By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Digital Foundary: Mario Kart 8 Deluxe: Switch vs 3DS/Wii U

Peh on 24 April 2017
Pemalite said:
Peh said:

1. I didn't know about Darksiders 2 on WII U. Glad I didn't bought it. It's really the first game which I see that actually do has screen tearing on a Nintendo console. Are there others or is this the only one?

 

 1. There sure is more. But I have already proven you wrong on this point.
Feel free to do some of your own research on games with frame pacing/screen tearing/framerate drops etc on the NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii, Wii U, Switch, Gameboy, Gameboy Colour, Gameboy Advance, Nintendo DS, Nintendo 3DS rather than moving the goal post and wasting my time.

Peh said:

2. Nvidia doing Freesync is as likely as AMD doing PhysX rendering. Even if Freesync is open standard, do you really think that Nvidia will ditch their money and resources that went into G-Sync and go for Freesync? That's why your point leads to nowhere. But hey, I would still welcome it, but as for now, that's just fiction.

 

2. I don't think you get it. It's not up to nVidia.

Peh said:

I'm not 100% certain, but which console uses Display Port? Afaik, none does. I also doubt that a lot of TV's even have a DP interface built in. So, why are you even bringing this up? Your argument just doesn't follow.

 

3. Do you understand what a VESA standard is?
Regardless. A console doesn't need to have Display Port. HDMI supports it as well.

I have already proven you wrong on this point. So I think you are just arguing for arguing sake.

Peh said:

3. How does your answer has anything to do with my prior statement? Btw. TXAA has a higher impact on Performance than FXAA because it also uses MSAA. Don't you mean TAA instead? 

4. No. I don't mean TAA instead.

Peh said:

5. Besides the point. You obviously don't get what I am trying to say. Must be your hostility towards me.

5. I treat everyone equally. I'm far from being hostile.


Peh said:

6.  Then why mention the Xbox at all? Do you actually remember what you are arguing against? Because I have a feeling that you either don't understood what I was saying or you deliberately want to argue for the opposite of who knows what. Reread my original Statement and see what I wrote there.

 6. It's called an e-x-a-m-p-l-e.

Peh said:

Great, video composite can even achieve 2560p. Didn't knew about that. But it cannot do HDCP, so if the devices use this encryption then they won't work with this inteface. And that is also besides the entire point I was going for. You wasted your time for actually nothing here. Why? What resolution is the N64 capable of and what devices were present in the living room around prior to the release of 1996 (Development Time) and for the next 4-5 years even before the Xbox launched? Again, do you remember what you are actually arguing against?

7. It wasn't besides the point. I just proved your point factually incorrect. And that was RCA can support high-definition resolutions. You asked the question, I answered the question and now you are trying to undermine the evidence I provided by shifting the goal post. Aint happening.

If you go farther back before... You stated consoles are made to match the displays that are on the market. Again. That has been proven incorrect.

The bulk of Nintendo 64 games operated at 320x240. CRT TV's are often more than happy to resolve twice that resolution. Minimum.

Heck. I only have to say the word "Wii" in the era of HD to prove your entire point incorrect.

So I think whatever argument you have on this point has been thoroughly and utterly, debunked and you should move on.

1. I take it as a no then :)

2. Why it's not up to Nvidia? You have to explain your claims if you want to have a healthy discussion/debate/ whatever. As I already stated, I can play the game, too. It's still their GPU which does the communication with the display. You have to give me a reasoning to think otherwise. Do you understand? Nvidia is still developing the chip.

3. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know what a HDMI Standard is? The numbers indicate the version of the HDMI and what it is capable of. Devices with a hdmi only support that standard which is built into them. It's not that a console with HDMI 1.4 can now support 2.0, because it cannot reach the necessary bandwith needed for it to work in this case. Adaptive Refreshrate comes with HDMI 2.1 You cannot upgrade the inferfaces to this standard on the fly. So your whole argument doesn't follow. It's a non sequitar. None of the current available consoles do HDMI 2.1, because devices with HDMI 2.1 will be released by 2nd Q 2017. Do you now get it why your argument doesn't make any sense to the point, at all? It's great to know, but completey besides the point.

4. Then your answer makes no sense, at all. It just doesn't scratches my statement, at all. You are just throwing random stuff in it with the hope of attacking my statement.

5. Then you should work on your phrasing and argumentation. Because ->  "It's called an e-x-a-m-p-l-e." if that's equal to other..... :/

6. Not relevant to the point.

7. Again, you have an issue with reading comprehension. I haven't said consoles I said " but the N64 was made for CRT's in its mind." <- Here! That's all I need to show how bad your reading comprehension is. Just the same as on your wall. You put words and meaning in my mouth that I never intended to say and I never did say. Go up to the post of mine.

