• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

NuclearCake

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,867
Some have thrown around Gamecube or PS2 levels but I just don't see it. Sure there were a few really impressive looking games like RE and Luigi's Mansion 2: Dark Moon. However, for a system that doesn't even run in 480p as the PS2 and Gamecube did, it sure doesn't have nearly as many games that run at 60fps or even look anywhere close as good. Sometimes it feels like even the Dreamcast was better. Some shaders look nice but that's about it.

Am i drunk or was this system really overhyped for what it could do at a graphical level?
 

behOemoth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,610
The Vita outclassed the 3DS significantly for the same price. Nintendo isn't really going for high end chipsets
.
 

TheMoon

|OT|
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,777
Video Games
about 87

you do know that it depends on the devs and their resources how good a game looks? if you have games that look "worse than dreamcast" and some look like RER and LM2 then you know what it's capable of.
 
Nov 8, 2017
13,092
Resident Evil: Revelations was one of the best looking games on the system and it hit pretty early.

From memory, the GPU was an odd beast, mobile focussed, and not as flexible as some GPUs of the era. I want to say it lacked... programmable shaders? Or unified shaders? Or one of those things. Someone else will have the full details.

In some ways it was clearly beyond what the gamecube could do, while in other ways it felt like it was falling short. The 400x240 res was brutal especially once the XL revisions came out, imo.
 

Y2Kev

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,836
I think it's probably like between Dreamcast and PS2 but with more modern features on the GPU so it has effects those systems could never do maybe.
 

Peru

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,126
It ran the Wii game Monster Hunter Tri with updated, modern effects added.

Remember the Resident Evil games? Modern effects the GC couldn't do.

Sure in some metrics you could rank the GC above it, and the resolution is obviously low, but the 3DS could also handle modern solutions the GC couldn't, and produce visuals that sometimes outshine the GC
 

TheDinoman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,092
Not strong enough to handle running the Ice Climbers in Smash Bros., even though a console from like 13 years prior was able to, oof
 

Blackpuppy

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,191
When talking about the specs of the 3ds you need to separate the og models and the New models. The New line of consoles had x2 the number of CPU cores at 4x the clockspeed and a bunch of added ram and even hardware for decoding video.

The 3ds was comparable to a 6th gen console, but it's difficult to say which one since the GPU on the 3ds was capable of doing more modern techniques, but it was a fixed function gpu, so no programmable shaders. The CPU on the OG 3ds was super weak however. This is evident when you play Rayman 3d and it rarely hits 30 fps on the og models but can reach a steady 60 fps when forcing the full clockspeeds of the N3ds.
 

ghostcrew

The Shrouded Ghost
Administrator
Oct 27, 2017
30,349
They're obviously not directly comparable but I think PS2/Gamecube era is the closest and best comparison you're likely to get.

Considering how it ran things like Snake Eater and Monster Hunter and they were basically (with various compromises obviously) PS2 era games technologically.

Like, it's clearly capable of more than a PS1 and an N64. So PS2/Gamecube is a decent comparison even if it's a messy comparison.

video_994.jpg
 

Onix555

Member
Apr 23, 2019
3,380
UK
Resident Evil: Revelations was one of the best looking games on the system and it hit pretty early.

From memory, the GPU was an odd beast, mobile focussed, and not as flexible as some GPUs of the era. I want to say it lacked... programmable shaders? Or unified shaders? Or one of those things. Someone else will have the full details.

In some ways it was clearly beyond what the gamecube could do, while in other ways it felt like it was falling short. The 400x240 res was brutal especially once the XL revisions came out, imo.
It had programmable shaders, first handheld to do so, and there was a cool IwataAsks on the GPU.
 

Vash63

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,681
It was probably the most advanced non-programmable GPU ever released in a consumer product from a feature standpoint... Note that programmable GPUs were basically standard from 2002 onward, so that still isn't very impressive.
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,304
They're obviously not directly comparable but I think PS2/Gamecube era is the closest and best comparison you're likely to get.

Considering how it ran things like Snake Eater and Monster Hunter and they were basically (with various compromises obviously) PS2 era games technologically.

video_994.jpg


I don't know if ports are fair game. Snake Eater 3D surely never had the budget or team Snake Eater on PS2 had. If you were to based performances on ports, you could say Vita is barely at PS2 levels considering how some PS2 ports ran (badly).
 
