Rogue_Ledr
Banned
Vita easily.
However, the Gamepad screen is still pretty decent quality.
Its far from terrible.
However, the Gamepad screen is still pretty decent quality.
Its far from terrible.
-
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
dpi is for printers... just saying.You should be more critical about dpi and non capacitive than the resolution. Although I guess one of those is linked
But Galaxy Exhibit is $50 no contract for metro pcs.
It's resolution is 800 x 480 (251 ppi).
edit- And it has multi-touch
So like I said, GAAAAAAAAAARBAAAAGE
MemoryHumanity
Member
Dat GAF hyperbole.
The only time I feel like I'm missing out in having a multi touch capacitive display, is pinch to zoom in the web browser. That's it.
Wouldn't make a lick of difference in W101. Have you actually played a Wii U? The screen is more than sensitive enough to not make that an issue. Lack of multi touch is current its only downside, but that's mitigated by the fact that this ISNT a tablet. Its a controller.
outunderthestars
Banned
It is substantially worsa than the screens used on $60 garbage tablets.
More hyperbole, as someone who's used and tested many of those
Vita. But capacitive isn't a catch all winner. Don't generalize.
I've yet to see why anybody would use resistive over capacitive other than a small savings in cost. I've used both for 4 years now. Resisitive is awful.
LOL, the fuck?
For being so condescending you sure do have a knack for completely missing my previous point. Stop pulling straw man arguments. I've already stated that the inherent issue wasn't with the technology itself (it's literally in the first line of the post you quoted), it's with the display manufacturers. Whenever you want to actually respond to that, feel free. I believe you've made three posts now that have skirted around said topic. There's a reason why companies make monitors specifically for gaming and monitors specifically for professional editing. It's because these two groups have different interests when looking to buy a monitor.
Pixel perfect accuracy. Resistive is not awful aside from not being multi-touch.
https://miiverse.nintendo.net/posts/AYIHAAABAADRUV6hUNOMBQ
Yes, this is DRAWN on the Wii U gamepad.
Arkam
Member
I think this post is spot on. Vita screen is fantastic, but WiiU Gamepad screen is actually pretty great too. I use my gamepad for play and netflix and never have issues with screen.
A resistive screen knows exactly where you're touching it down to the pixel. A capacitive screen can only register when a huge cluster of pixels is being touched. Maybe you have no regard whatsoever for accuracy, but not everybody has the same low standards as you.
Your statement is a little ridiculous, because the Wii U UI, as well as most games that utilize the Gamepad, are designed to work well with fingers. So for the VAST majority of the Wii U experience, being resistive does not make a difference whatsoever. It's only when you get into Miiverse drawing and Art Academy does being resistance show its benefit. If 90% of my experience with a touchscreen is finger-friendly, I would rather use the superior tech for finger-friendly touchscreens. If people don't draw, capacitive is better, and nothing on Wii U that is non-drawing-based has shown resistive to be useful.
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
Maybe not on the Wii U because it doesn't have many games available which use the touchscreen, but there are tons of games on the DS and 3DS that would be a nightmare to play with a capacitive screen.
Oh indeed, but that is more because of the tiny screen. Resistive is best for it because sometimes you NEED that stylus to peck around on that little screen.
The One and Done
Member
The WiiU screen is far superior IMO
Haha. And what are the reasons?
Wiiu gamepad is design to keep cost down.
It feels very dated and its clear to be made to be use with the game pad controls at the sametime so going with a resistive touchscreen is just mind blowing. When every device made with a touchscreen is capacitive. No one uses a stylus while gaming with a gamepad. that just a bad design. The res of the LCD screen is not bad.
Vita screen is on par with most smart phones and tablets. Support multi touch and is capacitive which is perfect for anyone using any over device made in 2013.
It feels very dated and its clear to be made to be use with the game pad controls at the sametime so going with a resistive touchscreen is just mind blowing. When every device made with a touchscreen is capacitive. No one uses a stylus while gaming with a gamepad. that just a bad design. The res of the LCD screen is not bad.
