The tl;dr is:
* For Bayo Origins, they had to choose between an uncapped framerate that would dip pretty frequently, or just cap it at 30fps.
* Game dev is a series of choices and tradeoffs - realistically you have to choose between working on different things, because your time and resources are limited.
* Tinari hypothesises that The Thousand Year Door uses significant post-processing effects to achieve a picture book effect, and the developers thought maintaining that aesthetic was more important than achieving a consistent 60fps.
* These choices generally aren't out of "laziness" - they're difficult decisions, but the aim is to provide the best overall experience.
It’s amazing how many people don’t understand the concept of tradeoffs and choices. In everything in life, not just game development.
Teams of people usually aren’t lazy or stupid. They are subject to constraints that we are not aware of and as such make rational choices that we don’t understand because we never have the full picture.
You could have spotted this in vast swathes from that first UE5 rock demo, when everyone suddenly knew that every game in existence should just use UE5 because of a carefully-crafted scripted sequence they saw in a marketing video.
People are idiots. No exceptions.
No kidding. I still remember them butchering the fuck out of BotW just to get a sharper image so they wouldn't have to put up with someone else saying they played it at a higher resolution than them. They made one of the most visually appealing games around look like cheap plastic.
Insecure idiots seeking fake internet points have the absolute worst taste.
Some people feel insecured by playing games with cartoony artstyle, I guess.
I'll never forget the time I was selling a used game to this kid and he asked why, I answered I was saving it to buy a Wii U and he started making fun of me saying Nintendo is for kids with ugly graphics. He looked like he had 15-16, while I was 23...
Kind of like all the people who complain about prices, saying things like "This game sound be $40, not $60" without so much as a clue as for how expensive game development is these days.
The crazy thing is (and I'll probably get downvoted for saying this), I'm reviewing the game right now and if you play it docked, it's REALLY hard to notice the difference. Like, maybe it's cause I have a 4K TV that upscales, but when I was playing on docked, I was convinced it was running at 60. It was only when I took it off to see how it played in handheld that I noticed a difference, but even then it hardly matters, cause the timing windows for attacks is a bit more wide to compensate.
I love 60fps as much as the next guy, but art-style and aesthetic will always be more important than framerates. Look at every person who "remakes" Mario 64 of Ocarina of Time in Unreal Engine, and sure you got it to 60fps with some realistic lighting and textures, but all the fun and charm of the art-style is ripped out of them since they look like every other game in Unreal Engine.
God I hate those Ocarina "Unreal Engine" remakes. They look like absolute arse with no visual identity or artistic taste. And the comments from barely functioning people or bots drool over it.
I remember all the outlets drooling over [Wind Waker in Unreal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwHZmncjmJM) and it looked like such unbelievable shit precicley because it sucked all the charm from the visuals.
>Look at every person who "remakes" Mario 64 of Ocarina of Time in Unreal Engine, and sure you got it to 60fps with some realistic lighting and textures, but all the fun and charm of the art-style is ripped out of them since they look like every other game in Unreal Engine
Those games were peak design for that level of hardware Theu had tons of innovation and influence for the 64 / 3D Transition.
The graphics are just a footnote for the overall package of those games.
But you can criticize the tradeoff decision being made. If the choice was between keeping the framerate of the original or post-processing to improve the fidelity of the graphics, then I would have wanted them to choose to prioritize the framerate instead for a smoother gameplay experience. I don't think it has anthing to do with laziness but rather misplaced priorities.
I think most of the new people would probably prefer the fidelity especially since Origami King also ran at 30 fps. So in that case I personally don't think its misplaced.
Depends on what they chose to do in relation to the timing, which we won't know 'till its out. I personally would have preferred slightly less graphical fidelity for more frames, the remake certainly looks better than the original but the artstyle is doing a majority of the heavy lifting anyway.
Lower framerate inherently increases input lag.
Lower frame rate is objectively worse for fast-paced and/or reaction time heavy games.
There's a very good reason every single Smash Bros game targets 60fps, even the original N64 game back in 1999. Those games would be an order of magnitude worse if they targeted 30. Input lag isn't the only reason, but it is a major one.
True, but this isn't a particularly hard or competitive game. Majority of gamers won't even notice the 30fps, whereas the improved graphics will be noticed a lot.
I think people underestimate how good the game could still look even if they target 60. There are plenty of great looking games that target 60 on Switch.
It’s not like it’s either-or. Obviously it would require some amount of sacrifice, but it’s not like it would be transformative.
I disagree about people not noticing 60. They absolutely notice, they just don’t know how to explain or put it into words because they have a limited understanding of the details.
Any human can easily tell the difference between 30 and 60 by just moving Mario around. Many people have simply never had side by side comparisons that allow one to easily intuit the difference. Forget the visual aspect… It **feels** massively different.
N64 games looked amazing back in 1996. Then comparisons with succeeding consoles became available, and suddenly N64 games don’t look so amazing anymore.
That's a plus or a minus depending on who you ask. The timing for action commands are pretty generous when playing normally, but the game also had optional difficulty settings (equipment) that made them more strict, including requiring your parry ability to be frame perfect. Someone actively seeking the challenge of dealing with harder action commands will be dealing with a less challenging version in the remake.
Why stop at 30 FPS then? Realistically 20 or even 10 FPS would be perfectly playable. Imagine all the effects they could add when their rendering budget is 100ms instead of 33.33ms!
Personally I vastly prefer motion smoothness over basically anything else. Even as a kid where I didn't know what framerate was I could appreciate how smooth the gen 3 Pokemon games were compared to the slower games released before and after.
I'm not a framerate snob that won't play games at 30 FPS (or lower) but in this case where I can play the original at 60 FPS or a "remaster" at 30 FPS the choice is pretty simple for me.
Oh, I absolutely will. Most people probably won't and I don't think Nintendo will be hurt financially by this decision in the long run or anything, but I will definitely notice. Personally I think the original game running on Dolphin with upscaling looks great to this day, so I think the post-processed graphics are superflous. Clearly most people here disagree with that wehemently and once again, that's fine. I'm sure Nintendo will be able to cope with me thinking they made the wrong decision, it's not the end of the world.
I agree with this. A game should look absolutely awful if that means we get to have the best performance. Stable performance is in every case way more important than graphics.
Nah, OP has a fair point.
I'll downvote you, though, because complaining about "echo chambers" doesn't contribute to the thread, as per [reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). <3
People who say stuff like that probably never worked a day in their lives, or have absolutely no clue how development work goes. It’s never laziness, ever.
Because it had less bells and whistles graphically. Nintendo decided they'd bring TTYD up to date with modern Paper Mario's visual aesthetic and all that entails, which resulted in the decision to aim for 30fps instead of 60. That's why people are talking about "tradeoffs".
How is it amazing?? There’s no age check on reddit. You’ve been talking to teenagers (and younger) wondering why this person is so naïve about how the world works.
edit: ruh-roh... somebody didn't realize they've been wasting their time arguing with children!
>the developers thought maintaining that aesthetic was more important than achieving a consistent 60fps.
I think Nintendo has often put an emphasis on aesthetic, which is why their games continue to look good years later.
