Recent reports from the Chicago Wii U Experience tour seem to indicate Batman: Arkham City – Armored Edition and Assassin’s Creed III will run natively at 1080p.
Nice This should be the standard of future hardware
1080p! anything less would be a disappointment!
Finally something good about those versions. I hope they will fix the texture problems in Arkham City, but so far AC3 seems to be improved (E3 build had some bugs/glitches and some other problems).
@ ZoyosJD What you are forgetting, is it's running a game at 1080p/60 that was designed to run on 5 year old hardware. Not much of a leap there.
@ dirthurts Actually, it is a pretty big leap. I thought you were a PC gamer. Jumping from 720p/30fps to 1080p/60fps requires a very significant leap in performance.
You are also assuming it's running at 60fps. The article just mentions the native resolution, not the performance. Don't jump to conclusions.
for these games to run native @ 1080p wouldnt that mean they had to have been originally created @ 1080p? Considering these are ports makes me think they would not take the time to go back and start from scratch to make it all native. Or would they?
@darthv72 To answer your question, no. Games do not work like video. video is prerendered, and can never exceed the resolution it was originally designed at. Imagine it just being a series of photos. You can only upscale video. However Games, are rendered on the fly. The game essentially builds the 3D world, and as you move around it rasterizes, or kind of takes photos of what the game is seeing. If it does this 30 times per second, then you have 30fps. But the computer can do it at any detail level it wishes, thus increasing resolution. Essentially, there is no default resolution for gaming. It is rendered on the fly. This may help http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
@Darth You are here to tell us; that you don't understand that the graphics card will create buffers at 1920x1080 instead of up-scaling from 1280*720 or lower? I think you misunderstood something there. And I think most people here are technically impaired on these simple ideas. No offense.
no offense taken. Just really confused at how this all works. It used to be all about the assets of the game and how they were created. If they were created using high res textures native @ 1080p then the overall game would be 1080p and could be downscaled to 720p and still look good. As opposed to a game with 720p assets in which case the hardware would upscale them to 1080 if you had it set that way and would not look as good as if they were native 1080p. So yeah, im confused in how these are supposed to work. seems there are hundreds of games that say they support 1080p but really arent native 1080p. I certainly wont pretend to know what it all means but that is why i ask.
Creating assets for a higher resolution just to output a lower resolution is a waste of resources. That is why you won't see it( and won't notice it ...much ). Rendering( rasterizing the final output, outputting the pixels to a buffer image to be displayed) at a higher resolution requires more GPU power and Ram. Considering all the shaders, Anti-Aliasing what not become heavier as you go up. This is why so many games are rendered at a lower resolution because the consoles can't handle it. The hardware doesn't upscale the assets. It upscales the buffer. The buffer represents a bitmap with the final pixel data that will be displayed on your screen. And there are times where it doesn't upscale. It's just your TV "stretching"( scaling ) it to fit your tv/monitor screen resolution. upscaling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
That standard for future hardware will be outdated next year when the king PS4 comes and tell the world that 4k is here to stay, also 4k displays are coming next year too at a store near you and me within the earth. By the time the PS4 is release, human across the atmosphere will be able to use the PS4 for standard HD or ultra HD which is call 4k.
I know your secret, but I won't tell... :)
Yeah, im sure it will have 4k... Never mind you need a $500+ card to run a game like battlefield 3 at 1080p w/max settings. Im sure somehow they will do 4k, for those 10 guys that buy a $10.000 tv....
actually my year old gtx 560ti can do battlefield 3 1080p 100% maxed out, and that was only $279 when i got it. the 660ti is actually about to come out for a similar price. if you look closely at battlefield 3, it's not as big of a jump as it may have initially seemed, but its tricks are pretty well concealed.
Right. Because everyone will be up and ready to spend $1000-2000+ for 2K and 4K resolution TVs. Especially since 1080p already looks really crisp. 4K resolution may be the next big thing, but as long as it remains expensive (which is how it will undoubtedly start out) it will not take off right off the bat. It happened with Blu-Ray, I'm sure it'll happen with this too.