I just asked you for the higher bandwidth, because I wanted to understand were you are actually going to. But your argument was a complete waste of time. So what that the RCA can do higher resolutions? DOESN'T MATTER, AT ALL!!! Because the console is not supporting it. It's pointless. If the N64 would support those higher resolution and bandwidth than you would have a point there and I would be wrong. But this is not the case. REREAD my post. Multiple times if you have to actually understanding what I wrote.

Here " I don't know at what screen you are looking at, but the N64 was made for CRT's in its mind. And that really did its job on a lower resolution TV. It looks like crap on modern TV's, though." That's what I wrote. Your argumentation was completey beside the point.

And that why I said on your wall that you get on my nerves, because it is so difficult to argue with you. You cannot maintain focused on what is being said!! You drift away and comes up with some weird argument that has nothing to do with what I originally said and claim that I am incorrect.

Seriously. I cannot go on like that.




Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Around the Network
curl-6 on 24 April 2017
Peh said:
curl-6 said:

I'm not privy to the reasoning behind EAD's decision, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't automatically accept Nintendo not meeting a more than decade-old technical standard.

The issue here is that you pretend to know more than Nintendo does in this regard. It's their development team, and we already both know that Nintendo used AA in the past, and obviously left it out for Mario Kart 8. If it was easy to implement or if there are still resources left for them to use, then they would probably add it. But fact is, they didn't. And you and me and even Pemalite don't know the real reasoning behind this decision. So we have to go with what the are offering us. Just accept it. Simple as that. If they decide to patch it later in and it doesn't look like shit, then great. I am not and never have argued against AA in general. I just don't like washed out screens. And there are different methods of AA to achieve a visualy good effect, but we still don't know why they opted it out.

Just because Nintendo made a decision, doesn't mean it was the right decision or that we have to agree with it.

When a company falls short of standards set over a decade ago, it is fair to criticise them for it. If a Sony or Microsoft first party game released without AA, they wouldn't be given a pass either.



Pemalite on 24 April 2017
Peh said:

1. I take it as a no then :)

I have already proven you wrong on this point. Don't change the goal posts. Your original claim was incorrect, plain and simple.
However, there are a few games on Gamecube that had screen tearing. Look it up and stop wasting my time, otherwise I shall just assume you are trolling.

Peh said:

2. Why it's not up to Nvidia? You have to explain your claims if you want to have a healthy discussion/debate/ whatever. As I already stated, I can play the game, too. It's still their GPU which does the communication with the display. You have to give me a reasoning to think otherwise. Do you understand? Nvidia is still developing the chip.

As per what I stated previously, as long as the screen supports variable refresh rates, the majority of the work is on the software side with Freesync.
I would appreciate it if you read my prior posts properly so I am not forced to repeat myself. Thanks.

And you are correct. The GPU does do communication with the display, GPU's are also highly programmable rather than just being fixed function, Nintendo is also allowed to make customizations to the SoC at the silicon level to add or remove any particular blocks.

There is no reason that Freesync or a derivative-of couldn't have been included in the Switch from the beginning.

Peh said:

3. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know what a HDMI Standard is? The numbers indicate the version of the HDMI and what it is capable of. Devices with a hdmi only support that standard which is built into them. It's not that a console with HDMI 1.4 can now support 2.0, because it cannot reach the necessary bandwith needed for it to work in this case. Adaptive Refreshrate comes with HDMI 2.1 You cannot upgrade the inferfaces to this standard on the fly. So your whole argument doesn't follow. It's a non sequitar. None of the current available consoles do HDMI 2.1, because devices with HDMI 2.1 will be released by 2nd Q 2017. Do you now get it why your argument doesn't make any sense to the point, at all? It's great to know, but completey besides the point.

I never stated that you could update the interface standard on the fly. So whatever you are trying to pick at here is without any kind of merit.

Peh said:

7. Again, you have an issue with reading comprehension. I haven't said consoles I said " but the N64 was made for CRT's in its mind." <- Here! That's all I need to show how bad your reading comprehension is. Just the same as on your wall. You put words and meaning in my mouth that I never intended to say and I never did say. Go up to the post of mine.

I have already proven the Nintendo 64 was not built for any particular display technology in mind. CRT TV's often exceeded what the Nintendo 64 could output visually.


Peh said:

If the N64 would support those higher resolution and bandwidth than you would have a point there and I would be wrong. But this is not the case. REREAD my post. Multiple times if you have to actually understanding what I wrote.

The Nintendo 64 does support multiple resolutions.

