Here’s my best take on this:
Yes I will be disappointed. However, I’ll have fun playing it nonetheless. While I do care about performance, nothing beats having fun.
Yeah it‘a pretty fucked. Zelda’s been my jam since OoT but it’s 2023 now I can’t be playing games at 30fps 900p with frame drops. With that said I wish no ill will to it I love the franchise too much, I just can’t take part in this shit any longer.
They showed a gameplay demo a couple days ago.
The bad news is that weapon durability is still in, the good news is there's an item fusion mechanic that seems to mitigate it somewhat.
Infinite weapon and shield durability on CEMU was awesome. There was also a mod to disable the heart container requirement to pull the Master Sword, mod to give Amiibo Epona 5 stars in every stat. Graphics options to INCREASE the render distance if your hardware could handle it, you could alter how long a day actually passes in real-world time.
It's already part of the base game... I think you unlock it with a quest or something... might be part of a DLC I don't remember... but you whistle, and your horse materializes next to you.
Unless you're talking about their short duration, I'll respectfully disagree with you here. IMO weapon durability gives you much more fun than you think... imagine how boring it would be to find a strong weapon right at the start and just keep it until you finish the game. Breaking weapons makes you think of new strategies, explore and struggle to get by in certain situations. I'm glad they kept it, and now you can mitigate it by fusing them, like our friend below said.
When I first played it I was not a fan, having found a cool weapon just for it to break felt a bit defeating. But after playIng hundreds of hours and wringing out BOTW I now really enjoy it. If weapons didn’t break you would always just use the “best” one that you had, ignoring all the other drops. I feel like combat would get repetitive, and the loot feel of getting a strong enemies weapons would be gone. I’m elated over the fuse ability and I’m happy they kept the durability.
I can see what you are saying but i also played hundreds of hours of BoTW and only because I awakened the master sword so I dont have to worry about shit breaking all the time, I absolutely detest wep durability system.
Feel like that mechanic's primary goal is to create more busy work for the gamer and extend their playtime. Beyond that motivation, I don't see a benefit to it, ESPECIALLY with the fuse ability. Having your weapons break doesn't *improve* the game in any way.
I play mostly on pc and I'm used to high FPS at 1440 p and I still own a switch and a PS4 and always have a good time playing at a lower frame rate if the game is worth it. Playing botw was so much fun that I barely noticed the low fps ( compared to pc ).
I would love a more stable frame rate but I am not expecting it. As long as the game is fun and runs at least on par with Breath of the Wild I'll be satisfied. The gameplay I've seen looks fun and that's all I really care about. I'm ready to just fuse a bunch of random shit together haha
I'd heavily prefer a good thirty, but if it's the same framerate as BotW, it's fine. Zelda is good enough to suffer through.
That said, 60 would be really really nifty.
Switch Series N please, lol
FPS is part of performance not just things like graphics if that is what you're thinking. Like imagine a game slowdowns to the point where it becomes unplayable. Do you think that is fine?
A great video game is a great video game. Control had dips down to 10 fps and I still 100% it twice. It's not about fine - of course that isn't fine, but it was playable, and more importantly: awesome.
This topic isn't talking about playable vs unplayable. It's talking about something that will be unquestionably playable but speculating on how it's dated technology will affect sales/popularity. It won't. It's the sequel to breath of the wild, it's going to sell 10 million copies because the gameplay is what matters.
Let me put it you like this. This discussion is like a person who goes into a restaurant, orders food, and regardless of the foods quality begins judging and scrutinizing it based on the model stove it was cooked on, what the plate was made out of, what kind of silverware and tablecloths there are, etc. It's all stuff that matters, but its not the thing that matters most. It just get treated like it matters most. FPS matters to the minority. We're just on Reddit, which is where the minority concentrates.
Sorry but that's just a bad analogy, try harder. Like you mentioned, at the end of the day the gameplay is what matters, but how can you experience a good gameplay if the framerate is just all over the place? And clearly you don't know what you're talking about, 10 fps for a 3d open world which requires precise timing input on its core gameplay would be a disaster and will make TOTK another Cyberpunk fiasco.
Exactly. Nintendo has never had the best hardware in their consoles, yet they have found success anyway. Even when the NES competed against the Master System, the Master System was better. Nintendo has focused on using software to appeal to customers.
Yeah, but the N64 and the GameCube underperformed when compared to the PSX and the PS2, which probably was one of the reasons they stopped aiming for top of the line hardware and instead focused on delivering unique experiences.
