The house of Mario has spoken; the Switch will run the upcoming Zelda installment at 900p while the WiiU will be stuck at 720p, both running the game at 30fps.

In a statement provided to IGN, Nintendo explained the following “key facts” about each version:

• Both launch on the same day, March 3.
• Both have a frame rate of 30fps.
• Both versions of the game offer the same content.
• 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.
• The physical copy of the Wii U version will require 3GB of available memory on the Wii U system or an external drive.
• Some icons, such as onscreen buttons, differ between the two versions.
• A Special Edition and Master Edition of the Wii U version are not available.

This might come to a disappointment to many who would expect the upcoming (their preordered?) console to run one of the most anticipated game of the year at a glorious 1080p/60fps. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this decision has probably been made to ensure the gamer's best experience and shouldn't foretell the gameplay.

SOURCE

 

[gamesquest1]

A lower frame rate "fits" no game. It's less awful for some genres, this being one of them, but any and all games benefit from a high frame rate.

I think they simply meant that if any game was going to be done on 30fps its better it not be a super fast passed game, thing like fps games with a more action dependant feel really benefit from 60fps+ while Zelda games do tend to be more slow paced and as such not as badly impaired by the lower fps than other games may (again, not saying its for the best, simply not a deal breaker as some would imply)

I view optimization in a game as more than whether the game runs well or not. It's also taking advantage of the hardware and software given to you. Breath of the wild clearly falls short in that. While, yes, it's been in development longer than we've known about the switch. It doesn't mean that Nintendo shouldn't have given it more than a port treatment. It's actually rather lazy.

sure that's true, they have probably had a year or so working on the port (at least) but that said taking a game and porting it from one system to another in a fairly limited time frame is going to have its issues, especially when its onto a whole different architecture, they have to rework a lot and optimize a lot, and doing this in tandem with console development I would imagine would be a bit of a challenge, I am looking forwards to see a game developed exclusively for switch, but I have a feeling the first years worth of games are going to be things that were at varying levels of the pipeline for the wii U until they rushed out the switch

 

[digipimp75]

Hi!

Ughh... I don't know wtf is going on with my keyboard, but I didn't mean to send yet. Anyway, just wanted to say my bad... I thought you were just trolling. I've been looking at screenshot comparisons, videos, and reading numerous forum posts and articles. It just looks to me like they didn't optimize the game to take advantage of the Switch hardware. Some of the shots looked better on the Wii U version.

 

[Shadowfied]

I think they simply meant that if any game was going to be done on 30fps its better it not be a super fast passed game, thing like fps games with a more action dependant feel really benefit from 60fps+ while Zelda games do tend to be more slow paced and as such not as badly impaired by the lower fps than other games may

Didn't argue that. And I agree. Every game still benefits from a higher frame rate.

sure that's true, they have probably had a year or so working on the port (at least) but that said taking a game and porting it from one system to another in a fairly limited time frame is going to have its issues, especially when its onto a whole different architecture, they have to rework a lot and optimize a lot, and doing this in tandem with console development I would imagine would be a bit of a challenge, I am looking forwards to see a game developed exclusively for switch, but I have a feeling the first years worth of games are going to be things that were at varying levels of the pipeline for the wii until they rushed out the switch

Good points. Personally I'm happy that the Switch version isn't a glorified awesome version. I will be getting a Switch, however, I'd be disappointed if my friends who won't be able to get a Switch at launch, would have a lesser experience, despite buying the console on which they were promised the game. I realize I probably sound like a moron, but I really do feel that way

Ughh... I don't know wtf is going on with my keyboard, but I didn't mean to send yet. Anyway, just wanted to say my bad... I thought you were just trolling. I've been looking at screenshot comparisons, videos, and reading numerous forum posts and articles. It just looks to me like they didn't optimize the game to take advantage of the Switch hardware. Some of the shots looked better on the Wii U version.

That's fair enough then. Sorry if my original reply sounded harsh! <3

 

[Kioku]

I think they simply meant that if any game was going to be done on 30fps its better it not be a super fast passed game, thing like fps games with a more action dependant feel really benefit from 60fps+ while Zelda games do tend to be more slow paced and as such not as badly impaired by the lower fps than other games may (again, not saying its for the best, simply not a deal breaker as some would imply)

sure that's true, they have probably had a year or so working on the port (at least) but that said taking a game and porting it from one system to another in a fairly limited time frame is going to have its issues, especially when its onto a whole different architecture, they have to rework a lot and optimize a lot, and doing this in tandem with console development I would imagine would be a bit of a challenge, I am looking forwards to see a game developed exclusively for switch, but I have a feeling the first years worth of games are going to be things that were at varying levels of the pipeline for the wii U until they rushed out the switch

They had this planned well before their official teaser. I'd say it's been in development on the switch platform for AT LEAST 2 years. Unfortunately, there's nothing pointing in either direction. To be honest, Nintendo is kind of shooting themselves in the foot. While, yes, we get new hardware and a new zelda game. The way they went about it is just.... Weird. No?

Give us a ported Zelda game. Re-release Mario Kart 8 with no new functionality. It may be just me, but they've failed as a gaming company. Wonder how long before it catches up... Hm.

 

[dronesplitter]

I disagree.
24fps/30fps is the movie and television frame rate. It looks cinematic.

Changing frame rate can effect the mood of the game.

That's more of a personal perspective about it, very subjective way to feel, but technically speaking I think he's spot on. Anyway, games should just all try to render as high as possible and then give a "movie" mode for the low fps lovers, I guess

 

[LinkBlaBla]

View attachment 75439​

The house of Mario has spoken; the Switch will run the upcoming Zelda installment at 900p while the WiiU will be stuck at 720p, both running the game at 30fps.

