Support NeoGAF

[KingSnake]

And 60fps.

Which is great. As I said, it is what it is, compromises need to be made, but it's probably the best specs Nintendo could get for what they wanted to do.

Aonuma said last spring. If you don't want people to give a certain time frame for granted to fit their narrative, don't do the same thing.

And the ports you mentioned aren't usually made by the same team while they're still developing the base game. So i'm not sure what you're trying to suggest here.

I'm trying to suggest that 9 months or 1 year for a team just working on porting and optimising Zelda it's not a small amount of effort as it's suggested to be.

 

[killatopak]

Honestly you simply don't buy a Nintendo console for AAA multiplatform games. Like, they haven't provided that experience for over a decade.

You buy a Switch for Nintendo gems, portable indies and best in class handheld graphics.

The X1 makes it clear that this will not be the place for AAA ports, unless portability is more important to you than graphics and performance.

I'd agree with everything but Nintendo is not a bastion of best in class graphics of anything.

 

[KojiKnight]

Dragon Quest has lower polygon counts and less vegetation as well. It still doesn't look bad, but to claim "identical" outside of framerates, lighting, and textures is simply false.

The only time it maintains 30fps is when you're not fighting. Which means most of the time it's in the 20s.

To be fair, this is from the same team that brought samurai warriors to the 3ds launch and it was a similar pile of poor performing poo.

 

[Hermii]

Which is great. As I said, it is what it is, compromises need to be made, but it's probably the best specs Nintendo could get for what they wanted to do.

Ofcourse compromises needs to be made, thats true on all hardware. Maybe 900p is the sweetspot for Nintendo games on this thing it could look that way so far.

 

[RAIDEN1]

So with the tech that it is inside the Switch, how long would it be before there would be a need for a Switch Pro? Would it be good enough to run an optimised frost-bite engine...? Could it run a battlefield one right now?

 

[Johannsson]

We knew this already though.

 

[PdotMichael]

We knew this already though.

Sure, it was pretty safe to assume but there were still people who hoped for some miracle.

 

[Nere]

What they did with the 3DS was perfect for its time and ultimately allowed for the 2DS to be sold at under $100 while pushing graphics like RE: Revelations. Switch is attempting to do something entirely different.

Perfect my ass, they spent money on a useless 3d effect nobody wanted or needed and so they inflated the price of the handheld for no reason at all.

 

[Hermii]

We knew this already though.

Not really. Customized soc based on the X1 was the most likely guess based on all previous Nintendo hardware. Completely off the shelf is unprecedented.

 

[2+2=5]

Yeah, but with the prospect of Horizon quality graphics on a portable, does the arms race even matter anymore if that were the case in six years. I know it will, but damn Horizon is mind blowing, cannot imagine what will be pumping out on the next game consoles

Who would develop those horizon level games though? Nintendo? Games like horizon need huge developer teams, big budgets and long developing times, if you are willing to wait a year between a big nintendo game and the other ok.

That's why third parties are important, they fill the holes between a big nintendo game and the other, the bigger the games the bigger the holes.

Switch docked is roughly 400GFLOPS going by Eurogamer's clockspeed of 768GHz. Switch's NVIIDA architecture is also newer and more efficient than AMD'S per flop. Who knows exactly how much, as some have said 1.3 to 1.4x. Even if we don't factor that in, mixed fp precision mode could bring it to +600 GFLOPS easily. 40-60% of Xbone with mixed precision and architectural efficiency is really not that big of a deal. From a technical perspective, GPU and CPU are up there, and 4GB of RAM on a cartridge with +3GB for games isn't so bad. But working around the bandwidth and using tile based rendering will be interesting.

Again, we've seen games like I am Setsuna, Dragon Quest. Identical outside framerate being cut in half, and some minor lighting and texture(mainly on Dragon Quest) downgrades. 2-3x power discrepency isn't that big of a deal, particularly for ports, if developers aim for 720p on switch--while the leading platform will most definitely be 1080p, which requires 2.25x the power.

Its already capable of decent ports. When it comes down to it, all depends on how much the devs take advantage of it. Fast Racing RMX(great resolution and framerate upgrade from the wii u version) and ARMS look amazing.