Peh said:

And that why I said on your wall that you get on my nerves, because it is so difficult to argue with you. You cannot maintain focused on what is being said!! You drift away and comes up with some weird argument that has nothing to do with what I originally said and claim that I am incorrect.

 

Whatever your personal feelings are, I don't care. That's not my circus, not my problem, so keep them out of it.
I will argue the points you present. That is all. Don't like it? Stiff.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Peh on 25 April 2017
curl-6 said:
Peh said:

The issue here is that you pretend to know more than Nintendo does in this regard. It's their development team, and we already both know that Nintendo used AA in the past, and obviously left it out for Mario Kart 8. If it was easy to implement or if there are still resources left for them to use, then they would probably add it. But fact is, they didn't. And you and me and even Pemalite don't know the real reasoning behind this decision. So we have to go with what the are offering us. Just accept it. Simple as that. If they decide to patch it later in and it doesn't look like shit, then great. I am not and never have argued against AA in general. I just don't like washed out screens. And there are different methods of AA to achieve a visualy good effect, but we still don't know why they opted it out.

Just because Nintendo made a decision, doesn't mean it was the right decision or that we have to agree with it.

When a company falls short of standards set over a decade ago, it is fair to criticise them for it. If a Sony or Microsoft first party game released without AA, they wouldn't be given a pass either.

Sure you can criticise them. Sure you don't have to agree with them. But you are still ignorant to what lead to this decision and so I am. In the end, you decide if the game will be worth your money because of this or any particular missing feature.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Peh on 25 April 2017
Pemalite said:
Peh said:

1. I take it as a no then :)

 I have already proven you wrong on this point. Don't change the goal posts. Your original claim was incorrect, plain and simple.
However, there are a few games on Gamecube that had screen tearing. Look it up and stop wasting my time, otherwise I shall just assume you are trolling.

Peh said:

2. Why it's not up to Nvidia? You have to explain your claims if you want to have a healthy discussion/debate/ whatever. As I already stated, I can play the game, too. It's still their GPU which does the communication with the display. You have to give me a reasoning to think otherwise. Do you understand? Nvidia is still developing the chip.

1. As per what I stated previously, as long as the screen supports variable refresh rates, the majority of the work is on the software side with Freesync.
I would appreciate it if you read my prior posts properly so I am not forced to repeat myself. Thanks.

And you are correct. The GPU does do communication with the display, GPU's are also highly programmable rather than just being fixed function, Nintendo is also allowed to make customizations to the SoC at the silicon level to add or remove any particular blocks.

There is no reason that Freesync or a derivative-of couldn't have been included in the Switch from the beginning.

Peh said:

3. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know what a HDMI Standard is? The numbers indicate the version of the HDMI and what it is capable of. Devices with a hdmi only support that standard which is built into them. It's not that a console with HDMI 1.4 can now support 2.0, because it cannot reach the necessary bandwith needed for it to work in this case. Adaptive Refreshrate comes with HDMI 2.1 You cannot upgrade the inferfaces to this standard on the fly. So your whole argument doesn't follow. It's a non sequitar. None of the current available consoles do HDMI 2.1, because devices with HDMI 2.1 will be released by 2nd Q 2017. Do you now get it why your argument doesn't make any sense to the point, at all? It's great to know, but completey besides the point.

2. I never stated that you could update the interface standard on the fly. So whatever you are trying to pick at here is without any kind of merit.

Peh said:

7. Again, you have an issue with reading comprehension. I haven't said consoles I said " but the N64 was made for CRT's in its mind." <- Here! That's all I need to show how bad your reading comprehension is. Just the same as on your wall. You put words and meaning in my mouth that I never intended to say and I never did say. Go up to the post of mine.

3. I have already proven the Nintendo 64 was not built for any particular display technology in mind. CRT TV's often exceeded what the Nintendo 64 could output visually.


Peh said:

If the N64 would support those higher resolution and bandwidth than you would have a point there and I would be wrong. But this is not the case. REREAD my post. Multiple times if you have to actually understanding what I wrote.

4. The Nintendo 64 does support multiple resolutions.

Peh said:

And that why I said on your wall that you get on my nerves, because it is so difficult to argue with you. You cannot maintain focused on what is being said!! You drift away and comes up with some weird argument that has nothing to do with what I originally said and claim that I am incorrect.

 

5. Whatever your personal feelings are, I don't care. That's not my circus, not my problem, so keep them out of it.
I will argue the points you present. That is all. Don't like it? Stiff.

1. Unless there was no certified interface for adaptive refresh rate during the development of the Switch. Which actually is the case here. HDMI 2.1 was announced in january 2017 and the specifications are still not known but it was said, that they will come in 2nd Q 2017. So, explain to me, how should they implement HDMI 2.1 if that was not available?

