I can 't seem to get a clear cut answer on this. Basically no new games are coming out for DSi or DS XL right so does anyone know if you can play 3DS games on a DS XL if you only use 2D mode. I'm assuming the answer is no since Nintendo wants us all to buy the new hardware. Sigh - at 42 and my kids getting bored with using the DS I can't justify upgrading yet again to the new hardware. Especially since I love playing Professor Layton on the big screen of the XL. It sure is a lot easier on my aging eyes.
While that would be nice, the 3DS has more powerful hardware in it, and the 3DS games are built to use that new hardware. Even if you're playing in 2D, the graphics can be of a much higher quality. It would be like trying to play an Xbox 360 game on the original Xbox, the hardware just doesn't support it. Nintendo just changed the cartridge a little bit so people wouldn't try to put 3DS games into their DS.
You can even strip off the little piece on the cartridge to get it to fit in an old DS, but it won't play at all because it's designed for different hardware. This isn't an iteration in the current DS line but is a new generation altogether.
Makes sense. Just wish I'd waited but I still enjoy the XL. I'll wait and see how the 3DS does before jumping in. The 3D isn't something I'm all that hot on but I must say that what I've seen is cool even in 2D mode. Thanks to everyone who responded and set me straight. :)
you could consider trading in the XL to soften the financial blow of the upgrade. the screen on the 3DS is smaller than the XL, but not as small as the DSL. fantastic colour, crisp graphics, even when played in 2D .... the game releases of the future (at least 1st party Nintendo) will primarily be for the 3DS ... as well as the many additional features the newer hardware offers, I would certainly take the plunge ... if you enjoy handheld gaming at all, b/c eventually, all the new games will be exclusive to this unit.
I was looking at Mario Land 3DS and came on here. I wanted to add my two cents (and to clarify). Yes, 3DS is a more powerful hardware than the DS. It is basically like this: DS=N64 graphics (64-bit) and 3DS=Wii graphics (128-bit). That is the general idea. But if you want to be technical technical, Gamecube was 128-bit and the Wii is slightly better than that. So as someone said: "It's like playing an XBox 360 game on an XBox system." Not gonna happen. I hope that helps. Also, to the original poster: There's two new Professor Layton game coming out for the 3DS next year, well TBD. You can pick one up then!
the screens may be small but they have a higher resolution than the measly DS. the DSi XL just blow up the pixels on your screen so everything can look pixilated. The 3DS has a higher count which welcomes for higher textures and details since u can see more, and the top screen is widescreen. i kept my DSi XL and have a 3DS, just play your DS games on your XL or save them if you wanna just bring one handheld, bring the 3DS. i dont mind the smaller screens, its not DS Lite small and its more high Quality.
This is why Nintendo should've chosen a different name for the system. After going from DS to DSlite to DSI to DSI XL which all played the same games it was a big mistake to just call it the 3DS. I'm a hardcore gamer and while I obviously know the difference and my son and I have owned one since launch day, I can certainly see why people have been confused by this.
In short if it helps people grasp the difference think of it like this, the original DS line is basically a slightly enhanced N64 in terms of performance with a dual screen. The 3DS is fairly close in terms of hardware performance to a Gamecube or Wii but with much more modern built in support for pixel and vertex shading finally giving us a Nintendo platform that can handle modern game engines, although obviously toned down versions of them from what is on consoles, pc's, tablets, etc.
It really is great to finally have Nintendo hardware that can handle these fantastic effects that really date back to the Geforce 3 and original Xbox 1 GPU that brought about a focus on per pixel rendering. You could get some of the same effects on Nintendo's platforms through very talented programmers and a ton of hard work but that was really only realistic for us to expect out of Nintendo's own teams working to sell the consoles because due to the lack of performance most of the worlds best programmers were working on current engines and not trying to push extra performance from a decade old chip design that they could get up and running on modern chips in no time with no effort.
I disagree. There is a difference in how Nintendo marketed the 3DS compared to the DSi models. There were never any retail games (to my knowledge) with a DSi label on it, meaning only compatible for DSi models. The 3DS is a new machine, and 3DS games clearly have '3DS' on the box package. Nintendo assumed that people would understand the age old principle of succession. You can't play a Blu-ray in a DVD player, you can't play a PS3 game in a PS2 system, etc.
Actually, customers understand the principle of succession just fine. Where they get confused is that they don't know that it's a successive console. DS, DS-Lite, DSi, and DS XL all play the same game cartridges. "3DS" looks like another variation of Nintendo's previous DS pattern. Especially when you compare a 3DS side-by-side against a DSi or DS-Lite, the two consoles look similar enough.
To use your examples, another common name for "Blu-Ray" is "BDVD", but it's not marketed as that because people would get confused. So an *entirely* different name means something that's not compatible. As for PS2 and PS3, users have been trained to know that if the last digit is larger, then it's newer and not necessarily compatible (though people do actually get confused anyways).
The 3DS doesn't only offer 3D over the DSi, it also offers new hardware with vastly improved sound and graphics capabilities. Plus, it also has a built in analog thumb stick.
There's no way that any 3DS games will ever work on a DSi. That's like expecting Game Boy Advance games to be able to work on a Game Boy Color, or Playstation 3 games to work on a Playstation 2. Stop being cheap and get the new hardware if you're interested in the new games.