I am setsuna and dragon quest heroes are bad ports no doubts, but if we look at games like horizon we agree that setsuna and DQH are veeeeeeeeeeeeeery far from taking advantage of the ps4 power right?

 

[orioto]

I'd agree with everything but Nintendo is not a bastion of best in class graphics of anything.

As developers they are actually. Their hardware are limiting their team's skills and ambition at that point. Just look at Zelda.

 

[KingSnake]

Not sure how long Last of us remaster took, but that is made by some of the best coders in the industry, and it nowhere near maxes out a ps4.

Wiki says:

Development on Remastered began shortly following the release of The Last of Us in June 2013. Though initially under light development, the team began working harder on Remastered when they saw the demand for it;[10] work on the game's code did not begin until a larger team was introduced to Remastered in February 2014

Plus the game runs at 1080p and tries 60 fps unlocked and they later patched also 30 fps locked. It's not like any other relatively complex PS4 game runs better than that.

 

[Donnie]

While running at 900p. Being developed only for Switch.



Oh, so we're down to 9 months now. Soon the Switch port will be just a week's work of an intern going by this rate.

A team working 1 year (or even 9 full months) just to port a game to a new platform is actually a hell lot of work put into that port. As I said, very few ports get that kind of effort. Unless you think Aonuma's team is somehow less competent that other developers.

Edit: and what's your assumption here? That the team that put so much consideration and attention to details in BotW just made the game run on Switch and then said "fuck it, it's good enough"? The simple fact that the game running in handheld mode (so just a small power bump from Wii U) has none of the Wii U version's issues should contradict this theory.

How long do you think ports take exactly? They don't just happen in a few months. Plus wasn't the same team porting the game also working to complete the WiiU version? 9 months or a year, neither is a long time to take to port a large game to a new platform. Especially one not even released when the porting was being done (that means changing dev kits and incomplete SDKs during development).

 

[PdotMichael]

"It's just a port"

So where exactly are the better looking and running games for Switch? The powerdifference between WiiU and Switch isn't that big that there is untapped power somewhere left completely unused.

 

[bomblord1]

Why are we being so dismissive of the Switch all of a sudden? And what exactly is wrong with 900p?

 

[Donnie]

"It's just a port"

So where exactly are the better looking and running games for Switch?

Well ARMS for instance, which was already mentioned, keep up..

Of course no untapped performance there based on Zelda, we all know that every console peaks with launch ports.. Oh wait, no they never ever do.

 

[Oregano]

"It's just a port"

So where exactly are the better looking and running games for Switch? The powerdifference between WiiU and Switch isn't that big that there is untapped power somewhere left completely unused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDAkVPTn8cc

 

[KingSnake]

How long do you think ports take exactly? They don't just happen in a few months. Plus wasn't the same team porting the game also working to complete the WiiU version? 9 months or a year, neither is a long time to take to port a large game to a new platform. Especially one not even released when the porting was being done (that means changing dev kits and incomplete SDKs during development).

We are running in circles here. Can you give examples of ports being developed for more than 1 year?

Also you didn't answer my question. Do you think Aonuma's team just went for "it's good enough, leave it" for the Switch version?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDAkVPTn8cc

That's also a port. Lol.

 

[Hermii]

Plus the game runs at 1080p and tries 60 fps unlocked and they later patched also 30 fps locked. It's not like any other relatively complex PS4 game runs better than that.

It probably don't, but if it last of us 2 targeted 60fps it would still be leaps and bounds above the remaster.

 

[PdotMichael]

Well ARMS for instance, which was already mentioned, keep up..

Wait! That was a serious attempt of proving the power of the Switch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDAkVPTn8cc

Nice port.

 

[bomblord1]

Wait! That was a serious attempt of proving the power of the Switch?



Nice port.

If it looks and performs well why does it matter if it's a port.

 

[KingSnake]

Why are we being so dismissive of the Switch all of a sudden? And what exactly is wrong with 900p?

There's nothing wrong with 900p. Arms is running at 900p. Maybe that's the sweet spot of Switch. Just some people trying to make it sound like 900p is practically lazy developers (from Nintendo's part nonetheless, crazy) in a strange attempt to upsell Switch.