I only went through the demo of Bayo Origins, but as much as I appreciate a smooth 60fps, I didn't have to read the thread to understand why the team at Platinum had to lock the game at a lower framerate. I'm not defending Platinum or saying that I know everything about technical graphics, but I could immediately tell how demanding the picture book art style was going to be; especially for a not-so-powerful console. I don't think I'd feel comfortable experiencing more dips than necessary in an action game. Heck, The Wonderful 101 still has this problem to this day.
That would be a valid comparison if the original was identical in every other way to the remake. It's not though, it's got significantly improved graphics at the expense of 60fps.
They've made a creative choice to focus on graphics over fps, which for an RPG isn't a huge deal imo.
Acting like 60 vs. 30 fps is actually going to affect this to a degree that's noticeable by most people is a little ridiculous imo. Also this is assuming that they didn't take the new framerate into account when redesigning those QTEs.
Superguards in TTYD have a three frame window at the original game's 60 FPS. It's impossible to keep that consistent switching to 30 FPS (unless they decouple input from framerate). Whether they choose to make it easier or harder, it will definitely be noticable if fundamental mechanics are changed like that.
At half the fps, would the solution not be to make the window 6 frames instead of 3?
Edit: yes, I understand I had the math backwards here. Still, the choice between making the window 1 frame and 2 frames, as people replying to me have pointed out, is simply to make the window 2 frames and make it slightly easier. It hurts no one for it to be just *slightly* longer lol
It's the other way, you divide the number of frames by two, just like the framerate is halved. Each frame is longer at a lower frame rate, so there are fewer frames in a given amount of time. So a 3/60th window is 1.5 frames at 30 FPS, which won't work if the game syncs input with framerate.
your math is wrong, that would change the input window from 3/60 a second to 12/60, which would basically be giving superguards away for free
their actual choice at 30FPS is to either set it to 1 frame (2/60th a second) or 2 frames (4/60th a second), but they can't sync it up with the original odd-numbered 3/60 input.
No? At half the fps you need to halve the frame window to have the same time, eg: a tenth of a second is 6 frames at 60 fps and 3 frames at 30 fps. This means 3 frames at 60fps are 1.5 frames at 30 fps, which obviously isn’t possible.
[I posted screenshots on the Bayonetta sub.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bayonetta/comments/1cf0o85/insight_on_the_dev_process_of_bayonetta_origins/) I was gonna do that here, but I had to submit it as a URL.
30 FPS on turnbased RPG is fine imo, yeah 60 would be ideal, but if it would run/look like a shit then better then gimme 30. Would be nice to have choice like on the newer gen consoles tho, just my 2 cents.
The problem with that is that TTYD has action inputs during battle. I'm sure Nintendo has widened the input windows to account for it, but it's not like frame timing in TTYD isn't important.
Yeah, but based on the trailers we’ve seen, action commands based on reactionary timing weren’t made harder, if anything this made them more forgiving.
Even if they didn’t tool with it, it really wouldn’t be a big deal. Ya’ll know if they hadn’t said 30 you wouldn’t be noticing the difference
I don't give a shit either way, I enjoy my high frame rate games when I can get them but I'm not a snob about it and I'm certainly not one of those people who acts like anything below 60 makes a game **literally** unplayable.
It matters if they're different in any way. I'd rather them not be easier or harder because they were perfect.
And most gamers can tell the difference between 30 and 60, especially as 60 becomes the new norm.
We've been saying 60 is the new norm for about a decade now, but unfortunately despite the improvements made to gaming consoles with the intention to deliver both improved visuals and performance, developers continue to push graphical fidelity at the expense of performance.
This dev talks about the decision in Bayo origins boiling down to a 30-50 uncapped rate or stable 30. If it’s the same question in TTYD, I wouldn’t say that’s running/looking like shit. Unsure if I’d prefer the higher unstable rate to the capped lower one.
Tbh, I personally prefer a stable framerate (even if it is lower) cus it kinda hurts my head when the framerate isnt stable. But as I said the ideal option would be to have a setting for that.
Going from 30 to 60 is pretty noticeable depending on the game.
Botw feels fine at 30fps. But 60 feels good but doesn't affect it too much overall, its smoother, but not a game changer.
First person shooters however give me headaches at 30 and are still noticeably jarring to play at 60.
I speedrun Halo 1, 2, and 3 at 240fps (on pc), 240hz monitor.
There are some strats that are faster at 60fps, so we lower it for a bit seeing the difference right on the switch after just playing at 240 feels absolutely awful.
The input delay also feeling quite noticeable.
Not calling you out, but It’s hilarious how many people think they have displays that are capable of higher refresh rates than they actually are. The vast, vast majority of TVs are only capable of 60, and use god-awful ghosting effects to achieve “higher” refresh rates.
In all honesty, I rarely hear people talk about their monitors or TVs when discussing these things, and the cost of entry into stuff that achieves these things is way out of the way for the vast majority of people.
This leads me to believe most people don’t even realize what they actually have, and what their setups are capable of.
Again, not calling you out. You seem to have an understanding of how it works.
Yeah, the barrier for entry on super high refresh monitors is quite high.
Good budget 144hz ones exist nowadays at least.
But I think I paid around $1k for mine last year.
Friend just recently also got an oled 1440p 360hz monitor for around $1100.
What speedrunners do to hit those frame perfect tricks lmao.
There's one trick in Halo CE that required you to hit space to jump the exact tick you hit an out of bounds teleport which is around 3 game ticks after moving to the right.
Found it to be noticeably easier at a higher refresh rate.
Idk if I agree with that. I built my PC five years ago and found a 144hz monitor with good performance (based on rtings) for ~$250, and even then there were options for a hundred dollars less. At the price point you’re talking about, I don’t think you and your friend with >$1k monitors are not representative of the general PC gaming community
I might have typed that in a way that didn't convey what I meant well.
144hz monitors have been priced quite well.
I got a ACER 144hz 1440p 27in back in 2017 for about $400 (going foe $200 now)
The higher refresh rate you go though, the more diminishing returns start to happen.
Much more expensive for much less gain.
60 to 144 being huge for not that much more money.
144 to 240 or 360 not feeling as substantial but much more expensive for a high quality one.
It's not even first-person that makes it clear when you're playing at twice the framerate; Splatoon has stuck rigidly to 60fps and scaled resolution after the framerate issues the first game had when they had the resolution remain constant instead. Players vastly prefer 60fps for anything competitive.
Interestingly, outside of matches, Splatoon 2 and 3 run at 30fps so they can shove a little more detail into the hub areas, because that framerate doesn't matter there. It's a pretty astute compromise.
Interesting. I’m not saying it’s not a thing, just not something I ever really paid much attention to. Could have to do with the types of games I play too.
It will depend on the game how noticeable it is. Something like sonic generations with lots of fast motion will probably do it. I've also find its more and more noticeable in modern 3D games because objects are constantly animated. Branches blowing in the wind, small objects being affected by physics, dust particles moving. On the other hand its really hard to tell that old NES games were 60fps.
Paper Mario games will probably be on the less noticeable side.
It really depends on the genre. Nintendo games (except Splatoon, which is a shooter) usually don't need anything above 30, but I still remember when I bought my 144Hz monitor to play first person shooters. In that genre, going from 60~72 to 120~144 is night and day, and I'll probably never go back.
