The 3DS technical specs are revealed, and it's a big disappointment.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I don't get it. If the 3DS is a mini Xbox/Gamecube, shouldn't people be happy? Why are people complaining? Are people expecting 3DS spec to rival that of PS3/Xbox360 now? That's just nuts. nchan
Looks like some really expected a portable 360/PS3 :lol:
I don't get it. If the 3DS is a mini Xbox/Gamecube, shouldn't people be happy? Why are people complaining? Are people expecting 3DS spec to rival that of PS3/Xbox360 now? That's just nuts. nchan
Yes, they are.
I wish super hardcore types would realize there arn't enough of them to make a market. Some of you may be willing to spend 500-800 dollars on a handheld. You are a VERY small minority.
[QUOTE="nchan"]I don't get it. If the 3DS is a mini Xbox/Gamecube, shouldn't people be happy? Why are people complaining? Are people expecting 3DS spec to rival that of PS3/Xbox360 now? That's just nuts. nameless12345
Looks like some really expected a portable 360/PS3 :lol:
So it can cost twice as much and a 1 hour battery life. No thanks. But seriously guys, it's Nintendo we're talking about. If you're wanting a portable console wait for the PSP2 which will ultimately fail like the original.
People are understating the importance of the autostereo screen. Imagine Pokemon(hopefully Stadium),Wind Waker, or Mario Galaxy in stereo3D. That alone would destroy any competition.
One question I have, is there anybody here who believes that the 3DS specs will cause it to sell less units than the GBA or DS? If so, I'd like to hear an in-depth reason as to why that will happen. Thank you.
[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Get that money for the dentist ready. The gameplay might not look as good as that video, if not it will be because cutscenes in RE5 on 360 also looked better than normal gameplay, like most other cutscenes on any system. But it's all rendered by the 3DS, and it as been confirmed many times, and the differences between 3D and 2D were detailed, and how the effects like blur, HRD, etc affect the graphics.Bread_or_DecideI'll wait for actual gameplay footage. Not prerendered cut scenes.
Stop using the word "prerendered". They may be cutscenes, but they were rendered in real time.
the thing about the 3D is that it probably wont stay exclusive for long...especially of the 3DS is successful. nintendo dont own that technology...it belongs to sharp i think (basically whoever is providing the 3DSs screens). its possible that ninty have an exclsuive deal with them but i doubt it. if the 3DS is a huge success then i could certainly see it appearing on an iphone 5 or 6 and possible even the rumoured PSPhone or PSP2 (though at the mo sony are trying to distance themselves from it). as for specs affecting sales....no not really. whether the 3DS is successful or not will come down to other factors...the guts of the thing will be a non issue to the masses.People are understating the importance of the autostereo screen. Imagine Pokemon(hopefully Stadium),Wind Waker, or Mario Galaxy in stereo3D. That alone would destroy any competition.
One question I have, is there anybody here who believes that the 3DS specs will cause it to sell less units than the GBA or DS? If so, I'd like to hear an in-depth reason as to why that will happen. Thank you.
gamecubepad
[QUOTE="nchan"]I don't get it. If the 3DS is a mini Xbox/Gamecube, shouldn't people be happy? Why are people complaining? Are people expecting 3DS spec to rival that of PS3/Xbox360 now? That's just nuts. nameless12345
Looks like some really expected a portable 360/PS3 :lol:
i dont think it was that far..people were just expecting something that would kill an iphone 4 in the horsepower department. no idea why mind but there ya go...unrealistic hype yet again falling flat on its face.[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]the thing about the 3D is that it probably wont stay exclusive for long...especially of the 3DS is successful. nintendo dont own that technology...whether the 3DS is successful or not will come down to other factors...the guts of the thing will be a non issue to the masses.People are understating the importance of the autostereo screen. Imagine Pokemon(hopefully Stadium),Wind Waker, or Mario Galaxy in stereo3D. That alone would destroy any competition.
osan0
There's already cell phones that have 3D screens. That's not the point I'm making at all. The perceived quality of gfx on the 3DS is gonna receive a major boost just because of the 3D screen. Games will have richness and depth that just couldn't be acheived without it.
