• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Nintendo E3 2012 Conference Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adroit

Member
jonny_boi said:
Any ideas for what the thread should be called?

I'm thinking Wii Information Thread
Click to expand...

Nintendo Wii U Information Thread (or whatever). I recommend not putting brackets around the "U". It'll interfere with searching. And including "Nintendo" will help with searching too.

Just my 2 cents.
 
R

rpmurphy

Member
Miyamoto has nice T-shirts.
cwPp6.jpg
 
D

Dreamwriter

Member
richisawesome said:
Both of those are over a year old. I meant final hardware, from this E3.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that no one took any photos. I mean, really?
Click to expand...
Nintendo hid the things you want to see. This is a very crappy photo, but you can sorta see that they show the front of the console, but it disappears into a covered area so you couldn't even tell how long the console was, let alone what the ports looked like. And that thick wire coming out the side, that's what went into the Gamepad.

2SLFO.jpg
 
S

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
Just a heads up, a new Wii U thread is up and running in the community thread.
 
C

Chinpoko_Master

Member
I'm glad I held onto this prediction. It's funny how wrong it ended up being:
smug said:
Wow the majority of people here have got to be the most shallow minded fucking sheople I have ever witnessed. It's a fact, Nintendo is pretty guaranteed to swallow both Sony fans (because Sony just isn't cool anymore) and Microsoft (sorry no mature gamer wants to be flailing their arms around with kinect shit) who only cares about their new direction which is MULTIMEDIA (another word for ADVERTISEMENT).

That's just the tip of the iceberg... people here are soooooooo fucking clueless about why Nintendo is eventually going to guarantee you will be buying the Wii U version. Clue #1, it has NOTHING to do with graphics. Wait until you see the shit they are doing with Batman on the Wii U... this alone is going to turn heads and it's only going to be a matter of time when more developers start leveraging what the Wii U has to offer.

Don't even get me started on what Nintendo is going to come out with.. talk about BLOWING UR FUCKING MIND... there is going to be guaranteed MIND FUCK @ E3 this year for Nintendo.. Your mind, your jaw, your "my body is ready" will NOT be ready for this trip! So sit back and smoke some shit, eat some wild shrooms from the mushroom kingdom or drop some acid because your puny fucking brain bout to EXPLODE!
Click to expand...
 
S

Stephen Colbert

Banned
Four reasons why Nintendo should use a resolution of 960x540 for the Wii U Controller's screen (though it's probably too late to make this change assuming the console is still due out in 2012).

As a foreword, I just want to say that I think Nintendo should mandate that every Wii U title be rendered natively at a resolution of 1920x1080 at a rock solid 30 fps, with 60 fps for the racing and fighting genres. That would do a lot to win core gamers over, and the system is powerful enough to mandate this. Given this stipulation...

At E3, it was revealed that the Wii U controller demo units at e3 had a screen resolution of 854x480. I just wanted to share with you my input on why I think a resolution of 960x540, frequently referred to as a qHD resolution would be vastly preferable for the Wii U controller.

1. A full 1080p game like Rayman Origins streamed onto a qHD screen would look absolutely gorgeous. There are no compression or scaling artifacts when going from a resolution of 1080p to qHD. Unfortunately, if you had to scale instead to a resolution of 854x480, there will be compression and scaling artifacts apparent, which hurts the image quality. In addition, it would actually use more system resources to scale down to that resolution since the ratio is off. On the other hand, the resource use to scale an 1080p image to a qHD resolution would be very minimal..

2. One of the most sought after and frequently used functions of the Wii U will be to stream netflix movies, game trailers and other videos directly onto the controller even when the tv is being used by someone else. Much of that content is already at resolutions of 1080p or at worst 720p and videos at a 1080p resolutions will be even more common place by 2012 and 2013. From my experience with video conversion, processing and scaling, I can tell you that converting a HD resolution to a resolution of 960x540 (qHD) scales far better, uses less processing power, and results in stunningly beautiful results.This is because when you are going from a resolution of 1080p to qHD, you are scaling down exactly by a factor of four. Every four pixels can be combined down to one pixel and the results end up looking impeccable. The results when scaling from a 1080p or 720p video down to a resolution of 854x480 actually requires more processing resources and still doesn't look anywhere near as nice.

