a lot of those games are in subnative resolution which severely impacts their looks.
Id rather have games in native res than hi def texts and blurry 3d.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Eurogamer - Switch screen is 6.2", 720p, Capacitive Multi-Touch, IR sensor
- Thread starter Savantcore
- Start date
a lot of those games are in subnative resolution which severely impacts their looks.
Id rather have games in native res than hi def texts and blurry 3d.
J
Jpop
Unconfirmed Member
I mean he is clearly talking about when you use it is a handheld and not when docked, so I don't even know why you are getting worked up over his post.
And no one has said it won't boost to 1080p when docked to the TV. Most are strictly talking about the NS screen resolution and complaining that 720p isn't good enough for a portable screen.
The person you quoted was explicitly talking about un-docked play. Edit: Which, on a 6.2 inch screen will look fucking ace because that's a BETTER pixel density than most 1080P TVs.
A lot more. But iPhone can do a lot more things other than being a gaming device.
Yes. I believe my eyes.
You are right. Switch's 720 is "not bad", but like I said earlier it's not "wow". Especially iPhones already got 1080p since "years" ago.
Not to mention the Switch portabable device doesn't have a long battery life from I've read.
OrbitalBeard
Member
I'm not going to call you stupid, but this post isn't exactly helping your case.
The iPhone screen resolution is a joke compared to Top Tier Android smartphones...whats your point ?
Oh, you mean about the dev kit? Yeah, apparently the dev kit only lasted about 3 hours when pushing modern 3D graphics from Ubisoft.
th3sicknness
Member
Apple got 1080p when they released the iPhone 6 plus in 2014... Everything else in it's class had been running 1080p for much longer lol. No one seemed to have complained then or even now since the smaller one isn't even 1080p? All my friends with iPhones are attached to wall outlets or external batteries playing games on the iPhone.
Quote
Member
Show me graphically complex games from iOS/Android that are on the same level of what has come out on the Wii U. Resolution isn't everything and it comes at a large cost.
Using iPhone or smartphones in general is already a losing argument because they are not dedicated gaming devices and their screen resolution is used mainly for their features, like viewing high quality photos. Games on these devices aren't even guaranteed to be native 1080p.
And "years" ago is just like 2 years lol.
Bolded for truth. Well-designed assets look good if the design is good. If the rez is so low that it hinders the assets, then there is a problem, but that is certainly not the case in any situation where the ppi is over 200. Ever.
Pimpbaa
Member
You know what would be even "weaker"? If it did have a 1080p screen, but most games ran below native resolution to get better than Wii U visuals and looking blurry as fuck as a result. 720p is the right resolution for that screen size and the hardware driving this thing. Higher resolutions on phones and tablets with current mobile gpus are fine for web browsing and 2D games. But when you start making 3D mobile games, you have to make some pretty severe sacrifices due to having so much resources just wasted driving those high resolution displays. Most of the best looking mobile games run like shit (as in struggling to achieve 30fps) unless they have an option to lower the rendering resolution (resulting in sub native blurry visuals). Switch games will no doubt blow away all mobile games despite the lower resolution screen, just like the Vita did. Hell recent Vita games still look better than most mobile games.
ShadowFox08
Member
1080p all depends on the developers. More than likely 1st party devs will try to push for it... But third party multi plats like CoD? You'll likely see less of those. Less Resolution and graphical effects may have to be sacrificed.
Anyway, graphical fidelity isn't just about frame rate and resolution, its quality of textures, particle effects, lighting, etc. We can't have it all. If you want the best graphical game(in terms of realism), then frame rate and/or resolution need to be sacrificed. As long as there are devs pushing for the best looking games and aren't pushing for 60fps and the highest resolution, this whole concept of "1080p" is just some dream that is running forever in a closed loop. Every HD console is possible of 1080p, but its more in relation to multi platforms running on the most powerful console to weaker consoles or just AAA 1st party games.
CrazyHorse
Junior Member
No mention of motion controls, to corroborate with other rumours?