Furthermore, people are going to associate 3D handheld gaming with Nintendo. People who buy DS's get them for their kids and grandkids, they're not going to give them smartphones. Now, the PSP is gonna have to battle these phones, but not the 3DS. Like I said, Zelda, Mario, and Pokemon will own any device out there when it comes to games. The 3DS is powerful enough to have a version of the games those phones get, but the exclusives, price, and battery life will prove Nintendo the supreme victor once again. I think you would agree with me on this one.
the thing about the 3D is that it probably wont stay exclusive for long...especially of the 3DS is successful. nintendo dont own that technology...whether the 3DS is successful or not will come down to other factors...the guts of the thing will be a non issue to the masses.[QUOTE="osan0"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]
People are understating the importance of the autostereo screen. Imagine Pokemon(hopefully Stadium),Wind Waker, or Mario Galaxy in stereo3D. That alone would destroy any competition.
gamecubepad
There's already cell phones that have 3D screens. That's not the point I'm making at all. The perceived quality of gfx on the 3DS is gonna receive a major boost just because of the 3D screen. Games will have richness and depth that just couldn't be acheived without it.
Furthermore, people are going to associate 3D handheld gaming with Nintendo. People who buy DS's get them for their kids and grandkids, they're not going to give them smartphones. Now, the PSP is gonna have to battle these phones, but not the 3DS. Like I said, Zelda, Mario, and Pokemon will own any device out there when it comes to games. The 3DS is powerful enough to have a version of the games those phones get, but the exclusives, price, and battery life will prove Nintendo the supreme victor once again. I think you would agree with me on this one.
well yeah...no doubt about it ninty have alot of big hitters that have consistently proven to shift hardware. from brain training and nintendogs to pokemon and mario. professor layton also tends to do very well...i think thats a new one ninty can add to their ammo depot. history has also shown that in the handheld market battery and practality is king. it will be built like a tank, it will start up quickly and will load games like lightening. we still dont have the full picture of the 3DS such as 3DS ware and other features (according to DF theres 512MB of storage set for the OS. entire linux distros are smaller than that so theres plenty of scope for updates n such). so its hard to say how effective it will be at the app side of things. ideally ninty would open that up so that anyone could make a 3DS app....release an SDK to let everyone have a go and come to some standard arrangement that allows people to sell their wares on a 3DS store. but the chances of that happening are practically nill. so whats licencing going to be like? how much will the 3DS version of apps cost that are ported from android or iphone? how fast can small devs get started (can they just download some software and get started without a proper dev kit or do they need to wait until ninty get around to them?). if its going to be too restricted or too much hassle then app developers on android and IOS are just not going to bother porting their stuff to the 3DS and that could be a serious problem. were heading into murky waters though in terms of measuring success in the handheld market. for example because of apples business model i wouldnt be surprised if they manage to sell more hardware than nintendo over the next 5 years. apple respin and release hardware on a far more regular basis. however the sales figure for apple will be flattering...their actual install base wont be as big as the sales figures claim since so many just trade in and replace their old model. and how many i___ devices will be bought with gaming in mind? thats like asking how many PCs are gaming PCs. every PC can play games to a degree so nobody has a clue. every i___ buyers is a potential games player. but every 3DS ownser is a games player...why else would someone buy one? even revenue is tricky....i dont think apple seperate games revenue from other revenue when discussing the appstores performance. so how would we know how well games are selling on those devices. the overall revenue of the appstore may make a mockery of the 3DSs revenue (and more than likely will in the early days)....but the 3DS could be selling a hell of alot more games. its going to get messy. i have no doubt the 3DS is going to be a very successful machine in its own right. itll make ninty a lot of money and will have many crackin games. i dont know if itll outsell the DS in its lifetime but i think itll be very successful. but measuring its success against the competition is going to be messy. i also have no doubt that as things heat up the media is also just going to make it worse :P.
i have no doubt the 3DS is going to be a very successful machine in its own right. itll make ninty a lot of money and will have many crackin games. i dont know if itll outsell the DS in its lifetime but i think itll be very successful. but measuring its success against the competition is going to be messy. i also have no doubt that as things heat up the media is also just going to make it worse :P.osan0
I pretty much agree with everything you said. I think the true measure success for the 3DS will be it's sales compared to the DS, not compared to the phone market. They're just drastrically different business models. The phones come with your phone plan, so it's cost is worked into the plan, and the companies are willing to take a hit to get the 2yr. plan signed. Furthermore, phones are multi-purpose devices, but primarily...a phone. The apps are charged to your phone bill, as opposed to purchased at retail.