3. Given the size of the screen, and the distance the typical person will be holding from their face, pixel density absolutely does matter. At a resolution of 854x480 on a 6.2 inch screen, you end up with a pixel density of close to 150. At that value, you will definitely be able to see pixelation of the images on the controller and it won't look quite as nice. However, at a qHD resolution, the pixel density becomes closer to 200, which is optimal. Not only will be pixels be difficult to notice and pixellation minimal, but you could easily display text on the controller's screen and have it look crisp and very readible. I know that there are currently no plans to stream ebooks from the console down to the controller (though I see no reason to close the door on this entirely), I am certain that even for the purpose of games, like Scribblenauts for the Wii U, being able to display on the screen will be useful.

4. I expect that one of the most valuable features of the Wii U's controller is in Split-screen Multiplayer. While assymetric multiplayer is nice, traditional multiplatform games like Call of Duty will largely offer up traditional split-screen multiplayer where the splits a 1080p screen into four identical rectangle on the tv to display for each of up to four players. While this is fine if the players are playing with Wiimotes and nunchucks, if the players are instead playing with a Wii U controller, each of the four player's windows could be streamed perfectly, with zero scaling and very minimal processing needed to a qHD screen. However, if the screen had to scale down to lower resolution for the controller, this eats up more processing resources which are especially important during local multiplayer gaming (a resource intensive task already).

These are also the reason why I'm very happy that Sony made the correct decision to make the Vita qHD (resolution of 960x540) and excited to use the Vita as a controller for the PS4.
 
C

chertipros

Member
Stephen Colbert said:
Four reasons why Nintendo should use a resolution of 960x540 for the Wii U Controller's screen (though it's probably too late to make this change assuming the console is still due out in 2012).

As a foreword, I just want to say that I think Nintendo should mandate that every Wii U title be rendered natively at a resolution of 1920x1080 at a rock solid 30 fps, with 60 fps for the racing and fighting genres. That would do a lot to win core gamers over, and the system is powerful enough to mandate this. Given this stipulation...

At E3, it was revealed that the Wii U controller demo units at e3 had a screen resolution of 854x480. I just wanted to share with you my input on why I think a resolution of 960x540, frequently referred to as a qHD resolution would be vastly preferable for the Wii U controller.

1. A full 1080p game like Rayman Origins streamed onto a qHD screen would look absolutely gorgeous. There are no compression or scaling artifacts when going from a resolution of 1080p to qHD. Unfortunately, if you had to scale instead to a resolution of 854x480, there will be compression and scaling artifacts apparent, which hurts the image quality. In addition, it would actually use more system resources to scale down to that resolution since the ratio is off. On the other hand, the resource use to scale an 1080p image to a qHD resolution would be very minimal..

2. One of the most sought after and frequently used functions of the Wii U will be to stream netflix movies, game trailers and other videos directly onto the controller even when the tv is being used by someone else. Much of that content is already at resolutions of 1080p or at worst 720p and videos at a 1080p resolutions will be even more common place by 2012 and 2013. From my experience with video conversion, processing and scaling, I can tell you that converting a HD resolution to a resolution of 960x540 (qHD) scales far better, uses less processing power, and results in stunningly beautiful results.This is because when you are going from a resolution of 1080p to qHD, you are scaling down exactly by a factor of four. Every four pixels can be combined down to one pixel and the results end up looking impeccable. The results when scaling from a 1080p or 720p video down to a resolution of 854x480 actually requires more processing resources and still doesn't look anywhere near as nice.

3. Given the size of the screen, and the distance the typical person will be holding from their face, pixel density absolutely does matter. At a resolution of 854x480 on a 6.2 inch screen, you end up with a pixel density of close to 150. At that value, you will definitely be able to see pixelation of the images on the controller and it won't look quite as nice. However, at a qHD resolution, the pixel density becomes closer to 200, which is optimal. Not only will be pixels be difficult to notice and pixellation minimal, but you could easily display text on the controller's screen and have it look crisp and very readible. I know that there are currently no plans to stream ebooks from the console down to the controller (though I see no reason to close the door on this entirely), I am certain that even for the purpose of games, like Scribblenauts for the Wii U, being able to display on the screen will be useful.

4. I expect that one of the most valuable features of the Wii U's controller is in Split-screen Multiplayer. While assymetric multiplayer is nice, traditional multiplatform games like Call of Duty will largely offer up traditional split-screen multiplayer where the splits a 1080p screen into four identical rectangle on the tv to display for each of up to four players. While this is fine if the players are playing with Wiimotes and nunchucks, if the players are instead playing with a Wii U controller, each of the four player's windows could be streamed perfectly, with zero scaling and very minimal processing needed to a qHD screen. However, if the screen had to scale down to lower resolution for the controller, this eats up more processing resources which are especially important during local multiplayer gaming (a resource intensive task already).