4k is over 8x the number of pixels per frame as 720p, which is what the vast majority of ps3/360 (and currently wii U) games run at. Then of course, everyone is going to want to have 60fps for next gen as well, which is 2x our current standard fps, so you're talking about a 16x the number of pixels per second needed just to keep up with those demands. And that's assuming you're running games that have the same shader and physics complexity as current generation systems, without additional effects like improved anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering. And, of course, if all we get out of PS4 is the same graphics but running at much higher resolution and framerate, people are going to be disappointed. So, realistically, you should be satisfied to get Unreal Engine 4/Luminous engine quality graphics at 1080p/60fps (and I have my doubts that we'll see visuals at the level of that luminous real time demo at 1080p/60 on any next gen console. 720p60 or 1080p30 MAYBE). People just don't understand the sheer amount of power needed just to pull that off. Talking about 4k with graphics like that is just insanity, especially in a little box that is supposed to resemble a game console, without catching on fire or costing $2000. Remember, with higher resolution you have to increase the resolution on all of your textures, shaders, etc. as well, which increases RAM usage, GPU requirements, disc space usage, bandwidth requirements, etc... You can't just throw a console with 4GB RAM in it (and that's on the high end of what we can expect), a mid-range GPU (you're not getting a super hot, super big, super power hungry GTX 680 in a PS4), and a semi-decent CPU out there and expect that much out of it. It'll do amazing things, but not that amazing.
The ps4 will support 4k. For movies only. If the console is barely pushing 720p what makes you think it will run a resolution 6x as large? Unless you want a $1000 console with crappy looking games at 30fps that is. I can't wait for the ps4 to NOT have 4k games so I can watch you try and defend it. It will be hilarious. But seriously. Your equal to a twitard.
Tell you what, when your kings come along than talk shit 2 years from now about how great it is. Also, glad to know that you can see into the future oh wise one.
@Psycho_PS3Truthh Can I have what you're smoking?
Dream on. :)
Guys, it probably will. If the WiiU can natively render images for the [email protected] and the [email protected] at the same time, what do you think a system comming out a year later and probably at a higher price point(or at least with the extra screens cost invetsted in the hardware) would do, not to mention that BR already supports 4k movies. @frosty like lunaluagua pointed out, that are already fairly inexpensive cards that can put out great visuals, just give it a year and mass quantity buying power. Not to mention that consoles can be highly optimized. ex. a 6 yr. old PC costing $500 would catch fire trying to run BF3 at any playable setting and speed today.
There is not a single GPU on the market right now that will run the most visually demanding games at 4k resolution at any decent frame rate. One year down the line will simply mean what is top of the line today will be midrange by then, and that's the absolute most you can expect to see in any console. You don't have to be able to see into the future or any of that garbage to know this, you just have to know how computer graphics work. Next gen visuals at 4k even at 30fps is a pipe dream in any console that will be released within the next 3 years. If you wanna wait until 2015 to play PS4, then yeah, that's a slight possibility, but it isn't going to happen, so just give it up. An AMD Radeon HD 6990 running battlefield 3 DX11 with anti-aliasing can still only hit around 80FPS, and that's a top end card (it outperforms the GTX680 at the same benchmark). Remember what I said about mid range GPUs in consoles, in other words, even if they do manage to figure out a way to cram a 6990 or GTX680 comparable part in the new consoles, they still will only just barely pull off a current generation title running at 1080p/60. Now, remember 4K is EIGHT TIMES more than 1080p. How in the hell do you expect them to pull that off using the same hardware? It just is not going to happen, period. Our technology just isn't at that point, and if the same tech advance trends persist, it won't be there in a year either. Nowhere close. If you tried running battlefield at 4k with anti-aliasing on the best cards on the market right now, they'd struggle to keep a playable framerate. That's not even taking next gen graphics into account.
You need some fresh air man, Big Time.
So, if the difference between 720p and 1080p is noticeable when the TV is bigger than 42"... man, those 160" tv's will look awesome in my garage... if I take my hummer out to make some room. I mean, I can buy one of those, of course I have a hummer.
although this is good news people should really not take this as fact nintendo reps have been wrong before unless nintendo or developers just flat out say native 1080p or whatever THEN you should believe it
Screw 1080p I want standard 60 frames at the minimum for every game. I'd rather play in 480 with 60 frames than 1080 with 30 frames per second
100% agreed. I don't mind games staying at 720p next gen, but every game seriously should run at 60fps, it adds so much fluidity to the game.
