With the Nintendo 3DS XL launching yesterday, we though it would be fun to see how it looked compared to the PlayStation Vita, Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo DSi XL, and Nintendo DS Phat. - Trendy Gamers
vita still has a bigger screen.
And Vita still has two analog sticks.
nintendo had a good idea with the touch pad. Although i feel they added it just to save face. Most are traditional console gamers wanting that dual stick experience on the go. So then the touch pad gets used sparingly. Its the damed if you do damned if you dont. Critics will say that the use of the dual sticks overshadow the need for the touch pad. So if more devs used the touch pad you would have critics saying they should have used the 2nd stick for some of the things the pad is doing. honestly you cant please everyone. Nintendo's approach simply works for the games that are built around the touch pad and face button interaction. Sony's games will get better combination of dual stick and touch pad but for now its really the devs choice to use those options how they see fit.
@BringingTheThunder Well... 3DS XL has 2 screens (which vita doesn't have), so the screen is big enough. I played Resistance on the vita and the dual analog feels really clunky in comparison with aiming on the touch screen (using stylus) for games like Kid Icarus, Metroid Prime Hunters etc. I don't see the need for dual analog sticks, but I wouldn't complain. Some people will prefer it for some reason... People who played FPSs on the original DS will never choose dual analogs instead of touch screen aiming with stylus. As I said, it would be good to have the option for people who want it, but I don't really see the need of dual analog and some people on the internet make it sound like a big deal. As for the screen quality, I can't say the 3DS is better or Vita is better. Vita has OLED screen and 3DS has 3D screen. I played some games where the 3D effect simply doesn't work well and some games where the 3D is REALLY good, so I do prefer this "different" experience, but some people will prefer the OLED screen. Both have strenghts.
@Hisiru "As for the screen quality, I can't say the 3DS is better or Vita is better. Vita has OLED screen and 3DS has 3D screen. I played some games where the 3D effect simply doesn't work well and some games where the 3D is REALLY good" That's the difference right there. All games on the PSVita benefit from the OLED screen, not just some.
And vita has better graphics and vita will be the choice for me. I thought about buying a 3ds xl but when I found out Nintendo didn't bump up the resolution for the bigger screen I said F Nintendo for being cheep and last gen.
@kobe Not ugly games... the same situation as the 3ds lineup.
"Oh yeah? MY daddy is a fighter pilot!!" ...^__^ ah, n4g... And no, I'm not much better. Hee hee...
But the 3ds has 2 screens!
Yeh the 3DS has to screens but the graphics are shit! Vita screen is way better than 3DS screen!
@psvita_JG Well, vita has OLED screen and 3DS has 3D screen, both have strenghts. And graphics aren't shit on games like Kid Icarus, Resident Evil Revelations, Mario 3D Land etc.
But the PS Vita has 2 touch screens! @ darthV "sony knew nintendo had a good idea with the touch pad. Although i feel they added it just to save face." save face? Why would Sony copy that ancient resistive screen on the DS, 3DS & Wii U? Sony will be damned not to put a multi-touch capacitive touch screens at this day and age. I so am glad they did not put restrictive one point touch screen on the Vita. Meaning they don't 'cheap out' on technology when it comes to their products so that it can play more multi-touch games on Vita.
I think the main problem is that the 3DS has two screens. Only one of them is 3D so it forces the top screen to be the main screen. would be weird having the touch screen to be the 3d screen since you would cover the 3D half the time. The only way to have 3D work with touch controls is to have a rear touch pad where you wouldn't cover the screen with your fingers. But anyway, the creativity of the old DS is gone. The DS could be held many different ways and the main screen differed between the games you play. The 3DS also looks weird because the two screens are not the same size and having gyro metrics just makes the 3D screen pointless.
you sort of misinterpreted my comment but you got the point. sony would obviously use a better touch screen. I was eluding to the idea of them using a touch screen to keep pace (or save face) with nintendo and the increasing use of touch interfaces on phones and tablets. Im glad they went with the multitouch screen as well. Credit to nintendo for making such a radical change to gaming back in the day. Now it is a common place thing to have a touch screen. Sony took the idea and improved on it which is how gaming evolves.
You mean a wider screen. They are hardy different in size anyway, so who cares?
Still the 3ds have better games.
Ah but the 3ds has an extra screen so 4.88 and 4.18 totalling roughly 9 inches compared to 5 for the vita. The vita does have A bigger screen but much less screen size total.
