|
Are you getting the Wii U? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
9031 | 65.25% |
| No |
|
1191 | 8.60% |
| Maybe |
|
808 | 5.84% |
| I'm an idiot |
|
460 | 3.32% |
| Waluigi |
|
1603 | 11.58% |
| Waa |
|
748 | 5.40% |
| Total: | 13841 votes | ||
|
Launching the system at $500 for the cheaper version didn't help. Granted that was, mindbogglingly, a decent price for something that had all the functions of a game console AND could play BluRay in 2006. But then the economy completely broke down and I'm not sure they can do that again. I don't think any mass market TVs display at resolutions above 1080p do they?
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
They are coming, I saw a news story the other day about a 4k tv, completely independent of any video game talk. I dont know why you would buy it seeing as nothing supports that res yet. But they are starting to come out. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57502521-221/sony-releases-first-4k-tv-the-84-inch-xbr-84x900/ By....SONY.  Jesus, you can't make this poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
^^^^^ Wii U won't have support for prohibitively expensive gigantic televisions or prohibitively expensive 3D televisions that don't work for everyone, and even when they do a lot of people complain about eye strain or diminished image quality. I don't think it's going to be a big deal.MUFFlNS posted:It honestly sounds like the game you want to play is Sony's PlayStation All-Stars. quote:Another crazy fighting game that doesn't have the nonsense of Smash Bros but retains the chaotic gameplay is Marvel vs Capcom 3, which is also absolutely amazing fun. You should check that out as well if you can. I've gone to god drat tournament conventions and crap with that game. That game is the poo poo. I sincerely hope the Wii U gets a digital port of ultimate so I can kick some rear end again. Also why the gently caress isn't there a PC port?! Capcom! 
extremebuff fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
If anyone is still looking to pre-order the deluxe or standard version, I just placed my order through Walmart.com and it seems to have gone through and given me my order confirmation. As a disclaimer I should say I don't have any experience pre-ordering anything from Walmart, I'm just going off of what other people have said and hoping everything comes in fine. I live in California and the total price was about $513 for the deluxe model plus New Super Mario Bros U. and Pro controller including shipping and tax. Does anyone have any experience ordering from Walmart.com and choosing the standard shipping? Belle Isle Tech fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
My absolutely last post about pre-orders (even though I don't have many posts in this thread at all), I was able to pre-order a deluxe console on Monday night at my local EB Games. According to the clerk I'm only the third person in my town to pre-order a Wii U.  So I really don't know if it's because I'm essentially "rural" (probably) or if it hasn't quite taken off yet in Canada. Could be market, maybe it's bigger in Ontario, Quebec and BC but I honestly can't say. In a way I'm disappointed but on the other hand I don't mind being 3rd in line. Looking at the prices of cartridge games in this thread, consoles, etc, it's hard to believe how relatively inexpensive games and systems are these days. My best friend bought a PS1 right around launch and I'm pretty sure he paid about $500 here in Canada. I don't know if they were that much or if it was closer to $400 but it was a lot. I still remember getting a NES with Super Mario Bros. and Duck Hunt for $99 in 1988. Probably the single greatest gaming moment of my childhood. God I feel old now. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Canada has been slow from what people have told me. Only three preorders for Black Wii U's in Windsor at the EB at the mall (hint hint Detroit goons).
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
For anyone wanting to save on games, I just saw this over on NeoGaf: NewEgg: $10 off all preorders $39.99 and up:quote:EMCNAJB243 greatn posted:I think the extra ten bux this generation is due to the increased costs of making HD games. So theoretically that is a one time cost increase, that is until they start releasing 4k games. And I imagine 4k support will be like 1080p support was this generation. Hell keep in mind what John Carmack said a few months ago: quote:If you take a current game like Halo which is a 30 hertz game at 720p; if you run that at 1080p, 60 frames with high dynamic frame buffers, all of a sudden you've sucked up all the power you have in the next-generation Chaltab posted:I don't think any mass market TVs display at resolutions above 1080p do they?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/09/19/tgs-ninja-gaiden-3-razors-edge-repairs-past-mistakes Claims that the Wii U version has had the difficulty and AI adjusted so that you'd actually have to be smart about your attacks and such, as well as more weapon and attack variety in the game. I'll play a demo and see about that! Oh yeah that's right. We can play proper demos now on the Wii U.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:They are coming, I saw a news story the other day about a 4k tv, completely independent of any video game talk. I dont know why you would buy it seeing as nothing supports that res yet. But they are starting to come out. Nintendo is gonna miss out on the lucrative $25000 TV market!!!!! Seriously, they had to make the TV over 80" because your eyes literally cannot tell the difference between 4k and 1080p unless the screen is massive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
4K is gonna be loving sweet when everybody has nanoLED paint covering their living room walls. Now that won't be for like twenty years but it is gonna rock.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
Blackbelt Bobman posted:Nintendo is gonna miss out on the lucrative $25000 TV market!!!!! Everyone can afford a wall-sized screen. And everyone also has room for one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
