"Both have a frame rate of 30fps."
"On a TV, the Nintendo Switch version of the game renders in 900p while the Wii U version renders in 720p."
"The Nintendo Switch version has higher-quality environmental sounds. As a result, the sound of steps, water, grass, etc. are more realistic and enhance the game’s Open-Air feel."
That seems odd. Also no mention of difference in texture quality, which is visible in comparisons. I suppose it's possible that the texture quality has improved since E3 and there isn't a difference.
Yeah this. I was just watching Gamexplain's raw footage and the improvement was *noticeable* since e3. Some of this can be attributed to polish but I have a hard time believing all of it is. At the very least, Switch seems to have a MUCH better draw distance.
I really hope this is the case. Nice to see Konami actually calling it out there themselves. At $60 there is no way I'm getting that game. But like, $30 or less? Day one purchase.
30 frames specifically for Zelda is disappointing, because I thought they said they were aiming for 60, and Nintendo in general has always been willing to sacrifice "teh shinies" for 60fps. Sad that they're not here.
900p/30fps in general? I'm not a fan of it, but I don't have an extended dog in that race. Personally speaking I think you go 1080p/30fps minimum or you bloody go home, and the industry would do well to stop redlining the engine so to speak, but whatever. I don't lose any sleep over it. And people have defended those specs on the likes of PS4/One games, so they can do so here the same way. Just bummed Nintendo is doing it now too.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
"Both have a frame rate of 30fps."
"On a TV, the Nintendo Switch version of the game renders in 900p while the Wii U version renders in 720p."
Didn't we already know this?
30fps/900p was being said last week.
Obviously "we" didn't because I just posted finding out?
Anyway, that's poo on poo. I expected 60fps at least, even at 900p. If they can't pull that off I really question the effort to port it to the Switch or the Switch's capabilities in the long run. Honestly, everyone wants to claim "better hardware!" but if the end result of the games are still 30fps then it means nothing!
As hyped as I was coming into this reveal, I am starting to see it's just Nintendo asking me to buy the same damn console as before. Well fuck that noise.
And this is why I asked what Skyrim was managing, because if it only manages 30fps at 1080p on a base PS4 expecting Zelda to run at 60fps is lunacy (without making significant sacrifices in graphics, at any rate).
Skyrim is the easiest comparison to make for performance - I'd like to know how the games themselves stack up in relative complexity (graphically) to get the full context for that comparison, but if the only difference is one notch down on resolution I'm not terribly concerned.
There's also the question of "30fps" being rather vague (target? minimum? etc.) but that's getting into pedantics.
30 frames specifically for Zelda is disappointing, because I thought they said they were aiming for 60, and Nintendo in general has always been willing to sacrifice "teh shinies" for 60fps. Sad that they're not here.
900p/30fps in general? I'm not a fan of it, but I don't have an extended dog in that race. Personally speaking I think you go 1080p/30fps minimum or you bloody go home, and the industry would do well to stop redlining the engine so to speak, but whatever. I don't lose any sleep over it. And people have defended those specs on the likes of PS4/One games, so they can do so here the same way. Just bummed Nintendo is doing it now too.
I don't think there was any way you were going to get that game running 60 fps. I think even a high end PC would struggle to do that. There's just so much to render.
I also don't see what's wrong with 30 fps. As long as it's consistently 30 fps you aren't going to notice. I can guarantee the Wii U version will not be consistent.
Something to keep in mind is that launch games always end up being the games that look/run the worst on a console, because devs are still learning the hardware.
This is Nintendo though. They always run peak performance on their games to show it off. Lot's of folks have mentioned framerate drop in the demos and you can even see framedrop in the videos. This says a lot to me about how serious (or lack of) they are going to treat this console if this is how it is presenting coming out of the box.
30 frames specifically for Zelda is disappointing, because I thought they said they were aiming for 60, and Nintendo in general has always been willing to sacrifice "teh shinies" for 60fps. Sad that they're not here.
900p/30fps in general? I'm not a fan of it, but I don't have an extended dog in that race. Personally speaking I think you go 1080p/30fps minimum or you bloody go home, and the industry would do well to stop redlining the engine so to speak, but whatever. I don't lose any sleep over it. And people have defended those specs on the likes of PS4/One games, so they can do so here the same way. Just bummed Nintendo is doing it now too.
I don't think there was any way you were going to get that game running 60 fps. I think even a high end PC would struggle to do that. There's just so much to render.
Well, the crazy rigs can manage anything at 60fps at 4k resolution, but that's why I'd want to compare against PS4/X1 performance of similar titles.
