Support NeoGAF

[nampad]

Most aren't, that is why launch titles are nowhere as impressive as games launched later on. I already addressed this. Uncharted GA isn't a port on a technical level because they never released it on a PS3 but at the same token they never had a firm target or hardware to hammer down so even in their post mortem they talk about the compromises they made and how they would have been able to do better given more time and resources.

It doesn't change the fact that they really did make this on an engine that was running on a PS3 and down graded for assumed specs.




Nothing of what you said here refutes what you quoted.

Hardware engineers are not game devs. Hardware engineers for Nintendo follow in a trend left by Gunpei Yokoi so they never push the edge on leading tech and the devs conform to the hardware after it is designed.

EDIT: Just to refresh your memory, this was in the post you dismissed earlier


And again to reiterate, we are both speaking facts but you are using semantics to obscure the fact that they admittedly didn't work on Vita final hardware or solid specs for most of the development of a title and you used a launch game to refute the ability of games on Vita being native res. All of this is a silly argument to begin with because of the reasons I mentioned before and also the sheer fact that most games on the Vita actually hit native res. The few you can list most likely were designed without the resolution target (or even the vita itself) in mind.

I don't know why you are still discussing with him about a launch game. He just won't get it.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Atleast 720p or bust. C'mon Nintendo!!

 

[Pie and Beans]

Maybe this degree of collaboration and integration is why Nintendo puts out hardware that software engineers don't seem to have issues with maintaining native res?

Right, enough of this. The PSP was not some void century of history we can all conveniently forget occurred. When you're at 240 to 272 resolutions, if you're not hitting "native res" you're fucking up and squandering what few pixels you have so yes, the DS, 3DS and PSP all hit native res beat for beat (my mind struggles to think of PSP's examples otherwise but there's probably a few to piss on the bonfire somewhere, possibly the Yakuza entries if I remember faintly..).

With 540p or whatever, some devs practice with a little wiggle room in dynamic resolutions to varying effect during perhaps more blurry moments of play. The early Vita stuff seemed like they were targeting weaker hardware before some stuff was ratcheted up later in development, and so the locked to non-native res stuff got a fair kicking at launch, especially with the OLED screen running counter to stuff not fully using it.

Woe betide 4DS ever having dynamic resolutions and stuff mind if it too enters the pixel realm beyond 480p, but the flip flop "graphics [do not] matter" relationship with Nintendo hardware allows plenty of narratives to emerge and explain either side come what may. Hell, we have plenty of damage control on the titles that don't support 3D on the 3DS, as insane as that is -- Pokemon is a ridiculous example.

Sounds like we're getting above 480p from that earlier thread tidbit anyway, so I hope they at least get within the 32 pixel range of the predecessor rival hardware like this time because thats the most we can ever expect them to achieve. 514p for days.

 

[Sapiens]

1. I find these "in defence of Nintendo" threads a little odd. I mean, it's just odd to see people defending some of Nintendo's design decisions even though these systems are relative failures.

2. I'd honestly be surprised if they got the next one up to 480. Maybe 360?

3. People have this mindset that no matter what, Nintendo will make a comeback and all those threads are just seeds for crow-eating later on. It's just a little annoying.

 

[SystemUser]

Nintendo doesn't get nearly enough credit for their 3D tech. New 3DS is really awesome. Even if it goes in a different direction than phones it's still cutting edge tech, no other product exists that works the way it does. A lot of this thread seems to be forcing square pegs in round holes. All the speculation of off-the-shelf phone parts makes sense only if that's the direction they actually move in but so far with their last several pieces of hardware there's very little to directly compare to.

Sharp developed those screen about 10 or 15 years before Nintendo used them in the 3DS. Nintendo considered using those screens earlier. Nintendo does not have an LCD research group. Sharp makes all of Nintendo's LCDs.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2010/06/iwatas_3d_gameboy_advance_is_in_a_drawer_somewhere

http://www.sharp-world.com/products/device/about/lcd/3d/


Head tracking for 3D has been around since the 1990s if not earlier. I am not sure how you think that head tracking for 3D is a new thing. It is new to handheld video games, but processing power is cheap compared to when you needed a $2,000 PC to run 3D with head tracking and it was relegated to specialized engineering applications.

 

[blu]

I don't know why you are still discussing with him about a launch game. He just won't get it.