 

[Donnie]

We are running in circles here. Can you give examples of ports being developed for more than 1 year?

Also you didn't answer my question. Do you think Aonuma's team just went for "it's good enough, leave it" for the Switch version?



That's also a port. Lol.

I don't know how long each port takes exactly, apparently you do since Zelda took a long time for a port according to you. 9 months to year seems pretty standard to me for a port.

Of course they've just gotten it good enough, they haven't even used all the extra Ram to improve assets. Clearly they just needed to get a port out for launch.

 

[Padinn]

I'd agree with everything but Nintendo is not a bastion of best in class graphics of anything.

I think you could argue their art design is industry leading. Honestly I am constantly blown away by the vistas in botw.

I have all systems and a high end pc, with a Vive. I think the last game that impressed me in this way visually was last of us remastered. I am amazed what this little device can do. I use it on TV mainly.

For me I think I've moved past having the fanciest graphics and towards how that power is utilized

In portable mode you get greater than Wii U power at 1/3 to 1/5 the power draw...and the Wii U was only drawing like 30 watts at load. That's just nuts!

When viewed from the sense of power efficiency it really is amazing what this thing can do.

 

[Oregano]

We are running in circles here. Can you give examples of ports being developed for more than 1 year?

Also you didn't answer my question. Do you think Aonuma's team just went for "it's good enough, leave it" for the Switch version?



That's also a port. Lol.

Wait! That was a serious attempt of proving the power of the Switch?



Nice port.

That doesn't really disprove the point. It's a port that's a massive upgrade, much bigger than any of Nintendo's work.

 

[Donnie]

Wait! That was a serious attempt of proving the power of the Switch?



Nice port.

Proving the power?, are you even interested in a discussion or just here to argue? You asked me for a better looking game than Zelda, ARMS is a example. I'm not interested in proving anything to you as I'm sure that would be impossible no matter what I did.

 

[PdotMichael]

That doesn't really disprove the point. It's a port that's a massive upgrade, much bigger than any of Nintendo's work.

Proving the power?, are you even interested in a discussion or just here to argue? You asked me for a better looking game than Zelda, ARMS is a example. I'm not interested in proving anything to you as I'm sure that would be impossible no matter what I did.

None of the two games are technical more taxing than Zelda, so there is that.

 

[Hermii]

I'm not sure what exactly we are arguing about.

 

[GhostTrick]

None of the two games are technical more taxing than Zelda, so there is that.

Well, you asked for a difference and Fast Racing is the same game. On Wii U, it runs at 640*720. On Switch (docked) it runs at 1920*1080 with drops to 1600*900. Although as for me, Switch will always basically be a PS3/Wii U displaying 1080p games when docked and 720p games when undocked.

 

[PdotMichael]

Well, you asked for a difference and Fast Racing is the same game. On Wii U, it runs at 640*720. On Switch (docked) it runs at 1920*1080 with drops to 1600*900.

I asked for a more technical impressive game than Zelda, which got the "but port" nonsense attached.

 

[Donnie]

Yeah your opinion...

Simple question, do you believe any console gets maxed out by a launch port?

 

[KingSnake]

I don't know how long each port takes exactly

If you have no idea then why do you use the porting time as an argument for anything?

If 9 months to a year is the standard porting time I'm pretty sure you can find at least some examples to support that.

Hell, the time itself it's not even the only variable, it depends who works on the port, if it's the main team, a small team or it's outsourced. Which in case of Zelda is the main team, no? The same team that ported superbly Zelda WW on Wii U. I don't really understand why you play the "lazy developers" card here when it's very clear that they put a hell lot of attention in this game. The game even went gold in a normal amount of time. There's no sign of rushed development here.

they haven't even used all the extra Ram to improve assets.

The game already has parts in which it struggles with the framerate in the docked mode and DF speculated to be because of a memory streaming issue, improved assets would be the salt on the wound for that.

 

[Oregano]

I asked for a more technical impressive game than Zelda, which got the "but port" nonsense attached.

Why isn't FAST more technically impressive than Zelda?

That seems like something pretty subjective.

 

[Hermii]

I asked for a more technical impressive game than Zelda, which got the "but port" nonsense attached.

So you are asking for a game that doesn't exist?

Ask again when xenoblade 2 is out.