I think an app store is one area where Nintendo could really expand. Similar to the Wii's Virtual Console, a 3DS app store with nes, snes, n64, and gba games could take on other systems libraries on it's own. I would love to see a 3DS virtual console.
No suprise there, Nintendo always churns out Low Tech. What were you expecting? Some mind blowing taste of Next Gen.
Nice money saving strategy though.g0ddyX
Like they did with the SNES, N64 and GC...wait.
[QUOTE="g0ddyX"]
No suprise there, Nintendo always churns out Low Tech. What were you expecting? Some mind blowing taste of Next Gen.
Nice money saving strategy though.ithilgore2006
Like they did with the SNES, N64 and GC...wait.
Wasn't the genesis more powerful than the SNES? Anyway, yeah the GC and N64 were some of the most powerful consoles in those generations, but also lost a lot of market share because of their consoles architecture. Deja vu Sony with the PS3?
[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"]
[QUOTE="g0ddyX"]
No suprise there, Nintendo always churns out Low Tech. What were you expecting? Some mind blowing taste of Next Gen.
Nice money saving strategy though.Zune_HD
Like they did with the SNES, N64 and GC...wait.
Wasn't the genesis more powerful than the SNES? Anyway, yeah the GC and N64 were some of the most powerful consoles in those generations, but also lost a lot of market share because of their consoles architecture. Deja vu Sony with the PS3? Nah man, where have you been? SNES kicked Genesis' but graphically. (SW exaggeration of course, but it did) Pretty much. Spending money on power usually is not a good move, from what we have learnt. Especially with the N64, GCN(Xbox), and now with Wii owning HD console sales.There has to be a balance, Nintendo realises this with the 3DS and it follows their handheld timeline (i.e. roughly one home console generation behind in power). Though I think 3DS's graphics will outdo last gen consoles.
Wasn't the genesis more powerful than the SNES? Anyway, yeah the GC and N64 were some of the most powerful consoles in those generations, but also lost a lot of market share because of their consoles architecture. Deja vu Sony with the PS3? Nah man, where have you been? SNES kicked Genesis' but graphically. (SW exaggeration of course, but it did) Pretty much. Spending money on power usually is not a good move, from what we have learnt. Especially with the N64, GCN(Xbox), and now with Wii owning HD console sales.[QUOTE="Zune_HD"]
[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"]
Like they did with the SNES, N64 and GC...wait.
SaltyMeatballs
There has to be a balance, Nintendo realises this with the 3DS and it follows their handheld timeline (i.e. roughly one home console generation behind in power). Though I think 3DS's graphics will outdo last gen consoles.
To be fair, though, Nintendo released those 3 systems much later than the competition (the SNES was released 2 years after the Mega Drive/Genesis, the N64 was released 1.5 years after the PS1, and the Gamecube was released 1.5 years after the PS2).1.5 years may not seem like a lot, but back then it often meant a huge difference in graphics capability/performance-per-dollar. Of course launching late also makes it harder to catch up in market share...
[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"]
[QUOTE="g0ddyX"]
No suprise there, Nintendo always churns out Low Tech. What were you expecting? Some mind blowing taste of Next Gen.
Nice money saving strategy though.Zune_HD
Like they did with the SNES, N64 and GC...wait.
Wasn't the genesis more powerful than the SNES? Anyway, yeah the GC and N64 were some of the most powerful consoles in those generations, but also lost a lot of market share because of their consoles architecture. Deja vu Sony with the PS3?Genesis had superior sound, I believe, while the SNES excelled in the other areas. I didn't mean they simply made the most powerful of their generation (GC was not, after all), I meant their using low end, "last gen" hardware only started with the Wii. That guy acted like they've always done that, despite all their previous consoles being up to date and powerful for their respective times.
Well the PS3's was due to different factors than Nintendo's drop. I think we can safety say their choice of format for the games on both consoles was the most important reason, wheras I'm not totally sure the whole Blu Ray thing was the real reason the PS3 struggled for so long. The price wasa deciding factor there, wheras the N64 and GC were never very expensive.