"Both have a frame rate of 30fps."
"On a TV, the Nintendo Switch version of the game renders in 900p while the Wii U version renders in 720p."
Didn't we already know this?
30fps/900p was being said last week.
Obviously "we" didn't because I just posted finding out?
Anyway, that's poo on poo. I expected 60fps at least, even at 900p. If they can't pull that off I really question the effort to port it to the Switch or the Switch's capabilities in the long run. Honestly, everyone wants to claim "better hardware!" but if the end result of the games are still 30fps then it means nothing!
As hyped as I was coming into this reveal, I am starting to see it's just Nintendo asking me to buy the same damn console as before. Well fuck that noise.
There are a bunch of games on PS4 and Xbone that run at 30, and at sub-1080 resolutions as well. Especially big open world ones. I really think you're drastically overreacting to this.
Also, if a game running at 30 FPS is this much of a problem for you, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. It seems like a really small thing to get so hung up on. (Also, for what it's worth, several other Switch titles are running at 1080/60).
I think it's less about defending it on PS4/xbox one and more that that's the best that we can get with the hardware in the devices.
Very high graphic quality games take a ton of GPU power. the GPU i give as the standard "get this for good modern PC gaming at 1080p" is the GTX 1060 right now. he 6GB version of that card is $250ish, by itself. The Xbox One is $280, the switch is $300.
Crazy rigs? You can build a cheap system from 2011 and run Skyrim at High 60fps.
But obviously the Switch is handheld, and I get that. I just think if the hardware can't push 1080p then they obviously felt strongly enough about the "mobility" aspect to cut the shit out of performance.
All I am saying is, I feel like we're about to get taken for a ride here and run the same damn route the Wii U did.
30 frames specifically for Zelda is disappointing, because I thought they said they were aiming for 60, and Nintendo in general has always been willing to sacrifice "teh shinies" for 60fps. Sad that they're not here.
900p/30fps in general? I'm not a fan of it, but I don't have an extended dog in that race. Personally speaking I think you go 1080p/30fps minimum or you bloody go home, and the industry would do well to stop redlining the engine so to speak, but whatever. I don't lose any sleep over it. And people have defended those specs on the likes of PS4/One games, so they can do so here the same way. Just bummed Nintendo is doing it now too.
I don't think Nintendo ever stated any goals of a higher framerate on the Switch. Just plenty of people hoping for it.
I'm not sure you can come up with a general rule about this. Some Nintendo games run at 60FPS. A lot don't. None of the previous 3D Zeldas did.
30 frames specifically for Zelda is disappointing, because I thought they said they were aiming for 60, and Nintendo in general has always been willing to sacrifice "teh shinies" for 60fps. Sad that they're not here.
900p/30fps in general? I'm not a fan of it, but I don't have an extended dog in that race. Personally speaking I think you go 1080p/30fps minimum or you bloody go home, and the industry would do well to stop redlining the engine so to speak, but whatever. I don't lose any sleep over it. And people have defended those specs on the likes of PS4/One games, so they can do so here the same way. Just bummed Nintendo is doing it now too.
I don't think there was any way you were going to get that game running 60 fps. I think even a high end PC would struggle to do that. There's just so much to render.
I also don't see what's wrong with 30 fps. As long as it's consistently 30 fps you aren't going to notice. I can guarantee the Wii U version will not be consistent.
You can get any game to run at 60 fps. You just prioritize the framerate over the graphics. If it's not, back off the graphics.
I also don't super care about the 30/60 debate either. 30 is fine, I don't care one way or another. I also probably can't tell the difference at times.
There's just zero reason to not be able to hit a target resolution and target framerate. Like I said, stop redlining the engine. You as the developer are in complete control over it.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
3D Zelda games have generally been run at 30 anyway (excepting the N64 era when it was a blistering 20fps), so eh. Not being 60 is whatever.
"Both have a frame rate of 30fps."
"On a TV, the Nintendo Switch version of the game renders in 900p while the Wii U version renders in 720p."
Didn't we already know this?
30fps/900p was being said last week.
Obviously "we" didn't because I just posted finding out?
Anyway, that's poo on poo. I expected 60fps at least, even at 900p. If they can't pull that off I really question the effort to port it to the Switch or the Switch's capabilities in the long run. Honestly, everyone wants to claim "better hardware!" but if the end result of the games are still 30fps then it means nothing!
As hyped as I was coming into this reveal, I am starting to see it's just Nintendo asking me to buy the same damn console as before. Well fuck that noise.
There are a bunch of games on PS4 and Xbone that run at 30, and at sub-1080 resolutions as well. Especially big open world ones. I really think you're drastically overreacting to this.
