Stevo writes: Nintendo and Sony fanboys and fangirls have been at each other's throats for a while now over the 3DS vs. PS Vita debate. What most people don't realise that the argument is actually obsolete
They're going to be compared, despite their differences, because of their similarities, the most of which is that they're in the same market. But there ARE differences.
I decided what I want with my wallet and what content each system can bring me. I chose to buy a 3DS because the software they showed ever since day one got me. Kingdom Hearts, Mario, Kid Icarus, Dead or Alive, etc. When I saw the Vita's, I decided to wait until there is more to show because I didn't find anything I would personally buy the system for, granted there are many titles someone would recommend to you (Gravity Rush, Uncharted, Mortal Kombat, etc.). At the moment, the 3DS upcoming software appeals more to me, then the Vita's IMO. Not saying that there isn't anything on the Vita that I wouldn't want(Sly 4, Persona 4, just to name a few) just not enough for me. I don't dislike Sony at all, I've been playing both companies games ever since I was kid and I wish both of them to succeed. Call me a fanboy or whatever, but at the end of the day its up to you for what you want. Also, there is no need to diss another system's line-up if you don't like it.
You said "since day one"? They showed barely any software. The 3DS was the most boring device I had ever owned in the first 6 months, until starfox and zelda came out. (two ports I might add) I've owned both consoles from launch and i've decided its all about whether you want high budget, good looking 20+ hour games (Vita) or Low budget, 5+ hour nintendo franchises (3DS) Unfortunately most of the world would rather have Mario than any real content.
Wow, first I meant ever since they first unvieled it at E3 from that point on. Second, I don't believe you own a 3DS because Mario games aren't 5 hours long. In fact, no Nintendo game I have played so far (Kid Icarus, Mario Kart,Zelda Ocarina of Time, and Super Mario 3D Land) are 5 hours long at all. Kid Icarus Uprising was one of the most content packed games I have ever played. I haven't even unlocked everything in Mario Kart or 3D Land (you know those hidden levels after you beat the game). And Zelda was more than 20 hours for me. Also, I don't just play first party games nor did I get every launch game, so there were games to play. These are my personal opinions on how I feel about both consoles. I don't know any Mario game on the 3DS that was 5 hours long, so I assume you're trolling.
haha xD oh wait U serious o-0 they did SHOW software they didnt RELEASE software theres a difference and he said SHOWED software what you are talking about is RELEASED software which they did SHOW alot of games and c'mon lets be honest here MOST (not all) of nintendos franchises have long play times while the bigger more flashy games from other systems TEND to be (not ALWAYS) 6-7 hours long
I completed Super Mario 3d land with all star coins in 5 hours. You may call me a liar but its true, each level is like 1 minute to two minutes long. add up the levels and you will realise I am telling the truth. My friend code is 3523-2064-6907 tag FrIeD-GoAt if you would like to debate this over Nintendo Letterbox. on my imaginary 3DS with ambassador games. http://postimage.org/image/...
I just don't agree with this line, "The 3DS was the most boring device I had ever owned in the first 6 months." Maybe the 3DS ain't for you? I believe it does feature NDS playback, so that in itself is something ponder over about.
@FriedGoat That doesn't prove anything. If you want better proof show how long it took to complete the game from the 3DS itself. Also, no way can you expect to complete the entire game itself including the special worlds in 5 hours. It's not even possible. I'm not even going to go into furthur discussion with you about this.
FRiedgoat is right 3ds mario games are dumbshort. I beat mario 3Dland extremely fast, I didn't get everything or beat all the extra levels but the main story was done in less then 5 hours. But the same can be said fo a lot of other games for both handhelds. But I love the current games on Vita right now and I can wait until sept-december for more games.
Big difference, one is constantly outselling the other by 2:1 or greater.
$170 vs. $250 Gee, I wonder why. Also, lets not forget that the casual market is far larger than the core. Guess which one just LOVES Nintendo more than anyone else?
That's funny because both systems right are selling abd advertising to the core more right now. Trying to say that most of the 3ds sales are casual is totally unfair...
yes but one is making a profit while the other is selling at a loss.
One gives you a pile of poop while one gives you gold.
Big differences : one generation ahead technicly, like for psp vs ds, ps3 vs wii, etc, 2 analogs sticks, more and better games in the futures (thanks to power), way more better and bigger screen, look not like a cheap toy, 3G, crossplay, etc etc only fanboyz care about sales...(forgetting how 3Ds was not selling before price cut)
It sold 4 million before the price cut... Vita hasn't broken 2 mil yet... That said I love them both. I don't own vita but a demoed it...gravity rush was awesome, but the back touch pissed me off for FIFA... Uncharted ga was my first uncharted, but since I've beaten 2 and started 3. As for getting one, I have limited resources and a just got a ps3 do I'm focusing on uncharted 2/3 and ac2 and mass effect and batman arkham asylum.