 

[PdotMichael]

Why isn't FAST more technically impressive than Zelda?

That seems like something pretty subjective.

Yeah, a large open world game with game physics elements which didn't even exist in games like Horizon on way more powerful hardware.

It's quite more impressive and challenging than an arcade racer

So you are asking for a game that doesn't exist?

Nintendo announced a bunch of games for Switch already. And nothing can compete with Zelda?

 

[SmokedMeat]

Why isn't FAST more technically impressive than Zelda?

That seems like something pretty subjective.

Fast Racing Neo isn't doing nearly as much as Zelda under the hood. It looks like a glorified mobile game.

 

[Hermii]

Yeah, a large open world game with game physics elements which didn't even exist in games like Horizon on way more powerful hardware.

It's quite more impressive and challenging than an arcade racer



Nintendo announced a bunch of games for Switch already. And nothing can compete with Zelda?

Yea nothing can compete with Zelda.
So what is your point?

 

[PdotMichael]

So what is your point?

Zelda doesn't run into performance problems or isn't 1080p because Nintendo somehow failed to port a key title properly.

But that Zelda is an impressive game for the hardware and maybe just to ambitious for specific parts of the Switch hardware.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

If there was no docked console mode and it was pitched as a pure portable I think the sentiments of power would unanimously shift to incredible for the Switch. When you look at it this way its downright an incredibly powerful handheld at between Wii U Xbone power. Oh btw if I feel the need I can also plug it to the TV.

This. It's a modern PSP with a novel video out. People should definitely view this as a portable first, console second type deal. In that regard, it's a damn awesome little machine. Nintendo is trying to have the "console experience" on the go nonsense branding that did nothing for Sony.

 

[wildfire]

Honestly you simply don't buy a Nintendo console for AAA multiplatform games. Like, they haven't provided that experience for over a decade.

You buy a Switch for Nintendo gems, portable indies and best in class handheld graphics.

The X1 makes it clear that this will not be the place for AAA ports, unless portability is more important to you than graphics and performance.

I don't know which is more obnoxious, your matter of factness that people won't buy this for a AAA game, or your assertion that the primary reason to buy AAA 3rd party games is for their visuals and therefore imply their gameplay is always inferior.

I always expect AAA content on a Nintendo platform and if a console doesn't deliver on getting that then Nintendo partially screwed up and the AAA devs made a decision I probably wouldn't agree with.

Nintendo and Blizzard are pretty much the best development studios but I still think some cool gameplay or immersive experiences have been created by other studios these companies still don't offer.

 

[KingSnake]

Why isn't FAST more technically impressive than Zelda?

That seems like something pretty subjective.

Because it has none of the physics Zelda has and it doesn't render so many things on the screen at once. And what it renders doesn't have to be too detailed as most of the time is hidden behind the motion blur. But it doesn't have to be more impressive than Zelda as it looks great for a racing game.

 

[Hermii]

Zelda doesn't run into performance problems or isn't 1080p because Nintendo somehow failed to port a key title properly.

But that Zelda is an impressive game for the hardware and maybe just to ambitious for specific parts of the Switch hardware.

I'm sure they did as well as they could with the constraints they had, but if you are saying ground up games won't take advantage of the hardware better that's ridiculous imo.

 

[bomblord1]

Fast Racing Neo isn't doing nearly as much as Zelda under the hood. It looks like a glorified mobile game.

4k Textures, 1080p, 60fps, Physically Based Rendering, among other things that Zelda is not doing.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-fast-rmx-showcases-switches-power-over-wii-u

As perhaps the most beautiful portable game ever released, Fast RMX combines fluid performance, impressive visuals and addictive gameplay into a fully featured package.In docked mode, the game jumps regularly between 900p and 1080p - or even lower in very select circumstances - while portable mode drops the resolution ceiling to 720p where minor drops in pixel-count can also occur, mostly in pre-race fly-bys. From what we understand, there is a small issue with the current firmware on Switch which causes a slight drain on GPU resources - once corrected, we're told that Fast RMX should sustain a full 1080p in docked mode.

