What would you rather have: 3D or better looking games?

Most of the people that have been lucky enough to sample Nintendo's new 3DS handheld have been impressed by what they've seen. The glassesless 3D works and the games look pretty. So it's happy faces all round, right?

Yes. BUT. An article on IGN says this: "Developers working on the system say that if they were developing a 3DS game that didn't use 3D, they could theoretically use the extra processing power for additional texture passes and more complex object and environment geometry, or even up a frame rate from 30 frames per second to 60."

Above: Would you trade 3D for an even sweeter looking Kid Icarus on Nintendo's new handheld?

I think what's being said there is that a 3DS game not using 3D would look prettier than if it was using 3D. And while I am hyped about the prospect of handheld gaming in three dimensions, another bit of me thinks that if it meant the game ran smoother and looked altogether nicer on the eyes, I'd be just as happy playing a 3DS game without any 3D.

It's an interesting dilemma and worth opening up to the informed patrons of GamesRadar. So, what would you rather have: 3D in your 3DS games? Or better looking 3DS games, but with no 3D?

July 5, 2010




  • MinxRiot - July 16, 2010 12:48 a.m.

    I'm all for better graphics.
  • tayruh - July 7, 2010 4:02 p.m.

    I think it's pretty obvious that processing two images requires twice the processor power. I'm not really sure how this is news. That haven't been said, I'm fine with this level of quality. If they could produce better graphics than this then it would result in a graphics competition just like what's happening on the current home consoles, which require bigger budgets and a higher price tag on games. I'm not paying $60 for a freakin portable game, thankyouverymuch.
  • Samuel71 - July 6, 2010 9:39 p.m.

    Better graphics for sure. I hope that option is used more often than the gimmicky 3D thing.
  • Wunderbolt - July 6, 2010 8:28 p.m.

    Right now, I'd choose graphics. But I think 3D for the future. 80 years ago, people would have chosen better quality visuals over sound in movies ("Talking in movies? It's just a gimmick"). Same thing 20 years later, when they found out how to put colour onto film. If we had had video games back then, we would have wanted better graphics over sound, better graphics over colour. Now we want better graphics over depth, but the technology won't improve unless we want it to. Re captcha: there drinks
  • Rowdie - July 6, 2010 5:53 p.m.

    Hmmm... 3d is better graphically.
  • philipshaw - July 6, 2010 5:37 p.m.

    For me if the game doesn't need to be 3D,use the extra power
  • Ravenbom - July 6, 2010 5:34 p.m.

    No one here can really have much of an opinion because they've never seen the 3DS in person, which by all accounts is what you need to do. The 3DS does do 2D, so 2D games can be made to use that extra horsepower. Honestly, I'm not all that sure how much better we need handheld games to look.
  • wrapdump - July 6, 2010 11:37 a.m.

    better graphics
  • DaBadGuy - July 6, 2010 7:52 a.m.

    Better graphics. 3D can't be healthy for people's eyes. It's different if it's every now and then at the movies, but now they are doing 3D television, 3D movies, 3D games, it's too much. It's just a gimmick anyway. Don't get me wrong, I would like to try a 3D game sometime, and if the 3DS actually works perhaps I'll pick it up but I don't want 3D to be in all of my entertainment. I don't want to get glaucoma before at least my 65th birthday, unless 2012 doomsday happens, which in that case we are all royally fucked in the butt.
  • Limbo - July 6, 2010 7:40 a.m.

    Can't you adjust the level of 3D-ness on the 3DS all the way to no 3D? It would be great if the lower the rate of 3D, the better framerate and other factors, so that way we could switch between 3D and a better framerate whenever we wanted.
  • Imgema - July 6, 2010 6:26 a.m.

    It depends on the difference. 3DS games already look gamecube games which is good enough for a handheld. The 3D display makes a major difference in the graphics than the normal 2D screen, plus its the selling point of the console. Its what makes 3DS different and unique. So, if the gain is only a few more polygons, higher frame rate that an already smooth one and a few extra effects, then no, i prefer the 3D gimmick. But if the difference is major, like comparing a MODEL2 arcade game with its saturn port, then yes, i would prefer the extra muscle to be used for graphics. Still, wouldn't the same thing apply for the DS? It's basically two machines, one for each screen. Wouldn't you prefer just one screen for better graphics and more compact design and have a bit more limited touch controls on that screen? There are many games that don't use the second screen properly anyway.
  • JimmyCooldaddy - July 6, 2010 12:49 a.m.

    Games continue to strive for realism and now we have 3d. They've tried 3d for years, but now it's done right! I couldn't be more excited. There goes my savings. Come on 3d Killzone!
  • Conman93 - July 6, 2010 12:45 a.m.

    Better graphics, mostly because I won't have to buy a mega-expensive 3d tv!
  • Gahmah - July 6, 2010 12:20 a.m.

    It already looks pretty good for a handheld, and depth is a way stronger effect than a few more passes on textures or aliasing. Besides, at and above thirty frames per second lighting and color become more important to the perceived motion in the case of the human eye. Pitt's screen looks like a somewhat more aliased gamecube game, I think what people do with art stuff will matter more, in the case of non cel shaded games, look towards old kingdom hearts, that's still a pretty sweet looking game. I say as long as they can squeeze in normal and bump maps I'd be happy enough with 3D, also, without a good example of how much improvement it would be I can't really feel swayed to hard to no 3D
  • EnragedTortoise1 - July 5, 2010 11:59 p.m.

    eeeehhhh... I don't know. Maybe. 3D is pretty effing cool, but PSP-esque graphics on the DS... AUGH DON'T MAKE ME CHOOSE!
  • Clovin64 - July 5, 2010 11:31 p.m.

    3D is too distracting. Its cool for a while, I'll admit but sooner or later 3D is going to get boring. Better Graphics will never get dull.
  • ScruffMoney - July 5, 2010 10:44 p.m.

    Better looking games, it's not even close. Graphical fidelity out weighs the 3D gimmick by far.
  • CH3BURASHKA - July 5, 2010 10:30 p.m.

    This is an incredibly ignorant stance on a new technology that has proven to be viable (via the previews I've read from multiple sources). This is precisely the direction Sony went in: to provide console-like experiences on a handheld, while Nintendo decided to instead create a new way of playing. The results speak for themselves. I can get an HD game on two consoles and a PC - I don't need any more platforms that offer the same. 3D, however, is much less accessible on those platforms, and the 3DS offers a way to deliver 3D games and experiences I can't get anywhere else (unless I have a shitload of money to burn). Just like 3D doesn't fit home consoles because that's unappealing, the glasses and whatnot, I don't see why I need OMG grafix on a handheld system - that's the wrong venue for it. I'm so fucking mad about this question. reCaptcha: 10 voyeurs
  • goochbiscuit - July 5, 2010 10:22 p.m.

    Fuck 3D, definitely better graphics.
  • D0CCON - July 5, 2010 10:05 p.m.

    I'd take 3D because these graphics are already more than I was hoping for. If performance takes a hit, then I'd choose 2D, but from everything I've seen, it looks plenty good already. And it is called the 3DS, so it would be a little weird to not have 3D in it. 3D can be used for more than looks, but that's all that graphics are.

Showing 1-20 of 62 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000