Am I the only one not impressed with the screen?

[flameboy]

Ok so the Wii U came out here and there are demo pods all over the place. I've played on one and whilst yes I enjoyed the experience. I thought the screen was terrible, much smaller than I'd thought (for the record I've never read up on the actual dimensions) it would be. Compared to the screen on my HTC One X and budget chinese android tablet (£129.99 IPS 7" screen) the screen looks horrendous and I can't imagine playing games that are meant to be in a HD full TV screen resolution on it.

 

Where it does work is scrolling in through big chunky menus etc... It looks good easy to use. Anything smaller or precise I can't imagine working well. Also I guess just not used to using resistive screen today and it feels so clunky. I mean really could they not have but a capacitive screen in? Especially at that size...costs going down all the time. They are kind of stuck where they are with not having two analogue nubs on the 3DS it's an upgrade they can't make as it fragments the user base.

[Serebii]

Ok so the Wii U came out here and there are demo pods all over the place. I've played on one and whilst yes I enjoyed the experience. I thought the screen was terrible, much smaller than I'd thought (for the record I've never read up on the actual dimensions) it would be. Compared to the screen on my HTC One X and budget chinese android tablet (£129.99 IPS 7" screen) the screen looks horrendous and I can't imagine playing games that are meant to be in a HD full TV screen resolution on it.

 

Where it does work is scrolling in through big chunky menus etc... It looks good easy to use. Anything smaller or precise I can't imagine working well. Also I guess just not used to using resistive screen today and it feels so clunky. I mean really could they not have but a capacitive screen in? Especially at that size...costs going down all the time. They are kind of stuck where they are with not having two analogue nubs on the 3DS it's an upgrade they can't make as it fragments the user base.

Problem is that those devices run absurdly high resolutions in absurdly low screen sizes so things will always look crystal clear on them as opposed to the GamePad which has a similar DPI to the 3DS XL.

 

The screen IS big, but with such a large border around it of the gamepad, it appears smaller

[Dcubed]

The resistive screen is necessary for stylus based games. You couldn't play something like Kid Icarus Uprising or Kirby Mass Attack with a capacitive screen because it's too slow and inaccurate (oh and before anyone bothers to point out capacitive styli, like the Galaxy Note one, don't; those styli are not the same as the normal ones you're used to. They're like crayons and have big fat tips that are not accurate at all)

 

If they release a new Trauma Center game, you'll be thanking Nintendo for choosing resistive over capacitive

Edited November 20, 2012 by Dcubed

[Cube]

The resistive screen is necessary for stylus based games. You couldn't play something like Kid Icarus Uprising or Kirby Mass Attack with a capacitive screen because it's too slow and inaccurate

 

They could use a Wacom-based stylus like the Galaxy Note (which does not use one of those crayon-like ones you mentioned).

 

However, that will increase costs and the pen itself would be expensive.

[khilafah]

I for one won't be playing my games on the gamepad screen.

 

I honestly don't see the attraction of playing games on a low resolution screen when I have a large HDTV ready to be used instead.

[Ronnie]

What were you expecting, Nintendo to pointlessly include an ultra sharp, high res multitouch IPS screen?

[Zechs Merquise]

As @Dcubed said, resistive and capacitive touch screens are both good for different things.

 

Resistive screens are better for stylus use and are generally more accurate. Capacitive screens are more responsive to touch and gestures but are far less accurate. As games require precision the resistive screen was the best way to go, it's also cheaper.

 

What's more, the reason phones and tablets have multi-touch is because they don't have buttons or sticks to complement the screen - they are essentially touch only devices. The casual observer will have noticed an array of buttons and sticks surrounding the gamepad's screen!

 

And before anyone begins crying that Nintendo could have used a really expensive screen and increased the resolution or done a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 on the gamepad - just think of the price.

 

A Galaxy Note goes for around £450 to £500 without a contract. The Wii U is selling for £250 to £300 and Nintendo are already making a loss. People on gaming forums might want all the incredible tech in the world packed into one console, but the average guy on the street doesn't want to pay that kind of premium for a new console.

 

Just look at the PS3, it launched for $599 and Sony made a ~$300 loss on every unit. Basically for Sony to have broke even on the PS3 they would have needed to sell at $899 (and they still wouldn't have made a profit).

