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



## Tom Bombadildo (Jan 18, 2017)

I was totally just reading about this and was gonna make a thread, damn you Prans 

But yeah, that's a little disappointing. Seems like the Switch isn't going to be nearly as powerful as the fanboys are wanking about if even Nintendo has to gimp their games to 900p/30fps.


----------



## Touko White (Jan 18, 2017)

Doesn't surprise me that Nintendo can't be arsed to actually make their console powerful which would make sales higher if they did...


----------



## smileyhead (Jan 18, 2017)

It's still weird how their next-gen console is only capable of adding a couple hundred pixels.
I mean, really? Not even a slight FPS increase? I'd be happy to play it in even 720p if it was 60 fps.


----------



## LuigiXL (Jan 18, 2017)

Nail & coffin?


----------



## Prans (Jan 18, 2017)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> I was totally just reading about this and was gonna make a thread, damn you Prans


Gotta be ninja-quick Tom


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 18, 2017)

but does it provide fun like a 1080p/60fps game?


----------



## Noctosphere (Jan 18, 2017)

come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please


----------



## cyb0rg (Jan 18, 2017)

Looks like they might have left out things like draw distance and load times.
But it is guesswork since it is not known what is in the final versions.

Switch vs Wii U - Loading Times Comparison (Zelda Breath of The Wild)


```
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sg0JkSIyq8
```

Wii U & Switch comparison - Identical scenes from Zelda Breath of the Wild (res, textures..)


```
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8WjK7iA5IA
```


----------



## Imacaredformy2ds (Jan 18, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> but does it provide fun like a 1080p/60fps game?


Ehhh it's still 30 fps, but I imagine it's that way because the game would chug sometimes so they just limited it to 30 for no slowdown. Still looks clean af though


----------



## player594 (Jan 18, 2017)

Touko White said:


> Doesn't surprise me that Nintendo can't be arsed to actually make their console powerful which would make sales higher if they did...


More powerful would have driven up the cost of the console. It's already high enough.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Imacaredformy2ds (Jan 18, 2017)

player594 said:


> More powerful would have driven up the cost of the console. It's already high enough.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Joycons are 70, the console itself is like 130 bucks


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please


Uh... yes we do. This is a common misconception, but technically the human eye can perceive up to 255fps. Most humans however only consistently see 45fps.

Source


----------



## Imacaredformy2ds (Jan 18, 2017)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Uh... yes we do. This is a common misconception, but technically the human eye can perceive up to 255fps. Most humans however only consistently see 45fps.
> 
> Source


THANK YOU


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jan 18, 2017)

That confirms it then. No way the Switch has a mere X1 chip.


----------



## nero99 (Jan 18, 2017)

It's pretty stupid of them to release it on the wii u. I mean, why would you go buy the switch version when you can just pirate it on the wii u? It's almost like Nintendo went brain dead with this idea.


----------



## Arubaro (Jan 18, 2017)

Because you can play it on 900p ofc /s


----------



## MaK11-12 (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> human eyes can only see between 24-25 fps, its a fact


I don't know why the switch plays at 900p, the human eye can only see around 240p.


----------



## player594 (Jan 18, 2017)

Imacaredformy2ds said:


> I won't even argue with you. Just use google
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Joycons are 70, the console itself is like 130 bucks


Your a math wiz. Oops I guess not quite. $130+$70=$300. Uea sounds about right.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk



MaK11-12 said:


> I don't know why the switch plays at 900p, the human eye can only see around 240p.


Thats just lame.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## nolimits59 (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> human eyes can only see between 24-25 fps, its a fact


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... :/


----------



## x65943 (Jan 18, 2017)

smileyhead said:


> It's still weird how their next-gen console is only capable of adding a couple hundred pixels.
> I mean, really? Not even a slight FPS increase? I'd be happy to play it in even 720p if it was 60 fps.



900p vs 720p is a whole lot more than just 180 more pixels.

You have to multiply the height*width to get the total pixel count

so for 720p it's 720*1280=921600

and for 900p it's 900*1600=1440000

meaning that there is a difference of 518400 pixels, which represents an increase of 56.25%, hardly a trivial upgrade.


----------



## proflayton123 (Jan 18, 2017)

Even though, the Zelda franchise has no appeal to me personally, seeing that 30 fps is the maximum I'm quite sad for those who plan to get it, come on Nintendo


----------



## VMM (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please



C'mon please tell me this is just a trollbait, no way someone on this day and age can believe in that


----------



## Silverthorn (Jan 18, 2017)

nero99 said:


> It's pretty stupid of them to release it on the wii u. I mean, why would you go buy the switch version when you can just pirate it on the wii u? It's almost like Nintendo went brain dead with this idea.



It's not so much that they want to release it on the Wii U, but rather that they originally developed it and announced it for the Wii U.
Nintendo would end up getting some backlash from their core fanbase who bought the Wii U if they changed it to a Switch exclusive.


----------



## nolimits59 (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> search on internet, EVERYWHERE theyll say 24 or 25 fps, dont troll deep shit


So you tell me you don't see difference watching a movie (23-24fps) and playing a game on PC (average of 60fps with vsync) ? Really ? You should check yopur eyes then.
LOOK I SEARCHED ON THE INTERNET ! x)


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jan 18, 2017)

Imacaredformy2ds said:


> You can't be this retarded, can you?




Some people here are fanboys and will tell themselves whatever they need to believe nintendo cares about customers...



We already have 4k tvs but still no 1080p with nintendo? The technology has been out over 10 years,there is no excuse for not having 1080p.


----------



## Imacaredformy2ds (Jan 18, 2017)

Maluma said:


> Some people here are fanboys and will tell themselves whatever they need to believe nintendo cares about customers...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have 4k tvs but still no 1080p with nintendo? The technology has been out over 10 years,there is no excuse for not having 1080p.


@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

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



Noctosphere said:


> fyi, not everyone in canada is english native


I know. I forgot kappa


----------



## DrkBeam (Jan 18, 2017)

WiiUBricker said:


> That confirms it then. No way the Switch has a mere X1 chip.


Of course is a custom chip, but I read that the Wii u has 176 gigaflops, isn't difficult to make a game look better even with a tegra x1 running at 500 gigaflops


----------



## Noctosphere (Jan 18, 2017)

DrkBeam said:


> Of course is a custom chip, but I read that the Wii u has 176 gigaflops, isn't difficult to make a game look better even with a tegra x1 running at 500 gigaflops


500 gigaflops?
I heard ps4 pro has like 4 teraflops
indeed ninty is way behind


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Jan 18, 2017)

Very disappointing. I dont see developers comming to the platform if their games are gonna run worst than nintys first party games especially since theyre becoming so demanding that mid cycle the playstation and xbox have to upgrade their current consoles. The switch needs to be marketed as a handheld device that can become a console that would possibly help. Was expecting 60fps on the switch, even at least while in portable mode seeing as it drops to 720p.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jan 18, 2017)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> Very disappointing. I dont see developers comming to the platform if their games are gonna run worst than nintys first party games especially since theyre becoming so demanding that mid cycle the playstation and xbox have to upgrade their current consoles. The switch needs to be marketed as a handheld device that can become a console that would possibly help. Was expecting 60fps on the switch, even at least while in portable mode seeing as it drops to 720p.


its doesnt really drop, its rather that it increases when docked. I guess you would see absolutly no difference between 720p and 900p on tablet mode due to its size


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> its doesnt really drop, its rather that it increases when docked. I guess you would see absolutly no difference between 720p and 900p on tablet mode due to its size


The screen is gonna be 720p and unless you're using an iPhone you will notice the difference between 720p and 900p and 1080p. I also mean "drop" as in when you play from your tv the resolution and power is gonna drop when using the handheld.


----------



## Veho (Jan 18, 2017)

I think the low framerate and lack of any real difference from the WiiU version has more to do with the fact this is a lazy half-assed port than anything to do with the hardware limitations.


----------



## smileyhead (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please


*uncontrollable laughing*


----------



## petethepug (Jan 18, 2017)

So, the Nintendo Switch will have better "sound effects" than the Wii U, seems like a great reason to go out and buy a Switch 

Lets see if a ROM Hack of the sound effects changes that "incompatible feature" for the Wii U


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jan 18, 2017)

Now really. You perceive tghe difference between different framerates when CS (for example) slowdowns only because the game IS DESIGNED to ben ran at 60 fps. So if you display only 20 fps of course you will perceive a slowdown since the games run 3 times slower. But is the game is originally designed at 30 fps you won't be able to tell the difference. And I don't see any difference between 30 and 60 on your video @nolimits59 ...


----------



## player594 (Jan 18, 2017)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> The screen is gonna be 720p and unless you're using an iPhone you will notice the difference between 720p and 900p and 1080p. I also mean "drop" as in when you play from your tv the resolution and power is gonna drop when using the handheld.


The difference between 720 & 1080 on a small screen is negligible. So unless your focusing only on that you wont notice it. If you are then your not playing the game but looking for something to bitch about.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please


You have some serious damage to your eyes if you can't.

Also, why are people so surprised BotW is 30 fps? *All* 3D Zelda games have been 30.


----------



## smileyhead (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> You have some serious damage to your eyes if you can't.
> 
> Also, why are people so surprised BotW is 30 fps? *All* 3D Zelda games have been 30.


