News: Miyamoto Talks Wii U, HD Development and 4K Page 1

Miyamoto Talks Wii U, HD Development and 4K

18.07.2013

Miyamoto Talks Wii U, HD Development and 4K on Nintendo gaming news, videos and discussion

Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto was recently quizzed on Wii U development, Pikmin 3, the move to HD and the potential for 4K resolution in the future.

Whilst discussing Pikmin 3 with Japanese website 4Gamer, the designer was asked why the game wasn't considered for release on both Wii U and Wii, to which he replied "if it hadn't been on Wii U, we wouldn't have been able to make the same game at all" and that "Wii U was the most fitting piece of hardware to create Pikmin."

Miyamoto feels that "it would be great if [Wii] were HD in the first place", recalling the decision to keep the original Wii console in standard definition. As Nintendo have said on previous occasions, the reason why the Wii wasn't HD was because it was felt "there would have been no point for Wii to be HD" because HD televisions weren't common place.

Image for Miyamoto Talks Wii U, HD Development and 4K

However HD became far more prominent "2 to 3 years earlier than we had anticipated", he admitted.

Moving on to the superior 4K technology, would this be a route Nintendo would eventually consider for the future?

4K is the next step for television clarity, essentially shifting the maximum display resolution from 1920 x 1080 (1080p HD) to a maximum 4096 x 2160px, with current Ultra HD TVs scaling in around the 3840 x 2160px mark.

Miyamoto feels Pikmin would be a good candidate for the upped resolution as "making it 4K compatible could possibly further show more small detailed Pikmin moving around, show things from an even further perspective, and being able to see more may make a more fun game."

"I don't see the need for Zelda in 4K", Miyamoto said.

What are your thoughts on Miyamoto's comments on HD and future development with 4K?

Comment on this article

Comments

«s previous1next »

jb 19.07.2013#1

Zelda in 4K? Honestly, that would look intense. 2020, anyone?

Cubed3 Admin/Founder & Designer

Fate00 (guest) 19.07.2013#2

Very indeed but I respect Iwata-san's view on it. Nintendo already have stunning visuals to boot. The gameplay and its mechanics is what they're devoted in -to give us games full of thrill, suspense and challenge. These guys care about what we play.

Sonic_13 19.07.2013#3

From what I've seen and heard (at least for now) the jump from 1080p to 4k is no where near as dramatic as the jump from 480p to 1080p.

When the difference isn't as dramatic it's going to result in slower consumer adoption (combined with high set prices, though they are certainly dropping).

There will probably be a couple of X1/PS4 games that support 4K (if it's technically possible), but most will stick with 1080p.

It will be interesting to see what Nintendo does for the next generation though.

Paladinrja 19.07.2013#4

4k games won't exist this or next-gen I'd imagine. The PS4 only does video in 4K not games at all. Its mostly just a firmware thing but in as far as games go you would need alot more memory than any of these consoles have to render in 4K and somewhat more to upscale from 1080p.

J4K 19.07.2013#5

The thing with increased resolution is that it's always a matter of how close you plan to sit to the TV, and how large your TV is. PC games truly benefit from those ultra-high resolutions because you're three feet from the screen when playing games. At that short a distance, you can really see the brilliance of ultra-high resolutions.

That's where 4K becomes useful: it allows for more detail when sitting closer, or more detail when the image is displayed on significantly larger screens. But if you're going to be playing your video games on screens less than 60in or so while still sitting 7-8 feet from the TV, reclining on the sofa, you're more than likely not going to be able to tell the difference between a quality 1080p source and 4K.

The "wow-factor" with 4K involves people going to Best Buy and and watching the massive TVs while standing two feet away from them - stunning, yes, but not really representative of how you're going to use the TV once you bring it home.

So 4K in gaming may well become the next holy grail for PC gaming to pursue, but there's almost no point to it in a home console setting until the average consumer has a screen/projector well north of 60in or so. Considering that the most popular TV size in well-developed markets is generally in the ~40in range, there's a long way to go before the consumer even has a need for 4K (again, outside of the PC market).

Canyarion 19.07.2013#6

I agree with Jacob4000 and Sonic_13. 4K won't be popular anytime soon. Most people won't see the difference between 1080 and 4K, so why would they spend money on it?

raindog469 20.07.2013#7

It's a rare video (or game) that benefits from 1080p over 720p, never mind 4K. When 4K does become prominent, it'll be just another bullet point, like LED backlighting or 120/240Hz refresh rate or an extra yellow pixel, that makes things a bit nicer but certainly isn't worth a 100% markup. Some people will swear the difference is night and day, just like some people swear you can make your CDs sound better by coloring them in with a green magic marker. And there are plenty of companies willing to sell overpriced sets to them.

