Support NeoGAF

[Cute Dragon Here]

It doesn't get warm because it's using a crap SoC in big chassis. You phone get's hot because the SoC is crammed into a small chassis where the heat isn't dissipating quickly. This becomes a non-issue in a gaming device because it has a larger surface area.

I do wonder if cramming a high-end SoC would work within the non-XL 3DS form factor, with the stipulation that only the base is usable for SoC purposes. I believe it's of a similar size to standard smartphones.

 

[clem84]

The next Nintendo handheld will have a 480p display. Nintendo is all about affordable hardware.

That sounds about right. Wouldn't surprise me. It will higher then 240 that's for sure. I'm also quite certain that the graphics will impress us the same way 3DS's graphics were impressive at launch. How it will hold up in time, that remains to be seen.

 

[DreadPirateRoberts]

I love nintendo, but going by past resolution bumps we'll probably get closer to 320p

 

[1st Course]

Top screen: 480p
Lower screen: 320p

Is what I'm expecting

 

[Natureboy99]

All I want is for Nintendo to match or exceed Vita specs. If they just made the vita exactly but slapped on their logo I would be very happy.

 

[I-hate-u]

Sony and Nintendo should partner together, where Sony should license out to Nintendo the exclusive rights to make Vita software, and Sony taking all the hardware cost overhead.

 

[evilromero]

Once again someone talking about two different things. I don't really care about the size of the screen, especially if I can remote play on my Wii U/Next. I just want higher res so they can properly bring us all of the VC library up to the Wii U (N64, GCN, Wii). It's a bummer to get games like Majora's Mask and Xenoblade, which at the end of the day are still downgrades despite some nice updates.

It reminds me of when Mario 64 was remade for the DS. I liked the updated character models but everything else just looked horrid, especially the resolution. It really hurt the game's appeal.

 

[Azriell]

I believe 480p would be roughly 3x the number of the pixels the top 3DS screen has (single eye). Assuming that translates pretty straight-forwardly into ppi, I would be pretty fucking happy for a 3DS2 XL with that degree of screen. I think the 3DS looks great now, even if the pixels are obvious. It's such a small screen that the resolution doesn't matter that much to me. Even an NES game running at native res in an emulator looks pretty nice, especially when compared to what it looks like in full screen.

 

[EloquentM]

If it's two then I'm fine with 480p it's its one then I NEEDS to be at least 540.

Edit: doesn't 3DS technically have like 3 screens?

 

[Lebon14]

100% guaranteed to be at least 720. There's zero doubt and zero possibility it will be below that. There's a bigger chance that they'll start making xbox exclusive games than it being sub 720. Zero.

Not sure if serious.

I expect a 480p screen and that's probably what will happen knowing Nintendo. Will still buy it like a mindless drone unless the gimmick displease me greatly.

 

[sörine]

Once again someone talking about two different things. I don't really care about the size of the screen, especially if I can remote play on my Wii U/Next. I just want higher res so they can properly bring us all of the VC library up to the Wii U (N64, GCN, Wii). It's a bummer to get games like Majora's Mask and Xenoblade, which at the end of the day are still downgrades despite some nice updates.

It reminds me of when Mario 64 was remade for the DS. I liked the updated character models but everything else just looked horrid, especially the resolution. It really hurt the game's appeal.

But Majora's Mask 3DS and N64 are the same resolution.

 

[pants]

Sorry OP, you cant bargain this shit away, its 2015.

 

[staticneuron]

Did you read that post-mortem you're sourcing? It says they used PS3 for prototyping and artifically limited bandwidth to Vita theoreticals because they didn't have a prefabbed engine handed to them to use (or even hardware for most of the dev cycle). They made it themselves, they didn't port Naughty Dog's engine. They even say as much here clearly:

Yes I did. I quoted that because it was really created on the PS3 for the most part. Even the artificial limiting of assets doesn't mean that they didn't have to downgrade because.... Again from the same article.....

As we learned more about the performance of the hardware we could make better-educated assumptions on how the final target hardware would ultimately perform and consequently we would make changes to the PS3 engine to ensure that the production team was building for PS Vita and not the PS3.

