- screen size is slightly bigger, but less than an inch increase
- resolution remains the same
- screen does not allow for multi-touch
- the small square on the controller is the NFC sensor
- having the NFC sensor behind the touch screen might cause touch screen damage when players put figurines on the screen, so Nintendo changed it
- the square will have some sort of indicator to let players know what it does
- the range of the square is a few centimeters
- the small button near the power remains a mystery
- third parties recently received this updated version of the controller
Link
- resolution remains the same
- screen does not allow for multi-touch
- the small square on the controller is the NFC sensor
- having the NFC sensor behind the touch screen might cause touch screen damage when players put figurines on the screen, so Nintendo changed it
- the square will have some sort of indicator to let players know what it does
- the range of the square is a few centimeters
- the small button near the power remains a mystery
- third parties recently received this updated version of the controller
Link
RSS Feeds:
Man, gotta love fan site forums. Widely revered innovations like multi-touch and higher resolution are frowned upon, but being able to stick a figurine on your controller to unlock things is apparently a genius innovation.
no one is going to make a game where you are going along with your controller, going along, and then have to stop and pull out a stylus to do pixel perfect drawing. not going to happen.
No. Just seeing the pros and cons. Who thought that placing figurines was genius? Are you sure youre not just putting words in other peoples mouths?
And that is not the trade off here. The multitouch is there, you can touch many buttons and controllers at the same time, how many fingers you still need to place on the screen and in what situations? I see the trade as such: the pinch zoom was not so much needed here and it was traded for stylus and accuracy, cheaper cost(money for something else), less battery consumption, less need for processing power, less R/D and immediate response time.
I see a lot of functions and a lot of potential for relatively affordable price(obviously not confirmed yet). You don't. I value picto chat, many would like to exchange the stylus for pinch zoom even if it costed more.
That welding might very well happen. Taking out the stylus is really quick and easy, and you could consider that massive effort as a real life preparation for the task at hands. I like to do things my self, and the game could appraise the quality of the welding and for example provide energy for ships engines or shields depending how well it was made, the accuracy helps to create more versatile tasks as well as scale in judging differences in the quality.
Surgeon game would be vomitingly realistic in Wii U because of stylus. Taking notes in detective game or drawing own markings to maps. Drawing levels in various games. Drawing characters in various games. etc etc.
Resident Evil: Revelations did it. That's when I either leave the stylus out on a table or just use my fingers.
This...
The only real problem I see with a multi touch screen is probably a higher cost.
and it was a down moment in the game. it takes you out the flow of the experience. I would be hard-pressed to quote a review that praised those sections. it's like they did it simply to have something to do with the stylus.
Not exactly trying to put words in people's mouths, more like paraphrasing. When Nintendo announces a new system, fans will often get real excited about features that not only are of dubious importance when they're first announced, but have yet to really prove themselves over time. At the same time, they'll defend Nintendo's skimping on hardware performance or basically industry-standard features which would be an obvious benefit to everyone. While I think the screen's resolution will be acceptable, higher resolution would definitely be noticeable. I've used an iPad 2 and iPad 3 right next to each other and the difference is surprising. Multitouch would also be a very good thing, and it could even work with a resistive screen. For that matter, capacitive screens don't have to be expensive glass, they can work with stylii, and the screen is big enough that super-fine accuracy is less important than on a tiny DS screen. Being able to fully use the touchscreen without a stylus is something I would really value, and really wish I could do with my 3DS. I understand if you have different preferences than I do, but you can't convince me that slight improvements in certain areas are objectively valuable, while other things that lots of people value are worthless.
The "multitouch" you're talking about is not the same thing and you know it. If you're asking me to list all the potential uses of multitouch gestures, I can't. There are so many apps out there that use multitouch screens in so many ways, there are tons of things I never would have thought of. A couple that I can think of are using one finger to select units in a strategy game, and two fingers to instantly scroll anywhere on the map, and any kind of game in which you want to interact with multiple onscreen objects at once, or simultaneously position objects in both position and angle.
