Support NeoGAF

[VXLbeast]

Look, the Wii U gamepad's screen is certainly passable. I even thought it looked good while using the Animal Crossing plaza...until I looked up at the TV and saw what it was really supposed to look like.

Vita screen makes everything you see seem edible. That's a good thing. I think.

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

Always OLED, always. The new version is some kind of joke.

Have you actually tried the Vita 2000 revision? Or are you just talking out of your ass? Because most of the reviews have said its LCD is really quite good. Not OLED good, but good nonetheless.

 

[Suzushiiro]

Play Tearaway in the PS Vita..... good lord it looks amazing

I dunno, the face of the fat balding guy in the sun didn't look that great to me.

 

[Jafku]

That Vita OLED of course.

 

[VXLbeast]

I dunno, the face of the fat balding guy in the sun didn't look that great to me.

Hahaha, top notch.

 

[secretanchitman]

Please stop. Posts like this make me feel like I'm on gamefaqs or 4chan

No problem. I'll rephrase it - the Vita's screen is leaps and bounds better than the Wii U Gamepads screen. A higher resolution (and higher pixel density) display, OLED, and it's capacitive.

It's not even a question at this point, it's a fact. Vita screen > Wii U Gamepad screen.

 

[Iacobellis]

Vita. Better color reproduction, higher density display, supports multitouch, capacitive screen, and doesn't have awful ghosting.

 

[TheCongressman1]

Vita of course. Dumping a ton of money into a controller would be a bad idea.

I think the gamepad screen looks ok, but it's a bit desaturated. Don't care for the touch aspect. It's not the most responsive, and single touch is annoying sometimes, especially when typing or drawing.

Can't say much for the Vita, I've only really played with it in the store.

 

[megabytecr]

Vita - better screen
Gamepad - better controls, better latency technology, bigger

 

[VXLbeast]

Vita - better screen
Gamepad - better controls, better latency technology, bigger

Is it better controls because its...resistive?

 

[flatearthpandas]

I would much rather have a multi touch screen than a pen so a few a make some pretty Mario pictures, also have seen drawings on ipads that were very good so it can be done without a pen.

That's not an uncommon sentiment, but I can't say that any of my Vita games have made any noticeable use of multi touch.

Meanwhile, my some of my favorite games on the 3DS would be impossible to replicate on the Vita's screen but could easily happen on the Wii U.

 

[rjc571]

Is it better controls because its...resistive?

Well yeah, being able to touch the Wii U screen and have it register at the exact pixel you touched, rather than a few hundred pixels away like the Vita screen, does provide a major advantage.

 

[phanphare]

Is it better controls because its...resistive?

yes actually, it's much more accurate because of that

 

[kurbaan]

Well yeah, being able to touch the Wii U screen and have it register at the exact pixel you touched, rather than a few hundred pixels away like the Vita screen, does provide a major advantage.

except capacitive has multitouch and a lot more responsive. The only reason gamepad is not capacitive is cost.

 

[superchunk]

The OLED Vita is likely a better screen technology.

However, the new nonOLED Vita might still be slightly better.

However, however, I don't think it really matters as they are not providing the same experience.

 

[scytherage]

Vita is better in terms of specs. Wii U's gamepad sounded terrible on paper....but when I actually saw it in use, it's good enough.

3DS sales proves people generally don't care about specs, though.

 

[superchunk]

except capacitive has multitouch and a lot more responsive. The only reason gamepad is not capacitive is cost.

.. and need. There is no need for it to be multi-touch. Waste of resources and unnecessarily raises cost on a game controller.

 

[Neuromancer]

I find the resistive touch screen on the gamepad to be problematic. When trying to move inventory items in ZombiU, 25% of the time I will drop the item mid way, or the gamepad thinks I meant to click on the item for information. It's kind of frustrating. I've tried applying less, and more, pressure, but nothing seems to work 100% of the time for me.

That said the rear touch screen on the Vita gave me issues in Tearaway for similar reasons.

 

[Haint]

Speaking objectively on accuracy, both displays are bad. OLED Vita's colors are all over saturated, its white balance is poor, and shifts dramatically up and down the spectrum. The U pads white balance is semi-competent, but still has up to 10% (combined 20%) R, G, or B channel errors. Its color is also poor, with all primaries and secondaries displaced significantly from where they should be on the presumed SRGB/REC709 target.

 

[leng jai]

Really? For me, playing wii u games on the gamepad looks amazing - I was shocked the first time I did so.

Of course as has been said, that's down to the power of the wii u and the art direction of nintendo's first party games and not the panel, but it's hardly a "baffling" question to ask.

It's baffling in the context of a thread made on a forum like Neogaf.

That said I'm getting sick of all these "dat OLED" posts in every thread about the Vita. It doesn't automatically make it better - the colours on OLED are over saturated and very far from realistic.

 

[WillyFive]

Resistive touchpads are horrific for thumbs and fingers, they are best used with a stylus or your finger nails. However, the style of drawings seen on Miiverse wouldn't really be possible without it.

