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

Forums - Nintendo - Wii U games Resolution and fps talk. We need to clarify something.

FrancisNobleman on 24 September 2013
Eddie_Raja said:

Yes you are the only one, because nearly everything you said is misinformed and wrong.  

very well explained sir, thank you for your knowlegdeable input.



Around the Network
JoeTheBro on 24 September 2013
FrancisNobleman said:

No shit. 

now if people could actually read what I've posted like 3 times already, and the updated OP.

THAT'D BE GREAT.

I'm not claiming any numbers, I didn't even do any research, so if the final numbers is 768p as some educated guess is above, or is smaller or bigger, I think the base point here that deserves discussion is:

is it valid to add the gamepad into the equation on resolution and fps when comparing multiplatform titles ?

Can we move onto that discussion ?

No. Not in the slightest.



Links

snowdog on 24 September 2013
JoeTheBro said:
FrancisNobleman said:
JoeTheBro said:

It depends on the game. This isn't just a one variable thing like you seem to be thinking.

just go with the example of zombiu then. If now sony came up with a copy of the gamepad for the ps3, would the console run the exact same game as it is on the wii u ? I bet it would be nearly impossible.

Well I already know that the Wii U is a lot stronger than current gen, but yes the PS3 could handle rendering this if it was designed for two screen output.



Probably not in 720p native and definitely not with that quality of realtime dynamic lighting and shadows and without downscaled models.

The game has its faults but the lighting is definitely 'next gen', as are the character models. You can see that they're high poly.



Dr.EisDrachenJaeger on 24 September 2013
JoeTheBro said:
FrancisNobleman said:

No shit. 

now if people could actually read what I've posted like 3 times already, and the updated OP.

THAT'D BE GREAT.

I'm not claiming any numbers, I didn't even do any research, so if the final numbers is 768p as some educated guess is above, or is smaller or bigger, I think the base point here that deserves discussion is:

is it valid to add the gamepad into the equation on resolution and fps when comparing multiplatform titles ?

Can we move onto that discussion ?

No. Not in the slightest.


Yeah, but the original point  rom this muddled haphazard discourse is  the machine is rendering data twice;outputting it to as many devices as possible. So yes its running on Magic Unicorn Tears.



lt_dan_27 on 24 September 2013
FrancisNobleman said:
JoeTheBro said:
FrancisNobleman said:
lt_dan_27 said:

So now you're going to say that my entire argument isn't valid because I added a TRUE side note? Yes you're right that sometimes acutal things are displayed, but more often than not, it's things like secondary screens, mini-maps etc. Basically stuff that would generally be shown as HUD. But any ways, let's assume, that for some reason they display actual gameplay of a shooter on both screens, the main screen at 720p and the tablet at 480p, it STILL isn't 1200p! 720p+ 480p is barely better than 768p. let's do the math, 640x480=307200 pixels + 1280x720=921600. Those two together equals 1,228,800pixels. 768p is 1365x768=1,048,320 pixels. Now, I'm sure you're proficient in math and everything, but to make you not have to pull out your calcuator, the wiiu res would be only 17.2% higher than 768p. For reference, you/the OP(sorry I'm not sure if you're the op or not), 1200p is 1920x1200=2,073,600 pixels or 97.8% higher than 768p. So you can talk all you want about how my argument doesn't work, but unless you can offer math to the contrary that's actually correct, you can either accept that what you believed was wrong, or you can go on living in a fantasy land where the WIIU can play games in a resolution higher than most high end gaming PCs can when the wiiU is packing 4 year old tech that costs maybe $250 to the consumer. 

The gamepad resolution is 854x480 gentleman.

Packs way more punch than standard 480.

No shit. 

now if people could actually read what I've posted like 3 times already, and the updated OP.

THAT'D BE GREAT.

I'm not claiming any numbers, I didn't even do any research, so if the final numbers is 768p as some educated guess is above, or is smaller or bigger, I think the base point here that deserves discussion is:

is it valid to add the gamepad into the equation on resolution and fps when comparing multiplatform titles ?

Can we move onto that discussion ?


