Years after its debut, I was finally sold on the idea of buying a old 3DS XL (old as not in the “new 3DS”[crappy name causing confusion]). Although I have been a huge Nintendo fan through the years, I bought a Vita right on launch, and wasn’t convinced to buy a 3DS until just recently. And then I got my hands on it and I was, well, puzzled.

I couldn’t stop mentally listing all the things that the 3DS is worse than the Vita, which is essentially everything, hardware-wise. Since the 3DS has a shape of brick, it is ergonomically awful and hurt my hands and fingers just after a little while; a problem I do not have with the Vita. Also, the hinge is kinda wobbly (the are even some mods that try to address that) , making it difficult to play during a commute. Even features that are heavily advertised such as the 3D and touchscreen, are awful. The 3D not only gives me headache just after a little while playing, but it is kinda unstable (maybe the new 3DS is better, I have not tried it yet) and it is worsened by the aforementioned hinge wobbliness.

But the honorable mention here is the touchscreen. Aside that I personally think that by design touchscreen in gaming is an awful gimmick by itself, there is no excuse for how hideous 3DS touchscreen is. Even for 2009 cellphone standards, its just bad. I don’t really know how one could expect to use that touchscreen with timing and precision in games. It’s useless even for menus, in my experience. It is funny how the Vita touchscreen is better, while Nintendo is the one that makes such a big deal of it.

And things get worse when comparing with simple things like shoulder buttons. They are badly placed, so whether I need to curve my fingers a lot or I have to press them with the mid-section of my fingers rather than with the tip. Also, the analog stick is reminiscent from the PSP era, and it just has one of them instead of two, while Vita has actual two perfect ones. Sure, one could argue that the new 3DS now has (crappy) two, but then there is that fragmentation problem I already talked about before (https://wololo.net/2015/07/09/just-2-cents-generation-fragmentation/). I won’t even mention the circle pad pro, as it’s so awful that it would need a separated article about it (bulkiness, additional battery needed, stays in the way of gaming carts, etc…). I could go on, as the Vita has better graphics, colors (mine is the OLED one), resolution, polycount, etc, etc.. But the 3DS is a device from 2011, so there are much better places to read about it.

So I finally turned the 3DS on and got some gaming done and then it hit me once again: I DOESN’T FREAKING MATTER! As I stated many times before, the videogame industry is about games, not consoles (https://wololo.net/2015/02/19/just-my-2-cents-mobile-vs-portable-gaming-and-the-future/). Even after I got all that craving for Nintendo exclusives magic out of my system, I realized it was not only worth for Nintendo exclusives, but there are also other 3rd parties such as Bravely Default, Monster Hunter (seriously, MH is on the 3DS and not on the Vita, WTH?), Castlevania… All games I expected to see in a much better form on the Vita. Even games that did launch on the Vita, weren’t even localized (I’m looking at you, Namco, with your awesome God Eater Resurrection). So, if the Vita seems to be a much better console overall, how can this be possible? To better understand that, lets once again take a look at the past.

80s – The organoleptic wars

Back then, technology wasn’t as accessible as today. So, naturally, there were proportionally much less tech-savvy people. That being said, very few people would understand abstract concepts that (on surface) seem quite trivial for us today, like megabytes, megahertz or RAM. Taking that into account, it would make very little sense that companies advertise their products based on factors that no one understood in the first place.

So, the focus on that generation were on how the console was perceived through the senses, as in seeing (resolution, colors and 3D), feeling (controllers, input, touching and interaction), and of course, gaming.

Along with unique and exclusive games, companies (mostly Nintendo and Sega) created several accessories to try to increase interaction and visual appeal. On the Sega Master System side, we had 3D glasses, turbo enabler (Rapid Fire), some obscure controllers and the pistol (Light Phaser) to name a few.

On the NES side, there were some tentative motion controls (the infamous Power Glove),  voice recognition (LaserScope),  floor mat (Power Pad), physical interaction (Rob), among others.

Even though all of these were kinda gimmicky, it was very feasible to the player to understand what kind of advantage these would give him/her. And even when a more technical-oriented  approach was used to promote a console, it was as little abstract as possible, often revolving around the way the game was directly perceived by its players, in the way of screen resolutions and number of colors and sprites on screen.

But even back then, Sega was already trying to promote their games by bragging about how many “mega” and “twice the mega power” their games had. I remember being a kid wondering just what the heck did that mean, as no one knew back then;  but at the same time when choosing unknown games, I would go for the ones with more “mega”, after all, the more “mega” the better, right? It may sound stupid now, but that’s not much different from what most people still do nowadays when discussing specs.

If we compare raw specs, the Master System trumped the NES in almost every way (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/content/sega-master-system-vs-nintendo-entertainment-system) at the same time it was outsold by the NES by a 1 to 5 ratio (http://www.ign.com/articles/2009/03/20/genesis-vs-snes-by-the-numbers). How was that possible?

NES

Master System

Simply because, once again, I must say this: it’s all about the GAMES.  NES had a much bigger  and critically acclaimed game library. Partly because of their own awesome IPs (like Zelda, Mario and Metroid) and partly thanks to (predatory) market practices, locking third-party support  to the NES (https://wololo.net/2015/01/29/just-my-2-cents-platform-exclusivity/). It is also worth mentioning that trying to catch up with the NES market share, many Master System games were developed with strict schedules (http://www.sega-16.com/2006/12/interview-mark-cerny/), many times compromising their quality.

So, who cared if the Master System had more resolution, RAM or “mega” in the cartridge? No one (like myself) even had any idea what those meant. What we did know is that if we want to play Zelda, we had to get a NES, rather than a Master System.

Even back then, it became very clear that there are much more important factors to define a console’s success. For instance, although the Master System was whooped by the NES in US and Japan, it fared way better in South America and Europe mostly due to better marketing and distribution. Interestingly enough, even after learning that, SEGA would still heavily use specs on their marketing strategy later on. But I’m getting ahead of myself, so stay tuned for part 2 where we will see where the specs fad actually got ugly.

And what about you? Did you take any sides back then? Share your thoughts.