Do you think the top screen should have been touchscreen?

  • Thread starter Marc
  • Start date
Marc

Marc

"Marc's the sugar daddy of gaming" - Artisan 2020
Forum Management
The bottom screen is touchscreen, so why not let the top screen be touchscreen as well?
^ Some people have probably given thought to that.

Do you think Nintendo should have went a step further than the regular DS and make the 3DS's top screen a touchscreen while also letting developers implement touchscreen controls for the console's top screen?

Or do you think the 3DS is perfect as is, with only a bottom touchscreen?
 
Lol, if they had done that, it would have ruined their unification plans with the Wii U :p

Anyway, I don't really know. Right now, I don't play a lot of games using the touchscreen at all, and those who do (mainly Pokemon Picross) wouldn't have a lot of use for a second touchscreen. So I don't know if I'd say "it's perfect as is" but I wouldn't say I'd need another touchscreen... and on another hand, maybe they'd have done other interesting games using two touchscreens so I really don't know :p

I'd say it's more coherent to keep all input methods on the bottom plate (buttons and touchscreen) and have a main screen on the top plate (which is how they could unify it with the Wii U). It feels like the usual controller+screen except that the controller isn't usual.

So in my opinion, there is no "should have", but maybe it "could have".
 
Ew no, top screen being touch screen would be very awkward. Most game features require you to swipe up and stuff, as well as if the top screen was touch screen, it just wouldn't seem right
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3823
This isn't new thought, and it comes with an old answer: "why change it?"

Although I will say there are a few games where the top and bottom screens ought be swapped around for more effective play. Ever seen Okamiden? (It's a DS game, not quite related to the given issue.) Anyway, a great deal of adventuring occurs on the top-screen, with a few hardly pressed menu buttons and a map on the bottom. If you want to draw in the world - you'd know what I mean if you've played Okami - the top screen goes through an ugly transition to the bottom screen. Now, if it was set in such a manner that the top was on the bottom, the map screen was on the top, and hitting the pause button puts up the main pause-menu, it would've been a lot less clunky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ace
3DS games require you to touch the bottom-screen because they know that the top-screen is not a touch-screen. It would be the bottom-screen that's a touch-screen because that's closer to you. It would probably be slightly uncomfortable reaching out for top-screen compared to the bottom-screen with your stylus. I don't know if you'll agree with me about this but take the Wii U for an example, there's the gamepad-screen and the TV-screen, now obviously the gamepad would be in your hands as if that's almost like the bottom screen for the 3DS because that's closer to you. Imagine you come up to your TV-screen with your stylus and used that as a touch-screen. That would be weird wouldn't it?
 
I think it's fine as it is right now. If it were a home console, It'd be kinda like the screen of a tv and the bottom is the controller. Having the top screen as another touch screen seems like it would be kind of awkward in my opinion.
 
because it would be unconfortable
 
It wouldn't fit the layout of the ds. It's desgined with the bottom screen to be the only screen with a touch base with the buttons surrounding it like the gamepad for the Wii U. If the top screen was also a touch screen it would be incredibly awkward and it would weigh more due to the fact that more stuff needs to be behind the screen to make the touch thing work.

I don't see any upsides to the top screen being touch, it would be heavier, more awkward and just annoying in general. Cool idea but just wouldn't be practical without a full redesign in my opinion.
 
I think I'd much prefer the bottom screen being the touchscreen instead of the top screen because the buttons are closer! It's a cool idea, but I wouldn't want them to do so, it just wouldn't work out. I mean, having the stylus and the buttons on the bottom makes a lot more sense, as we already have the 3D Slider and the speakers. No need to make the top screen more cluttered than it already is! I'd say making the bottom screen the touchscreen works a lot better, and a lot more in peoples' favors! :p
 
  • #10
Nah, I think I like the top screen being a view only screen. I think that just fits better as an evolution of its predecessors.
If it were double-touchscreened, then I would think it would be adjusted to be held sideways like a book so both touchscreens would be accessible. I don't really know how 3DS Games would really benefit from this, either. For example, in Pokemon, all of the battle actions and outside of battle options can be neatly fit onto the bottom screen. What benefit would it get from having the top screen touchable? Maybe I'm not thinking creative enough, but I don't think it would work out too well >.<
 
  • #11
I think that if the top screen had a touch screen it would kind of be awkward to use. I like how the bottom screen is a touch screen and can be used for inventory/menus/options while the top screen is used for gameplay. I think the current system fits very well and doesn't need to be changed at all. If they did do it, it would bother me a little but it wouldn't really deter me from getting the system (I have it anyways so).
 
  • #12
I think I'm fine without a touch top screen. The top screen is a 3d one and it would seem kinda weird tapping in 3d. It would also get fingerprints and scratches on the top one. Also, that would mean the 3ds is waaay more expensive than it already is.

In conclusion, it wouldn't be that good.
 
  • #13
Most of the people here think that having the top screen as a touch screen is awkward but I think otherwise. My reason is that if I could interact with the 3d world, it would be awesome.
 
  • #14
No, because of the 3D and it would be uncomfortable to use for my tastes imo.
 
  • #15
Interesting idea...but it would be a little awkward to get used to. Especially with games that use the pop-out version of 3D, interacting with things in this way would be close to impossible.
 
  • #16
NO, because it would be heavy and would look awkward when you have the 3ds feature. You could also accidentally touch the top screen. But there are some pros about it such as more room for touching too. So, I would just prefer the old way where there is only one touch screen at the bottom.
 
  • #17
I don't think the top screen should've been a touch screen, no. I like having it on the bottom screen more. It feels less awkward that way, and I don't have to move my arm as much to get there.
 
  • #18
Well, for me I would not like it at ALL because it would feel awkward moving my stylus up and down the screens, I just like keeping my hands at the bottom screen, although that is my personal preference. However maybe they could have used a option in the system settings if you wanted to only use the bottom screen or only top screen, or both. That might have worked out :)
 
  • #19
A time where I think a top touch screen would be convenient would be Kid Icarus as it's a shooter and hence you could get a more accurate shot but it's also annoying because your hand is in the way so you can't see the screen. With that being said I don't really think it would be cost effective and I'm glad Nintendo made the 3DS the way it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danominator
  • #20
I think it would be pretty awkward to have touchscreen capabilities on the top half, because it's not stable and flat (Flip screen). If you tap it firmly it might move slightly down and mess up the controls. The lower screen is best kept as the touchscreen as you can lay it on a flat surface and play as normal. A 3D touchscreen just wouldn't work anyways - Generally touchscreens are 2D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top