You make it sound like multitouch would make the system a significantly more expensive battery hog with poorer performance. Do you know how much of an effect it would actually produce in those areas? Judging from the almost universal adoption of multitouch screens in handheld devices these days, I'm not thinking those issues are a big deal. As for the cost, you're making it sound like Nintendo is going to save us money on this system by cutting out a feature or two, when what has happened in the past is that they just pocket the difference. They have a history of being cheap with certain components on their systems, and charging higher-than-necessary prices for hardware (such as with 3DS and Wii). An extra incremental cost on one component of the controller wouldn't be the difference between an affordable system and an expensive one.
I think because lots of people are used to nicely working multitouch screens on their smartphones, a lot of them will be dissappointed with a unitouch screen.
Hum... THIS is something I didn't think of. This makes the whole argument a whole lot more meaningful.. If someone would have come with this comment before, I pretty sure it would have been taken more seriously. I'm still not in the "Nintendo is stupid of not including multi-touch" camp, but The possibility of multi-touch could make me interested.
Still, the first proposition could be simulated by using the stick to move the camera while you hold the unit. You could also use the triggers to rotate objects grabbed. But I grant you this, I can't see a way to interact with multiple objects at the same time independently without multi-touch.
Nah, because I didn't see people generally get excited about the figurine placing, I think its something else. Perhaps you could stop talking about a group of people not having independend thought, thats pretty annoying.
I don't defend Nintendos choice of NFC, at least yet, but I defend the resistive screen, because its awesome and its strengths are buried under hegemony. Some one else might like something else, and he/she might not like his/her thoughts to be treated as "nah, your just Nintendo fan, and thus your thought have no real reasoning in them".
Do you think they put resistive screen there just for lulz? Or are you one of those people who keep insisting, that Nintendo doesn't understand games? The resistive screen has clear advantages, theres nothing dubious in choosing it. I wasn't excited of NFC chip, at all, but because I don't know why they put it in there(other than comfortable connection forming), I'm going to wait and see it my self, before ruining my name for spamming my unimaginative opinions about it until the reason for having it appears.(thus far its marketed as an auxiliary figurine sales booster, which I absolutely hate) The accuracy is every bit as important in bigger screen for the reasons mentioned earlier.
Using a stylus in a capacitive screen doesn't make it that much more accurate, but it would make it even more expensive. Using those mythological thinner capacitive styluses, that I have never seen, would make it yet even more expensive and still not as accurate. Nintendo doesn't like to use easily breaking parts, and I fully support it. Durable glass for the screen would make it more expensive. Using active digitizer in capacitive screen would be my favorite choice, but it would make it so much more expensive, that no body else would buy it. And people are already complaining about its price!!! I still have some hope, that you could buy these tablets separately.
I just gave another way to look it, and you know it. It has all kinds of controllers handy, analog controllers, d-pad, buttons, triggers, accelometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, and touch screen and a stylus, theres a ton you can do with those controllers and out of the box offers a lot more for a gamer than even twice as expensive iPad. The Wii U has a ton of components, you cannot just throw the feature in there, because its popular. By using capacitive screen, they would have to also put bigger battery in it and consider the processing power they need as well as think what they are going to do with the durability of the glass.
I have an iPhone 4S and I know there are a lot of great apps(i'm there for music making software which is absolutely stunning), but theres not many cases in games, that the game controller with resistive screen and stylus couldn't do as good or better. As a matter of fact, none at all. You might lose some shine from some desirable application or two, but get MUCH more in place, not only, but especially because its cheaper, and you can put something else in it too.
In RTS game the stylus is especially useful and could be used to make games scale bigger, as you could use more units, and control them more accurately. You can select or lasso what ever units even in tight groups and draw their paths, for example sending infantry straight to bind opponents ranks while moving archery to support them from safety and makinng the cavalry go round them and attack from behind. And because there are a lot of controllers in the Wii U tablet, you can move the screen with a controller, or dragging with touch screen, OR the RTS standard; using mini map to switch places. I'm absolutely certain, that you can make perfect RTS with this screen, and I have a feeling that next Pikmin will show some of this potential in practice.