Amazing that someone whose name includes "common sense" uses so little of it. First of all, the sales or preorders of smartphones and tablets don't indicate ANYTHING related to gaming. Games are NOT the primary reasons for those numbers. No offense, but only an idiot would think otherwise. As for sales, that's an amazingly poor "difference." It's based on far more important differences, like libraries, target markets, and market life. Sales is a by-product of these things, and is thus not important to consider.
at least! common sense in a post... am i dreaming?
3DS has more exclusves, and a great list of games releasing between now and the holiday season. Eshop is also great. The games on the Vita are fine, but i bought them on the ps3. I am not paying 250 bucks for gravity rush.
Since when was gravity rush 250 dollars?
The Vita is AT LEAST $250. That's what he meant...
Are you trying to say Gravity Rush is the only worthwhile game on the Vita? Tales from space attack of the mutant blobs is the best Vita game to me.
Not at all. Good amount of other games, but i already have them on my ps3. ATM, Gravity Rush is the biggest reason i am considering getting a Vita. The Vita is more or less a ps3 right now due to sharing the same games, and ove 60 million people already own a ps3. The Vita needs to distinguish itself a lot more, an having the biggest Vita games as multiplat titles with ps3 is hurting it(for me)
I've got both systems and like them both. But while its clear to me that the vita is superior hardware, it's also the handheld currently gathering dust. That'll change once LBP and COD release, but for now it's just the truth. I've been primarily a Sony gamer since 1997 but i still have love for ninty...and 3ds it's definitely my handheld of choice right now. Sony just isn't putting the vita in position to succeed. I'm expecting bigger things in the future. And i love the "i guess some people would rather have more Mario than 'real' content crap comment above." If you can't even acknowledge the fun and mass appeal that Mario games have it's legitimate, your video game opinion doesn't mean jack.
I loled hard reading the first paragraph. This revenge for yesterday's comparison of time travelers.
"3DS = Technically inferior, more games, no two circle pad pros even with a new model releasing (nintendo fanboys put your damn foot in your mouth a shut up, there is no fucking reason for there not to be another circle pad on the 3ds XL), gimmicky 3d, no cross play (atm), and good online." Dont you people have anything better to do then troll, and how is something that actually sells inferior? "$170 vs. $250" dont u mean $300? 250 is for the inferior gimped version.
Calling the non-3G vita a "gimped" version is ridiculous. For those clearly not paying attention (i.e.....Subzero 200) you can't even play games online with the 3g because its too slow. It's solely for social aspects of the Vita. I can't speak for everyone, but I would hardly call network access to be able to check facebook on my vita without wifi a system-selling feature. And that "feature" costs an extra $30/month. This also ignores the fact that most tech-savvy people have free wireless tethering from their phone. So my gimped Vita is online anywhere...via 4G LTE no less. Most people believe that sony will remove the 3g functionality from future models. So no, the $250 wifi Vita isn't "gimped." Credibility; you lose it.
Actually it is why would anyone waste money on a version that is missing features that it's supposed to have dummy... hence the word gimped. Sorry u lose credibility and $250 dollars to sony.
costs an extra $30 a month? What planet are you from? I bought a sim card from t-mobile for £10. gives me 500mb data per month for a year.
In the USA the monthly data plans from ATT costs $30 . I guess that makes me from planet Earth, country USA hawkboi. And if you're using less then 500mb per month, then you're probably not doing all that much on your vita. Hopefully you don't accidentally download half a game and go over your limit! And I'm done debating this subzero fool. The 3g is rather useless and a waste of money...you'll understand when Sony removes this feature. And like I said, with my 4G LTE free wireless tethering, I've got the internet on my vita....wherever i want...faster than you do...without an extra monthly fee....with my vita that was $50 cheaper than yours! My vita is soooooooo gimped! Lol fool
My vita cost less than the retail price of the wifi- version from the amazon marketplace. £198. Kept my eye out for a bargain. You cant download more than 20mb of data over 3g anyway you muppet so i'm unlikely to go over my limit. The 3g is for social aspects and precise gps. there are a few apps releasing soon that make proper use of it. but I have already used it frequently to unlock in game items. Wow you Americans really get the shitty end of the stick when it comes to internet and connectivity dont you. £20 a month for 30mb broadband here. Also my £10 a year data plan gives me access to the cloud service that covers this city and free access to wi-fi hotspots. So yeah I've very rarely had to use the 3g. But it's nice to know I can...without having to pay extra. Also my samsung s3 is more than capable of tethering, but I can't be arsed faffing around with that everytime I wanted to use it. But I think you like pressing buttons(touch screens) dont you....so have fun x
Why not its a fair comparison? For people who want a handheld and have niether they need to know how they stack up. Personally i have to have both (and love both). They do have their strengths and weaknesses. The vita is more powerful, has better res and screen, and two analoug sticks. 3ds has two screens, 3d, stylus control, and one circle pad. Gameswise the 3ds has a better lineup. This is more subjective but imo it has better 1st party games and more 3rd party exclusives. With the 3ds xl the bigger vita screen is no longer an issue and price is pretty comparable between the xl and vita (200 vs 250 plus mem card). I say get both unless youre on a budget then go with whatever has the ip's you prefer.