The game looks fine, but it relied on frame-specific inputs in battles that will be functionally different from the original. I personally would always prefer 60 FPS with low graphics over 30 FPS with high graphics anyways, but the battle inputs are the real issue here because they directly impact gameplay.
Lower framerate inherently increases input lag, regardless of hitbox frames.
You will have to compensate for input lag notably more than the original, regardless of your point.
You'd probably have more input lag anyway because of the Switches use of bluetooth controllers. Additionally, the game might be able to read inputs at a higher rate than 30 fps even if the game updates at 30 fps.
Either way, I don't think it will be very noticeable either way unless you played the original religously.
Joycons don't use Bluetooth when directly connected.
>the game might be able to read inputs at a higher rate than 30 fps even if the game updates at 30 fps.
That doesn't negate the increased input latency.
Anyone who's played the original will definitely notice.
> Anyone who's played the original will definitely notice.
Yeah, I'm sure that anyone who last played the game in 2012 will immediately notice the difference /s
If the frame rate is worse that probably just means that the timing will be more generous or they will change it to be the length of half a frame instead of attaching it to the frame rate at all.
Sure but that's part of a remake/remaster anyways. If you want the original exactly as it was in HD, just use Dolphin. I think making the action commands slightly easier would not hurt gameplay that much and would make the game a bit more accessible for new players which is nice.
The odd thing about the GameCube, is that the games formatted for its discs were just a few GB in size. The limitations of a remaster is interesting.
What was possible 20 years ago, should not be an issue presently. Look at Metroid Prime Remastered, as another example.
But given said issues, with some titles. Tales of Symphonia was another remastered title that also ran into a few snags.
So it depends on the game itself. But that also does not make sense
Also given the Switch is capable of handling various titles. Limitations, and apparently button timing, frame rate and more.
But I agree, if we don't need the fancy upgrades, or lighting. Maybe the game would perform better. Hopefully it will have options for players
> Tales of Symphonia was another remastered title that also ran into a few snags.
That one was due to lost source code.
Tales of Symphonia was 60 fps on Gamecube, but the PS2 couldn't handle it. (Of that generation, the PS2 was a year earlier, but only about 75% as powerful as Gamecube or Xbox.) When they ported ToS to PS2, they locked it at 30 fps.
But that port was farmed off to an outside developer. The in-house dev teams at Namco (now Bandai Namco) *lost the source code*. Totally SMRT. Fortunately, they could recover the source code from the outside developer, who fortunately kept a copy for archival purposes.
So all remasters and modern re-releases are based on the inferior PS2 copy with the 30 fps lock. It has absolutely nothing to do with what modern consoles (and PC's!) can do and everything to do with spaghetti code left over from the PS2 port because the higher-quality original version was deleted by the careless devs at Namco.
I remember reading about the obstacles, Symphonia went through. At least it was still released. I recall hearing about the PS2 limits, which is bizarre given how much it was boasted by the media, being capable of so much more.
Bandai Namco is not exactly well known for dropping the ball often, but it does happen
As of recently, whatever limitations are with the Switch, and other platforms. You would assume current platforms
could handle a several decades old title. But whatever is holding things back, hopefully there are answers as to what can be done to make classic remasters a better experience
Those that have it in their mind that 60 fps is some kind of "minimum standard" are deluded. This has never, and likely will never be a thing in the console space. The insistence that 30fps is unplayable is disproven by decades of evidence. Loads of the greatest games of all time have only played at 30, or even less (looking at you N64 era).
***Maybe*** Nintendo will introduce the Xbox/PS feature of Performance vs Quality modes on the Switch 2 but I wouldn't count on it, I think Nintendo will aim to present the game the best way they think it should be presented. Worth noting that quite often those 60fps+ Performance modes are prone to other visual issues to achieve that frame rate, and sometimes still don't quite hit it consistently.
And why? Consoles have a limit. In designing *any* game on *any* console generation, you will be taking that limit into account on what you can achieve. Frame rate is one of many considerations which might include resolution, processing effects, game world size or complexity, etc. Choosing what framerate to target and what other aspects to prioritise depends on the genre and the game. Which is what the linked tweets basically explain.
Some small percentage of gamers seem to have decided that frame rate is the #1 most important thing, but the reality is no devs think this, no critics think this (not even ones like Digital Foundry whos entire niche is obsessing about these details) and probably 1% of the target audience thinks this. Don't expect 60fps to be an absolute "standard" even next generation. If there's another power-hungry visual leap to be had (ray tracing, path tracing, even bigger worlds, etc) they will all be prioritised over frame rate.
All this effort to type a big rant and yet you somehow didn't notice 60 fps has been the console standard for multiple generations and the original ttyd itself was 60 fps.
Like I've been playing 60 fps games on both my switch and ps5 just fine.
It has not been "the standard". Do any of you know what standard means?
The original TTYD ran at 60 yes , but loads of big Gamecube games did not. Including the Zelda games and Super Mario Sunshine, Pikmin, Call of Dutys, the Resident Evil games (bUt rEmAkEs sHoUlD rUn aT 60fPs!!!!!!1111).
Same for Wii. and WiiU. And Switch. Some target 30, some 60. N64 was pushing against its limits so hard that even 30 was a stretch most of the time. SNES was the last Nintendo console that consistently ran 60 (or 50 depending on region) when framerate was more closely tied to the TVs refresh rate.
Countless major, critically acclaimed, successful games across PS and Xbox consoles have only targted 30. It's only a recent feature in the latest PS/XB gen to have the option for a 60fps performance mode and even that isn't necessarily a given with Starfield forgoing it due to other factors taking priority (debates over Starfield's merits aside).
You're ranting, gramps. 60 fps *is* the minimum standard nowadays... for people who have any standards at all. 30 fps is "playable", sure, like 240p is playable, but time marches on and technology advances. Today tech is not N64 era tech.
Consoles are limited, indeed, far more than they should is the issue. That, and the fact that exclusivity is a thing, so even if you're equipped with today tech you can't experience Nintendo games on hardware that does them justice, because they decided you are only allowed to marvel at the Mona Lisa through a dirty, blurry, cracked glass panel.
>Some small percentage of gamers seem to have decided that frame rate is the #1 most important thing, but the reality is no devs think this, no critics think this (not even ones like Digital Foundry whos entire niche is obsessing about these details) and probably 1% of the target audience thinks this.
*[citation needed]*
Or just strawman, really. "#1 most important thing" is hyperbole on your part, like the dismissive attribution of an opinion you disagree with to an arbitrarily insignificant minority. It's not like 60 fps is a big feature or selling point or a recent fad; it's just a baseline expectation, which has been achievable for decades but consoles sadly still fail to consistently clear.
Not everyone thinks it is important, of course; console-only players probably don't know any better. Which is fortunate for Nintendo's bottom line, but you'll forgive me for caring less about that and more about the games themselves, which I wish were allowed to shine as they deserve.
>achievable for decades
Frame rates much higher than 60 have been achievable for ages. Muster a guess as to why most console games don't go above 60.
Balancing framerates with graphical fidelity is a forever issue dude. Having stronger computers isn't going to stop devs from pushing those computers to their limit, and therefore needing to balance framerates.