There were more than one early games running at sub-native. Also, neither Most Wanted nor Mercenary were launch games.

For any further "one launch game" urges: http://psp2roundup.blogspot.com/p/ps-vita-games-by-resolution.html
Also note that some of the 'native res' titles on that list are actually dynamic res, so more like 'up to native'.

 

[Snapshot King]

You're probably referring to combinations between the current 400x240 and 720p that would require less pixel pushing but are likely to result in a higher res screen that still has useful properties if 3D was omitted. This is true but that's where it gets much more opinionistic. I would expect them to stick with 3D because it is a useful differentiator and n3DS is a game changer in that respect even for people who where critical of the original design. Seems unlikely they would abandon that. I've also noted that there is a pretty solid cap on PPI and so in terms of a roadmap if you were to think 2 generations out you've already hit it but 3D will continue to have visual gains.

3d is a stupid fad and it drives me insane that the 3ds screen and performance were kneecapped to include it.

 

[sörine]

I don't know why you are still discussing with him about a launch game. He just won't get it.

For someone who won't address me directly you seem pretty fixated on me. And speaking of odd fixations, why are you completely centering on launch when I listed several non-launch 1st party games than run subnative res (LBP, Killzone, Resistance, GOW Collection, Gravity Rush, Soul Sacrifice)?

 

[Greenzxy]

Why do you guys want so much sensory overload in your screens. :<
Doesn't it hurt your eyes, or is it just my LED?

#IphoneConspiracy

 

[staticneuron]

There was no "port" though, PS3 was only used for prototyping design before dev hardware was available and the engineering team always maintained the code base simultaneously. It wasn't a downported PS3 engine, it was literally a Vita engine running on a PS3.

Bend do seem very capable though and if they weren't locked into launch or they were allowed to iterate further (Uncharted GA2, inFamous Vita, etc) I'm sure they could've further optimized and gotten their engine to native res.

That is actually pretty hard to determine though without final hardware. I am sure there were some issues that are present with final hardware that couldn't have been seen before hand and because of "how" the PS3 works they most likely didn't see any pitfalls (outside of the number crunching) before the final hardware was in their hand. I really don't believe that they were not caught by surprise by a couple of things that changed how the game performed.

I am sure they probably could have done better but i have no idea what Sony is doing. I am not sure if much effort is going to be thrown the Vita's way anymore because of the success of the PS4.

That's not entirely true, Yokoi's "withered technology" angle went out the window in the mid 1990s with N64. Besides the Wii (which was a special case and more "recycled" than "withered") Nintendo's home consoles haven't followed that philosophy and even their handhelds buck it in certain respects (DS WiFi, 3DS autostereoscopic screen).

Also at Nintendo the hardware and software engineering teams work in tandem to arrive at spec. You're completely wrong here, in fact the 3DS hardware producer came from the software side (Hideki Konno, head of EAD Group 1). Yokoi himself even routinely headed both hardware and software projects. Maybe this degree of collaboration and integration is why Nintendo puts out hardware that software engineers don't seem to have issues with maintaining native res?

Yokoi's thought process wasn't about "withered" tech. It was simply about established tech. Tech that has been around long enough that they know it works and they know how it works. With the N64 they dealt with SGI to produce the GPU and that company was an older company they deferred to their knowledge of established hardware. The CPU was based of established RISC design and based off of a processor released 3 years before the N64 was released. Again established tech but first time used in a console. Wifi protocol was created 7 years before the DS was released.Again established tech but first time used in a console. And are you saying that Autostereoscopic is a new concept? Do I really have to get into dates and times behind that tech? Do you not see the trend yet?

When a company designs hardware they have targets in mind. They are not going to dictate the theoretical limits of a game they haven't made yet to determine hardware design. That is the most illogical point of view I have heard anyone present. Hardware design that include game devs and software engineers do so, to ensure that the tech isn't horrible to develop for, so they want to move past an era where hardware was designed in a way that was so focused on the tech that no one ever asked what the real world implications of making a game on it was.

So for hardware, chances are Nintendo's thought process were more along the line of, what have we not done before? How can we innovate and keep people interested? How do we keep this under a certain size and power draw? How do we keep this under the target cost?

I doubt they listed specific resolutions, framerates and engines that could be used on the hardware first before nailing down other aspects they were comfortable with. Again established tech comes first, then they conform to that.