Also as much as people deny (and hate the argument) tablets and phones are a viable option for the majority of people out there. Personally i dont see why the core is so against it im ecstatic to game on anything i can get my hands on. With cheaper tablets like the nexus 7 i think alot of people will pass on dedicated handhelds with smaller less res and less functions for a tablet that has games, emulators, and all the apps to boot. The only thing handhelds have are ip's like kingdom hearts, resident evil, persona, uncharted, and mario. This is why i own all handhelds but im also getting a tablet. Gaming has changed but people are threatened or afraid to embrace it. It wont kill off the handhelds and consoles we love but it might make gaming more mainstream and create a bigger economy for games and dev's. Look at all the wonderful niche and indy stuff coming out these days. Great time to be a gamer!
It isn't that we're threatened. Its that we demand a quality experience. And the development teams that make a tablet game and sell it for 6 bucks aren't going to produce as good of an experience as a AAA game. They can't. They don't have the people or equipment. And even the ones that do have stellar graphics, will always suffer from control scheme issues. So what are our options? 1. Touch screen controls. Usually either too responsive or not responsive enough. About every third input I register on a touch screen game doesn't register. I fail because of limitations of the machine, not limitations of myself, which is sort of thew anti-thesis of what gaming is all about. 2. Bluetooth controller. Ok, if I connect a bluetooth controller to a tablet, it becomes even LESS portable. So, why the heck am I not just gaming on my PC or console, if I have to be tied to a piece of furniture to do it? There is also the cost thing. Tablets are becoming cheaper. I'll give you that. But, for me, that cost has to allow me to replace other devices, and it just can't. I CANNOT replace my PC with a tablet. I need functionality and responsive that a tablet cannot provide. I need a mouse and a keyboard. It takes me twice as long to type an email on a tablet (because of input errors) and three times as long to type a long document for the same reason. Four to five times as long to create anything with any pictures. These are all responsive issues, not me not knowing how to do it. I know how to do it. Its that I press and drag and nothing happens. Touch screens are, frankly, still just not precise enough to do actual grown up work quickly enough. And by the time I attach a keyboard and a mouse to a tablet, it has become a laptop computer that just happens to be less powerful, with less functionality. I'm not anti-tablet. I'm pro-people rubbing the stars out of their eyes and seeing it for what it really is. Oh, its a big fad. And everybody wants one. But nobody is doing their work faster on it. Don't fool yourself into thinking that. So, I buy my 3DS at 180 + about 200 for lots of games (I never buy retail and always wait). I buy a low end laptop for 400 bucks, that is WAY more powerful than a tablet and that allows me to do my work very quickly. I get Open Office for free. Maybe I have to buy some good anti-virus. Basically unlimited storage. 780 bucks and I get AA gaming (I won't call it AAA so the Sony fanboys here won't crap their pants out of rage) and high efficiency for my adult work. I could skip the 3DS and get a "gaming" PC, but that would be way more expensive than low end PC + 3DS for something really good, and I can't carry a gaming laptop in my pocket. I buy a tablet at 400 (let's say middle of the road) and I still have to buy apps, storage, and any peripheral (keyboard, mouse bluetooth controller) just to make it as efficient as the laptop. I'm tied to wireless at home unless I pay even MORE for a contract. 150 minimum for hardware, and even more if I need 3G infrastructure support (HUNDREDS a year). Dude, I'd just rather spend the extra 150 bucks and get things that will make me efficient without having to attach anything. I'm just not convinced that your dream of what a tablet SHOULD be and what a tablet ACTUALLY IS are the same thing. As we move forward, as tablets fix these responsive issues and can offer FULL versions of software I need to be a working adult.