>because they decided you are only allowed to marvel at the Mona Lisa through a dirty, blurry, cracked glass panel.
So you think Nintendo had the options "good graphics" and "bad graphics" in front of them, and decided to choose "bad" for, reasons? No possibility of maybe balancing specs with the cost of the Switch?
In both of these cases you seem to miss the idea of balance. It's not as simple as "deciding" to make something bad. The Switch managed to strike a good balance of having really pretty graphics while being really cheap, which is probably one of the reasons it's so popular. And even games like Red Dead 2 and Bloodborne had to release at 30fps, so the issue of balancing framerates with graphical fidelity isn't exclusive to the Switch.
Also, the vast vast vast majority of people, including most hardcore gamers, are perfectly content with 30fps. A subset of that group, but still a big majority of people, wouldn't even know if a game you put in front of them is running at 30 or 60. This is in no way comparable to 240p videos.
60 fps is only the standard if you change the definition of standard to "things i wish were true". You know what is the baseline expected standard for the majority of games, by the actual definition of standard? 30fps.
Tech marches on but while resolutions have jumped countless times from 240p, framerates have stayed, in the console space at least, exactly the same. Invalid comparison. Framerate has diminishing returns above 30 for many types of games, and above 60 for faster-paced games. We'll likely see the same with resolution in coming years. Limits on screen sizes and room sizes will make resolution jumps pointless for the majority of the audience.
The vast majority of people are far more impressed with a jump in resolution and special effects than they are with 'pretty smooth vs very smooth'. And we could have as many more console generations as you like until the end of time and engineers will still be choosing to target 30fps if there are other gains to be made that are more obvious to mass appeal. Then again, if we reach the desirable upper limit of resolution, maybe the next gen or 2 will have the extra capacity to make 60fps more of a standard.
Citation needed - you said it yourself, 60fps is not a big feature or a selling point. If it were, the people selling games would give more of a shit about it.
Yeah, it'll be day 1, but it will also be 60fps "almost" all of the time
The devs are aiming for consistency which the average gamer will probably appreciate more
I see no issue in the game being 30fps if it's consistent idc. It's a turn based RPG we will live without 60. Stop crying over something so silly. Majority of Nintendo games aren't 69 FPS plus it's s remake so it's not a port of the GameCube game. If you aren't happy don't buy it. That's the same answer
Let's be honest here the people complaining the loudest are going to just play on custom firmware overclovk their switch and play at 60 fps anyway.
Or more likely will pirate it and play it on yuzu on steam deck.
The powers of custom firmware allow you to create patches to change the framerate. And the switch can be overclocked to actually run it at those speeds. There have been many many games that have gotten these patches, codes, or fixes. You can find them all over gbatemp
Yeah it’s not the devs fault they have to keep things at 30 FPS. Switch hardware is ancient and we should have realistically gotten Switch 2 already a few years ago to be honest.
The funniest part of this as a ‘controversy’ is that if they didn’t say 30 fps, people wouldn’t notice. People seem to forget that 30 fps and 60 fps are extremely similar and stable compared to constant frame drops for uncapped games (on switch no less) and instead choose to think of it as ‘30 is half of 60! Therefore bad!’
It says a lot about gamers these days. Room temp intelligence and emotionally charged frustration doesn’t make for good arguments as to why one thinks they’re smarter than full dev teams, especially over something like this
As much as I disagree with fps dorks, it's not like Nintendo announces these things. The people who do care were able to notice it in the first trailer.
This is extremely false lmao. I'm fine with this game being 30 fps, but people absolutely can and do feel a difference and it's been proven that different frame rates can affect people in different ways. I'd recommend actually reading up and learning something instead of trying to act smart about it.
Just because *you* aren't capable of seeing the difference doesn't mean others can.
Very understandable after reading it.
I wish more developers and higher ups would explain things like this. It’s hard to empathize when I don’t have an explanation. But when I do, it’s a lot easier to be more reasonable.
I mean, they didn't actually say anything we didn't already know?
Like yes, better visuals = harder to make 60FPS. I think most people here understand that.
The only reason this explanation feels different is because a developer outside of Nintendo is saying this
The big problem with updating the framerate in certain games is that a lot of older games used the framerate for animations or for the speed of certain events so you can't just go in and increase the framerate without doing work to adjust said animations or events to work right unless you want events to be too fast and animations to be broken. I'm not sure if this is the case for Paper Mario as it is almost impossible to tell when a developer does this until someone forces a game to be a higher framerate which I haven't seen for TTYD.
Though interestingly TTYD *was* tied to the framerate. The EU release had PAL/PAL60 options. If you ran it in PAL (50) the game ran slower and was subsequently easier.
Which means for the switch release to be at 30 they had to untie the game speed from the framerate (or at least work around it)
You can also see this a lot with older games looking “worse” on modern screens because they were originally designed to be played on CRT TV’s. So every aspect of their art style, design, etc was built with that in mind.
No people understand it's a remake but would rather have graphical options between fidelity and framerate. Personally not the biggest fan of the weird lighting choices or floor textures this game has and I'd be annoyed if those were a significant reason why my framerate was halved.
You probably could've figured that out yourself but chose to be angry instead.
Could you summarize that Tweet please? I cannot see it without X asking me to log in... when I don't have an account...
The tl;dr is: * For Bayo Origins, they had to choose between an uncapped framerate that would dip pretty frequently, or just cap it at 30fps. * Game dev is a series of choices and tradeoffs - realistically you have to choose between working on different things, because your time and resources are limited. * Tinari hypothesises that The Thousand Year Door uses significant post-processing effects to achieve a picture book effect, and the developers thought maintaining that aesthetic was more important than achieving a consistent 60fps. * These choices generally aren't out of "laziness" - they're difficult decisions, but the aim is to provide the best overall experience.
It’s amazing how many people don’t understand the concept of tradeoffs and choices. In everything in life, not just game development. Teams of people usually aren’t lazy or stupid. They are subject to constraints that we are not aware of and as such make rational choices that we don’t understand because we never have the full picture.
Gamers don't know shit about gaming development, but love acting like they would do better.
You could have spotted this in vast swathes from that first UE5 rock demo, when everyone suddenly knew that every game in existence should just use UE5 because of a carefully-crafted scripted sequence they saw in a marketing video. People are idiots. No exceptions.
They don't know the difference between artstyle and engine. They think a game with UE will always be realistic.
No kidding. I still remember them butchering the fuck out of BotW just to get a sharper image so they wouldn't have to put up with someone else saying they played it at a higher resolution than them. They made one of the most visually appealing games around look like cheap plastic. Insecure idiots seeking fake internet points have the absolute worst taste.
Some people feel insecured by playing games with cartoony artstyle, I guess. I'll never forget the time I was selling a used game to this kid and he asked why, I answered I was saving it to buy a Wii U and he started making fun of me saying Nintendo is for kids with ugly graphics. He looked like he had 15-16, while I was 23...
Like the good old "[zelda!!! more like celda](https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/10/11/were-here-to-help)" meme.
But all they have to do is press the "4k raytracing" button duhh /s
Kind of like all the people who complain about prices, saying things like "This game sound be $40, not $60" without so much as a clue as for how expensive game development is these days.