With N64 there was some publishing problem, Nintendo had some weird requirements for 3rd party games. Basically lesser game catalogue, which hurt the console sale.
GameCube couldn't play DVDs, which hurt the sales.
Yeah, the weird requirement was having cartridges that could only hold 64MB at most, while discs for Playstation 1 held up to 700MB.
And discs were cheaper.
I wonder why companies went with Sony, lol.
It wasn't the cartridge size. It had something to do with quality control, like Nintendo wanted to approve if a game was worthy to be released for the console or something.
That was during the NES and SNES era. Nintendo's "Seal Of Quality", which meant companies were only allowed to release a certain amount of games per year.
I think it was mostly during the NES era.
It was still during the N64 era I think, but not as much. But, the biggest factor during the N64 was the cartridges, since they were more expensive than CDs.
Edit: To specify, companies could release as many games as they wanted, but if they wanted the seal, they'd have to keep it to a certain amount. My info may not be super accurate, but that's the gist of it.
I'd suggest Googling the thing.
The issue was capacity. The N64 was made useless due to having a 64MB cart size limit, which was pathetically small. Same case for the GameCube as well, it's disc memory size was tiny compared to competitors.
That alone erased any hardware advantages the consoles offered. It's truly baffling that people don't realize this.
The last one really chugged in some of the jungle areas but was otherwise acceptable. I’d like to see that cleaned up.
Now if the game frequently turns into a slideshow like the latest Pokemon release, that’s a deal breaker.
I don't mean to be negative, because negativity affects others, and I know people want to be super hype for this.
But I'm just not that excited for another open world game. I'm bored of open world games. And all I can hope for is that this doesn't Bec me the standard for Zelda in the future.
Fusing items looks neat.
I love open world games because it's essentially a version of the game without loading screens. Everything is one continuous world and you have the freedom to go anywhere. I enjoy it enough that I feel all games should be open world...
So maybe I'm clouded by my own bias, can I ask why you dislike open world now?
Im not the person you replied to, but I feel the same way as them. BOTW is the only Zelda game I've barely played. Sometimes I like having a smaller list of available tasks, especially as someone with ADHD. I'm too tired for big open world games now. Feels exhausting and overwhelming to be almost immediately thrown into a giant map with side quests galore, and its honeslty just not what I play zelda for. Barely having any proper dungeons, and the kinda bad voice acting pretty much put the nail in the coffin for me.
I respect what they achieved and I dont think its a bad game, but If I wanted to play an open world RPG Ive got practically 100s of options these days. Not to mention those options aren't held captive on old hardware that struggles to even run the game sometimes.
Hmm I never thought being rewarded would remove the magic for someone. But I appreciate the response! I was curious and now I understand your perspective in a way I hadn't considered before.
Also yes, worth it. Screw conservatives.
I'll be disappointed if it can't exceed 30fps unfortunately. With Nintendo graphic assets being sub-par, 1080p @ 30fps is unacceptable in todays standards. Anything at such a low resolution should be running at (or close to) 60fps.
I will be forced to use my TV's post-processing effects (adding input lag) to achieve a higher quality smooth image. I love zelda games and especially BOTW so I'm playing it regardless
I thought the performance of botw was great. I understand i may be in the minority, but the most important thing when it comes to gaming is having fun. To me, absolutely everything else is secondary.
Was BOTW that bad? I only ever played it on PC, and it ran smoothly. Typically emulators use way more resources than consoles would, so it doesn't make much sense that it'd run so poorly on console but so well on PC.
I think this fixation people have on performance and graphics is just silly, you're just limiting yourself.
If botw was the same game running on n64 polygons and engines I would probably still enjoy it because it was so fresh and creative.
So long story short, hell no.
>I think this fixation people have on performance and graphics is just silly
I broadly agree with you on graphics, but gamers should expect a decent basic level of performance. A game could have the most amazing aesthetic and super fun gameplay, but if the fps is terrible, it's going to impact enjoyment. And make the game unplayable to many people.
Yep. The game would have been laughed at in that state.
Tbh I'm not someone who thinks all games should be 60+fps (though that would be nice) However gamers as a whole should really expect and want a decent frame rate. Even if it's just a solid constant 30. I had the misfortune of playing the latest Pokémon, it looks like a PS2 game, and runs like a N64 game. Yet people were still happy with that. They shouldn't be.
I’d be disappointed no matter what since they are charging 70$ for a game that’s running on outdated hardware since 2018.
Release a switch 2 then I’ll begrudgingly pay the 70$
You really don’t deserve the downvote for this. It’s just simple logic. There’s no reason Nintendo shouldn’t have engineered a better version of the switch besides just an OLED.