CrazyHorse
Junior Member
I bet Nintendo is hunting down the insider who made all these leaks. What a scary position it must be for them.
I find odd that a lot of people here are claiming that a 720p screen in 2017 is laughable based on the fact that they have phones with screens at higher resolutions and that they want the best of the best on their devices. If they are so picky about this kind of details I would expect them to be equally so with matters as upscaling.
When I heard the news that Nintendo was using a 720p screen my first thought was that they made it that way so their games would render at 720 native and therefore look sharp in a screen with the same resolution. Having games on mobile rendered at 640 and then upscaled to a 1080p screen or even larger resolutions it is ok for a casual market, and it would be ok for some in a gaming device, but NOT for those hoping to get the best out of it.
I believe that prioritizing how menus and web browsing looks in a game console over how games look would really be a concern for the true techheads out there. I consider my self more of an average gamer and for me upscaling would be ok, but 720p considering the state of the graphics technology today, sounds great
When I heard the news that Nintendo was using a 720p screen my first thought was that they made it that way so their games would render at 720 native and therefore look sharp in a screen with the same resolution. Having games on mobile rendered at 640 and then upscaled to a 1080p screen or even larger resolutions it is ok for a casual market, and it would be ok for some in a gaming device, but NOT for those hoping to get the best out of it.
I believe that prioritizing how menus and web browsing looks in a game console over how games look would really be a concern for the true techheads out there. I consider my self more of an average gamer and for me upscaling would be ok, but 720p considering the state of the graphics technology today, sounds great
Multiple insiders, and I think Nintendo is finally realizing that the internet is bigger than they are.
The Wii U has 1080P games.
The Nvidia Shield K1 has a 1080P screen, and has some native resolution titles at 1080P.
Yes, the Switch will be full capable of rendering games at 1080P.
Alebrije
Member
Relaxed Muscle
Member
I remember arguing here that we would get a 720p screen as minimum. And the replies were that Nintendo would never go that high, 480p or maybe Vita resolution at max.
So, considering expectations, I think we all should be happy with this. For the kind of power we are getting this is fine.
So, considering expectations, I think we all should be happy with this. For the kind of power we are getting this is fine.
It's funny people complain about 720p for a handheld, but how many people have laptops that are "full hd," i.e. 1080p.
I still think they'be compromised battery life for a screen of this type, but realize that that isn't what the Switch is about.
I suspect Nintendo games will, but they can't control what third parties does with the power.
This also has nothing to do with the screen on the handheld.
Dagobert Duck
Member
An Iphone costs way above 500 compared to a console which will have a price point of 200-300
anothertech
Member
"And that's not all!..."
Too true. Do people here look at 1080p 13" ultrabooks and think 'oww my eyes.'
Bitch Pudding
Member
Stupid me posting stuff before my first cup of coffee. Yes, I know that he meant, 720p is fine when you use it mobile, agreed (still, others expect more).
What I meant is that the real concern here is the resolution when using it on a TV.
fabricated backlash
Member
You expect people making these claims to have any technological understanding that goes beyond brochure bullet points?
DragonSworne
Banned
How do you simulate multi touch with an IR pointer?
If it's not possible doesn't this limit multi touch games to only being portable?
If it's not possible doesn't this limit multi touch games to only being portable?
Jorok Goldblade
Member
Captain Europe
Member
Dagobert Duck
Member
Catching up a bit, people think 720p is not good enough for mobile?...But 240p for the 3DS was?
So you expect the iPhone to push the level of visual fidelity that the Switch can bring & maintain a decent battery life? Hell, as mentioned by a few others, a good chunk of mobile games don't even run at native res.
It's an easy mode of attack.
Captain Europe
Member
He probably also expects it to cost 5 times less than the iPhone.
Del Boca Vista
Banned
who gives a shit about the graphics, it's going to look brilliant, half a percent up from brilliant doesn't change anything
Might as well add "Runs on Speed Force" to the list.
BONKERS
Member
6" 720p is the perfect performance/resolution sweet spot for such a portable gaming device.