Also, if a game running at 30 FPS is this much of a problem for you, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. It seems like a really small thing to get so hung up on. (Also, for what it's worth, several other Switch titles are running at 1080/60).
Which other ones? I hadn't heard of any (I also thought it was too early to tell on most of them).
"Both have a frame rate of 30fps."
"On a TV, the Nintendo Switch version of the game renders in 900p while the Wii U version renders in 720p."
Didn't we already know this?
30fps/900p was being said last week.
Obviously "we" didn't because I just posted finding out?
Anyway, that's poo on poo. I expected 60fps at least, even at 900p. If they can't pull that off I really question the effort to port it to the Switch or the Switch's capabilities in the long run. Honestly, everyone wants to claim "better hardware!" but if the end result of the games are still 30fps then it means nothing!
As hyped as I was coming into this reveal, I am starting to see it's just Nintendo asking me to buy the same damn console as before. Well fuck that noise.
There are a bunch of games on PS4 and Xbone that run at 30, and at sub-1080 resolutions as well. Especially big open world ones. I really think you're drastically overreacting to this.
Also, if a game running at 30 FPS is this much of a problem for you, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. It seems like a really small thing to get so hung up on. (Also, for what it's worth, several other Switch titles are running at 1080/60).
I appreciate you trying to somehow solve my problem by telling me all my opinions are invalid, but you can't make Zelda 60fps and as a consumer I think wanting X for Y dollar isn't overreacting. You know what I am telling you here.
Being disappointed with a new product is totally an ok thing. It really is.
Crazy rigs? You can build a cheap system from 2011 and run Skyrim at High 60fps.
But obviously the Switch is handheld, and I get that. I just think if the hardware can't push 1080p then they obviously felt strongly enough about the "mobility" aspect to cut the shit out of performance.
All I am saying is, I feel like we're about to get taken for a ride here and run the same damn route the Wii U did.
There are several big Switch games that do run at 1080/60.
Breath of the Wild looks pretty ambitious. It running at a locked 30 really isn't surprising. Getting this bent out of shape about it just seems beyond silly.
0
Options
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
30 frames specifically for Zelda is disappointing, because I thought they said they were aiming for 60, and Nintendo in general has always been willing to sacrifice "teh shinies" for 60fps. Sad that they're not here.
900p/30fps in general? I'm not a fan of it, but I don't have an extended dog in that race. Personally speaking I think you go 1080p/30fps minimum or you bloody go home, and the industry would do well to stop redlining the engine so to speak, but whatever. I don't lose any sleep over it. And people have defended those specs on the likes of PS4/One games, so they can do so here the same way. Just bummed Nintendo is doing it now too.
I don't think there was any way you were going to get that game running 60 fps. I think even a high end PC would struggle to do that. There's just so much to render.
I also don't see what's wrong with 30 fps. As long as it's consistently 30 fps you aren't going to notice. I can guarantee the Wii U version will not be consistent.
You can get any game to run at 60 fps. You just prioritize the framerate over the graphics. If it's not, back off the graphics.
I also don't super care about the 30/60 debate either. 30 is fine, I don't care one way or another. I also probably can't tell the difference at times.
There's just zero reason to not be able to hit a target resolution and target framerate. Like I said, stop redlining the engine. You as the developer are in complete control over it.
But no one has ever watched a trailer and said "wow look at that amazing frame rate!" :P If you can get gorgeous graphics at 30 fps, I consider that a fair trade
Also the thing has a screenshot button that might let you take video too. 32gb is ridiculously small.
You know what...maybe we're thinking about this all wrong.
Maybe Nintendo did include a 64 or 128 gig memory module on there, but reserved that much extra space for OS updates, videos and screenshots, so you can't fill up your system and suddenly not be able to take video anymore.
There's no basis to assume this, and maybe that's overly hopeful. But it could be that they saw the problem they had with the 8 gig Wii U, how it didn't take long for it to become a 3 gig Wii U just with updates and such, and wanted to avoid a similar situation.
Also, Bethesda games are probably the last games you want to use as "how good does this run on x hardware" because Bethesda makes some of the most poorly optimized games on the market. They seem to not care at all about optimization. It's actually a big issue I take with a lot of their games, and why I don't really enjoy them anymore.
Crazy rigs? You can build a cheap system from 2011 and run Skyrim at High 60fps.
But obviously the Switch is handheld, and I get that. I just think if the hardware can't push 1080p then they obviously felt strongly enough about the "mobility" aspect to cut the shit out of performance.