Vita screen is on par with most smart phones and tablets. Support multi touch and is capacitive which is perfect for anyone using any over device made in 2013.
This thread taught me Vita isn't proper HD, I don't know why I thought that.
My only experience with OLED is with Samsung galaxies and while obviously superior is not that much superior to the game pad, that screen is nice for what it needs. I just wish it didn't attract so much dust, no, it's not a stealth joke about the Wii U, it's the unfortunate truth of resistive screens, I expect the 2DS to have the same problem. A pouch of some sort would have been nice Nintendo.
My only experience with OLED is with Samsung galaxies and while obviously superior is not that much superior to the game pad, that screen is nice for what it needs. I just wish it didn't attract so much dust, no, it's not a stealth joke about the Wii U, it's the unfortunate truth of resistive screens, I expect the 2DS to have the same problem. A pouch of some sort would have been nice Nintendo.
it's pretty much why I will never use OFF TV play on Wii U. Other people may not go as far with the label of "garbage", but there's no way I'm using such a lame ass screen to play anything - in sub-HD, no less - when I have a grand HDTV in my house. I don't pay money so I can actually harm my game experience with that shit. Even though Vita's screen is infinitely better than Wii U's (I can't even believe there was a question as to which is better), I won't use that either for off tv play on PS4.
VanWinkle said:
old school bro. shittier screen quality and much lower resolution reminds one of playing on an old TV when you load up an virtual console game! (man, as always, there's an opinion on GAF for everything)
Edit: I guess there's the old capacitive vs. resistive argument, although considering how most games use the Wii U pad, not sure the argument even matters.
There have been several hands-on reviews of the new Vita. I've used one myself and, while the IPS LCD is not as nice as the original OLED, it's still of higher quality than the screen on the gamepad.
Lacking OLED is not a bad design, is comprimising features, it does not have multitouch but also it doesn't has as much lag and is more precise for stuff like drawing. Personally I find OLED abysmal for gaming unless you are playing something like solitaire. Lag is too much of a problem.
What do you mean by lag?
That can be offset by just using a Wacom digitizer on a Capacitive touchscreen like the Galaxy Note series does.
Edit: Plus what game will need pixel perfect accuracy? AFAIK everything on the Gamepad, DS and 3DS was big enough to touch with a finger, showing that there was no use to using a resistive touscreen for "perfect accuracy."
Could you expand on that? Response time on OLEDs is incredible; sub-1 millisecond.
I was actually trying to check the numbers. This comes mainly from my experience, I tried to play robot unicorn attack on my phone and it's absolutely painful while boost mode in NSMBU is effortless, but I have to accept the possibility this happens because of game design.
It call keeping cost down.
What is a bad design is building a gamepad with resistive touchscreen. People playing with the gamepad are going to be using their finger to use the screen. Yuck!
This has nothing to due with OLED vs lcd with teh design. Also LCD has wayyy more lag.
What phone?
Galaxy S4
What graphics are technically better, PS2 or PS3?
What lawn trimming device is technically better, lawn mower or scissors?
What food preservation device is better, a refridgerator or a block of salt?
What drink is sweeter, sweet tea or nonsweet tea?
What is a better frisbee, a frisbee or a plate?
What helps you see better, glasses or goggles filled with petroleum jelly and children's tears?
What lawn trimming device is technically better, lawn mower or scissors?
What food preservation device is better, a refridgerator or a block of salt?
What drink is sweeter, sweet tea or nonsweet tea?
What is a better frisbee, a frisbee or a plate?
What helps you see better, glasses or goggles filled with petroleum jelly and children's tears?
Mr. Waffle
Member
Well the Wii U messed up... if they had called the screen something like "Iris Display" then it would be clearly better than anything else.... numbers don't matter it's about the name.
For the sake of being on topic... and not attempting dry humor... Vita has the better display.
For the sake of being on topic... and not attempting dry humor... Vita has the better display.
I feel like you haven't contributed to this thread with your post.
prag16
Banned
Holy hell the hyperbole in this thread.