In a statement provided to IGN, Nintendo explained the following “key facts” about each version:


This might come to a disappointment to many who would expect the upcoming (their preordered?) console to run one of the most anticipated game of the year at a glorious 1080p/60fps. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this decision has probably been made to ensure the gamer's best experience and shouldn't foretell the gameplay.

SOURCE

This is great news! it mean they did not forget wii u people that have waited long for it!!!! NINTENDO LOVE THEIR FANS unlike others... it is 900p on switch tv that still close to xb1 power(they both do 720p-900p) it is very realistic to put it at 30fps even Ark on the ps4 pro struggle between 30-45 and lag a lot but when you put high details it caps it at 30 fps and it is much more playable than before . 30 fps mean lag free content maybe some little drop here and there , but we are talking about a Zelda being developed on Wii u and transferred on switch so their is a huge graphic gap between both and both run at 30 fps and i think that is perfect the only part i am sad is the people with wii u ain't gonna get special edition content or accessory for wii u ...

I see people comparing 30-60fps but for what? the only Zelda game that are 60 fps are games like alttp and albw ... This is not a Fps games were you need to act at the 0.001 second .... 900p scaled to 1080p gonna be very Good looking and the 720p handled and 30 fps on both !!!damn love you Nintendo!!!


p.s Wii u people have one option switch don't have , having pause screen on gamepad and game on tv screen so it is fast menu access for those wonderful Wii u supporter(please buy the game don't pirate it...)

 

[hobbledehoy899]

What I wan to know is what resolution actually is 900p?

 

[Noctosphere]

What I wan to know is what resolution actually is 900p?

900 p rendered to 1080p

 

[Shadowfied]

What I wan to know is what resolution actually is 900p?

1600x900.
Decently common laptop res.

 

[Noctosphere]

1600x900.
Decently common laptop res.

i though laptop were usually 1366x768

 

[hobbledehoy899]

900 p rendered to 1080p

I meant about the pixel measurements, seeing how 1080p is 1920x1080.

1600x900.
Decently common laptop res.

Thank you.

 

[Noctosphere]

I meant about the pixel measurements, seeing how 1080p is 1920x1080.
Thank you.

lol, well knowing hd usually goes with a 16:9 ratio, and the 9 = 900p... i wonder what is the 16 value

 

[dronesplitter]

I meant about the pixel measurements, seeing how 1080p is 1920x1080.
Thank you.

It should be a simple calculation, for future reference, just 900 divided by 9, then multiply by 16.

 

[Noctosphere]

remember that not all hd resolution are 16:9, 1050p is 16:10 for example

 

[Deleted User]

@VinLark you should see this dood
I don't know wether my quote was to tell other people or what
Ps. You should change your pic to the singer lmao

Clarify please?

 

[Burnt Lasagna]

That's more of a personal perspective about it

Just because the hardware can output xx number of frames per-second, should it?
It's not a matter of my "personal taste" but the artisan's and designer's of the game.
Frame rate effects the art style and mood. Game designers need to think about this.

I'm strongly against the idea that "any and all games benefit from a high frame rate". It all depends on the designers and how they want their game to look and feel.

 

[SS4]

30FPS is normal on consoles. Usually the games that try to run over that are Race Car games and Fighting games like Tekken but they aren't putting as much on screen at once as say an open world game.

Oh and the supposed big Zelda killer on PS4 Horizon: Zero Dawn, yep runs at 30 FPS not 60. You want constant 60 FPS go drop $500 or more on a graphics card $300+ more on a Core i7 plus memory, case, power supply etc and then you can get your constant 60 fps unless of course you get the developer to lock it at 30 FPS anyways, say like the last Tales game that had a PC release.

Yeah sry i'm spoiled by PC and although i love my New 3ds XL i wish everything was running at 120 + FPS and use blur reduction tech like strobing backlight . . .

 

[dronesplitter]

Just because the hardware can output xx number of frames per-second, should it?
It's not a matter of my "personal taste" but the artisan's and designer's of the game.
Frame rate effects the art style and mood. Game designers need to think about this.

I'm strongly against the idea that "any and all games benefit from a high frame rate". It all depends on the designers and how they want their game to look and feel.

As I said, the makers can make a special mode or menu option to cover that but they need to give a best performance mode because most gamers would prefer that over whatever mood enhancement others feel a lower fps could deliver for them. Yes, at the end of the day we have to put up with what the artists wants (Miyamoto says to cut down on original characters for Sticker Star, and sadly they went with that), but they are artists working in a medium that comes with lots of options on the table about the technical presentation and it is a bit foolish to play dictator about it to consumers for no reason other than to force a personal feeling about the mood of the gameplay.

 

[Burnt Lasagna]

As I said, the makers can make a special mode or menu option

Should there be special options to make 4:3 movies 16:9 (magically adding more info on left and right)?
If we think about video games as art, the creator(s) should have control over how the final product is experienced. Having it be infinitely configured by the end user would destroy/delude the author's intent.

NOTE: I'm mainly trying to provide a different way of thinking about frame rates. I'm sick of hearing "PC Master Race" bitch about not having 60fps and that anything below is "wrong".

 

[Xiphiidae]

1080p, 900p, big deal. If it bothers you, don't get the damn game.

You can't have everything your way. Deal with it.

How dare people have opinions and preferences different to my own!


I personally am not too fussed about the framerate and resolution, it's more that in this day and age the lack of 1080p for a flagship title like Zelda is disappointing, though understandable, considering it's development history.