All I am saying is, I feel like we're about to get taken for a ride here and run the same damn route the Wii U did.
There are several big Switch games that do run at 1080/60.
Breath of the Wild looks pretty ambitious. It running at a locked 30 really isn't surprising. Getting this bent out of shape about it just seems beyond silly.
I guess translation through text is an issue - but I wish people would stop telling me I am over-reacting or 'bent out of shape' because I don't like the forecast being projected by the Switch in it's current state.
Honestly, it's a given that people are going to have different opinions here so can we focus on the subject matter at hand and stop with the personal judgments?
Also, Bethesda games are probably the last games you want to use as "how good does this run on x hardware" because Bethesda makes some of the most poorly optimized games on the market. They seem to not care at all about optimization. It's actually a big issue I take with a lot of their games, and why I don't really enjoy them anymore.
And one you paid $300 for--and built yourself--is not going to run Skyrim at 1080p at 60 FPS consistently. I would happily take that bet.
Also the thing has a screenshot button that might let you take video too. 32gb is ridiculously small.
You know what...maybe we're thinking about this all wrong.
Maybe Nintendo did include a 64 or 128 gig memory module on there, but reserved that much extra space for OS updates, videos and screenshots, so you can't fill up your system and suddenly not be able to take video anymore.
There's no basis to assume this, and maybe that's overly hopeful. But it could be that they saw the problem they had with the 8 gig Wii U, how it didn't take long for it to become a 3 gig Wii U just with updates and such, and wanted to avoid a similar situation.
I think that's very overly hopeful. Though on the flip side, whatever of that 32 GB internal drive is taken up by the operating system, I imagine Nintendo will be quite frugal and careful with their updates to not take much more over the lifetime of the system (or at least until a 64 GB Switch comes out).
30 frames specifically for Zelda is disappointing, because I thought they said they were aiming for 60, and Nintendo in general has always been willing to sacrifice "teh shinies" for 60fps. Sad that they're not here.
900p/30fps in general? I'm not a fan of it, but I don't have an extended dog in that race. Personally speaking I think you go 1080p/30fps minimum or you bloody go home, and the industry would do well to stop redlining the engine so to speak, but whatever. I don't lose any sleep over it. And people have defended those specs on the likes of PS4/One games, so they can do so here the same way. Just bummed Nintendo is doing it now too.
I don't think there was any way you were going to get that game running 60 fps. I think even a high end PC would struggle to do that. There's just so much to render.
I also don't see what's wrong with 30 fps. As long as it's consistently 30 fps you aren't going to notice. I can guarantee the Wii U version will not be consistent.
You can get any game to run at 60 fps. You just prioritize the framerate over the graphics. If it's not, back off the graphics.
I also don't super care about the 30/60 debate either. 30 is fine, I don't care one way or another. I also probably can't tell the difference at times.
There's just zero reason to not be able to hit a target resolution and target framerate. Like I said, stop redlining the engine. You as the developer are in complete control over it.
But no one has ever watched a trailer and said "wow look at that amazing frame rate!" :P If you can get gorgeous graphics at 30 fps, I consider that a fair trade
I think you're confused and I fucked up my messaging. I'm for this.
Rather than frame it as 30/60, I should say, there's no reason you can't hit a rock solid framerate. Whatever that framerate may be.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
1080p/60 on skyrim is a pretty easy target to hit on PC. Skyrim doesn't run into performance problems on PC until you start doing arcane things to it mod wise.
In any case, 900p is something I think is worth complaining about because 900p looks like shit on a 1080p screen.
1080p/60 on skyrim is a pretty easy target to hit on PC. Skyrim doesn't run into performance problems on PC until you start doing arcane things to it mod wise.
In any case, 900p is something I think is worth complaining about because 900p looks like shit on a 1080p screen.
The usage of shit and fuck during the arguments against the machine do nothing to help me take these arguments seriously.
Wanna try my Mario Maker levels?
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09 P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359 Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
Crazy rigs? You can build a cheap system from 2011 and run Skyrim at High 60fps.
But obviously the Switch is handheld, and I get that. I just think if the hardware can't push 1080p then they obviously felt strongly enough about the "mobility" aspect to cut the shit out of performance.
All I am saying is, I feel like we're about to get taken for a ride here and run the same damn route the Wii U did.
There are several big Switch games that do run at 1080/60.
Breath of the Wild looks pretty ambitious. It running at a locked 30 really isn't surprising. Getting this bent out of shape about it just seems beyond silly.
I guess translation through text is an issue - but I wish people would stop telling me I am over-reacting or 'bent out of shape' because I don't like the forecast being projected by the Switch in it's current state.