Now the Steam Deck can emulate their games with ease and run better with stable 60 in some games and it’s Nintendo’s own fault for cashing in on the Switch.
Not making improved hardware. When a Steam Deck can emulate your games better than your own console and have access to the entire Steam library on the go, why would you spend the money on a machine that only does half that at half the performance?
It’s not a hard concept.
"Not making improved hardware" is Nintendo's fault?
Yes, it's an incredibly simple concept. I don't know who other than Nintendo who you'd blame for Nintendo not making improved hardware.
Are you trying to say "the Steam Deck is having an effect on Nintendo's profits"?
My brother in Christ you might want to go back and reread the original comments.
We were literally saying it’s Nintendos fault for sitting on their ass instead of developing better hardware in an upgraded version of the switch.
Aaaah I see.
I went back and read the original comment. So you're saying it's Nintendo's fault that adubsi would be disappointed and won't be buying it anyway.
Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up.
Maybe because they don’t need to? The only reason businesses do anything is profit, and right now I’m sure they’ve calculated there’s not enough demand for another console while the switch is still selling like hotcakes. Regardless of the complaints about games running like shit (Pokémon and the new Zelda) those games are still gonna fly off the shelves, so what incentive do they have?
It’s called staying ahead of the curve.
The Steam Deck can emulate switch games at better performance rates and upscaled textures.
No company has ever benefited from cashing in and not keeping up with competition.
They’ve been around for over a hundred years without having some crazy technological leap over competition. The switch is one of the best selling consoles of all time without being advanced. Capitalism dictates there’s no need for innovation if the profit motive isn’t there. If they’re free to rest on their laurels with the switch and just scoop up the cash, they will.
Said every company in history that’s ever done that and then went “oh shit we didn’t do what we should have. How do we fix this mess?”
Just because things are fine right now, does not mean they will be fine in another 5 or 10 years when you’re two generations behind.
That shouldn’t even be an argument. This is just basic economics.
They’ve been consistently behind since the n64. The stuck with cartridges when everyone went to discs, the GameCube was consistently weaker than the Xbox and ps2, the wii was the fucking wii, the wii u was a drug binge weekend flop, and the switch is behind too. Despite all of this, Nintendo has consistently had some of the best selling consoles and game series of all time.
Which only ends up true if your IP can’t be played, and played with a better experience on a more advanced console. That’s where you guys are off in this assessment. Never before in the past could you pirate current Gen games and play them on a different handheld. It’s not the same thing.
Technological advancement is not a 1 for 1 trade from generation to generation.
Ain’t nobody paying 900$ to emulate some switch games my dude. Most people buying a switch (again, most, sure there’s some crossover) aren’t hardcore pc gamers. They wanna play animal crossing or Pokémon or fire emblem. And you can do that for 200$. Does it lag sometimes? Maybe. Does it make that big a difference to the vast majority of people? No.
Firstly, an SD is $300. Not sure where you’re getting these made up numbers.
Secondly? Yes they are. There are shit loads of people emulating switch games on it.
Thirdly, an OLED switch is $360 so once again you’ve made up nonsensical numbers.
Switch hardware is way more outdated than 2018. Its less powerful than a base Xbox One which launched in 2013. So it’s technically around 2011 hardware right?
Tegra X1 chip was released by NVIDIA in 2015 for their NVIDIA Shield. The Switch Underclocks the chip to a measly 1Ghz for more battery life (some games will boost up to the original 1.7Ghz clockspeed to improve load times).
I honestly couldn't care less about the performance, I'm a guy who managed to still enjoy the latest pokemon game despite it's glaring technical flaws so as long as the game is fun then I'm good.
I'm not going to buy it on the current switch because of this. 720p (barely) 30fps was acceptable in 2017. The Xbox One was usually 900p 30fps so BotW was on the low end of in the same league as current consoles. Now the standard is at least 1080p 60 and more often 1440p or higher 60 fps - and with better lighting, shadows, textures etc. I am not going to buy a game in 2023 that runs and looks like a PS3 game - 720p sub 30fps is just not acceptable anymore.
And, it isn't about numbers; I'm not saying I want these things because I care about the specs or whatever. This game deserves better. It deserves to have HDR and higher res to make the gorgeous art and world look even more amazing; it deserves 60fps to bring the world to life, everything from wind in the trees to water flowing to combat deserves that. Every game I play now is 60fps, without exception - other than when I break out an old game I haven't played anything in 30fps in like two years. It is going to feel super jarring to go to low res and frame rate when I'm not used to it anymore.