Oct 28, 2017
833
Netherlands
I think one thing you shouldn't forget is just how much budgets can decide the outcome in this. Handheld games have always had a more budget consious approach to their software so the results are never going to look as amazing as a game like Shenmue where Sega allocated a budget of around 50 million to the project. Hence games for even the Dreamcast wind up looking better then quite a few 3DS games.
 

ghostcrew

The Shrouded Ghost
Administrator
Oct 27, 2017
30,349
I don't know if ports are fair game. Snake Eater 3D surely never had the budget or team Snake Eater on PS2 had. If you were to based performances on ports, you could say Vita is barely at PS2 levels considering how some PS2 ports ran (badly).

I agree that comparing ports like Snake Eater is a flawed test... but it's just an example of what the system is capable of.

I've edited in my post what I think sums it up...

It's clearly capable of more than a PS1 and an N64. So PS2/Gamecube is a decent comparison even if it's a messy one.
 

Blackpuppy

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,191
It had programmable shaders, first handheld to do so, and there was a cool IwataAsks on the GPU.

It uses fixed shaders; you misread that Iwata asks interview. Here's a better interview that goes into more detail on their choice of GPU (spoiler: it was for power consumption reasons).

With programmable shaders, software developers can send to the hardware the programs to dictate which shading should be realized. On the other hand, Nintendo has adopted for Nintendo 3DS a different approach from the programmable shaders that are commonly used today. More specifically, even though there are various shading methods available with programmable shaders, because there are certain sets of typical combinations the developers are using, we have made it (the hardware) so that we can offer the Nintendo 3DS developers this method or various alternatives from the start. I understand that the person with this question called this technology "fixed shaders." So, the question was, why we have decided to choose such an approach, what the advantage is and what the disadvantage is. I'd like to ask Mr. Takeda to answer this first.


Genyo Takeda (Senior Managing Director of Nintendo and General Manager of Integrated Research & Development Division):

As for the reason we chose fixed shaders this time, I was not directly involved in that particular process, but my understanding is that the company has chosen the most appropriate methods for the appropriate areas, so it is not a case of one method being generally better or worse than another.
In designing a handheld game device, power consumption is one of the biggest factors to consider. Naturally, the designers have to make efforts to lower the power consumption. The advantage of handheld devices is that they do not require such high-end resolution like that of home TV sets. The users are going to look at the lower resolution screens at closer distances from their eyes. When the company considers this and other factors comprehensively, just as Iwata mentioned just before, the question is whether we should make it perfectly flexible or would it be better for us to focus upon the methods which are expected to be used most often. When we conduct a comprehensive review, we also need to take into consideration such factors as software development costs and many other things. My understanding is that the company has concluded, after reviewing everything comprehensively, that fixed shaders are the most appropriate choice for this handheld device.

Source: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/events/101029qa/03.html
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,304
I agree that comparing ports like Snake Eater is a flawed test... but it's just an example of what the system is capable of.

I've edited in my post what I think sums it up...

It's clearly capable of more than a PS1 and an N64. So PS2/Gamecube is a decent comparison even if it's a messy one.



Yeah, I agree. It definitely was in the league of a Gen 6 platform. In fact, I'd say Vita was too in a lot of regards. It was all about those machines having more modern features but lacking in the CPU department heavily.
 

Interframe

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
213
Despite what anyone here says, it was basically in the same ballpark as 6th gen consoles. Which actually makes perfect sense considering it's predecessor, the DS, was basically the N64/PS1 era of graphics, so naturally of course the 3DS would be 6th gen.
 

z0m3le

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,418
They're obviously not directly comparable but I think PS2/Gamecube era is the closest and best comparison you're likely to get.

Considering how it ran things like Snake Eater and Monster Hunter and they were basically (with various compromises obviously) PS2 era games technologically.

Like, it's clearly capable of more than a PS1 and an N64. So PS2/Gamecube is a decent comparison even if it's a messy comparison.

video_994.jpg
This is pretty much it.
PS2 had a 6.2GFLOPs GPU, and was designed around gen 6 graphical effects, so shaders were not programmable and graphical effects were limited.

Gamecube had a 8GFLOPs GPU, and was designed around gen 6 graphical effects, so shaders were not programmable and graphical effects were limited. A note about the Gamecube is that it had a total of 3MB VRAM and the TEV units that made up the GPU were capable of some pretty impressive texture tricks at the time, ultimately RE4 which was on both Gamecube and PS2 ran much better on the Gamecube and the character model used twice the polygons.