Honestly, it's a given that people are going to have different opinions here so can we focus on the subject matter at hand and stop with the personal judgments?
Well, when you say "we're gonna taken for a ride"... I think people are just trying to explain that this device is what it is.
It's a got:
1. a good 720p screen
2. mobile/portable class graphics
3. a couple of weird arse Joy-Cons
That is a different value proposition to the PS4 which has no screen and has hardware/cooling designed for being stationary.
I think the graphics we're getting are 'good enough', but I thought the same about the Wii U. I hoped the Switch would be cheaper, and that would make it more likely to succeed than the Wii U.
Something to keep in mind is that launch games always end up being the games that look/run the worst on a console, because devs are still learning the hardware.
They usually run decently. They're supposed to show off the capabilities of the thing even if they haven't been mastered yet. A port of a game running like that is odd. But if locked in at 30 with no fluctuations then it is alright.
"Both have a frame rate of 30fps."
"On a TV, the Nintendo Switch version of the game renders in 900p while the Wii U version renders in 720p."
Didn't we already know this?
30fps/900p was being said last week.
Obviously "we" didn't because I just posted finding out?
Anyway, that's poo on poo. I expected 60fps at least, even at 900p. If they can't pull that off I really question the effort to port it to the Switch or the Switch's capabilities in the long run. Honestly, everyone wants to claim "better hardware!" but if the end result of the games are still 30fps then it means nothing!
As hyped as I was coming into this reveal, I am starting to see it's just Nintendo asking me to buy the same damn console as before. Well fuck that noise.
What was the last Zelda game that ran at 60fps? Link to the Past?
Something to keep in mind is that launch games always end up being the games that look/run the worst on a console, because devs are still learning the hardware.
They usually run decently. They're supposed to show off the capabilities of the thing even if they haven't been mastered yet. A port of a game running like that is odd. But if locked in at 30 with no fluctuations then it is alright.
nah. Compare Call of Duty 2, which was an Xbox 360 launch game, to say, Halo 4, which was released near the end of the 360's life. If you didn't know, you would say those were different consoles.
Crazy rigs? You can build a cheap system from 2011 and run Skyrim at High 60fps.
But obviously the Switch is handheld, and I get that. I just think if the hardware can't push 1080p then they obviously felt strongly enough about the "mobility" aspect to cut the shit out of performance.
All I am saying is, I feel like we're about to get taken for a ride here and run the same damn route the Wii U did.
There are several big Switch games that do run at 1080/60.
Breath of the Wild looks pretty ambitious. It running at a locked 30 really isn't surprising. Getting this bent out of shape about it just seems beyond silly.
I guess translation through text is an issue - but I wish people would stop telling me I am over-reacting or 'bent out of shape' because I don't like the forecast being projected by the Switch in it's current state.
Honestly, it's a given that people are going to have different opinions here so can we focus on the subject matter at hand and stop with the personal judgments?
I'll drop it, and yes, obviously you are allowed to feel how you feel about this.
I just think that if you're this disappointed by this particular detail, there was exactly a zero percent chance of you being happy with this thing. Even if this thing had power on par with the PS4/One, there's no guarantee that this particular game would be running at 1080/60.
Crazy rigs? You can build a cheap system from 2011 and run Skyrim at High 60fps.
But obviously the Switch is handheld, and I get that. I just think if the hardware can't push 1080p then they obviously felt strongly enough about the "mobility" aspect to cut the shit out of performance.
All I am saying is, I feel like we're about to get taken for a ride here and run the same damn route the Wii U did.
Sure, the base version. But how well will it run the remastered version (DOES PC have Skyrim remastered? If not, replace with HD texture mods).
Crazy rigs? You can build a cheap system from 2011 and run Skyrim at High 60fps.
But obviously the Switch is handheld, and I get that. I just think if the hardware can't push 1080p then they obviously felt strongly enough about the "mobility" aspect to cut the shit out of performance.
All I am saying is, I feel like we're about to get taken for a ride here and run the same damn route the Wii U did.
Sure, the base version. But how well will it run the remastered version (DOES PC have Skyrim remastered? If not, replace with HD texture mods).
It does; everyone on Steam got it for free when it came out if they already owned the base game.
60 fps in big open world games pretty much never happens on consoles. I'm a bit disappointed at 900p, but I think it's probably the grass and such that makes them have to drop it. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is 1080p/60 in the dock where it only ran at at 720p/59 on WiiU. That's a pretty big jump power wise, and I think it should give Nintendo plenty of space to make just absurdly good looking video games.
