Do you think developers are allowed to decide not to implement 3D...

#1thecakeisalie11Posted 7/2/2010 5:18:06 AM
and opt for better graphics/performance instead?
We know that making the 3D effects takes the 3DS more hardware power, so what if...?
i wouldn't mind a real heavy sophisticated GTA or Monster Hunter if they choose not to implement 3D effects.
#2Megaman OmegaPosted 7/2/2010 5:21:05 AM
Of course they are. Nobody was forced to use the touch screen or both screens either. Just take Megamna Zero Collection, per example, it is a compilation of GBA games and thus uses neither touching nor does it play on two screens.
---
Official Vaporeon of the B/W Boards
Proud member of M.U.K.
#3Sarick_LyrePosted 7/2/2010 5:42:01 AM
You don't gain any additional power by having 3D off. It is always producing two 400 x 240 images that are projected to two eyes. That basically means it is using the same amount of power no matter if 3D is on or not.

That said there's still reason to remove the 3D effect. Though depends on the game itself.
#4O2AshPosted 7/2/2010 5:58:05 AM
Of course they are allowed. They can make a game that uses only the D-Pad if they want, as long as no inappropriate contents are present.
---
Corpulence, it is now omnipotent.
#5nonexistingheroPosted 7/2/2010 7:14:22 AM

From: Megaman Omega | Posted: 7/2/2010 2:21:05 PM | #002
Of course they are. Nobody was forced to use the touch screen or both screens either. Just take Megamna Zero Collection, per example, it is a compilation of GBA games and thus uses neither touching nor does it play on two screens.


MMZC does have touch-screen functionality. The default controls are crap, so you'll need to change them, and also map the buttons differently. You'll need to use the touch screen for the mapping.
---
Read the mania: http://www.fanfiction.net/~nonexistinghero
In SA2, it's Super Sonic and Hyper Shadow.
#6ozfunghiPosted 7/2/2010 10:21:17 AM
You don't gain any additional power by having 3D off. It is always producing two 400 x 240 images that are projected to two eyes. That basically means it is using the same amount of power no matter if 3D is on or not.

I think that's what the topic is about. If developers could chose to send the same image to both eyes, meaning they only render from one camera angle, they would indeed free a lot of resources for better graphics.

Oh, i just remembered you are the same misinformed person as in the other topic. Of course, according to your delusions, there would be no difference.

---
***The Kid is in rare form tonight***
/////////////www.doublegum.be/////////////
#7SxmfctPosted 7/2/2010 10:22:01 AM
Yes there idiots.
#8Sarick_LyrePosted 7/2/2010 7:00:20 PM
Ozfunghi.

Yes, I'm the misinformed poster that you proved to be correct.

Except right now you seem more misinformed. You see I'm arguing that the paralax barrier does not have the option to be disabled (even though there are models that can actually do that). This is because turning the 3D effect down changes the viewing angle and that when off the game doesn't magically become double the resolution.

Now there's a potential in that I may be wrong and Nintendo have elected to gone with the other paralax screens (ones that can turn on and off). Yet if my first assumption is right I am perfectly correct. There is also more evidence supporting my first assumption.
#9ozfunghiPosted 7/2/2010 7:05:12 PM
The paralax can of course NOT be turned off. The GPU however could in fact send the SAME image to BOTH sets of pixels. This would not double the resolution, it would eliminate the 3D effect because each eye would be seeing the same thing (hence, no different angle, no 3D).

If the GPU would send the same image for both eyes, that means it has to render geometry (polys), textures, shaders, etc... only once, hence freeing up resources.

---
***The Kid is in rare form tonight***
/////////////www.doublegum.be/////////////
#10Sarick_LyrePosted 7/2/2010 7:19:27 PM
I think I can agree to that. I think I did have bit of an oversight in this topic.

At least I know I wasn't wrong elsewhere. I have argued against being able to use the 800 x 240 pixels for a single image at the same resolution. I suppose that's what lead me to present the same argument here.