You make it sound, like there was no reason to not put capacitive screen, and I'm merely commenting that. Of course there is always a reason or two or three, when these kinds of decisions are made. Every bit of money that they save, they can use in something else. I'm really liking Nintendo, because they don't necessarily use features merely because they are popular, this way they can increase the functionality in an affordable manner. There is no clear conclusion in resistive vs capacitive technology because they are so different technologies, and both have their uses, as well as pros and cons.
I have lost the source, where the differences in the technologies were detailed, but it was a screen manufacturer and the price, electricity consumption and processing power usage all had significance. I try to find another link.
Capacitive screens are so hip right now that, that is one reason, why you don't see another options. Another reason in cell phone market is that, having similar means to control its software, its easy to port apps for it, but thats not Nintendos concern in this case.
There are already all kinds of uses or stylus in games, like that surgeon game(which will be awesome in Wii U), or that "sci-fi archeology game", where you had to carefully clean the sand and rock away from the fossils, and the game rewarded the player depending about the quality of the work. Not a great game(apparently, i haven't played it), but a great idea and that portion of the game seemed to work well and I would love to see something like that in next Metroid or something.
Its very beneficial for a long game to break its pace from time to time and offer some variation.
First, I would argue that the hegemony is there in the first place because lots of people like aspects of capacitive displays better, like the feeling of a solid, durable surface instead of thin and flexible plastic sheet, the ability to fully operate devices without needing a stylus, and increased capability to interact with onscreen objects and interfaces through multitouch. Also, I'm not saying your thoughts have no real reasoning in them, just that you seem to be ignoring or downplaying virtues of something that has legitimate merit. I don't deny that for specific things a resistive, stylus-driven screen is superior, I just see that pool of uses as being much smaller and less important to me (and from what I've seen, likely most people).
Expensive glass digitizers are not necessary for capacitive screens. I already mentioned this. PSVita uses a hard plastic multitouch screen and it works fine.
I don't understand the last statement there. You just finished saying that one technology is, along with being cheaper, often superior to its competitor for all types of application in a ridiculously large possible range, and in no case really inferior. In the few cases you say that "some shine" may be lost in an application or two, you say that other factors will far more than make up for this. Sounds like we do have a clear conclusion.
I'm not just trying to rip on them for just not including the latest, hippest tech, but because I can see legitimate advantages in the thing they left out. One of these is the ability to have accurate tracking of a finger, which would have enabled mouse-like camera control on 3DS without having to use the stylus. If they had done that, I wouldn't care about the lack of a second circle pad.
Well, that's not exactly what I meant, but I guess you could do some (fairly clunky) rotating of objects with triggers or sticks. I was thinking more like a game in which you could use objects to deflect projectiles, touching them with two fingers to control the angle of deflection, or picking up and positioning objects into arbitrarily-angled slots, for example.
The hegemony is there to hinder competition, but the capacitive screen deserves its place as the main technology; in phones and(especially if we start to see more active digitizers) in tablets I believe its clearly more sensible solution as they are so expensive devices, that the price difference of one component doesn't make enough difference.
Capacitive screens need digitizer for having stylus thats not a size of a hot dog. I haven't seen thin enough capacitive styluses for sale(I saw interesting announcement of a 1-2mm tipped capacitive stylus a couple of years back, but they couldn't announce its price and I haven't seen the product anywhere since that), but most of all the digitizer would also add pressure sensitivity, which I love(on my tablet pc). And yeah, I suppose the durability isn't necessarily such a big problem...if a problem at all.
Yeah, I'm not english speaking, so I might sound a little confusing some times, but I meant that because the tablet has such a combination of controllers, there isn't many things you could do better with the whole package if they changed the screen technology, and as I stopped to think, I couldn't come up with any example. Resistive technology on other hand gives you "free" stylus, that increases the functionality in this case, that I think has more significance than different technology.
