Nintendo talks about Breath of The Wild WiiU and Switch version differences

breath1-1484349894491_large.jpg

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.

:arrow: SOURCE
 

theoperator288

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
47
Trophies
0
XP
220
Country
United States
It's more troubling to me that the console is incapable of rendering such a staple first party title at 1080p with at least 30 fps in 2017.

This.

I feel like the past 11 pages people have been focusing on the completely wrong thing here. It's not the fact that 30fps is "bad" or "good" or whatever, it's the fact that Nintendo, who generally develops really well made first party titles for their consoles regardless of specs, has to resort to pushing out something that had to be locked to 900p and 30fps just to run well (assuming it actually runs well and not like laggy crap like the various preview builds we've seen). If Nintendo can't hit the "magic" 1080p or 60fps mark in one of their staple series, how are third party devs going to handle porting their games to the Switch?

You can sit there and claim "OH IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A WII U GAME ORIGINALLY SO IT'S JUST A BAD UP-PORT OF COURSE" but when have you known Nintendo themselves in recent history to ever do shoddy "technical" work in anything they personally develop? As much as I like to shit on Nintendo for everything, they do solid work when it comes to their own games.

It's looking like it's going to be the Wii U all over again, where Nintendo pushes out a substandard console that devs try developing for but then give up after a year because "FFS this console has terrible hardware".

Hate to reiterate what you guys are already saying, but it doesn't say very good things about Nintendo's new console design when a launch title that was designed with the previous gen in mind can't even play at 1080p. As a predominantly PC gamer who does want to play some console games, it's still a bit insulting that another console is getting released that can't even do 60FPS, but that much is an expected insult since 30FPS consoles is the industry standard. But this is a new console releasing in 2017, a year after the console industry standard moved up to 4k, and Nintendo's shiny new home console can't even touch the OLD industry standard resolution. Ninty's going to go the way of Sega if they keep assuming their cheap hardware gimmicks can keep them competitive.

For the people complaining about resolution and frame rate: http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates

Should point out that both of those consoles are not portable.
Something also to note is that most of the games that were also made for previous-gen consoles (PS3 & XBOX360) have lower resolution/frames than games strictly for the current-gen consoles.

To the point:
Am I sad about the 900/30fps? No. That's pretty much standard for a port +/ console game.
Will I buy a Switch at launch for a single game? No. Show me more, and I might commit.

I'm not defending Nintendo, but I am just trying to show both sides of the argument. People here have been bashing Nintendo or giving undying love towards Nintendo. I just find it funny because people were angry with Microsoft and Sony for exactly the same thing when the PS4 and XBOX ONE came out. "OMG 900p! YOU PROMISED 1080p @ 60FPS!"
 

flame1234

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
734
Trophies
0
XP
957
Country
United States
24fps/30fps is the movie and television frame rate. It looks cinematic.
What does that even mean? "HFR" is a name for screening movies at a higher frame rate than the standard 24. 60fps and 120fps are most common (not sure which of these is more common). HFR movies are also "shot" (filmed) in 60 or 120fps to match how they're screened. Frames are dropped from the HFR version to make 24 fps and 30 fps versions (for theater and DVD/bluray).

Directors & producers release HFR versions of their films because they think it looks better when screened at a higher frame rate. Not everybody agrees on this point which is why only some films have HFR versions. If you're cynical, then you think they also do this because ticket price is higher for HFR screenings as compared to standard.

You interact with a game differently than you do with movies & television. Mostly because it's a two-way interaction. That's why a higher frame rate is important for games.
 

player594

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2006
Messages
458
Trophies
1
XP
1,872
Country
United States
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.
It's cheaper though and helps keep cost down for consumers.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

player594

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2006
Messages
458
Trophies
1
XP
1,872
Country
United States
I think so. The only reason why television/films are less than 30fps is due to convention (and hence people finding 60fps 'inauthentic').

At any rate, we're talking about a game, not movies or television.


