Nintendo Next Gen Handheld

[Mandalore]

For whatever their next handheld might be, I'd like to seem them expand and improve upon the StreetPass functionality. Oh, and get rid of that extremely crappy coins for steps system. The pedometer could be put to much better use.

[Guy]

Next system needs to be a handheld with a better screen, 720p at least, with two slidepads and a faster/more capable OS. The device should also be able to stream to the TV using some fancy wireless tech and you can use the system as the controller.

 

It should also maintain backwards compatibility with the entire DS library, possibly with those displaying nicely on the TV too. Doubt that'd look any good though so just restricting that to the handheld could happen. Be nice if it didn't.

 

Nintendo would probably slowly phase out home/portable markets and just focus on a single system that can do both well.

 

None of this will happen though, but we'll still buy one.

 

[edit]

 

I changed some of the post around.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Guy

[Pestneb]

Next system needs to be a handheld with a better screen, 720p at least, with two slidepads and a faster/more capable OS. The device should also be able to stream to the TV using some fancy wireless tech and you can use the system as the controller.

 

It should also maintain backwards compatibility with the entire DS library, possibly with those displaying nicely on the TV too. Doubt that'd look any good though so just restricting that to the handheld could happen. Be nice if it didn't.

 

Nintendo would probably slowly phase out home/portable markets and just focus on a single system that can do both well.

 

None of this will happen though, but we'll still buy one.

 

[edit]

 

I changed some of the post around.

 

The screen resolution isn't an issue, really, is it? I just checked on my xl, and yes, if I concentrate I can just about make out the pixels at a plausible playing distance. But I do have to look for them, and if I'm doing that there is either a problem with me or the game I'm playing

 

The screen size could do with increasing, they seem to do this with each new handheld so a good chance of that, and therefore yes the resolution needs to improve in proportion with the physical screen size to maintain the ppi. I haven't got a regular ds to verify this, but I imagine the ppi on that is reasonably good?

 

as for the backwards compatibility - that would be great, but I don't see it happening, 1 generation backwards compatible seems to be a maximum now. The rest will be accessible only through VC I imagine.

 

TV play is a good idea, if nothing else perhaps they could create an app for the Wii U and it's successor so they can act as home hubs should you wish to play handheld games on the tv screen. They announced DS titles for WiiU so on tv display shouldn't be a huge issue.

[liger05]

The screen resolution isn't an issue, really, is it? I just checked on my xl, and yes, if I concentrate I can just about make out the pixels at a plausible playing distance. But I do have to look for them, and if I'm doing that there is either a problem with me or the game I'm playing

 

The screen size could do with increasing, they seem to do this with each new handheld so a good chance of that, and therefore yes the resolution needs to improve in proportion with the physical screen size to maintain the ppi. I haven't got a regular ds to verify this, but I imagine the ppi on that is reasonably good?

 

as for the backwards compatibility - that would be great, but I don't see it happening, 1 generation backwards compatible seems to be a maximum now. The rest will be accessible only through VC I imagine.

 

TV play is a good idea, if nothing else perhaps they could create an app for the Wii U and it's successor so they can act as home hubs should you wish to play handheld games on the tv screen. They announced DS titles for WiiU so on tv display shouldn't be a huge issue.

 

The screen resolution is a big issue. It's way too low on the 3DS.

 

Playing Zen Pinball is a great example of why the resolution is too low.

[Serebii]

The screen resolution is a big issue. It's way too low on the 3DS.

 

Playing Zen Pinball is a great example of why the resolution is too low.

I have never looked at a 3DS game and thought "The resolution is way too low". Even on the XL, the games on the system are glorious looking.

[Sheikah]

Performance is a good enough reason to eschew the kinds of ludicrous resolutions that you see in high end mobiles. These devices aren't even powerful enough to run the kinds of 3D games you'd expect from a handheld device anyway - so they end up having to drop the rendering resolution - making the high res screen a complete waste (see Vita for the same problem with almost every 3D game released on it)

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that most devices with at least 720p (HD) screens can't even run 3D games decently at that level? Because that is most untrue. Especially regarding the Vita - FFX HD, Gravity Rush, Killzone and Soul Sacrifice all show you can very easily run 3D games at the resolution it has (which is almost 720p). I'm playing FFX HD at the moment in fact, and I can tell you it runs brilliantly (don't bring up other dodgy ports to make a case here).