 

It's all well and good making a wish list, but tech doesn't come for free!

 

[Dcubed]

What were you expecting, Nintendo to pointlessly include an ultra sharp, high res multitouch IPS screen?

 

To be fair, the Wii U and 3DS/XL do use IPS screens.

[Daft]

It would be nice if they offered a delux-type alternative. I'll always pay a premium for a better screen but it shouldn't be forced on anyone. With all these high resolution screens everywhere it's now so noticeable going back to a budget display.

[Dcubed]

It would be nice if they offered a delux-type alternative. I'll always pay a premium for a better screen but it shouldn't be forced on anyone. With all these high resolution screens everywhere it's now so noticeable going back to a budget display.

 

The problem with using a higher resolution screen with the Wii U though is the streaming video. It's a miracle that they're even able to do sub 16ms latency with a 480p 60FPS stream!

 

Bumping that up to say a 720p screen would probably be impossible (not to mention also a much larger drain on the system's GPU) It's not a matter of it being cheap, so much as being feasible.

[Lens of Truth]

I thought the screen looked remarkably crisp playing Donkey Kong's Crash Course (maybe more than the badly calibrated TV ). One thing I did notice during Mario though was the slight digital artifacting around his red cap that's mentioned in the Eurogamer article. A minor problem to be sure. [i wonder what it is about saturated reds that causes such trouble for digital compression - it's something that's been an issue going all the way back to the beginning of dvd]

 

I'm also someone who would've paid another hundred or two for a few luxuries and a slightly more robust spec, but I think what they've achieved with the Wii U is a good balancing act. Time will tell how the system really is to live with, and whether they've hit the sweet spot in terms of performance, flexibility, price, appeal and development costs.

[Daft]

The problem with using a higher resolution screen with the Wii U though is the streaming video. It's a miracle that they're even able to do sub 16ms latency with a 480p 60FPS stream!

 

Bumping that up to say a 720p screen would probably be impossible (not to mention also a much larger drain on the system's GPU) It's not a matter of it being cheap, so much as being feasible.

 

I'm not massively fussed, tbh. Playing WiiU games on the controller isn't a feature I think I'll use. I've got a Vita to fill my sofa surfing beautiful screen needs, too.

 

Also, is latency really that hard to achieve on that scale? I tried Gaikai at work (so it had an immense internet collection) and I didn't notice any latency at all. Might have helped it was a racing game (Need for Speed, I think) but considering that was across teh internet, between the WiiU and the controller couldn't be that hard surely?

[Zechs Merquise]

Time will tell how the system really is to live with, and whether they've hit the sweet spot in terms of performance, flexibility, price, appeal and development costs.

 

Development costs are going to be a huge problem for developers, especially early on in the next gen consoles' lifespans. Epic have already stated that dev costs will at least double next gen for the 720/PS4. This is going to seriously hurt the industry - just look at what's happened this generation with devs struggling.

 

I hope the Wii U offers cheaper development costs and attracts 3rd parties through lower costs.

[Cube]

Also, is latency really that hard to achieve on that scale?

 

It's faster than most TV screens.

[Dcubed]

I'm not massively fussed, tbh. Playing WiiU games on the controller isn't a feature I think I'll use. I've got a Vita to fill my sofa surfing beautiful screen needs, too.

 

Also, is latency really that hard to achieve on that scale? I tried Gaikai at work (so it had an immense internet collection) and I didn't notice any latency at all. Might have helped it was a racing game (Need for Speed, I think) but considering that was across teh internet, between the WiiU and the controller couldn't be that hard surely?

 

It is that hard. You wouldn't really notice it as much with a racing game, because your inputs are fairly limited (and Gaikai only does 30FPS video), but with a shooter, latency is much more noticeable (at least it was when I tried out Onlive and Gaikai) - to the point where I would be tempted to call it unplayable.

 

Consider that most games on the 360 have between 66ms-100ms of input latency + 50ms-120ms of input/upscaling lag for the HDTV, and you'll start to see how much of an accomplishment it is.

 

Here's a video example of how the Wii U Gamepad streaming is actually faster than the TV that the console is connected to!

 

Edited November 20, 2012 by Dcubed

[Lens of Truth]

Development costs are going to be a huge problem for developers, especially early on in the next gen consoles' lifespans. Epic have already stated that dev costs will at least double next gen for the 720/PS4. This is going to seriously hurt the industry - just look at what's happened this generation with devs struggling.