B-but next-gen... ;o;


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

smileyhead said:


> B-but next-gen... ;o;


Is just about better graphics, like it's always been. Console devs rarely care for 60 fps.


----------



## petethepug (Jan 18, 2017)

smileyhead said:


> B-but next-gen... ;o;


Infamous 2 runs at 30 FPS on a PS3, and has a technique that runs the game faster when the frames start to go slower like the N64.

The Wii U (besides the shading effects.) The hardware is meh compared to a PS3. So... Its still the standard today?


----------



## wiewiec (Jan 18, 2017)

Only on 900p what a mess...


----------



## petethepug (Jan 18, 2017)

wiewiec said:


> Only on 900p what a mess...


Its a cartoon game with shaders...

What would you expect from Nintendo


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Jan 18, 2017)

player594 said:


> The difference between 720 & 1080 on a small screen is negligible. So unless your focusing only on that you wont notice it. If you are then your not playing the game but looking for something to bitch about.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


You will notice from playing on a tv switching to a 6.2inch screen and even so it would still run the game 30fps. It could have been 720p 60fps docked and than the same when running with just the tablet. You would think lowering the resolution would allow for higher fps but the tablet has weaker hardware than when docked. If this is the best the switch can do than developers are gonna shy away from the system just as fast as wiiu.


----------



## Maximilious (Jan 18, 2017)

Veho said:


> I think the low framerate and lack of any real difference from the WiiU version has more to do with the fact this is a lazy half-assed port than anything to do with the hardware limitations.



I'll agree that the framerate was locked at 30 due to it being a port, but I doubt it was half-assed. They pushed the game back at least an entire year just to get it on the NX console.


----------



## player594 (Jan 18, 2017)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> You will notice from playing on a tv switching to a 6.2inch screen and even so it would still run the game 30fps. It could have been 720p 60fps docked and than the same when running with just the tablet. You would think lowering the resolution would allow for higher fps but the tablet has weaker hardware than when docked. If this is the best the switch can do than developers are gonna shy away from the system just as fast as wiiu.


I have a 60" tv and I can tell the difference between 720 & 1080, but not 1080 on the tv and 720 the tablet. The pixels are smaller on the tablet so the image appears sharper.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## nolimits59 (Jan 18, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Now really. You perceive tghe difference between different framerates when CS (for example) slowdowns only because the game IS DESIGNED to ben ran at 60 fps. So if you display only 20 fps of course you will perceive a slowdown since the games run 3 times slower. But is the game is originally designed at 30 fps you won't be able to tell the difference. And I don't see any difference between 30 and 60 on your video @nolimits59 ...


Even if a game is designed to play @ 30fps, you will still see the difference... you tell me you don't see the difference between zelda ocarina of time on n64 and on 3DS ? both are deisgned for their cmmon FPS (18 for the n64 and 30fps on the 3DS, still when you play you feel the difference a LOT, when i'm playing CSGO i CANT play under 700-90fps because you lose microseconds and it's very unconfortable... trust me, your eye can tell the difference easily till 100FPS with more than 100 it become harder and need you to be hard focus on the game or the image. I know that because i endure that EVERYDAY... i play CS since 1.6; i know my stuff and i can tell you when my game is under 100fps...




player594 said:


> I have a 60" tv and I can tell the difference between 720 & 1080, but not 1080 on the tv and 720 the tablet. The pixels are smaller on the tablet so the image appears sharper.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


This has a lot to do with the screen manufacturer actualy... LG make awesomes screens, back in the days with 4-5" phones and lower res, with LG screens you couldn't even see the pixels... but on samsungs ones it was obvious AF, LG screens (i meant screens with the screen itself, not the full tv) for TV can make you "believe" you have a 2k screen on a 70" 1080p screen.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jan 18, 2017)

@nolimits59 Appearently my eyes are less powerful than yours than yours since I can't tell the difference...


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please



If you honestly think that 30fps and 60fps are the same, you have an eye problem.


----------



## nolimits59 (Jan 18, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> @nolimits59 Appearently my eyes are less powerful than yours than yours since I can't tell the difference...


We're all made differently after all... i can assume that it become difficult for not "trained" people to tell the difference after 50-60fps, but you should try on phones with 60fps capabilities, record a 30fps (its the normal mode) and then 60fps, it become really obvious
Like in this ones:
30fps

60fps


----------



## MaK11-12 (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> Console devs rarely care for 60 fps.


Are you kidding? Mario Kart 8 was 60fps. If developers can make a game 60fps, they will. If a console is under powered, then devs will have no choice but to cap the frame rate and lower the resolution.



Pacheko17 said:


> If you honestly think that 30fps and 60fps are the same, you have an eye problem.


It was bait. Don't get triggered.


----------



## petethepug (Jan 18, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> If you honestly think that 30fps and 60fps are the same, you're you have an eye problem.


Seems a to little harsh for just one person pointing something out.

Have you seen me in the Wii hacking section of the forums?


----------



## Arras (Jan 18, 2017)

MaK11-12 said:


> Are you kidding? Mario Kart 8 was 60fps. If developers can make a game 60fps, they will. If a console is under powered, then devs will have no choice but to cap the frame rate and lower the resolution.
> 
> 
> It was bait. Don't get triggered.


FPS is always a tradeoff though. If you lower the framerate to 30, it frees up extra resources that can be used to increase the resolution or add fancy extra shaders/more reflections/whatever. Mario Kart pretty much needs to run at a high FPS singleplayer because it needs to be able to do 4 player splitscreen, which is much more resource intensive.


----------



## migles (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please


i can perceive the difference.
i really don't understand how can someone says 30 fps in a game like this...


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jan 18, 2017)

If Zelda is this underpowered, How the hell will Skyrim perform on the switch??


----------



## Silverthorn (Jan 18, 2017)

Veho said:


> I think the low framerate and lack of any real difference from the WiiU version has more to do with the fact this is a lazy half-assed port than anything to do with the hardware limitations.



Indeed. A quick search tells me development started in 2010. That was way before any "NX" or Switch considerations.
They decided to port for a double release due to the Wii U debacle and just did a quick dirty job of it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 18, 2017)

nero99 said:


> It's pretty stupid of them to release it on the wii u. I mean, why would you go buy the switch version when you can just pirate it on the wii u? It's almost like Nintendo went brain dead with this idea.


... portability?...


----------



## GuyInDogSuit (Jan 18, 2017)

So they weren't kidding... it's really 900p. Why??


----------



## player594 (Jan 18, 2017)

nolimits59 said:


> We're all made differently after all... i can assume that it become difficult for not "trained" people to tell the difference after 50-60fps, but you should try on phones with 60fps capabilities, record a 30fps (its the normal mode) and then 60fps, it become really obvious
> Like in this ones:
> 30fps
> 
> 60fps



I see no difference. The second video looks "jerky" to me.
It's kinda like the 120 motion on hdtv's. I hate it but some people live it. To me it makes movies look like watching the news. It ruins the whole effect.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## migles (Jan 18, 2017)

player594 said:


> I see no difference. The second video looks "jerky" to me.
> It's kinda like the 120 motion on hdtv's. I hate it but some people live it. To me it makes movies look like watching the news. It ruins the whole effect.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


i never used youtube to compare, specially because in the old days of 24fps video, which nowdays it's not a problem, youtube shows you if 60 fps is available or not

but i guarantee i can even notice a difference between a 50 hertz game or a 60 hertz on tv (pal and ntsc) however in this case i can't guarantee it's just the shitty tv\consoles doing the conversion from one signal to the other (have a pal tv)

but i can totally tell the difference on a 30 fps game and a 60 fps game running on a pc monitor
however in several games this is not that big issue, because they are slow paced...
but in racing games or First person shooters, i can really see the difference..


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 18, 2017)

player594 said:


> I see no difference. The second video looks "jerky" to me.
> It's kinda like the 120 motion on hdtv's. I hate it but some people live it. To me it makes movies look like watching the news. It ruins the whole effect.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


That's because you've been conditioned to watch movies at a lowly 24 FPS.  Your brain has associated that frame rate with movies.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 18, 2017)

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe runs full 1080p at 60 fps, the machine isn't "incapable" as naysayers state.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

MaK11-12 said:


> Are you kidding? Mario Kart 8 was 60fps. If developers can make a game 60fps, they will. If a console is under powered, then devs will have no choice but to cap the frame rate and lower the resolution.
> 
> 
> It was bait. Don't get triggered.


Nintendo are the exception, in some cases. Mario games are often 60 fps. Which is one of the reasons I like Nintendo. Primarily, however, console games ARE 30 fps. Devs will target better graphics rather than a high frame rate.


----------



## endoverend (Jan 18, 2017)

I was fully expecting 30 fps, but 900p? I hate to break it to Nintendo but that's not gonna look good on a modern TV.


----------



## player594 (Jan 18, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> That's because you've been conditioned to watch movies at a lowly 24 FPS.  Your brain has associated that frame rate with movies.


No it's because I want to watch a story play out, not a reality show. Keep that crap to talk shows. I don't need it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 18, 2017)

player594 said:


> No it's because I want to watch a story play out, not a reality show. Keep that crap to talk shows. I don't need it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Umm... what?  In what way does a framerate closer to reality affect the ability for a story to play out?  That is, other than the aforementioned conditioning you have to associate lower framerates with movies and higher framerates with, apparently, the news and reality TV.