I don't know why you are still discussing with him about a launch game. He just won't get it.

I am just trying to address the thought process behind it.

For someone who won't address me directly you seem pretty fixated on me. And speaking of odd fixations, why are you completely centering on launch when I listed several non-launch 1st party games than run subnative res (LBP, Killzone, Resistance, GOW Collection, Gravity Rush, Soul Sacrifice)?

Gravity rush was a launch game, Resistance was second party, GOW is a port, Soul Sacrifice native res was not a goal in favor of fast load times and strong emphasis on multiplayer play over a network. Both Killzone and Wipeout have dynamic resolutions that leave them at native res more often than not and reason being is they brought over alot of effects from the engines they used for the PS3. The Game itself wasn't a port but the engine used to make it are modified PS3 engines sorta like what happened with Golden Abyss. And again you mention a handful but what about the other 100+ first and second party titles Sony brought to console since launch. At this point in time it does seem like you have an axe to grind by pointing out the few games you can scrounge up and even including launch games and a port in there.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Maybe Nintendo can match the iphone 3 specs.

 

[Gestault]

3d is a stupid fad and it drives me insane that the 3ds screen and performance were kneecapped to include it.

On the plus side, many 3DS games change framerate up to 60 fps when you disabled 3D.

 

[sörine]

Sounds like we're getting above 480p from that earlier thread tidbit anyway, so I hope they at least get within the 32 pixel range of the predecessor rival hardware like this time because thats the most we can ever expect them to achieve. 514p for days.

They far exceeded it last time actually.

PSP = ~128k pixels
3DS = ~268k pixels
Vita = ~522k pixels

I wonder if 4DS will also more than double Vita's pixel count? Without sacrificing resolution in nearly all major first party games?

3d is a stupid fad and it drives me insane that the 3ds screen and performance were kneecapped to include it.

Some devs forego 3D for performance (like One Piece Unlimited Adventure) or develop flexible engines that take avantage of 3D being off to improve performance (like SSFIV or DOA Dimensions) or image quality (like RE Revelations or Starfox 64 3D). All 3D did really was improve 3DS performance at the design stage, otherwise we'd have even weaker hardware.

 

[SystemUser]

They far exceeded it last time actually.

PSP = ~128k pixels
3DS = ~268k pixels
Vita = ~522k pixels

I wonder if 4DS will also more than double Vita's pixel count? Without sacrificing resolution in nearly all major first party games?


Some devs forego 3D for performance (like One Piece Unlimited Adventure) or develop flexible engines that take avantage of 3D being off to improve performance (like SSFIV or DOA Dimensions) or image quality (like RE Revelations or Starfox 64 3D). All 3D did really was improve 3DS performance at the design stage, otherwise we'd have even weaker hardware.

Are you including the lower screen in the pixel count? I thought that the lower screen can't be rendering the same polygon engine as the upper screen. I know that was definitely true that the original DS could only run a polygonal engine on one screen are a time. I can't think of any 3DS games that break that rule. So the 3DS is technically pushing the pixels of the lower screen, but usually the pixels on the lower screen are taxing the GPU much less since they are usually low motion sprites and text. Is the lower screen on 3DS even allowed to run Mode 7 like scaling? In Zelda a Link Between Worlds for instance why does the map have limited view ranges instead of scaling?


If you subtract the lower screen it is still pushing 192k pixels when in 3D mode. Just from anecdotally I know 20 people personally and they all claim to rarely use the 3D on the 3DS. I use the 3D more then 50% of the time personally and everyone is surprised when I say I use it. If you are playing in 2DS mode then you are looking at 96k

 

[LeleSocho]

1. I find these "in defence of Nintendo" threads a little odd. I mean, it's just odd to see people defending some of Nintendo's design decisions even though these systems are relative failures.

2. I'd honestly be surprised if they got the next one up to 480. Maybe 360?

3. People have this mindset that no matter what, Nintendo will make a comeback and all those threads are just seeds for crow-eating later on. It's just a little annoying.

This is not a thread "in defence of Nintendo", is a "you are a fool if you think that 1080p+ resolution is gonna be a thing on any handheld console" thread, hell i even put it in bold that this is not strictly about Nintendo but to any hardware manufacturer.
I could've put Sony and not a single word would've changed in the op, the problems are the same if not more for Sony since it would need to push an even higher IQ than Nintendo's console.
Sincerely it would be stupid to think that something from me would be in defence of nintendo in the first place.

