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

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

• Both launch on the same day, March 3.
• Both have a frame rate of 30fps.
• Both versions of the game offer the same content.
• On a TV, the Nintendo Switch version of the game renders in 900p while the Wii U version renders in 720p.
• The Nintendo Switch version has higher-quality environmental sounds. As a result, the sound of steps, water, grass, etc. are more realistic and enhance the game’s Open-Air feel.
• The physical copy of the Wii U version will require 3GB of available memory on the Wii U system or an external drive.
• Some icons, such as onscreen buttons, differ between the two versions.
• A Special Edition and Master Edition of the Wii U version are not available.

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

SOURCE

 

[petethepug]

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]

Only on 900p what a mess...

 

[petethepug]

Only on 900p what a mess...

Its a cartoon game with shaders...

What would you expect from Nintendo

 

[BlackWizzard17]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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

 

[Pacheko17]

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]

@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]

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.

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

It was bait. Don't get triggered.

 

[petethepug]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Silverthorn]

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]

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]

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

 

[player594]

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]

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..