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please


your eyes may not, but for many of us we can tell a qualitative difference. The eye doesn't work on the whole FPS system, dontcha know, though the higher end seems to be somewhere around 300fps.

The thing is, our brain fills in any missing frames, best it can, to try and make sense of the situation. That's why we're so susceptible to optical illusions, because our brains want so much to see fluid motion that it just makes stuff up when it doesn't quite have enough visual information (29.5 fps or so is juuust enough to see something as fluid motion, i.e. movies). But as far as the actual ability to perceive differences in motion, our eyes and brain can potentially go up pretty high (varies from person to person). So there's probably the distinction there.


----------



## Alkéryn (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please


I actually even see a difference between 144 and 240 FPS, i also see a huge difference between 720p and 1080p but who cares 
I still enjoy my gamecube and N64 games so i don't really care about resolution / FPS
Just look at the 3ds it is 240p and everyone play it


----------



## fuyukaidesu (Jan 18, 2017)

Not a single Zelda game ever ran above 30 fps. Stop complaining.


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 18, 2017)

It'll be interesting to see if they try and work torwards outputting 1080p in the future. Recall a lot of xbox one and ps4 games were native 720, 900 at launch (or were those just the ports?) and some patched in native 1080p. and many of them are still 30fps.


----------



## skawo (Jan 18, 2017)

_"The physical copy of the Wii U version will require 3GB of available memory on the Wii U system or an external drive."
_
What?! 3GB save file?


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

endoverend said:


> I was fully expecting 30 fps, but 900p? I hate to break it to Nintendo but that's not gonna look good on a modern TV.


So most of the PS4 and XBone libraries look bad on modern TVs too?
900p is REALLY common for consoles.

I mean, of course it's arguable what looks good etc. It's not gonna compare to a nice high-end PC with anti aliasing connected to your TV etc.


----------



## OliverWinstontin (Jan 18, 2017)

cyb0rg said:


> Looks like they might have left out things like draw distance and load times.
> But it is guesswork since it is not known what is in the final versions.
> 
> Switch vs Wii U - Loading Times Comparison (Zelda Breath of The Wild)
> ...




People keep trying to make comparisons but all the footage we have from real world gameplay on the Wii U version is from the E3 demo, which is what from June? Nintendo sounded pretty specific about the differences. I mean they had to point out the audio to try and make the Switch version sound better. You have to wonder if once the final version is out if there will be much of a difference between the two versions. Regardless you have to remember this game had been in development for the Wii U for years and that version is getting ported to the Switch. Wouldn't be surprised if it runs smoother on Wii U honestly. Gamespot reported that they believe the Wii U E3 demo ran smoother than the Switch version they played in their Switch coverage last week.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 18, 2017)

skawo said:


> _"The physical copy of the Wii U version will require 3GB of available memory on the Wii U system or an external drive."
> _
> What?! 3GB save file?


I'm guessing it's installing some content straight to the console to reduce loading times


----------



## Hypnotizing (Jan 18, 2017)

I'm kind of dissapointed of the 900p the switch offers, I expected more from a new gen console.


----------



## cyb0rg (Jan 18, 2017)

skawo said:


> _"The physical copy of the Wii U version will require 3GB of available memory on the Wii U system or an external drive."
> _
> What?! 3GB save file?



*High-speed Data Loading Packs for Xenoblade Chronicles X*
Applies to:  Wii U Deluxe, Wii U Basic

*Information:*
Xenoblade Chronicles X will be released Dec 4, 2015. For people who purchase the physical version of the game, four free high-speed data loading packs are available to download from the Nintendo eShop starting today. The data packs are designed to speed up load times by installing parts of the game onto the Wii U or USB storage device.

http://en-americas-support.nintendo...data-loading-packs-for-xenoblade-chronicles-x


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

Am I the only one here willing to pay for a $500 console just to have a 1080p @ 60fps experience?

Probably an unpopular opinion but I don't want my gaming experience gimped.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 18, 2017)

nero99 said:


> It's pretty stupid of them to release it on the wii u. I mean, why would you go buy the switch version when you can just pirate it on the wii u? It's almost like Nintendo went brain dead with this idea.


Well for one thing, not everyone has a wiiu, let alone a hacked one. Plus, wiiu version will probably be missing features, and the switch version has better quality. Also its just lots of people already preordered the switch, so they might as we get this for it as their fist game, as it was the most anticipated.

Plus its not exactly the first time they have done this. Take Pokémon mystery dungeon red/blue rescue team. Both for different consoles, same release time.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 18, 2017)

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


----------



## happydance (Jan 18, 2017)

I remember back then when people keep saying that the wii-u has more 1080p 60fps games than the xbox one and ps4... what happened now?

the only time I notice a big difference between a 30fps and 60fps is when watching porns lols, but seriously the more I keep switching playing games on my pc and console the more I notice... so maybe it's more on familiarity?


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 18, 2017)

Oh and maybe they'll buy an official copy anyway to add support yo the company, such as with the sumo leak, and FE fates


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> Am I the only one here willing to pay for a $500 console just to have a 1080p @ 60fps experience?
> 
> Probably an unpopular opinion but I don't want my gaming experience gimped.


There is no console that does that though. It's a per game basis. 95% of AAA titles on PS4 / XBone are 30 fps. According to your statement, a PC is what you want.


----------



## SS4 (Jan 18, 2017)

30 FPS . . . wtf . . .are they trying to make a slideshow instead of a fluid game lol


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 18, 2017)

IMO we are complaining just a tad too early too about FPS. I'm sure well get a better switch somewhere down the line.

Take a look at o3ds. It got replaced by n3ds, then looks like complete garbage.


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> There is no console that does that though. It's a per game basis. 95% of AAA titles on PS4 / XBone are 30 fps. According to your statement, a PC is what you want.


I do own a powerful PC already, however Nintendo systems are the only ones I own for their 1st party exclusives and I wish they would stop being cheap with hardware.

Maybe Cemu can give us the 1080p @ 60fps we want. That would be cool.


----------



## Bateees (Jan 18, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> but does it provide fun like a 1080p/60fps game?



My eyes are capable of capturing 318 frames per second.  No one has been able to prove otherwise.


----------



## OliverWinstontin (Jan 18, 2017)

SS4 said:


> 30 FPS . . . wtf . . .are they trying to make a slideshow instead of a fluid game lol



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.


----------



## chartube12 (Jan 18, 2017)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> I was totally just reading about this and was gonna make a thread, damn you Prans
> 
> But yeah, that's a little disappointing. Seems like the Switch isn't going to be nearly as powerful as the fanboys are wanking about if even Nintendo has to gimp their games to 900p/30fps.



Not a deal breaker to me. Most xbox one titles are 900, 910 or 920 and upscale to 1080.


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

Hypothetically if this was released on a PS4, could that allow 1080p @ 60fps?


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> I do own a powerful PC already, however Nintendo systems are the only ones I own for their 1st party exclusives and I wish they would stop being cheap with hardware.
> 
> Maybe Cemu can give us the 1080p @ 60fps we want. That would be cool.


I don't really mind the cheap hardware, especially not with the Switch, considering the portability. Many first party Nintendo games are 60 fps and that's what I like the most. Every 3D Zelda has been 30 fps, would never expect anything else so I'm not disappointed, especially considering it's an open world game. Like, legit, tell me one AAA open world game on a console that is 60 fps 

As a PC gamer who is used to 60 fps, I'm happy that people are finally starting to understand it's importance. Back in the 360 / PS3 days you'd never find any console players who gave two shits about the frame rate.


----------



## chartube12 (Jan 18, 2017)

player594 said:


> Your a math wiz. Oops I guess not quite. $130+$70=$300. Uea sounds about right.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
> 
> ...


 
Trolling or just ignorant? Human eyes can tell uo to 10k on a plat surfer. Why do you think Imax moviesvare called imax n cost a ton a ticket? Because imax movies are eye maxed resolution!


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> I don't really mind the cheap hardware, especially not with the Switch, considering the portability. Many first party Nintendo games are 60 fps and that's what I like the most. Every 3D Zelda has been 30 fps, would never expect anything else so I'm not disappointed, especially considering it's an open world game. Like, legit, tell me one AAA open world game on a console that is 60 fps


The portability means nothing to me. In fact it will be largely wasted on me which is a shame I'm treating it purely as a console with gimped specs for features I'm never going to use.

I'd trade away the portability too for better hardware. I just want to sit my ass down and play the games unhindered. I don't plan to run a 5k race or skydiving while playing LoZ.


----------



## linuxares (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> The portability means nothing to me. In fact it will be largely wasted on me which is a shame I'm treating it purely as a console with gimped specs for features I'm never going to use.
> 
> I'd trade away the portability too for better hardware. I just want to sit my ass down and play the games unhindered. I don't plan to run a 5k race or skydiving while playing LoZ.


I'm actually the opposite of you. I like the portability and of course I would want a powerhouse. Then again, it would probably overheat and drink the battery in two seconds. Do I wish the big N pulled out the guns and more or less made a linux/android system the size of  NUC? Yes, I do. But I'm not expecting it since I think the Switch is a transition to kill both the their homeconsole and portable consoles. So they just focus on one system now days instead of two. I might be wrong, but it's just a feeling I have.