The only reason i've chose Nintendo as the subject is because there's way more talk about 3ds' successor than Vita's and because of the ignorant comments such as "lol Nintendo so cheap it wouldn't even go 1080p my 150$ phone has 1440p lulz".

 

[staticneuron]

They far exceeded it last time actually.

PSP = ~128k pixels
3DS = ~268k pixels
Vita = ~522k pixels

I wonder if 4DS will also more than double Vita's pixel count? Without sacrificing resolution in nearly all major first party games?

Being disingenuous now?

3DS top screen is, 400×240 (96000) per eye and the bottom screen is 320×240 (76,800) so you never see 268k pixels in one screen and while focusing on the top screen the total perceived resolution remains 400×240 despite delivering slightly different information to each eye.

Again that snipe you made is also untrue given that there have been over 100 first and second party titles to grace the Vita and now you are obfuscating numbers to prove an incorrect stance.

You really don't like the Vita do you?

 

[……forgetit]

This is not a thread "in defence of Nintendo", is a "you are a fool if you think that 1080p+ resolution is gonna be a thing on any handheld console" thread, hell i even put it in bold that this is not strictly about Nintendo but to any hardware manufacturer.
I could've put Sony and not a single word would've changed in the op, the problems are the same if not more for Sony since it would need to push an even higher IQ than Nintendo's console.

The only reason i've chose Nintendo as the subject is because there's way more talk about 3ds' successor than Vita's and because of the ignorant comment such as "lol Nintendo so cheap it wouldn't even go 1080p my 150$ phone has 1440p lulz".

I agree on the 1080p thing. You'd be high to expect that shit. I look at tablets and smartphones the same way I look at Gaming PCs. The absolute shoot for the moon best you'll get, but you'll more than likely get low to mid-range specs in the next portable/console.

1080p wouldn't work for literally dozens of reasons, but the biggest is actually pushing that many pixels on a handheld would drain the battery way too quickly, and not to mention heat would be a huge problem.

 

[blu]

Being disingenuous now?

3DS top screen is, 400×240 (96000) per eye and the bottom screen is 320×240 (76,800) so you never see 268k pixels in one screen and while focusing on the top screen the total perceived resolution remains 400×240 despite delivering slightly different information to each eye.

Posting basic factual information (800 * 240 + 320 * 240) is disingenuous how?

 

[LeleSocho]

Being disingenuous now?

3DS top screen is, 400×240 (96000) per eye and the bottom screen is 320×240 (76,800) so you never see 268k pixels in one screen and while focusing on the top screen the total perceived resolution remains 400×240 despite delivering slightly different information to each eye.

Again that snipe you made is also untrue given that there have been over 100 first and second party titles to grace the Vita and now you are obfuscating numbers to prove an incorrect stance.

You really don't like the Vita do you?

The 3ds top screen is 800x240 pixels, leave this deceiving and misleading "400x240 per eye" out of here. The 3ds can and does render a 800x240 image and the screen below does not power itself by black magic, it's always the 3ds cpu/gpu that drives it.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Without sacrificing resolution in nearly all major first party games?

What were your feelings on 3DS' Pokemon titles "sacrificing" half of their resolution at times? Was that because Nintendo's hardware team did not work hard enough with Game Freak's software people to ensure rock solid graphical competence?

Dinging games like Killzone Mercenary on dynamic resolution technicalities to protect an imagined low-tier 4DS entry's "balanced" power is where we're at now I guess. The wonderful return of the WUST Force is upon us.

 

[staticneuron]

Posting basic factual information (800 * 240 + 320 * 240) is disingenuous how?

The 3ds top screen is 800x240 pixels, leave this deceiving and misleading "400x240 per eye" out of here. The 3ds can and does render a 800x240 image and the screen below does not power itself by black magic, it's always the 3ds cpu/gpu that drives it.

In a thread talking about resolution of a screen that people can see, going to the numbers without pointing out that people do not perceive that resolution is misleading. The images sent to each eye combines to form a unified image and area you are looking at. Also talking about screen pixel counts and then talking about native resolution titles running on those screens are misleading because while two of those device puts all the visual information of a game on the screen, the other display for the DS and 3DS may be used for maps, a method of input or a simple notification screen.

Did I really need to elaborate on this?