I will say that in both cases, it was a lack of games caused by problems with developer that probably turned off gamers the most. The cartridge/mini disc format turned away so many developers from the 64/GC, not to mention Nintendo's rather poor handling of third parties in those days. I'm no expert, but I believe the development costs for the PS3 were huge, and it was difficult to develop for.
Both companies needed their falls, though. Sort of karma, Nintendo had become downright dicks by the 90's, and Sony...ok well they've always been a bit douchey, but a bit of humbling is good.
People panicking over this makes me LOL. The 3DS has to pump out a significantly smaller number of pixels than HD home consoles. Think about it, all the screen space on the 3ds is much less than that of your 50" flat screen ;) These specs are astounding when compared to the DSi's. Its like the wii jumping up to PS3 levels. The technology is cheap, and I think nintendo has found the perfect formula.
Wasn't the genesis more powerful than the SNES? Anyway, yeah the GC and N64 were some of the most powerful consoles in those generations, but also lost a lot of market share because of their consoles architecture. Deja vu Sony with the PS3?[QUOTE="Zune_HD"]
[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"]
Like they did with the SNES, N64 and GC...wait.
ithilgore2006
Genesis had superior sound, I believe, while the SNES excelled in the other areas. I didn't mean they simply made the most powerful of their generation (GC was not, after all), I meant their using low end, "last gen" hardware only started with the Wii. That guy acted like they've always done that, despite all their previous consoles being up to date and powerful for their respective times.
Well the PS3's was due to different factors than Nintendo's drop. I think we can safety say their choice of format for the games on both consoles was the most important reason, wheras I'm not totally sure the whole Blu Ray thing was the real reason the PS3 struggled for so long. The price wasa deciding factor there, wheras the N64 and GC were never very expensive.
I will say that in both cases, it was a lack of games caused by problems with developer that probably turned off gamers the most. The cartridge/mini disc format turned away so many developers from the 64/GC, not to mention Nintendo's rather poor handling of third parties in those days. I'm no expert, but I believe the development costs for the PS3 were huge, and it was difficult to develop for.
Both companies needed their falls, though. Sort of karma, Nintendo had become downright dicks by the 90's, and Sony...ok well they've always been a bit douchey, but a bit of humbling is good.
SNES also had better sound. :P[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"][QUOTE="Zune_HD"] Wasn't the genesis more powerful than the SNES? Anyway, yeah the GC and N64 were some of the most powerful consoles in those generations, but also lost a lot of market share because of their consoles architecture. Deja vu Sony with the PS3?
SaltyMeatballs
Genesis had superior sound, I believe, while the SNES excelled in the other areas. I didn't mean they simply made the most powerful of their generation (GC was not, after all), I meant their using low end, "last gen" hardware only started with the Wii. That guy acted like they've always done that, despite all their previous consoles being up to date and powerful for their respective times.
Well the PS3's was due to different factors than Nintendo's drop. I think we can safety say their choice of format for the games on both consoles was the most important reason, wheras I'm not totally sure the whole Blu Ray thing was the real reason the PS3 struggled for so long. The price wasa deciding factor there, wheras the N64 and GC were never very expensive.
I will say that in both cases, it was a lack of games caused by problems with developer that probably turned off gamers the most. The cartridge/mini disc format turned away so many developers from the 64/GC, not to mention Nintendo's rather poor handling of third parties in those days. I'm no expert, but I believe the development costs for the PS3 were huge, and it was difficult to develop for.
Both companies needed their falls, though. Sort of karma, Nintendo had become downright dicks by the 90's, and Sony...ok well they've always been a bit douchey, but a bit of humbling is good.
SNES also had better sound. :P It did? Huh, never mind then.[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"][QUOTE="ithilgore2006"]SNES also had better sound. :P It did? Huh, never mind then. I recall the Genesis' major claim was that it had a faster CPU than the SNES's. The infamous "Blast Processing" capability.Genesis had superior sound, I believe, while the SNES excelled in the other areas. I didn't mean they simply made the most powerful of their generation (GC was not, after all), I meant their using low end, "last gen" hardware only started with the Wii. That guy acted like they've always done that, despite all their previous consoles being up to date and powerful for their respective times.