People having a different preference to you is being spoiled? Okay then.
But in the end some games do the same as a movie, they tell a story. A mood is set with lighting and setting and many other factors. Changing just one factor can change the whole perspective of the story and in most cases ruin it.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

sarkwalvein

There's hope for a Xenosaga port.
Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
8,505
Trophies
2
Age
41
Location
Niedersachsen
XP
11,200
Country
Germany
I can honestly say, I see no difference. Gameplay looks the same.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Trust me, normal people can, and they could even with hardware way back in the 90s.
30FPS vs 60FPS vs MORE FPS made quite a difference in UT Classic, and you could probably end up getting pwned as fuck just because you had the inferior framerate.
 

Tom Bombadildo

Dick, With Balls
Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
14,573
Trophies
2
Age
29
Location
I forgot
Website
POCKET.LIKEITS
XP
19,186
Country
United States
For the people complaining about resolution and frame rate: http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates

Should point out that both of those consoles are not portable.
Something also to note is that most of the games that were also made for previous-gen consoles (PS3 & XBOX360) have lower resolution/frames than games strictly for the current-gen consoles.

To the point:
Am I sad about the 900/30fps? No. That's pretty much standard for a port +/ console game.
Will I buy a Switch at launch for a single game? No. Show me more, and I might commit.

I'm not defending Nintendo, but I am just trying to show both sides of the argument. People here have been bashing Nintendo or giving undying love towards Nintendo. I just find it funny because people were angry with Microsoft and Sony for exactly the same thing when the PS4 and XBOX ONE came out. "OMG 900p! YOU PROMISED 1080p @ 60FPS!"
I suggest you reread my post, because you completely missed the point...again. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FRAMERATE OR THE RESOLUTION ITSELF. I couldn't give a rats ass about that, it could be 240p and 5FPS, what the fuck ever. It's the fact that Nintendo, the one developer that consistently gives out the best technical performance from their games on their own consoles, has to push their games at that performance point. Again, it's not the framerate or the resolution, it's that this is the best Nintendo can do for a Nintendo "heavy" title like Zelda.

If Nintendo, a company that almost never personally half-ass's anything (except console hardware, apparently), says "900p and 30fps is the best we can do for Zelda", what are third parties going to do when they want to port...Elder Scrolls 6? Or CoD Whatever? Or Battlefield Two? Y'know, third party games that actually sell consoles to people that aren't buying it "cuz nintendo"? If a Zelda game is pushing the console at 900p/30fps, how are heavy performance third party titles that have to push the PS4/Xboner down to the same level going to go?

It's going to end up being the same thing as the Wii U. Third party developers are gonna have to put out gimped games for the Switch, consumers are going to buy the ungimped "better" version on PS4/Xbone, developers are gonna stop wasting money gimping their games to run on the Switch because no one buys them, only Nintendo fans will buy the Switch because no third party games are coming out.
 

player594

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2006
Messages
458
Trophies
1
XP
1,872
Country
United States
I suggest you reread my post, because you completely missed the point...again. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FRAMERATE OR THE RESOLUTION ITSELF. I couldn't give a rats ass about that, it could be 240p and 5FPS, what the fuck ever. It's the fact that Nintendo, the one developer that consistently gives out the best technical performance from their games on their own consoles, has to push their games at that performance point. Again, it's not the framerate or the resolution, it's that this is the best Nintendo can do for a Nintendo "heavy" title like Zelda.

If Nintendo, a company that almost never personally half-ass's anything (except console hardware, apparently), says "900p and 30fps is the best we can do for Zelda", what are third parties going to do when they want to port...Elder Scrolls 6? Or CoD Whatever? Or Battlefield Two? Y'know, third party games that actually sell consoles to people that aren't buying it "cuz nintendo"? If a Zelda game is pushing the console at 900p/30fps, how are heavy performance third party titles that have to push the PS4/Xboner down to the same level going to go?