 

Technology has basically moved to the point where even my cheap Nexus 4 (which was selling at £130 a year after release) can run many 3D games really well.

 

In this day and age tons of devices can easily run games at HD/near-HD resolutions. If Nintendo didn't at least have a 720p screen on their next handheld device they would be crucified. Seriously - in this day and age that would not be good enough.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Sheikah

[Serebii]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that most devices with at least 720p (HD) screens can't even run 3D games decently at that level? Because that is most untrue. Especially regarding the Vita - FFX HD, Gravity Rush, Killzone and Soul Sacrifice all show you can very easily run 3D games at the resolution it has (which is almost 720p). I'm playing FFX HD at the moment in fact, and I can tell you it runs brilliantly (don't bring up other dodgy ports to make a case here).

 

Technology has basically moved to the point where even my cheap Nexus 4 (which was selling at £130 a year after release) can run many 3D games really well.

 

In this day and age tons of devices can easily run games at HD/near-HD resolutions. If Nintendo didn't at least have a 720p screen on their next handheld device they would be crucified. Seriously - in this day and age that would not be good enough.

Vita is 960 × 544. That's not almost 720p. It's far closer to 480p.

[Sheikah]

Vita is 960 × 544. That's not almost 720p. It's far closer to 480p.

 

It's a lot higher than 480p dude. If you look at a game on Vita it has the appearance of an HD game due to the smaller than TV screen size. I suppose pixel density can also be used to argue HD here since screen size can change.

 

Still, what say you to cheap phones easily capable of playing popular 3D games (even if it was just 720p that would be enough), that only cost around £130 or so?

 

Also Vita will be rather old by the time the next Nintendo handheld hits. I would expect at least 720p on the next slew of handheld devices. There's really no reason why not, and we can at least say one thing - right now, the 3DS XL screen resolution is really bad.

[Serebii]

It's a lot higher than 480p dude. If you look at a game on Vita it has the appearance of an HD game due to the smaller than TV screen size. I suppose pixel density can also be used to argue HD here since screen size can change.

 

Still, what say you to cheap phones easily capable of playing popular 3D games (even if it was just 720p that would be enough), that only cost around £130 or so?

 

Also Vita will be rather old by the time the next Nintendo handheld hits. I would expect at least 720p on the next slew of handheld devices. There's really no reason why not, and we can at least say one thing - right now, the 3DS XL screen resolution is really bad.

480p = 853 x 480 = 409,440 pixels total

Vita = 960 × 544 = 522,240 pixels total

720p = 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels total

 

The Vita is not "a lot higher" and it's nowhere near HD. It's just, as you said, it has that appearance because of a small screen, which furthers the point that it doesn't have to be HD to succeed or look great.

[Dcubed]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that most devices with at least 720p (HD) screens can't even run 3D games decently at that level? Because that is most untrue. Especially regarding the Vita - FFX HD, Gravity Rush, Killzone and Soul Sacrifice all show you can very easily run 3D games at the resolution it has (which is almost 720p). I'm playing FFX HD at the moment in fact, and I can tell you it runs brilliantly (don't bring up other dodgy ports to make a case here).

 

Technology has basically moved to the point where even my cheap Nexus 4 (which was selling at £130 a year after release) can run many 3D games really well.

 

In this day and age tons of devices can easily run games at HD/near-HD resolutions. If Nintendo didn't at least have a 720p screen on their next handheld device they would be crucified. Seriously - in this day and age that would not be good enough.

 

Most Vita games (including all of the PS2 ports; yes even FF10 on Vita) don't actually run at the console's native resolution - instead they upscale from a lower resolution to fit the resolution of the display. Soul Sacrifice and FF10 Vita actually both only render at 720 x 408 for instance, which funnily enough is lower than SD (and not that far ahead of the 3DS really, when you account for the fact that 3DS has to render 800x240 - 400x240 x2 for each eye).