The Wii U game pad screen is in no way garbage. And this is coming from someone using cell phones with 4-5 inch 720p screens the last couple years.
It's the right size for playing held in the lap in a seated position. At that distance, the resolution isn't perfect, but sufficient.
Capacitive wouldn't be much benefit if at all. Multitouch is a minor consideration when you have so many physical controls.
That said the Vita screen is definitely technically superior. Though it's a little small for my liking and I find myself having to hold it slightly closer to my face than would be ideally comfortable.
So the Vita screen is "better", but the margin of victory isn't necessarily anywhere near the size many here are claiming.
The Wii U game pad screen is in no way garbage. And this is coming from someone using cell phones with 4-5 inch 720p screens the last couple years.
It's the right size for playing held in the lap in a seated position. At that distance, the resolution isn't perfect, but sufficient.
Capacitive wouldn't be much benefit if at all. Multitouch is a minor consideration when you have so many physical controls.
That said the Vita screen is definitely technically superior. Though it's a little small for my liking and I find myself having to hold it slightly closer to my face than would be ideally comfortable.
So the Vita screen is "better", but the margin of victory isn't necessarily anywhere near the size many here are claiming.
Mr. Waffle
Member
I think that does a big disservice to the Gamepad's screen. It's a little blurry for sure, and it's not at all a "great" display, but it's not REMOTELY as bad as the DS/3DS screen. It's got decent colors and fair viewing angles.
Thanks! I thought it was weird, because you seemed to be saying that Wii U's problem wasn't its [comparatively] poor viewing angles, colors, contrast, black levels, and resolution, but rather that fact that they didn't get it a snazzy name.
None, I was just telling you that resistive touchscreen is FAR from being AWFUL.
The Wii-U gamepad costs what, at most $100 BOM while the Vita costs Sony $160 BOM to make. So of course the Vita is going to have superior components, including the display.
Now with the new cheaper Vita with LCD screen coming out, this comparison takes on a whole new perspective. But for the current model, OLED Vita screen is superior.
Now with the new cheaper Vita with LCD screen coming out, this comparison takes on a whole new perspective. But for the current model, OLED Vita screen is superior.
Well, Vita's screen is technically better: OLED, higher resolution (qHD), multi-touch.
But Wii U's is still darn great for what it does (i.e. a controller on which you can stream content to it) and looks better than many tend to act/talk about. I sometimes wonder if people that complain about the screen have actually used one. Sometimes talking about how you have to press the screen hard making it sound like those old-ass ATM or the Game.com; when there are multiple Wii U games (and even the in-store demos) on which you can flip through pages easily with a finger. Like everything,. it depends on the use.
But Wii U's is still darn great for what it does (i.e. a controller on which you can stream content to it) and looks better than many tend to act/talk about. I sometimes wonder if people that complain about the screen have actually used one. Sometimes talking about how you have to press the screen hard making it sound like those old-ass ATM or the Game.com; when there are multiple Wii U games (and even the in-store demos) on which you can flip through pages easily with a finger. Like everything,. it depends on the use.
Same here but I have a different final opinion.
My tv is pretty big and full HD. I really enjoy Nintendo games in HD and is one of the reasons I never use the Wii BC option for the older Wii Games...they look like shit now, after I've seen how the HD Nintendo looks.
I never play off-tv for this specific reason. But I see A LOT of possibilities for the GamePad and some of them were in my NintendoLand game from the very beginning. When trying to run from the other players in Mario Chase minigame, the gamepad resolution was the last thing I was thinking of. Not to mention the many many times I've used it for browsing, youtube etc.
To say you don't need that superior accuracy of the gamepad over the Vita screen just because you don't use it, for drawings for example, is wrong. So many people are posting right now drawings in the Art Academy Miiverse Community that makes my point just to look at them.
Also keep in mind that many people here didn't try the gamepad and are only making assumptions on technical specifications on paper. I think the OP could have done this comparison by himself in 2 seconds of net searching.
So technically, the gamepad is the better option for what Wii U needs.