It's going to end up being the same thing as the Wii U. Third party developers are gonna have to put out gimped games for the Switch, consumers are going to buy the ungimped "better" version on PS4/Xbone, developers are gonna stop wasting money gimping their games to run on the Switch because no one buys them, only Nintendo fans will buy the Switch because no third party games are coming out.
When did they say that it was the best they could do? They made a choice that kept their price point lower and still produced a game that will ultimately be very enjoyable to the majority of users. I'm sure if they didn't care how high they would have to raise the price to cover cost, they could have developed a system that would leave the xbone and ps4 far behind. But that's not what Nintendo is about. It never had been. Their goal is making enjoyable game that pull at the hearts and imaginations of generations. That's why they have been around for so long while others have faded.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

sarkwalvein

There's hope for a Xenosaga port.
Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
8,505
Trophies
2
Age
41
Location
Niedersachsen
XP
11,200
Country
Germany
I'm almost sure the message Nintendo is conveying is "this is the best we can do and at least have zelda as a launch title".
I'm sure they are releasing it in a hurry because otherwise there is no launch title, so the performance and refinement take a hit.
I hope they will patch it on a later date.
 

ItsKipz

l33t hax0r
Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
1,930
Trophies
0
Location
The C: drive
XP
1,625
Country
United States
I think i'll post something here that seems fitting, that i said over in the nintendo subreddit a while ago:

What people keep forgetting here is that nintendo doesn't always have the most powerful consoles, or the most advanced launch games...

and that's fine.

The beauty of nintendo is they can turn something super simple into one of the greatest games of all time. Keep in mind that in 1996, the PS1 was out with games that may or may not look and play better than Mario 64,

and that's fine.

Super Mario 64 is still regarded as one of nintendo's best, even with that in mind.

Just last year, I bought a SNES for myself. Not because i wanted the best graphics, or the newest console, i wanted the games. BOTW might be running at 900p/30fps or whatever, but the game is still there. The switch might not be as powerful as, say, the PS4 pro....

and that's fine.
 
Last edited by ItsKipz,

theoperator288

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
47
Trophies
0
XP
220
Country
United States
I suggest you reread my post, because you completely missed the point...again. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FRAMERATE OR THE RESOLUTION ITSELF. I couldn't give a rats ass about that, it could be 240p and 5FPS, what the fuck ever. It's the fact that Nintendo, the one developer that consistently gives out the best technical performance from their games on their own consoles, has to push their games at that performance point. Again, it's not the framerate or the resolution, it's that this is the best Nintendo can do for a Nintendo "heavy" title like Zelda.

If Nintendo, a company that almost never personally half-ass's anything (except console hardware, apparently), says "900p and 30fps is the best we can do for Zelda", what are third parties going to do when they want to port...Elder Scrolls 6? Or CoD Whatever? Or Battlefield Two? Y'know, third party games that actually sell consoles to people that aren't buying it "cuz nintendo"? If a Zelda game is pushing the console at 900p/30fps, how are heavy performance third party titles that have to push the PS4/Xboner down to the same level going to go?

It's going to end up being the same thing as the Wii U. Third party developers are gonna have to put out gimped games for the Switch, consumers are going to buy the ungimped "better" version on PS4/Xbone, developers are gonna stop wasting money gimping their games to run on the Switch because no one buys them, only Nintendo fans will buy the Switch because no third party games are coming out.

I read over your first post. I was more pointing towards you because of your "This game being a port doesn't justify its FPS/resolution." I agree with you that Nintendo, on paper, is doing a poor job when it comes to this port. But I also do not blame them for this. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Release BOTW before the Switch? Release BOTW Switch edition later to give it more polish? From what it looks like, Nintendo did the middle option in order to keep both sides of the room happy.
Graphically, the game does have more to it (as far as shaders from the images I have seen) on the Switch Edition which could be why they felt safe with 900p/30fps. Also, the load difference is ridiculous.

My original post wasn't trying to "call you out" Tom. I just think that we need to take a step back and wait before we start calling the doom of Nintendo.