Well the PS3's was due to different factors than Nintendo's drop. I think we can safety say their choice of format for the games on both consoles was the most important reason, wheras I'm not totally sure the whole Blu Ray thing was the real reason the PS3 struggled for so long. The price wasa deciding factor there, wheras the N64 and GC were never very expensive.
I will say that in both cases, it was a lack of games caused by problems with developer that probably turned off gamers the most. The cartridge/mini disc format turned away so many developers from the 64/GC, not to mention Nintendo's rather poor handling of third parties in those days. I'm no expert, but I believe the development costs for the PS3 were huge, and it was difficult to develop for.
Both companies needed their falls, though. Sort of karma, Nintendo had become downright dicks by the 90's, and Sony...ok well they've always been a bit douchey, but a bit of humbling is good.
ithilgore2006
[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"][QUOTE="ithilgore2006"]SNES also had better sound. :P It did? Huh, never mind then. I would say that in general the genesis had the superior hardware, but the SNES had a GODLIKE sound chip for the time. They went way overboard with the sound for the SNES. It was amazing that the SNES was equal or worse in hardware considering it came out 2 years after the genesis, but nintendo has always been about making the system cheap (yes, even with the n64, which was based off of a unique chip system)Genesis had superior sound, I believe, while the SNES excelled in the other areas. I didn't mean they simply made the most powerful of their generation (GC was not, after all), I meant their using low end, "last gen" hardware only started with the Wii. That guy acted like they've always done that, despite all their previous consoles being up to date and powerful for their respective times.
Well the PS3's was due to different factors than Nintendo's drop. I think we can safety say their choice of format for the games on both consoles was the most important reason, wheras I'm not totally sure the whole Blu Ray thing was the real reason the PS3 struggled for so long. The price wasa deciding factor there, wheras the N64 and GC were never very expensive.
I will say that in both cases, it was a lack of games caused by problems with developer that probably turned off gamers the most. The cartridge/mini disc format turned away so many developers from the 64/GC, not to mention Nintendo's rather poor handling of third parties in those days. I'm no expert, but I believe the development costs for the PS3 were huge, and it was difficult to develop for.
Both companies needed their falls, though. Sort of karma, Nintendo had become downright dicks by the 90's, and Sony...ok well they've always been a bit douchey, but a bit of humbling is good.
ithilgore2006
It did? Huh, never mind then. I would say that in general the genesis had the superior hardware, but the SNES had a GODLIKE sound chip for the time. They went way overboard with the sound for the SNES. It was amazing that the SNES was equal or worse in hardware considering it came out 2 years after the genesis, but nintendo has always been about making the system cheap (yes, even with the n64, which was based off of a unique chip system) SNES was more powerful. Blast processing owned the NES, but the SNES came and owned Genesis. SNES done Mode7, mode-****ing-7!!!!!!!! It didn't really matter though, both could have the same game, and pretty much look the same. Only a few games really stood out.[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"][QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"] SNES also had better sound. :PGunSmith1_basic
[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"][QUOTE="Zune_HD"] Wasn't the genesis more powerful than the SNES? Anyway, yeah the GC and N64 were some of the most powerful consoles in those generations, but also lost a lot of market share because of their consoles architecture. Deja vu Sony with the PS3?
SaltyMeatballs
Genesis had superior sound, I believe, while the SNES excelled in the other areas. I didn't mean they simply made the most powerful of their generation (GC was not, after all), I meant their using low end, "last gen" hardware only started with the Wii. That guy acted like they've always done that, despite all their previous consoles being up to date and powerful for their respective times.
Well the PS3's was due to different factors than Nintendo's drop. I think we can safety say their choice of format for the games on both consoles was the most important reason, wheras I'm not totally sure the whole Blu Ray thing was the real reason the PS3 struggled for so long. The price wasa deciding factor there, wheras the N64 and GC were never very expensive.
I will say that in both cases, it was a lack of games caused by problems with developer that probably turned off gamers the most. The cartridge/mini disc format turned away so many developers from the 64/GC, not to mention Nintendo's rather poor handling of third parties in those days. I'm no expert, but I believe the development costs for the PS3 were huge, and it was difficult to develop for.