Sorry, I was wrong about the res. When someone says 480p though, I assume the standard idea of 480p. That bumps it up to 1331520. So my orginal argument is still very valid. And, no the discussion that the OP went for was not about if the gamepad should be added in, it was the OP that claimed 1200p because he asserted a claim that made no sense, and then tried to back it up along with other uninformed people for SEVEN PAGES! Not til now did he decide to agree. And no, the gamepad should not always be added in. It should be added in if it's running actual tasks. My PC runs two monitors, one in 1050p and the other in 1080, but I don't say that I'm gaming in 3600x2130. If it's actually running something (which the gamepad rarely is), then yes it should be.  There, your question has been answered. 



Around the Network
Dr.EisDrachenJaeger on 24 September 2013

^ Well he's just trying to distinguish what the machine is working on.

See cause the thing does 1080 p then it either renders that again and outputs to the gamepad or it renders something else and outputs that to the gamepad



JoeTheBro on 24 September 2013
Dr.EisDrachenJaeger said:
^ Well he's just trying to distinguish what the machine is working on.

See cause the thing does 1080 p then it either renders that again and outputs to the gamepad or it renders something else and outputs that to the gamepad

The second screen does need extra power to calculate, but in most standard cases this extra power is minimal compared to what is rendering the main screen. That's what the op and most people are having problems understanding. Doing COD with a different player on each screen? Yeah that's taking up a lot of resources. Practically every other use isn't.



Links

Dr.EisDrachenJaeger on 24 September 2013

Yeah, thats why they halve the framerate when you have two gamepads connected



DonFerrari on 24 September 2013

Just one small question... What is the logic of saying the console send a 1080p resolution image (diferent than the one going to the screen) to the 480p gamepad when even on the big screen a lot of games aren't even 1080p???



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Eddie_Raja on 24 September 2013
FrancisNobleman said:
JoeTheBro said:
FrancisNobleman said:
lt_dan_27 said:

So now you're going to say that my entire argument isn't valid because I added a TRUE side note? Yes you're right that sometimes acutal things are displayed, but more often than not, it's things like secondary screens, mini-maps etc. Basically stuff that would generally be shown as HUD. But any ways, let's assume, that for some reason they display actual gameplay of a shooter on both screens, the main screen at 720p and the tablet at 480p, it STILL isn't 1200p! 720p+ 480p is barely better than 768p. let's do the math, 640x480=307200 pixels + 1280x720=921600. Those two together equals 1,228,800pixels. 768p is 1365x768=1,048,320 pixels. Now, I'm sure you're proficient in math and everything, but to make you not have to pull out your calcuator, the wiiu res would be only 17.2% higher than 768p. For reference, you/the OP(sorry I'm not sure if you're the op or not), 1200p is 1920x1200=2,073,600 pixels or 97.8% higher than 768p. So you can talk all you want about how my argument doesn't work, but unless you can offer math to the contrary that's actually correct, you can either accept that what you believed was wrong, or you can go on living in a fantasy land where the WIIU can play games in a resolution higher than most high end gaming PCs can when the wiiU is packing 4 year old tech that costs maybe $250 to the consumer. 

The gamepad resolution is 854x480 gentleman.

Packs way more punch than standard 480.

No shit. 

now if people could actually read what I've posted like 3 times already, and the updated OP.

THAT'D BE GREAT.

I'm not claiming any numbers, I didn't even do any research, so if the final numbers is 768p as some educated guess is above, or is smaller or bigger, I think the base point here that deserves discussion is:

is it valid to add the gamepad into the equation on resolution and fps when comparing multiplatform titles ?

Can we move onto that discussion ?

No.  Kinect uses some processing power when the camera is in use, and as such Kinect-Heavy games have reduced graphics fidelity (Hence the cartoony games).  It doesn't matter how Nintendo spends their computational resources.  When we talk about graphics, we are talking about the main display.  

 

End of Thread.



Prediction for console Lifetime sales:

Wii:100-120 million, PS3:80-110 million, 360:70-100 million

[Prediction Made 11/5/2009]

3DS: 65m, PSV: 22m, Wii U: 18-22m, PS4: 80-120m, X1: 35-55m

I gauruntee the PS5 comes out after only 5-6 years after the launch of the PS4.

[Prediction Made 6/18/2014]