure you'd have to hack a 3ds (Really take it apart)

At 4/18/13 11:36 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Quality headphones if you can't find some sort of work around. I'm pretty sure you'd have to hack a 3ds (Really take it apart)

Yeah, I guess i don't have much choice lol.

There's so many problems with that. . .

1. Negates the point of the 3d.
2. How would you touch the bottom screen?
3. It's not going to raise the resolution, so it's look extremely bad, nearly unplayable.
4. If it did raise the res it lag down to unplayablility.
5. Neither screen is the proper aspect ratio of a TV so you'd be dealing with stretching of graphics.
6. The screens aren't the same resolution as each other so they'd the be stretch to different extents. :/

Just use an emulator?

At 4/19/13 01:14 AM, MintPaw wrote: There's so many problems with that. . .

1. Negates the point of the 3d.
2. How would you touch the bottom screen?
3. It's not going to raise the resolution, so it's look extremely bad, nearly unplayable.
4. If it did raise the res it lag down to unplayablility.
5. Neither screen is the proper aspect ratio of a TV so you'd be dealing with stretching of graphics.
6. The screens aren't the same resolution as each other so they'd the be stretch to different extents. :/

Just use an emulator?

Well, for number 1, i couldn't give a fuck about the 3d. I will never, ever use it. It's gimmicky and pointless to me. Same with the bottom screen. i really wish it didn't exist. To me, it falls under the same catagory as motion controls. gimmicky crap, and without it the games would be so much cooler.

As for the graphical stuff...i didn't think about that lol

At 4/19/13 01:33 AM, LemonCrush wrote: It's gimmicky and pointless to me. Same with the bottom screen. i really wish it didn't exist.

But that's a main part of a 3DS game's gameplay. Getting rid of the bottom screen would make a lot of games completely different.

Also, if you don't like two screens or 3D, why are you playing a 3DS? Those are the two main parts of the system.

To me, it falls under the same catagory as motion controls. gimmicky crap, and without it the games would be so much cooler.

Without motion controls the games would be played completely differently (or not even exist) because they wouldn't be built around the same control scheme. Just because something isn't established as the norm doesn't mean it's a gimmick.

If it would happen one day more than likely it would have to go through the Wii U system to do it with some adapter or update but more than likely it won't happen,the 3DS XL screen size should be more than enough though unless you just want to play 3DS games where all your friends and family can watch too though.

At 4/19/13 01:14 AM, MintPaw wrote: There's so many problems with that. . .

1. Negates the point of the 3d.
2. How would you touch the bottom screen?
3. It's not going to raise the resolution, so it's look extremely bad, nearly unplayable.
4. If it did raise the res it lag down to unplayablility.
5. Neither screen is the proper aspect ratio of a TV so you'd be dealing with stretching of graphics.
6. The screens aren't the same resolution as each other so they'd the be stretch to different extents. :/

Just use an emulator?

1. 3D TV
2. Wii U
3. Probably
4. Not if it was using the Wii U's hardware.
5. I don't know
6. Bottom screen would be on the gamepad.

What emulator? 3DS doesn't have one of those yet I think.

At 4/19/13 12:43 PM, Emlfuryoflion wrote: 1. 3D TV

The 3DS and a 3D television work in very different ways. You can't just throw it on a 3D TV and have it magically work.

2. Wii U

Yes, that seems like the simplest solution. But just because you have hardware that could work in theory doesn't mean you can do it.

3. Probably

It would undoubtedly.

4. Not if it was using the Wii U's hardware.

If it wanted to play accurately, yes. Still with the Wii U's hardware.

5. I don't know

He's correct, unless you want to letterbox everything.

6. Bottom screen would be on the gamepad.

Doesn't solve the issue of the resolution difference.

What emulator? 3DS doesn't have one of those yet I think.

There are a few, but they're not anywhere close to being stable or reliable.

At 4/19/13 01:33 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, for number 1, i couldn't give a fuck about the 3d. I will never, ever use it. It's gimmicky and pointless to me. Same with the bottom screen. i really wish it didn't exist. To me, it falls under the same catagory as motion controls. gimmicky crap, and without it the games would be so much cooler.

Actually 3D is awesome. It's a graphical enhancer. Some things don't look as great but when you turn the 3D on the graphics shine. I've noticed this effect with every game I have played on the 3DS it always looks better with 3D on.

At 4/19/13 01:59 PM, Oolaph wrote:

At 4/19/13 12:43 PM, Emlfuryoflion wrote: What emulator? 3DS doesn't have one of those yet I think.

There are a few, but they're not anywhere close to being stable or reliable.

False. There are some fake ones. There are no working emulators for the 3DS yet.