I always thought the biggest benefit of having a DSi over the standard DS and DS lite was the XL model as well as the online store. I still prefer to use my DSi XL whenever I play an original DS title such as Pokemon Black.
Well, I agree with you, JJ350, I love the big honking screen on my XL. However, the purists will maintain that since the XL doesn't actually add any resolution (just stretches the existing resolution across a larger screen) that the graphics don't look as good on a XL. Personally, I don't notice it very much and prefer the larger screen.
The 3DS, though... is in a whole new ballpark. I do kind of wish they'd make a 3DS XL model one of these days. One with a larger screen (and more forgiving viewing angle), dual analog sticks, and more room in the larger casing for a bigger battery. I'd totally buy one. Wouldn't even hurt my feelings if they jacked the price back up to $250, if I could have a bigger one.
The DS is firmly part of hardware two generations ago. Generally I'd say it's LESS powerful than the N64, though probably has some advantage or other, like everything does.
The 3DS is firmly part of last gen hardware. On paper at least it's probably in between a Dreamcast and PSP, although it may have advantages. It's less powerful than a Gamecube, and like everything least gen except the Xbox 1, it's got a fixed function GPU.
I didn't know any ever got released! I think it theoretically had it's own special packaging, like white or something?
I guess theoretically the DSi has 4x the RAM and 2x the CPU clock speed, which are pretty substantial upgrades, but since they were unused, it was a moot point. I don't even REMEMBER that much anymore, since...well, apparently it had one game. Not exactly a Gameboy Color!
Less powerful than a Gamecube? Let's take a look at the 3DS specs, shall we?
128 MB FCRAM, compared to the Wii's 64MB of accessible "external" SDRAM. PICA200 graphics processor which clocks at a max of 400MHz and has been said to meet and possibly surpass the Wii's own "Hollywood" GPU made by ATI. While the processor specs on the "Nintendo ARM" used has not been released, they are commonly speculated to be anywhere between 500MHz and 1GHz, compared to the Wii's own IBM-branded "Broadway" chip, meaning the 3DS is either slightly slower or faster than, but certainly on-par with, the Wii in terms of processing power. In all metrics which matter for measuring performance, the 3DS is nearly as powerful as, if not more so, than the Wii, let alone the Gamecube, so I think you'd better rethink and revise that statement.
tl;dr- Cite your facts, because the system specs are calling you a liar, and so am I.
<<<Nona Suomi says: Less powerful than a Gamecube?>>>
<<<PICA200 graphics processor which clocks at a max of 400MHz>>>
It's clocked at 133MHz, not 400. It's fixed function, like every other GPU of this class save for the Xbox 1. It's got 4 pixel pipes, like every other GPU of this class save for the Playstation 2 and I think Dreamcast.
<<<and has been said to meet and possibly surpass the Wii's own "Hollywood" GPU made by ATI.>>>
By whom? They're both fixed function, both 4 pixel pipes, but the Wii's GPU is clocked almost 2x as fast.
<<<While the processor specs on the "Nintendo ARM" used has not been released, they are commonly speculated to be anywhere between 500MHz and 1GHz>>>
Huh? We know exactly what it uses. Two ARM 11s at 266MHz. The PSP uses two MIPS R4000s at 333MHz, the PS2 a MIPS @ 300 MHz with essentially an extra coprocessor (technically two, but like the PSP, the first is used for T&L usually, rather than having that on the GPU). The Gamecube uses a modified PowerPC G3 with SIMD at 486MHz.
Unless the 3DS' GPU has some tricks we don't know about, it's not as good. And we know the CPUs aren't as good. Even if you got 100% out of both of them-not super likely in a game senario-they're single issue, versus the Gamecube's dual issue CPU. They're just not as good.
<<<compared to the Wii's own IBM-branded "Broadway" chip, meaning the 3DS is either slightly slower or faster than, but certainly on-par with, the Wii in terms of processing power.>>>
No it isn't. The Wii's CPU is the same as the Gamecube's, save clocked 50% faster.
<<<In all metrics which matter for measuring performance, the 3DS is nearly as powerful as, if not more so, than the Wii>>>
How so? It's got a slower CPU than the Gamecube, with-on paper at least-equivalent specs. It's got less than half the CPU power. How does that equate to "nearly as powerful as, if not more so, than the Wii", when it doesn't match the Gamecube?
<<<tl;dr- Cite your facts, because the system specs are calling you a liar, and so am I. >>>
Ditto. Except I'm assuming you're not lying, just not informed, which is fine :)
Even if you don't want to look up the specs, just look at the games. Now I'm not talking about QUALITY here, because I don't like Sunshine, but look at Super Mario Sunshine versus Super Mario 3D Land. I *LOVE* the DK Jungle Beat team's games, and expect to vastly prefer Mario Land to Sunshine, but Sunshine has technically far better visuals. As do Pikmin, Galaxy, etc. for that matter. What we've seen from the 3DS goes along with what we know of the specs-stuff like Ridge Racer having to cut cars from the 2005 PSP Ridge Racers and the like.
It's a generational leap over the DS, but unless that GPU is hiding secrets that somehow let a slower clocked fixed function 4 pixel pipe design overpower faster hardware...