Lordwindowlicker
Member
Neither screen is particularly high resolution, and they're not that different in terms of resolution
Vita: 960 x 544
Wii U: 854 x 480
Vita looks better, for sure.. but let's at least be rational.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What screen is technically better, Wii U GamePad or Vita?
- Thread starter urfe
- Start date
Neither screen is particularly high resolution, and they're not that different in terms of resolution
Vita: 960 x 544
Wii U: 854 x 480
Vita looks better, for sure.. but let's at least be rational.
6.2 inch vs 5 inch - that's the factor that makes the difference in sharpness significant.
He said remote play was superior...
Gotcha, I was thinking in the context of the thread.
Well the same people who call the Wii U a "low res piece of garbage" would also call the iPad 2 and Mini the same thing.
But at least the iPad mini is using an IPS LCD, while gamepad is using TN. For gaming applications, having an extremely high-density PPI isn't too important. Having the contrast and color accuracy offered by IPS or Super AMOLED over TN is, though.
It's hard to tell the difference between the iPad mini and mini retina when looking at movies & games, but quite easy when browsing the web or reading small text.
I'm sure those people are also typing on laptop displays with a 1366x768 resolution at a large screen size or a desktop monitor with less PPI than an iPad.
Response time trumps IPS any day of the week for gaming, which the GamePad outperforms essentially every TV or monitor it's put up against.
To be fair a lot of them would be using Retina MacBooks too.
Stealthcobra
Member
Is this a joke? How would u know wii u is better whenu cant walk too ffar from the system? I can use remote play vita anywhere in my house.. Wii u.. I can't even make it up the stairs before it loses connection.
Lordwindowlicker
Member
But then that's not so much it being significantly lower resolution. Either way, it's not a piece of garbage.
When it comes to touchscreen devices, the latency of the touchscreen itself vastly outweighs the relatively minimal latency of the display technology.
It sounds like you're just regurgitating something that you read about a long-standing debate in PC gaming and why some advocate sticking with CRT.
If you add in the time that it takes you press in on the resistive touchscreen on the gamepad, the actual "responsiveness" of the gamepad is going to be much worse than any iPhone or iPad.
it will work fine just like the 100s of drawing apps on Ipad that are way better than Miiverse. Stylus is useless and I have never used it aside from drawing once on Miiverse out of curiosity. I have yet to play a game that uses or needs it, and if there is one I am pretty sure it would be done better on a capacitive screen. You are not gonna be busting out a god damn stylus in the middle of game to touch the screen
Resolution is always relative to the screen size. You need the right balance to achieve sharpness. When people say the Wii U is low resolution compared to the Vita they're no specifically referring to the direct number comparison - they're talking about the actual image the pixel count and screen size ratio produce.
I agree calling it "garbage" is a bit much but people like hyperbole, especially on the internet.
Highly doubtful. Retina MacBooks released in 2012 at an exclusive 15" $1999 price point minimum. Only recently did they even release the 13" models that are still relatively expensive.
Actually you're regurgitating information that IPS is suddenly the end all be all for gaming.
You made the following claim:
"For gaming applications, having an extremely high-density PPI isn't too important. Having the contrast and color accuracy offered by IPS or Super AMOLED over TN is, though."
Really IPS is most useful for viewing angles, which are not a factor when looking head on at the display. Actual color accuracy is irrelevant after a certain point, we aren't using professional editing software.
I'm curious, is there anything on the WiiU that really demands accuracy, other than Miiverse? Because everything I've seen would be just as viable or actually benefit from having a capacitive screen, like Wonderful 101.
H_Prestige
Banned
He's still right. Black level is always valued more than color accuracy by professionals. And for good reason. It impacts picture in more ways than where all the color points lie.
Goldenroad
Member
Not really, because now you're talking about Remote play. So play AC IV on your Wii U gamepad and then play it via PS4 remote play on the Vita and tell us which one looks better. All I'm saying is that the Wii U is not more powerful than the PS4, so you've got to kind of compare apples to apples (remote play to remote play) in order to make any kind of educated comparison.
Apples to apples comparison would be running a Wii U game on the gamepad and then the Vita screen, or vice versa.