 

[sörine]

Are you including the lower screen in the pixel count? I thought that the lower screen can't be rendering the same polygon engine as the upper screen. I know that was definitely true that the original DS could only run a polygonal engine on one screen are a time. I can't think of any 3DS games that break that rule. So the 3DS is technically pushing the pixels of the lower screen, but usually the pixels on the lower screen are taxing the GPU much less since they are usually low motion sprites and text. Is the lower screen on 3DS even allowed to run Mode 7 like scaling? In Zelda a Link Between Worlds for instance why does the map have limited view ranges instead of scaling?

If you subtract the lower screen it is still pushing 192k pixels when in 3D mode. Just from anecdotally I know 20 people personally and they all claim to rarely use the 3D on the 3DS. I use the 3D more then 50% of the time personally and everyone is surprised when I say I use it. If you are playing in 2DS mode then you are looking at 96k

You can run 3D engines across both screens, you even could on DS too (Viewtiful Joe, Animal Crossing, etc). I'm not sure where that myth originated but it was disproven long ago.

Also the 2DS uses one lage single screen although I can't seem to find the total resolution for it anywhere.

 

[sörine]

What were your feelings on 3DS' Pokemon titles "sacrificing" half of their resolution at times? Was that because Nintendo's hardware team did not work hard enough with Game Freak's software people to ensure rock solid graphical competence?

Dinging games like Killzone Mercenary on dynamic resolution technicalities to protect an imagined low-tier 4DS entry's "balanced" power is where we're at now I guess. The wonderful return of the WUST Force is upon us.

Pokémon's technically 3rd party! *ducks*

 

[blu]

In a thread talking about resolution of a screen that people can see, going to the numbers without pointing out that people do not perceive that resolution is misleading.

Are you suggesting that less than 800*240 pixels are being perceived by the person looking at the screen?

The images sent to each eye combines to form a unified image and area you are looking at.

The framebuffer is 800*240, the GPU renders at that res, and the amount of individual pixels emitted at the user is 800*240. Are you sure you are not the one being disingenuous here?

Also talking about screen pixel counts and then talking about native resolution titles running on those screens are misleading because while two of those device puts all the visual information of a game on the screen, the other display for the DS and 3DS may be used for maps, a method of input or a simple notification screen.

That's a serious lapse of logic there. First off, a sufficient number of ds/3ds titles use the second screen for things other than maps. Second, what happens when a single-screen device has a portion of the screen covered by a map, or any other kind of solid UI - shall we subtract the pixel area of the map from the screen res somehow?

Dinging games like Killzone Mercenary on dynamic resolution technicalities to protect an imagined low-tier 4DS entry's "balanced" power is where we're at now I guess. The wonderful return of the WUST Force is upon us.

You need some tequila with that salt?

 

[LeleSocho]

In a thread talking about resolution of a screen that people can see, going to the numbers without pointing out that people do not perceive that resolution is misleading. The images sent to each eye combines to form a unified image and area you are looking at. Also talking about screen pixel counts and then talking about native resolution titles running on those screens are misleading because while two of those device puts all the visual information of a game on the screen, the other display for the DS and 3DS may be used for maps, a method of input or a simple notification screen.

Did I really need to elaborate on this?

wat
The only way you do not perceive the full resolution is if you have only one eye or one of them is damaged.
Again the console renders and outputs at 800x240 and the user looks at a 800x240 image.

 

[staticneuron]

Are you suggesting that less than 800*240 pixels are being perceived by the person looking at the screen?


The framebuffer is 800*240, the GPU renders at that res, and the amount of individual pixels emitted at the user is 800*240. Are you sure you are not the one being disingenuous here?


That's a serious lapse of logic there. First off, a sufficient number of ds/3ds titles use the second screen for things other than maps. Second, what happens when a single-screen device has a portion of the screen covered by a map, or any other kind of solid UI - shall we subtract the pixel area of the map from the screen res somehow?

wat
The only way you do not perceive the full resolution is if you have only one eye or one of them is damaged.
Again the console renders and outputs at 800x240 and the user looks at a 800x240 image.

This logic is like saying that every image on Lenticular printed document is being perceived at the same time. So even if the printed material is 8x11 there are 5 images so in effect people are seeing a sheet of paper that is 40x55!!!

