Topic: Best looking game on the Wii U?

OMFG. Everyone just forget about talking about frames. The best looking Wii U game is...?

I never said there wasn't a difference... I said the difference was minor. It is much easier to see when just concentrating on one thing like watching a video or a racing game where there isn't a huge amount of action and inputs to distract your brain. The difference is more akin to 720p vs 1080p than it is 480i to 1080p.

If you want a great illustration of different fps together, here is one: http://testufo.com/#test=framerates&count=5&backgroun...

That is best viewed with a 120Hz monitor if you have one.

Why are you even here? I mean, you hardly contribute to threads other than starting arguments with people. Just wondering.

The difference between 60 frames per second and 30 frames per second is significant. Frame rate drops are also bad, but there is a huge difference in playing a game at 60 fps and playing one at 30 fps. The difference, for example, between single player MK8 at 60 fps and local 4 player MK8 at 30 is palpable. It's not unplayable, but it's extremely noticeable.

Comparing framerate to resolution is really missing the point, at least the point that I'm making in terms of framerate.
The extra enjoyment isn't just from the visual pleasure of seeing a faster display. It's from the increased sense of immersion that comes from the game responding to your button presses more quickly.

Now, the question is which game SOUNDS the best. All the games I've played have been at 48Kz, as indicated by my audio receiver. Too bad they never go up to 96Kh The games made specifically for Wii U, or Xbox One and PS4, for that matter, sound better than the 7th gen ports, because all the 8th gen consoles have a better audio processor than 7th gen, but everyone ends up talking about frame rate, resolution, and graphics

Agreed, currently seems like audio is underappreciated in general when it comes to video games.

No they're definitely noticeable, but I personally look past it because the game still looks really good.

Not by me, amigo. I got a good audio receiver, specifically for video games. My setup was around $650, and it STILL beats the $1000 sound bar that Sony just put out. My 8th gen Sony machine is the STR-1030, but that will change once/if everything ends up going to 4K, like the market wants it to, because HDMI 1.4 can only handle 4K @ 30FPS.

@SCAR392: Oh, yeah I know you are one of the few like me who have their Wii U hooked up to to an audio receiver

Bayonetta 2
Mario Kart
Super Smash Brothers

I'd also put Donkey Kong country since I like the art direction/

The site pays me for ad revenue because of increased hits to the forums

I owe it all to the kind people like you that are always commenting on my presence ^.^

As is mostly anyone posting on a silly little Nintendo forum ^.^

Ya. They come out with new audio receivers ever year, just like TVs and other gadgets. It's definitely not something you buy every year, though. Speakers from the early 2000s are basically still up to date, depending on the speakers, of course.

That's why I dislike when people complain about Dolby not being supported by Wii U. The first 5.1 PCM receivers came out around 2007 or 2008, so anyone still relying on Dolby codecs hasn't bought a receiver since before then. The receiver itself still supports Dolby, but Wii U does not. People don't understand that. I could run my Wii U through Dolby Pro Logic II(x), but it actually sounds better through A.D.F. Xbox One sounds good through Dolby Pro Logic II(x), though, and the same probably goes for PS4.

I think I worked out what SCAR was talking about before and it's purely the fault of the TV. Actual 240Hz on TVs isn't a thing at all. They do a bunch of trickery with interpolation (i.e. refreshing half the pixels at an alternate frame) and a calculation of intermediate frames. When the TV gets a 60Hz signal in this mode, which is what all consoles will give it, it assumes it'll get a new picture every 1/60th of a second. When a game runs at 30Hz it doesn't. So you'll get this false 240Hz thing between the first two frames and then when the frame is repeated it'll just sit there for a whole refresh. Which I assume is a bit jarring.

The solution is to not use this BS mode when playing games at all. Partly because of the above thing but more because you're introducing a bucket-load of input lag even if the game does run at 60Hz. I mean seriously, how do you think the TV calculates intermediate frames? It needs to have two frames to do that which means you'll always be an extra frame behind ontop of any input lag your TV will introduce naturally. Put the thing into game mode for crying out loud! Stop muddying the real debate about 60fps, which is a big deal, with your technical illiteracy.

@skywake
Well, it still wasn't my TV. It was the HDTV Best Buy had to show off the demo, which was setup the way it was supposedly supposed to. I think you could be right about some weird mode happening on the display, but Sony is supposed to give instructions on how to setup the HDTV to display their game at the store. It looked like crap, because I saw the same frame repeated multiple times, but it could have worse, because of a mode as you describe.

I feel the exact same way. Even if people just hook up a cheap/old stereo system through the AV, it's miles better than anything TV speakers(I've ever heard) can do. I hooked up a stereo system from early 2000s for my dad with some Pioneer speakers from around the same time through coax, and it's a world of difference. It's not as good as a modern HDMI receiver, but it's still better.

I wouldn't say 30FPS is all that bad on a 60Hz display, The frames multiplied by 4 or 8(which is on 120+Hz displays) are what I think makes the 30FPS games look ridiculous. I agree that all companies should definitely aim to get 60FPS for games, regardless.

Yeah, umm, nope. Not at all how it works. The thing that's jarring about 30fps more than anything is the way that a game can jump between 30fps and 60fps. In which case you get this stuttering effect. If anything a 120Hz display will handle this better because with v-sync on it can drop from 60fps down to 40fps and then down to 30fps rather than going from 60fps right down to 30fps. Although I suspect you'll be limited to 60Hz anyway, because reasons.

It's more about having a regular flow of frames than it is not having the frames stay on the screen for too long. I mean think about it, on a 60Hz display that 1/30 seconds that a 30fps image will stay on the screen is the exact same 1/30 seconds that it will on a 120Hz screen. It's not rocket science.

That said, yes 60fps matters.

@skywake
I know 30FPS is the same on a 60Hz, as it is on a 120Hz. The only difference that is happening, is that the 30FPS content is filling in another single frame on a 60Hz display. while it is filling in another 3 on a 120Hz.

If a display can drop down to 30Hz, as you say, than I agree that is better, but otherwise the 30FPS content is better on a 60Hz display, because it is filling in less extra frames.

That's not how it works.