And

Keeping development parity between PS Vita and PS3 did reduce our engineering bandwidth overall, but was also one of the single biggest successes for the team to remain productive during a period of time when PS Vita specs and available working hardware were in flux.

One of the reasons why first gen games of most platforms seem to be so poor is there is always and issue with specs and assumptions about how final hardware will perform. It is not uncommon to hear devs downgrade games and some don't even believe in the full specs and are conservative. In the post mortem they mentioned their ambitions, the time it took to get it working and what would happen if they had more time and polish.

We were trying to make something akin to a next-gen quality console game with a core team that was a third the size of a Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studio. It was insanity. I shudder to think what would have happened if we had not cut those three additional worlds: the game would have been almost a third again as large, maybe another 15 levels. We'd probably still be working on the game today.

We would have liked to have more time and resources and a larger scope and more environment settings, better anti-aliasing and shadow resolution, more 3D geometry in our backgrounds and more shadow-casting lights and material variation. A more robust and dynamic object system would have been great, more "switches" for adding movement to our real-time lighting and a better streaming system would have given us more flexibility... but we did what we could in the time we had... and it gives us things to work on for our next game.

The problem with your post and many other people that try to post about vita games and resolutions is as if the developers could not attain native res and maximize performance. Truth is there are many games that can do that as long as the devs are given the time and resources to do so. That is why there are in fact great performing titles out there that not only tax the visuals but run at native res. There are some that have artistic trade offs (to gain AA) and others that are seemingly ports to the system. Either way the truth is that there is no such thing as a console struggling to run a game. That simply means that the developers either had issues hitting their target or did not optimize for the console. The sheer fact that there are games that run at native resolution and still are jaw dropping in terms of tech shows that it is possible.

So there is no reason NOT to have the next nintendo console with HD graphics because they seem to spend even more time polishing their big hits and they choose to opt for art and presentation over pushing the technical envelope. I believe not only can nintendo make high resolution games but do so with such a strong and unique look that most would be hard pressed to describe it as ugly.

True ..but Nintendo usually tends to builds to a specific level. If they intend for most of their games to run at 540p...then a 540p screen is what you'll get.

I certainly can't see them going above 540p if they are having a 3D screen and second screen again.

So let me get this straight, you think they design the games first then the hardware afterwards? I have a sneaky suspicion that they develop the hardware first then design their games to run well on that hardware. You can call me crazy if you want to.

 

[sörine]

Yes I did. I quoted that because it was really created on the PS3 for the most part. Even the artificial limiting of assets doesn't mean that they didn't have to downgrade because.... Again from the same article.....

And

One of the reasons why first gen games of most platforms seem to be so poor is there is always and issue with specs and assumptions about how final hardware will perform. It is not uncommon to hear devs downgrade games and some don't even believe in the full specs and are conservative. In the post mortem they mentioned their ambitions, the time it took to get it working and what would happen if they had more time and polish.

The problem with your post and many other people that try to post about vita games and resolutions is as if the developers could not attain native res and maximize performance. Truth is there are many games that can do that as long as the devs are given the time and resources to do so. That is why there are in fact great performing titles out there that not only tax the visuals but run at native res. There are some that have artistic trade offs (to gain AA) and others that are seemingly ports to the system. Either way the truth is that there is no such thing as a console struggling to run a game. That simply means that the developers either had issues hitting their target or did not optimize for the console. The sheer fact that there are games that run at native resolution and still are jaw dropping in terms of tech shows that it is possible.

So there is no reason NOT to have the next nintendo console with HD graphics because they seem to spend even more time polishing their big hits and they choose to opt for art and presentation over pushing the technical envelope. I believe not only can nintendo make high resolution games but do so with such a strong and unique look that most would be hard pressed to describe it as ugly.

Man all these quotes and they still don't refute what I said. Which was simply that Uncharted GA runs subnative res and wasn't really a PS3 port or using ND's engine.

So let me get this straight, you think they design the games first then the hardware afterwards? I have a sneaky suspicion that they develop the hardware first then design their games to run well on that hardware. You can call me crazy if you want to.

Nintendo's engineering is all about balance and efficiency. 3DS actually got a bit of a spec bump so it could manage 3D display at decent framerates. And given no 3DS games yet run subnative res, I'd say they hit their target with 3DS performance versus display.