The resolution is 400x240 that is the area you see period. You are getting discrete information per eye but that does not change the actual resolution area you are seeing no matter how you want to spin it.

 

[Pie and Beans]

You need some tequila with that salt?

Top kek.

Nintendo handheld suicide: Snort the salt, start up the game, squeeze lime into eye. "Dunno what you're talking about, this resolution looks blindin' to me, maet!!" Nintendo-goggles is a state of inebriation, not a new peripheral

 

[sörine]

Top kek.

Nintendo handheld suicide: Snort the salt, start up the game, squeeze lime into eye. "Dunno what you're talking about, this resolution looks blindin' to me, maet!!" Nintendo-goggles is a state of mind, not a new peripheral

Oh, so this why staticneuron insists he can only "see" 240p?

 

[Gestault]

In a thread talking about resolution of a screen that people can see, going to the numbers without pointing out that people do not perceive that resolution is misleading.

I was under the impression big components of the OP's line of thinking was battery life and processing requirements for a handheld.

 

[blu]

This logic is like saying that every image on Lenticular printed document is being perceived at the same time.

The stereoscopic image on the 3ds is being perceived at the same time.

The resolution is 400x240 that is the area you see period. You are getting discrete information per eye but that does not change the actual resolution area you are seeing no matter how you want to spin it.

The resolution is 2*400*240 (aka 800*240), and that is the screen you see. If you weren't seeing 2* 400*240, then you'd not be seeing the stereoscopic effect in the first place.

 

[Cute Dragon Here]

I believe that GPUs don't really care about anything other than how many pixels are being drawn in total when it comes to calculations like this.

In the average stereoscopic 3D 3DS game with no form of supersampling AA applied, there'd be a total of two 400x240 and one 320x240 frame buffer's amount of pixels pushed every second minimum. Can't work around that in any way. If one of the 400x240 didn't count, that wouldn't be stereoscopic 3D at all, no?

blu has a better explanation than me.

 

[LeleSocho]

This logic is like saying that every image on Lenticular printed document is being perceived at the same time. So even if the printed material is 8x11 there are 5 images so in effect people are seeing a sheet of paper that is 40x55!!!

The resolution is 400x240 that is the area you see period. You are getting discrete information per eye but that does not change the actual resolution area you are seeing no matter how you want to spin it.

No no look you are probably missing the point, when you see the 3ds screen you are looking at a 800x240 pixels of information... the only difference is that this informations instead of being of detail is of depth, if you really watched 400x240 pixels of information you would not see the image in 3d.
It changes essentially nothing.

 

[staticneuron]

The stereoscopic image on the 3ds is being perceived at the same time.

When you look at a stereoscopic lenticular image you are seeing multiple images at the same time as well.

The resolution is 2*400*240 (aka 800*240), and that is the screen you see. If you weren't seeing 2* 400*240, then you'd not be seeing the stereoscopic effect in the first place.

Ok let me put it to you this way if you purchase a 1080p 3D television and you watch 3D content on the screen You are in in fact receiving 1080p worth of information per eye. Does that make your TV area 2160p now? Would you be ok if they started marketing 3D TV's like that?

I was under the impression big components of the OP's line of thinking was battery life and processing requirements for a handheld.

Given that the screen resolution on various hardware device negate the idea that screen resolution by itself is harmful the only real argument presented is the hardware power needed to generate games on a screen of that nature witch actually is dealing with people perceptions more than anything because all games do not adhere to a set amount of power. it is backwards logic because the games performance is dictated by developers goals not the resolution of the screen. As I stated repeatedly. But this is framed from the jump as a perception issue.

hence this gem

I want to put an end to this because these kind of expectationsare wrong not only for Nintendo but for everyone that at this point in time wants to build an handheld console.

No no look you are probably missing the point, when you see the 3ds screen you are looking at a 800x240 pixels of information... the only difference is that this informations instead of being of detail is of depth, if you really watched 400x240 pixels of information you would not see the image in 3d.
It changes essentially nothing.

Amount of data you are seeing at any given moment is not the same as resolution area. Just as I mentioned above. I know what you guys are saying, I am just trying to explain that that does not change the perceived resolution area of the screen. You gain perception of depth.

 

[lwilliams3]

It's higher than you think, but lower than some hope for.

Now I'm glad I decided to check out this thread.