These are also the reason why I'm very happy that Sony made the correct decision to make the Vita qHD (resolution of 960x540) and excited to use the Vita as a controller for the PS4.
Click to expand...
Why is this even here lol
 
C

ColdBlooder

Banned
Stephen Colbert said:
Four reasons why Nintendo should use a resolution of 960x540 for the Wii U Controller's screen (though it's probably too late to make this change assuming the console is still due out in 2012).

As a foreword, I just want to say that I think Nintendo should mandate that every Wii U title be rendered natively at a resolution of 1920x1080 at a rock solid 30 fps, with 60 fps for the racing and fighting genres. That would do a lot to win core gamers over, and the system is powerful enough to mandate this. Given this stipulation...

At E3, it was revealed that the Wii U controller demo units at e3 had a screen resolution of 854x480. I just wanted to share with you my input on why I think a resolution of 960x540, frequently referred to as a qHD resolution would be vastly preferable for the Wii U controller.

1. A full 1080p game like Rayman Origins streamed onto a qHD screen would look absolutely gorgeous. There are no compression or scaling artifacts when going from a resolution of 1080p to qHD. Unfortunately, if you had to scale instead to a resolution of 854x480, there will be compression and scaling artifacts apparent, which hurts the image quality. In addition, it would actually use more system resources to scale down to that resolution since the ratio is off. On the other hand, the resource use to scale an 1080p image to a qHD resolution would be very minimal..

2. One of the most sought after and frequently used functions of the Wii U will be to stream netflix movies, game trailers and other videos directly onto the controller even when the tv is being used by someone else. Much of that content is already at resolutions of 1080p or at worst 720p and videos at a 1080p resolutions will be even more common place by 2012 and 2013. From my experience with video conversion, processing and scaling, I can tell you that converting a HD resolution to a resolution of 960x540 (qHD) scales far better, uses less processing power, and results in stunningly beautiful results.This is because when you are going from a resolution of 1080p to qHD, you are scaling down exactly by a factor of four. Every four pixels can be combined down to one pixel and the results end up looking impeccable. The results when scaling from a 1080p or 720p video down to a resolution of 854x480 actually requires more processing resources and still doesn't look anywhere near as nice.

3. Given the size of the screen, and the distance the typical person will be holding from their face, pixel density absolutely does matter. At a resolution of 854x480 on a 6.2 inch screen, you end up with a pixel density of close to 150. At that value, you will definitely be able to see pixelation of the images on the controller and it won't look quite as nice. However, at a qHD resolution, the pixel density becomes closer to 200, which is optimal. Not only will be pixels be difficult to notice and pixellation minimal, but you could easily display text on the controller's screen and have it look crisp and very readible. I know that there are currently no plans to stream ebooks from the console down to the controller (though I see no reason to close the door on this entirely), I am certain that even for the purpose of games, like Scribblenauts for the Wii U, being able to display on the screen will be useful.

4. I expect that one of the most valuable features of the Wii U's controller is in Split-screen Multiplayer. While assymetric multiplayer is nice, traditional multiplatform games like Call of Duty will largely offer up traditional split-screen multiplayer where the splits a 1080p screen into four identical rectangle on the tv to display for each of up to four players. While this is fine if the players are playing with Wiimotes and nunchucks, if the players are instead playing with a Wii U controller, each of the four player's windows could be streamed perfectly, with zero scaling and very minimal processing needed to a qHD screen. However, if the screen had to scale down to lower resolution for the controller, this eats up more processing resources which are especially important during local multiplayer gaming (a resource intensive task already).

These are also the reason why I'm very happy that Sony made the correct decision to make the Vita qHD (resolution of 960x540) and excited to use the Vita as a controller for the PS4.
Click to expand...

WOW.

I cannot comprehend the ammount of nonsense in this post
 
G

Glix

Member
Poor guy worked SO hard on this post and laid out all his arguments and everything...

and then posts it in the wrong thread and everyone only comments on that...

Some days are fucking worst.
 
A

Apophis2036

Banned
Stephen Colbert said:
Four reasons why Nintendo should use a resolution of 960x540 for the Wii U Controller's screen (though it's probably too late to make this change assuming the console is still due out in 2012).

As a foreword, I just want to say that I think Nintendo should mandate that every Wii U title be rendered natively at a resolution of 1920x1080 at a rock solid 30 fps, with 60 fps for the racing and fighting genres. That would do a lot to win core gamers over, and the system is powerful enough to mandate this.
Click to expand...

