I liked the 3D on the 3DS and would keep it on if the option was available. It also helped that doing so boosted the resolution. The lack of its support on anything but a 3DS makes emulation feel compromised.
The Virtual Boy is an interesting novelty, it truly is a hybrid toy/console, and that's what killed it. It was much too expensive to be a toy, especially since you had to buy games for it, but it was far too compromised and limited in 1995 to be a worthwhile console. The 3DS really is the Virtual Boy done (mostly) right. The problem with 3D is that it needs to render two screens to work right, and the 3DS was already rendering two, so it literally was three screens. You can't properly advertise autostereoscopic 3D since the vast majority of computers and TVs don't have it built in to display what you're hyping up, and some people just can't do 3D without getting eye strain/headaches (or maybe they have depth perception issues due to a physical impairment). I understand the idea of looking at a TV and being able to perceive actual depth as the "next step", but there's no universal standardization and no industry-wide push (outside the 3D movie craze of the 2010s).
>>11804113The 3D existed because Miyamoto has had a hard-on for making 3D since the Famicom days with stuff like the Famicom 3D System. Hardly anything utilized it. The Virtual Boy failed in 1995. Miyamoto wanted it built into the GameCube with Luigi's Mansion but scrapped it due to low adoption of consumer-grade 3D TVs. He wanted to build it into the GBA SP but the resolution was too low. The 3DS was Nintendo's first real success with 3D.