Thankfully, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild will be available on both the Nintendo Switch and the Wii U. However, many Nintendo fans are wondering what the differences will be between the two versions. Nintendo has outlined the various changes that there will be in both versions and IGN has handily outlined them below:
- Both launch on the same day, March 3.
- Both have a frame rate of 30fps.
- Both versions of the game offer the same content.
- On a TV, the Nintendo Switch version of the game renders in 900p while the Wii U version renders in 720p.
- The Nintendo Switch version has higher-quality environmental sounds. As a result, the sound of steps, water, grass, etc. are more realistic and enhance the game’s Open-Air feel.
- The physical copy of the Wii U version will require 3GB of available memory on the Wii U system or an external drive.
- Some icons, such as onscreen buttons, differ between the two versions.
- A Special Edition and Master Edition of the Wii U version are not available.
30fps?? what a fucking joke of a piece of plastic…. of course all nintendrones will say oh but its very big open world bla bla… HAH! what a joke
Obviously, for any system, you can always make graphics that are not possible to render at a certain framerate. You can argue, though, that they should have made Zelda less demanding, so that it would be in 60 fps instead. It’s a matter of taste.
frame rate > graphics imo
Most, if not all console open world games are 30fps.
Then most of them have the same problem. It’s not an argument to say “b-b-but otherz r doing it” to excuse under powered hardware. All 3 are very under powered imo if they can’t even run a game like the witcher 3 at 60 fps. Now can you still have fun with them? Absolutely. But it still would’ve been nice for all three consoles, to be more expensive but have better performance for games like breath of the wild.
They could not sell a console that could run Witcher 3 on steady 60fps for 400$.
They need to make the price appealing to common consumer. And common consumer is satisfied with 30fps on their open world games.
They could tone down the overall graphics to achive 60fps, but then people would just moan about that.
I don’t know what scorpio will be, but if they aim to have high end PC like performance on it, they wont be selling it for 400$.
Most likely it won’t get wide adoption.
}{ The Scorpio is a disgusting Xbot plot to try and fool console peasants into believing becoming an Xbot will remove their peasantry… There are no shortcuts, and no substitutes… }{
I’m not sure why you used The Witcher 3 as an example of being underpowered though. That game is pretty demanding. And although, yeah we would get stronger consoles if they costed more, a console still has to be affordable for most of the average consumer. If they were in the market looking for a new console, it doesn’t matter how powerful you claim that thing is. They’re going to look at that and laugh if they see an $700+ price tag!
Neither of your precious PloyStation or ExBox Gone are capable of more than 30fps when playing big open-world games, and I don’t see you lugging those around, playing on them on a bus, train or plane.
To be fair I doubt many are going to care about the portability feature of the switch so most people may just see it as more under powered tech. The truth is that all 3 are under powered but for some reason people (and I was guilty of this too in the past) like buying under powered pcs called the ps4 and xb1. While it sucks that the game won’t get 60 fps I’m sure I’ll manage since, if I actually want great specs, I’ll play on my PC.
I doubt you understand the appeal and that it exists, but it is everywhere and when the NX has spread to the masses even the reluctant ones will follow, less they want to settle for inferior games..
The realization you’ve yet to come to is when you can play the absolute greatness that is Nintendo games, everywhere secondarily and anytime primarily, is something that is undeniably appealing.
However I agree with you partly; the graphics are not what is important in this scenario, it’s the greatness of the games.
And more greatness will come
||Soon my disciple, the Switch will be unleashed and so will my new head…||
And what a sight to behold it shall be.
All hail Commander Quadraxis, and long live Nintendo!
You do realize that almost every big game on the PS4 and XBox One runs at 30fps and a lot of them struggle to maintain that 30fps. Games like The Witcher 3, Rise of The Tomb Raider, Gears of War 4, Shadow of Mordor, Uncharted 4, Batman Arkham Knight, Horizon, The Last Guardian… And this list goes on and on. Zelda breath of the wild is running on what’s essentially a handheld that’s less powerful than both those console and it maintains an almost rock solid 30fps.
I’m not sure why people get into the whole comparison discussion in the first place, as it’s a comparison of apples to oranges, two different engines driving their respective trains. However I would like to point out I own a PS4 Pro and there’s actually a few games I can play 1080/60fps Tomb Raider, Shadow of Mordor etc so I wouldn’t try and knock other companies, just point out some of the benefits Nintendo are proving us.
And the fanboys of PS4 and Xbox One are different in… which ways? From what I’ve seen, there are a lot of games that run at 30 fps on console; Batman: Arkham Knight, Ratchet & Clank, Gears of War 4, etc. If framerate is all you care about, then get yourself a PC with the most recent Intel i7 quad-core processor, 32 gigabytes of RAM, and a GTX 1080ti graphics card, pirate the game, and mod it to fit your preferences. Also, for best framerate, turn the graphics settings to minimum.