Wii U will run games at native 720p, just like PS4 and the 720.

The reason ? - Price, performance, heat and the fact that 95% of gamers won't be able to tell the difference, HD is HD to the average Joe.
 
M

marc^o^

Nintendo's Pro Bono PR Firm
Stephen Colbert said:
Four reasons why Nintendo should use a resolution of 960x540 for the Wii U Controller's screen (though it's probably too late to make this change assuming the console is still due out in 2012).

As a foreword, I just want to say that I think Nintendo should mandate that every Wii U title be rendered natively at a resolution of 1920x1080 at a rock solid 30 fps, with 60 fps for the racing and fighting genres. That would do a lot to win core gamers over, and the system is powerful enough to mandate this. Given this stipulation...

At E3, it was revealed that the Wii U controller demo units at e3 had a screen resolution of 854x480. I just wanted to share with you my input on why I think a resolution of 960x540, frequently referred to as a qHD resolution would be vastly preferable for the Wii U controller.

1. A full 1080p game like Rayman Origins streamed onto a qHD screen would look absolutely gorgeous. There are no compression or scaling artifacts when going from a resolution of 1080p to qHD. Unfortunately, if you had to scale instead to a resolution of 854x480, there will be compression and scaling artifacts apparent, which hurts the image quality. In addition, it would actually use more system resources to scale down to that resolution since the ratio is off. On the other hand, the resource use to scale an 1080p image to a qHD resolution would be very minimal..

2. One of the most sought after and frequently used functions of the Wii U will be to stream netflix movies, game trailers and other videos directly onto the controller even when the tv is being used by someone else. Much of that content is already at resolutions of 1080p or at worst 720p and videos at a 1080p resolutions will be even more common place by 2012 and 2013. From my experience with video conversion, processing and scaling, I can tell you that converting a HD resolution to a resolution of 960x540 (qHD) scales far better, uses less processing power, and results in stunningly beautiful results.This is because when you are going from a resolution of 1080p to qHD, you are scaling down exactly by a factor of four. Every four pixels can be combined down to one pixel and the results end up looking impeccable. The results when scaling from a 1080p or 720p video down to a resolution of 854x480 actually requires more processing resources and still doesn't look anywhere near as nice.

3. Given the size of the screen, and the distance the typical person will be holding from their face, pixel density absolutely does matter. At a resolution of 854x480 on a 6.2 inch screen, you end up with a pixel density of close to 150. At that value, you will definitely be able to see pixelation of the images on the controller and it won't look quite as nice. However, at a qHD resolution, the pixel density becomes closer to 200, which is optimal. Not only will be pixels be difficult to notice and pixellation minimal, but you could easily display text on the controller's screen and have it look crisp and very readible. I know that there are currently no plans to stream ebooks from the console down to the controller (though I see no reason to close the door on this entirely), I am certain that even for the purpose of games, like Scribblenauts for the Wii U, being able to display on the screen will be useful.

4. I expect that one of the most valuable features of the Wii U's controller is in Split-screen Multiplayer. While assymetric multiplayer is nice, traditional multiplatform games like Call of Duty will largely offer up traditional split-screen multiplayer where the splits a 1080p screen into four identical rectangle on the tv to display for each of up to four players. While this is fine if the players are playing with Wiimotes and nunchucks, if the players are instead playing with a Wii U controller, each of the four player's windows could be streamed perfectly, with zero scaling and very minimal processing needed to a qHD screen. However, if the screen had to scale down to lower resolution for the controller, this eats up more processing resources which are especially important during local multiplayer gaming (a resource intensive task already).

These are also the reason why I'm very happy that Sony made the correct decision to make the Vita qHD (resolution of 960x540) and excited to use the Vita as a controller for the PS4.
Click to expand...
And I thought I was a geek.
 
P

plainr_

Member
Is this the same dude that wanted Sony to delay the Vita so they can put a PowerVR Series 6 instead?

Also delay Ouya for a Tegra 4?

And now this? lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Super Mario Bros. Wonder | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3 4 5 6
257
21K
cireza replied
DF Retro EX: Nintendo's Last E3 Press Conference - Wii U at E3 2012
Retro
8
1K
Astral Dog replied
Did anyone else think that the Nintendo Wii was going to be the best selling console ever back then?
39
4K
Eddie-Griffin replied
Official E3 2021 Awards Are Now Out
Clickbait
9
1K
carlosrox replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games.
2
62
7K
Ozriel replied
Top Bottom