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

#11ozfunghiPosted 7/2/2010 6:23:49 PM
True, you can never "use" the 800x240 resolution. 400x240 is what your eyes will perceive, no matter what you do...


---
***The Kid is in rare form tonight***
/////////////www.doublegum.be/////////////
#12SideC_H87Posted 7/2/2010 8:32:24 PM
This is actually a good question!

If a game is made with NO 3D option, it can be made graphically better:

http://kotaku.com/5578822/3ds-games-will-look-better-if-they-ditch-the-3d

it could run faster too. But the question is who would be willing to be the first to make a game that makes no use of the 3DS's main selling point?

I think the developers do have the choice, but the financial possibilities are the biggest question when it comes to having and not having 3D.
---
so...I heard you liked sweet potato
#13Hyrulesaver123Posted 7/2/2010 9:03:26 PM
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.


IGN stated in an article that by not double-rendering the game for 3D you would get a bit more processing power for graphics or w/e you wanted to.
---
Not changing this sig until the the CoD:MW2 cliff hanger is relieved (IE Makarov dies)
Gamertag: one2many104; Currently playing: CoD:MW2
#14TheDarkNerdPosted 7/2/2010 11:10:27 PM
Not implementing the 3D would also allow practical use of the system's motion sensors, as there would be no more worry about the user tilting themselves out of the 3D sweetspot.
---
http://i39.tinypic.com/xnar69.gif