 

[D.Lo]

Once again someone talking about two different things. I don't really care about the size of the screen, especially if I can remote play on my Wii U/Next. I just want higher res so they can properly bring us all of the VC library up to the Wii U (N64, GCN, Wii). It's a bummer to get games like Majora's Mask and Xenoblade, which at the end of the day are still downgrades despite some nice updates.

It reminds me of when Mario 64 was remade for the DS. I liked the updated character models but everything else just looked horrid, especially the resolution. It really hurt the game's appeal.

N64 was 256x224 (for many games, including Mario). 57,344 pixels.
DS was 256×192. 49,152 pixels.

So you're saying a loss of 32 horizontal lines (or 14% of lines) with identical number of vertical lines (effectively simply letterboxing the game a tiny bit) made the game look 'horrid'?

And Majora's Mask is on 3DS, which runs at 800x240 pixels (400x240 in 2D). 96,000 pixels even in 2D.

Majora's Mask on 3DS therefore is almost double the regular N64 resolution. The 3DS lower screen alone can do the higher resolution mode of the N64 320x240 (which Zelda may have run at, I can't remember).

 

[perfectchaos007]

The Wii U gamepad is 480p right? I'de be fine with that res.

But yeah since the dawn of Nintendo, they have underwhelmed with their screen resolution

 

[Aiustis]

I want my handheld cheap and able to handle being dropped.

 

[GhostTrick]

540p to 720p or Nintendo should just go software only. Anything less in 2016/17 would make them the laughing stock of the electronics world and worse still, they'd be finding it harder to find people still producing lower res screens in bulk to get those production savings.

No the Vita does not "struggle to run games at native res". Christ.

Then why the most demanding titles run below native res ?

 

[ClearData]

All I'll say is that more and more people are moving to mobile and when even mid tier phones blow your specs out of the water than maybe it's time to try a little harder to get noticed.

 

[KojiKnight]

100% guaranteed to be at least 720. There's zero doubt and zero possibility it will be below that. There's a bigger chance that they'll start making xbox exclusive games than it being sub 720. Zero.

*bookmarks for future use*


480p is going to be my guess. Nintendo is likely to keep backwards compatibility and I think they'll try to aim at a multiple resolution of the 3DS.

N64 was 256x224 (for many games, including Mario). 57,344 pixels.
DS was 256×192. 49,152 pixels.

So you're saying a loss of 32 horizontal lines (or 14% of lines) with identical number of vertical lines (effectively simply letterboxing the game a tiny bit) made the game look 'horrid'?

And Majora's Mask is on 3DS, which runs at 800x240 pixels (400x240 in 2D). 96,000 pixels even in 2D.

Majora's Mask on 3DS therefore is almost double the regular N64 resolution. The 3DS lower screen alone can do the higher resolution mode of the N64 320x240 (which Zelda may have run at, I can't remember).

This is incorrect... the majority of N64 games were 320x240 with a handful having higher res support (up to 640x480 with the ram add on I believe). 256x244 was the max 'normal' resolution of the SNES.

 

[GhostTrick]

Anyway, I totally agree with you OP. People, including myself, got spoiled with smartphone screens. But then, they forgot that even if it's 5 or 6 inch, a 1080p or 1440p screen ask as much power horse than if it was 40 or 50 inch.
Higher DPI in spite of low res (like 480p or 540p) has been the trick for small screens to look like HD screens you find in your house.

But nowadays, it only has been a race from manufacturers to get buzz words.

If your PS4 can't maintain 1080p on some titles, why would you expect a handheld to do so ?

Also, a common mistake from people playing on their smartphones or tablet is that their games runs at native res. It's not true.

I'd take a great exemple: Trine 2.
A 2D game, which had an Android version, developped by the original developpers, to run on Tegra K1 on Shield Tablet, the most powerful actual SoC, which is claimed to be better than PS360 on paper.

The truth ? It runs at 1024x768 (Shield Tablet screen is 1920x1200), with slightly lower graphics than PS360 version and with a slightly lower framerate.