I never said IPS is the end-all be-all of gaming or even implied it. I prefer AMOLED and plasma (for large screens) for my gaming needs because they offer the best contrast.
But speaking primarily as a PC gamer, IPS is a huge visual upgrade (particularly in the form of a 27" 2560x1440 monitor) over TN. Once a monitor is sufficiently large relative to your distance from it, it's not possible to look at the entirety of it head-on.
In any event, the actual latency disadvantage of IPS is so small (especially compared to any processing done by the display) that it's trivial compared to the superior screen quality. The latency difference in modern monitors is something like 3-5ms. In a touchscreen device it's irrelevant because the touchscreen interface has dramatically more latency involved with it, and for PC gaming you can find great IPS monitors that have no internal scalars, which will result in lower latency than the average TN monitor anyway.
When you start a sentence with importance "For gaming applications" then follow it up with color accuracy and contrast things start to become suspect. Yes these are important, but not as important in gaming as you're setting out to make them, far from it.
The latency disadvantage is primarily because of the fact that display manufacturers create displays for certain areas of work. If it's gaming, the focus is on response time. If it's professional editing, they focus technologies like IPS. Two different markets, and as such when you end up buying an IPS display it more than likely has a poor response time because it wasn't created with gaming in mind.
laidbackHERO
Banned
Don't most phones cost more than the entire system?
Yeah and they cost more than the Wii U itself and don't have to run full fledged games.
Did you arrive here from like 6 years ago? IPS has improved dramatically and the response time difference vs. TN is so small that it's a joke. Meanwhile, advancements in production as well as the economies of scale provided by its use in many mobile devices have made IPS displays much cheaper than they once were. As a result, they're now the favored displays for any high-end laptop or desktop PC (and pretty much any computing application in the 11-42" range).
What was once relegated to professional work relying on color accuracy is now cheap enough to be enjoyed by the mass market. Huzzah!
If those 3ms of latency vs. TN are really so important to you, then you better just go all the way and get a CRT... and only play LAN events.
You should be more critical about dpi and non capacitive than the resolution. Although I guess one of those is linked
Astral/H3X
Member
Resistive screens have one, major, giant, super amazing (to me) advantage over, essentially, all other touch screen inputs: Accuracy. You can literally take a needle, and press it on a single pixel, and the system will know exactly what pixel that was. No guessing. No fat finger. No fucked up magnetometer. No requiring tilt sensitivity.
It. Just. Works.
Given that the system has MOTHER FUCKING BUTTONS, why the hell should Nintendo consider smartphone gaming's control schemes? Why? What point is there? You aren't trying to use some shitty virtual dpad, or timing a tap to do a jump, or any of that, because you have BUTTONS. Multitouch is a necessity when all you have is a screen, yeah. But as an owner of a Vita, the multitouch has come off as completely non-factor, and in the case of Gravity Rush's slide move, actually a PITA.
So, given that multitouch doesn't mean jack flippin' shit, what does that leave? You have either incredibly expensive Wacom based tech (or one of the inferior competitor's), or resistive screens. Let's look at Wacom tech:
It's got pressure sensitivity, it's got fine points, and it's got buttons on the stylus! Holy cow! But wait, not even Wacom tech has perfect pixel accuracy!? It relies on magnets to determine the location of the stylus, but the sensor is actually about 3 or 4 mm away from the tip! Meaning the only definite lock the screen gets isn't the point of the stylus, but a small bit away. Tilt sensitivity and calibration can bring it to very close, but those are a pain in the ass to the consumer, or in tilt sensitivity's case even more expensive than what you're already at. And still isn't pixel perfect at every angle.
Now, what are the disadvantages of resisitive?
Not multitouch. Who cares, doesn't matter.
Less responsive to very light touches. Well, that's what the stylus is for.
No pressure sensitivity. Yeah this one sucks, but it'd probably be by far the most expensive component of the device, given manufacturing and license. Not to mention $30 replacements styli.
Truth be told, I wish Wacom and their ilk would find a way to release a resisitive screen with the side buttons/pressure transferred over a wireless connection.
Outside of a phone, I prefer resisitive, especially for what a gaming device needs.