Anything higher is a waste of battery and performance.
High PPi screens make sense for VR and general app usage. But not for games IMO. (Which end up performing very poorly often on mobile handsets with resolutions running far higher than necessary for little benefit at that screen size. Then the games, esp 2D based ones with upscaling end up looking bad.)
And really it's all about native resolution. Would you rather have pathetic battery life, a 1080p screen and have the resulting games look bad from sub native res rendering?
Have you had enough of that shit with home consoles???
Anything higher is a waste of battery and performance.
High PPi screens make sense for VR and general app usage. But not for games IMO. (Which end up performing very poorly often on mobile handsets with resolutions running far higher than necessary for little benefit at that screen size. Then the games, esp 2D based ones with upscaling end up looking bad.)
And really it's all about native resolution. Would you rather have pathetic battery life, a 1080p screen and have the resulting games look bad from sub native res rendering?
Have you had enough of that shit with home consoles???
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Well, this answers the only other questions I had, so I'm cool with it.
Shame I'm the only person I know who doesn't think this is Nintendo's worst concept ever, and this is coming from people who stood in line to buy launch Wiis
Shame I'm the only person I know who doesn't think this is Nintendo's worst concept ever, and this is coming from people who stood in line to buy launch Wiis
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Without quoting a specific message, regarding the discussions about how feasible 1080p is for Switch to output to TV when not even all PS4/Xbone games do... Resolution is at least as much design decision as hardware. 720p was pretty normal on those machines' predecessors, and they're many times more powerful, so under similar conditions hitting 1080p would be cake. If it isn't, it's because they chose to push the machines' capabilities in other directions. Switch is also well over twice as powerful as those earlier 720p machines, so the same conditions apply. 1080p should be easy enough if they want to hit it, but also be easy enough to not hit if they choose to push in another way.
Since it seems to be a worldwide launch, shipping significantly less than a million to each major region is cake, even if it literally made of cake.Nikana said:
Pretty much. Based on how GBA/DS/3DS fairly closely matched the capabilities of home consoles from about a decade before, Switch seems like the kind of Nintendo portable device I'd have expected around 2022.santesy said:
If it were a dominant feature as on Wii, I'd agree with you. But making you flip over a controller a weird way where buttons won't be as accessible says to me they're treating it simpler, as a direct alternative to touch. Any simple single-finger touch uses (push a button, draw a line, drag a thing) can be directly replicated with a pointer and a single button.LewieP said:
Definitely not a perfect substitute, but I doubt anyone wanted to use two pointers to replicate a "pinch" gesture anyway.2+2=5 said:
This isn't the first thread it's come up in, so while it kind of sucks it's also already been said.Pyrokai said:
How is it that the 3D numbers aren't just the 2D numbers doubled?FunkyDealer said:
Is it a trend? I'm sure they were using it at launch--I remember the difference in NSMBU screen shots before and after it was applied to the game.DownGrader said:
If we're discussing the built-in screens, then PS4 Pro is 0p console gaming.ViewtifulJC said:
I'm guessing you're doing a port of an existing multi-touch game and want to leave the original controls intact as an option, or want to include common things like pinch-scaling that can also be done other ways.Ninja Dom said:
Wii was about 50% more powerful, and its version included a widescreen mode that would display 33% more geometry.ViewtifulJC said:
Should vary by game, just as with most other machines.klee123 said:
gsync doesn't make 43 fps feel like 60fps. it makes 43 fps feel like 43 fps.
nvidia lets laptops that aren't actually using the gsync chip but instead using the displayport method to carry the gsync branding. so it's possible. and I think it'd be a pretty good move. which is why I'm 300% positive it won't happen
It'll depend on the game, I guess. Zelda "should" run at 1080 on it.
TyMiles2012
Member
Plus, if Nvidia manages to add GSync to the portable display as well without inflating price too much, I would be VERY happy! "Retina" type display with a very fluid experience. I don't know, sounds too good to be true.