 

[LeleSocho]

Given that the screen resolution on various hardware device negate the idea that screen resolution by itself is harmful

What? Do you have any fact to back that up?
There, read this and you'll see that an increase of ~140 ppi you'll have a 20% power draw increase on the display, not on the cpu/gpu but the display only. On a 3 hours of battery life that means 36 minutes less that would become 2 hours and 24 minutes ONLY FOR THE DISPLAY.

 

[blu]

Ok let me put it to you this way if you purchase a 1080p 3D television and you watch 3D content on the screen You are in in fact receiving 1080p worth of information per eye. Does that make your TV area 2160p now? Would you be ok if they started marketing 3D TV's like that?

It really depends how you receive the information.

* If it's via shutter glasses, then you see 1080p at any given time, but physiologically your brain can turn the temporal sequence of high-frequency images into more pixels per less fps. Basically, you use higher fps for fooling the brain into seeing more pixels at a lower fps. That's why that tech only works with high fps content.

* If it's via polarized glasses, then you actually see 1920*1080 per eye, for 2*1920*1080 of image via polarization filters. The fb being fed to you is 2*1920*1080 - this is what the content resolution is.

3ds is akin to the latter type - it feeds 2* 400*240 images to the viewer, simultaneously.

 

[mrklaw]

Any reason why a new nintendo handheld couldn't have one of those intel cherrytrail atoms that come out in a few months?
(other than nintendo likes to put 6-7 year old hardware in their handhelds and sell it at a quadruple premium, that is not a valid reason)

6" 720p screen with one of these and a decent 6-7000mah battery (batteries are dirt dirt dirt cheap before you say anything) wouldn't have to cost much, baytrail is available in tablets for around 100 euros, cherrytrail is the successor

Batteries are so cheap, yet nintendo couldn't even be arsed to fill the battery compartment in the WiiU gamepad (half of it is literally air) and instead gave us shit battery life on something that is mandatory for a lot of games and is constantly streaming data.

 

[Fusebox]

OP would be more convincing if the 3DS had a longer battery life than the Vita.

 

[GhostTrick]

Top kek.

Nintendo handheld suicide: Snort the salt, start up the game, squeeze lime into eye. "Dunno what you're talking about, this resolution looks blindin' to me, maet!!" Nintendo-goggles is a state of inebriation, not a new peripheral

You sounds too much emotionally invested in this conversation. Especially after jumping on people after being wrong on some facts.
But yes, to answer your question, actual mobile SoC have troubles to reach 720p on PS360 era games. This is facts. And it's useless to aim for a resolution if your handheld don't have the power for it, Vita has shown it.

 

[Gestault]

OP would be more convincing if the 3DS had a longer battery life than the Vita.

Searches for like-to-like comparisons seem to confirm that's the case. It's barely over an hour difference, but it's still there in favor of the 3DS.

 

[staticneuron]

What? Do you have any fact to back that up?
There, read this and you'll see that an increase of ~140 ppi you'll have a 20% power draw increase on the display, not on the cpu/gpu but the display only. On a 3 hours of battery life that means 36 minutes less that would become 2 hours and 24 minutes ONLY FOR THE DISPLAY.

Yes there are increases in power draw but not enough to offset the advances we made with batteries and panels over the years.

If this were true then that would mean that any portable device with HD resolution screen should not have a battery life of over 3 hours.

OP would be more convincing if the 3DS had a longer battery life than the Vita.

This as well.

It really depends how you receive the information.

* If it's via shutter glasses, then you see 1080p at any given time, but physiologically your brain can turn the temporal sequence of high-frequency images into more pixels per less fps. Basically, you use higher fps for fooling the brain into seeing more pixels at a lower fps. That's why that tech only works with high fps content.

* If it's via polarized glasses, then you actually see 1920*1080 per eye, for 2*1920*1080 of image via polarization filters. The fb being fed to you is 2*1920*1080 - this is what the content resolution is.

3ds is akin to the latter type - it feeds 2* 400*240 images to the viewer, simultaneously.

From same article that you linked..

Disadvantages

The images for polarized glasses have to share the screen simultaneously, and therefore cannot have full resolution delivered to each eye simultaneously

Even as such, the information provided to each eye still does not change the overall resolution of the screen.

You sounds too much emotionally invested in this conversation. Especially after jumping on people after being wrong on some facts.
But yes, to answer your question, actual mobile SoC have troubles to reach 720p on PS360 era games. This is facts. And it's useless to aim for a resolution if your handheld don't have the power for it, Vita has shown it.