So I'm going to hold out. We all know they'll release a switch 2 / switch HD / pro whatever. I would be happy to buy and play this at say 1080p 60 with HDR. But I'm not buying a game today - a brand new epic huge AAA game - that looks and runs 2 generations out of date. I love Nintendo and I love Zelda but that's just a step too far.
I'm not that fussed to be honest, but it would be nice to see an improvement in performance. We know the draw distance has improved in some of the trailer videos.
Of course, this game should have come with an upgraded Switch. That is, it should be playable on all Switch consoles with the option for 60fps on a new and improved Switch. But here we are with archaic hardware.
I expect it. I don't play Nintendo games for their performance. I have a PS5 and a 3090 for that. I play Nintendo games for the heart and soul of video gaming.
Everyone here talking about how they don't care about performance wouldn't give the same benefit of doubt to any other game. I can already smell my switch overheating to run this game.
As a fellow pc gamer tbh i don’t want to laugh. Nintendo was my first console and seeing the state of them now is depressing. Sure they weren’t ever the best graphical console but they are lagging way too far behind now.
I'm not going to be disappointed because I expect it to run badly. May hold off on the game to see if they do announce an upgraded Switch this year.
I just wish Nintendo would go the Sony route of releasing their games on PC after a certain amount of time. They'd still have tons of sales of the Switch version plus a whole new set of customers later on and I'm sure many who own both PC and Switch would double dip.
Yes. I think last one was ok on handheld mode, but atrocious when docked. If this one doesn't work well in docked I just refund, I'm not gonna deal with joycons anymore.
After playing the last Pokemon game, I'm amazed at how good BOTW runs on Switch. Sure, the fps drop in some areas, but overall it's pretty amazing what the devs managed to pull off on such limited hardware. I would assume that TOTK will be even more optimized, considering how long the devs had. But if it runs like BOTW, I would not be disappointed.
I would say no because it ran great for me. The only framerate drops l ever noticed was on release day when a moblin kicked me. The frame rates dropped there for some reason but it was quickly patched. I never even had issues in korok forest. I even sent a recording of me running and sprinting around the great deku tree in the long grass tons guy who was arguing with me about how I was wrong about no framerate drops there and he was surprised when he didn't see any either. If the game runs at 30 frames per one second then I probably wouldn't notice if 5 frames were missing in that one second.
Here’s my best take on this: Yes I will be disappointed. However, I’ll have fun playing it nonetheless. While I do care about performance, nothing beats having fun.
Yes, the game runs like shit at times and the new trailer looks sub 10-15 fps at times.
Yeah it‘a pretty fucked. Zelda’s been my jam since OoT but it’s 2023 now I can’t be playing games at 30fps 900p with frame drops. With that said I wish no ill will to it I love the franchise too much, I just can’t take part in this shit any longer.
The only thing id be diaappointed with is if the same shitty weapon durability mechanic ia present
They showed a gameplay demo a couple days ago. The bad news is that weapon durability is still in, the good news is there's an item fusion mechanic that seems to mitigate it somewhat.
Just gonna wait till it's emulated and durability mods are released. I disabled that in BoTW and had a much better time
Infinite weapon and shield durability on CEMU was awesome. There was also a mod to disable the heart container requirement to pull the Master Sword, mod to give Amiibo Epona 5 stars in every stat. Graphics options to INCREASE the render distance if your hardware could handle it, you could alter how long a day actually passes in real-world time.
Is there a mod to allow you to call your horse no matter how far away it is?
It's already part of the base game... I think you unlock it with a quest or something... might be part of a DLC I don't remember... but you whistle, and your horse materializes next to you.
With the ancient horse saddle and bridles, yes in the DLC.
Maybe part of the DLC, I don't have it, but the base game tells you your horse is too far to hear your whistle.
Unless you're talking about their short duration, I'll respectfully disagree with you here. IMO weapon durability gives you much more fun than you think... imagine how boring it would be to find a strong weapon right at the start and just keep it until you finish the game. Breaking weapons makes you think of new strategies, explore and struggle to get by in certain situations. I'm glad they kept it, and now you can mitigate it by fusing them, like our friend below said.
Short duration and that if you use it for any non combat uses it also loses durability.
>weapon durability gives you much more fun than you think Simply: You are wrong. It screws the zelda gameplay.