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

linuxares said:


> I'm actually the opposite of you. I like the portability and of course I would want a powerhouse. Then again, it would probably overheat and drink the battery in two seconds. Do I wish the big N pulled out the guns and more or less made a linux/android system the size of  NUC? Yes, I do. But I'm not expecting it since I think the Switch is a transition to kill both the their homeconsole and portable consoles. So they just focus on one system now days instead of two. I might be wrong, but it's just a feeling I have.


But why does portability mean so much to you.

I don't know what you do with your life but if I'm going out I likely have something I'm suppose to be doing. I'm not going to be playing this while driving and there isn't any moments that I'm having to wait for me to pull this out and play. So I get shit done for whatever reason I leave my home and come back home and sit down to play my games. No reason to need the portability (for me).


----------



## player594 (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> The portability means nothing to me. In fact it will be largely wasted on me which is a shame I'm treating it purely as a console with gimped specs for features I'm never going to use.
> 
> I'd trade away the portability too for better hardware. I just want to sit my ass down and play the games unhindered. I don't plan to run a 5k race or skydiving while playing LoZ.


Then your not the targeted consumer. Stick to the xbone or ps4.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## linuxares (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> But why does portability mean so much to you.
> 
> I don't know what you do with your life but if I'm going out I likely have something I'm suppose to be doing. I'm not going to be playing this while driving and there isn't any moments that I'm having to wait for me to pull this out and play. So I get shit done for whatever reason I leave my home and come back home and sit down to play my games. No reason to need the portability (for me).


I can sit back and relax either in my bed, my sofa or heck on the run. Take it to my friends and play something tiny or silly. I see potinital on the portability. I even see the fun factor in "1-2 Switch" but I would have liked that to be like a 5$ title.

I even see how it can be the next 3DS. Getting great games and hopefully some wonderful JRPGs. The portability and the screen will make it easier for me to play as well. If my GF goes to bed earlier than me (that is common) I can just plug a headset in to the Switch and keep playing. Instead of a big bulky TV.


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

player594 said:


> Then your not the targeted consumer. Stick to the xbone or ps4.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Can I play 1st party Nintendo on an xboner or ps4?


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> Can I play 1st party Nintendo on an xboner or ps4?


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


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> But why does portability mean so much to you.
> 
> I don't know what you do with your life but if I'm going out I likely have something I'm suppose to be doing. I'm not going to be playing this while driving and there isn't any moments that I'm having to wait for me to pull this out and play. So I get shit done for whatever reason I leave my home and come back home and sit down to play my games. No reason to need the portability (for me).


Well, for one thing, not everyone has the luxury to just be able to just come and go. A lot of people are out and about a lot, have hours and hours of travel to school / work etc, many kids with divorced parents who travel back and forth between them, for these people, this is amazing.

I love the idea of it's portability, and will definitely carry my Switch around.


----------



## mightymuffy (Jan 18, 2017)

I've played the Witcher 3 on PS4 (1080p) and Xbox One (900p), same TV - stop to admire the view, and yes there's a difference, but running around/fighting/dodging - in other words, actually gaming... and you can't see the difference.. I reckon you'd need a 65" screen and be sat about 5 feet away to see anything.

Also take note that launch Wii U titles all ran at 720p, including NSMBU.... once the teams have got to grips with the hardware we'll see better results, this has been the case on every console going: don't assume every game will be 900p from now on.

I'm not one to defend the Switch, but everyone claiming this launch title to be the be-all and end-all is mistaken.


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

grossaffe said:


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


People like me want the full experience like the other competitors but others don't want to pay for it.

I think consumers need better expectations that better quality means a more inflated price which I'm willing to pay for if it delivered on that end. But instead it looks like we're getting a slightly upgraded Wii U, terrific.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> People like me want the full experience like the other competitors but others don't want to pay for it.
> 
> I think consumers need better expectations that better quality means a more inflated price which I'm willing to pay for if it delivered on that end. But instead it looks like we're getting a slightly upgraded Wii U, terrific.


People are already bashing the current price for being on par with xbone and ps4. The Switch would bomb at a $500 price tag.

Nintendo thinks they have to be quirky to sell consoles, and the portability is non-negotiable for them.


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> People like me want the full experience like the other competitors but others don't want to pay for it.
> 
> I think consumers need better expectations that better quality means a more inflated price which I'm willing to pay for if it delivered on that end. But instead it looks like we're getting a slightly upgraded Wii U, terrific.


People like you want everything catered to their exact wants and complain when they're not fulfilled exactly as you deem right.  Here you are complaining about how they made the console a home/portable hybrid because it didn't suit your wants for pure power.  Nintendo does not revolve around you; deal with it.


----------



## dronesplitter (Jan 18, 2017)

I'm getting it for Wii U. It's the system it was made for and I don't buy new consoles/handhelds/hybrids at launch, so Wii U version for me


----------



## OliverWinstontin (Jan 18, 2017)

mightymuffy said:


> I've played the Witcher 3 on PS4 (1080p) and Xbox One (900p), same TV - stop to admire the view, and yes there's a difference, but running around/fighting/dodging - in other words, actually gaming... and you can't see the difference.. I reckon you'd need a 65" screen and be sat about 5 feet away to see anything.
> 
> Also take note that launch Wii U titles all ran at 720p, including NSMBU.... once the teams have got to grips with the hardware we'll see better results, this has been the case on every console going: don't assume every game will be 900p from now on.
> 
> I'm not one to defend the Switch, but everyone claiming this launch title to be the be-all and end-all is mistaken.



And as awesome as everyone said that game was on consoles its funny because again it is an open world game that only ran at 30 FPS on consoles. It is funny how everything is like OMG amazing game on PS4 and it runs at 30 FPS but a Nintendo open world game at 30 FPS OMG game sucks, Nintendo is underpowered.


----------



## Qtis (Jan 18, 2017)

Interested to see if we could get a Nvidia shield TV version of the switch at some point in the same fashion as the PS TV. Hack off part of the price and roll with it. I wouldn't be too sad by this if it meant better overall performance with a smaller size box on a big screen in the way emulators bring the best out of Wii games


----------



## CreAtor135 (Jan 18, 2017)

Uhhh.... CEMU anyone..?


----------



## dronesplitter (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> You have some serious damage to your eyes if you can't.
> 
> Also, why are people so surprised BotW is 30 fps? *All* 3D Zelda games have been 30.


If only that were true. The N64 Zelda games ran 20fps at best, but I have to admit to being nostalgia blind about those myself sometimes.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

dronesplitter said:


> If only that were true. The N64 Zelda games ran 20fps at best, but I have to admit to being nostalgia blind about those myself sometimes.


Haha, yeah, ok, max 30 fps


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> People like you want everything catered to their exact wants and complain when they're not fulfilled exactly as you deem right.  Here you are complaining about how they made the console a home/portable hybrid because it didn't suit your wants for pure power.  Nintendo does not revolve around you; deal with it.


I literally would not complain one bit if the specs were something remotely close to the current gen competitors.

I also acknowledge this is an unpopular opinion and i wouldn't seriously expect them to do it. Just wishful thinking.

Perhaps as a middle ground they could make the console/handheld part $300 but a pure console version for $500. I wouldn't see that happening either but having that choice would please the two crowds I mentioned before.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 18, 2017)

dronesplitter said:


> If only that were true. The N64 Zelda games ran 20fps at best, but I have to admit to being nostalgia blind about those myself sometimes.


Pal was 17fps. Think about that.



RemixDeluxe said:


> I literally would not complain one bit if the specs were something remotely close to the current gen competitors.
> 
> I also acknowledge this is an unpopular opinion and i wouldn't seriously expect them to do it. Just wishful thinking.
> 
> Perhaps as a middle ground they could make the console/handheld part $300 but a pure console version for $500. I wouldn't see that happening either but having that choice would please the two crowds I mentioned before.


Wouldn't the suped up console version split the market? Or are you thinking of a PS4K type improvement.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

x65943 said:


> Pal was 17fps. Think about that.


Man, what a movie! That's like, SuperMovie™ or something. I mean, if 24fps is professional and anything above looks like "amateur home movies", imagine what 17 must be!


----------



## Imacaredformy2ds (Jan 18, 2017)

x65943 said:


> Pal was 17fps. Think about that.
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the suped up console version split the market? Or are you thinking of a PS4K type improvement.


Was it actually that bad? Holy shit


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

x65943 said:


> Pal was 17fps. Think about that.
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the suped up console version split the market? Or are you thinking of a PS4K type improvement.


I was thinking of two different models of the console at launch.

One with the console/portable tablet at $300 and another SKU that is just the hardware for $500.

People can pick which one they want depending on their budget. Win/win.


----------



## Hozu (Jan 18, 2017)

If anyone honestly believed that a $300 tablet would run this game at 1080p/60fps when PS4/XBone can't do it on non-racing 3D games, I know a Nigerian prince you should talk to.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> I was thinking of two different models of the console at launch.
> 
> One with the console/portable tablet at $300 and another SKU that is just the hardware for $500.
> 
> People can pick which one they want depending on their budget. Win/win.


But why would the home console version be more expensive? It should be way cheaper.