Mobile tech has 3 constraint today:
1) They're limited in size and tech: They have to fit in a device that fit in your pocket.
2) They're limited in term of TDP and power consumption: They need to run without a fan; without boiling and without eating your battery in 50 minutes
3) They're limited in term of bandwith: Memory is too slow.

All I'll say is that more and more people are moving to mobile and when even mid tier phones blow your specs out of the water than maybe it's time to try a little harder to get noticed.

Have you read the OP ? Yes, in 2017, even mid tier phone will use 1080p screens.. so ?

 

[funkystudent]

By all means I dont want the highest resolution ever but a decent screen on a Nintendo handheld has been long overdue. The have been behind the times with that stuff since the GBA.

Just give me a decent resolution but amazing everything else ala the Vita screen. It was a 540p screen when phones started to hit 1080p but I still think that OLED is the best portable screen I have ever seen.

The next Nintendo handheld will have a 480p display. Nintendo is all about affordable hardware.

With the abundance of high res screens thanks to mobile I think it will be harder to find a 480p screen then a 720p or higher one TBH.


But this is Nintendo we are talking about and they will find a way. They have probably been stockpiling pre retina iphone screens since 2008 or something.

 

[Maneauleau]

I think mobile VR will be the next hot thing and releasing a traditional handheld device with low-res screens in 2016+ is financial suicide.

Non-mobile VR is not even a thing yet so no, definitely not.

Personally I rather have battery life than 1080p screens and I know Nintendo always liked to prioritise battery life.

I wonder if dual screens and 3D will still be here for Nintendo next handheld. If both are gone we could get a higher resolution. 3D might go but dual screens I'm not sure. In any case I would be surprised if we get 720p.

I say 540p at max

 

[~~Hasan~~]

i think it will be either 1080p or at least 720p

but most likely full hd as those panels are very cheap now. specially if they want indie developers to port their games to the system.

 

[Dash Kappei]

Samsung devices cost around $250 to manufacture, most of which is down to the ridiculous tech they pump tonnes of R&D into. Like for instance their AMOLED displays. Now have you seen the LCD displays present on the 3DS/WiiU Controller?

It's much fairer to compare the nintendo manufacturing process to a cheap knockoff brand than Samsung/Apple.

Please stop.
You're making a fool out of yourself, you'be been busted with the stealth edits and are going to the deep end. You've posted several ridiculous posts in a row, made claims that you haven't be able to back up, moved the goal post multiple times already... C'mon now, stop.

 

[D.Lo]

This is incorrect... the majority of N64 games were 320x240 with a handful having higher res support (up to 640x480 with the ram add on I believe). 256x244 was the max 'normal' resolution of the SNES.

No, you are incorrect.
The N64 could do 256x224, 320x240 and 640x480, the latter only interlaced (so ultimately the same temporal resolution as 320x240 anyway).

Mario 64 definitely ran at 256x224. As I said, I don't remember Zelda's resolution. I don't know how many games ran at what resolution, I never said anything about the majority (just Mario 64) but Wikipedia and other sources say the vast majority of games instead used the system's lowest resolution, 256 × 224. Only 14% lower than the DS and far lower than the 3DS even discounting the double vertical resolution of 3D (which does improve IQ).

I don't know where you got 256x244 but it is not a supported resolution on either the N64 or SNES. PAL mode in both could do 256 × 240 as its 'version' of 256x224 but usually just by letterboxing or stretching 256x224.

 

[NewGame]

If I recall correctly the 2DS is actually one giant screen with two sections available for play, this makes manufacturing and assembly much cheaper correct?

Two screens definitely seems to bloat the price point. Lets assume the best and think 540p both screens: what sort of rrp would you need to pull that off? 300? 400? Seems really steep for a handheld.

 

[LithiumSpade]

I'm on a Nexus 5 at the moment and I reckon I can get roughly 3 hours out of the battery when playing high end games. Not enough, sure, but it came out in 2013 and I can run stuff like the HD rerelease of Oddworld: Strangers Wrath on it. It has a 1080p screen, and I've never seen anything on 3DS that matches the graphics in something like Modern Combat 5.

