Wii U

billy · June 19, 2011 03:30 AM

wac you really shouldn't argue with me about things like this

when an ign video is your only defense

Chaos · June 19, 2011 03:33 AM

Quote from: Billy
Quote from: W.A.C.
Quote from: Billyalso all the footage shown running on it was 720p30 with no anti-aliasing. it looks to be pretty much as powerful as a 360 or ps3.
The HD Zelda footage was in 1080p.
wrong as shit

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalf...-vs-e3-nintendo

Quote"The lighting is excellent, with many changing sources and a few particle effects in evidence - but my untrained eyes saw nothing here that an Xbox 360 or PS3 couldn't do. Perhaps Digital Foundry will say different."

Or perhaps not. The Zelda demo, or "HD Experience" as Nintendo calls it, is almost certainly running at a native resolution of 720p, with no anti-aliasing and seems to be locked at 30 frames per second with v-sync engaged (subsequently verified with a good look at a 60Hz feed taken from G4's broadcast coverage of the event).

It's native resolution may be 720p, but that doesn't mean it can't scale up to 1080p.
Most games on the PS3 and Xbox 360 need to be scaled up to 1080p and look like stretched out garbage, this I believe is the same case.

W.A.C. · June 19, 2011 06:55 AM

Quote from: Billywac you really shouldn't argue with me about things like this

when an ign video is your only defense

IGN is one of the most popular gaming sources out there. If they claim something is in 1080p, I figure it's not bullshit since they would have to be totally fucking stupid to not realize the difference, especially after making articles like this.

Ashington · June 19, 2011 09:09 AM

Quote from: W.A.C.they would have to be totally fucking stupid.

they are

also lmao at rope's post

Chaos · June 19, 2011 03:12 PM

IGN's reviews might be total ass, as well as most professional game sites; but when it comes to gaming news they need to get their shit right, or someone gets fired.

billy · June 19, 2011 10:39 PM

guys digital foundry did an analysis on the video

regardless of what it's upscaled to it's 720p at 30 fps

that's what digital foundry does and the fact that you're arguing with it is very idiotic

Chaos · June 19, 2011 11:47 PM

Quote from: Billyguys digital foundry did an analysis on the video

regardless of what it's upscaled to it's 720p at 30 fps

that's what digital foundry does and the fact that you're arguing with it is very idiotic

The Wii U supports 1080p, native resolution does not equal max resolution. This analysis doesn't reveal anything. No one really know what class GPU the Wii U has, it's speculation.

Wii U official page

billy · June 19, 2011 11:50 PM

the analysis reveals that nintendo's tech demo was running 720p at 30fps with no AA.

you don't even know what native resolution means.

also you are retarded.

Chaos · June 19, 2011 11:53 PM

Quote from: Billythe analysis reveals that nintendo's tech demo was running 720p at 30fps with no AA.

you don't even know what native resolution means.

also you are retarded.

Even if that tech demo was running at 720p it doesn't mean anything. Wii U's official site says it does 1080p.
I explained in my first post what native resolution is. You should actually try to correct me rather than call me ratarded.

By the way I was looking at IGN's article of their built up Wii 2, that was the article I was talking about, my bad.
The analysis by the other site is correct, but it doesn't mean anything atm.

billy · June 20, 2011 12:44 AM

you never explained what you think native resolution is, but it's completely irrelevant. i'm guessing you mean the actual resolution that each frame is rendered at before being scaled to the screen's resolution. or maybe you mean the resolution of the screen that the frames are being scaled to. this is just terminology crap that i wouldn't expect anyone to know, unless they were pretending to be tech gurus.

just because wii u is capable of outputting 1080p doesn't mean that it has enough power to render anything impressive at that resolution. it is not computationally expensive to scale frames to large sizes, and there is nothing impressive about being able to output 1080p if the frames aren't actually being rendered in 1080p.

furthermore, the zelda demo was not running upscaled to 1080p (which isn't impressive anyways). it was running at 720p. you can tell from the pixels. especially when it's running without any form of edge smoothing whatsoever.

that puts the wii u at ps3 and 360 quality, except that it's coming out in late 2012. ~7 years after 360.

lol u mad

BluPhoenix · June 20, 2011 12:51 AM

Quote from: W.A.C.
Quote from: Billywrong as shit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arHNcSMXaBk

Granted, IGN has its flaws but that would be pretty bad if they're too stupid the tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

Quote from: Chaos
Quote from: Billythe analysis reveals that nintendo's tech demo was running 720p at 30fps with no AA.

you don't even know what native resolution means.

also you are retarded.

Even if that tech demo was running at 720p it doesn't mean anything. Wii U's official site says it does 1080p.
I explained in my first post what native resolution is. You should actually try to correct me rather than call me ratarded.

By the way I was looking at IGN's article of their built up Wii 2, that was the article I was talking about, my bad.
The analysis by the other site is correct, but it doesn't mean anything atm.

Quote from: Billyyou never explained what you think native resolution is, but it's completely irrelevant. i'm guessing you mean the actual resolution that each frame is rendered at before being scaled to the screen's resolution. or maybe you mean the resolution of the screen that the frames are being scaled to. this is just terminology crap that i wouldn't expect anyone to know, unless they were pretending to be tech gurus.

just because wii u is capable of outputting 1080p doesn't mean that it has enough power to render anything impressive at that resolution. it is not computationally expensive to scale frames to large sizes, and there is nothing impressive about being able to output 1080p if the frames aren't actually being rendered in 1080p.

furthermore, the zelda demo was not running upscaled to 1080p (which isn't impressive anyways). it was running at 720p. you can tell from the pixels. especially when it's running without any form of edge smoothing whatsoever.

that puts the wii u at ps3 and 360 quality, except that it's coming out in late 2012. ~7 years after 360.

lol u mad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJsuVLDt7lA

Chaos · June 20, 2011 03:24 AM

Quote from: Billyyou never explained what you think native resolution is, but it's completely irrelevant. i'm guessing you mean the actual resolution that each frame is rendered at before being scaled to the screen's resolution. or maybe you mean the resolution of the screen that the frames are being scaled to. this is just terminology crap that i wouldn't expect anyone to know, unless they were pretending to be tech gurus.

just because wii u is capable of outputting 1080p doesn't mean that it has enough power to render anything impressive at that resolution. it is not computationally expensive to scale frames to large sizes, and there is nothing impressive about being able to output 1080p if the frames aren't actually being rendered in 1080p.

furthermore, the zelda demo was not running upscaled to 1080p (which isn't impressive anyways). it was running at 720p. you can tell from the pixels. especially when it's running without any form of edge smoothing whatsoever.

that puts the wii u at ps3 and 360 quality, except that it's coming out in late 2012. ~7 years after 360.

lol u mad

U Jelly. :B

Nah I'm good now. This point (the bolded part) was pretty much what I was trying to say anyways, but thanks for clearing it up further.