2. The point is, whatever you said in justifying FreeSync or any solution for adaptive refresh rate was purely meaningless and a waste of everyones time.

3. Yet again, you fail to understand the point here. CRT TV's were the most common TV's during that time. It does not exceed the resolutions determined by PAL, NTSC and SECAM. There is still nothing wrong with my original statement.

4. Context! Does the N64 renders at a higher resolution than the common RCT TV during that time which were PAL, NTSC and SECAM depending on region? No, it does not. My point stands.

5. I don't know what "stiff" means, but by going with the context I assume that you are telling me to fuck off. I don't think that you have the right to tell me where to post and where not to post.  You should work on providing better arguments.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Around the Network
curl-6 on 25 April 2017
Peh said:
curl-6 said:

Just because Nintendo made a decision, doesn't mean it was the right decision or that we have to agree with it.

When a company falls short of standards set over a decade ago, it is fair to criticise them for it. If a Sony or Microsoft first party game released without AA, they wouldn't be given a pass either.

Sure you can criticise them. Sure you don't have to agree with them. But you are still ignorant to what lead to this decision and so I am. In the end, you decide if the game will be worth your money because of this or any particular missing feature.

Why they made the decision doesn't change the end result, which is a game falling short of a standard set by consoles that came out more than 10 years ago. I'm not going to give Nintendo a free pass just because I happen to love their games.



Peh on 26 April 2017
curl-6 said:
Peh said:

Sure you can criticise them. Sure you don't have to agree with them. But you are still ignorant to what lead to this decision and so I am. In the end, you decide if the game will be worth your money because of this or any particular missing feature.

Why they made the decision doesn't change the end result, which is a game falling short of a standard set by consoles that came out more than 10 years ago. I'm not going to give Nintendo a free pass just because I happen to love their games.

Yes, you've already said that. 

What type of AA do you want to see and why?



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

David_Hernandeez on 26 April 2017
Peh said:
curl-6 said:

Why they made the decision doesn't change the end result, which is a game falling short of a standard set by consoles that came out more than 10 years ago. I'm not going to give Nintendo a free pass just because I happen to love their games.

Yes, you've already said that. 

What type of AA do you want to see and why?

I'm going to answer you FXAA, and 8x texture filtering, I really don't understand why Nintendo didn't try it, heck one of my main complains from Wii U is the lack of AA in ALL Nintendo games (except for 3d world and captain toad)
Also AA is no a luxury, is a necessity for all HD games.



curl-6 on 26 April 2017
Peh said:
curl-6 said:

Why they made the decision doesn't change the end result, which is a game falling short of a standard set by consoles that came out more than 10 years ago. I'm not going to give Nintendo a free pass just because I happen to love their games.

Yes, you've already said that. 

What type of AA do you want to see and why?

The simple edge smoothing used in Captain Toad and 3D World would be a good fit; it worked well in those titles without hampering the framerate.



Pemalite on 26 April 2017
Peh said:

1. Unless there was no certified interface for adaptive refresh rate during the development of the Switch. Which actually is the case here. HDMI 2.1 was announced in january 2017 and the specifications are still not known but it was said, that they will come in 2nd Q 2017. So, explain to me, how should they implement HDMI 2.1 if that was not available?

You don't get it. Freesync being open standard means it can be implemented on non-standard non-AMD interfaces as per Display Port and HDMI.
The Switch's internal Display isn't connected to the rest of the system via a HDMI cable is it?

The Dock however connects to the Switch via USB-C. And can have an updated version at a later date to support something like Freesync and HDMI 2.1 or Display Port 1.2a or newer.
It's actually one of the aspects I like most about the Switch, the potential to upgrade the Dock to support newer standards, improved scalers, potentially include various forms of media like 4k Blu-Ray and more.

Peh said:

3. Yet again, you fail to understand the point here. CRT TV's were the most common TV's during that time. It does not exceed the resolutions determined by PAL, NTSC and SECAM. There is still nothing wrong with my original statement.

But CRT TV's did often exceed the resolutions determined by PAL, NTSC and SECAM standards.


Peh said:

4. Context! Does the N64 renders at a higher resolution than the common RCT TV during that time which were PAL, NTSC and SECAM depending on region? No, it does not. My point stands.

It often ran at a fraction of the resolution.


Peh said:

5. I don't know what "stiff" means, but by going with the context I assume that you are telling me to fuck off. I don't think that you have the right to tell me where to post and where not to post.  You should work on providing better arguments.


It's Australian slang. It's not telling you to do anything.





--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--