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

Forums - Nintendo - Will the next Nintendo handheld have a HD screen?

 

Do you think it will?

Yes 201 63.21%
 
No 117 36.79%
 
Total:318
sc94597 on 07 March 2015
Teddy said:
sc94597 said:

Which was the point I was making from the start. It isn't the higher pixel denisity that makes games more expensive, but the additional assets. If Nintendo chose to, they can use the same assets that they would've used on the 480p screen on a 720p screen, and just put in a better GPU that is capable. Handheld games don't require the same budgets as console games, and that is why you see games with a variety of budgets and differentiating asset levels on handhelds, whereas on a console they would lose to the competition for doing this. But, no, it isn't the higher pixel density which increases costs, it is the more expensive assets which that higher pixel density allows to be produced. 

You said costs were the same, you clearly now have changed your mind and echoed what we were saying in the first place. The higher pixel resolution does make it more expensive because of designing the higher pixel textures. You are talking about pixel density as a just an output display not one which was designed for a game with a higher resolution. Understand my night sky analogy with many stars resolved you cant put in more detail if you don't have it in the first place by uppering the resolution display, you have to have the detail, this is why games have to be totally redesigned.

I said, if assets remained the same then software development costs would be the same. Please read the original line of quotes. You came in the middle of a dialogue. If you don't design those higher resolution textures, then the costs would remain the same, and the image quality would still benefit (fewer artifacts like aliasing.) And yes, there are cases in which texture resolution exceeds the output capabilities of the platform. Compare Nintendo DS games, for example, to their higher rendered  counterparts in an emulator. You see a lot more detail with the same textures, just because the resolution was increased. 



Around the Network
Teddy on 07 March 2015
sc94597 said:
Teddy said:

You said costs were the same, you clearly now have changed your mind and echoed what we were saying in the first place. The higher pixel resolution does make it more expensive because of designing the higher pixel textures. You are talking about pixel density as a just an output display not one which was designed for a game with a higher resolution. Understand my night sky analogy with many stars resolved you cant put in more detail if you don't have it in the first place by uppering the resolution display, you have to have the detail, this is why games have to be totally redesigned.

I said, if assets remained the same then software development costs would be the same. Please read the original line of quotes. You came in the middle of a dialogue. If you don't design those higher resolution textures, then the costs would remain the same, and the image quality would still benefit (fewer artifacts like aliasing.) And yes, there are cases in which texture resolution exceeds the output capabilities of the platform. Compare Nintendo DS games, for example, to their higher rendered  counterparts in an emulator. You see a lot more detail with the same textures, just because the resolution was increased. 


You don't see any more detail, you have to make more detail. Take a one pixel camera and take a picture of your city you cant add any more detail because it isn't there to begin with. You just have a coloured dot, rendering at 1080p, that's why your example up above is just mostly blocks of colour like a paint fill  sure the edges are smoother due to higher display. The same is said for decreasing screen size with same pixel resolution would look better and increasing screen size worse because pixel size is physically bigger or smaller.

Take a look here and see what we mean about redesigning. The costs and time increase.

http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/Black_Mesa:About_the_Mod



sc94597 on 07 March 2015
Teddy said:

You don't see any more detail, you have to make more detail. Take a one pixel camera and take a picture of your city you cant add any more detail.

Take a look here and see what we mean.

http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/Black_Mesa:About_the_Mod

Low resolutions can obscure detail. So yes, you do see more detail when you increase the resolution, if said assets already exceeded what was visible with a low resolution display. It doesn't matter if my PS4 is rendering Killzone if I am playing it at 240p, for example. You won't see it with such a horrible image quality. There is an argument for higher resolutions for the sole purpose that they improve image quality. This argument is separate from the argument that higher resolutions allow you to also have higher resolution textures, more complex geometry, and more /better assets overall. 



Wman1996 on 07 March 2015

I really do not think so, and this is why:
GBC - Roughly on par with NES Graphics
GBA - Roughly on par with SNES Graphics
DS - Noticeably better than most N64 Graphics
3DS- Hard to gauge, but probably weaker than the Wii, making it right around GameCube graphics

So if that trend continues, would it be logical for the 9th generation Nintendo portable to have an HD screen? Signs point to no. On top of that, the Playstation Vita is an 8th generation portable and even it is not HD.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 159 million (was 73 million, then 96 million, then 113 million, then 125 million, then 144 million, then 151 million, then 156 million, then 161 million)

PS5: 116 million (was 105 million, then 115 million, then 122 million)

Xbox Series X/S: 38 million (was 60 million, then 67 million, then 57 million. then 48 million. then 40 million)

Switch 2: 120 million (was 116 million)

PS4: 120 mil (was 100 then 130 million, then 122 million) Xbox One: 51 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

Teddy on 07 March 2015
sc94597 said:
Teddy said:

You don't see any more detail, you have to make more detail. Take a one pixel camera and take a picture of your city you cant add any more detail.