I feel pretty confident they're going to iron out the framerate drops on Zelda for the console mode, since at 720p in portable everyone who has played it says it runs perfectly. It probably just hasn't been optimized yet at full size for this demo build that has been kicking around.
I'm really not trying to compare it to the PS4 or PC. I am taking it for direct value compared to the previous console they released.
I find the two strikingly similar in several ways and when I say 'taken for ride' - I worry we're gonna end up in the same situation with the Wii U and that after next year we're gonna see game releases dried up in the way the Wii U has been for a few years. As a Nintendo fan, I don't need to sell myself on Nintendo games. Zelda, Mario, etc. My favorite IP's by far and large in the universe. In that spirit I am willing to eat whatever Nintendo feeds me because I just want more of it.
This part is important here, and I am not trying to be a 'doom and gloom' kind of guy: I'm not concerned for the roughly 9 million Nintendo fans that stuck with the Wii U this whole time and are totally stoked for it. I'm concerned for the other 50+ million people that won't buy this console or RETURN IT and we start seeing game sales get hamstrung and we're back to another 5 years of 'cotton mouth.'
I'll move beyond my point now because I've made it a few times as best as I can.
That being said, I am stoked for ARMS and seeing what may be announced at E3. If they can rocket a solid lineup for this year that doesn't just 'feel better than Wii U's' because we're actually getting games again, I really think it can find it's place for a while.
I do however hope for a console that has some power sometime in the future, something that sits next to my TV and spits out Zelda and Mario and Metroid in glorious 1080p 60fps. It is 2017 after all.
I was looking around about the sourcing of Zelda being 900p and 30FPS. As far as I could find that is just what the demo they were playing was running at. I'm not sure if we can say for sure if the full release build of Zelda will run at that or not as we don't know how old the demo version they were showing off was. So I wouldn't take it as 100% confirmed fact yet.
Edit: NM that IGN story says those numbers were provided from Nintendo. So assuming that is true then 900p and 30FPS it is.
Anyway, that's poo on poo. I expected 60fps at least, even at 900p. If they can't pull that off I really question the effort to port it to the Switch or the Switch's capabilities in the long run. Honestly, everyone wants to claim "better hardware!" but if the end result of the games are still 30fps then it means nothing!
As hyped as I was coming into this reveal, I am starting to see it's just Nintendo asking me to buy the same damn console as before. Well fuck that noise.
Don't worry, as stated by others this is a very early game that was being developed for ages specifically for Wii U hardware, that suddenly had to support a new architecture partway through development.
I wouldn't use this one comparison as the basis for judgement of the console's power.
If you'd like some news about another game you can compare between Wii U and Switch...
The German developer Shin'en are well known as technical wizards. They have always pulled off crazy graphics in small sizes on Nintendo hardware. They made the original Fast Racing for Wii, which looked like this, in the 40 megabyte limit of Wiiware:
Other games they've made include Nanostray on DS, Jett Rocket for Wii and 3DS, Art of Balance for Wii, 3DS and Wii U, and Nano Assault on 3DS and Wii U, all of them lookers on their respective platforms.
Fast RMX on Switch is a rerelease of the game with more modes, options and tracks. They've confirmed that it runs at 1080p 60 FPS.
If one of Nintendo's most technically competent third parties can take their game from 480p on Wii U to 1080p on Switch, they just might be doing alright.
1080p/60 on skyrim is a pretty easy target to hit on PC. Skyrim doesn't run into performance problems on PC until you start doing arcane things to it mod wise.
In any case, 900p is something I think is worth complaining about because 900p looks like shit on a 1080p screen.
Looks like shit. Sure.
Yes. I think that game would look better if they toned down the graphics and hit a 1080p resolution. The upscaling adds wonky aliasing that looks bad in that screenshot, and looks even worse in motion.
Posts
Yeah this. I was just watching Gamexplain's raw footage and the improvement was *noticeable* since e3. Some of this can be attributed to polish but I have a hard time believing all of it is. At the very least, Switch seems to have a MUCH better draw distance.
Side note:
I really hope this is the case. Nice to see Konami actually calling it out there themselves. At $60 there is no way I'm getting that game. But like, $30 or less? Day one purchase.
900p/30fps in general? I'm not a fan of it, but I don't have an extended dog in that race. Personally speaking I think you go 1080p/30fps minimum or you bloody go home, and the industry would do well to stop redlining the engine so to speak, but whatever. I don't lose any sleep over it. And people have defended those specs on the likes of PS4/One games, so they can do so here the same way. Just bummed Nintendo is doing it now too.