Yea but when playing games on the Vita everything has to be on one screen...That can get cluttered. With the 3DS, all that clutter and menu stuff and anything else in the UI is all on the Bottom screen. This way you have more view of what you actually want to see....the game.. imagine taking all the Clutter off the screen in COD and placing it on the seconds screen and how much more visibility you could have. Or apply it to jrpg's....same thing. Although the Vita's screen does look really nice.
damn well i guess thats why wii u is coming then cuz everyone has been playing games using 1 screen for decades.. removing clutter is about all its good for.. touch inputs require u to stop & pull out they stylus or get smudges on the single touch panel using a finger..
Still can't figure out why they wouldn't have added a second analog for this overhaul.
Yeah. The better battery life is nice though.
That's always good.
Word. That's the thing that bugs me with the 3DS.
Yea dont really get why Nintendo didnt have 2 analog sticks for it
yet what most dont realize is that while we may play console games with the dual analog idea in mind. Portable games for the DS just arent designed for that. The control structure was intended for stylus/touch input for various tasks that could mimick the 2nd analog. and in some cases actually respond quicker and not limited to just movement. A good example is metroid prime hunters. You use the stylus to look around while using the dpad to control movement. It works quite well to be honest. @silver..you could see it that way and I respect your opinion. Obviously you don't of mine. As for nintendo's decision believe me i was critical of the ds when it first came out like others. The whole touch interface thing. some how it just works. I wont make assumptions that you are someone who has never really spent time playing various games for the ds line. That would be disrespectful. As to your initial insult. That makes whatever point you were trying to make....pointless.
"a very common question yet what most dont realize is that while we may play console games with the dual analog idea in mind. Portable games for the DS just arent designed for that. The control structure was intended for stylus/touch input for various tasks that could mimick the 2nd analog. and in some cases actually respond quicker and not limited to just movement." @ darthv You are one of the stupidest person I've ever seen on here. You are apologizing and making excuses for silly decision Nintendo made with the 3ds. Why didn't they just not add any buttons at all so people can just use only the stylus for all games. It was a bad decision for nintendo to not add a second circle pad
@darth I agree that stylus aiming is more accurate than using a stick, I don't like it that it takes my whole hand (holding the stylus) to aim, whereas on vita, I can aim with the stick and still have my thumbs close to the buttons. Just my two cents. Either way, both systems are awesome. Both play video games, and I love video games, therefore I love both
Agreed. Would have made a lot of sense.
Nintendo said it was because "There was not enough room."
which is totally wrong
They didn't add a second analog because they would have to make the 3DS bigger in order to have the battery power the XL version has right now. Plus, it would be bad for business if Nintendo were to add a second analog, because if they did, the original version would become completely inferior. Everybody who've bought that version would have to buy the XL version solely for an analog THAT MOST GAMES DON'T EVEN NEED! Customers would feel screwed and probably not buy anything from Nintendo again, while Nintendo would make their price cut and the original 3DS pointless, making their efforts in trying to sell the handheld during its early months a complete waste. It's a lose-lose situation. The 3DS to 3DS XL is not the same as DS to DS Lite; it was never intended to 1-up its predecessor. The XL version is for those who want a bigger 3DS and a longer battery life, and don't mind the somewhat inferior resolution and portability. It's a different type of 3DS, not a superior one. Adding second analog would be nonsensical.
Is the 3DS bigger then the VITA? If so, what happened to the whole debate that the VITA was too big, therefore not portable and how that was a big blunder on Sony's side and how are we going to fit it in our pocket and blah blah blah. But Nintendo makes the 3DS bigger and there are no protest about it's portability. Why is that? And if it isn't bigger then ignore what i just said.
A lot of Nitendriods:D That's why!
Because you can buy a smaller 3ds if you want it portable. The Vita has one size(And unlike either 3ds, no built in screen protection. Something I still don't understand... one would think protecting the major selling point high priority.) This is an alternate version, not a necessary upgrade.