Batman Arkham City runs in 1080p already as does AC2.. Oh we talking about consoles here? Geez. I talking about PCs for the last 5 years as standard.. I doubt the wii U can do it besides havnt a site already downplayed this a site who actually do real tests and is a respectable site not some small site like wii-gamers.com?
I agree. It's great seeing Nintendo accept HD now. I feel like they learned their lesson with the Wii. They didn't support HD because "not very many people had an HD TV" but now they are supporting 1080p when most people have TVs that are only 720p. It's nice that they are looking towards the future on this.
Every tv i have and my friends have are 1080p...Most tv's have 1080p support dude
I agree that most tvs today have 1080p support but it seems like there would have been more 720p tvs sold than 1080p tvs sold in all since there has been 720p support in tvs longer than there has been 1080p support. My logic could definitely be wrong though :) Anyway, the point of the original comment was to say I'm glad Nintendo didn't decide to only offer 720p support instead of 1080p support just because there might be more 720p only tvs than tvs that support 1080p. That was their reasoning with not making the Wii an HD console, they said more people had sd tvs than hd tvs.
Our TVs are 1080p, but there are more 720p TVs at homes worldwide. It's like Windows or iOS. The VAST majority is in VERY old standards.
You are assuming everyone who has a TV also gets a console. Those are 2 different markets. Almost EVERYONE has a TV in America, while that is not the case with a console. Someone who buys the next consoles will be MORE likely to have a TV that is higher speced (1080p) than someone who doesn't care about consoles/gaming. Most people buying the new consoles will have a 1080P display. Even my dad (62yrs old) has a 1080P TV and an Xbox 360. And another HDTV in his office (720P). He has had the 1080P for 2 years too.
Awesome! Wii U is gonna be a great system. Awesome that it's native.
Ubisoft said the wiiu version of AC3 will run 1080p/60fps and use OpenGl 4.1 END OF.
OpenGL 4.1 is supported by the Wii-U but that doesn't mean Assassin's creed will use it. OpenGL 4.1 is extremely similar to DX11.1. Just because the console supports certain features doesn't mean it will be used (such as the xbox's GPU tessellation abilities or MSAA and the PS3's MSAA ability). Using those highend features comes at a cost of performance. Hardware doing 1080P, utilizing DX11/OpenGL 4 features AND maintaining 60FPS requires not just the ability of the machine to support the features, but have processing power to do it at that speed. Its similar to how you can buy a DX11 video card for 50 bucks or all the way up to 500. Yes, the 50 dollar card can support all DX11 features and 1440P and all that, but that doesn't mean it will perform will. This is where developers have to optimize, reduce features/res and so on to find a sweet spot of performance and quality that the machine can handle.
@cone in addition i hope they use realistic artwork with their exclusives over the cartoonish looks of the past. also include voice acting instead of text and mumbo jumbo noises.
I'll say it now, this is EXTREMELY unlikely. Every title that nintendo has publicly shown on direct stream (even when taken from a 1080p broadcast source) has been 720p. Even the extremely simple new super mario bros U was rendering in 720p, and the extremely small "open world" mini-game select area of nintendoland had framerate issues in 720p, so don't tell me majorly complex games like arkham city and AC3 are running in full 1080p. Upscaled from 720p to 1080 to send out a 1080p signal maybe, but not natively rendered. Even the most complex first party game, pikmin 3, was running at 720p at 30fps. Look up the digital foundry wii u footage analysis from a 1080 source if you don't believe me, it's on their site. However, I hope it DOES actually render in 1080 because that'll pressure sony and msoft to release their next gen consoles as soon as possible!!!!