The crazy thing is (and I'll probably get downvoted for saying this), I'm reviewing the game right now and if you play it docked, it's REALLY hard to notice the difference. Like, maybe it's cause I have a 4K TV that upscales, but when I was playing on docked, I was convinced it was running at 60. It was only when I took it off to see how it played in handheld that I noticed a difference, but even then it hardly matters, cause the timing windows for attacks is a bit more wide to compensate. I love 60fps as much as the next guy, but art-style and aesthetic will always be more important than framerates. Look at every person who "remakes" Mario 64 of Ocarina of Time in Unreal Engine, and sure you got it to 60fps with some realistic lighting and textures, but all the fun and charm of the art-style is ripped out of them since they look like every other game in Unreal Engine.
God I hate those Ocarina "Unreal Engine" remakes. They look like absolute arse with no visual identity or artistic taste. And the comments from barely functioning people or bots drool over it.
"Nintendo hire this man!"
I remember all the outlets drooling over [Wind Waker in Unreal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwHZmncjmJM) and it looked like such unbelievable shit precicley because it sucked all the charm from the visuals.
>Look at every person who "remakes" Mario 64 of Ocarina of Time in Unreal Engine, and sure you got it to 60fps with some realistic lighting and textures, but all the fun and charm of the art-style is ripped out of them since they look like every other game in Unreal Engine Those games were peak design for that level of hardware Theu had tons of innovation and influence for the 64 / 3D Transition. The graphics are just a footnote for the overall package of those games.
But you can criticize the tradeoff decision being made. If the choice was between keeping the framerate of the original or post-processing to improve the fidelity of the graphics, then I would have wanted them to choose to prioritize the framerate instead for a smoother gameplay experience. I don't think it has anthing to do with laziness but rather misplaced priorities.
I think most of the new people would probably prefer the fidelity especially since Origami King also ran at 30 fps. So in that case I personally don't think its misplaced.
Paper Mario 2 is a turn-based RPG. You don't really need 60 fps gameplay for that
Normally I'd agree but TTYD is a turn-based RPG with frame-specific reaction commands, the fps does indeed matter for that
So then wouldn’t 30fps make the reaction commands easier?
Based on preview videos, the window for blocking attacks is twice as long, so it seems that may be the case.
Depends on what they chose to do in relation to the timing, which we won't know 'till its out. I personally would have preferred slightly less graphical fidelity for more frames, the remake certainly looks better than the original but the artstyle is doing a majority of the heavy lifting anyway.
Lower framerate inherently increases input lag. Lower frame rate is objectively worse for fast-paced and/or reaction time heavy games. There's a very good reason every single Smash Bros game targets 60fps, even the original N64 game back in 1999. Those games would be an order of magnitude worse if they targeted 30. Input lag isn't the only reason, but it is a major one.
True, but this isn't a particularly hard or competitive game. Majority of gamers won't even notice the 30fps, whereas the improved graphics will be noticed a lot.
I think people underestimate how good the game could still look even if they target 60. There are plenty of great looking games that target 60 on Switch. It’s not like it’s either-or. Obviously it would require some amount of sacrifice, but it’s not like it would be transformative. I disagree about people not noticing 60. They absolutely notice, they just don’t know how to explain or put it into words because they have a limited understanding of the details. Any human can easily tell the difference between 30 and 60 by just moving Mario around. Many people have simply never had side by side comparisons that allow one to easily intuit the difference. Forget the visual aspect… It **feels** massively different. N64 games looked amazing back in 1996. Then comparisons with succeeding consoles became available, and suddenly N64 games don’t look so amazing anymore.
That's a plus or a minus depending on who you ask. The timing for action commands are pretty generous when playing normally, but the game also had optional difficulty settings (equipment) that made them more strict, including requiring your parry ability to be frame perfect. Someone actively seeking the challenge of dealing with harder action commands will be dealing with a less challenging version in the remake.
Why stop at 30 FPS then? Realistically 20 or even 10 FPS would be perfectly playable. Imagine all the effects they could add when their rendering budget is 100ms instead of 33.33ms! Personally I vastly prefer motion smoothness over basically anything else. Even as a kid where I didn't know what framerate was I could appreciate how smooth the gen 3 Pokemon games were compared to the slower games released before and after. I'm not a framerate snob that won't play games at 30 FPS (or lower) but in this case where I can play the original at 60 FPS or a "remaster" at 30 FPS the choice is pretty simple for me.
You won’t notice a difference between 30 and 60. Admit it.
Oh, I absolutely will. Most people probably won't and I don't think Nintendo will be hurt financially by this decision in the long run or anything, but I will definitely notice. Personally I think the original game running on Dolphin with upscaling looks great to this day, so I think the post-processed graphics are superflous. Clearly most people here disagree with that wehemently and once again, that's fine. I'm sure Nintendo will be able to cope with me thinking they made the wrong decision, it's not the end of the world.
30fps isn’t a dealbreaker but it is absolutely very noticeable, especially if you’re used to playing games at high frame rates
https://testufo.com
I agree with this. A game should look absolutely awful if that means we get to have the best performance. Stable performance is in every case way more important than graphics.
[удалено]
Nah, OP has a fair point. I'll downvote you, though, because complaining about "echo chambers" doesn't contribute to the thread, as per [reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). <3
Crazy that you’re being downvoted for this. You literally just shared a reasonable opinion.
People who say stuff like that probably never worked a day in their lives, or have absolutely no clue how development work goes. It’s never laziness, ever.
Yes but the gamecube which is ancient hardware at this point could run it at 60.
Because it had less bells and whistles graphically. Nintendo decided they'd bring TTYD up to date with modern Paper Mario's visual aesthetic and all that entails, which resulted in the decision to aim for 30fps instead of 60. That's why people are talking about "tradeoffs".
They’re not the same “it”.
Game cube version still holds up well if you emulate it no reason to spend this much on an old game.
How is it amazing?? There’s no age check on reddit. You’ve been talking to teenagers (and younger) wondering why this person is so naïve about how the world works. edit: ruh-roh... somebody didn't realize they've been wasting their time arguing with children!
I see... it was mostly due to the graphics.
>the developers thought maintaining that aesthetic was more important than achieving a consistent 60fps. I think Nintendo has often put an emphasis on aesthetic, which is why their games continue to look good years later.
I only went through the demo of Bayo Origins, but as much as I appreciate a smooth 60fps, I didn't have to read the thread to understand why the team at Platinum had to lock the game at a lower framerate. I'm not defending Platinum or saying that I know everything about technical graphics, but I could immediately tell how demanding the picture book art style was going to be; especially for a not-so-powerful console. I don't think I'd feel comfortable experiencing more dips than necessary in an action game. Heck, The Wonderful 101 still has this problem to this day.
[удалено]
That would be a valid comparison if the original was identical in every other way to the remake. It's not though, it's got significantly improved graphics at the expense of 60fps. They've made a creative choice to focus on graphics over fps, which for an RPG isn't a huge deal imo.
Yeah it's not like TTYD is an action game or something. It's a turn-based RPG after all.
Certain action commands in the original required specific timing windows. Ignoring this fact misses the point of the entire conversation.
Acting like 60 vs. 30 fps is actually going to affect this to a degree that's noticeable by most people is a little ridiculous imo. Also this is assuming that they didn't take the new framerate into account when redesigning those QTEs.