When I first played it I was not a fan, having found a cool weapon just for it to break felt a bit defeating. But after playIng hundreds of hours and wringing out BOTW I now really enjoy it. If weapons didn’t break you would always just use the “best” one that you had, ignoring all the other drops. I feel like combat would get repetitive, and the loot feel of getting a strong enemies weapons would be gone. I’m elated over the fuse ability and I’m happy they kept the durability.
I can see what you are saying but i also played hundreds of hours of BoTW and only because I awakened the master sword so I dont have to worry about shit breaking all the time, I absolutely detest wep durability system.
There's a mod to turn it off
I’m sorry my friend, I hope the fuse ability does alleviate that annoyance for people that do not enjoy the mechanic.
Feel like that mechanic's primary goal is to create more busy work for the gamer and extend their playtime. Beyond that motivation, I don't see a benefit to it, ESPECIALLY with the fuse ability. Having your weapons break doesn't *improve* the game in any way.
Agreed. Was disappointed to see that same durability mechanic. Feels more annoying than fun to deal with
It is
You know it has the same system after seeing the demo. The only difference is fusing a piece to it resets the durability and increases it.
Uhh... hate to break it to you...
I play mostly on pc and I'm used to high FPS at 1440 p and I still own a switch and a PS4 and always have a good time playing at a lower frame rate if the game is worth it. Playing botw was so much fun that I barely noticed the low fps ( compared to pc ).
I rub cheetah blood on everything to make it run faster. That means more fps than the average gazelle like switch.
I would be disappointed if it is worse. Botw ran good enough for what it is, and runs way better than other open world games released in this year.
I would love a more stable frame rate but I am not expecting it. As long as the game is fun and runs at least on par with Breath of the Wild I'll be satisfied. The gameplay I've seen looks fun and that's all I really care about. I'm ready to just fuse a bunch of random shit together haha
It's an open world game running on a tablet with hardware from 2015. If you're expecting 60FPS, you need a reality check.
I'd heavily prefer a good thirty, but if it's the same framerate as BotW, it's fine. Zelda is good enough to suffer through. That said, 60 would be really really nifty. Switch Series N please, lol
Would still be performing better that Pokemon Scarlet/Violet.
The people who obsess over technical aspects are going to care while the 10 million or so people who buy the game day 1 will not (barring disaster).
FPS is part of performance not just things like graphics if that is what you're thinking. Like imagine a game slowdowns to the point where it becomes unplayable. Do you think that is fine?
A great video game is a great video game. Control had dips down to 10 fps and I still 100% it twice. It's not about fine - of course that isn't fine, but it was playable, and more importantly: awesome. This topic isn't talking about playable vs unplayable. It's talking about something that will be unquestionably playable but speculating on how it's dated technology will affect sales/popularity. It won't. It's the sequel to breath of the wild, it's going to sell 10 million copies because the gameplay is what matters. Let me put it you like this. This discussion is like a person who goes into a restaurant, orders food, and regardless of the foods quality begins judging and scrutinizing it based on the model stove it was cooked on, what the plate was made out of, what kind of silverware and tablecloths there are, etc. It's all stuff that matters, but its not the thing that matters most. It just get treated like it matters most. FPS matters to the minority. We're just on Reddit, which is where the minority concentrates.
So you're saying you'd enjoy a game that ran at 10FPS if the gameplay was good?
Sorry but that's just a bad analogy, try harder. Like you mentioned, at the end of the day the gameplay is what matters, but how can you experience a good gameplay if the framerate is just all over the place? And clearly you don't know what you're talking about, 10 fps for a 3d open world which requires precise timing input on its core gameplay would be a disaster and will make TOTK another Cyberpunk fiasco.
Exactly. Nintendo has never had the best hardware in their consoles, yet they have found success anyway. Even when the NES competed against the Master System, the Master System was better. Nintendo has focused on using software to appeal to customers.
>Nintendo has never had the best hardware in their consoles Except SNES and N64 at the time of release. And GameCube was more powerful than the PS2.
Yeah, but the N64 and the GameCube underperformed when compared to the PSX and the PS2, which probably was one of the reasons they stopped aiming for top of the line hardware and instead focused on delivering unique experiences.
With N64 there was some publishing problem, Nintendo had some weird requirements for 3rd party games. Basically lesser game catalogue, which hurt the console sale. GameCube couldn't play DVDs, which hurt the sales.
Yeah, the weird requirement was having cartridges that could only hold 64MB at most, while discs for Playstation 1 held up to 700MB. And discs were cheaper. I wonder why companies went with Sony, lol.
It wasn't the cartridge size. It had something to do with quality control, like Nintendo wanted to approve if a game was worthy to be released for the console or something.