So your excuse is that you should buy the original 3DS for portability and that is why it is okay for the 3DS XL to be bigger without a complaint from anyone? And yet the VITA was torn to shreds for not being portable. So in short it is okay for Nintendo to do it but not for Sony to do it, right? So business as usual in the gaming world right? You can't figure out where you are going to put your VITA when you want to take it any where and that is a big problems but your solution for a bigger 3DS not being portable is to buy the old one? And suppose I want the new one with then upgrades but want to take it places? What is your solution for that? Listen do me a favor please. I know you love to defend Nintendo at every turn but don't come and talk nonsense to me please.What you said there makes NO sense at all.If they made the VITA bigger for an upgrade people like you wouldn't be defending it at all. You would be here with smart remarks like 'I thought the VITA was supposed to be 'portable''or 'how am I going to fit that in my pocket'. @ dark-hollow . That is a stupid excuse. The XL should be called out for being bigger too. Suppose i want the XL version of it and it's not portable how is that a good thing? You guys have an excuse for everything Nintendo does. I am sure you have a million excuses why they didn't add the extra joystick to the XL one.
I read the first paragraph of your comment and blanked out. @[email protected] The 3ds is portable. The Vita is less portable. The 3DS xl is about as portable as a Vita. But it is essentially the same as the 3ds... but bigger. So, consumers have a choice: bigger or more portable. And unless you can bend space time, I don't see how you can magically have both in this kind of scenario. Then there is the case of, like I said, the clamshell design. Go ahead and stick your Vita in a giant pocket or bag. What will happen? well, the screen will be put at risk and the sticks will get twisted about. The Vita is obviously far less "portable" than the vanilla 3ds, so of course this will be pointed out. But the 3dsxl is STILL more portable, and isn't even pretending to be so unlike the Vita. Finished reading: And you logic is pretty flawed... there will never be a bigger Vita. But a smaller more portable one? Maybe. And if there is, then of course it would be more portable than the "Original".(though without some form of screen protection, it would still be kind of weird...) And an excuse for everything? No(Check my history. I have voiced displeasure with several Nintendo decisions), but you seem to ignore anything possibly "wrong" with Vita and "Right" with the 3ds. Though I do have an "excuse" for the second stick: a second stick at this point would currently add no value for an increased price on consumers as 1) no game *needs* it and few games use it and 2) few games in development are making use of it. It is smarter to omit it until it is actually needed, if it ever is. Until then, gamers still have a choice: buy a second stick or don't. And to add a little fire and flame, there lies another difference between the 2 systems: You have 1 choice with Vita, 3g or Wi-Fi. You can't even choose your memory, let alone choose not to buy any at all.
Is there is an option for a smaller vita? No. Sure the XL 3DS won't fit in some people's pockets but the og 3ds would.
Of course the Vita screen is more vibrant, it has an oled screen that's supposed to look amazing; that's its main selling point! However the 3DSXL's new screens, enhances the 3D effect in so many ways, that it makes the original 3DS screen look like doodoo... At least now the transition from PS Vita to the 3DSXL isn't as bad as one might think! The XL screen in 3D is simply stunning in every way and actually breaths new life to older titles such as RE:Revelations, and KI:Uprising. I was blown away the second I popped in RE: Revelations and seen how magnificent the 3D effect had improved. One thing that bothered me during this comparison of screens was that Vita was shown showcasing Uncharted, while the 3DSXL showcased NSMB2, which in my eyes it should have been RE:Revelations to showcase a proper comparison. All in all they both offer unique and definitively different experiences so much so, that they both warrant a purchase, in my eyes of course; only now the 3DSXL is a way better buy and feels a hell of a lot better than the original 3DS. I got mine on Sunday and have yet to put it down... One thing I stress is that Gamestop is giving away a free 3DS title with the purchase of a 3DS or 3DSXL, and to my understanding, they weren't advertising it. I went back yesterday and got my free game. So dropping $199.99 for a 3DSXL, a 4gig memory card, and a free game, is still a pretty sweet deal!
That's nearly $100 cheaper than an equivalent Vita Package. Unless the GS free game was local only.
No, it's still going on nation wide! To be completely honest, Bust Buy, Target, Wal-mart, etc. are all having some type of sales incentive on both models, so pick your poison accordingly and hurry up and take advantage of these pretty good deals. For those of you who are interested of course...
Its true.. u get a choice of either pilot wings or steel diver... I took it to target & said i lost the receipt & received $42 in credit there to buy the games i really wanted..
WOAAA The PS-VITA is XXL
Both handhelds make me drool. *drools*
I own the 3DS XL for 1st party & few 3rd & Vita for 3rd party & few 1st.. For now anyway.. Vita is gtn a great rush of new titles this yr & nx.. 3DS not so much but i can play the back logs of games i couldnt stand to look at on the tiny version.. The XL makes a HUGE difference so its not so bad transitioning back & forth with vita.. Vita is still way btr tho
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.