 

I hope the Wii U offers cheaper development costs and attracts 3rd parties through lower costs.

Yes, this is what worries me. The odd thing is, it doesn't seem to have recalibrated priorities outside of Nintendo and a few of the more upfront third parties (admittedly it's really too early to tell). Everything seems to point to Sony and Microsoft putting out subsidised monster machines and all the big third party players quietly beavering away on exorbitant mindblowing "AAAA" blockbusters.

 

It was refreshing to hear Ubisoft be so candid about the problem recently and I think that's why they're giving the Wii U strong support. As for the rest, who knows?!

[Daft]

It is that hard. You wouldn't really notice it as much with a racing game, because your inputs are fairly limited (and Gaikai only does 30FPS video), but with a shooter, latency is much more noticeable (at least it was when I tried out Onlive and Gaikai) - to the point where I would be tempted to call it unplayable.

 

Consider that most games on the 360 have between 66ms-100ms of input latency + 50ms-120ms of input/upscaling lag for the HDTV, and you'll start to see how much of an accomplishment it is.

 

Here's a video example of how the Wii U Gamepad streaming is actually faster than the TV that the console is connected to!

 

 

But surely if it can stream that fast then there's enough margin for upping the resolution? The latency doesn't need to be that fast.

[heroicjanitor]

I'll take a wild stab at the max

 

600 Mb/s is the max for 802.11n wireless standard

 

854×480 = 409,920 pixels transferred. 16? bits per pixel is 16 x 409,920 = 6,558,720 bits transferred. 600,000,000 / 6,558,720 = 91.48 times per second. 10.93ms per frame is the best rate?? So 16ms per frame is pretty close to that. If they wanted to increase the screen size to 720p then 1280 x 720 = 921,600. 921,600 / 409,920 = 2.2 times more data transferred so it would be a minimum of 24.046ms latency. Probably 30ms since they didn't quite get the minimum in the earlier one.

 

From this quick maths session which is probably extremely naive and wrong due to other techniques like compression and stuff I'm not aware of, I can conclude that it is mainly the price of the controller they are taking into account. FURTHER NOTE: This is almost certainly wrong due to the stuff I said one sentence ago :p

 

Edit: Does the controller have its own processor actually? If not it can't decompress really so maybe I am right :s

[flameboy]

The resistive screen is necessary for stylus based games. You couldn't play something like Kid Icarus Uprising or Kirby Mass Attack with a capacitive screen because it's too slow and inaccurate (oh and before anyone bothers to point out capacitive styli, like the Galaxy Note one, don't; those styli are not the same as the normal ones you're used to. They're like crayons and have big fat tips that are not accurate at all)

 

If they release a new Trauma Center game, you'll be thanking Nintendo for choosing resistive over capacitive

 

I'm not so sure that's true. I've had far more problems with DS games on that screen than any games on my phone/tablet.

 

What were you expecting, Nintendo to pointlessly include an ultra sharp, high res multitouch IPS screen?

 

Well yeah....so it's actually a worthy alternative to playing on the TV.

 

It would be nice if they offered a delux-type alternative. I'll always pay a premium for a better screen but it shouldn't be forced on anyone. With all these high resolution screens everywhere it's now so noticeable going back to a budget display.

 

Yes exactly...

 

I'm not massively fussed, tbh. Playing WiiU games on the controller isn't a feature I think I'll use. I've got a Vita to fill my sofa surfing beautiful screen needs, too.

 

As I've said in the Handheld boards my gaming habits are changing away from being able to outright sit in front of a tv all the time. That's why the Wii U did appeal, but I think I might hold out till there are more games etc... Considering picking up a cheap second hand 3DS instead for now.

[Aneres11]

Hmm. The game pad has a screen. It adds a new element / play style to home console gaming not yet seen before.

This will allow new gameplay elements and extra depth / immersion in a gaming experience if done correctly.

 

Nintendo also thought they'd go a step further and allow you to play some games on the game pad itself! That's compress the whole game that runs on your TV - down onto a smaller, tablet style screen.

 

That means you can lie in bed and continue to play COD, or Mario whilst the TV is used by someone else. Hell, you can even take a shit and play a CONSOLE version of Mario.