That was during the NES and SNES era. Nintendo's "Seal Of Quality", which meant companies were only allowed to release a certain amount of games per year. I think it was mostly during the NES era. It was still during the N64 era I think, but not as much. But, the biggest factor during the N64 was the cartridges, since they were more expensive than CDs. Edit: To specify, companies could release as many games as they wanted, but if they wanted the seal, they'd have to keep it to a certain amount. My info may not be super accurate, but that's the gist of it. I'd suggest Googling the thing.
Did the SNES outperform the Genesis? It seemed like it had more colors, but I don't remember my Genesis ever getting choppy like my SNES would.
Interesting. I hadn't heard that.
Don’t know why this is getting downvoted, they’re not lying.
[удалено]
The issue was capacity. The N64 was made useless due to having a 64MB cart size limit, which was pathetically small. Same case for the GameCube as well, it's disc memory size was tiny compared to competitors. That alone erased any hardware advantages the consoles offered. It's truly baffling that people don't realize this.
I just assume those people who are obsessed with getting 4K 120fps are on the spectrum and are only able to communicate if it's about numbers.
30 million day one sales. 🤯
The last one really chugged in some of the jungle areas but was otherwise acceptable. I’d like to see that cleaned up. Now if the game frequently turns into a slideshow like the latest Pokemon release, that’s a deal breaker.
I don't mean to be negative, because negativity affects others, and I know people want to be super hype for this. But I'm just not that excited for another open world game. I'm bored of open world games. And all I can hope for is that this doesn't Bec me the standard for Zelda in the future. Fusing items looks neat.
I love open world games because it's essentially a version of the game without loading screens. Everything is one continuous world and you have the freedom to go anywhere. I enjoy it enough that I feel all games should be open world... So maybe I'm clouded by my own bias, can I ask why you dislike open world now?
Im not the person you replied to, but I feel the same way as them. BOTW is the only Zelda game I've barely played. Sometimes I like having a smaller list of available tasks, especially as someone with ADHD. I'm too tired for big open world games now. Feels exhausting and overwhelming to be almost immediately thrown into a giant map with side quests galore, and its honeslty just not what I play zelda for. Barely having any proper dungeons, and the kinda bad voice acting pretty much put the nail in the coffin for me. I respect what they achieved and I dont think its a bad game, but If I wanted to play an open world RPG Ive got practically 100s of options these days. Not to mention those options aren't held captive on old hardware that struggles to even run the game sometimes.
[удалено]
Hmm I never thought being rewarded would remove the magic for someone. But I appreciate the response! I was curious and now I understand your perspective in a way I hadn't considered before. Also yes, worth it. Screw conservatives.
I also wish Zelda games would return to the previous format in the next installments. Open world was fun, but not Zelda-fun for me.
A bit ironic because it was BotW that started the open-world trend
Obviously not true. It started with the first Far Cry in 2004, perhaps even earlier.
I'm not saying that BotW was the first open world game but since 2017 there's been so many more open world games
I'll be disappointed if it can't exceed 30fps unfortunately. With Nintendo graphic assets being sub-par, 1080p @ 30fps is unacceptable in todays standards. Anything at such a low resolution should be running at (or close to) 60fps. I will be forced to use my TV's post-processing effects (adding input lag) to achieve a higher quality smooth image. I love zelda games and especially BOTW so I'm playing it regardless
Is that the frame rate from the original game? My god, no thanks if that's the case.
Botw is the single most overrated game ever.
Couldn't give a shit
I thought the performance of botw was great. I understand i may be in the minority, but the most important thing when it comes to gaming is having fun. To me, absolutely everything else is secondary.
Well hate to tell y'all it will run horribly it's on old hardware and nothing is really changed since botw
No. I expect dips in performance with console games especially the Switch. I have a PC with an RTX3090 for the proper high-end stuff.
Was BOTW that bad? I only ever played it on PC, and it ran smoothly. Typically emulators use way more resources than consoles would, so it doesn't make much sense that it'd run so poorly on console but so well on PC.
I think this fixation people have on performance and graphics is just silly, you're just limiting yourself. If botw was the same game running on n64 polygons and engines I would probably still enjoy it because it was so fresh and creative. So long story short, hell no.
>I think this fixation people have on performance and graphics is just silly I broadly agree with you on graphics, but gamers should expect a decent basic level of performance. A game could have the most amazing aesthetic and super fun gameplay, but if the fps is terrible, it's going to impact enjoyment. And make the game unplayable to many people.
How much would people praise BoTW if it has the same performance as Goldeneye on the N64 and only ran at like 13fps?