Those were running on unfinished kit ad were 3+ before launch...
the system is coming out this year, they're not switching anything out. by now they are just optimizing what they have set. it literally takes more than TWICE the power to render at 1080p than it does at 720p, making a bump that big from a pure software standpoint is impossible, unless the initial engineering was completely incompetent to begin with, which i'm sure it wasn't. and don't forget it also has to reserve power for the 2nd screen.
lunaguana right now wold be too late to change anything but whos to say that those devs kits werent alot older and they did have time to improve it? idk and idc but i do agree that its highly unlikely each game will be native 1080p and 60 fps
"the system is coming out this year, they're not switching anything out." Compare the ZombiU footage at E3 to the footage that came out more recently. Seems to me there's plenty of development time to change and improve upon certain features.
i sure hope so, i am really, really hopeful for the wii u, and looking forward to it eagerly..... but.... if it only does 720p, then its just another last gen console like ps3/360 if it does 1080p, 60 frames with some decent aa, at least it will be on par with a 3 year old, mid spec pc, playing some nice nintendo exclusives in 1080p will be a nice way to usher in the next gen of consoles
The difference between the 2 is so minute if your TV is smaller than 50 inches, I really don't see why I should care so much.
Well, I have a 60 inch DLP so yes, for me, this is a big deal.
It all depends on your viewing distance. That's the key detail everyone fails to mention when quoting the outdated 2006 CNET statement. If you have a 32" TV and is viewing it from 10-15ft away, of course it's not going to be greatly noticeable. However, view in 6ft away and there's an obvious difference. Even on a 15" laptop screen when switching the game resolution from 720 to 1080, there's a huge difference, and it's due to viewing distance.
I said it when every1 was trying to make out wiiu ports were looking only equal well i said expect all games to run 1080p by launch the E3 event was to show off the GAMEPAD. Too many blind fanboys on here to see the truth right in front of them go bk to 360 launch there were no games out that rivaled the xbox1 best ???
your 2nd paragraph = wow
Haha, he doesn't realize how hypocritical and retarded he's being.
8 disagree's i said the wiiu would be 1080p on 3rd party games and i was right so you guys are telling me i didnt say it ????? what a bunch of fanboys or should i say KIDS.
Wonder if AF will be standard this time around, you ask me its the best thing you can do to improve graphics. But for some reason its absent on consoles despite being virtually free as far as performance is concerned.
do you mean AA. AA is really taxing on just about any video card.
It will have AA, but not at the speed as a full PCI Express, it will have a lighter version of DX11 It will Run at 1080p. Do not i repeat Do not expect every game to run 60 frames here people. But as it is t will look miles better than consoles out now in way of lighting textures and AA. You may not see it but how many here has a nintendo Wii U... Exactly. Trust me next gen gonna be cool you be one step into what i call entery level PC gaming.
I believe he is referring to Anisotropic Filtering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Thats exactly what i meant, I am frightened by how few people know of it. That is judging by the comment responses.
I believe even the GC and Wii used AF in its GPU features! I'm not sure that it's because current GPU's don't incorporate this technique, but that they just don't highlight or advertise it... http://www.segatech.com/gam...
Man, I wish we'd get more concrete details instead of hearsay. All we know for sure is that Nintendo titles will be in 720p. Awesome otherwise, hopefully they'd turn out to be true.
Then why did they show 720 version of batman at e3??
early build probably
early build of a game that already came out like 8 months ago? yeah right
Howcome Shok stopped commenting on Wii U articles?
Be nice, more so because if they can do these games in 1080p then imagine what sort of effects they could add at 720p. BUT, the source is unbelievably .. .. unbelievable, so just dismiss this shite.
Why? Everyone seems keen on taking anonymous sources that claim the Wii U is weaker than current generation consoles at face value. Why not this one? Besides, this came from someone who went to a Nintendo related event who asked the representatives there what the resolution was. According to them, Batman and Assassin's Creed were 1080p. I'll take the word of a rep working for Nintendo over "anonymous sources" any day.
Nintendo fans now care about graphics, hypocrisy.
I laughed a little, Rumor = might not be true anyway.
Nintendo fans have never made a big deal about graphics unlike Sony fans, but when they constantly get stomped on and bashed about their so called "outdated on arrival" next-gen console, along comes this article and yet Nintendo fans still stay classy on their comments. What I've read so far are a bunch of damage control current-gen comments.
Nintendo fanboys are the biggest filp floppers on this site, Mitt Romney should be your spokesmen. I bet when the Gamecube was selling like crap sales didn't mean much to the fanbase hmmmmmmmmmm ?
Actually no, there is no hypocrisy on my part. I believe that gameplay comes first and graphics come second. That has NOT changed. The fact that we might have games running at 1080p is simply a plus, it doesn't make or break anything in terms of the games themselves.