 

It runs smoothly, has no slow down or input lag (from the impressions i've read / vids i've seen), and yet it seems it's a disappointment and could have been so much more?

 

I'm a bit confused.

[Serebii]

Hmm. The game pad has a screen. It adds a new element / play style to home console gaming not yet seen before.

This will allow new gameplay elements and extra depth / immersion in a gaming experience if done correctly.

 

Nintendo also thought they'd go a step further and allow you to play some games on the game pad itself! That's compress the whole game that runs on your TV - down onto a smaller, tablet style screen.

 

That means you can lie in bed and continue to play COD, or Mario whilst the TV is used by someone else. Hell, you can even take a shit and play a CONSOLE version of Mario.

 

It runs smoothly, has no slow down or input lag (from the impressions i've read / vids i've seen), and yet it seems it's a disappointment and could have been so much more?

 

I'm a bit confused.

Could have had a 1080p screen :p

[Daft]

Hmm. The game pad has a screen. It adds a new element / play style to home console gaming not yet seen before.

This will allow new gameplay elements and extra depth / immersion in a gaming experience if done correctly.

 

Nintendo also thought they'd go a step further and allow you to play some games on the game pad itself! That's compress the whole game that runs on your TV - down onto a smaller, tablet style screen.

 

That means you can lie in bed and continue to play COD, or Mario whilst the TV is used by someone else. Hell, you can even take a shit and play a CONSOLE version of Mario.

 

It runs smoothly, has no slow down or input lag (from the impressions i've read / vids i've seen), and yet it seems it's a disappointment and could have been so much more?

 

I'm a bit confused.

 

What's to be confused about? There aren't any contradictions there. It functions, quite well by all accounts, but could have been better (bigger/better screen, higher contrast, better touch screen, etc).

 

Like I said, HD screens (this whole 'retina' thing apple bang on about (fuck you, iPad Mini, btw)) are now fairly standard it's not unfair to be disappointed by the controller screen. Eurogamer point out that the controller wouldn't even cost that much to manufacture; 'In a world where Chinese manufacturers can sell complete Android tablets with capacitive touch-screens for £50, it's safe to say that the Wii U GamePad won't be costing Nintendo too much to construct.' The console is fairly pricey too for what it offers power wise so it's a little biting that the controller had room to have a little more invested in it.

 

Anyway, what's the problem, the WiiU isn't perfect. Technology rarely is, especially when it's launched. People are allowed to have gripes and this is a legitimate one that may bother some people.

 

Personally, the only thing that's really bothering me is the loading times, they sound horrendous.

[Zechs Merquise]

The console is fairly pricey too for what it offers power wise so it's a little biting that the controller had room to have a little more invested in it.

 

If people think the Wii U is pricey they're going to love it if Sony and MS put out machines that can compete with top of the range gaming PCs!

 

Remember, Nintendo is selling the console at a loss. I could understand the issue of price if they were making $50 off every unit sold, but that simply isn't the case!

[Serebii]

Like I said, HD screens (this whole 'retina' thing apple bang on about (fuck you, iPad Mini, btw)) are now fairly standard it's not unfair to be disappointed by the controller screen. Eurogamer point out that the controller wouldn't even cost that much to manufacture; 'In a world where Chinese manufacturers can sell complete Android tablets with capacitive touch-screens for £50, it's safe to say that the Wii U GamePad won't be costing Nintendo too much to construct.' The console is fairly pricey too for what it offers power wise so it's a little biting that the controller had room to have a little more invested in it.

 

 

May not cost too much more to construct, but the Wii U GamePad's content is generated seperately to the TV screen. It doesn't just mirror it. As such, if they were to make it HD, they'd have to throw even more power into the console which would make it even more expensive than it already is

[Daft]

May not cost too much more to construct, but the Wii U GamePad's content is generated seperately to the TV screen. It doesn't just mirror it. As such, if they were to make it HD, they'd have to throw even more power into the console which would make it even more expensive than it already is

 

Then why not make everyone happy; use an HD screen for the two screen mode use the lower resolution and then when you want to play just using the pad, it ups the resolution to HD.

 

Not to mention, as developers get used to the system they'll be able to code it more efficiently and squeeze more power out of it.

 

Also, I find it hard to believe they're losing money on a £300 console using tech that's far from state-of-the-art.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Daft