----------



## Imacaredformy2ds (Jan 18, 2017)

Hozu said:


> If anyone honestly believed that a $300 tablet would run this game at 1080p/60fps when PS4/XBone can't do it on non-racing 3D games, I know a Nigerian prince you should talk to.


I'm putting that in my sig 
Some people's hopes are ridiculously high


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 18, 2017)

x65943 said:


> But why would the home console version be more expensive? It should be way cheaper.


Because he thinks they should put a GTX 1080 in there.


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

x65943 said:


> But why would the home console version be more expensive? It should be way cheaper.


Because of the stronger hardware to run games properly. I'd give up the tablet for that if that's what it takes.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> Because of the stronger hardware to run games properly. I'd give up the tablet for that if that's what it takes.


Then I reiterate my earlier point, wouldn't the suped up console version split the market? 

Or are you thinking of a PS4K type improvement with higher fps and better resolution, but with games that are playable on both.


----------



## Plstic (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please


maybe your eyes


----------



## nIxx (Jan 18, 2017)

They should sell every hardware for the price I want and of course with High-End hardware


----------



## sblast3 (Jan 18, 2017)

i guess the system needed more *ARMS*


----------



## nIxx (Jan 18, 2017)

sblast3 said:


> i guess the system needed more *ARMS*


Maybe they will add more *ARMS *with another Dock 
But i guess only time will tell what comes in the future.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jan 18, 2017)

nIxx said:


> Maybe they will add more *ARMS *with another Dock


arms like in arm13?


----------



## nIxx (Jan 18, 2017)

ARM128 Supercharged

PS: This isn't a real thing or maybe it is !? ;P


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

x65943 said:


> Then I reiterate my earlier point, wouldn't the suped up console version split the market?
> 
> Or are you thinking of a PS4K type improvement with higher fps and better resolution, but with games that are playable on both.


I was thinking more of a 2DS type of solution but instead of removing what made the 3ds cost more (hinges, no 3D, two screens) there would be a pro version that removes the portability while still maintaining the nessesary features so there are no upgrade version exclusive content or even original Switch content.

Hope that clears things up.


----------



## nIxx (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> I was thinking more of a 2DS type of solution but instead of removing what made the 3ds cost more (hinges, no 3D, two screens) there would be a pro version that removes the portability while still maintaining the nessesary features so there are no upgrade version exclusive content or even original Switch content.
> 
> Hope that clears things up.



That obviously isn't their plan right know. They didn't even release the Switch by the way ^^


----------



## DarkCoffe64 (Jan 18, 2017)

Who cares? Just play the damn game.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> I was thinking more of a 2DS type of solution but instead of removing what made the 3ds cost more (hinges, no 3D, two screens) there would be a pro version that removes the portability while still maintaining the nessesary features so there are no upgrade version exclusive content or even original Switch content.
> 
> Hope that clears things up.


But you see how if you kept out all the stuff that made it portable, without increasing the specs - the system would cost a lot less.

You could probably shave off $150 from the price tag if the system was fully contained within the dock.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> Hypothetically if this was released on a PS4, could that allow 1080p @ 60fps?


Most likely not. PS4Pro MAYBE


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jan 18, 2017)

x65943 said:


> But you see how if you kept out all the stuff that made it portable, without increasing the specs - the system would cost a lot less.
> 
> You could probably shave off $150 from the price tag if the system was fully contained within the dock.


Does having the console as a tablet really add to the price that significantly?

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



nIxx said:


> That obviously isn't their plan right know. They didn't even release the Switch by the way ^^


Are you sure they didn't release the Switch? I got mine yesterday in the mail, I guess you didn't get the memo.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> Does having the console as a tablet really add to the price that significantly?


Oh yeah. You don't have to deal with combatting thermals and have a LOT more room to pack bigger (cheaper) hardware in


----------



## Hozu (Jan 18, 2017)

RemixDeluxe said:


> Does having the console as a tablet really add to the price that significantly?



I believe parts designed for mobile devices are more expensive due to having to be smaller, and decently powerful while not producing so much heat that it needs a fan to vent it. R&D costs and such.


----------



## Thirty3Three (Jan 18, 2017)

To all those people calling people blind for not being able to tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, shut the fuck up. Stop trying to find ways to feel surperior to others. My eyes are fine and I can't tell a difference. If you can tell a difference, you must have very crazy weird eye site, ora SHIT TON of experience in LEARNING the differences via comparisons. 

Any normal/casual gamer really cannot tell the difference. Stop trying to talk down to others with lies to make yourself feel better.


/rant.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 18, 2017)

Thirty3Three said:


> To all those people calling people blind for not being able to tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, shut the fuck up. Stop trying to find ways to feel surperior to others. My eyes are fine and I can't tell a difference. If you can tell a difference, you must have very crazy weird eye site, ora SHIT TON of experience in LEARNING the differences via comparisons.
> 
> Any normal/casual gamer really cannot tell the difference. Stop trying to talk down to others with lies to make yourself feel better.
> 
> ...


That

I _can _tell the difference (games definitely look smoother at 60fps) but games running at 30fps does not by any means detract from the overall experience


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

Thirty3Three said:


> To all those people calling people blind for not being able to tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, shut the fuck up. Stop trying to find ways to feel surperior to others. My eyes are fine and I can't tell a difference. If you can tell a difference, you must have very crazy weird eye site, ora SHIT TON of experience in LEARNING the differences via comparisons.
> 
> Any normal/casual gamer really cannot tell the difference. Stop trying to talk down to others with lies to make yourself feel better.
> 
> ...


It's just simply not true though. Since you're a casual gamer, if by any chance you have PS4 with The Last of Us Remastered, go into the Settings and enable the 30 FPS lock. Still no difference? You can literally feel it. It's not just what it looks like, it's also more responsive. TLOU for example, I can play WAY better in the Remastered edition, because the 60 fps makes it SO much easier to aim.

And...feeling superior? It's about the gameplay experience being better for us, that's all.

Check this. Nothing?

Also, what is this eye site you're talking about?


----------



## britain4 (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please



Yes they do. Maybe yours don't, but mine do.



nero99 said:


> It's pretty stupid of them to release it on the wii u. I mean, why would you go buy the switch version when you can just pirate it on the wii u? It's almost like Nintendo went brain dead with this idea.



Well this game will be a big deal so I assume they will release a patch for all the exploits we use at the moment and make it mandatory to run the game. Just a thought. Maybe they'll even push it from a different server so the blocks we use won't work either.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 18, 2017)

DarkCoffe64 said:


> Who cares? Just play the damn game.


90% of the people on the internet, esp. IGN are on mental breakdown over the framerate and resolution differences


----------



## fatsquirrel (Jan 18, 2017)

Touko White said:


> Doesn't surprise me that Nintendo can't be arsed to actually make their console powerful which would make sales higher if they did...


Please stop staring into my soul


----------



## digipimp75 (Jan 18, 2017)

The more I read, the more I'm unsure about getting Zelda on the Switch.   It's sounding like it was lazily ported and not very well optimized.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 18, 2017)

digipimp75 said:


> The more I read, the more I'm unsure about getting Zelda on the Switch.   It's sounding like it was lazily ported and not very well optimized.


Have you not seen any of the live footage online? Stop reading first (and sometimes third)-hand accounts and just watch it and look at the comparisons yourself


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

digipimp75 said:


> The more I read, the more I'm unsure about getting Zelda on the Switch.   It's sounding like it was lazily ported and not very well optimized.


What in the love of fuck are you reading? Both versions run at 30 FPS, Switch renders it at higher resolution.
Obviously, it's a Wii U title ported to the Switch. No secret there. It was announced before the Switch for christs sake. And "not very well optimized".....? What?


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Jan 18, 2017)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> I was totally just reading about this and was gonna make a thread, damn you Prans



Watching staff members fight over who was gonna do it first is part of the reason why i like the news section. 

To be honest, since they prioritized the switch as mobile than console, i would suspected it would be something like this.... but what the heck is 900P? It sounds as crazy as the vita 540P.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> Watching staff members fight over who was gonna do it first is part of the reason why i like the news section.
> 
> To be honest, since they prioritized the switch as mobile than console, i would suspected it would be something like this.... but what the heck is 900P? It sounds as crazy as the vita 540P.


As have been stated about 50 times in this thread, 900p is a VERY common resolution to render in for this gen. XBone and PS4 does it with most games.


----------



## Daggot (Jan 18, 2017)

Thirty3Three said:


> To all those people calling people blind for not being able to tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, shut the fuck up. Stop trying to find ways to feel surperior to others. My eyes are fine and I can't tell a difference. If you can tell a difference, you must have very crazy weird eye site, ora SHIT TON of experience in LEARNING the differences via comparisons.
> 
> Any normal/casual gamer really cannot tell the difference. Stop trying to talk down to others with lies to make yourself feel better.
> 
> ...


I'd argue because you're wrong but sometimes it's better for people to see themselves. 

http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates-text


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 18, 2017)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> To be honest, since they prioritized the switch as mobile than console, i would suspected it would be something like this.... but what the heck is 900P? It sounds as crazy as the vita 540P.


The same resolution most XBOne games render at


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

Daggot said:


> I'd argue because you're wrong but sometimes it's better for people to see themselves.
> 
> http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates-text


Whoa, that's almost better than 30vs60fps.com. Nice!