At 4/19/13 03:53 PM, sharpnova wrote: False. There are some fake ones. There are no working emulators for the 3DS yet.

I thought there were a few prototypes floating around, but I guess I'm wrong.

Oh well.

At 4/19/13 03:47 PM, Emlfuryoflion wrote: Actually 3D is awesome. It's a graphical enhancer. Some things don't look as great but when you turn the 3D on the graphics shine. I've noticed this effect with every game I have played on the 3DS it always looks better with 3D on.

My brother has a 3DS and i found it irritating and it didn't add anything. Didn't justify it's existence. at least when i played Ocarina 3D

At 4/19/13 02:22 AM, Oolaph wrote: But that's a main part of a 3DS game's gameplay. Getting rid of the bottom screen would make a lot of games completely different.

And good games have no need for a second screen. Does it really make Pokemon, for one example, that much better? did Ocarina of Time really need a touch screen?

Also, if you don't like two screens or 3D, why are you playing a 3DS? Those are the two main parts of the system.

Because i want the games, and the Virtual Console games.

Without motion controls the games would be played completely differently (or not even exist) because they wouldn't be built around the same control scheme. Just because something isn't established as the norm doesn't mean it's a gimmick.

Look at twilight princess or mario galaxy. instead of focusing on making it just a good gmae, they tried too fucking hard to shoehorn the motion controls into the mix when it's unnecessary. Metroid Prime was amazing without motion controls, why try to force that into game? Same with Twilight Princess or 3d mario games. instead of nintendo just making it good, they came up with a new technology and built entire games around it, instead of adapting the technology to the games.

At 4/20/13 12:35 AM, LemonCrush wrote: And good games have no need for a second screen. Does it really make Pokemon, for one example, that much better? did Ocarina of Time really need a touch screen?

That's the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard. The same could be applied to any upgrade.
"Good games have no need for a backlight, the Gameboy Light shouldn't even exist."
"Good games have no need for four face buttons, why would they bother making a new controller for the Super Nintendo?"

Improvement means changing things, and changing things means new features. Unless you want developers to still be using the Odyssey as a main platform, new ideas need to be brought to the table for things to improve and stay interesting.

Because i want the games, and the Virtual Console games.

If you're complaining so much about how this technology makes for bad games, why do you want the games? And if you're looking to play GBA games, why not just get a Gameboy adapter and a Gamecube to use on your television?

Look at twilight princess or mario galaxy. instead of focusing on making it just a good gmae, they tried too fucking hard to shoehorn the motion controls into the mix when it's unnecessary. Metroid Prime was amazing without motion controls, why try to force that into game? Same with Twilight Princess or 3d mario games.

It's a new medium that allows for new levels of gameplay, there's nothing wrong with it. It can and has been used very effectively to bring a new experience to handheld games, if you're playing the right ones. Just because you're playing ports of games (OoT, TP) that are thrown together doesn't mean that the feature is pointless, it means it isn't being well utilised.

instead of nintendo just making it good, they came up with a new technology and built entire games around it, instead of adapting the technology to the games.

That's exactly what they should be doing; building games around the mechanic they've made in order to be a focused and fun experience. If they do what you said and design a game first without having the technology and mechanics in mind, it becomes a mess. In fact, it becomes the very same mess you were complaining about earlier with OoT and Twilight Princess.

At 4/20/13 12:35 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

Also, if you don't like two screens or 3D, why are you playing a 3DS? Those are the two main parts of the system.

Because i want the games

So you dislike the console, but you want games that are almost entirely based around the mechanics of the console.

At 4/20/13 01:11 AM, Oolaph wrote: That's the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard. The same could be applied to any upgrade.
"Good games have no need for a backlight, the Gameboy Light shouldn't even exist."
"Good games have no need for four face buttons, why would they bother making a new controller for the Super Nintendo?"

We;re talking about 2 different things. YOu are referring to technical upgrades that help the player in a convenient manner. The touch screen is not that. It's not an upgrade at all, it's a new technology that doesn't make anything more convenient at all.

A backlight is a necessity for portable gaming. And more buttons allow for better game design and controls. A touch screen adds nothing to the experience.

Improvement means changing things, and changing things means new features. Unless you want developers to still be using the Odyssey as a main platform, new ideas need to be brought to the table for things to improve and stay interesting.

nothing wrong with improving where it's needed. A touch screen is an unnecessary feature, as it doesn't really add anything new or interesting in terms of gameplay or design.

If you're complaining so much about how this technology makes for bad games, why do you want the games? And if you're looking to play GBA games, why not just get a Gameboy adapter and a Gamecube to use on your television?

I didn't say it made for bad games, i'm just saying the touch screen does nothing to make the decent games, like Pokemon for example, better.