3DS had a 4.8GFLOPs GPU, was designed around gen 7 graphical effects, so programmable shaders were capable of anything gen 7 consoles were able to do, just far less performant, but also dealt with far fewer pixels. It's raw power is closer to Gen 6 consoles, but it's flexibility was more in line with Gen 7 consoles, so like a Gamecube successor as a handheld.
 

Alvis

Saw the truth behind the copied door
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,223
Spain
Just a reminder that the 3DS version of MGS3 is locked to 20 FPS (no, that's not a typo). And it still drops and stutters. AND it has graphical cuts on top of all that.

The original 3DS is somewhat weaker than a PS2 but with some more modern GPU features.
 
Last edited:

Skyrise

CEO at MixedBag
Verified
Oct 28, 2017
38
Italy
I had the luck to work on the 3DS back then and we released the Futuridium porting on New 3DS that was personally coded by me.
I think it was one of the very few Unity games released on the platform.

The original 3DS was... very slow, both lacking in CPU speed and memory. The New 3DS was a lot better, but still not exactly fast: a console like the Vita was a lot faster. And I mean -a lot-, they were not in the same league basically CPU and GPU wise.
3DS / N3DS GPU was a strange beast: basically fixed function with no programmable shaders, so you had to use all the tricks from the early 2000, but with support for some modern effects out of the box, so you could display some fancy effects cheaply.

In the end I really loved working on it: it was super limited and required a lot of old school techniques, but the dual screen and 3d implementation was top notch and super easy to implement and support. I liked it.
 

skeezx

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,126
Just a reminder that the 3DS version of MGS3 is locked to 20 FPS (no, that's not a typo). And it still drops and stutters.

The original 3DS is somewhat weaker than a PS2 but with some more modern GPU features.

woof

was always curious about the port, glad i missed out. though maybe back then i could've rolled with it
 

Dekuman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,026
If I recall 3D was added relatively late in the process and they had to changed clocks to compensate leading to unsatisfactory battery life.
Something closer to the new 3DS is probably what they should have launched with.

That said I think it was fairly impressive for its time and the 3D when ganes really took advantage of it (mostly Nintendo's 1P stuff) was awesome.
 

Aleh

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,293
Basically a weaker PS2 but more modern so it gets closer or even better depending on how it was used.
 
OP
OP

NuclearCake

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,867
I just think some stuff was a bit off when it came to comparing this to the 6th gen consoles. The performance of the games on the 3DS just doesn't stack up. Are you telling me that Samus Returns would be locked at 30fps even on something like the Gamecube? Which had Metroid Prime running at 60 without a single dip. Sticker Star looked like TTYD but ran at half the framerate again. GC ports like the original Luigi's Mansion looked as if they barely passed the bare minimum required with the kind of performance it ran at. Snake Eater 3D was mentioned and it doesn't run as well as Snake Eater on PS2.

The CPU seemed as if it was holding back from truly standing alongside any system from the 6th generation.
 

yrcmlived

Member
Jan 29, 2020
310
it's not easy due to the very different experience thar the system want give us

for me it's in the ps2/gc area, in terms of raw number maybe it's lower but we must think that it works at low resolution

compare high budget game of ps2 era with low budget porting of 3ds era is wrong, howerver for me the new 3ds platform should be the standard
 

Cudpug

Member
Nov 9, 2017
3,551
Hard to tell in many instances because the resolution sucked ass, but probably around PS2 quality on the whole - though I'm not convinced it could run certain PS2 games at the same frame rate.
 
Nov 4, 2017
7,348
Objectively weaker than gen 6, but with more modern GPU features that allow for comparable graphics. The 240p resolution makes direct comparisons a bit difficult IMO. All up I would say the 3DS was just straight up better at some things but worse at others.
 

werezompire

Zeboyd Games
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
11,315
The PS2 HD collections like God of War and Jak. But it's not a fair comparison. They were bad HD PS3 ports.

The Jak and Daxter Trilogy. Ratchet and Clank too iirc.
MGS Collection also had some issues (low resolution or lower framerate)

Right, the mediocre PS2 ports I can think of were actually ports of PS3 collections (of older games).

The general vibe I got from the Vita was that it was weaker than the PS3 in raw power, but had more modern architecture. It was way more powerful than a PS2 and in fact, one of the most popular games on the system is an enhanced PS2 port (P4G).

