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

Forums - Nintendo - Wii U Can Do “1080p Without Breaking A Sweat”

disolitude on 13 August 2012
TheShape31 said:
disolitude said:
People who game on 32 inch TV's or less shouldn't give a shit about 1080p or 720p cause they won't be able to see the difference. 42 - 50 inch TV's people also shouldn't care unless they are extremely fussy or sit ridiculously close.

People who should care are the 60+ inch display crowd.


I love this argument where you tell me what my eyes can and cannot see.  I can see a clear difference on my 23" monitor, but just because you can't it doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.

The 60+ inch display crowd is not the "the human eye can only see so much" crowd, it's the "I'm rich enough to own a 60+ inch display" crowd.

I've been around here for a while now and have argued this with many people, frankly I'm tired and surprised people don't have a clue how to calculate optimal viewing distance per screen size.

Yes at 1 foot you may see pixels on your 23 inch monitor butmove back 2-3 feet..if you have 20/20 vision you won't see the pixels anymore.

Tell you what, go through this thread and if you have anything to add feel free to post a reply...

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=133541&page=1

or even better...here is the post you should read - http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4206563



Around the Network
lilbroex on 13 August 2012
TheShape31 said:
lilbroex said:
TheShape31 said:

All Nintendo first party titles will run at 720p in 30fps and 60fps, depending on the game.

No AAA 3rd party titles will run NATIVE 1080p, but will DISPLAY at 1080p. Expect their native resolutions to be slightly higher than PS360 versions, so most likely less sub-720p upscaled. People are taking a NIntendo rep's words out of context from Batman: AC running at 1080p, but not native. Expect solid native 720p gaming from Wii U, nothing more (unless it's a small downloadable title or 2D game).

Keep your expectations in check, and realize why Iwata's been banging on the "specs don't matter" drum for so long. If Nintendo was releasing a system capable of rendering AAA games at native 1080p, the cost would be way higher than consumers would be willing to pay. Affordable innovation over graphics is their undying mantra.


It was confirmed by the devs to be native 1080p

I'd say link to the source of that information, but it's all based on rumors.

This is how people get misinformed by some Nintendo Rep:

http://gimmegimmegames.com/2012/07/assassins-creed-3-batman-arkham-city-will-run-in-native-1080p-on-the-wii-u/

That is false.It was stating long before that event. At least for assassin's creed. It was mentioned somewhere else that they have Arkham City at 1080p but are working on mkaing it stable at 60 fps a well.

I believe they said it on twitter as well as to a some people directly. There are no news article with them saying it because they've never given an interview about the details themselves. They are still under NDA like every other dev. The only people who can really talk about it are Nintendo reps.



TheShape31 on 13 August 2012
disolitude said:
TheShape31 said:
disolitude said:
People who game on 32 inch TV's or less shouldn't give a shit about 1080p or 720p cause they won't be able to see the difference. 42 - 50 inch TV's people also shouldn't care unless they are extremely fussy or sit ridiculously close.

People who should care are the 60+ inch display crowd.


I love this argument where you tell me what my eyes can and cannot see.  I can see a clear difference on my 23" monitor, but just because you can't it doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.

The 60+ inch display crowd is not the "the human eye can only see so much" crowd, it's the "I'm rich enough to own a 60+ inch display" crowd.

I've been around here for a while now and have argued this with many people, frankly I'm tired and surprised people don't have a clue how to calculate optimal viewing distance per screen size.

Yes at 1 foot you may see pixels on your 23 inch monitor butmove back 2-3 feet..if you have 20/20 vision you won't see the pixels anymore.

Tell you what, go through this thread and if you have anything to add feel free to post a reply...

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=133541&page=1

or even better...here is the post you should read - http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4206563


Oh I'm quite familiar with the mathematics behind your argument.  Those same types of counter-points exist for those trying to say that the human ear can only hear so much.  People will try to prove those like me wrong with CD-quality vs hi-res just like you are attempting to do with visual resolutions.  It's pretty incredible that I don't care what YOU can and cannot see, yet you'll still try and tell me what I can and cannot see.  You may use mathematics, the opinions of random professionals, or various other sources.  The fact of the matter is that some people see the quality difference and they care.  It isn't a rule that applies to the general public, but it isn't something that can be disputed.