----------



## flame1234 (Jan 18, 2017)

Resolution is not a big deal but frame rate is huge.
I can't tell differences in resolution except side by side. Is there a similar site to 30vs60 for resolution? I'm basically looking for several sets of images: One set rendered in 1080p and scaled to 720p and the other rendered in 720p. The first should be higher quality but I have trouble telling the difference.

60fps is important for gameplay. 60fps gives you more information so you'll be better at controlling the game.

I'm a Hatsune Miku fan and the Future Tone PS4 game is her first game with 60fps. The 2010 arcade game is too, but who lives near a Japanese video arcade? Anyway, a lot of players reported more success and I think it's because 60fps gives you more information so it's easier to get the timing correct. This was my experience too using the PSP games' 60fps cheat codes.


----------



## air2004 (Jan 18, 2017)

This system is DOA and I believe this will be a first for Nintendo. Back to back console failures.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> As have been stated about 50 times in this thread, 900p is a VERY common resolution to render in for this gen. XBone and PS4 does it with most games.





TotalInsanity4 said:


> The same resolution most XBOne games render at


Well my tv never heard of it. It only knows 480P 720P 1080I and 1080P. So i didn't know okay? Anyway, To be honest i usuaully think the lower resolution was to help increase performance in games, which is why most games don't use 1080P even if the console supports it, while is disappointing, is not bad, just 2D sprite games always seem to look okay without the higher res than the 3D games do.

It can't look that bad, is cel shaded too, so it would be almost like wind waker HD on wii u... or dolphin or something.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> Well my tv never heard of it. It only knows 480P 720P 1080I and 1080P. So i didn't know okay? Anyway, To be honest i usuaully think the lower resolution was to help increase performance in games, which is why most games don't use 1080P even if the console supports it, while is disappointing, is not bad, just 2D sprite games always seem to look okay without the higher res than the 3D games do.
> 
> It can't look that bad, is cel shaded too, so it would be almost like wind waker HD on wii u... or dolphin or something.


They don't output at 900p. They render at 900p and upscale to 1080p.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 18, 2017)

Thirty3Three said:


> To all those people calling people blind for not being able to tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, shut the fuck up. Stop trying to find ways to feel surperior to others. My eyes are fine and I can't tell a difference. If you can tell a difference, you must have very crazy weird eye site, ora SHIT TON of experience in LEARNING the differences via comparisons.
> 
> Any normal/casual gamer really cannot tell the difference. Stop trying to talk down to others with lies to make yourself feel better.
> 
> ...


To add to the above. It's not abnormal to notice the difference. It's something I noticed when I built my first PC 4 years ago. Playing crysis 3 on the 360 and PC was a huge difference. Its something my friends and family, most are casual gamers, noticed a difference.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jan 18, 2017)

its pretty obvious the game was simply held back to offer something fresh for the switch at launch, if it wasn't for the switch coming out BotW would have probably dropped last year for WiiU

I'm going to put all my pessimism on the back burner, although I will say Mario odyssey had a few scenes that looked a bit dodgy in graphical fidelity, but I think that stemmed from the jumping between attempted realism and cartoony sections


----------



## Burnt Lasagna (Jan 18, 2017)

flame1234 said:


> Resolution is not a big deal but frame rate is huge.


For a game like Zelda, 60fps is nonessential.
30fps is totally fine and fits more methodical and story driven games.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

Burnt Lasagna said:


> For a game like Zelda, 60fps is nonessential.
> 30fps is totally fine and fits more methodical and story driven games.


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.


----------



## Burnt Lasagna (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


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

Changing frame rate can effect the mood of the game.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> What in the love of fuck are you reading? Both versions run at 30 FPS, Switch renders it at higher resolution.
> Obviously, it's a Wii U title ported to the Switch. No secret there. It was announced before the Switch for christs sake. And "not very well optimized".....? What?


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.


----------



## digipimp75 (Jan 18, 2017)

**DELETE**


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

digipimp75 said:


> @Shadowfied


Hi!


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> 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)


Memoir said:


> 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 (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> 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 (Jan 18, 2017)

gamesquest1 said:


> 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 



digipimp75 said:


> 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_Dreams (Jan 18, 2017)

gamesquest1 said:


> 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 (Jan 18, 2017)

Burnt Lasagna said:


> 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 (Jan 18, 2017)

Prans said:


> 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 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 (Jan 18, 2017)

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


----------



## Noctosphere (Jan 18, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


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


900 p rendered to 1080p


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


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


1600x900.
Decently common laptop res.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> 1600x900.
> Decently common laptop res.


i though laptop were usually 1366x768


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jan 18, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> 900 p rendered to 1080p


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


Shadowfied said:


> 1600x900.
> Decently common laptop res.


Thank you.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jan 18, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> 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 (Jan 18, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> 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 (Jan 18, 2017)

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


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 18, 2017)

Imacaredformy2ds said:


> @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 (Jan 18, 2017)

dronesplitter said:


> 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 (Jan 18, 2017)

OliverWinstontin said:


> 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 (Jan 18, 2017)

Burnt Lasagna said:


> 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 (Jan 18, 2017)

dronesplitter said:


> 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 (Jan 18, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


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





grossaffe said:


> 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.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

Burnt Lasagna said:


> 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 infinity configured by the end user destroys the authors 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".



PCMR is correct when it comes to frame rate though. There is nothing cinematic or aesthetic with a certain frame rate. We are just so used to movies being 24, that we associate it with movies. Games are supposed to run at a high frame rate to correspond to user input. There is a reason 60 is a standard for games.

If a game needs to be technically crippled in order to achieve a certain feeling, it's doing it wrong. That's not how you achieve an aesthetic, a mood, or a certain artstyle.


----------



## DarthDub (Jan 18, 2017)

Did everyone forget that Wii U games can be patched? I'm pretty sure that the Switch will have updates too.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> Did everyone forget that Wii U games can be patched? I'm pretty sure that the Switch will have updates too.


.....and?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 18, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> Did everyone forget that Wii U games can be patched? I'm pretty sure that the Switch will have updates too.


That doesn't have anything to do with the topic though


----------



## Burnt Lasagna (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> PCMR is correct when it comes to frame rate though. There is nothing cinematic or aesthetic with a certain frame rate. We are just so used to movies being 24, that we associate it with movies. Games are supposed to run at a high frame rate to correspond to user input. There is a reason 60 is a standard for games.
> 
> If a game needs to be technically crippled in order to achieve a certain feeling, it's doing it wrong. That's not how you achieve an aesthetic, a mood, or a certain artstyle.


Do you think TV Soap Operas look great? Do you think 60fps should be the standard for Movies?
Are all the movies that are still in 24fps "crippled"? If we filmed everything at 600fps, would that make things better?

EDIT: Also, there is no standard frame rate for games. It's generally all over the place from game to game.


----------



## kehkou (Jan 18, 2017)

Modern gamers are spoiled. I remember the eye bleed when I played a game in 480i for the first time. 720p is more than enough for me. Anything higher doesn't really make it any funner for me, just computationally more expensive. Heck, I don't even think my TVs support 1080, just 768p.


----------



## DarthDub (Jan 18, 2017)

VinLark said:


> That doesn't have anything to do with the topic though


Patches to help optimize the experience more? Maybe even a resolution increase?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 18, 2017)

Burnt Lasagna said:


> Do you think TV Soap Operas look great? Do you think 60fps should be the standard for Movies?
> Are all the movies that are still in 24fps "crippled"? If we filmed everything at 600fps, would that make things better?


Movies aren't games. It sounds like your projecting.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

Burnt Lasagna said:


> Do you think TV Soap Operas look great? Do you think 60fps should be the standard for Movies?
> Are all the movies that are still in 24fps "crippled"? If we filmed everything at 600fps, would that make things better?


Yes. I think high frame rate movies look good. I actually really enjoy watching movies @ 144Hz with SVP and having them interpolated.

Fun fact for you, MANY MANY modern TVs interpolate frames by default, making movies and TV look way smoother already.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 18, 2017)

Burnt Lasagna said:


> Do you think TV Soap Operas look great? Do you think 60fps should be the standard for Movies?
> Are all the movies that are still in 24fps "crippled"?


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.



kehkou said:


> Modern gamers are spoiled. I remember the eye bleed when I played a game in 480i for the first time. 720p is more than enough for me. Anything higher doesn't really make it any funner for me, just computationally more expensive. Heck, I don't even think my TVs support 1080, just 768p.


People having a different preference to you is being spoiled? Okay then.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> Patches to help optimize the experience more? Maybe even a resolution increase?


Trust me, they're not gonna patch a resolution increase.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 18, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> Patches to help optimize the experience more? Maybe even a resolution increase?


For the Wii U? Hell no. That thing is dead

For the switch? No. Just because that would be too much work for them. It's a relatively weak system


----------



## kehkou (Jan 18, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> People having a different preference to you is being spoiled? Okay then.


Wasn't directing it toward you. I just don't like the "If its not 1080p60fps, its the worst game in the world!" mentality. Then again I was around during the 8-bit days.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 18, 2017)

kehkou said:


> Wasn't directing it toward you.


This is a public forum. People can reply to your comment however they want to.


