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

 

[Sick Wario]

more likely to be my last wii u game than first switch game

 

[wiewiec]

But at this time cards was limited, I love cards, have N64, but the system would have much better response if the work Sony, after that with Philips. Also on Gamecube they make strange deal with one company who produced that 8-cm discs.

 

[player594]

But at this time cards was limited, I love cards, have N64, but the system would have much better response if the work Sony, after that with Philips. Also on Gamecube they make strange deal with one company who produced that 8-cm discs.

You do know that Sony and Nintendo started to make a console together before the playstation came out don't you?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Shadowfied]

You do know that Sony and Nintendo started to make a console together before the playstation came out don't you?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

He literally mentioned the fact that they worked together in his post..

 

[Bonestorm]

If someone can't see the difference then shut the f# up and watch.



And difference on cameras

yea still cant see any difference at all they look exactly the same

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

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 switch is not as powerful as the BASE xbox one or ps4...and the snes was made in 1991...

 

[player594]

He literally mentioned the fact that they worked together in his post..

Don't remember asking you, but it doesn't read like that's Literally what he said.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Shadowfied]

Don't remember asking you, but it doesn't read like that's Literally what he said.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

If you're asking him directly, there's a PM function, sheesh.

 

[frankGT]

It's still weird how their next-gen console is only capable of adding a couple hundred pixels.

Its 1280*720 vs 1600*900 resolution, making it 921.600 vs 1.440.000 (56% more) pixels.

 

[wiewiec]

You do know that Sony and Nintendo started to make a console together before the playstation came out don't you?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Not at all sherlock... but after with Philips

 

[Xiphiidae]

~snip~

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here.

Don't remember asking you, but it doesn't read like that's Literally what he said.

I don't think you understand how forums work.

 

[kehkou]

WWHD Runs at 30, and on top of that, it has heavy frame drops in explosions and visual effects.

i literally cannot tell the diffrence between 30 and 60... i just dont understand people

Apparently it is as plain to see as seeing which TV produces better yellow (not very at all).
Anywho, games striving for a cinematic feel (not BotW) must actually decrease to 24 FPS, the same framerate the American SW uses to shoot movies in HD.

 

[comput3rus3r]

Just play competitive games like counter strike @ 25fps, and play it a 150, just, do it... lol the eye CAN perceive a distinct difference till like 100fps, after that it's hard, but still doable... You must have never played a game on low-end PCs to say such BS dude... :/

I've been hearing these "the human eyes can only see...." bs statements since i was playing cs 15 years ago.
cs 1.3 800x600 @100hz 100fps for the win

 

[retrofan_k]

This has given me 2nd thoughts whether to cancel my switch pre-order. It's disappointing to hear 900p in TV mode compared to 720p WiiU.

This is supposed to be their next gen system and 900p @ 30fps is not good enough in this generation of gaming imo. All games within reason should be 60fps now, not half arsed versions.

As a result, I may aswell download the WiiU version for free and play that since there will be no real difference really to justify paying over £300 for the Switch and Zelda on release day, as non of the titles interest me.

 

[sarkwalvein]

I seriously think everybody that can't see the difference in FPS just have youtube configured incorrectly or hardware incapable of showing more than 30FPS, be it because it shows just 30FPS or because it has such a slow reaction time that the extra FPS get blurred.
Hell, the USAF made tests and realized that fighter pilots consistently identify objects at 220FPS.1
And as long as I know, fighter pilots are humans.

1 The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.

 

[Shadowfied]

I seriously think everybody that can't see the difference in FPS just have youtube configured incorrectly or hardware incapable of showing more than 30FPS, be it because it shows just 30FPS or because it has such a slow reaction time that the extra FPS get blurred.
Hell, the USAF made tests and realized that fighter pilots consistently identify objects at 220FPS.1
And as long as I know, fighter pilots are humans.

People can see it, they're just in denial.
E.g. "I paid for this XBox One, so I need to defend it and try to justify it; there is no significant difference between this and those saying it's so much better to play in 60 FPS on PC." for example.

It is "harder" to see on a video or something non interactive though. My personal favorite is handing TLoU remastered to someone and toggling the 30 FPS lock. That's when no one denies it.

Also I swear @sarkwalvein, you'll be getting replies with "Well, we're not pilots. We're gamers."

 

[player594]

I seriously think everybody that can't see the difference in FPS just have youtube configured incorrectly or hardware incapable of showing more than 30FPS, be it because it shows just 30FPS or because it has such a slow reaction time that the extra FPS get blurred.
Hell, the USAF made tests and realized that fighter pilots consistently identify objects at 220FPS.1
And as long as I know, fighter pilots are humans.

Well we're not pilots, we're gamers. Lol. But seriously, the difference is negligible.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[pedro702]

all zelda games have been 30fps or under so why are people surprised? imo 60 fps is only a must on racing and shooting games, any other kinda of game is preety good in 30fps.

tbh i wont get a switch for zelda but for mario odissey and upcoming pokemon games, hopefully someday we can get another pokemon colosseum and XD because pokemon sun and moon 3d models that arent pokemons are hard to watch.

 

[retrofan_k]

all zelda games have been 30fps or under so why are people surprised? imo 60 fps is only a must on racing and shooting games, any other kinda of game is preety good in 30fps.

Because it's 2017 and a new console like the Switch should be outputting all titles at 1080P, 60fps as standard, no excuses imo.

 

[pedro702]

Because it's 2017 and a new console like the Switch should be outputting all titles at 1080P, 60fps as standard, no excuses imo.

why? remenber that the switch is basicaly a tablet console, it isnt a dedeicated home console and afaik there isnt any portable that does 1080p and 60 fps, people call it a home console just becuase it can display on tv lol, for me the switch is a portable console with a tv display option.

 

[retrofan_k]

why? remenber that the switch is basicaly a tablet console, it isnt a dedeicated home console and afaik there isnt any portable that does 1080p and 60 fps, people call it a home console just becuase it can display on tv lol, for me the switch is a portable console with a tv display option.

I know what it is but I'm referering to the TV mode of this game being at 900p 30fps.