greatn posted:4K is gonna be loving sweet when everybody has nanoLED paint covering their living room walls. Now that won't be for like twenty years but it is gonna rock. You are right, it will be awesome, I hope Sony doesnt try to go for that this gen and expect me to pay for something like that. Thinking of a 600$ ps3.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
A 4K monitor is what I'm using now (2560 x 1600, 30"). Dell had them for as low as $1100 on sale, so the technology's already there. But games running at 4K? Seems to me developers have enough trouble dealing with 1080 without catering to a graphical enhancement that's probably even less of a jump from DVD to Blu-Ray (and even here, the transition's not complete). I'll happily jump on another 4K PC monitor, but a 4K living room TV isn't in the cards for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:They are coming, I saw a news story the other day about a 4k tv, completely independent of any video game talk. I dont know why you would buy it seeing as nothing supports that res yet. But they are starting to come out. The whole SD->HD transition is done and most people have already dumped their CRTs for flat panels and aren't really in a hurry to upgrade again unless their current TV dies, so the manufacturers are trying to find new gimmicks to keep TV sales going. 3D didn't quite take off like they thought it would so they need to try something else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Every indicator its Sony is making the PS4 with cheaper but high quality off the shelf parts, they should be able to make a powerful and affordable machine that will be easier to port things to and from, which is good news for them, game makers(porting games will be cheaper), and other consoles(games starting on PS4 well be more likely to be ported) but might make consoles more similar than they are already, which actually could work in Nintendo's favor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Doug Dinsdale posted:A 4K monitor is what I'm using now (2560 x 1600, 30"). 4K is 3840x2160.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Doug Dinsdale posted:A 4K monitor is what I'm using now (2560 x 1600, 30"). ...what? 4K is 3840x2160 Your 2560x1600 is a 16:10 version of a 2x1080p/4x720p/1440p screen, so a 4K res would have almost twice your resolution, again.(4x1080p, hence the 4K moniker. ) I can not even imagine a computer costing 2000usd to run games smoothly at that res.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Doug Dinsdale posted:A 4K monitor is what I'm using now (2560 x 1600, 30"). 4K is 3840 × 2160. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television Those monitors aren't close to the overkill that 4k is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:4K is 3840x2160. Oops. I stand corrected. Also, at that resolution, who the hell is going to produce software for it? I can see ultra-high def cameras, but developers creating games at that resolution?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
The sad thing is there's no way to see a 4k tv for comparison. Most of us will never actually see one for years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
greatn posted:The sad thing is there's no way to see a 4k tv for comparison. Most of us will never actually see one for years. You don't really have to see it. It's math. Human Beings have a maximum resolution of sight. Unless you're talking a television that's over 10ft diagonally, from a standard viewing distance, 4k isn't going to make a difference. In fact, most TV's today, at standard viewing distances, it's impossible to perceive a difference between 720 and 1080p. Many people think they can. But they're wrong. Science!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
Doug Dinsdale posted:Oops. I stand corrected. Nobody is anytime soon because 1. expensive and 2. Not enough people will have it. Watching movies on it will happen before games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Besides the Vita has Sony ever built anything (videogame console-wise) with off the shelf parts? Perhaps the PS1? Off the shelf PS4 will own at least for Xbox/PS4 multiplatform releases. Perhaps it will make WiiU versions of things more likely as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
toxicsunset posted:You don't really have to see it. It's math. Human Beings have a maximum resolution of sight. Unless you're talking a television that's over 10ft diagonally, from a standard viewing distance, 4k isn't going to make a difference. In fact, most TV's today, at standard viewing distances, it's impossible to perceive a difference between 720 and 1080p. Many people think they can. But they're wrong. Science! No but you see if I put these crystals on my hdmi cable then
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
There's a possibility that they'll support a "Retina" like mode where everything is just pixel doubled but I think this is about as high resolution wise as we get before literal wall-TVs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
toxicsunset posted:You don't really have to see it. It's math. Human Beings have a maximum resolution of sight. Unless you're talking a television that's over 10ft diagonally, from a standard viewing distance, 4k isn't going to make a difference. In fact, most TV's today, at standard viewing distances, it's impossible to perceive a difference between 720 and 1080p. Many people think they can. But they're wrong. Science! Science and my eyes disagree with you. There's even a  chart that shows how far away for how big of a TV you have to be to notice 1080p. Makes a huge difference if you have good vision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
The whole point of 'retina' is that the screen is very close to your eyes so increasing the pixels works to make things more clear. Its pointless on on a screen thats across the room. The pixel distance is very much diminishing returns. The only goal of increased res is a larger and larger screen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
