Forums - Nintendo Discussion - I'm sick of Nintendo's 720p games... We should have minimum 900p atleast for Switch

NATO said:
curl-6 said:

Or with the extra power devoted to better effects rather than more pixels, yeah.

Indeed, MK has never had the king of texture complexity to warrant higher resolutions, so nicer effects, smoother edges and a cleaner appearance would definitely be better than jaggies at 1080p.

Personally, I've always felt the gap between 720p and 1080p was overstated, so if it had been up to me I would have instead kept the resolution the same, and thrown in some good quality AA and AF. Texture filtering in MK8 was pretty poor and a boost there would improve its looks a lot.



Around the Network

hehe how funny.. it`s 2016, I think most should be 1080p by now...



Miyamotoo said:

We are talking about there is no any need for 1080p screen for dedicated gaming device if your games are 720p, thats clear fact that you keep ignore.

No. You are ignoring the fact there is benefits to upscaling.

Besides, what if Nintendo releases Netflix on the Switch? What if they have a Web-Browser, what if they have Youtube? There is a benefit to 1080P there as well.

Not to mention, if you have video-sequences for a game, they will likely be mastered at 1080P as that is the docked-modes top-end resolution, thus there is a benefit there for games as well.

What if a game is 2D? Or just not that intensive? That could run at 1080P on the Switch's anemic hardware, even whilst mobile.

Don't try and convince me that there is no point having a 1080P display, because you will never succeed, I don't believe in your apologetic point of view... All my displays are 1080P and higher. (Most are 1440P.) I have seen the light and glory that is higher resolutions.


Miyamotoo said:

 

No they didn't cheap, its very reasonable decisions, but you can also ignore that. And they don't cheap out with Tegra chip because its actualy best suits for device like Switch.

A 720P screen is cheap. Chinese Android handset manufacturers not only have bigger and better screens, but their handsets are cheaper than the Switch. - Go checkout the Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 for example, has a 1080P screen and can be picked up for about $170 AUD. - The Switch is $470 AUD. Ouch. And you are telling me Nintendo didn't cheap out? Common.

The Tegra chip used in the Switch is also not cutting edge, it's old Maxwell rather than the superior Pascal or the forward-thinking Volta.
It's also been severely castrated in terms of clock rates.
Pascal was in the design phase for years, nVidia knew about it, likely let Nintendo know about it during the design of the Switch. - But the older Maxwell chip would be cheaper.
Again. Nintendo cheaped out.

Miyamotoo said:

Yes, because that's why I wrote similar, 264 vs 236.87, that's only 10% difference, thats nothing. 

Far more important is pixel density that just resolution, and fact is that Switch and iPad Pro have similar pixel density.

iPad Pro also doenst have AMOLED/OLED and is also using IPS, is that means Apple cheaped out also!? :D          And why would Nintendo use something like AMOLED/OLED, when that would effect on higher price of device (even Apple is not using AMOLED/OLED), and when actualy people are saying that IPS Switch screen is great!?

Not only that you have arguments without sense, but you actually totally ignoring some clear facts. Basically all your arguments come "720p screen is low for 2017." while you totaly keep ignoring all clear facts. So having all that on mind, I dont have any more attention to spend any of my time on this arguing.

The iPad Pro is not using a cheap and terrible 720P panel. Overall resolution is just as important as pixel density and panel type.

Besides, the iPad Pro's pixel density is still higher than the Switch and goes through more testing and calibration to get the best possible results. (Contrast, Colour Accuracy etc'.)
But the iPad Pro is also still not the best Tablet on the market.

The Google Pixel C for example has a GLORIOUS
2560 x 1800 resolution over an amazing 10.2" canvas.
The Surface Pro 4 has a 12.3" 2736 x 1824 display with a Pixel density of 267. And it is clear and crisp.
My Samsung Galaxy Note has a 5.7" 2560x1440 panel and it is amazing at 518 Pixels Per Inch. (Granted it is using a Pentile subpixel layout.)

Also a Pixel Density of 264 vs 236 is a big difference.

The Google Pixel C's pixel density is 308. - Are you going to claim that is a small improvement too?

720P is garbage for 2017. It's not acceptable. I was gaming at higher resolutions than that 20 years ago.