 

These games are completely wasting the high quality screen that has been offered to them; that's my point. Why bother having a high resolution screen if the hardware powering it isn't powerful enough to run the games at the resolution of the display (making games look blurry and pixilated) anyway? It's pointless!

Edited April 7, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

@Serebii It is a lot higher (100k pixels is significant at the level we're talking about), and like I said, you're not taking it account perhaps the more pixel density when determining whether something 'looks' HD. A Vita game will look sharper than a 40 inch screen running a PS3 game at 720p.

 

But really this is besides the point. The Nintendo handheld of the future will be a generation ahead of the Vita, so I would expect it to have at least a 720p screen. Especially because 720p is so ordinary by today's standards.

[Zechs Merquise]

It's a lot higher than 480p dude. If you look at a game on Vita it has the appearance of an HD game due to the smaller than TV screen size. I suppose pixel density can also be used to argue HD here since screen size can change.

 

Still, what say you to cheap phones easily capable of playing popular 3D games (even if it was just 720p that would be enough), that only cost around £130 or so?

 

Also Vita will be rather old by the time the next Nintendo handheld hits. I would expect at least 720p on the next slew of handheld devices. There's really no reason why not, and we can at least say one thing - right now, the 3DS XL screen resolution is really bad.

 

Vita screens are nowhere near 720p. I find it odd you're now arguing the point that on smaller screens at different distances you can't tell the difference, when I pointed this out in another thread regarding resolution you said it wasn't the case!

 

So what you're saying is that when MS or Nintendo have a lower resolution screen it's bad, when Sony has a lower resolution screen it's all good!

 

What's more, the Vita's screen is closer to 480p than 720p. If you look at the standard:

 

1280x720 = 921600

960x544 = 522240

853x480 = 409440

 

So @Serebii is correct.

 

What should be the real issue with the Vita screen is the OLED screen which loses its colour levels rapidly and is really prone to ghosting and issues of burn-in.

 

Also, comparing handheld consoles to mobile phones is not really a good comparison for two reasons:

 

1) A top end mobile device, take for example the recently announced Nokia Lumia 930 which has a 1080p screen with an insane pixel density will probably be around £500

2) If you were to purchase that device on a contract you could get it for free, but you would be paying a tariff of around £40 a month for two years - £960.

 

A handheld gaming device would never sell for £500 and I think people would be wary of subsidised subscription plans for that kind of device.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Zechs Merquise

[Sheikah]

Most Vita games (including all of the PS2 ports) don't actually run at the console's native resolution - instead they upscale from a lower resolution to fit the resolution of the display. Soul Sacrifice for instance, actually only renders at 720 x 408, which is actually lower than SD (and not that far ahead of the 3DS really, when you account for the fact that 3DS has to render 800x240 - 400x240 x2 for each eye).

 

These games are completely wasting the high quality screen that has been offered to them; that's my point. Why bother having a high resolution screen if the hardware powering it isn't powerful enough to run the games at the resolution of the display anyway? It's pointless!

 

I don't understand - don't bother because some games aren't caring to make use of it? What about the ones that are/almost are and look great?

 

There will inevitably be a lot of quick and dirty cash turner ports, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth having a decent resolution.

[Dcubed]

I don't understand - don't bother because some games aren't caring to make use of it? What about the ones that are/almost are and look great?

 

There will inevitably be a lot of quick and dirty cash turner ports, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth having a decent resolution.

 

Because almost all non 2D games on Vita are not making use of it. A game that runs at the Vita's native resolution is a rarity, not the norm. 720p on a 4/4.5 odd inch screen is an extravagance that is entirely unnecessary and would actually end up damaging the overall image quality of their future handheld games, while also significantly raising the cost of the hardware.

