Wii U / Vita Screen Specs (No Flame Wars - Keep it Civil!!)

#21demesjos2Posted 12/27/2012 9:28:33 PM
EdwardHohenheim posted...
ORANGE666 posted...
squatch22 posted...
MegaMettaur posted...
squatch22 posted...
The Wii U pad aint a console...


It doesn't need to be. Read the effing title.


So the Vita board expects a game pad to have as good or better screen than an actual portable console?

/facepalm


Nintendo is selling the gamepad for $173 US in Japan. Considering the controller alone is so close to the price of the Vita, it should be comparable.

Vita is capacitive 5inches 540p AMOLED screen made by Samsung
WiiU is resistive 6inches 480p TFT LCD screen made by Sharp

The WiiU screen would be bottom of the barrel back in the early 2000's, in 2012 it belongs in the landfill


So almost 50% of the price is "so close?

I hope you took exchange rates into consideration before you posted this.


Actually it's like 69% of the price, and that's just a controller for the system. I have no intention of buying a Wii U, replacing a controller is pretty pricey which is one drunken mishap from happening. I also don't care for it's tablet wannabe controller. I have thought about getting a Wii for Xenoblade chronicles and like two other games but I really dislike motion based controls. Why can't they go back to a controller similar to the GC, that was like my all time favorite controller for any system. I don't like how Nintendo is focusing more on gimmick controllers last two consoles.
#22ikaruga0101Posted 12/27/2012 9:30:32 PM
The vita has the following advantages:
-OLED; Much better contrast, color reproduction and wider view angles then the 10+ year old TFT LCD on the WiiU controller(and 3DS).
-Higher resolution; 960x544 on the vita is higher than the 854x480 on the WiiU
-Higher pixel density; The vita has a 5 inch screen, which coupled with the higher resolution gives a ~230 ppi density. The wiiU has a 6.2 inch screen with only 160 ppi.
-Capacitive touch. The wiiU uses a resistive touch screen and the flexible sensing layers for those types of touch screens tend to absorb some of the screen light degrading the image. A screen with capacitive touch (or no touch at all) looks much better than a screen with resistive touch. If you have a 3DS or DS just compare the bottom screen with the top screen. IMO, the top looks much better.

In general I'd say that the Vita screen is its most valuable hardware feature. Even more valuable than the quad-core CPU and GPU. It just looks beautiful. Even compared to the Apple "retina", Sony "reality" displays or the Nexus 10 display. I'd still take the vita. I have a japanese Xperia Acro HD with a IPS LCD 340ppi (which is better than all the Retina displays) and it still doesn't look as good as the vita.

Just look at this picture and judge it by yourself: http://highgamers.com/archives/4328821.html

However nothing is perfect: based on my experience with embedded displays as an engineer, I'm positive the vita screen(which they buy from samsung) is by far the most expensive component on the Vita. For the sake of hardware sales and lower prices, if I were a sony engineer, I'd sacrifice the OLED for the cheaper in-house IPS LCD that they use on the xperia phones(but I wouldn't use the TFT crap nintendo uses).
#23EdwardHohenheimPosted 12/27/2012 10:06:41 PM
demesjos2 posted...
Actually it's like 69% of the price, and that's just a controller for the system. I have no intention of buying a Wii U, replacing a controller is pretty pricey which is one drunken mishap from happening. I also don't care for it's tablet wannabe controller. I have thought about getting a Wii for Xenoblade chronicles and like two other games but I really dislike motion based controls. Why can't they go back to a controller similar to the GC, that was like my all time favorite controller for any system. I don't like how Nintendo is focusing more on gimmick controllers last two consoles.


No it's not, it's close to 50%. Your calculation is wrong, read what I wrote in the post you quoted.
#24MarkCohenBrosPosted 12/27/2012 10:10:57 PM
You know things are getting desperate when people compare a handheld console to an accessory of a home console that merely costs $50 more.
#25Spetsnaz420Posted 12/28/2012 2:49:10 AM
Why do they need comparison? One functions as a comptroller, the other is a full fledged gaming unit...Vita better look better.
---
I like asking if they are mad, then calling them my bro, when they clearly aren't.
PSN: Spetsnaz420
#26Whitecat007Posted 12/28/2012 2:52:40 AM
I got a Wii U two days ago. 100% made in China to the max. My ID is OutlawStar. Going to sell it next year.
#27finaljayfantasyPosted 12/28/2012 3:50:30 AM
darkdragongirl posted...
Comparing consoles to handhelds? Why?

Might well say the iPad has better resolution.


He just asked about the screens. Its not about the consoles. Ppl plz read the title of the topic before posting.
---
PSN:death666life, XBL:doublexlgamers, www.youtube.com/doublexlgamers
#28KinoPosted 12/28/2012 4:08:39 AM
Meanwhile, a lot of smartphones nowadays have way better screens than the Vita.

Just the facts.
---
http://db2012fes.dengeki.com/
http://dengeki.com/20th/
#29HeavysackPosted 12/28/2012 4:17:16 AM
Kino posted...
Meanwhile, a lot of smartphones nowadays have way better screens than the Vita.

Just the facts.


We comparing the Wii U tablet and the Vita correct ? Do you have a Wii U or Vita ?
---
3DS sells more then Vita, McDonald's sells more then Subway. I don't want inferior hardware just like I don't want type 2 Diabetes!
#30EoinPosted 12/28/2012 4:48:27 AM
ikaruga0101 posted...
-Higher pixel density; The vita has a 5 inch screen, which coupled with the higher resolution gives a ~230 ppi density. The wiiU has a 6.2 inch screen with only 160 ppi.

Vita is 215.6 PPI. The Wii U GamePad is 151 PPI.