toxicsunset posted:You don't really have to see it. It's math. Human Beings have a maximum resolution of sight. Unless you're talking a television that's over 10ft diagonally, from a standard viewing distance, 4k isn't going to make a difference. In fact, most TV's today, at standard viewing distances, it's impossible to perceive a difference between 720 and 1080p. Many people think they can. But they're wrong. Science! It depends on what you're talking about; with most TVs it's easy to tell the difference between 720 and 1080p output because TVs have horrible scaling. What people are actually seeing, and it's extremely easy to see, is the blurring of text and hard edges associated with a native 1080p TV scaling up a 720p source poorly. I have no idea what the maximum pixel density the human eye can perceive at 6 feet back is, but bad scaling stands out like a sore thumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:The whole point of 'retina' is that the screen is very close to your eyes so increasing the pixels works to make things more clear. Its pointless on on a screen thats across the room. The pixel distance is very much diminishing returns. The only goal of increased res is a larger and larger screen. Yeah, but this is Sony, who retroactively put 3D into most of their first party titles so I think they'd be
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
MacGyvers_Mullet posted:Most people think they can tell the difference because most TVs have horrible scaling. What people are actually seeing, and it's extremely easy to see, is the blurring of text and hard edges associated with a native 1080p TV scaling up a 720p source poorly. For more fun on this topic, why not join the gang in the Retro Games thread where we figure out how to get 240i games running on 1080p screens without our eyeballs bursting into flames.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, but this is Sony, who retroactively put 3D into most of their first party titles so I think they'd be Thats what I'm afraid of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
3d is pretty ready to add to video games though, I assume? Because every object and location has a literal x, y, and most importantly z coordinate in most games?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
big mean giraffe posted:Science and my eyes disagree with you. There's even a I think you're agreeing with me? Here's the chart for anyone curious  Note that unless you have a 55+ inch TV, from 8+ feet away (standard distance is somewhere between 9-10) there's absolutely no difference. toxicsunset fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
greatn posted:3d is pretty ready to add to video games though, I assume? Because every object and location has a literal x, y, and most importantly z coordinate in most games? It's a pretty painful process and easy to get wrong, from what I've seen. Especially on the 3DS. Some games look outright bad on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
toxicsunset posted:I think you're agreeing with me? http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ Here's the source for that chart you posted. At the viewing distances they recommend, with my 42 inch 1080p tv, which also happens to be the ideal distance for my apartment and preferences, the difference is absolutely noticeable. For reference, the THX recommended distance for a 55 inch TV is at a maximum of 6.5 feet, not 9-10, and that places it squarely in the "1080p is noticeable" range. According to the chart, THX sets the max allowable distance at 9 feet for that size. I get what you're saying, I just think your definition of normal viewing distances is a bit out of whack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
MacGyvers_Mullet posted:http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ If you're laying in bed with the TV at the absolute foot of the bed that's 8 feet right there. I've never been to a house where a couch or chair was less than 8 feet from the TV, let alone your actual eyeballs. The "recommended distance" is specifically designed to be within the "noticable" range that's why it's the recommended distance. The standard distance, as in, the average distance a TV is from a person's eyeballs, is between 9 and 10 feet. It's called the Lechner distance, based on the fella that did the study.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
So 1080 on 65" at 12 feet is noticable. I can tell 720p vs 1080p. But I have great vision. My wife has horrible eyes and cant tell the difference between sd and hd at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:So 1080 on 65" at 12 feet is noticable. I can tell 720p vs 1080p. But I have great vision. My wife has horrible eyes and cant tell the difference between sd and hd at all. Yes, your extraordinarily large television at that distance is noticably different by people with excellent eyesight. That doesn't really disprove my point that the average person with an average size television at the average distance physiologically is incapable of telling the difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
toxicsunset posted:Yes, your extraordinarily large television at that distance is noticably different by people with excellent eyesight. That doesn't really disprove my point that the average person with an average size television at the average distance physiologically is incapable of telling the difference. Thats a lot of variables there. I think we can all agree 1080p can have a functional purpose over 720p. 4k is pointless with current technology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
greatn posted:3d is pretty ready to add to video games though, I assume? Because every object and location has a literal x, y, and most importantly z coordinate in most games? The process of adding 3d to games is basically just adding another "camera" a little bit to the side of the existing one. However, when you start considering things like where to focus the 3d convergence in a dynamic environment, how much you can crank up the 3d before blowing people's brains out, the extra horsepower required to render that second camera, and how to get things looking decent on all the different 3D implementations floating around, among many other variables, it gets much more complicated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:51
|
|