 

854x480 is the right compromise for Nintendo to make. It's more than good enough at around a 4-4.5 inch size (giving it around the same DPI as the Vita's screen), offering a perfect balance between screen DPI clarity and rendering load and it also just so happens to be the perfect scaling resolution for all Virtual Console releases (there's a good reason why Nintendo picked that specific resolution for the Wii U Gamepad and it wasn't because it was cheap )

 

Nintendo aren't going to choose hardware components because they want to score cheap marketing bulletpoints; they're going to choose the hardware that offers the best overall gaming experience and worry about marketing afterwards.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

Vita screens are nowhere near 720p. I find it odd you're now arguing the point that on smaller screens at different distances you can't tell the difference, when I pointed this out in another thread regarding resolution you said it wasn't the case!

 

So what you're saying is that when MS or Nintendo have a lower resolution screen it's bad, when Sony has a lower resolution screen it's all good!

 

What's more, the Vita's screen is closer to 480p than 720p. If you look at the standard:

 

1280x720 = 921600

960x544 = 522240

800x480 = 384000

 

So @Serebii is correct.

 

What should be the real issue with the Vita screen is the OLED screen which loses its colour levels rapidly and is really prone to ghosting and issues of burn-in.

 

Also, comparing handheld consoles to mobile phones is not really a good comparison for two reasons:

 

1) A top end mobile device, take for example the recently announced Nokia Lumia 930 which has a 1080p screen with an insane pixel density will probably be around £500

2) If you were to purchase that device on a contract you could get it for free, but you would be paying a tariff of around £40 a month for two years - £960.

 

A handheld gaming device would never sell for £500 and I think people would be wary of subsidised subscription plans for that kind of device.

 

I must confess, I hadn't actually realised the Vita resolution was as low as it was, because for all intents and purposes the games look resonably HD. Although it can definitely be improved if they did another handheld.

 

However, my argument has always been for the next slew of consoles - and that 720p should be a standard.

 

I don't know why you're bringing up £500 1080p gaming on mobiles. I'm arguing that phones in the £100-130 region can have gaming at 720p (or perhaps above, I'm not 100% sure). And I said the next handhelds should at least be 720p, not 1080p.

 

Can't believe you dissed the OLED screen though (maybe because you don't have one and are going off things you've heard). For most people, that OLED screen was a big selling point of the first model. It's beautiful. Shame they dropped it really.

 

Because almost all non 2D games on Vita are not making use of it. A game that runs at the Vita'a native resolution is a rarity, not the norm.

 

Even if some run at it, that's purely proof that it is capable and therefore a fault of the game developers (many of which push ports of games that were 4:3 format and to my understanding look weird when put onto the Vita).

 

How much is down to the Vita being unable to actually run games at full/near full resolution, and how much is down to dodgy ports or screen ratio issues?

 

And again, the next handheld will be some years ahead of the Vita in terms of release date. Is 720p too high to hope for on future hardware? I don't think so.

[Zechs Merquise]

Can't believe you dissed the OLED screen though (maybe because you don't have one and are going off things you've heard). For most people, that OLED screen was a big selling point of the first model. It's beautiful. Shame they dropped it really.

 

Yeah, because people love a handheld that suffers from screen burning and ghosting due to OLED. The screen was a cause of major issues and a lot of complaints. It's a good thing they dropped it as I would think most people who buy a handheld would want it to last for years without the screen losing it's fidelity.

 

Even if people haven't suffered from the burning or the ghosting OLED screens lose their colour quicker. It wasn't a good choice of screen, hence why they changed it.

[Sheikah]

The screen was a cause of major issues and a lot of complaints.

 

Yes, in that when it was removed on the next model, it caused complaints.

 

Seriously, this argument will get you nowhere. The OLED screen makes games look fantastic - trying to argue otherwise with someone who plays their Vita all their time ain't going to work. The reason they dropped it was primarily because of the cost.

[Zechs Merquise]

Yes, in that when it was removed on the next model, it caused complaints.

 

Seriously, this argument will get you nowhere. The OLED screen makes games look fantastic - trying to argue otherwise with someone who plays their Vita all their time ain't going to work. The reason they dropped it was primarily because of the cost.