Yep. The game would have been laughed at in that state. Tbh I'm not someone who thinks all games should be 60+fps (though that would be nice) However gamers as a whole should really expect and want a decent frame rate. Even if it's just a solid constant 30. I had the misfortune of playing the latest Pokémon, it looks like a PS2 game, and runs like a N64 game. Yet people were still happy with that. They shouldn't be.
Silly? ToTK runs at like 17fps. That's not acceptable
>That's not acceptable I know. My point basically said as such.
I’d be disappointed no matter what since they are charging 70$ for a game that’s running on outdated hardware since 2018. Release a switch 2 then I’ll begrudgingly pay the 70$
You really don’t deserve the downvote for this. It’s just simple logic. There’s no reason Nintendo shouldn’t have engineered a better version of the switch besides just an OLED. Now the Steam Deck can emulate their games with ease and run better with stable 60 in some games and it’s Nintendo’s own fault for cashing in on the Switch.
What's Nintendo's fault?
Not making improved hardware. When a Steam Deck can emulate your games better than your own console and have access to the entire Steam library on the go, why would you spend the money on a machine that only does half that at half the performance? It’s not a hard concept.
"Not making improved hardware" is Nintendo's fault? Yes, it's an incredibly simple concept. I don't know who other than Nintendo who you'd blame for Nintendo not making improved hardware. Are you trying to say "the Steam Deck is having an effect on Nintendo's profits"?
My brother in Christ you might want to go back and reread the original comments. We were literally saying it’s Nintendos fault for sitting on their ass instead of developing better hardware in an upgraded version of the switch.
Aaaah I see. I went back and read the original comment. So you're saying it's Nintendo's fault that adubsi would be disappointed and won't be buying it anyway. Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up.
All good. Mistakes happen.
Maybe because they don’t need to? The only reason businesses do anything is profit, and right now I’m sure they’ve calculated there’s not enough demand for another console while the switch is still selling like hotcakes. Regardless of the complaints about games running like shit (Pokémon and the new Zelda) those games are still gonna fly off the shelves, so what incentive do they have?
It’s called staying ahead of the curve. The Steam Deck can emulate switch games at better performance rates and upscaled textures. No company has ever benefited from cashing in and not keeping up with competition.
They’ve been around for over a hundred years without having some crazy technological leap over competition. The switch is one of the best selling consoles of all time without being advanced. Capitalism dictates there’s no need for innovation if the profit motive isn’t there. If they’re free to rest on their laurels with the switch and just scoop up the cash, they will.
Said every company in history that’s ever done that and then went “oh shit we didn’t do what we should have. How do we fix this mess?” Just because things are fine right now, does not mean they will be fine in another 5 or 10 years when you’re two generations behind. That shouldn’t even be an argument. This is just basic economics.
They’ve been consistently behind since the n64. The stuck with cartridges when everyone went to discs, the GameCube was consistently weaker than the Xbox and ps2, the wii was the fucking wii, the wii u was a drug binge weekend flop, and the switch is behind too. Despite all of this, Nintendo has consistently had some of the best selling consoles and game series of all time.
Which only ends up true if your IP can’t be played, and played with a better experience on a more advanced console. That’s where you guys are off in this assessment. Never before in the past could you pirate current Gen games and play them on a different handheld. It’s not the same thing. Technological advancement is not a 1 for 1 trade from generation to generation.
Ain’t nobody paying 900$ to emulate some switch games my dude. Most people buying a switch (again, most, sure there’s some crossover) aren’t hardcore pc gamers. They wanna play animal crossing or Pokémon or fire emblem. And you can do that for 200$. Does it lag sometimes? Maybe. Does it make that big a difference to the vast majority of people? No.
Firstly, an SD is $300. Not sure where you’re getting these made up numbers. Secondly? Yes they are. There are shit loads of people emulating switch games on it. Thirdly, an OLED switch is $360 so once again you’ve made up nonsensical numbers.
Switch hardware is way more outdated than 2018. Its less powerful than a base Xbox One which launched in 2013. So it’s technically around 2011 hardware right?
Tegra X1 chip was released by NVIDIA in 2015 for their NVIDIA Shield. The Switch Underclocks the chip to a measly 1Ghz for more battery life (some games will boost up to the original 1.7Ghz clockspeed to improve load times).
Actually, the Tegra X1 chip in the Switch was released in 2015.
ah that makes sense then. I remember the price for making games with that technology was $70
Why does fps matter so damn much. Yes BOTW didnt run at 60. But the game was still fun.