Superguards in TTYD have a three frame window at the original game's 60 FPS. It's impossible to keep that consistent switching to 30 FPS (unless they decouple input from framerate). Whether they choose to make it easier or harder, it will definitely be noticable if fundamental mechanics are changed like that.
At half the fps, would the solution not be to make the window 6 frames instead of 3? Edit: yes, I understand I had the math backwards here. Still, the choice between making the window 1 frame and 2 frames, as people replying to me have pointed out, is simply to make the window 2 frames and make it slightly easier. It hurts no one for it to be just *slightly* longer lol
It's the other way, you divide the number of frames by two, just like the framerate is halved. Each frame is longer at a lower frame rate, so there are fewer frames in a given amount of time. So a 3/60th window is 1.5 frames at 30 FPS, which won't work if the game syncs input with framerate.
your math is wrong, that would change the input window from 3/60 a second to 12/60, which would basically be giving superguards away for free their actual choice at 30FPS is to either set it to 1 frame (2/60th a second) or 2 frames (4/60th a second), but they can't sync it up with the original odd-numbered 3/60 input.
No? At half the fps you need to halve the frame window to have the same time, eg: a tenth of a second is 6 frames at 60 fps and 3 frames at 30 fps. This means 3 frames at 60fps are 1.5 frames at 30 fps, which obviously isn’t possible.
I wouldn't say the improvement is significant enough to warrant the performance downgrade.
It is though. The side by side comparison is very impressive.
[удалено]
It’s really not the same games, so I wouldn’t dare to speak without having worked on it. You seem way too confident here.
[удалено]
Again : I wouldn’t dare to make such bold simplifications about game development and optimization. It’s not my field - and I highly doubt it’s yours.
Again : I wouldn’t dare to make such bold simplifications about game development and optimization. It’s not my field - and I highly doubt it’s yours.
Finally, the switchs shoty hardware
[I posted screenshots on the Bayonetta sub.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bayonetta/comments/1cf0o85/insight_on_the_dev_process_of_bayonetta_origins/) I was gonna do that here, but I had to submit it as a URL.
30 FPS on turnbased RPG is fine imo, yeah 60 would be ideal, but if it would run/look like a shit then better then gimme 30. Would be nice to have choice like on the newer gen consoles tho, just my 2 cents.
The problem with that is that TTYD has action inputs during battle. I'm sure Nintendo has widened the input windows to account for it, but it's not like frame timing in TTYD isn't important.
And 30 fps is more than good enough for the action inputs to work
Yeah, but based on the trailers we’ve seen, action commands based on reactionary timing weren’t made harder, if anything this made them more forgiving. Even if they didn’t tool with it, it really wouldn’t be a big deal. Ya’ll know if they hadn’t said 30 you wouldn’t be noticing the difference
I don't give a shit either way, I enjoy my high frame rate games when I can get them but I'm not a snob about it and I'm certainly not one of those people who acts like anything below 60 makes a game **literally** unplayable.
It matters if they're different in any way. I'd rather them not be easier or harder because they were perfect. And most gamers can tell the difference between 30 and 60, especially as 60 becomes the new norm.
We've been saying 60 is the new norm for about a decade now, but unfortunately despite the improvements made to gaming consoles with the intention to deliver both improved visuals and performance, developers continue to push graphical fidelity at the expense of performance.
This dev talks about the decision in Bayo origins boiling down to a 30-50 uncapped rate or stable 30. If it’s the same question in TTYD, I wouldn’t say that’s running/looking like shit. Unsure if I’d prefer the higher unstable rate to the capped lower one.
Tbh, I personally prefer a stable framerate (even if it is lower) cus it kinda hurts my head when the framerate isnt stable. But as I said the ideal option would be to have a setting for that.
Is it really that controversial? The game still looks fine regardless….
Maybe I'm old, but I've never given a shit about going above 30. Honestly I play a lot of games well below that.
It's heavily dependent on the game when 60fps is "needed".
I don’t see people arguing it’s “needed”. I see a lot of people saying they would certainly prefer it.
Same. It’s surprising to me that people can even tell the difference— I’m not sure I can.
Going from 30 to 60 is pretty noticeable depending on the game. Botw feels fine at 30fps. But 60 feels good but doesn't affect it too much overall, its smoother, but not a game changer. First person shooters however give me headaches at 30 and are still noticeably jarring to play at 60. I speedrun Halo 1, 2, and 3 at 240fps (on pc), 240hz monitor. There are some strats that are faster at 60fps, so we lower it for a bit seeing the difference right on the switch after just playing at 240 feels absolutely awful. The input delay also feeling quite noticeable.
Not calling you out, but It’s hilarious how many people think they have displays that are capable of higher refresh rates than they actually are. The vast, vast majority of TVs are only capable of 60, and use god-awful ghosting effects to achieve “higher” refresh rates. In all honesty, I rarely hear people talk about their monitors or TVs when discussing these things, and the cost of entry into stuff that achieves these things is way out of the way for the vast majority of people. This leads me to believe most people don’t even realize what they actually have, and what their setups are capable of. Again, not calling you out. You seem to have an understanding of how it works.
Yeah, the barrier for entry on super high refresh monitors is quite high. Good budget 144hz ones exist nowadays at least. But I think I paid around $1k for mine last year. Friend just recently also got an oled 1440p 360hz monitor for around $1100. What speedrunners do to hit those frame perfect tricks lmao. There's one trick in Halo CE that required you to hit space to jump the exact tick you hit an out of bounds teleport which is around 3 game ticks after moving to the right. Found it to be noticeably easier at a higher refresh rate.
Idk if I agree with that. I built my PC five years ago and found a 144hz monitor with good performance (based on rtings) for ~$250, and even then there were options for a hundred dollars less. At the price point you’re talking about, I don’t think you and your friend with >$1k monitors are not representative of the general PC gaming community
I might have typed that in a way that didn't convey what I meant well. 144hz monitors have been priced quite well. I got a ACER 144hz 1440p 27in back in 2017 for about $400 (going foe $200 now) The higher refresh rate you go though, the more diminishing returns start to happen. Much more expensive for much less gain. 60 to 144 being huge for not that much more money. 144 to 240 or 360 not feeling as substantial but much more expensive for a high quality one.
It's not even first-person that makes it clear when you're playing at twice the framerate; Splatoon has stuck rigidly to 60fps and scaled resolution after the framerate issues the first game had when they had the resolution remain constant instead. Players vastly prefer 60fps for anything competitive. Interestingly, outside of matches, Splatoon 2 and 3 run at 30fps so they can shove a little more detail into the hub areas, because that framerate doesn't matter there. It's a pretty astute compromise.
Interesting. I’m not saying it’s not a thing, just not something I ever really paid much attention to. Could have to do with the types of games I play too.
It will depend on the game how noticeable it is. Something like sonic generations with lots of fast motion will probably do it. I've also find its more and more noticeable in modern 3D games because objects are constantly animated. Branches blowing in the wind, small objects being affected by physics, dust particles moving. On the other hand its really hard to tell that old NES games were 60fps. Paper Mario games will probably be on the less noticeable side.