The Nexus 5 retailed for $349 unlocked, no contract. I can't believe that it would be impossible to put out a 720p device (assuming no 3D, which I think is a safe bet) with a 4+ hour battery life for $250 in 2016 (a full 3 years later). Maybe not everything would run at native res but the potential would be there in case of games such as Rayman Legends and it's notoriously terrible 3DS version.

The question is would Nintendo do it? I don't think so, it's not their style. But I don't believe a single screen 720p device couldn't be manufactured and sold at $250 maximum a whole 18 months or so from now. It's a shame that I don't see anyone doing it (Sony certainly won't) because that kinda spec with physical buttons would be so good.

 

[ArchedThunder]

I think it's absolutely hilarious that there are people in this thread that actually think that if Nintendo releases a sub-540 or even a sub-720 handheld that it would fail for that reason alone.

 

[Zolf]

It's wrong to expect much of anything from Nintendo these days.

But to be serious, I don't like Nintendo's conservative hardware approach but I don't see any better options for them in the mobile space. There is no "high-end" handheld gaming market anymore, so it's best to focus on their core market in the younger generation with low-cost devices. Although it's hard to say if that will even last, considering the way things are going.

 

[GhostTrick]

I'm on a Nexus 5 at the moment and I reckon I can get roughly 3 hours out of the battery when playing high end games. Not enough, sure, but it came out in 2013 and I can run stuff like the HD rerelease of Oddworld: Strangers Wrath on it. It has a 1080p screen, and I've never seen anything on 3DS that matches the graphics in something like Modern Combat 5.

The Nexus 5 retailed for $349 unlocked, no contract. I can't believe that it would be impossible to put out a 720p device (assuming no 3D, which I think is a safe bet) with a 4+ hour battery life for $250 in 2016 (a full 3 years later). Maybe not everything would run at native res but the potential would be there in case of games such as Rayman Legends and it's notoriously terrible 3DS version.

The question is would Nintendo do it? I don't think so, it's not their style. But I don't believe a single screen 720p device couldn't be manufactured and sold at $250 maximum a whole 18 months or so from now. It's a shame that I don't see anyone doing it (Sony certainly won't) because that kinda spec with physical buttons would be so good.

Then again, it's not only a price problem. It's a mobile problem. Does these games runs at native resolution ? Because I suspect a lot of games doesn't do that, and without any digital foundry like for mobile... we won't know for sure. We know for exemple that Trine 2 doesn't run at native res on Shield Tablet, which is a lot more powerful than your Nexus 5.

 

[MCN]

I think by the time the next handheld launches, qHD will be at the sweet spot of affordability and power draw. Chuck in a 480p bottom screen, a more modern SoC, and we're laughing.

 

[ah_hia]

What's funny is people whining about 1080 when consoles can't even do it properly. Too much obsession about screen resolution alone and not caring about battery drain.
If you care so much about screen resolution, please stick to your mobiles. Us people who like handhelds will be better off without you lot.

 

[Uhyve]

I find it pretty funny that people are assuming that Nintendo will go for low resolution to keep costs down. At this point, low resolution for a handheld screen is pretty risky, especially if you're wanting that console to last for a few years. It's like if Nintendo were trying to save money by releasing a home console with GDDR3 memory, there would be a large chance of Nintendo having to support that entire production line on their own. If the next handheld is 2D, it will be at least 720p in order to avoid manufacturing issues, even if the software runs at less than that.

Nintendo will use the most common components and hope that they will remain common for the life of the console. Unless they keep 3D (which they probably won't), that would make things more difficult.

 

[LithiumSpade]

Then again, it's not only a price problem. It's a mobile problem. Does these games runs at native resolution ? Because I suspect a lot of games doesn't do that, and without any digital foundry like for mobile... we won't know for sure. We know for exemple that Trine 2 doesn't run at native res on Shield Tablet, which is a lot more powerful than your Nexus 5.

No sadly I couldn't be sure either. But I would be surprised (based on how it looks) if Oddworld ran at less than 720p (obviously this is complete guesswork). I don't expect it to be possible to push native res 1080p games, but surely on a 720p screen it would be possible?

(Side note, I have a Vita and non-native res games haven't really bothered me, so maybe I'm not the best person to ask!)

Edit: also, these non-native shield games are all ports. Games designed from the ground up would surely make better use of the hardware?