Oh yeah, I wasn't talking about you, but of the whole discussion. I also go to NeoGaf and there are similar discussions there, and this example was never given. I was actually praising you for clarifying this point for me.
Oh, yeah, something like that would work better with multitouch...
"- screen does not allow for multi-touch"
And this article is getting a + rating?
Capacitive screen is not something, you casually throw in your device just for lulz. You really need to think if it is useful.
3DS's both screens cost $33.80 to make, combined, and thats mostly for the 3D. iPhones one touch screen costs $37. For another example Nokias Lumia 900's bigger 4,7" screen costs $58. Thats considerably smaller than Wii U's 6,2" - 6,5" screen but that screen alone would still cost 1/5 of the whole Wii U bundles price.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 93310.html
http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/P ... veals.aspx
Compared to iPhone, 3DS has twice the screen, separate touchscreen, stylus and a 3D screen. If Nintendo wasted the money into capacitive screen, mostly for vain popularity reasons, 3DS would cost more and have less functionality and battery life.
What functionality would you take away from Wii U to put capacitive screen in exchange for stylus, battery life and more accurate touch control?
In my list of wanted features, capacitive screen comes after:
-3D screen
-Mobile Soc
-4 tablet support for the console
-Hardware to run Unreal 4
Thumbs up for functionality.
a 3d screen would be a bad idea, extra expense, double the render work, and would hardly be used. and it's not like the 3ds where your focus is on the screen for the majority of the time, with the WiiU you'd be looking down at the screen maybe 1/30th of your actual playtime and the rest looking at your tv. try this with your 3ds. it's not fun.
what is mobile soc?
Depending on the game, I would play it all on the tablet and never even turn TV on because of this:
Even without 3D screen its pretty close to my all time gaming dream, but especially with 3D it would be worth ten, a hundred times its price to me.
Soc is a system on a chip. A computer in a small space. Processor, GPU, Ram and Wireless communication for taking the tablet to the cafe.
derping around like instead of playing on a tv... yea... there is a reason those virtual reality things in the 90s failed hard. it's just not good. I don't have a giant ass HD tv so I can spend 400$ and play games on a tiny SD screen that is also my controller.
and if you are going to use an acronym, you usually capitalize all the letters.
You can speak for your self, can you.
For me its fantastic. I have already played games with this kind of systems, and even with smaller screen and more limited controls they work beautifully. I mean, I loved them SO much, that when I saw that Nintendo is finally bringing something like that as a standard controller, I almost cried in happiness. And you don't have to derp either, these are very playable while sitting, and even while lying in bed!!!
There ARE reasons why virtual reality failed, but its not the game play or lack of awesomeness. Are you saying that the price(starting from ~1k$), uncomfortable helmets and bad quality screens that severely hurt eyes, are not the reasons why virtual reality failed?
Considering the view distance, the Wii U screen is actually bigger than my, not very big, TV vieved from 1,4 meters(4,5ft)
And I don't believe theres going to be 3D screen, but 3Dish effect done with eye tracking is quite possible, if not even probable:
Ok, I'll try to remember. You have to excuse me, I'm finnish and here we write acronyms usually in small letters, and I usually consider forum discussions pretty informal anyway..
For the sake of fairness, I think it should be mentioned that both those screens feature other technologies besides capacitive touchscreens that add to their cost. iPhone's screen features approximately 2.3 times the resolution of both of 3DS's screens put together, the Lumia uses a more expensive AMOLED display, and both use Corning Gorilla Glass digitizers instead of more affordable plastic, which Sony is using on Vita's display.
Yes, thats true. Vitas screen still costs 50$ though. Its going to be interesting to see, how much Wii U tablet costs!
That's still not apples to apples, as Vita uses a more expensive AMOLED display while the U-pad is using a run-of-the-mill LCD.
View the full discussion!