And this is why I asked what Skyrim was managing, because if it only manages 30fps at 1080p on a base PS4 expecting Zelda to run at 60fps is lunacy (without making significant sacrifices in graphics, at any rate).
Skyrim is the easiest comparison to make for performance - I'd like to know how the games themselves stack up in relative complexity (graphically) to get the full context for that comparison, but if the only difference is one notch down on resolution I'm not terribly concerned.
There's also the question of "30fps" being rather vague (target? minimum? etc.) but that's getting into pedantics.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I don't think there was any way you were going to get that game running 60 fps. I think even a high end PC would struggle to do that. There's just so much to render.
I also don't see what's wrong with 30 fps. As long as it's consistently 30 fps you aren't going to notice. I can guarantee the Wii U version will not be consistent.
This is Nintendo though. They always run peak performance on their games to show it off. Lot's of folks have mentioned framerate drop in the demos and you can even see framedrop in the videos. This says a lot to me about how serious (or lack of) they are going to treat this console if this is how it is presenting coming out of the box.
Well, the crazy rigs can manage anything at 60fps at 4k resolution, but that's why I'd want to compare against PS4/X1 performance of similar titles.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
There are a bunch of games on PS4 and Xbone that run at 30, and at sub-1080 resolutions as well. Especially big open world ones. I really think you're drastically overreacting to this.
Also, if a game running at 30 FPS is this much of a problem for you, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. It seems like a really small thing to get so hung up on. (Also, for what it's worth, several other Switch titles are running at 1080/60).
Very high graphic quality games take a ton of GPU power. the GPU i give as the standard "get this for good modern PC gaming at 1080p" is the GTX 1060 right now. he 6GB version of that card is $250ish, by itself. The Xbox One is $280, the switch is $300.
But obviously the Switch is handheld, and I get that. I just think if the hardware can't push 1080p then they obviously felt strongly enough about the "mobility" aspect to cut the shit out of performance.
All I am saying is, I feel like we're about to get taken for a ride here and run the same damn route the Wii U did.
I don't think Nintendo ever stated any goals of a higher framerate on the Switch. Just plenty of people hoping for it.
I'm not sure you can come up with a general rule about this. Some Nintendo games run at 60FPS. A lot don't. None of the previous 3D Zeldas did.
You can get any game to run at 60 fps. You just prioritize the framerate over the graphics. If it's not, back off the graphics.
I also don't super care about the 30/60 debate either. 30 is fine, I don't care one way or another. I also probably can't tell the difference at times.
There's just zero reason to not be able to hit a target resolution and target framerate. Like I said, stop redlining the engine. You as the developer are in complete control over it.
Which other ones? I hadn't heard of any (I also thought it was too early to tell on most of them).
I appreciate you trying to somehow solve my problem by telling me all my opinions are invalid, but you can't make Zelda 60fps and as a consumer I think wanting X for Y dollar isn't overreacting. You know what I am telling you here.
Being disappointed with a new product is totally an ok thing. It really is.
There are several big Switch games that do run at 1080/60.
Breath of the Wild looks pretty ambitious. It running at a locked 30 really isn't surprising. Getting this bent out of shape about it just seems beyond silly.
But no one has ever watched a trailer and said "wow look at that amazing frame rate!" :P If you can get gorgeous graphics at 30 fps, I consider that a fair trade
You know what...maybe we're thinking about this all wrong.
Maybe Nintendo did include a 64 or 128 gig memory module on there, but reserved that much extra space for OS updates, videos and screenshots, so you can't fill up your system and suddenly not be able to take video anymore.
There's no basis to assume this, and maybe that's overly hopeful. But it could be that they saw the problem they had with the 8 gig Wii U, how it didn't take long for it to become a 3 gig Wii U just with updates and such, and wanted to avoid a similar situation.
I guess translation through text is an issue - but I wish people would stop telling me I am over-reacting or 'bent out of shape' because I don't like the forecast being projected by the Switch in it's current state.
Honestly, it's a given that people are going to have different opinions here so can we focus on the subject matter at hand and stop with the personal judgments?
And one you paid $300 for--and built yourself--is not going to run Skyrim at 1080p at 60 FPS consistently. I would happily take that bet.
I think that's very overly hopeful. Though on the flip side, whatever of that 32 GB internal drive is taken up by the operating system, I imagine Nintendo will be quite frugal and careful with their updates to not take much more over the lifetime of the system (or at least until a 64 GB Switch comes out).
I think you're confused and I fucked up my messaging. I'm for this.
Rather than frame it as 30/60, I should say, there's no reason you can't hit a rock solid framerate. Whatever that framerate may be.