---:::}}} Part of the PC Gaming Master Race. {{{:::---

Pemalite said:
Miyamotoo said:

We are talking about there is no any need for 1080p screen for dedicated gaming device if your games are 720p, thats clear fact that you keep ignore.

No. You are ignoring the fact there is benefits to upscaling.

Besides, what if Nintendo releases Netflix on the Switch? What if they have a Web-Browser, what if they have Youtube? There is a benefit to 1080P there as well.

Not to mention, if you have video-sequences for a game, they will likely be mastered at 1080P as that is the docked-modes top-end resolution, thus there is a benefit there for games as well.

What if a game is 2D? Or just not that intensive? That could run at 1080P on the Switch's anemic hardware, even whilst mobile.

Don't try and convince me that there is no point having a 1080P display, because you will never succeed, I don't believe in your apologetic point of view... All my displays are 1080P and higher. (Most are 1440P.) I have seen the light and glory that is higher resolutions.


Miyamotoo said:

 

No they didn't cheap, its very reasonable decisions, but you can also ignore that. And they don't cheap out with Tegra chip because its actualy best suits for device like Switch.

A 720P screen is cheap. Chinese Android handset manufacturers not only have bigger and better screens, but their handsets are cheaper than the Switch. - Go checkout the Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 for example, has a 1080P screen and can be picked up for about $170 AUD. - The Switch is $470 AUD. Ouch. And you are telling me Nintendo didn't cheap out? Common.

The Tegra chip used in the Switch is also not cutting edge, it's old Maxwell rather than the superior Pascal or the forward-thinking Volta.
It's also been severely castrated in terms of clock rates.
Pascal was in the design phase for years, nVidia knew about it, likely let Nintendo know about it during the design of the Switch. - But the older Maxwell chip would be cheaper.
Again. Nintendo cheaped out.

Miyamotoo said:

Yes, because that's why I wrote similar, 264 vs 236.87, that's only 10% difference, thats nothing. 

Far more important is pixel density that just resolution, and fact is that Switch and iPad Pro have similar pixel density.

iPad Pro also doenst have AMOLED/OLED and is also using IPS, is that means Apple cheaped out also!? :D          And why would Nintendo use something like AMOLED/OLED, when that would effect on higher price of device (even Apple is not using AMOLED/OLED), and when actualy people are saying that IPS Switch screen is great!?

Not only that you have arguments without sense, but you actually totally ignoring some clear facts. Basically all your arguments come "720p screen is low for 2017." while you totaly keep ignoring all clear facts. So having all that on mind, I dont have any more attention to spend any of my time on this arguing.

The iPad Pro is not using a cheap and terrible 720P panel. Overall resolution is just as important as pixel density and panel type.

Besides, the iPad Pro's pixel density is still higher than the Switch and goes through more testing and calibration to get the best possible results. (Contrast, Colour Accuracy etc'.)
But the iPad Pro is also still not the best Tablet on the market.

The Google Pixel C for example has a GLORIOUS
2560 x 1800 resolution over an amazing 10.2" canvas.
The Surface Pro 4 has a 12.3" 2736 x 1824 display with a Pixel density of 267. And it is clear and crisp.
My Samsung Galaxy Note has a 5.7" 2560x1440 panel and it is amazing at 518 Pixels Per Inch. (Granted it is using a Pentile subpixel layout.)

Also a Pixel Density of 264 vs 236 is a big difference.

The Google Pixel C's pixel density is 308. - Are you going to claim that is a small improvement too?

720P is garbage for 2017. It's not acceptable. I was gaming at higher resolutions than that 20 years ago.

geez man, it's a 6.2 inch screen which has a decent IPS screen. Chill the fuck out. you aren't buying a $900 phone


Kind of sad how gamers are now bickering over screen. Does anyone care? Just don't buy the damn system if you're gonna drop your panties over it.



monocle_layton said:

geez man, it's a 6.2 inch screen which has a decent IPS screen. Chill the fuck out. you aren't buying a $900 phone


Kind of sad how gamers are now bickering over screen. Does anyone care? Just don't buy the damn system if you're gonna drop your panties over it.

I did point out that a higher resolution screen would not blow out costs, did you miss that part?
Plus, you do understand what this thread topic is about right? Right?

Besides, it is not the only part that I have contention with, shall I point the others out?