The presentation itself has been refined as well - the faster GPU featured in the Switch allows the team to implement a more robust atmospheric light scattering system. On Wii U, a simple screen-space approach was used but with RMX, each scene benefits from improved lighting precision and quality. Tracks have a new sense of richness that was missing from the original.

All of this operates at a smooth 60 frames per second whether docked or while gaming on the go. Across hours of play, Fast RMX delivered a rock-solid level of performance throughout in single-player mode. Occasional single frame drops appear from time to time but are virtual undetectable by eye.

 

[Oregano]

Because it has none of the physics Zelda has and it doesn't render so many things on the screen at once. And what it renders doesn't have to be too detailed as most of the time is hidden behind the motion blur. But it doesn't have to be more impressive than Zelda as it looks great for a racing game.

It's also doing stuff that Zelda isn't(like double/triple the framerate). Open World games aren't automatically more impressive for being open world, there's trade offs for every design.

 

[Pasedo]

Probably something most have forgotten about. The X1 runs unreal engine 4 and if the UE4 demo is a sample of IQ possibility I'm damn happy with that. Im no tech guru and I understand there's game size, bandwidth challenges and stable framerate challenges to overcome on full games but the potential is there no?

https://youtu.be/KQlQnF0D8Zg

 

[SmokedMeat]

4k Textures, 1080p, 60fps, Physically Based Rendering, among other things that Zelda is most certainly not doing.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-fast-rmx-showcases-switches-power-over-wii-u

I'm dead serious.

It's a simple looking racing game handling none of the physics system and open world rendering that Zelda is handling. My phone handles simple racing games really well to.

 

[bomblord1]

I'm dead serious.

It's a simple looking racing game handling none of the physics system and open world rendering that Zelda is handling. My phone handles simple racing games really well to.

I can guarantee there is nothing on your phone doing what fast racing Neo is doing at the resolution and framerate it is doing it at.

Digital Foundry agrees with me.

 

[Rodin]

Which is great. As I said, it is what it is, compromises need to be made, but it's probably the best specs Nintendo could get for what they wanted to do.



I'm trying to suggest that 9 months or 1 year for a team just working on porting and optimising Zelda it's not a small amount of effort as it's suggested to be.

Wiki says:



Plus the game runs at 1080p and tries 60 fps unlocked and they later patched also 30 fps locked. It's not like any other relatively complex PS4 game runs better than that.

We are running in circles here. Can you give examples of ports being developed for more than 1 year?

Also you didn't answer my question. Do you think Aonuma's team just went for "it's good enough, leave it" for the Switch version?



That's also a port. Lol.

All these games are ports, but none of them were co-developed at the same time with the base game. Development was problematic because of the physics engine even on the base platform, and they had to port the engine and the code of the game to a new one they never used before. I don't see why it's so unreasonable to suggest that the port isn't maxing out the new console or that it couldn't perform better.

Also TLOUR was ported to a console that is a full generational leap compared to the original platform, and it still has drops in the 60fps mode despite ND cutting shadows resolution.

It looks like a glorified mobile game.

I'm dead serious.

It's a simple looking racing game
My phone handles simple racing games really well to.

This fucking forum sometimes. Do you want me to post again gameplay videos of mobile racing games to see how they look compared to Fast?

 

[LCGeek]

This fucking forum sometimes. Do you want me to post again gameplay videos of mobile racing games to see how they look compared to Fast?

Please do I doubt they really hold up to it's Wii predecessor as well.

As to certain ideas floating in the thread as of late. It's nice switch has great devs tools, but lets not act as if since gamecube nintendo really has been the best exploiters or the only ones.

Zelda uses an old engine. Doubt it was really optimized as well as it could be and how it runs now couldn't be a better example of my point short of it performing like from software games do on consoles. Runs on a crappy kernel like every other major gaming platform currently. I'm really surprised it turned out as nicely as it did but like other zelda games will always be marred by having tech demos that idealize the game better than the reality we tend to get.

 

[SmokedMeat]

This fucking forum sometimes. Do you want me to post again gameplay videos of mobile racing games to see how they look compared to Fast?

I've watched gameplay videos of it. It's an extremely generic looking futuristic racing game with track detail that falls short of previous games in the genre.

Being 1080p and running 60fps, with nice textures isn't some technological marvel that outclasses what Zelda's doing under the hood.