 

Considering the pages of complaints on NeoGaf and other forums about the screen problems, I should imagine many early adopters were seriously pissed off about the problems they were having.

 

However on Sheikah world it is no doubt the best screen ever - YAWN!

[Cube]

The only problem I've heard with the Vita's screen is the "mura", and that's only a problem on black loading screens. The OELD was removed as the new LCD is cheaper and thinner.

[Serebii]

The OLED screen looked fantastic. It was bright, crisp etc.

 

However, it's negligent to ignore the issues with it. It has splotches, burn-in etc.

[Sheikah]

Considering the pages of complaints on NeoGaf and other forums about the screen problems, I should imagine many early adopters were seriously pissed off about the problems they were having.

 

However on Sheikah world it is no doubt the best screen ever - YAWN!

 

Nope! As you can see below from Eurogamer's review of the new Vita slim:

 

Besides the impressive graphical capabilities of the console' date=' [b']it is the Vita's beautiful OLED screen that really makes it stand apart from its contemporaries. Vibrant colours and deep black levels are joined with near-perfect motion handling that is still yet to be matched by any consumer LCD screen.[/b] This is also one of the most expensive components that make up the impressive Vita hardware, and in order to keep the price tag down on the new model is sadly one that had to go. With the PCH-2000 we see the system's trademark OLED screen replaced with what appears to be an IPS panel LCD display, and while the pixel density and 960x540 resolution remains the same, the switch in technology has implications in other areas regarding picture quality. Motion handling is certainly less impressive, with visible smearing in fast-moving scenes and extended camera pans, while colours appear less vibrant and contrast ratio is also greatly diminished.

 

Does anyone else notice the absurdity of someone who has no idea what the screen is like trying to tell someone who games on it regularly what the screen is like?

 

This reminds me of when you tried to tell Ashley that his review of a game he had played but you hadn't was wrong.

 

My god, you can say such nonsense.

[Cube]

I suspect that my Vita screen will last far longer than my 3DS screen, considering the 3DS is poorly designed and damages its own screen when closed.

[Sheikah]

The OLED screen looked fantastic. It was bright, crisp etc.

 

However, it's negligent to ignore the issues with it. It has splotches, burn-in etc.

 

If the splotches are what I think you mean, they are only visible in a fully dark room when the screen is on but fully black (e.g. a load screen). When I looked this up, this seems to be a thing with OLEDs and isn't really much of an issue. I wouldn't really advise playing fully in the dark since it's bad for your eyesight, and even then...it's just on black screens.

 

Regarding the burn issues, I can't say I've noticed them.

[Serebii]

Nope! As you can see below from Eurogamer's review of the new Vita slim:

 

 

 

Does anyone else notice the absurdity of someone who has no idea what the screen is like trying to tell someone who games on it regularly what the screen is like?

 

This reminds me of when you tried to tell Ashley that his review of a game he had played but you hadn't was wrong.

 

My god, you can say such nonsense.

Come on, you can't deny that the OLED screen had problems. You don't have to look far on the Internet to see it.

[Zechs Merquise]

Does anyone else notice the absurdity of someone who has no idea what the screen is like trying to tell someone who games on it regularly what the screen is like?

 

This reminds me of when you tried to tell Ashley that his review of a game he had played but you hadn't was wrong.

 

My god, you can say such nonsense.

 

If the splotches are what I think you mean, they are only visible in a fully dark room when the screen is on but fully black (e.g. a load screen). When I looked this up, this seems to be a thing with OLEDs and isn't really much of an issue. I wouldn't really advise playing fully in the dark since it's bad for your eyesight, and even then...it's just on black screens.

 

Regarding the burn issues, I can't say I've noticed them.

 

So it's basically faultless - then you admit you yourself have seen faults on your unit with blacks!

 

Your blinkered defence of everything Sony do is what is at fault here.

 

OLED does give brighter more vibrant colours - however it also has problems and considering the amount of the people complaining about the burn-in and ghosting on the Vita screens it's obviously not an isolated thing.

 

I can only imagine how you would be reacting if Nintendo had produced a system with these issues.