As far as the 3DS goes, it's so weird of a system that it's hard to compare. I remember thinking RE: Revelations was pretty impressive at the time for a portable game, but conversely, RE: The Mercenaries was a technical mess to the point that I gave up on it.
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,304
Objectively weaker than gen 6, but with more modern GPU features that allow for comparable graphics. The 240p resolution makes direct comparisons a bit difficult IMO. All up I would say the 3DS was just straight up better at some things but worse at others.

People keep mentionning 240p but never mentions the 3D.


Right, the mediocre PS2 ports I can think of were actually ports of PS3 collections (of older games).

The general vibe I got from the Vita was that it was weaker than the PS3 in raw power, but had more modern architecture. It was way more powerful than a PS2 and in fact, one of the most popular games on the system is an enhanced PS2 port (P4G).

As far as the 3DS goes, it's so weird of a system that it's hard to compare. I remember thinking RE: Revelations was pretty impressive at the time for a portable game, but conversely, RE: The Mercenaries was a technical mess to the point that I gave up on it.


Right but I'm not sure Persona 4 was a title that was putting PS2 to its knees. And the visual enhancements were still a bit limited. I'm not sure as you claim that it was "way more powerful than PS2". I wouldn't be surprised if on some aspects, Vita was slower.
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,304
*Shrug* I wasn't a fan of the 3D and turned it off most of the time. The 240p makes direct comparisons of a screen shot hard since you're looking at 1/4 the pixels. Even with 3D on, the device is pushing half the pixels of a 480p image IIRC.


In terms of screenshot, yes. But in term of 3D performance, it does actually matter. Sure in 3D you're basically pushing a 800x240 image, but there are also costs related to having a second view point calculated.
 

Mr Swine

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
6,032
Sweden
3DS is below the PS2 in just about everything but made up for it with the fixed shaders. Vita is above Xbox in everything but lacks the raw CPU power that the PS2 has
 

Blackpuppy

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,191
Shrug* I wasn't a fan of the 3D and turned it off most of the time. The 240p makes direct comparisons of a screen shot hard since you're looking at 1/4 the pixels. Even with 3D on, the device is pushing half the pixels of a 480p image IIRC.
People keep mentionning 240p but never mentions the 3D.

welllllllll, technically, the 3ds is a 800p screen.

It doesn't refresh from top to bottom, it refreshes from left to right (or right to left, I don't remember which). So the screen has 800 lines of 240 pixels. With the 3d on, 400 lines go into one eye and 400 lines go into the other.

Also keep in mind that these pixels are not squares. They're actually tall rectangles. When you have the 3d effect turned off, the internal resolution of commercial games drops to 240x400 and two of the rectangle pixels are 'merged' to create the illusion of one square pixel.

Homebrew has, interestingly enough, shown you can use the full 800 pixel resolution in 2d mode for a crisper image.

(None of this applies to the OG 2ds screen which is a standard square pixel panel.)
 

sir_crocodile

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,480
I still wonder how late in the day Nintendo had to drop Nvidia when it was clear their gpu was not fit for purpose. When did they have to pivot to DMP?
 
Nov 4, 2017
7,348
In terms of screenshot, yes. But in term of 3D performance, it does actually matter. Sure in 3D you're basically pushing a 800x240 image, but there are also costs related to having a second view point calculated.
Oh I'm not questioning how technically impressive it is, especially on such an old, low-power device. There's also just no way to meaningfully convey that extra work in a side-by-side comparison, because we can't see the 3D on or phones/PCs, but we can see a 4:1 pixel count difference.
 

logash

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,713
A bit lower than PS2/GCN. Every time I think about the capabilities of the 3DS I am reminded of the fact that Nintendo never released an exclusive 3D Zelda for the platform. When I was a kid I dreamed of playing a 3D Zelda game on the go and while I eventually got that dream with the remakes, I really wonder what a 3D Zelda made from the ground up for the 3DS would look and play like.
 
Oct 28, 2017
16,773
Right, the mediocre PS2 ports I can think of were actually ports of PS3 collections (of older games).

The general vibe I got from the Vita was that it was weaker than the PS3 in raw power, but had more modern architecture. It was way more powerful than a PS2 and in fact, one of the most popular games on the system is an enhanced PS2 port (P4G).

As far as the 3DS goes, it's so weird of a system that it's hard to compare. I remember thinking RE: Revelations was pretty impressive at the time for a portable game, but conversely, RE: The Mercenaries was a technical mess to the point that I gave up on it.
Mercenaries was so bad. Whenever you had enemies at a distance you could see them move so badly. Like it stuttered. It was so jarring.