 

[Astral/H3X]

A capacitive screen vs a resistive screen are not huge changes in price, especially given that the Gamepad/3DS use some pretty fucking good ones. Yeah, there are some REALLY shitty resisitive screens, and those are cheap as hell, but getting a good one like Nintendo does, it isn't a price decision. It's a decision based on the merits of it as a technology.
So please, stop acting like Capacitive is immediately, in every thought of the word, instantly better for everything just because our phones are designed around it. It needs to stop.

 

[phanphare]

A capacitive screen vs a resistive screen are not huge changes in price, especially given that the Gamepad/3DS use some pretty fucking good ones. Yeah, there are some REALLY shitty resisitive screens, and those are cheap as hell, but getting a good one like Nintendo does, it isn't a price decision. It's a decision based on the merits of it as a technology.
So please, stop acting like Capacitive is immediately, in every thought of the word, instantly better for everything just because our phones are designed around it. It needs to stop.

this, this, and more this

 

[TheBanditKing]

Vita by far, the Gamepad is nice option given what it was designed to do but its low resolution, and design (think bottom screen on a DS) don't really make things look pretty. Vita on the other hand (at least the OLED versions) make everything look amazing, incredible black levels and vibrant colors make everything pop.

 

[EGM1966]

Odd question easy answer : Vita has the technically better screen.

 

[massoluk]

Vita screen is of course better. Both of them are pretty low res anyway, the resolution aren't that much different.

 

[Rizsparky]

Resistive touchpads are horrific for thumbs and fingers, they are best used with a stylus or your finger nails. However, the style of drawings seen on Miiverse wouldn't really be possible without it.

I think this is precisely why Nintendo wanted to implement a resistive touchscreen into the gamepad, it allows for precision touches. The screen itself is good quality from what I have seen, the colours themselves are much more vivid than my TV - but that might be my TV colour settings needing a tweak.

 

[Waylon Drums]

The Wii U gamepad's screen is a low res piece of garbage

Oh PLEASE. It's not even almost that bad. OH THE DRAMA!

 

[Waylon Drums]

I think this is precisely why Nintendo wanted to implement a resistive touchscreen into the gamepad, it allows for precision touches. The screen itself is good quality from what I have seen, the colours themselves are much more vivid than my TV - but that might be my TV colour settings needing a tweak.

I have the opposite problem, the colors on my TV are much better but I think it's because I left an evil post-processing color setting on.

 

[Mudkips]

Vita all the way. The only thing the WiiU screen does better is being a touch interface:

Resistive >>> Capacitive when it comes to gaming.

Exactly this, and I don't even have a Vita.

 

[Danielsan]

The Wii U's screen looks like ass. The Vita's screen is hot OLED.

 

[leng jai]

Vita screen is of course better. Both of them are pretty low res anyway, the resolution aren't that much different.

"Low res" is relative to what size the actual screen is. The Wii U screen is much larger than the Vita's and has a lower resolution.

There's no point for the Vita to have a 1080p screen because the hardware wouldn't be able to render games properly in that resolution anyway.

I think this is precisely why Nintendo wanted to implement a resistive touchscreen into the gamepad, it allows for precision touches. The screen itself is good quality from what I have seen, the colours themselves are much more vivid than my TV - but that might be my TV colour settings needing a tweak.

Your TV must be dreadful or poorly calibrated.

 

[Russell]

As soon as I saw the thread title, my first thought to myself was, "Is this a serious question?"

By its very nature of having an infinite contrast ratio, OLED is superior to LCD in the most important aspect of picture quality: black level.

 

[Vanillalite]

As soon as I saw the thread title, my first thought to myself was, "Is this a serious question?"

By its very nature of having an infinite contrast ratio, OLED is superior to LCD in the most important aspect of picture quality: black level.

Total shit reasoning. Black levels be damned if the picture has fucked up color accuracy.

 

[Herne]

It depends on your definition of technically better. When it comes to specifications, then yeah, the OLED screen of the Vita is far superior. But then, that screen was not designed to accept input - it is not a touch screen, therefore they could focus on just giving the best image possible, whereas Nintendo had to take into account things like input, latency and so on.

They both serve different functions, and they're both good at what they've been designed to do.

 

[kinggroin]

except capacitive has multitouch and a lot more responsive. The only reason gamepad is not capacitive is cost.

False. Its not capacitive, because they want stylus use and the accuracy that comes with it. How the fuck is Miiverse going to work with a capacitive display and a capacitive fat pen?

It may or may not actually be cheaper to manufacture a resistive display the way they want.

 

[opticalmace]

It depends on your definition of technically better. When it comes to specifications, then yeah, the OLED screen of the Vita is far superior. But then, that screen was not designed to accept input - it is not a touch screen, therefore they could focus on just giving the best image possible, whereas Nintendo had to take into account things like input, latency and so on.