If you don't like what I have to say. Don't read it.



---:::}}} Part of the PC Gaming Master Race. {{{:::---

Pemalite said:
monocle_layton said:

geez man, it's a 6.2 inch screen which has a decent IPS screen. Chill the fuck out. you aren't buying a $900 phone


Kind of sad how gamers are now bickering over screen. Does anyone care? Just don't buy the damn system if you're gonna drop your panties over it.

I did point out that a higher resolution screen would not blow out costs, did you miss that part?
Plus, you do understand what this thread topic is about right? Right?

Besides, it is not the only part that I have contention with, shall I point the others out?

If you don't like what I have to say. Don't read it.

It's not that I don't want to read it. I just find it hilarious how people can get so irritated over a device they probably wouldn't have even bought in the first place. What do you gain from whining over a screen? Will Nintendo magically go to a high quality 1080p samsung screen just so you have another place to watch Netflix? 



monocle_layton said:
justiceiro said:

Still not the best, and you said that was the "best of handheld".

Yes, it is the best of handhelds. You're just nitpicking and trying to dislike a product for the sake of disliking it.

 

I'd get it if the switch was 8 inches and weighed 10 pounds, but it isn't. It's very mobile, similar to how the ds was mobile  (even with how thick it was).

I'm being realist about the concept of hybrid system. There will be compromises on both fronts. We alreadly see that the battery life is poor. The games will also be more expensive and put small publisher in a tough position, where even small handheld games must be developed to be played on a big screen.

This is not something that you can understand rigth now since the system didn't came out and you seems to be pretty sure that the concept has no shortcoming. But few years from now you will be agreening with me. See you in 3 years.



"Hardware design isn’t about making the most powerful thing you can.
Today most hardware design is left to other companies, but when you make hardware without taking into account the needs of the eventual software developers, you end up with bloated hardware full of pointless excess. From the outset one must consider design from both a hardware and software perspective."

Gunpei Yoko

justiceiro said:
monocle_layton said:

Yes, it is the best of handhelds. You're just nitpicking and trying to dislike a product for the sake of disliking it.

 

I'd get it if the switch was 8 inches and weighed 10 pounds, but it isn't. It's very mobile, similar to how the ds was mobile  (even with how thick it was).

I'm being realist about the concept of hybrid system. There will be compromises on both fronts. We alreadly see that the battery life is poor. The games will also be more expensive and put small publisher in a tough position, where even small handheld games must be developed to be played on a big screen.

This is not something that you can understand rigth now since the system didn't came out and you seems to be pretty sure that the concept has no shortcoming. But few years from now you will be agreening with me. See you in 3 years.

What? I never said it was perfect. However, the system manages to solve both the 3DS and Wii U's issues. 

 

Snake Pass was running on the Switch in a week and will release alongside the other systems. They're a small publisher and managed to do it just fine. The battery life is equivalent to the 3DS. 2.5-6 hours is close to the same thing, even though the 3DS is laughably weaker. 

 

I'm not saying the Switch will sell as much as the DS. Literally no one is saying that. Expecting it to flop like the Wii U is pretty unrealistic though. 



justiceiro said:

I'm being realist about the concept of hybrid system. There will be compromises on both fronts. We alreadly see that the battery life is poor. 

Switch's battery life is not that different than 3DS and Vita.



Around the Network
monocle_layton said:
Pemalite said:

I did point out that a higher resolution screen would not blow out costs, did you miss that part?
Plus, you do understand what this thread topic is about right? Right?

Besides, it is not the only part that I have contention with, shall I point the others out?

If you don't like what I have to say. Don't read it.

It's not that I don't want to read it. I just find it hilarious how people can get so irritated over a device they probably wouldn't have even bought in the first place. What do you gain from whining over a screen? Will Nintendo magically go to a high quality 1080p samsung screen just so you have another place to watch Netflix? 

Please please please, don't use the argument of assuming whether someone will or won't be buying a particular console.

I have been both vocal and mostly negative about the Switch, it's features, it's software, Nintendo in general, and I'll still have a switch sat on my desk come March 3rd, the "well you likely wouldn't be buying one anyway" angle is so tired, wrong and pointless.

The only time people ever use that tact is to dismiss another persons points without actually addressing them.