By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
archbrix on 06 February 2012
Edit Thread
Mmmfishtacos said:
archbrix said:
Mmmfishtacos said

I'm not sure you understand. You'll only need one, ps3 and 1 vita, or more vitas for extra players. In GT's case you need 3 PS3's just for the video out's. Point is, it can run side by side, and be fluent.

So you're going back to graphics argument? Cause we all know how that goes. Doesn't matter what looks better, still pulling off the same thing in the end. Besides the WiiU's table screen is sub HD, 854 x 480. So no, it doesn't display the same WiiU graphics it will on your/mine nice 1080p TV. So your argument is mute.

No, it's you that does not understand (not sure why, since your own example states it clear as day).  The scenario you cite with GT is USING THE POWER OF THREE INDIVIDUAL PS3s to support the screens, not one.  The Vita is not the PS3.  Of course the PS3/Vita can have interactivity... the Gamecube/GBA did that.  And the original Halo could support LAN play with multiple Xboxes in use... nothing new with this concept.  One more time with feeling:  it's ONE PS3 pumping out a full game to Vita and the TV running simultaneously that's in question here.  I'm skeptical that it can, but I'm not saying that it's definitely impossible either, just that your logic is definitely flawed.

And just because the WiiU tablet screen is only 480 is not key here.  The GC/GBA connectivity was not merely limited by resolution, but by the fact that the GBA was still not displaying GC quality graphics.  So his argument is not moot.

Who cares if it can, that's not the point. The point is it can achieve the same concept. In the end it's the same. Doesn't matter how each company get's to point A, it's just the fact they both got there. You simply can not argue the vita be able to run the game on its own hardware without help for the Playstation is somehow a disadvantage. It simply isn't.

*sigh*

It absolutely is the point.  I'll try one more time:

Look at it from the perspective of WiiU.  The controller is not a portable game system at all.  It is basically a "dummy" screen designed to receive the signal/code from the host system.  Therefore it's the WiiU console that is doing the work of the streaming, NOT the receiving screen.  In other words, if the Vita was the recipient of the WiiU's stream, it would work with Vita too.

The system in question is the PS3, not the Vita.  The scenario you've suggested would work if the Vita was a portable PS3 and was also running the game.  Then you could have the game running on your TV (powered by the PS3) and the handheld screen (powered by the Vita).  This is why multi monitor Gran Turismo worked; because there were three PS3s with three copies of the game powering the graphics on three screens (one for every screen), not just one PS3 powering the graphics on all three screens.

Now that we've established that, what you're saying (I think) is that because the Vita is more than just a "dummy" screen and has its own hardware, it'll be able to make up the difference and display Uncharted 3 on its own... but again, that would require the Vita to be as powerful as a PS3, which it is not, and have a copy of the game running in it.  Could the PS3 and Vita interact with each other with the PS3 running Uncharted 3 and the Vita running Golden Abyss?  Of course.  Could the PS3 run Uncharted 3 and simultaneously display something graphical on the Vita?  Sure.  Could the PS3 send the graphics of Uncharted 3 to the Vita instead of the TV?  Again, yes, in 544 res.  Then you would have Uncharted 3 running on Vita (albeit in less resolution, but the same glorious graphics) on your handheld, but NOT on the TV at the same time.  WiiU can display both at the same time (full HD on TV, less resolution on the handheld screen), and from the rumors, not just one handheld screen, but two, and with only one game running.

Hopefully you get it now.  If not, then please ask someone else... I give up.