There are plenty of good games on 3DS...which would be just as good without the touch screen.

The touch screen is a superficial upgrade, not born out of necessity, like a backlight, or extra face buttons, but born out of a gimmick.

It's a new medium that allows for new levels of gameplay, there's nothing wrong with it. It can and has been used very effectively to bring a new experience to handheld games, if you're playing the right ones. Just because you're playing ports of games (OoT, TP) that are thrown together doesn't mean that the feature is pointless, it means it isn't being well utilised.

How does it allow for new levels of gameplay? Every time i've seen it used, it's in a menu screen capacity,or for an annoying game mechanic (like spirit tracks). And motion controls are counter intuitive and very inaccurate. now, if nintendo could make a stunning game with motion controls, it'd be great, i just don't see why they have to apply it to games that naver had it in the first place. Again, Metroid Prime was great without motion controls, why design the sequels around it...it adds nothing to that particular game.

That's exactly what they should be doing; building games around the mechanic they've made in order to be a focused and fun experience. If they do what you said and design a game first without having the technology and mechanics in mind, it becomes a mess. In fact, it becomes the very same mess you were complaining about earlier with OoT and Twilight Princess.

It doesn't become a mess, it becomes a good game. Game design should come first, implimenting new technology should come second. Ocarina of time, or Banjo Kazooie, for example, were degined and conceptualized on Snes. it was only hafter they saw what the 64 could do, that they moved dev to it instead. They made the games first, and the technology aspect came second. yes, the new tech did allow for some better avenues and more interesting things, but overall, the games werne't created around the 64.

At 4/20/13 01:28 AM, Ryanson wrote: So you dislike the console, but you want games that are almost entirely based around the mechanics of the console.

Right. but as i said, i want it mostly for VC and normal ds titles, like metroid Zero mission, and Pokemon soulSilver respectively. I can't even think of many actual 3ds games i want.

At 4/20/13 01:28 AM, Ryanson wrote: So you dislike the console, but you want games that are almost entirely based around the mechanics of the console.

Right. but as i said, i want it mostly for VC and normal ds titles, like metroid Zero mission, and Pokemon soulSilver respectively. I can't even think of many actual 3ds games i want.

At 4/20/13 01:37 AM, LemonCrush wrote: We;re talking about 2 different things. YOu are referring to technical upgrades that help the player in a convenient manner. The touch screen is not that. It's not an upgrade at all, it's a new technology that doesn't make anything more convenient at all.
And more buttons allow for better game design and controls. A touch screen adds nothing to the experience.

What's so different about having more buttons and more screens? More buttons allow for more forms of input from the player, is that a necessity? No, it's an improvement. NES games were made just fine with 2 buttons to use, and there were plenty of SNES games that only used two buttons. Did that make the four extra useless? No, it didn't. It allowed for innovation and improvement.

nothing wrong with improving where it's needed. A touch screen is an unnecessary feature, as it doesn't really add anything new or interesting in terms of gameplay or design.

What does having a second, touchable screen do? The exact same thing as buttons, and plenty more. It gives the player a new form of input with the game, and also allows them to have more screen space in order to see more information or get multiple perspectives of what's going on in the game. It can add an entirely new dimension to gameplay and design. Saying it doesn't is just plain ignorance.

Now notice I'm not saying that having a touch screen makes every game better. I'm saying it is an improvement on the system itself because it allows the designers to have more to work with. There's nothing wrong with that, and it isn't a gimmick. It's innovation. What is done with the feature is not the system's fault, it's the developers'.

I didn't say it made for bad games, i'm just saying the touch screen does nothing to make the decent games, like Pokemon for example, better.

You're obviously not playing the right games then. Perhaps you should try playing new games designed around the concept instead of using old franchises that are shipped to the latest thing as your examples.

There are plenty of good games on 3DS...which would be just as good without the touch screen.

Another completely ignorant thing to say. I would like to see how Nintendogs, Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan, Wario Ware Touched, Meteos, and Trauma Centre would be "just as good" without the DS' touch screen feature.

It doesn't become a mess, it becomes a good game.

You were just arguing that those games were done poorly for the exact same reason. Will you please make up your mind?

Game design should come first, implimenting new technology should come second.

Ocarina of time, or Banjo Kazooie, for example, were degined and conceptualized on Snes. it was only hafter they saw what the 64 could do, that they moved dev to it instead. They made the games first, and the technology aspect came second. yes, the new tech did allow for some better avenues and more interesting things, but overall, the games werne't created around the 64.

