Anyone notice inthe dev interviews, they keep talking about how powerful 3DS is?

#1ebj767Posted 6/16/2010 2:07:05 PM
I saw Kid Icarus, and was like wow, this looks like PSP plus cool, maybe not there with the Wii...but then I saw MGS 3DS and was like, wow, this is as strong as a PS2 atleast, maybe even Wii! But the devs talking about how much power is in the handheld and they've never seen a handheld with as much raw power as the 3DS, am I missing something? The graphics look great don't get me wrong, but they look like a beefed up PSP/PS2/Wii, they make it sound like its almost a 360 under the hood.

Maybe there's just more RAM and and CPU power that we aren't seeing yet, all I'm saying its the devs make this system look doubly as powerful as a PSP, they keep saying "We've never seen a handheld with this much power", but I don't see it, it looks like a stronger PSP/PS2/Wii.
#2ebj767(Topic Creator)Posted 6/16/2010 2:07:46 PM
Interviews are at e3.nintendo.com
#3Sirian_HawkPosted 6/16/2010 2:15:23 PM
Keep in mind a couple of things. First off, this is launch of new technology. Developers haven't had time to fully adjust to the new tech yet so they are still developing with DS limits in their minds. Games WILL get better looking as they adjust.

Second, since there is no release date or hint of one even, we have no idea how far into the development cycle the games are. Those could easily be a very early build strictly for demo. With a year to add and polish, those game could even end up much MUCH prettier.

The point is that we really have no clue what the 3DS is capable of yet, as those demos were more meant to show the glasses-less 3D than the graphical capabilities. It may yet be near-comparable to 360/PS3 as others have speculated. We'll have to wait and see.
---
"Great modem of mercy! Cover the children's eyes!" "There are no children here." "Then move your fat head. I can't see!" ~Futurama
#4Artix74Posted 6/16/2010 2:38:49 PM
To be fair, Kid Icarus looks a hell of a lot like an early-mid Gamecube title, and because of the 3D effect they have to render that image twice, so it's obviously packing quite a bit of power.
---
Atlus > You.
Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
#5Prism123Posted 6/16/2010 5:29:42 PM

From: Artix74 | #004
and because of the 3D effect they have to render that image twice, so it's obviously packing quite a bit of power.




800x240 is still less than 640x480, not to mention 854x480.
---
Just because YOU can't think of a reason why your logic is horribly flawed doesn't mean that it isn't. - LosingStreak06
#6Sarick_LyrePosted 6/16/2010 6:41:50 PM
Remember the touchscreen too. As it is just as important and it bridges the gap to become more equal to to resolution.

307200 (640 x 480)

192000 (800 x 240) + 76800 (340 x 240) = 268800
#7protomole64Posted 6/16/2010 6:55:27 PM
Indeed, not only is it rendering the 2 different images to give the 3D effect, and doing everything on the top screen, it is also powering the bottom touch screen. While the touch screen may not take nearly as much processing power, it does take some indeed. You have to count every single factor.
---
Q9450 @ 3.5ghz || 750GB SpinPoint F1 || New HAF 932 || HD 4870 @ 900/1250 (Musashi Cooler) || Xigmatek S1283