The biggest practical advantage I see (at least on screens that'll fit comfortably in our 12x15 living room, certainly no more than 60") is that 4K in the form of 3840x2160 "Ultra HD" is an integer multiple of both 720p and 1080p, meaning no matter what format of video you're playing, you won't get blurriness from scaling. Well, except 480p, but even then, without a bit of blur you'd notice that the pixels are Atari-sized.

J4K 20.07.2013#8

It's a rare video (or game) that benefits from 1080p over 720p

Now, this I do dispute. Again, it's about size of the screen and distance from said screen. Personally, I do most of my gaming on a 26in 1080p set that I sit roughly four-five feet away from while playing. Video games rendered at 720p instead of 1080p are obvious to pick out.

If you're sitting further back then the difference resolves and the experience is essentially the same. I like 720p; it's a quality format that is a massive improvement over 480p, and from the couch (roughly 7-8 feet away) on a set that isn't too large (under 42in) it's functionally no different to the average eye than 1080p. But 1080p does make a noticeable difference if you're sitting only a little bit closer, or if your TV is a little bigger, or some combination of the two.

Obviously 4K plays by these same rules (size and seating distance); only that it becomes much harder to actually see the benefit. You've got to stand ridiculously close, or have a ridiculously large TV. Neither of which is necessary to see the benefits of 1080p. So while for a lot of people 1080p may be superfluous, it's actually very easy to get the benefits from it in practical setups.

In my eyes, 1080p is really the drop off point after which higher resolutions only make sense for things very close to the face (computer monitors and tablets) or rather large home theatre setups. I'd rather manufactures focus on better color accuracy, viewing angles, and contrast ratio than bother with extra pixels I won't even be able to see from the recliner.

jb 20.07.2013#9

At this rate we should probably head outside to the local park, summon little creatures to catch apples and pounce on squirrels!

Cubed3 Admin/Founder & Designer

J4K 20.07.2013#10

Jb also raises a good point. Smilie

meeto_0 21.07.2013#11

I saw the 4k TVs in John Lewis, They have about 4 including the Samsung model F8000. The image clarity is amazing but I shudder to think what SD pictures would look like. Also can you imagine playing VC game LOL.

It has taken 10yrs for current channels to move most of their content to 1080p (the BBC has only just confirmed HD versions for their other channels.) I wont be swept by this 4K craze at all and I believe nor will most of the general public.

I saw the LG OLED TV in Harrods recently and that was truly spectacular. The picture was beautiful and the blacks were amazing. Most importantly was the minimal contrast drop off when you watched the screen at an angle.

Final point: not many have a front room big enough to accommodate TVs that are 50 inch plus. It starts to look silly.

Darkflame 21.07.2013#12

-sigh- Empirors new clothes all over again.
No one wants to admit they cant tell the difference.

In "blind" tests, at typical viewing distances, most people cant even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.
4K is pointless for everyone. Even those with better-then-20/20 vision.

You need a massive screen or to be a few inchs from it.

Its just a scam to try to get everyone buying new tvs.

HDR, color range, latency....all things we can notice and could be improved.(Thats one of the reasons OLEDs are cool, aside from their low power use)

But 4K? No. Not without eyeball upgrades.

As for videogames...we need faster,better framerates more then resolution.

Oh, excellent chart here:

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.png

So, if you have a 50inch screen and are going to sit 5 feet away, 4K is for you Smilie Smilie

( Edited 21.07.2013 13:59 by Darkflame )

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+.

raindog469 22.07.2013#13

Or a 32" monitor at 2 feet. I know people in offices who have that setup, never mind the guys with insane gaming rigs at home.

But sure enough, with my 46" screen 9 feet away, even 1080p is overkill, and I wouldn't want to go too much bigger in this size room. My buddy with a 42" screen 4 feet away in a tiny living room could benefit from a 4K upgrade... assuming his eyesight is anything like the people the chart is based on.

Darkflame 22.07.2013#14

oh, absolutely, monitors people would benifit from.

Not only do we use them closer, but the majority of the time the image is mostly static, giving us time to see the details more.
So, higher res screens when reading is good.

Just in motion, on tvs? not so much.
--
I think the chart is based on people with "perfect" vision, but not sure if it was tested with still images or motion.

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+.

J4K 22.07.2013#15

Darkflame, you've essentially restated all that's already been said. Smilie

edit: I do like that chart, though.

( Edited 22.07.2013 17:17 by Jacob4000 )