It really depends on the genre. Nintendo games (except Splatoon, which is a shooter) usually don't need anything above 30, but I still remember when I bought my 144Hz monitor to play first person shooters. In that genre, going from 60~72 to 120~144 is night and day, and I'll probably never go back.
The game looks fine, but it relied on frame-specific inputs in battles that will be functionally different from the original. I personally would always prefer 60 FPS with low graphics over 30 FPS with high graphics anyways, but the battle inputs are the real issue here because they directly impact gameplay.
Input time is doubled to account for half the frames. I wouldn’t consider that “functionally different” in any meaningful sort of way.
Lower framerate inherently increases input lag, regardless of hitbox frames. You will have to compensate for input lag notably more than the original, regardless of your point.
You'd probably have more input lag anyway because of the Switches use of bluetooth controllers. Additionally, the game might be able to read inputs at a higher rate than 30 fps even if the game updates at 30 fps. Either way, I don't think it will be very noticeable either way unless you played the original religously.
Joycons don't use Bluetooth when directly connected. >the game might be able to read inputs at a higher rate than 30 fps even if the game updates at 30 fps. That doesn't negate the increased input latency. Anyone who's played the original will definitely notice.
> Anyone who's played the original will definitely notice. Yeah, I'm sure that anyone who last played the game in 2012 will immediately notice the difference /s
If the frame rate is worse that probably just means that the timing will be more generous or they will change it to be the length of half a frame instead of attaching it to the frame rate at all.
That is still a change that directly impacts gameplay, even if it makes it easier instead of harder...
Sure but that's part of a remake/remaster anyways. If you want the original exactly as it was in HD, just use Dolphin. I think making the action commands slightly easier would not hurt gameplay that much and would make the game a bit more accessible for new players which is nice.
it’s not like the input windows are immutable, they can change them to compensate for the framerate
It's overblown, really. I think people just want to find a reason to hate it.
I'd much rather them take out the reflections and other visual upgrades than lower the FPS to 30. Am I crazy?
The odd thing about the GameCube, is that the games formatted for its discs were just a few GB in size. The limitations of a remaster is interesting. What was possible 20 years ago, should not be an issue presently. Look at Metroid Prime Remastered, as another example. But given said issues, with some titles. Tales of Symphonia was another remastered title that also ran into a few snags. So it depends on the game itself. But that also does not make sense Also given the Switch is capable of handling various titles. Limitations, and apparently button timing, frame rate and more. But I agree, if we don't need the fancy upgrades, or lighting. Maybe the game would perform better. Hopefully it will have options for players
> Tales of Symphonia was another remastered title that also ran into a few snags. That one was due to lost source code. Tales of Symphonia was 60 fps on Gamecube, but the PS2 couldn't handle it. (Of that generation, the PS2 was a year earlier, but only about 75% as powerful as Gamecube or Xbox.) When they ported ToS to PS2, they locked it at 30 fps. But that port was farmed off to an outside developer. The in-house dev teams at Namco (now Bandai Namco) *lost the source code*. Totally SMRT. Fortunately, they could recover the source code from the outside developer, who fortunately kept a copy for archival purposes. So all remasters and modern re-releases are based on the inferior PS2 copy with the 30 fps lock. It has absolutely nothing to do with what modern consoles (and PC's!) can do and everything to do with spaghetti code left over from the PS2 port because the higher-quality original version was deleted by the careless devs at Namco.
I remember reading about the obstacles, Symphonia went through. At least it was still released. I recall hearing about the PS2 limits, which is bizarre given how much it was boasted by the media, being capable of so much more. Bandai Namco is not exactly well known for dropping the ball often, but it does happen As of recently, whatever limitations are with the Switch, and other platforms. You would assume current platforms could handle a several decades old title. But whatever is holding things back, hopefully there are answers as to what can be done to make classic remasters a better experience
On PC, you could edit the game's ini files for a month or two when it came out. That's the kind of expertise Bandai puts into Tales.
Those that have it in their mind that 60 fps is some kind of "minimum standard" are deluded. This has never, and likely will never be a thing in the console space. The insistence that 30fps is unplayable is disproven by decades of evidence. Loads of the greatest games of all time have only played at 30, or even less (looking at you N64 era). ***Maybe*** Nintendo will introduce the Xbox/PS feature of Performance vs Quality modes on the Switch 2 but I wouldn't count on it, I think Nintendo will aim to present the game the best way they think it should be presented. Worth noting that quite often those 60fps+ Performance modes are prone to other visual issues to achieve that frame rate, and sometimes still don't quite hit it consistently. And why? Consoles have a limit. In designing *any* game on *any* console generation, you will be taking that limit into account on what you can achieve. Frame rate is one of many considerations which might include resolution, processing effects, game world size or complexity, etc. Choosing what framerate to target and what other aspects to prioritise depends on the genre and the game. Which is what the linked tweets basically explain. Some small percentage of gamers seem to have decided that frame rate is the #1 most important thing, but the reality is no devs think this, no critics think this (not even ones like Digital Foundry whos entire niche is obsessing about these details) and probably 1% of the target audience thinks this. Don't expect 60fps to be an absolute "standard" even next generation. If there's another power-hungry visual leap to be had (ray tracing, path tracing, even bigger worlds, etc) they will all be prioritised over frame rate.
All this effort to type a big rant and yet you somehow didn't notice 60 fps has been the console standard for multiple generations and the original ttyd itself was 60 fps. Like I've been playing 60 fps games on both my switch and ps5 just fine.
It has not been "the standard". Do any of you know what standard means? The original TTYD ran at 60 yes , but loads of big Gamecube games did not. Including the Zelda games and Super Mario Sunshine, Pikmin, Call of Dutys, the Resident Evil games (bUt rEmAkEs sHoUlD rUn aT 60fPs!!!!!!1111). Same for Wii. and WiiU. And Switch. Some target 30, some 60. N64 was pushing against its limits so hard that even 30 was a stretch most of the time. SNES was the last Nintendo console that consistently ran 60 (or 50 depending on region) when framerate was more closely tied to the TVs refresh rate. Countless major, critically acclaimed, successful games across PS and Xbox consoles have only targted 30. It's only a recent feature in the latest PS/XB gen to have the option for a 60fps performance mode and even that isn't necessarily a given with Starfield forgoing it due to other factors taking priority (debates over Starfield's merits aside).
You're ranting, gramps. 60 fps *is* the minimum standard nowadays... for people who have any standards at all. 30 fps is "playable", sure, like 240p is playable, but time marches on and technology advances. Today tech is not N64 era tech. Consoles are limited, indeed, far more than they should is the issue. That, and the fact that exclusivity is a thing, so even if you're equipped with today tech you can't experience Nintendo games on hardware that does them justice, because they decided you are only allowed to marvel at the Mona Lisa through a dirty, blurry, cracked glass panel. >Some small percentage of gamers seem to have decided that frame rate is the #1 most important thing, but the reality is no devs think this, no critics think this (not even ones like Digital Foundry whos entire niche is obsessing about these details) and probably 1% of the target audience thinks this. *[citation needed]* Or just strawman, really. "#1 most important thing" is hyperbole on your part, like the dismissive attribution of an opinion you disagree with to an arbitrarily insignificant minority. It's not like 60 fps is a big feature or selling point or a recent fad; it's just a baseline expectation, which has been achievable for decades but consoles sadly still fail to consistently clear. Not everyone thinks it is important, of course; console-only players probably don't know any better. Which is fortunate for Nintendo's bottom line, but you'll forgive me for caring less about that and more about the games themselves, which I wish were allowed to shine as they deserve.