They both serve different functions, and they're both good at what they've been designed to do.

what

 

[Russell]

Total shit reasoning. Black levels be damned if the picture has fucked up color accuracy.

Thanks to its almost perfect black level, the Vita's colors are deep, vivid and beautiful. Near perfect black level will always take precedence over colors that are not 100% accurate.

 

[branny]

The things some people are even saying in here...

 

[Vanillalite]

Thanks to its almost perfect black level, the Vita's colors are deep, vivid and beautiful. Near perfect black level will always take precedence over colors that are not 100% accurate.

The Vita screen might look good, but that still doesn't mean the most important thing or the only thing is black levels.

 

[Pilgor]

It depends on your definition of technically better. When it comes to specifications, then yeah, the OLED screen of the Vita is far superior. But then, that screen was not designed to accept input - it is not a touch screen, therefore they could focus on just giving the best image possible, whereas Nintendo had to take into account things like input, latency and so on.

They both serve different functions, and they're both good at what they've been designed to do.

Yes it is.

 

[H_Prestige]

The Vita screen might look good, but that still doesn't mean the most important thing or the only thing is black levels.

Name one aspect of picture quality where the gamepad either equals or exceeds the Vita. And yes, black level IS the most important thing. Always was, always will be.

And lol at "color accuracy". You have no idea what color standards these games were made to. And even then, I'd take pure blacks with deep colors, wide viewing angles, and smooth motion any day over some extra color accuracy.

 

[LuchaShaq]

Baffling OP.

This like comparing apples to rotting flesh.

Vita screen and remote play are superior.

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

This like comparing apples to rotting flesh.

Vita screen and remote play are superior.

Are you suggesting remote play on the Vita is better than Off TV play on the Wii U? For anything more than potential distance from the console?

 

[Zinthar]

A capacitive screen vs a resistive screen are not huge changes in price, especially given that the Gamepad/3DS use some pretty fucking good ones. Yeah, there are some REALLY shitty resisitive screens, and those are cheap as hell, but getting a good one like Nintendo does, it isn't a price decision. It's a decision based on the merits of it as a technology.
So please, stop acting like Capacitive is immediately, in every thought of the word, instantly better for everything just because our phones are designed around it. It needs to stop.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much completely wrong.

The merits of resistive are few and far between, which I suspect is why you didn't bother mentioning any of them. Capacitive is much better for applications requiring more immediate response because you don't have to press into the screen, as well as anything requiring more complex manipulations via multitouch. Resistive has been abandoned in pretty much every consumer product and has been relegated to uses where factors such as low cost and use with gloves are of primary importance (as well as some specific industry uses that don't at all apply to gaming). Additionally, the extra layer in a resistive touch screen dulls colors, which makes it particularly unsuitable to gaming and videos.

Nintendo probably went with resistive because of a combination of cost (great resistive screens are still cheaper than in-cell capacitive by a decent margin) and familiarity with the technology because of its use in DS & 3DS. Over the past decade and a half, they've been extremely conservative with their hardware choices, extracting a few extra dollars of profit wherever they could. Switching to capacitive likely necessitates a simultaneous switch to a higher-resolution IPS or OLED display, which then requires more powerful graphics processing to drive. The costs spiral up.

Their saving grace is that you rarely have to interact with the Wii U touch screen for an extended amount of time. If you had to use it exclusively for a game like you must on iOS and Android, it would immediately become apparent how inferior the technology is.

 

[Tevos]

Vita

 

[Vanillalite]

Name one aspect of picture quality where the gamepad either equals or exceeds the Vita. And yes, black level IS the most important thing. Always was, always will be.

And lol at "color accuracy". You have no idea what color standards these games were made to. And even then, I'd take pure blacks with deep colors, wide viewing angles, and smooth motion any day over some extra color accuracy.

Nothing to do with his statement which was a blanket statement about screen tech and not about the Vita/Wii u Gamepad.

 

[leng jai]

This like comparing apples to rotting flesh.

Vita screen and remote play are superior.

Remote play on the Vita is nowhere near as good as it on the Wii U. I own both and there's no contest when it comes to responsiveness.

 

[Zinthar]

False. Its not capacitive, because they want stylus use and the accuracy that comes with it. How the fuck is Miiverse going to work with a capacitive display and a capacitive fat pen?

It may or may not actually be cheaper to manufacture a resistive display the way they want.

I don't know what miiverse is, but obviously you wouldn't design it quite the same way in advance if you know your hardware is capacitive. And those fat pens work extremely well -- the stuff that people were able to do in Draw Something was impressive. The fact that you don't need to press in at all makes it vastly superior for writing and drawing. For most things, though, you never even need a stylus.

 

[Zinthar]

Remote play on the Vita is nowhere near as good as it on the Wii U. I own both and there's no contest when it comes to responsiveness.

That has nothing to do with the display or touchscreen choice -- that's latency in the connection from the respective console to the gamepad/Vita.