But smartphones enjoy much higher margins than any gaming console -- a $650 iPhone 5S costs around $200 to manufacture, for instance. Gaming console platform holders expect to make additional profit later based on the sale of the platform.
Did you miss the entire point of my post? The issue isn't with IPS in it of itself, it's with display manufacturers focusing on certain areas for different markets because these different markets care about different things. I'm astounded by the fact that you cast response time to the side as something that doesn't make a difference then go on to talk about how much of an impact color accuracy has.
Your TV may be set to a high (cool, bluish) color temperature. Many TVs are by default but it's not the color temperature the people who made the stuff you're looking at were using. You want "warm" color temp, something in the 6500k-7500k area,
Sort of, though the LCD on the new Vitas is likely to be better than the one on the Wii U gamepad.
It is? Well, you learn something new every day. I guess that's what comes of not paying attention and not ever seeing one out there in the wild.
Both screens are still doing different things, though. And Sony has easy access to OLED due to their own television division, so they have instant access to the latest and greatest, while Nintendo must shop around and be careful of pricing.
Wow, if you're going on a half-assed rant at least structure your thoughts in a manner that doesn't sound like you're arguing with yourself.
To address your argument as if you weren't a raving lunatic: yes, I completely agree that pixel-perfect touch accuracy is the largest non-economic benefit of resistive touchscreens. Modern capacitive touchscreens handle this remarkably well, however. The touchscreen use in most Wii U gamepad & 3DS games uses buttons big enough that even giant thumbs would have no issue tapping them. If something on the screen is so small that you can't tap the area with your thumb, you're not going to be able to easily see it in the first place.
The need to use a stylus is an unfortunate compromise in some game design, particularly when your device already has analog sticks and buttons next to the screen. If you're holding a stylus then you can't quickly switch to pressing the sticks or buttons on your dominant hand (especially annoying for southpaws like myself and certain 3DS games).
On the other hand, capacitive has a huge advantage over resistive when it comes to being able to rapidly deliver inputs -- both because you can use both thumbs, and because you aren't slowed down by having to press down. This actually made it a little too easy to tear apart enemies in the iOS version of The World Ends With You, because you could draw swipes with your thumbs much faster than you could with the stylus in the DS version.
Capacitive has taken over in most consumer markets largely because the superior responsiveness and flexibility vastly outweighs its relative weakness in accuracy (which itself is still quite accurate on most modern devices). If Nintendo had never made the DS & 3DS and had just decided to do a touchscreen device first with the Wii U gamepad, then I suspect they would have gone capacitive as well.
petethepanda
Member
Vita.
(When it comes to image quality of off-screen / remote play, Gamepad >>> Vita)
(When it comes to image quality of off-screen / remote play, Gamepad >>> Vita)
laidbackHERO
Banned
The iPhone 5S is significantly weaker than the WiiU. Ultimately it comes down to a balance of cost vs pricing. My point is, comparing it to phones doesn't make sense when their use cases are drastically different (I understand you weren't the one who brought up smartphones. Just saying)
We don't know that.
Alright, let me break it down for you in the simplest way possible so that you can't be confused, but the major point where we're having a disconnect is this: your assumption that IPS monitors have inherently inferior response times is total bullshit and is no longer relevant.
The difference in response time between modern TN vs. IPS = very small. It varies significantly depending on which exact monitory you use -- some IPS monitors are faster than some TN's in this respect. Still, we're talking about a handful of milliseconds in either direction.
On the other hand, the difference between TN vs. IPS viewing angles = large. Frankly, this speaks for itself in any side-by-side. It's also an important factor in the quality of any media consumption.
Additionally, color accuracy difference = large.
544p, isn't that close to CoD's console resolution from last gen?
One thing is for sure, the resolution, screen size, etc of these devices makes me not want to play through my PS4 and Wii-U library on those screens. It seems like a waste to spend all that money for games that are rendering in high def only to put them on barely-above-standard-def small screens.
Vita screen is beautiful for what it's doing on Vita games, but remote play of PS4 games on it seems like such a downgrade after dropping all that coin on next gen. Works fine for replays of games though, I just wouldn't want to experience my first playthrough of a PS4 game on that screen.
That's 21.5% more pixels.