 

[Vertti]

I've always liked how Nintendo's handheld and home console are different. For example in 2001 you had GC, powerful console with a beatiful 3D graphics and there was GBA which was like handheld SNES. It covered both 3D and 2D gaming and almost all the genres you could think of.

And I wish it stays that way. Wii U is first time giving us HD gaming on Nintendo's hardware and that's cool. I don't need a new handheld with HD graphics. I'd rather have a cheap console I can take with me with GC/Wii level resolution and power. That's good enough. Cheap price and a lot of games is more important than expensive console with cutting edge technology.

So 480p or 540p is just enough. 3D, dual screen – those things I'm fine with or without.

 

[GhostTrick]

No sadly I couldn't be sure either. But I would be surprised (based on how it looks) if Oddworld ran at less than 720p (obviously this is complete guesswork). I don't expect it to be possible to push native res 1080p games, but surely on a 720p screen it would be possible?

(Side note, I have a Vita and non-native res games haven't really bothered me, so maybe I'm not the best person to ask!)

Edit: also, these non-native shield games are all ports. Games designed from the ground up would surely make better use of the hardware?

Of course Oddworld would run on a 720p screen at native res... but we're talking about an Xbox title with updated graphics... not really a looker.
A title that came out 10 years ago on 128 bits era.

 

[ArchedThunder]

I find it pretty funny that people are assuming that Nintendo will go for low resolution to keep costs down. At this point, low resolution for a handheld screen is pretty risky, especially if you're wanting that console to last for a few years. It's like if Nintendo were trying to save money by releasing a home console with GDDR3 memory, there would be a large chance of Nintendo having to support that entire production line on their own. If the next handheld is 2D, it will be at least 720p in order to avoid manufacturing issues, even if the software runs at less than that.

Nintendo will use the most common components and hope that they will remain common for the life of the console. Unless they keep 3D (which they probably won't), that would make things more difficult.

Doesn't Nintendo get their screens custom made?

 

[Arondight]

Then why the most demanding titles run below native res ?

There are a few posts already disproving this already.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=151103009&postcount=284

The best looking stuff on vita are Killzone, Tearaway, Freedom Wars, Wipeout, Sly Cooper, DC and comes to no surprise they are native.

 

[Surface of Me]

Dont care much about the computer, I just hope their next handheld is between Xbox and Xbox 360 powerful.

 

[GhostTrick]

There are a few posts already disproving this already.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=151103009&postcount=284

The best looking stuff on vita are Killzone, Tearaway, Freedom Wars, Wipeout, Sly Cooper, DC and comes to no surprise they are native.

WipEout and Killzone runs with dynamic res, which means resolution drops when things get slightly heavy on screen.
And as for Tearaway, Freedom Wars and Sly Cooper, they look good because of art but clearly not for what they push.
As for DC, I assume you mean Dragons Crown... a 2D title ?
This just proves my point in fact.

 

[LithiumSpade]

Of course Oddworld would run on a 720p screen at native res... but we're talking about an Xbox title with updated graphics... not really a looker.
A title that came out 10 years ago on 128 bits era.

Not the best looking game no, but I felt it was a reasonable comparison as the original Xbox has (in my estimation) more power than the 3DS. It also was capable of running HL2, which has been a point of contention in this thread so it seemed a good reference point. If a new Nintendo handheld could put out HD versions of Xbox games, that would put it in the same power bracket as the Vita but with a better screen?

 

[Uhyve]

Doesn't Nintendo get their screens custom made?

They do (IIRC they get Philips to make their screens), but in a world with HD mobile phones, I can't see a viable business reason for them to spend the extra money. IMO, the next Nintendo handheld will be largely based off mobile phone tech (so at least 720p to avoid keeping dying production lines alive).

 

[Zalman]

Nintendo will make the device as affordable as possible. There is no market for a high-end handheld.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

No one is asking for a 5" 1440p screen.

I'm not buying another nintendo device with a sub-480p screen though, i just won't.

What does the screen have to do with gameplay

 

[Snapshot King]

A Nintendo handheld isn't likely going to exceed a 5" screen baring a huge change in direction (3rd pillar anyone?). Already that limits your battery options and also 1080p at that size is just completely unnecessary because you're hitting a huge diminishing return threshold of how many pixels your eyes can resolve versus how many are actually rendered ("retina") which only further hits the battery unnecessarily.