Both companies needed their falls, though. Sort of karma, Nintendo had become downright dicks by the 90's, and Sony...ok well they've always been a bit douchey, but a bit of humbling is good.
SNES also had better sound. :PYeah the SNES had an awesome sound chip, designed by Ken Kutaragi of all people. :P
[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"]I would say that in general the genesis had the superior hardware, but the SNES had a GODLIKE sound chip for the time. They went way overboard with the sound for the SNES. It was amazing that the SNES was equal or worse in hardware considering it came out 2 years after the genesis, but nintendo has always been about making the system cheap (yes, even with the n64, which was based off of a unique chip system) SNES was more powerful. Blast processing owned the NES, but the SNES came and owned Genesis. SNES done Mode7, mode-****ing-7!!!!!!!! It didn't really matter though, both could have the same game, and pretty much look the same. Only a few games really stood out.[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"] It did? Huh, never mind then.SaltyMeatballs
Sega CDs Rotation and Scaling >>>>>> Mode 7.. you could do hills and every thing :P
It did? Huh, never mind then. I would say that in general the genesis had the superior hardware, but the SNES had a GODLIKE sound chip for the time. They went way overboard with the sound for the SNES. It was amazing that the SNES was equal or worse in hardware considering it came out 2 years after the genesis, but nintendo has always been about making the system cheap (yes, even with the n64, which was based off of a unique chip system)snes had a sony sound chip[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"][QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"] SNES also had better sound. :PGunSmith1_basic
[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"]I would say that in general the genesis had the superior hardware, but the SNES had a GODLIKE sound chip for the time. They went way overboard with the sound for the SNES. It was amazing that the SNES was equal or worse in hardware considering it came out 2 years after the genesis, but nintendo has always been about making the system cheap (yes, even with the n64, which was based off of a unique chip system) SNES was more powerful. Blast processing owned the NES, but the SNES came and owned Genesis. SNES done Mode7, mode-****ing-7!!!!!!!! It didn't really matter though, both could have the same game, and pretty much look the same. Only a few games really stood out.the genesis had a 8 MHz cpu but the SNES had a 4 MHz CPU. the GPU was better in the SNES by like 2 KHz but it had more ram than genesis as well[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"] It did? Huh, never mind then.SaltyMeatballs
[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"]I would say that in general the genesis had the superior hardware, but the SNES had a GODLIKE sound chip for the time. They went way overboard with the sound for the SNES. It was amazing that the SNES was equal or worse in hardware considering it came out 2 years after the genesis, but nintendo has always been about making the system cheap (yes, even with the n64, which was based off of a unique chip system) SNES was more powerful. Blast processing owned the NES, but the SNES came and owned Genesis. SNES done Mode7, mode-****ing-7!!!!!!!! It didn't really matter though, both could have the same game, and pretty much look the same. Only a few games really stood out.[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"] It did? Huh, never mind then.SaltyMeatballs
Uh no. Basically only Sega's own games and some 3rd party exclusives looked good on the Genesis, while the majority of multiplatform games looked (and sounded) better on the SNES. Genesis also couldn't run games like Donkey Kong Country as good as the SNES could.
Consoles power-wise: PS3 > Xbox 360 > Wii > Xbox > GameCube > PS2 > Dreamcast > N64 > PS1 > Sega Saturn > Atari Jaguar > SNES > Genesis > Master System > NES > Atari 2600
SNES was more powerful. Blast processing owned the NES, but the SNES came and owned Genesis. SNES done Mode7, mode-****ing-7!!!!!!!! It didn't really matter though, both could have the same game, and pretty much look the same. Only a few games really stood out.[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"][QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"] I would say that in general the genesis had the superior hardware, but the SNES had a GODLIKE sound chip for the time. They went way overboard with the sound for the SNES. It was amazing that the SNES was equal or worse in hardware considering it came out 2 years after the genesis, but nintendo has always been about making the system cheap (yes, even with the n64, which was based off of a unique chip system)
nameless12345
Uh no. Basically only Sega's own games and some 3rd party exclusives looked good on the Genesis, while the majority of multiplatform games looked (and sounded) better on the SNES. Genesis also couldn't run games like Donkey Kong Country as good as the SNES could.