Take a look here and see what we mean.

http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/Black_Mesa:About_the_Mod

Low resolutions can obscure detail. So yes, you do see more detail when you increase the resolution, if said assets already exceeded what was visible with a low resolution display. It doesn't matter if my PS4 is rendering Killzone if I am playing it at 240p, for example. You won't see it with such a horrible image quality. There is an argument for higher resolutions for the sole purpose that they improve image quality. This argument is separate from the argument that higher resolutions allow you to also have higher resolution textures, more complex geometry, and more /better assets overall. 

Not really all you did was make the pixel look smaller same as if you made screen tiny it looks better too because the pixel is smaller. That's why small resolution displays are small in size to make pixel small, thats all you did, nothing increased in detail just pixel densities changed. A higher resolution game if it is worth its salt is ggoing to have higher textures resolutions not low texture resolutions. The only limit to this is if the hardware handles it  in case of PS4 and Xbone resolutions had to be downed to 900p because hardware couldn't handle it. We could go on all day but costs do increase if you want the detail, it isnt acceptable to just make do at lower res and render it higher because the detail isnt there.



Around the Network
sc94597 on 07 March 2015
Teddy said:
sc94597 said:

Low resolutions can obscure detail. So yes, you do see more detail when you increase the resolution, if said assets already exceeded what was visible with a low resolution display. It doesn't matter if my PS4 is rendering Killzone if I am playing it at 240p, for example. You won't see it with such a horrible image quality. There is an argument for higher resolutions for the sole purpose that they improve image quality. This argument is separate from the argument that higher resolutions allow you to also have higher resolution textures, more complex geometry, and more /better assets overall. 

Not really all you did was make the pixel look smaller same as if you made screen tiny it looks better too because the pixel is smaller. That's why small resolution displays are small in size to make pixel small, thats all you did, nothing increased in detail. 

I'm confused on which part of my post you are addressing, when you say, "all you did was make the pixel look smaller." Anyway, since we are talking about pixel density, the size of the display doesn't matter. If you are addressing my Killzone claim, it also has the a priori assumption that we are talking about the same display, otherwise 240p and 1080p are meaningless. 



Teddy on 07 March 2015
sc94597 said:
Teddy said:

Not really all you did was make the pixel look smaller same as if you made screen tiny it looks better too because the pixel is smaller. That's why small resolution displays are small in size to make pixel small, thats all you did, nothing increased in detail. 

I'm confused on which part of my post you are addressing, when you say, "all you did was make the pixel look smaller." Anyway, since we are talking about pixel density, the size of the display doesn't matter. If you are addressing my Killzone claim, it also has the a priori assumption that we are talking about the same display, otherwise 240p and 1080p are meaningless. 

Of course the screen size matter, what planet are you on? Screen size has everything to do with pixel density. If the screen size is increased you have to increase number of pixels to keep pixel density.



sc94597 on 07 March 2015
Teddy said:
sc94597 said:

I'm confused on which part of my post you are addressing, when you say, "all you did was make the pixel look smaller." Anyway, since we are talking about pixel density, the size of the display doesn't matter. If you are addressing my Killzone claim, it also has the a priori assumption that we are talking about the same display, otherwise 240p and 1080p are meaningless. 

Of course the screen size matter, what planet are you on? Screen size has everything to do with pixel density.

Pixel DENSITY already considers screen size, was my point. 240 ppi is the same on a 50 inch display as it is on a 2 inch display. The total number of pixels differ though. 



Teddy on 07 March 2015
sc94597 said:
Teddy said:

Of course the screen size matter, what planet are you on? Screen size has everything to do with pixel density.

Pixel DENSITY already considers screen size, was my point. 240 ppi is the same on a 50 inch display as it is on a 2 inch display. The total number of pixels differ though. 

There are more pixels on a 50 inch screen, 50x240, on a two inche screen only 2x240. Pixels are the same size though.

Size of screen matters if the resolution is the same. So screen size matters for a handheld a great deal.

I gave up you are a constant drain trying to explain everything as everytime you shift goalposts and edit out my comments to suit another side argument.

The facts are costs increase end of.



sc94597 on 07 March 2015
Teddy said:
sc94597 said:

Pixel DENSITY already considers screen size, was my point. 240 ppi is the same on a 50 inch display as it is on a 2 inch display. The total number of pixels differ though. 

There are more pixels on a 50 inch screen, 50x240, on a two inche screen only 2x240. Pixels are the same size though.

Size of screen matters if the resolution is the same. So screen size matters for a handheld a great deal.

I gave up you are a constant drain trying to explain everything as everytime you shift goalposts and edit out my comments to suit another side argument.

The facts are costs increase end of.

I already mentioned there would be more pixels.

Yes, and we weren't talking about screen size until you mentioned it. What do you mean I'm shifting goal posts? Please go re-read the dialogue. If the ONLY thing you do is change resolution the games will not cost more was my original claim, and you conceded to that. You then went on about texture resolution, and such, which we weren't speaking of. There is still a difference if we increased the resolution of a game, without affecting assets. This difference is seen by reduced aliasing and other artifacts. I don't see how that is hard to understand. 

 

edit: By the way, I edit out your old posts, beacause that is forum rules. Walls are not allowed.