PS: There is no way Nintendo is going under from a single "failed" console release. They make more money on IP merchandising than on the games themselves sometimes.
 
Last edited by theoperator288,
  • Like
Reactions: ItsKipz

wiewiec

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
774
Trophies
0
Age
39
Location
Somewhere
XP
1,373
Country
Poland
When did they say that it was the best they could do? They made a choice that kept their price point lower and still produced a game that will ultimately be very enjoyable to the majority of users. I'm sure if they didn't care how high they would have to raise the price to cover cost, they could have developed a system that would leave the xbone and ps4 far behind. But that's not what Nintendo is about. It never had been. Their goal is making enjoyable game that pull at the hearts and imaginations of generations. That's why they have been around for so long while others have faded.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Do you remember NES/Famicom at this time Nintendo was innovative. Now it is overpriced fuckin bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: air2004

player594

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2006
Messages
458
Trophies
1
XP
1,872
Country
United States
Do you remember NES/Famicom at this time Nintendo was innovative. Now it is overpriced fuckin bullshit.
Dude I've been around since the Atari 2600 days. What you have to remember is that at that time video games were in their infancy. Each new generation WAS leaps over the last, but now it's got to the point that game CONTENT has beginning to lack, so companies like Microsoft and Sony keep trying to out do everyone by pushing out more power. I like the old days when games were fun and you didn't care that it was two bars moving up and down and a square bouncing in between them. It was fun. But that just me.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: luckymouse0

wiewiec

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
774
Trophies
0
Age
39
Location
Somewhere
XP
1,373
Country
Poland
I think i'll post something here that seems fitting, that i said over in the nintendo subreddit a while ago:

What people keep forgetting here is that nintendo doesn't always have the most powerful consoles, or the most advanced launch games...

and that's fine.

The beauty of nintendo is they can turn something super simple into one of the greatest games of all time. Keep in mind that in 1996, the PS1 was out with games that may or may not look and play better than Mario 64,

and that's fine.

Super Mario 64 is still regarded as one of nintendo's best, even with that in mind.

Just last year, I bought a SNES for myself. Not because i wanted the best graphics, or the newest console, i wanted the games. BOTW might be running at 900p/30fps or whatever, but the game is still there. The switch might not be as powerful as, say, the PS4 pro....

and that's fine.

The development of console was dragged as hell... no CD support, but damn game cards, only few games. So the fucked up and Sony crush them over milions $. Gamecube was better system, but again only with few tittles. Wii proposed little innovations, but on Wii U and probably now we will be fucked up, some crappy EA games that on mobile phone will be cheaper, Capcom with Ultra Street Fighter II. The future does not look colorful.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Dude I've been around since the Atari 2600 days. What you have to remember is that at that time video games were in their infancy. Each new generation WAS leaps over the last, but now it's got to the point that game CONTENT has beginning to lack, so companies like Microsoft and Sony keep trying to out do everyone by pushing out more power. I like the old days when games were fun and you didn't care that it was two bars moving up and down and a square bouncing in between them. It was fun. But that just me.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

So do the bouncing with Nintendo!, I do not wanna get the same scenario like on Wii U.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrkBeam

player594

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2006
Messages
458
Trophies
1
XP
1,872
Country
United States
The development of console was dragged as hell... no CD support, but damn game cards, only few games. So the fucked up and Sony crush them over milions $. Gamecube was better system, but again only with few tittles. Wii proposed little innovations, but on Wii U and probably now we will be fucked up, some crappy EA games that on mobile phone will be cheaper, Capcom with Ultra Street Fighter II. The future does not look colorful.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



So do the bouncing with Nintendo!, I do not wanna get the same scenario like on Wii U.
I never bought a wii I personally. The games didnt intrigue me very much. I already had a why and plenty of games. But I personally prefer carts over disc. Less likely to get scratched.[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    LeoTCK @ LeoTCK: yes for nearly a month i was officially a wanted fugitive, until yesterday when it ended