----------



## sonicmanipulation (Jan 18, 2017)

For a single player game 30fps should be fine. 1080p would have been preferable but im sure plenty of xb1 games run at 900p also if that. It is a little concerning and hope the switch isnt too under powered. Maybe its 900p 30fps to accomdate the capture features that should be in it at some point.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 18, 2017)

kehkou said:


> Wasn't directing it toward you. I just don't like the "If its not 1080p60fps, its the worst game in the world!" mentality. Then again I was around during the 8-bit days.


I didn't say you did. I'm just saying that you should understand that people are going to feel differently than you do. Just because you don't care about 1080p or 60fps (to be honest I don't care too much either, but I understand and respect the views of those who do), doesn't mean that it shouldn't matter to anyone. Some people care and that doesn't make them spoiled.


----------



## Burnt Lasagna (Jan 18, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> Yes. I think high frame rate movies look good. I actually really enjoy watching movies @ 144Hz with SVP and having them interpolated.
> 
> Fun fact for you, MANY MANY modern TVs interpolate frames by default, making movies and TV look way smoother already.


TVs also have a 24hz mode that ensures a perfect 24fps.
Interpolating frames looks like shit. You have to be insane to leave this on.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 18, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



No, modern gamers are, in fact, spoiled. Why? We didn't cry and whine about framerates and resolutions back then. Nowadays, it's a fad to cry about every little detail in any game. Whether it's how bad the graphics are. How low and the choppy the frames are.. and everything in between. It's not a preference, it's a sense of entitlement.


----------



## kehkou (Jan 18, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> I didn't say you did. I'm just saying that you should understand that people are going to feel differently than you do. Just because you do not care about 1080p or 60fps (to be honest I don't care too much, but I understand and respect the views of those who do), doesn't mean that it shouldn't matter to anyone. Some people care.


Yeah, it just a preference, not a LAW lol. I get you. Some do it for gameplay, some for eye candy. I should put out there that I don't HATE HD games (they are beautiful) just that it is not an absolute necessity for me. I'm sure I'm not the only human who thinks so.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 18, 2017)

Are people honestly defending sub 60 fps? With the level technology is at there is no excuse for Nintendo to be releasing a console that can't even push the standard for modern games. Then again this is Gbatemp where everyone defends Nintendo to the grave because they can't do anything wrong.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 18, 2017)

king_leo said:


> Are people honestly defending sub 60 fps? With the level technology is at there is no excuse for Nintendo to be releasing a console that can't even push the standard for modern games. Then again this is Gbatemp where everyone defends Nintendo to the grave because they can't do anything wrong.



What about Sony and Microsoft with their powerful hardware? Why is it up to Nintendo (who never bragged about the power under the hood btw) to set that standard?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 18, 2017)

king_leo said:


> Are people honestly defending sub 60 fps? With the level technology is at there is no excuse for Nintendo to be releasing a console that can't even push the standard for modern games. Then again this is Gbatemp where everyone defends Nintendo to the grave because they can't do anything wrong.


Remember, everyone grew up with Nintendo so it's just coming from a place of nostalgia. There is NO reason to defend this


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 18, 2017)

Memoir said:


> No, modern gamers are, in fact, spoiled. Why? We didn't cry and whine about framerates and resolutions back then. Nowadays, it's a fad to cry about every little detail in any game. Whether it's how bad the graphics are. How low and the choppy the frames are.. and everything in between. It's not a preference, it's a sense of entitlement.


Your smug sense of superiority notwithstanding, how do you know that it's not preference? If someone says "I'm disappointed that BotW isn't 60fps", is that being 'entitled'? Why are you so afraid of admitting that other people have views different to you? Why do you feel the need to reduce other people's opinions to 'fads', 'crying and whining', and 'entitlement'? Is it so difficult to understand that some people care about fps and/or resolution? Just because you didn't 'back in the day', doesn't mean that people can't have valid concerns now.


----------



## kehkou (Jan 18, 2017)

VinLark said:


> Remember, everyone grew up with Nintendo so it's just coming from a place of nostalgia. There is NO reason to defend this


After playing Minecraft locked at 8FPS (damn Intel GFX), I'll never complain about 30FPS


----------



## dronesplitter (Jan 18, 2017)

king_leo said:


> Are people honestly defending sub 60 fps? With the level technology is at there is no excuse for Nintendo to be releasing a console that can't even push the standard for modern games. Then again this is Gbatemp where everyone defends Nintendo to the grave because they can't do anything wrong.


Sometimes I feel like one of the few Nintendo fans that's also heavily critical of their poor decisions, but then I realize that there are more people that see it my way, apparently on the internet the diehard defenders are just more vocal and aggressive about it. If Nintendo really does eventually go under (not saying they will soon), those defenders will be the most heartbroken, I'm sure. They won't understand it when there were people that saw it coming but couldn't explain to deaf ears.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

king_leo said:


> Are people honestly defending sub 60 fps? With the level technology is at there is no excuse for Nintendo to be releasing a console that can't even push the standard for modern games. Then again this is Gbatemp where everyone defends Nintendo to the grave because they can't do anything wrong.


I agree, but it's not a Nintendo exclusive thing. If we're not counting indie games, the Switch will have more 60 fps games than PS4 / XBone.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 18, 2017)

Memoir said:


> What about Sony and Microsoft with their powerful hardware? Why is it up to Nintendo (who never bragged about the power under the hood btw) to set that standard?


I never once said or implied it was up to Nintendo to "set" the standard. I have been just as critical on the PS4/XBone in other posts. There is a reason I own neither of the consoles. This generation of consoles is the first generation to be released weaker than the average gaming PC on launch. I have been this critical on the console scene in general as of late, the fact that I can build a gaming PC for the same price as a new console that runs BETTER should tell you something.


----------



## stl25 (Jan 18, 2017)

Memoir said:


> What about Sony and Microsoft with their powerful hardware? Why is it up to Nintendo (who never bragged about the power under the hood btw) to set that standard?



It is not up to Nintendo to set the standard.  If the console sells well and can ACTUALLY compete for the market share, then this is a mute point.  That being said, I will be surprised if the Switch can contend with PS4 and Xbox One after the first year of it's release.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 18, 2017)

king_leo said:


> I never once said or implied it was up to Nintendo to "set" the standard. I have been just as critical on the PS4/XBone in other posts. There is a reason I own neither of the consoles. This generation of consoles is the first generation to be released weaker than the average gaming PC on launch. I have been this critical on the console scene in general as of late. The fact that I can build a gaming PC for the same price as a new console that runs BETTER should tell you something.


Agreed, agreed AND agreed.


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 18, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> 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.


It's fine to have differing opinions.  But it's obnoxious to continually whine about things not being custom made to fit your exact desires.


----------



## John256145 (Jan 18, 2017)

First time hearing of 900p.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## kehkou (Jan 18, 2017)

What I noticed more is the lighting and texture differences between the two. The switch draws more realistic fog and higher detailed LOD texture, but the Wii U had way better looking water.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jan 18, 2017)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> The screen is gonna be 720p and unless you're using an iPhone you will notice the difference between 720p and 900p and 1080p. I also mean "drop" as in when you play from your tv the resolution and power is gonna drop when using the handheld.


Heck, I can't even notice the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 5 inch screen unless I specifically look for pixels. And yet, phone makers are shoving QHD displays on tiny screens on us. What's the point other than deliberately decreasing the battery life?


----------



## nolimits59 (Jan 19, 2017)

John256145 said:


> First time hearing of 900p.
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


a shitload of PS3 games and 360 also have that res., some PS4 and One too .


----------



## Viri (Jan 19, 2017)

It's so odd how this doesn't surprise me or bum me out at all. I guess I'm just used to console games running at 30fps. If I want 60fps, I just use my PC 

As for buying a Switch, well, my sister's Wii-U is collecting dust next to me, so, I guess I have a Zelda machine! I'll get a Switch after it's hacked, has games, and lower price.


----------



## JPnintendo (Jan 19, 2017)

I want less resolution and more framerate


----------



## tbb043 (Jan 19, 2017)

Both launch on the same day, March 3.

One up on TP for gamecube, then

Both have a frame rate of 30fps.

This is fine.. 30's perfectly playable, so long as there aren't drops and stutters. 60fps games tend to look more weird than anything  affecting  playability

Both versions of the game offer the same content.

This is the only thing that really matters.

On a TV, the Nintendo Switch version of the game renders in 900p while the Wii U version renders in 720p.

If 900p TV's existed and I had one, I might care

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.

Meh. Environmental sounds aren't super important. Open air feel, means nothing when you wear headphones.

The physical copy of the Wii U version will require 3GB of available memory on the Wii U system or an external drive.

Unless you've got a launch 8gig, you should easily have that much.

Some icons, such as onscreen buttons, differ between the two versions.

No doubt just to reflect the different looks of the systems' controllers

A Special Edition and Master Edition of the Wii U version are not available.

Oh darn, no extra crap to buy at exorbitant mark up. 

Looks like you aren't missing anything important staying with Wii U, unless you're a resolution whore or special edition hoarder.


----------



## Ryu Kenshin (Jan 19, 2017)

Please Nintendo, at least make it 720p/60 fps


----------



## F4LK (Jan 19, 2017)

kehkou said:


> Wii U had way better looking water.


i can't wait for Mario WIIU to appear on the miiverse to say that. http://i.imgur.com/WvdpvIql.jpg

Doesn't every other zelda run in 30fps too?


