Cobretti2 said:
1/60 = A frame every 16.666ms adding 0.1ms lag to it = 16.766 ~ 59.7 fps, which is bugger all |
But its 30 fps. Well Halo 4 and Crysis 2 definately are 30 fps. Everything matters online. So many variables you want optimal.
Cobretti2 said:
1/60 = A frame every 16.666ms adding 0.1ms lag to it = 16.766 ~ 59.7 fps, which is bugger all |
But its 30 fps. Well Halo 4 and Crysis 2 definately are 30 fps. Everything matters online. So many variables you want optimal.
selnor said:
|
Than the extra 0.1ms of lag would be like 29.91fps, so even a smaller differece, a lag of 0.09fps.
But that is not the point. I know where you are coming from, but liike you said everyone will have the same disadvantage as that is the only option.
Wireless N, in theory should be pretty damn good. However it depends on what chip Nintendo uses and on your router.
If they cheaped out like HP in their laptops and used early N tech, than max is 65mbps, instead of 270mbps.
I understand that people prefer gaming wired, but saying that a console is a deal break because of a small additional cost just shows they never intended to buy the cnsole for use.
Personally I would be more worried about 3rd part support and more importantly how the online will work. Because if that is broken it won't matter wire or wifi.
All I know is I can see myself next gen having multiple consoles because the WiiU will not meet all my needs.
BasilZero said:
unless...
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ME :O
I'm buying a Wii-U eventually but in 2-3 years span cause I wanna wait till the library gets a bit bigger and wait to see if there are better bundles/deals. |
nah not you. Basically the people who are only one console fans who would never buy a WiiU even if it had an ethernet port.
Another example is that console comparisson thread same peopel complaining how it looks, yet they praised the design of the ultra slim PS3 with its stupid corregated top. At the end of the day they just boxes that play games so who cares lol.
In the end they hate Nitnendo, which is fine, but admit it. Don't need to go making noise about something that doesn't and will never impact you and which can be fixed with an addon and would put everone on that system on a even playing field anyway.
One particular genre that I feel benefits from an ethernet connection is fighting games, where even a tiny fraction of lag can affect gameplay. One game that I'm waiting to see how it performs online is the Wii U version of Tekken Tag Tournament, because a single frame can alter what moves you can punish, what combos you can perform, and so on.
Despite having WiFi-capable consoles, I still use ethernet cables (with the proper ports open) to maximize connectivity.
Ethernet gives me 187ms ping.
Wi-Fi gives me 235ms ping.
I do just fine with both. People really complain about 3ms?
morenoingrato said: Ethernet gives me 187ms ping. Wi-Fi gives me 235ms ping. I do just fine with both. People really complain about 3ms? |
Both are absolutely awful.
No ethernet port? I say its a bad move but I dont think it cause an outcry.
Yay!!!
brendude13 said:
Both are absolutely awful. |
I know, it's kind of a standard in my city.
I can play decently with those though:
morenoingrato said:
I know, it's kind of a standard in my city. I can play decently with those though: |
That sucks. My internet is below average and I get 38ms ping in games, anything over 50ms in online FPSs I start to notice.
selnor said:
Thats alot in a shooter. Damn. |
If you can actually perceive a 0.1 ms difference in an online game, I'll pay you $1,000,000 every day for the rest of your life.
You realize this much faster than the cones and rods in our eyes can actually accumulate and transmit photonic data? Add in neural recognition and it's even worse.
That's 1/50th the time of the average digital camera's standard 1/125 shutter speed (faster than the fastest shutter speed available on any conumer grade DSLR camera) Or 1/4,000 the time it takes you to blink.
The TV lag and controller lag are far, far greater than that anyway.
The rEVOLution is not being televised