Anyway let's add context:

960x540 = 518400px (25% of 1080p)
960x540:3D = 1036800px (50% of 1080p)
960x540:3D + 720x540 = 1425600px (68.75% of 1080p)

1280x720 = 921600px (44.44% of 1080p)
1280x720:3D = 1843200px (88.88% of 1080p)
1280x720:3D + 960x720 = 2534400px (122.22% of 1080p)

1280x720 + 854x480 = 1331520px (64.21% of 1080p) <- Wii U rendering 720 + full gamepad scene

1920x1080 = 2073600px
2560x1440 = 3686400px

So you can see that if they keep the configuration even a single 540p screen in 3D will push more pixels than a 720p screen. Even more when we add in the bottom screen. That means you need power on the level of Wii U to do just that. This should be possible with the highest-end mobile SoCs today and that seems like a reasonable target for something in late 2016 or slightly later. At 720p in 3D and with the second screen you're actually pushing more pixels than 1080p which is quite a bit of power.

Note that 3D configurations are actually more worthwhile than 1080p at 5" because you're eyes can resolve more visual information (depth) versus how much you actually need to render. So arguments for a single super-high-res screen have no objective grounding. It's spec-porn blinders. Asking for 120FPS or high-contrast as an alternative would be less stupid.

All in all 540p seems like the ideal target here. This also isn't likely to be a 7" tablet in terms of screen size or battery size so you have to actually calibrate your comparisons if you want to make them.

You've made a fantastic argument for why they should ditch 3d and a second screen, i gotta say.

 

[Uhyve]

What does the screen have to do with gameplay

A higher quality screen makes it easier to see the gameplay.

 

[chaosblade]

They do (IIRC they get Philips to make their screens), but in a world with HD mobile phones, I can't see a viable business reason for them to spend the extra money. IMO, the next Nintendo handheld will be largely based off mobile phone tech (so at least 720p to avoid keeping dying production lines alive).

I kind of wonder if they will go with a higher resolution screen, but scale to that resolution. I.e., a 1080p screen, but games are rendered at 540p since it would be exactly 25% of the pixel area, then scaled to 1080p. Having an exact multiple would make the scaling look decent (especially on a small screen, more so if they plan for it and include a dedicated scaler). That would kind of hit the best of both worlds since they could get relatively cheap, standard screens and not need an impossibly powerful SOC with awful battery life. They could also do things like render the 2D UI elements at full resolution on top of the scaled output.

720p with 360p rendering might be even more likely.

 

[Neku89]

They do (IIRC they get Philips to make their screens), but in a world with HD mobile phones, I can't see a viable business reason for them to spend the extra money. IMO, the next Nintendo handheld will be largely based off mobile phone tech.

Yup, I think that too.

I still think that the perfect resolution would be 540p. Not GPU-demanding, scales well to 1080p (for games that should be up-ported to the home console), and is likely cheap to make.

Moreover, I feel that a lot of the posters in this topic are forgetting a detail - resolution is important, that's for sure, but pixel density is fundamental. The reason you dislike the 3DS' screens is that they are low in PPI - the original 3DS is about 133 PPI, the new 3DS is 120 PPI, and both XLs are 96 PPI. For comparison, some of the devices listed here: Vita is 220 PPI, the Nexus 7 are 215 PPI (2012) and 320 PPI (2013), the Nexus 5 is 441 PPI, and the LG G3 is 535 PPI. No wonder that the 3DS looks like shit.

If the nextDS's screen is 540p and reasonably sized, say 4,5", the pixel density is very good: 244 PPI, only slightly lower that HD screens on a 5" phone (293 PPI). Could it be higher? Sure, but at a cost (GPU power and battery life). I feel that this is the best compromise.

 

[Burai]

What does the screen have to do with gameplay

Oh, please. This fucking argument again.

2008: "Why do we need HD?! Why are graphics so important?! Gameplay means everything!!"

2014: Mario Kart 8 graphics circlejerk thread

Why can't we just have both, eh? Everyone else manages it, just not Nintendo.