----------



## endoverend (Jan 19, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> So most of the PS4 and XBone libraries look bad on modern TVs too?
> 900p is REALLY common for consoles.
> 
> I mean, of course it's arguable what looks good etc. It's not gonna compare to a nice high-end PC with anti aliasing connected to your TV etc.


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.


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 19, 2017)

endoverend said:


> 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.


A title that was originally developed for another console.


----------



## kehkou (Jan 19, 2017)

F4LK said:


> i can't wait for Mario WIIU to appear on the miiverse to say that. http://i.imgur.com/WvdpvIql.jpg
> 
> Doesn't every other zelda run in 30fps too?


IIRC The Wind Waker HD was 60fps, but that was a remake.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 19, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please



Now, you are speaking my language! Really, 3fps and 60fps through eyes see no difference. They are complaint because they are just childish!


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Jan 19, 2017)

endoverend said:


> 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".


----------



## Duckling (Jan 19, 2017)

30 FPS for 900p and I would have to spend 300+ for NX? Lol?


----------



## XDel (Jan 19, 2017)

That footage was 30FPS? Didn't notice, it don't bother me.


----------



## Captain_N (Jan 19, 2017)

I can care a less what resolution it runs at. I just want to play the game.  all you that complain about the resolution need to just deal with it or don't buy the game. Yall don't complain about broken beta games released on the other consoles. all this fps and resolution is dumb. To much Nerd Rage. the fps/resolution noobs would be eaten a live in the 90's. People hating the game for all the wrong reasons...


----------



## LinkBlaBla (Jan 19, 2017)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



why would it be terrible , iv seen a lot of guy like you saying it is under power it is that blablabla but none of you have real proof or details about the console hardware at all , yes it is a wii u port and i didn't expect such a drama for a port that was suppose to be wii u only...
All Nintendo consoles games i have played never lag that much it always the gameplay and feeling first for Nintendo industries and i think the switch is a overpowered console with a portable mode and seeing it is already sold out for pre-order tell me that it gonna blow the competition with ps4 pro and xbone scorpio!


----------



## SSG Vegeta (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm not disappointed because in the end all we care about is playing the games right. But Nintendo could have added upgradeable graphics cards for Nintendo Switch.


----------



## LinkBlaBla (Jan 19, 2017)

SSG Vegeta said:


> I'm not disappointed because in the end all we care about is playing the games right. But Nintendo could have added upgradeable graphics cards for Nintendo Switch.



no. Just buy a PC or a Razor core.


----------



## stl25 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm in for the Wii U version.  I play mostly 1st party games on Nintendo systems so I cannot justify buying a Switch at this time for 1 game.  When price drops and there are 5+ first party titles available I would be more inclined to invest in the Switch.


----------



## Nyteshade714 (Jan 19, 2017)

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.


----------



## Katsumi San (Jan 19, 2017)

These postings... western people are really care for such thing? I know I will have many fun this game because past console Zelda games is always be fun. This is true nature of game.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 19, 2017)

kehkou said:


> IIRC The Wind Waker HD was 60fps, but that was a remake.


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


----------



## stl25 (Jan 19, 2017)

I have to agree with @Nyteshade714,  Nintendo makes new consoles that are well behind current technology.  Granted the 1st party titles are usually system sellers, however 3rd party does not usually sell systems (at least in Nintendo's case).  The handheld mode of the Switch is a nice feature but games and content is ultimately what sells systems.  Considering their efforts from a technology standpoint, how much real effort does one expect on the games?


----------



## Bonestorm (Jan 19, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> come on guys, 30 fps, 60 fps, your eyes see no difference, dont complain please


30fps is abousletly fine...720 and 900p tho thats sad as hell

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



nolimits59 said:


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


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 19, 2017)

Bonestorm said:


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


No difference here for you?


----------



## Bonestorm (Jan 19, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> No difference here for you?


no the 30fps and 60fps move equally as fast to my eyes...maybe its different from person to person??? im not kiddding you the both move at same speed

the 15fps i can notice a difference


----------



## wiewiec (Jan 19, 2017)

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



And difference on cameras


----------



## xdarkmario (Jan 19, 2017)

well i can see up to 128 fps (give or take) no joke, i can easily see the difference between 30 and 60 fps (tested) i dont like 128 fps, i prefer 60 fps and i can tolerate 30 fps.
that aside im not to excited about 720p, this is going to look like shit on my huge tv.


----------



## leonmagnus99 (Jan 19, 2017)

no 1080 p and no 60 fp ? :/ ..hmm


----------



## player594 (Jan 19, 2017)

DarkCoffe64 said:


> Who cares? Just play the damn game.


My thought exactly. Fun is fun, doesn't have to be pretty.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## theoperator288 (Jan 19, 2017)

endoverend said:


> 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.





Tom Bombadildo said:


> 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?
> 
> ...





Nyteshade714 said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2017)

Burnt Lasagna said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2017)

Burnt Lasagna said:


> I disagree.
> 24fps/30fps is the movie and television frame rate. It looks cinematic.
> 
> Changing frame rate can effect the mood of the game.


I 100% agree

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## player594 (Jan 19, 2017)

Memoir said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## player594 (Jan 19, 2017)

wiewiec said:


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



I can honestly say, I see no difference. Gameplay looks the same.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 19, 2017)

player594 said:


> 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.


----------



## potato3334 (Jan 19, 2017)

player594 said:


> Your a math wiz. Oops I guess not quite. $130+$70=$300. Uea sounds about right.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
> 
> ...



The charging dock is like 90 bucks or so


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Jan 19, 2017)

theoperator288 said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Jan 19, 2017)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> 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


----------



## ertaboy356b (Jan 19, 2017)

Launch titles are mostly shit, especially this game as a port.

You can play zelda games in a GBA emulator at 1000fps in 4K.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 19, 2017)

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 (Jan 19, 2017)

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.*_


----------



## theoperator288 (Jan 19, 2017)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> 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.


----------



## wiewiec (Jan 19, 2017)

player594 said:


> 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.


----------



## player594 (Jan 19, 2017)

wiewiec said:


> 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


----------



## wiewiec (Jan 19, 2017)

ItsKipz said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



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 ---------------------------



player594 said:


> 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.


----------



## player594 (Jan 19, 2017)

wiewiec said:


> 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 ---------------------------
> 
> ...


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. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Sick Wario (Jan 19, 2017)

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


----------



## wiewiec (Jan 19, 2017)

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 (Jan 19, 2017)

wiewiec said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2017)

player594 said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2017)

wiewiec said:


> 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 ---------------------------



ItsKipz said:


> 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...
> 
> ...


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


----------



## player594 (Jan 19, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2017)

player594 said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2017)

smileyhead said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2017)

player594 said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2017)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> ~snip~


I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here.



player594 said:


> 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 (Jan 20, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


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





Bonestorm said:


> 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 (Jan 20, 2017)

nolimits59 said:


> 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 (Jan 20, 2017)

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 (Jan 20, 2017)

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 (Jan 20, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> 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 (Jan 20, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> 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 (Jan 20, 2017)

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 (Jan 20, 2017)

pedro702 said:


> 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 (Jan 20, 2017)

retrofan_k said:


> 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 (Jan 20, 2017)

pedro702 said:


> 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.


----------



## nedron92 (Jan 20, 2017)

It's Zelda that only use 900p/30fps. 
I read at a German source, there were at the Switch Event in Frankfurt or Munich Herr in Germany, that mostly All other games are Output 1080p/60fps. If thats true, than good Job..


----------



## MidLevelCrisis (Jan 21, 2017)

fuyukaidesu said:


> Not a single Zelda game ever ran above 30 fps. Stop complaining.


A link between worlds on 3DS runs at 60 FPS...   and is notably smoother because of it.
triforce heroes does too actually, not that anyone cares about that one.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 21, 2017)

MidLevelCrisis said:


> A link between worlds on 3DS runs at 60 FPS...   and is notably smoother because of it.
> triforce heroes does too actually, not that anyone cares about that one.


Are you calling TH bad?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 21, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> Are you calling TH bad?


I think he is calling it unpopular.
Anyway it sold over 1 million copies. It doesn't seem so unpopular to me.


----------



## Bonestorm (Jan 21, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> 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.
> ...


ya your just making all this up...

i have a ps4 and wii u and...basically every console before those... i cannot see 60fps and i have no reason to need to justify anything

if anything i can use this same reasoning on you, you justify your expensive PC purchase on playing at 60fps...claiming it makes a difference ..when it really doesnt


----------



## megafalke (Jan 22, 2017)

Of course it is kinda sad that BotW won't run in 60fps, but to be honest, i'm just glad i get to play a new Zelda game. And it's FKING HUGE. I mean, it has 120(?) shrines. And around 1000 seeds to collect. I think it is better to get a 30fps game with great content instead of a 60fps game with 40 hours of play time.


----------



## AdamFX990 (Jan 22, 2017)

Prans said:


> 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.



Fail... XD


----------



## SSG Vegeta (Jan 24, 2017)

Too expensive for my budget.


----------



## SSG Vegeta (Jan 24, 2017)

Too expensive for my budget.


----------