No, Project Dream was conceptualised as an RPG for the SNES, but they completely redesigned the game to work as 3D platformer when the N64 came around and after many, many changes eventually came to be a game we know as Banjo-Kazooie. The game "Banjo-Kazooie" was not even a thought when they were designing a game for the SNES. The game was completely built around the N64 and the idea of 3D platforming, in the SNES days the plan was to be an RPG starring a human boy named Edison.

Lemon OoT for the 3DS needed the screen for buttons..

At 4/20/13 02:15 AM, Oolaph wrote:

At 4/20/13 01:37 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

Ocarina of time, or Banjo Kazooie, for example, were degined and conceptualized on Snes. it was only hafter they saw what the 64 could do, that they moved dev to it instead. They made the games first, and the technology aspect came second. yes, the new tech did allow for some better avenues and more interesting things, but overall, the games werne't created around the 64.

This paragraph was obviously supposed to be quoted in my last post, I borked it up while typing about.

I don't want to get involved in a huge debate here, because Ooplah seems to have me covered in that department, but i will say this.

The 3D looks cool for some games, but otherwise you can play it just fine without it. For Super Mario 3D Land, Mutant Mudds, Kid Icarus Uprising, and Luigi's Mansion 2, I actually felt like I needed the 3D on, because of how much easier it was to judge distances with the 3D on.

Another point is that you thinking grand games like OoT would be diminished on a handheld is your personal opinion. OoT 3D is better looking, better playing, and more atmospheric on a handheld. A smaller screen is designed with the intention of having a player much closer to the screen. That, and you can increase the atmosphere by using headphones.

At 4/20/13 02:29 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Lemon OoT for the 3DS needed the screen for buttons..

IDK, the n64 didn't have a touch screen...

At 4/20/13 02:15 AM, Oolaph wrote: What's so different about having more buttons and more screens? More buttons allow for more forms of input from the player, is that a necessity? No, it's an improvement. NES games were made just fine with 2 buttons to use, and there were plenty of SNES games that only used two buttons. Did that make the four extra useless? No, it didn't. It allowed for innovation and improvement.

Already explained that. They added more buttons to allow more avenues for creative design. A second screen has not created any interesting or new mechanics or interesting design choices. I have yet to see a game that has used the second screen in a way that was revolutionary, or implimented into the game play.

What does having a second, touchable screen do? The exact same thing as buttons, and plenty more. It gives the player a new form of input with the game, and also allows them to have more screen space in order to see more information or get multiple perspectives of what's going on in the game. It can add an entirely new dimension to gameplay and design. Saying it doesn't is just plain ignorance.

Well, if you're justifying the touchscreen as a button platform, your saying it's good because it has more buttons. More buttons don't make for better games. All the touchscreen has been used for so far, is an info screen or menu...it hasn't been used to it's potential, if it has any at all.

Now notice I'm not saying that having a touch screen makes every game better. I'm saying it is an improvement on the system itself because it allows the designers to have more to work with. There's nothing wrong with that, and it isn't a gimmick. It's innovation. What is done with the feature is not the system's fault, it's the developers'.

But the designers haven't "worked with it" at all. Seem like the developers see a touchscreen and say "oh that's where we'll put the menu"

You're obviously not playing the right games then. Perhaps you should try playing new games designed around the concept instead of using old franchises that are shipped to the latest thing as your examples.

Like what?

Another completely ignorant thing to say. I would like to see how Nintendogs, Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan, Wario Ware Touched, Meteos, and Trauma Centre would be "just as good" without the DS' touch screen feature.

The games you mentioned are not experience based games though. Nintendogs isn't exactly Zelda.

You were just arguing that those games were done poorly for the exact same reason. Will you please make up your mind?

What? No.

No, Project Dream was conceptualised as an RPG for the SNES, but they completely redesigned the game to work as 3D platformer when the N64 came around and after many, many changes eventually came to be a game we know as Banjo-Kazooie. The game "Banjo-Kazooie" was not even a thought when they were designing a game for the SNES. The game was completely built around the N64 and the idea of 3D platforming, in the SNES days the plan was to be an RPG starring a human boy named Edison.

That's great and all, but it didn't really disprove anything I said, and in fact helped my case.

At 4/21/13 12:51 AM, HikarutheHedgehog wrote: I was just about to ask "what's wrong with the 3DS screen" until I remembered that you hate handhelds because "they take away from the atmosphere" or some other pretentious bullshit.

Having a legitimate opinion is not "pretentious". I play games for the same reason I watch movies. to be engrossed in an interesting world and story. Handheld games lack that aspect, and therefore i tend not to enjoy them as much. Sorry if people's opinions scare you, or make you feel insulted.

At 4/21/13 12:23 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 4/20/13 02:29 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Lemon OoT for the 3DS needed the screen for buttons..

IDK, the n64 didn't have a touch screen...

The N64 had more buttons which is my point.