In any case, 900p is something I think is worth complaining about because 900p looks like shit on a 1080p screen.
Looks like shit. Sure.
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09
P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359
Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E
I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
See my profile here!
Well, when you say "we're gonna taken for a ride"... I think people are just trying to explain that this device is what it is.
It's a got:
1. a good 720p screen
2. mobile/portable class graphics
3. a couple of weird arse Joy-Cons
That is a different value proposition to the PS4 which has no screen and has hardware/cooling designed for being stationary.
I think the graphics we're getting are 'good enough', but I thought the same about the Wii U. I hoped the Switch would be cheaper, and that would make it more likely to succeed than the Wii U.
They usually run decently. They're supposed to show off the capabilities of the thing even if they haven't been mastered yet. A port of a game running like that is odd. But if locked in at 30 with no fluctuations then it is alright.
What was the last Zelda game that ran at 60fps? Link to the Past?
Steam: pazython
nah. Compare Call of Duty 2, which was an Xbox 360 launch game, to say, Halo 4, which was released near the end of the 360's life. If you didn't know, you would say those were different consoles.
I'll drop it, and yes, obviously you are allowed to feel how you feel about this.
I just think that if you're this disappointed by this particular detail, there was exactly a zero percent chance of you being happy with this thing. Even if this thing had power on par with the PS4/One, there's no guarantee that this particular game would be running at 1080/60.
Sure, the base version. But how well will it run the remastered version (DOES PC have Skyrim remastered? If not, replace with HD texture mods).
Steam: pazython
It does; everyone on Steam got it for free when it came out if they already owned the base game.
I feel pretty confident they're going to iron out the framerate drops on Zelda for the console mode, since at 720p in portable everyone who has played it says it runs perfectly. It probably just hasn't been optimized yet at full size for this demo build that has been kicking around.
I find the two strikingly similar in several ways and when I say 'taken for ride' - I worry we're gonna end up in the same situation with the Wii U and that after next year we're gonna see game releases dried up in the way the Wii U has been for a few years. As a Nintendo fan, I don't need to sell myself on Nintendo games. Zelda, Mario, etc. My favorite IP's by far and large in the universe. In that spirit I am willing to eat whatever Nintendo feeds me because I just want more of it.
This part is important here, and I am not trying to be a 'doom and gloom' kind of guy: I'm not concerned for the roughly 9 million Nintendo fans that stuck with the Wii U this whole time and are totally stoked for it. I'm concerned for the other 50+ million people that won't buy this console or RETURN IT and we start seeing game sales get hamstrung and we're back to another 5 years of 'cotton mouth.'
I'll move beyond my point now because I've made it a few times as best as I can.
That being said, I am stoked for ARMS and seeing what may be announced at E3. If they can rocket a solid lineup for this year that doesn't just 'feel better than Wii U's' because we're actually getting games again, I really think it can find it's place for a while.
I do however hope for a console that has some power sometime in the future, something that sits next to my TV and spits out Zelda and Mario and Metroid in glorious 1080p 60fps. It is 2017 after all.
Edit: NM that IGN story says those numbers were provided from Nintendo. So assuming that is true then 900p and 30FPS it is.
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
Pfffff
The PS4 could put out way more snark than this
and for a lower price!!
:wonk:
Don't worry, as stated by others this is a very early game that was being developed for ages specifically for Wii U hardware, that suddenly had to support a new architecture partway through development.
I wouldn't use this one comparison as the basis for judgement of the console's power.
If you'd like some news about another game you can compare between Wii U and Switch...
The German developer Shin'en are well known as technical wizards. They have always pulled off crazy graphics in small sizes on Nintendo hardware. They made the original Fast Racing for Wii, which looked like this, in the 40 megabyte limit of Wiiware:
Other games they've made include Nanostray on DS, Jett Rocket for Wii and 3DS, Art of Balance for Wii, 3DS and Wii U, and Nano Assault on 3DS and Wii U, all of them lookers on their respective platforms.
You can trust they know what they're doing.
Fast Racing Neo on Wii U ran at 720p 60 FPS, but used a reprojection technique for scaling similar to Killzone: Shadow Fall. Apparently at times it even ran as low as 480p.
Fast RMX on Switch is a rerelease of the game with more modes, options and tracks. They've confirmed that it runs at 1080p 60 FPS.
If one of Nintendo's most technically competent third parties can take their game from 480p on Wii U to 1080p on Switch, they just might be doing alright.
Yes. I think that game would look better if they toned down the graphics and hit a 1080p resolution. The upscaling adds wonky aliasing that looks bad in that screenshot, and looks even worse in motion.