ClovingWestbrook
Banned
We don't want a system that costs $500+.
We also don't want one that costs $250-300. Give me $350 with specs that will carry it into next gen.
We don't want a system that costs $500+.
Yeah, the annoying Wii/DS games that substitute easy actions with inconvenient swipes or swings is annoying. However, they are pretty good at getting Apple right for some reason.
I agree and have understood your position but you were being intentionally over the top, controversial and inflamatory. People aren't disagreeing with what you have to say, it's how you say it. I've seen you do this in plenty of other threads as well to know by now that it is intentional.
After the 3DS reveal the media was behind Nintendo all the way. Which was pretty surprising because I was unimpressed with a lot of the games(mostly ports) Nintendo revealled during the big 3DS reveal at E3.
I'm just so baffled as to why so many people would prefer an imprecise multi-touch capacitive touch screen over a precise resistive touch screen. Multi-touch really wouldn't add much, anyway. While it would be nice for some touch screen only games, how many of those do you honestly expect? Most games are going to make use of the buttons and sticks. Plus, a capacitive touch screen would pretty much mean that there would be no good drawing apps.
I want to pinch to zoom into maps, have simultaneous two player games on the touchpad, have quick keys with gestures, none of which is possible with the Wii U. I simply don't see extreme pixel accuracy to be something worth sacrificing for in this instance.
I do ^_^We also don't want one that costs $250-300.
We also don't want one that costs $250-300. Give me $350 with specs that will carry it into next gen.
We also don't want one that costs $250-300. Give me $350 with specs that will carry it into next gen.
Multi touch would be the smartest decision Nintendo could make at this point.
I think if you took a poll of the entire consumer base (not just the small, small subsection that is GAF) that buys video game systems the vast majority would disagree with you.
Those people also don't buy a console on day one. They can get their $299 box a couple of years in.
I doubt Nintendo will put the price of the system higher than 300$ after the bad experience with 3DS.
They said they've learned from that mistake. So, a 350$ system is out of question.
Why would me wanting to only spend $299 mean I'm not buying it day one?
I wonder, what if they announce an Ambassador program right at the start?I doubt Nintendo will put the price of the system higher than 300$ after the bad experience with 3DS.
They said they've learned from that mistake. So, a 350$ system is out of question.
We also don't want one that costs $250-300. Give me $350 with specs that will carry it into this gen.
Are capacitive screens really that imprecise? After all the Galaxy Note works pretty well I think.
Also, I think that capacitive screens are more responsive. I really didn't like the buttons on the DS touch screen, which you needed to press and where slight touches weren't enough. Never had such problems on a good smartphone.
do people not know a stylus can be used on a capacitive screen. I use one when I take notes on my ipad
I doubt Nintendo will put the price of the system higher than 300$ after the bad experience with 3DS.
They said they've learned from that mistake. So, a 350$ system is out of question.
We also don't want one that costs $250-300. Give me $350 with specs that will carry it into next gen.
Yes. And it's not as accurate as resistive.
We also don't want one that costs $250-300. Give me $350 with specs that will carry it into next gen.
not in a way most people would find noticeable
also, and "yes" as in they do not know or that they do know?
Look at the size of this thing. I'd imagine it would be quite hard to fit a beast of a GPU like a 680 in there. I mean, my measly 5850 is nearly as big as the entire console.![]()
Speak for yourself. I'd be quite happy with the Wii U costing $250.
Consoles get special GPUs which are way smaller than the PCIe-Cards you use, so they will fit easily into the case.
Speak for yourself. I'd be quite happy with the Wii U costing $250.
All I want to hear out of Gearbox is that the Wii remote for pointer controls is being supported. Outside of that I don't care what they have to say about the Wii U or Aliens.
Consoles get special GPUs which are way smaller than the PCIe-Cards you use, so they will fit easily into the case.
So you want Xbox 360 + Wii U controller? That Wii U controller ain't cheap to manufacture. I would rather pay $350 for a more powerful console.
But the tool that you use to interact with the screen (your finger) isn't. It's not nearly as precise as a resistive touch screen with stylus controls.Multitouch capacitive is not very imprecise at all. It's quite precise, actually.
A Wii U controller with a resistive touch screen still has two player simultaneous potential, just like the DS/3DS does. Not through touch, of course, but with buttons. Think Photo Dojo, or the upcoming Bomb Monkey as examples. I personally believe sharing the controller that way would be much better. While the Wii U's screen is a pretty good size, it's not exactly that big. If you have four hands poking around on there, it's going to get cramped, not to mention your view is going to be obscured. You don't have to worry about that with button controls.It adds two player simultaneous potential, while the resistive screen has none. Plus it brings about a host of shortcut use, which is kinda important for most games.
As do I, but I'd expect many of those games to use buttons in addition to the touch screen.I expect a console centered around the entire idea of a touch screen/tablet to have some pretty intensive touch screen based games.
To answer your question: lots, actually. In many DS games you can use either buttons or touch to control the action on the Touch Screen (assuming that there's actually some action going on down there and not just some interactive HUDs like in most games, which I'm sure will be the case with Wii U games as well). There are a few touch-only games, but there are many more games that support both buttons and touch screen controls, or even button only games.To manipulate the action on the TV screen, sure. It doesn't help at all with the touch screen. How many DS games use the buttons/dpad for the bottom touch screen? (somewhat honest question, as I don't know, but I bet it's not many).