Because it make sense to try to run games designed on PS3/360 on a mobile SoC?

Searches for like-to-like comparisons seem to confirm that's the case. It's barely over an hour difference, but it's still there in favor of the 3DS.

That is a repost of this...

http://kotaku.com/5875756/the-most-insane-battery-test-ive-ever-seen

And notice that the 3D is off for the 3DS.


This thread has been eye opening. I think I am just going to walk away here.

 

[Pie and Beans]

This is facts. And it's useless to aim for a resolution if your handheld don't have the power for it, Vita has shown it.

 

[blu]

From same article that you linked..

Erm, there are different technologies (but yes, polarized glasses can be used similarly to shutter glasses).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarized_3D_system#System_construction_and_examples

In the case of RealD a circularly polarizing liquid crystal filter which can switch polarity many times per second is placed on front of the projector lens. Only one projector is needed, as the left and right eye images are displayed alternately. Sony features a new system called RealD XLS, which shows both circularly polarized images simultaneously: A single 4K projector displays two 2K images one above the other, a special lens attachment polarizes and projects the images on top of each other.[2]

Also, nice try at selective quoting:

The images for polarized glasses have to share the screen simultaneously, and therefore cannot have full resolution delivered to each eye simultaneously[citation needed]. A full 1080p picture results from image fusion.[15][16] This disadvantage does not occur on projections where each pixel can contain information for both eyes.

..This disadvantage does not occur on projections where each pixel can contain information for both eyes.

So a tv can feed 1920*1080 / 2 per eye, for a total of 1920*1080, or 2* 1920*1080 (or 2* 2K for a total of 4K, in the case of RealD XLS).

Even as such, the information provided to each eye still does not change the overall resolution of the screen.

Keep repeating that, if that makes you feel better. *shrug*

 

[GhostTrick]

Because it make sense to try to run games designed on PS3/360 on a mobile SoC?

When that game is Trine 2... which clearly isn't the most demanding title... yes there is. We could also talk about Oddworld HD port on Android.

Would work better with actual words instead of a gif to mock the other person who you're arguing with.

 

[Pelydr]

Yeah, how horrible if Nintendo actually released hardware that was up to date! It's so much better to pay for thier overpriced hardware like the 3ds and WIIU!

 

[sörine]

When that game is Trine 2... which clearly isn't the most demanding title... yes there is. We could also talk about Oddworld HD port on Android.

In fairness Trine 2 runs dynamic res on PS3 and 360. Their older graphics chips strain a bit under the game's deferred rendering model.

Trine 2 didn't run 720p locked on a console until Wii U, or 1080p until PS4.

 

[GhostTrick]

Yeah, how horrible if Nintendo actually released hardware that was up to date! It's so much better to pay for thier overpriced hardware like the 3ds and WIIU!

Just a fair question: Did you read the OP or even the conversation that followed up ?

In fairness Trine 2 runs dynamic res on PS3 and 360. Their older graphics chips strain a bit under the game's deferred rendering model.

Trine 2 didn't run 720p locked on a console until Wii U, or 1080p until PS4.

Indeed ! But then again, people can't expect a handheld to push such graphics at native res if a tablet cant do it.

 

[Gestault]

That is a repost of this...

http://kotaku.com/5875756/the-most-insane-battery-test-ive-ever-seen

And notice that the 3D is off for the 3DS.

Right, it was a battery endurance test, so both systems also had their screen brightness at low and wireless disabled. In those conditions, the battery life was an hour better for the 3DS. A 3D display using more power than a 2D display isn't something that was being denied here.

 

[lutheran]

You can also stop with the 600-800 dollar pricing comparison with mobile phones because none of those phones is really worth anything close to that price.


http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/iphone-cost-what-apple-is-paying/

Apple made almost 300 dollars profit PER PHONE on the iPhone 5.

 

[1st Course]

Yeah, how horrible if Nintendo actually released hardware that was up to date! It's so much better to pay for thier overpriced hardware like the 3ds and WIIU!

People are just being realistic. Handhelds are all about affordability, Nintendo and Sony tried to sell their handhelds for $250 and it backfired hard on them. After 3DS I think Nintendo learned the lesson and will try to make the next handheld as affordable as possible.