TheShape31 on 13 August 2012
lilbroex said:
TheShape31 said:
lilbroex said:
TheShape31 said:

All Nintendo first party titles will run at 720p in 30fps and 60fps, depending on the game.

No AAA 3rd party titles will run NATIVE 1080p, but will DISPLAY at 1080p. Expect their native resolutions to be slightly higher than PS360 versions, so most likely less sub-720p upscaled. People are taking a NIntendo rep's words out of context from Batman: AC running at 1080p, but not native. Expect solid native 720p gaming from Wii U, nothing more (unless it's a small downloadable title or 2D game).

Keep your expectations in check, and realize why Iwata's been banging on the "specs don't matter" drum for so long. If Nintendo was releasing a system capable of rendering AAA games at native 1080p, the cost would be way higher than consumers would be willing to pay. Affordable innovation over graphics is their undying mantra.


It was confirmed by the devs to be native 1080p

I'd say link to the source of that information, but it's all based on rumors.

This is how people get misinformed by some Nintendo Rep:

http://gimmegimmegames.com/2012/07/assassins-creed-3-batman-arkham-city-will-run-in-native-1080p-on-the-wii-u/

That is false.It was stating long before that event. At least for assassin's creed. It was mentioned somewhere else that they have Arkham City at 1080p but are working on mkaing it stable at 60 fps a well.

I believe they said it on twitter as well as to a some people directly. There are no news article with them saying it because they've never given an interview about the details themselves. They are still under NDA like every other dev. The only people who can really talk about it are Nintendo reps.

Again, you're saying something as truth yet have no source for it. I'll even show you another earlier source, probably the one that got these false truths stuck in your head:

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1388344/wii_u_price_release_date_details_leaked_by_ubisoft_dev_rumour.html?

Note the key word is RUMOR.



crissindahouse on 13 August 2012
disolitude said:
TheShape31 said:
disolitude said:
People who game on 32 inch TV's or less shouldn't give a shit about 1080p or 720p cause they won't be able to see the difference. 42 - 50 inch TV's people also shouldn't care unless they are extremely fussy or sit ridiculously close.

People who should care are the 60+ inch display crowd.


I love this argument where you tell me what my eyes can and cannot see.  I can see a clear difference on my 23" monitor, but just because you can't it doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.

The 60+ inch display crowd is not the "the human eye can only see so much" crowd, it's the "I'm rich enough to own a 60+ inch display" crowd.

I've been around here for a while now and have argued this with many people, frankly I'm tired and surprised people don't have a clue how to calculate optimal viewing distance per screen size.

Yes at 1 foot you may see pixels on your 23 inch monitor butmove back 2-3 feet..if you have 20/20 vision you won't see the pixels anymore.

Tell you what, go through this thread and if you have anything to add feel free to post a reply...

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=133541&page=1

or even better...here is the post you should read - http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4206563

you don't have to calculate if people can see the dpi of a 1080p 23'' screen from 2-3 feet away (which should be between 60-90cm), you have to calculate if their eye can recognize differences above 720p. with a 23'' screen you have 96dpi and you can see ~300dpi from 25cm viewing distance (that's the average of what some scientists/specialists believe the eye can recognize) which means you can see differences up to 94dpi from 80cm distance. so, you can see almost the full 1080p. but the more important question is if you can see the differences between 720p and 1080p (which could be every resolution betweeen those two) and you can clearly see them on a 23'' screen from 80cm distance. i tested it between 720p (or something similiar, have a 16:10 screen) and 1680x1050 on my 22'' in battlefield 3 with ultra settings and it was a huge difference. it looked really bad because i was used to see a higher res. my distance is maybe 60cm but not exactly sure.



Around the Network
disolitude on 13 August 2012
TheShape31 said:
disolitude said:
TheShape31 said:
disolitude said:
People who game on 32 inch TV's or less shouldn't give a shit about 1080p or 720p cause they won't be able to see the difference. 42 - 50 inch TV's people also shouldn't care unless they are extremely fussy or sit ridiculously close.

People who should care are the 60+ inch display crowd.


I love this argument where you tell me what my eyes can and cannot see.  I can see a clear difference on my 23" monitor, but just because you can't it doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.

The 60+ inch display crowd is not the "the human eye can only see so much" crowd, it's the "I'm rich enough to own a 60+ inch display" crowd.

I've been around here for a while now and have argued this with many people, frankly I'm tired and surprised people don't have a clue how to calculate optimal viewing distance per screen size.

Yes at 1 foot you may see pixels on your 23 inch monitor butmove back 2-3 feet..if you have 20/20 vision you won't see the pixels anymore.

Tell you what, go through this thread and if you have anything to add feel free to post a reply...

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=133541&page=1

or even better...here is the post you should read - http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4206563


Oh I'm quite familiar with the mathematics behind your argument.  Those same types of counter-points exist for those trying to say that the human ear can only hear so much.  People will try to prove those like me wrong with CD-quality vs hi-res just like you are attempting to do with visual resolutions.  It's pretty incredible that I don't care what YOU can and cannot see, yet you'll still try and tell me what I can and cannot see.  You may use mathematics, the opinions of random professionals, or various other sources.  The fact of the matter is that some people see the quality difference and they care.  It isn't a rule that applies to the general public, but it isn't something that can be disputed.


Sure, lets ignore crazy science and mathematical equations and proven limitations of the human eye. 


Truth is, I have spent last few years playing with many toys, resolutions and technologies and have realized the difference between fact and FUD to care to continue arguing. Im not telling you what you can and cant see...just that when you spend weeks trying to calculate the optimal viewing distance to resolution to projector throw distance to screen size ratio and try out 4-5 different projectors in the process, you learn a thing or two.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=117347&page=1

Trust me, I wouldnt never settle for less, if there was a difference.



disolitude on 13 August 2012
crissindahouse said:
disolitude said:
TheShape31 said:
disolitude said:
People who game on 32 inch TV's or less shouldn't give a shit about 1080p or 720p cause they won't be able to see the difference. 42 - 50 inch TV's people also shouldn't care unless they are extremely fussy or sit ridiculously close.

People who should care are the 60+ inch display crowd.


I love this argument where you tell me what my eyes can and cannot see.  I can see a clear difference on my 23" monitor, but just because you can't it doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.

The 60+ inch display crowd is not the "the human eye can only see so much" crowd, it's the "I'm rich enough to own a 60+ inch display" crowd.

I've been around here for a while now and have argued this with many people, frankly I'm tired and surprised people don't have a clue how to calculate optimal viewing distance per screen size.

Yes at 1 foot you may see pixels on your 23 inch monitor butmove back 2-3 feet..if you have 20/20 vision you won't see the pixels anymore.

Tell you what, go through this thread and if you have anything to add feel free to post a reply...

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=133541&page=1

or even better...here is the post you should read - http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4206563

you don't have to calculate if people can see the dpi of a 1080p 23'' screen from 2-3 feet away (which should be between 60-90cm), you have to calculate if their eye can recognize differences above 720p. with a 23'' screen you have 96dpi and you can see ~300dpi from 25cm viewing distance (that's the average of what some scientists/specialists believe the eye can recognize) which means you can see differences up to 94dpi from 80cm distance. so, you can see almost the full 1080p. but the more important question is if you can see the differences between 720p and 1080p (which could be every resolution betweeen those two) and you can clearly see them on a 23'' screen from 80cm distance. i tested it between 720p (or something similiar, have a 16:10 screen) and 1680x1050 on my 22'' in battlefield 3 with ultra settings and it was a huge difference. it looked really bad because i was used to see a higher res. my distance should be maybe 60cm but not exactly sure.

I agree and I never mentioned monitors as computer gaming is done in close proximity. most people play consoles 6-9 feet away from the tv. At that distance only 42 inch+ tvs show a difference in resolution.

Edit - there are also many other factors to consider when measuring resolution and what the eye can or cant see. Native pannel resolution for example. if youre viewing 720p content on a 1680X1050 screen the screen has to either upscale the signal or shrink the viewing area. This upscalling often looks downright terrible when its just the display is doing it. When an xbox360 gpu does it on the other hand, its not bad looking at all. One has to assume that Wii U will have a solid scaler chip and will use AA to compensate for the resolution loss if the game does end up being 720p.



archbrix on 13 August 2012
TheShape31 said:
lilbroex said:

That is false.It was stating long before that event. At least for assassin's creed. It was mentioned somewhere else that they have Arkham City at 1080p but are working on mkaing it stable at 60 fps a well.

I believe they said it on twitter as well as to a some people directly. There are no news article with them saying it because they've never given an interview about the details themselves. They are still under NDA like every other dev. The only people who can really talk about it are Nintendo reps.

Again, you're saying something as truth yet have no source for it. I'll even show you another earlier source, probably the one that got these false truths stuck in your head:

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1388344/wii_u_price_release_date_details_leaked_by_ubisoft_dev_rumour.html?

Note the key word is RUMOR.

I don't understand your logic here.  You ask for links to the confirmed native 1080p res and then you dismiss one as a rumor (which I actually agree, it was) and the other as just a Nintendo rep that doesn't know what he's talking about.  Could he be wrong about "native" 1080p?  Sure, I suppose.  But so far we have a Nintendo rep's word which pans out previous rumors vs a guy on a forum named TheShape31 who just doesn't believe it.  Tell me, where is your proof that it in fact does not run in native 1080p?



lilbroex on 13 August 2012
TheShape31 said:
lilbroex said:
TheShape31 said:
lilbroex said:
TheShape31 said:

All Nintendo first party titles will run at 720p in 30fps and 60fps, depending on the game.

No AAA 3rd party titles will run NATIVE 1080p, but will DISPLAY at 1080p. Expect their native resolutions to be slightly higher than PS360 versions, so most likely less sub-720p upscaled. People are taking a NIntendo rep's words out of context from Batman: AC running at 1080p, but not native. Expect solid native 720p gaming from Wii U, nothing more (unless it's a small downloadable title or 2D game).

Keep your expectations in check, and realize why Iwata's been banging on the "specs don't matter" drum for so long. If Nintendo was releasing a system capable of rendering AAA games at native 1080p, the cost would be way higher than consumers would be willing to pay. Affordable innovation over graphics is their undying mantra.


It was confirmed by the devs to be native 1080p

I'd say link to the source of that information, but it's all based on rumors.

This is how people get misinformed by some Nintendo Rep:

http://gimmegimmegames.com/2012/07/assassins-creed-3-batman-arkham-city-will-run-in-native-1080p-on-the-wii-u/

That is false.It was stating long before that event. At least for assassin's creed. It was mentioned somewhere else that they have Arkham City at 1080p but are working on mkaing it stable at 60 fps a well.

I believe they said it on twitter as well as to a some people directly. There are no news article with them saying it because they've never given an interview about the details themselves. They are still under NDA like every other dev. The only people who can really talk about it are Nintendo reps.

Again, you're saying something as truth yet have no source for it. I'll even show you another earlier source, probably the one that got these false truths stuck in your head:

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1388344/wii_u_price_release_date_details_leaked_by_ubisoft_dev_rumour.html?

Note the key word is RUMOR.

You are incorrect once more. I did post a source as well as a few other people much earlier in the thread.



klumminati on 13 August 2012

Why anyone at all is staunchly for or against Nintendo is beyond me. Nintendo hasn't had much 3rd party success for awhile but i guess things are looking up but to argue about graphics when Nintendo doesn't give a shit is why i am a little confused. Even if they on par with the current gen that in itself should be exciting right? I don't believe a Mario game or Zelda need to have multiple things going on in the background like a GTA game. It's not going to be as powerful as Sony or MS' new system but it does not need to be. On the other hand I don't get why anyone would be a diehard when you are missing out on great games from other systems. If you want a cheaper way to go for multi plat, get a souped up laptop and get games on steam at a steep discount. I play steam games on my hdtv with the hdmi cord.



Just because you chose to quote a famous dead person does not mean that you are some type of intellect nor does it mean that the quote in question is correct.