I have no interest in drawing on my computer. I don't have that much interest in drawing period, really, but when I said "drawing" I meant it in a general sense. Not just drawing as in drawing pictures, but the act of drawing on the screen, be it for drawing pictures, writing something, or even the act of drawing used in gameplay.Then get a tablet for your computer. Don't turn what could potentially be a really great idea- touch screen based gaming with a TV- into a drawing tablet for kids. That's the very bottom of the barrel of ideas that the Wii U could bring to life.
I don't want to draw wisps of Link's hair down to the last precise pixel. I want to have new gameplay experiences.
I want something that will play Nintendo's new games and that won't break my budget. Plain and simple. I'm happy to pay between $249 to $299. I responded to the idea that no one wants a console that cost between that number which is simply not true. Not everyone is willing spend $500+ regardless of what is in the damn system.
not in a way most people would find noticeable
also, and "yes" as in they do not know or that they do know?
The accuracy not needing to be as good due to the large screen makes sense. One thing to remember about the Wii U tablet compared to a smartphone is that it'll have buttons easily available, too. Pinching to zoom may not be an option, but a zoom button is perfectly doable. Simultaneous multiplayer games would be possible if it was designed to not need simultaneous access to the screen and instead use buttons for most moves.
The game they showed in the video was Go, which is a turn-based game and, thus, wouldn't require simultaneous access to the screen. They also showed drawing a picture (Link's face) in the video, too, so they may not want to give that up. Easily accessible buttons + single-touch screen may be able to cover most functions that multi-touch would be needed for on a touch-only interface. Just a thought.
Does the iPad have BT mouse support? I have one for my Android tablet and it's nice. Not the same thing as a stylus, but it's useful for some stuff.The stylus I used on an iPad was awful. It was as fat as a fingertip.
Uhh, if you're playing a game then yes. Going by your logic I guess motion controls without the motion+ are ok because they're not inaccurate in a way most people would find noticeable, right?
Where did I say $500? Where did I say $400? $350 will hopefully enable Nintendo to include software AND enable it tech wise to last the next 5-6 years. Would you really want to pay $250 for a machine that will only last 2-3 years from now in terms of third party support? In terms of what it can do visually? To me, paying the extra $100 to make sure it lasts a few more years is well worth it.
Do you know if this is BS or just the specific product in question or if this is representative of response times of touchscreen tech? The difference sounds so extreme to believe...Multitouch resistive touchscreens do exist.
4. Quicker response time than capactive touch screen; Capactive touch screen respone time: 25ms, but resistive multi touch screen repone time: 1~2 ms
For what is worth i agree with him, if 350 gave the machine better specs apart of the controller and NIntendo sells it a cost, then they shoul've done it. It pays off in the long run.I think if you took a poll of the entire consumer base (not just the small, small subsection that is GAF) that buys video game systems the vast majority would disagree with you.
Capacitive touch screens do generally have significant input delay. I don't like resistive tech much, but this is an area where it has a huge advantage.Do you know if this is BS or just the specific product in question or if this is representative of response times of touchscreen tech? The difference sounds so extreme to believe...
What most people want is multi touch, not necesarily a capacitive screen. You could make as much as (if not more) of a compellingNintendo is a company that extensively tests their devices in every imaginable way. I'm sure they settled with the resistive tech for a variety of reasons. Some of which could include:
Price: The controller will be expensive as is... adding capacitive AND multi-touch won't make it any cheaper.
Durability: Nintendo usually never makes sacrifices here. Resistive screens can function with damage that usually ruins capacitive screens.
Precision: Accurately drawing, then adding items to a game, or precisely manipulating fine-details/objects in a virtual world.... Vs; pinching to zoom a freaking map? Really now?!
Lower accidental input %: The awesome sensitivity of a capative screen is great, but also increases the chance of accidental touch input. I'm sure we've all encountered it while texting or browsing, but I'm pretty sure Nintendo would be thinking more along the lines of; "how that will affect a person playing a heavily touch-based game?"
Reliable functionality: Sweaty hands? No problem!
Cross-Over Mechanics: This could be a very big incentive for Nintendo to keep resistive touch. Nintendo is in a position where they can have games on Wii U with mechanics that works exactly like their 3DS counterparts, but with a whole new level of immersion.
Those were just off the top of my head. If those advantages are readily apparent, I can only imagine how many more reasons Nintendo came up with via their R&D team. This isn't a simple case of out-dated tech vs new tech. It's a genuine case of weighing pros and cons. It's almost embarassing that "core-gamers" can't see that.
I'm neither a hater of capacitive, nor lover of resistive. I perfer capacitive for my cel phone(by far!), based on specific needs of the device. If Nintendo can deliver something that solves some of the issues associated with capacitive screens, then I'm all for that! Or, if they have a multi-touch resistive solution, then I'm all for that too! If not, I'll gladly settle for what they currently have right now.
I am 100% sure Nintendo put a lot of thought into their decision( a process which people who only see Nintendo as a naive company simply can't relate to). Even their Wii U patents leaves the possibility of the controller display screen being capacitive, which suggests that Nintendo sees capative touch a viable option, as long as it meets THEIR standards. For now, they wouldn't just forsake all the benefits resistive screens offer THEIR gaming device, just for bragging rights associate with "multi-touch capacitive tech". Were they offered a capacitive solution that satisfies said standards? We'll soon see!