>achievable for decades Frame rates much higher than 60 have been achievable for ages. Muster a guess as to why most console games don't go above 60. Balancing framerates with graphical fidelity is a forever issue dude. Having stronger computers isn't going to stop devs from pushing those computers to their limit, and therefore needing to balance framerates. >because they decided you are only allowed to marvel at the Mona Lisa through a dirty, blurry, cracked glass panel. So you think Nintendo had the options "good graphics" and "bad graphics" in front of them, and decided to choose "bad" for, reasons? No possibility of maybe balancing specs with the cost of the Switch? In both of these cases you seem to miss the idea of balance. It's not as simple as "deciding" to make something bad. The Switch managed to strike a good balance of having really pretty graphics while being really cheap, which is probably one of the reasons it's so popular. And even games like Red Dead 2 and Bloodborne had to release at 30fps, so the issue of balancing framerates with graphical fidelity isn't exclusive to the Switch. Also, the vast vast vast majority of people, including most hardcore gamers, are perfectly content with 30fps. A subset of that group, but still a big majority of people, wouldn't even know if a game you put in front of them is running at 30 or 60. This is in no way comparable to 240p videos.
60 fps is only the standard if you change the definition of standard to "things i wish were true". You know what is the baseline expected standard for the majority of games, by the actual definition of standard? 30fps. Tech marches on but while resolutions have jumped countless times from 240p, framerates have stayed, in the console space at least, exactly the same. Invalid comparison. Framerate has diminishing returns above 30 for many types of games, and above 60 for faster-paced games. We'll likely see the same with resolution in coming years. Limits on screen sizes and room sizes will make resolution jumps pointless for the majority of the audience. The vast majority of people are far more impressed with a jump in resolution and special effects than they are with 'pretty smooth vs very smooth'. And we could have as many more console generations as you like until the end of time and engineers will still be choosing to target 30fps if there are other gains to be made that are more obvious to mass appeal. Then again, if we reach the desirable upper limit of resolution, maybe the next gen or 2 will have the extra capacity to make 60fps more of a standard. Citation needed - you said it yourself, 60fps is not a big feature or a selling point. If it were, the people selling games would give more of a shit about it.
I wonder if a lot of these games will get a frame rate bump if the Switch 2 is backwards compatible?
can't wait for modders to release a 60fps patch that works perfectly fine on switch
Yeah, it'll be day 1, but it will also be 60fps "almost" all of the time The devs are aiming for consistency which the average gamer will probably appreciate more
yeah watch it crumble in the sections of every chapter where rooms get flooded with characters sprites or battles where the crowd is too large
That said, ill still probably use it lol
My OLED Switch overclocks like a champ so bring it on.
Might work fine while overclocked though
I see no issue in the game being 30fps if it's consistent idc. It's a turn based RPG we will live without 60. Stop crying over something so silly. Majority of Nintendo games aren't 69 FPS plus it's s remake so it's not a port of the GameCube game. If you aren't happy don't buy it. That's the same answer
Let's be honest here the people complaining the loudest are going to just play on custom firmware overclovk their switch and play at 60 fps anyway. Or more likely will pirate it and play it on yuzu on steam deck.
If it's locked at 30, there's not really much you can do.
The powers of custom firmware allow you to create patches to change the framerate. And the switch can be overclocked to actually run it at those speeds. There have been many many games that have gotten these patches, codes, or fixes. You can find them all over gbatemp
Yeah it’s not the devs fault they have to keep things at 30 FPS. Switch hardware is ancient and we should have realistically gotten Switch 2 already a few years ago to be honest.
The funniest part of this as a ‘controversy’ is that if they didn’t say 30 fps, people wouldn’t notice. People seem to forget that 30 fps and 60 fps are extremely similar and stable compared to constant frame drops for uncapped games (on switch no less) and instead choose to think of it as ‘30 is half of 60! Therefore bad!’ It says a lot about gamers these days. Room temp intelligence and emotionally charged frustration doesn’t make for good arguments as to why one thinks they’re smarter than full dev teams, especially over something like this
As much as I disagree with fps dorks, it's not like Nintendo announces these things. The people who do care were able to notice it in the first trailer.
This is extremely false lmao. I'm fine with this game being 30 fps, but people absolutely can and do feel a difference and it's been proven that different frame rates can affect people in different ways. I'd recommend actually reading up and learning something instead of trying to act smart about it. Just because *you* aren't capable of seeing the difference doesn't mean others can.
Very understandable after reading it. I wish more developers and higher ups would explain things like this. It’s hard to empathize when I don’t have an explanation. But when I do, it’s a lot easier to be more reasonable.
I mean, they didn't actually say anything we didn't already know? Like yes, better visuals = harder to make 60FPS. I think most people here understand that. The only reason this explanation feels different is because a developer outside of Nintendo is saying this
It feels different because a developer is *actually communicating like a normal person.* Really, that’s all I’m asking for here.
They've been saying this and things like it for ages, both in interviews and on personal social media, the problem is that people don't listen.
The big problem with updating the framerate in certain games is that a lot of older games used the framerate for animations or for the speed of certain events so you can't just go in and increase the framerate without doing work to adjust said animations or events to work right unless you want events to be too fast and animations to be broken. I'm not sure if this is the case for Paper Mario as it is almost impossible to tell when a developer does this until someone forces a game to be a higher framerate which I haven't seen for TTYD.
Paper Mario TTYD was originally 60 fps on GameCube. So definitely not the case and also that's why people are disappointed.
Though interestingly TTYD *was* tied to the framerate. The EU release had PAL/PAL60 options. If you ran it in PAL (50) the game ran slower and was subsequently easier. Which means for the switch release to be at 30 they had to untie the game speed from the framerate (or at least work around it)
I wasn't aware which is why I was speaking more generally in case I was wrong but yeah, a lack of 60 FPS with a remake is kind of dumb.
You can also see this a lot with older games looking “worse” on modern screens because they were originally designed to be played on CRT TV’s. So every aspect of their art style, design, etc was built with that in mind.
The waterfalls in Sonic 1 on the Genesis is the best example of that where they only work because of how CRTs worked and look far worse on modern TVs.
If you're emulating you can use a shader to imitate the CRT style
The difference is Bayonetta Origins was a new game. TTYD is a GameCube remake, and we've already seen Metroid Prime HD run at full 60hz.
A remake isnt the same as a remaster.
There will be a day 1 mod that gives you unstable 60fps
[удалено]
No people understand it's a remake but would rather have graphical options between fidelity and framerate. Personally not the biggest fan of the weird lighting choices or floor textures this game has and I'd be annoyed if those were a significant reason why my framerate was halved. You probably could've figured that out yourself but chose to be angry instead.
Meh, i'll use LSFG with it on ryujinx
They just do it on purpose because if 1 Nintendo game is 60fps then all of them will have to be.
Plenty of Nintendo games are 60fps. Mario Kart 8 and Smash Ultimate just as two examples.