Sorry, length limitations. Many may have TL:DRed a long time ago anyway. ;P Second part: And just so you know, I've had an iPAD 2 for eight months through work. I stopped using it because I'm a grown up and I have a limited amount of time to game, given my work and home ownership and marriage and three dogs, and I can get my work done a heck of a lot faster with the PC than I can on the tablet. PC work means more time for 3DS gaming. I would make the exact same arguments against a smart phone (WAY more expensive due to contracts and data fees) but the smartphone gets a boost due to the greater portability. So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm glad you're excited for gaming's "future" but that future just doesn't look as rosy to me as it does to you. I think that a lot of "tablet gaga" techies selectively ignore limitations of their devices.
Actually, is really pointless. I've said this hundred times, and I'll say it again: Power isn't that important, is some kind of funny hypocresy. It's not like every gamer in the world is emptying their wallets to buy a PC just because "it's more powerful" and "it's worth it's price in power!". At the end, the 3DS and the Vita shouldn't be compared. It's their games that should be, and they're so different that's isn't even worth the effort. If you like games like the PS3 has (I wont count the PSP: it's only exclusive worth game was Patapon. And was great, btw), let's say Uncharted, COD, Resistance, Killzone, you cant go wrong with a Vita. Now, if you like more, let's say "relaxed" games (in terms of gameplay, not content. And by that I mean that I'm saying the DS/3DS is not full of casual games), then you can go with a 3DS, it has games like Layton, Phoenix Wright, Ghost Trick, Picross 3D, and lots of RPG. It's like comparing Monkey Island with Call of Duty. You can't say COD is better because of zillions of polygons and particles. You just can't compare'em. You just choose. That if you even care to try both before doing it.
Not every gamer, but thousands and thousands of gamers yes. Power does matter. Gameplay has evolved so much since PS1 and PS2. Assassins Creed couldn't have the same sophisticated and dynamic wall climbing done on a console without as much processing capability. The better looking graphics a machine can process the more diverse, intricate, sophisticated, dynamic, interactive, etcetera a game world can be. I am not saying a machines power is everything. Just that it greatly increases possibilities for game world.
"Power does matter" Best selling 16-32 bits console: SNES. Not the most powerful of it's generation. Best selling 32-64 bits console: PS2. The weakest of it's gen. Best actual gen selling console: Wii. The least powerful of this gen. Best selling handheld last gen: DS. Weaker than the PSP. Power does matter?
I didn't say power means a system itself has better games or anything. I never said anything close to that. All I said is power does matter for gaming devices. Otherwise games wouldn't be 3D and I don't mean 3DTV 3D I mean going from Super Mario World to Super Mario 64. Best actual gen console? Wii? That is your opinion. If there is any logic to support which is best it is PS3. It has more variety, more in depth story, more creative games, free and more simple online, PSPlus if you do pay for online which gets you a lot of games to download with no additional cost, etcetera. Anyways don't debate about which is the best current gen console. Once again. I NEVER said power is EVERYTHING. I said power affects greatly what possibilities a game can reach. Ever see a game with creation tools even close to LittleBIGPlanet or ModNation Racers on consoles around the PS2 era and before? Not even close. LBP on PSP was fun but way dumbed down compared to the PS3 version for the creation version. Still fun and great to have in a game, yes. Near as expansive, no. The level creator for SSB Brawl would be so amazing if it were on a more powerful system. If it comes out for Wii U it may be able to have free creation and not just place down premade items.
The wall climbing "puzzles" that you are speaking of are no different from a lot of the puzzles in classic games. They're just dressed. To say that you need the dressing in order to create a puzzle is just incorrect. Mamotte is correct. Some of you are too awesome to play old games, apparently. Last I checked, people are still playing and loving Chrono Trigger and the original Final Fantasy games. Plus countless others that look "bad" by modern standards but have the awesome gameplay. And this may be the distinction between Nintendo and Sony gamers. Does it shock Sony gamers that 3DS owners happily download and play 3DS virtual console games, DESPITE their graphics?
Thing is use the vita for core games and my smartphone for casuals. Mind you, i still check 3ds gameplay vids every once in a while its just that being a 20+ yr old gamer who enjoys playing w/ my ps3 ratherthan my wii, i know that going w/ the vita would satisfy my needs in the long run.
I enjoy both of them. 3DS has a bigger library of course, DS compatible and has some cool old school 80s compilation arcade games. Dragons Lair on the go, you cant beat that if your from my generation! There are some really good games for it, lets face it. Vita has some serious graphics power and great console style games here. BlazBlue looks insane!!! Both have there positives.
Seriously... you can't. Very different games, and in terms of hardware performance..... it's not even close, Vita wins in every regard by light years. Anyone who thinks otherwise has got their head up their @$$. That said, even games on the 3DS look absolutely gorgeous. I can't believe someone shared the kotaku link that compared graphical difference between Time Travellers on 3DS and on Vita. Of course the Vita looks better. Was there any other reason to compare them? I mean.. No one would have to even look at the screenshots to know which one is better.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.