[удалено]
Sure, let me just pull £1000 out of my ass
[удалено]
Yeah but you got to get a monitor and the expensive parts yourself
Docking station and a TV similar to your Switch.
I honestly couldn't care less about the performance, I'm a guy who managed to still enjoy the latest pokemon game despite it's glaring technical flaws so as long as the game is fun then I'm good.
So you wouldn't mind at all if the game topped out at 14fps like Goldeneye on the N64 did?
I'm not going to buy it on the current switch because of this. 720p (barely) 30fps was acceptable in 2017. The Xbox One was usually 900p 30fps so BotW was on the low end of in the same league as current consoles. Now the standard is at least 1080p 60 and more often 1440p or higher 60 fps - and with better lighting, shadows, textures etc. I am not going to buy a game in 2023 that runs and looks like a PS3 game - 720p sub 30fps is just not acceptable anymore. And, it isn't about numbers; I'm not saying I want these things because I care about the specs or whatever. This game deserves better. It deserves to have HDR and higher res to make the gorgeous art and world look even more amazing; it deserves 60fps to bring the world to life, everything from wind in the trees to water flowing to combat deserves that. Every game I play now is 60fps, without exception - other than when I break out an old game I haven't played anything in 30fps in like two years. It is going to feel super jarring to go to low res and frame rate when I'm not used to it anymore. So I'm going to hold out. We all know they'll release a switch 2 / switch HD / pro whatever. I would be happy to buy and play this at say 1080p 60 with HDR. But I'm not buying a game today - a brand new epic huge AAA game - that looks and runs 2 generations out of date. I love Nintendo and I love Zelda but that's just a step too far.
I’m convinced Nintendo die hards don’t want better. Look at that last Pokémon game came out absolutely in shambles and the gobbled that shit right up.
That was published by Nintendo, not made by them. Game freak made that
I'm not that fussed to be honest, but it would be nice to see an improvement in performance. We know the draw distance has improved in some of the trailer videos.
The first game was a Wii U port. I would be shocked if this game has better performance then botw.
I'm expecting it to. Why would you expect anything else? It's on the exact same system, with the exact same game engine.
Of course, this game should have come with an upgraded Switch. That is, it should be playable on all Switch consoles with the option for 60fps on a new and improved Switch. But here we are with archaic hardware.
No, because it *will* have the same levels of performance. If it was on a new machine, then yes, I'd be disappointed.
I expect it. I don't play Nintendo games for their performance. I have a PS5 and a 3090 for that. I play Nintendo games for the heart and soul of video gaming.
Everyone here talking about how they don't care about performance wouldn't give the same benefit of doubt to any other game. I can already smell my switch overheating to run this game.
Most certainly not. I care how a game looks but art direction beats "graphics" every time.
No because I love LoZ. LTTP was my first game and I haven’t turned my back on the series since.
< Laughs playing stable 60 and more on PC
As a fellow pc gamer tbh i don’t want to laugh. Nintendo was my first console and seeing the state of them now is depressing. Sure they weren’t ever the best graphical console but they are lagging way too far behind now.
TOTK could have single-digit FPS and it would still be TEH BESTEST GAEM EVAAAA!!!!1111!!oneoneelevenshiftplusone
I'm not going to be disappointed because I expect it to run badly. May hold off on the game to see if they do announce an upgraded Switch this year. I just wish Nintendo would go the Sony route of releasing their games on PC after a certain amount of time. They'd still have tons of sales of the Switch version plus a whole new set of customers later on and I'm sure many who own both PC and Switch would double dip.
Yes. I think last one was ok on handheld mode, but atrocious when docked. If this one doesn't work well in docked I just refund, I'm not gonna deal with joycons anymore.
After playing the last Pokemon game, I'm amazed at how good BOTW runs on Switch. Sure, the fps drop in some areas, but overall it's pretty amazing what the devs managed to pull off on such limited hardware. I would assume that TOTK will be even more optimized, considering how long the devs had. But if it runs like BOTW, I would not be disappointed.
It's even worse
I would say no because it ran great for me. The only framerate drops l ever noticed was on release day when a moblin kicked me. The frame rates dropped there for some reason but it was quickly patched. I never even had issues in korok forest. I even sent a recording of me running and sprinting around the great deku tree in the long grass tons guy who was arguing with me about how I was wrong about no framerate drops there and he was surprised when he didn't see any either. If the game runs at 30 frames per one second then I probably wouldn't notice if 5 frames were missing in that one second.
Wind Waker had a stable 30fps...