Consoles power-wise: PS3 > Xbox 360 > Wii > Xbox > GameCube > PS2 > Dreamcast > N64 > PS1 > Sega Saturn > Atari Jaguar > SNES > Genesis > Master System > NES > Atari 2600
You guys are going way off topic here :|
SNES was more powerful. Blast processing owned the NES, but the SNES came and owned Genesis. SNES done Mode7, mode-****ing-7!!!!!!!! It didn't really matter though, both could have the same game, and pretty much look the same. Only a few games really stood out.[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"][QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"] I would say that in general the genesis had the superior hardware, but the SNES had a GODLIKE sound chip for the time. They went way overboard with the sound for the SNES. It was amazing that the SNES was equal or worse in hardware considering it came out 2 years after the genesis, but nintendo has always been about making the system cheap (yes, even with the n64, which was based off of a unique chip system)
nameless12345
Uh no. Basically only Sega's own games and some 3rd party exclusives looked good on the Genesis, while the majority of multiplatform games looked (and sounded) better on the SNES. Genesis also couldn't run games like Donkey Kong Country as good as the SNES could.
Consoles power-wise: PS3 > Xbox 360 > Wii > Xbox > GameCube > PS2 > Dreamcast > N64 > PS1 > Sega Saturn > Atari Jaguar > SNES > Genesis > Master System > NES > Atari 2600
the saturn was more powerful than the ps1. the colicovision had more power than a nes[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"] SNES was more powerful. Blast processing owned the NES, but the SNES came and owned Genesis. SNES done Mode7, mode-****ing-7!!!!!!!! It didn't really matter though, both could have the same game, and pretty much look the same. Only a few games really stood out.bigM10231
Uh no. Basically only Sega's own games and some 3rd party exclusives looked good on the Genesis, while the majority of multiplatform games looked (and sounded) better on the SNES. Genesis also couldn't run games like Donkey Kong Country as good as the SNES could.
Consoles power-wise: PS3 > Xbox 360 > Wii > Xbox > GameCube > PS2 > Dreamcast > N64 > PS1 > Sega Saturn > Atari Jaguar > SNES > Genesis > Master System > NES > Atari 2600
the saturn was more powerful than the ps1. the colicovision had more power than a nesThat's debatable. The Xbox is also said to have better shaders than the Wii, but in other ways Wii is better. The Saturn could theoretically push more polygons than the PS1 and had better 2D hardware, but it also couldn't do hardware lighting, used quads instead of polygons and had some other limitations.
http://kotaku.com/5644430/report-nintendo-3ds-hardware-specs-revealed
And those idiots at IGN originally reported that it was going to be close in power to an Xbox 360 or Ps3. Ha! This is a letdown. What happed to all the talk of the Tegra 2 chip? Once again, Nintendo doesn't want to invest to make their system a bit more future proof.They've become the company that likes to build things cheap. I hope Metal Gear and Residetn Evil will be good enough to sway me toward purchasing one, because I'm rather underwhelmed at the moment.
ChiefFreeman
If you could point out where IGN said it was going to be like a 360 or PS3 in the palm of your hand, I'd like to see it. If I recall correctly, they said that the 3DS could produce visuals comparable to Xbox 360 games. The Tegra chip was speculation and the real graphics chip has been known for quite some time.
I'm not surprised that the specs are a bit low. I suppose the purpose of the lower clock rate is to decrease the amount of heat being produced by the chips. Those hand helds don't exactly have a lot of room to breathe. Still, when you consider that there are two processors in it, the 3DS is like a Gamecube in the palm of your hand. Honestly, I don't care what the specs are, so long as the games look decent.
I recommend all those disappointed with the 3DS hardware to wait for the PSP 2. I'm sure that will be a portable Xbox 360 with boring games :lol:
the saturn was more powerful than the ps1. the colicovision had more power than a nesbigM10231
Colecovision had a smaller color palette than the NES.
[QUOTE="painguy1"]
[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]
3DS's technical Specs are...a Big Disappointment?
Pug-Nasty
you should listen to this man TC. plus i highly doubt you even know what those numbers mean. we also already have a thread on this.
That's a video, a cutscene or something. Almost every device out there can produce video on par with that, it's the gameplay that's gonna either benefit or suffer from the final specs.
Ok fine if you want Gameplay then here.
Looks on par with the Wii right?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment