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”

lilbroex on 09 August 2012
Soundwave said:
Confirmation that Arkham City on Wii U runs at 1080p? That would be the first I've heard of this. I'm pretty sure it's 720p only.


Go search through the old threads or google it. I'm tired of posting it and I'm tired of debating it.



Around the Network
Mohasus on 09 August 2012
lilbroex said:
Mohasus said:
lilbroex said:
Mohasus said:
lilbroex said:
Soundwave said:
Going to 1080p is not going to massively alter the development cost.

It's not like PC games cost way more because they support 5-6 different resolutions.

My guess is if you're using the TV screen + the Wii U display (which requires a second frame buffer), 720p is about the max you can get from the machine unless you are displaying very basic graphics.


Then I would llike to know how Arkham City: Armored Edtion runs at 1080p 60fps on both the tv and controller at once while the PS3 and 360 version ran at 720p 30fps.


It is kinda funny how you read so many WiiU news and yet you don't know the WiiU Pad's resolution.

You mean that is 480p? Everyone knows that. What is your point?

"Arkham City: Armored Edtion runs at 1080p 60fps on both the tv and controller"

Oh, could you link me to where did you read about Batman AC @60 FPS? Thanks.

Your welcome, and no. I'm tired supplying info to people who clearly just want to beg the question. Most either skew its meaning or ignore and jump to begging something else.

As I thought, you are just making it up.

I found lots of articles about it being 1080p, but 60fps? Not a single one, in fact, there is a performance analysis from digital foundry saying it is 30fps.



lilbroex on 09 August 2012
Mohasus said:
lilbroex said:

Your welcome, and no. I'm tired supplying info to people who clearly just want to beg the question. Most either skew its meaning or ignore and jump to begging something else.

As I thought, you are just making it up.

I found lots of articles about it being 1080p, but 60fps? Not a single one, in fact, there is a performance analysis from digital foundry saying it is 30fps, but it isn't reliable cause it wasn't captured from the console itself.

You coudln't have looked that hard then.



lilbroex on 09 August 2012
pezus said:
lilbroex said:
pezus said:
lilbroex said:
I agree. The games running on my screen 19 in. screen at 1280x1024 look far better than the same game running on my PS3 at 720p and 1080i.

The only thing making a game 1080p does in most cases is make the graphics bigger, not better. All that does it keep the quality from noticeably dropping on a larger screen if you have one. 480p was enough for me. 1080p is overkill in most situations.

That is just plain wrong. You're telling me changing the resolution of a PC game from 720p to 1080p does not improve the graphics? Wat

It "can" improve the graphics, but 99% of the time it doesn't. Its the same polygon count, same geometry, same lighting, same textures(only bigger variations of them).

Only with the added benefit of extra resources consumed that you could invest into more polygons with more completx gemetry if it wasn't output at that resolution.

You forgot "more pixels", and that is definitely a part of what we mean by graphics.


More pixels=bigger textures. The graphics still look the same most of the time. It provides the potential for far better graphics but I seldom see it realized.



happydolphin on 09 August 2012

@libro. Spare us and dish out your sources otherwise keep it to yourself.



Around the Network
Scoobes on 09 August 2012
lilbroex said:
Scoobes said:
lilbroex said:
pezus said:
lilbroex said:
I agree. The games running on my screen 19 in. screen at 1280x1024 look far better than the same game running on my PS3 at 720p and 1080i.

The only thing making a game 1080p does in most cases is make the graphics bigger, not better. All that does it keep the quality from noticeably dropping on a larger screen if you have one. 480p was enough for me. 1080p is overkill in most situations.

That is just plain wrong. You're telling me changing the resolution of a PC game from 720p to 1080p does not improve the graphics? Wat

It "can" improve the graphics, but 99% of the time it doesn't. Its the same polygon count, same geometry, same lighting, same textures(only bigger variations of them).

Not the same textures, but closer to how the artists would have intended them and usually at higher resolution allowing you to see more detail.


No. Most of the time it isn't. I've personally yet to see a single game that had drastic alteration to the way the textures looked at higher resolutions other than them being bigger versions of the same textures.

I've noticed more detail in textures such as Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Witcher 2, Skyrim and Deus Ex: Human Revolution among others. I wouldn't use the word drastic for some of them, but saying it doesn't improve graphics in 99% of cases is the opposite extreme. I generally notice a few extra details in textures. In the case of Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 the differences are fairly pronounced.




Get your Portable ID!

Hynad on 09 August 2012
lilbroex said:
Mohasus said:
lilbroex said:
Mohasus said:
lilbroex said:
Soundwave said:
Going to 1080p is not going to massively alter the development cost.

It's not like PC games cost way more because they support 5-6 different resolutions.

My guess is if you're using the TV screen + the Wii U display (which requires a second frame buffer), 720p is about the max you can get from the machine unless you are displaying very basic graphics.


Then I would llike to know how Arkham City: Armored Edtion runs at 1080p 60fps on both the tv and controller at once while the PS3 and 360 version ran at 720p 30fps.


It is kinda funny how you read so many WiiU news and yet you don't know the WiiU Pad's resolution.

You mean that is 480p? Everyone knows that. What is your point?

"Arkham City: Armored Edtion runs at 1080p 60fps on both the tv and controller"

Oh, could you link me to where did you read about Batman AC @60 FPS? Thanks.

Your welcome, and no. I'm tired supplying info to people who clearly just want to beg the question. Most either skew its meaning or ignore and jump to begging something else.


I didn't say it would run at 1080p on the controller. I said it would run at 1080p on both the tv and controller as in it will achieve that while outputing to 2 output devices. It was a response to the comment that the second controller would limit it to 720p. Sorry if you failed to understand that.

You can't be serious.  People don't fail to understand you. You fail to word your sentences in a manner in which it can be understood the way you supposedly want them to be.

You said this earlier:  "They can [make NSMBU and NintendoLand get 1080p]. Nintendo chose not too for their own titles as it would be added cost with no benefit. All first party will be running at 1080p natively however."

Which means, for those who have basic understanding of grammar: Nintendo Can make those 2 first party titles (NSMBU and NintendoLand) run in 1080p but they chose not to because it would cost them too much for no real benefit.  But they will run at 1080p.

How is that even logical?

But you don't stop there:  "Arkham City: Armored Edtion runs at 1080p 60fps on both the tv and controller"

That phrasing doesn't mean anything other than the game will run in 1080p on the TV and in 1080p on the controller.


Lrn 2 txt. =P



lilbroex on 09 August 2012
happydolphin said:
@libro. Spare us and dish out your sources otherwise keep it to yourself.


Spare yourselves. I'm not the one who asked and I have nothing to prove.

I've read it and I've seen it in action and I've even posted it on here a few times. If you don't want to believe it then don't. I'm tired of this endless, pointless debate.



Sensei on 09 August 2012
Hynad said:
lilbroex said:

Developer Two Tribes offered to answer questions – via Twitter – regarding Wii U’s version of Toki Tori 2. The developer revealed that its team has been working with the Wii U console for a few months, and its “coders found it easier than expected” to make Wii U games. Two Tribes thinks that the Wii U is ‘awesome’ and claims that it can display games at “1080p without breaking a sweat.”

http://mynintendonews.com/2012/08/09/wii-u-can-do-1080p-without-breaking-a-sweat/

 

“: Is the game 1080p native on WiiU or just upscaled to 1080p?” Full 1080p!

This is my first time seeing Drtre somewhere other than Youtube.


Well, the PS3 and 360 can also display 1080p without a sweat when it comes to that kind of PSN/Live Arcade quality of games.


This. First reply won the thread already.



lilbroex on 09 August 2012
Hynad said:

You can't be serious.  People don't fail to understand you. You fail to word your sentences in a manner in which it can be understood the way you supposedly want them to be.

You said this earlier:  "They can [make NSMBU and NintendoLand get 1080p]. Nintendo chose not too for their own titles as it would be added cost with no benefit. All first party will be running at 1080p natively however."

Which means, for those who have basic understanding of grammar: Nintendo Can make those 2 first party titles (NSMBU and NintendoLand) run in 1080p but they chose not to because it would cost them too much for no real benefit.  But they will run at 1080p.

How is that even logical?

But you don't stop there:  "Arkham City: Armored Edtion runs at 1080p 60fps on both the tv and controller"

That phrasing doesn't mean anything other than the game will run in 1080p on the TV and in 1080p on the controller.


Lrn 2 txt. =P


There were no flaw in the words of why Nintendo is not making their releases games 1080. I didn't think there needed any epxlaination on this because Reggie said it himself.

I agree that I should have worded the info on Arkham City Amrored Edition better though. I didn't think people would be that hard up to make an argument over someting so insignificant, though, especially when it wasn't even addressed to them. Live and learn.