GameBoy Advance and GameCube Could do 3D [news]

I am not a huge fan of 3D, primarily because the only 3D I've used rely on glasses. This doesn't work very well for a near-sighted individual such as myself since for me the wearing of two layers of lenses reduces the 3D effectiveness. I would have opted out of a 3D attachment for the GBA only because I never really had too many GBA games. However it doesn't really surprise me that Nintendo was thinking about such technology for a long time. The NES had internet connectivity, or rather the Famicom did. It is surprising that the Gamecube had 3D tech in it. In the end I'm just glad that all these years of experimenting with new technology has resulted in the 3DS.

Highly doubt that the 3D attachment for the GBA would've been affordable for most of us back then. It's quite admirable to see that Nintendo is trying to make new technology work for games all the time though. There wouldn't be a 3DS without their past tries and failures in the case of the Virtual Boy.

Looking forward to the next part of this Iwata Asks. Always an interesting read.

3D FTW

Next thing they'll tell us is that the Game & Watch could do 3D. Oh wait, even the 100 year old playing cards could!

Canyarion said:
Next thing they'll tell us is that the Game & Watch could do 3D. Oh wait, even the 100 year old playing cards could!

Those Hanafuda cards were so good they were already in 3D. Hehmazing!!!!!

I have to admit, I used to be nervous about what Nintendo would do with Wii's successor. But after reading this article, I have 100% faith in them. Nintendo was ahead of the game before it even started with 3D. I can't wait to see what they do next

3D Wii confirmed?

The 3D attachment would have probably been a prism that went over the screen.
Probably very cheap, but it would have halfed the resolution and probably not worked very good on that hardware at that time. (halfed the framerate too probably, given that for 2D games rendering two seperate images takes twice as much effort)

I am not a huge fan of 3D, primarily because the only 3D I've used rely on glasses. This doesn't work very well for a near-sighted individual such as myself since for me the wearing of two layers of lenses reduces the 3D effectiveness

You need passive polarised technique, and Oakleys are doing prescription lens for them.

I'm only pointing this out because theres some sensible TV company's using this passive glass's techique, which allows them to be thin and cheap to make, rather then Sony & Co that wants everyone buying $150 glasses that many people can't use.

It IS possible to have good, cheap, comfortable glasses 3D, its just some companys rather you didnt know so they can profit more.