Enjoy!
Clearly you don’t understand a few things taking place here.
You can laugh at “open world blah blah” but it is very apparent you don’t understand anything about how it works. The entire world is being rendered at all times while in the overworld. It’s very likely the most massive video game world ever created, and it has plenty of detail, scale and scope. The sheer amount of processing power required to do that is insane. I hope you realize that it’s literally taking the PS4 PRO to finally get FFXV to run at anything beyond 30fps. Same thing.
Here’s the other part that you totally don’t understand. It is a PORT. It’s not as simple as “Oh, the Switch has more power than Wii U, so it should simply run it easily.” Not even close. The game doesn’t know how to utilize the power of the Switch, and for the Switch’s full power to be utilized with this game, is going to be next to impossible, because it wasn’t built on that hardware.
If you can remember, most games last generation were built on the 360. Easier to develop on, but it was weaker than the PS3. Most games, like Bayonetta for example, ran HORRIBLY on PS3. The PS3 chipset was completely different (Cell processor) and it was difficult to get the full power out of it, especially with ports. It took many patches and such (if any ever came out) to make these games run anywhere near as good as they did on 360. It’s the same thing here. The Switch is far superior to the Switch, but with such a different architecture, it requires a lot to run proper, let alone at a far superior level to the console it was designed to run on.
So, if the Switch is garbage because it’s not running a massive open world game at 60fps, I suppose that means PS4 is plastic garbage for not running FFXV at 60fps, with a much smaller overall world. Next time you want to spout off about something being trash, you should really consider understanding anything about programming, coding, hardware and software functionality.
I appreciate a lot that you had to say but I feel I need to point out some things.
“You can laugh at “open world blah blah” but it is very apparent you don’t understand anything about how it works. The entire world is being rendered at all times while in the overworld.”
There’s really never a point in any open world game where the entire world is being rendered at the same time. A tower you might see in the distance is likely significantly lower detail to reduce work load and memory bandwidth, they’re called LODs (Levels of Detail) and used for characters, buildings, rocks, and even mountains.
“It’s very likely the most massive video game world ever created, and it has plenty of detail, scale and scope. The sheer amount of processing power required to do that is insane.”
Breath of the Wild is no where close to being the largest open world ever created. If I recall correctly, BotW is like 27 square miles. World of Warcraft is 80, Just Cause 2 is 400, Lord of the Rings Online is There are probably about 10 games with larger open worlds with the biggest being 30,000, and Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall is 62,394.
The main thing being stressed in an open-world game is the storage access speed as it’s all a trick of loaded smaller areas in a way that makes it seem completely contiguous. As for the processing power, I guess it can be handled just fine with a tri-core processor based on an IBM PowerPC chip from 2001 or a quad-core chip found with higher clock-speed in a lot of cell-phones.
“I hope you realize that it’s literally taking the PS4 PRO to finally get FFXV to run at anything beyond 30fps. Same thing.”
This all has to do with how developers allocate resources.
“Here’s the other part that you totally don’t understand. It is a PORT. It’s not as simple as “Oh, the Switch has more power than Wii U, so it should simply run it easily.” Not even close. The game doesn’t know how to utilize the power of the Switch, and for the Switch’s full power to be utilized with this game, is going to be next to impossible, because it wasn’t built on that hardware.”
Yes and no. From what Digital Foundry has noticed, BotW’s frame rate dips when alpha effects like bright flashes and bokeh are done which suggests that the reason it runs at 900p is because it’s being choked by memory bandwidth so it might be using the memory bandwidth to it’s fullest.
Development for the Wii U and Switch no longer work like it did on the Wii and GameCube, they design for a series of API that’s are part of an operating system. Basically, not only is likely pretty easy to port from the Wii U to the Switch but, since it’s a Nintendo made OS, it’s likely that some of the code never even had to be changed, just recompiled for a new ISA.
“If you can remember, most games last generation were built on the 360. Easier to develop on, but it was weaker than the PS3. Most games, like Bayonetta for example, ran HORRIBLY on PS3. The PS3 chipset was completely different (Cell processor) and it was difficult to get the full power out of it, especially with ports.”
Actually, there were similarities between the two. Both were PowerPC, in-order processors, with the X360’s chip being based on the main core of the Cell. But yea, the Cell was a completely different beast from anything else. The Xenon is pretty straight forward as is the Espresso, the chips in the PS4 and XBO, and the chip in the Switch.
“It took many patches and such (if any ever came out) to make these games run anywhere near as good as they did on 360. It’s the same thing here. The Switch is far superior to the Switch, but with such a different architecture, it requires a lot to run proper, let alone at a far superior level to the console it was designed to run on.”
Again, not true. Most game code, like 90% of game code is completely architecture agnostic (portable). It simply requires it to be recompiled from one architecture to the other and by architecture I mean the ISA and OS’s ABI.
“So, if the Switch is garbage because it’s not running a massive open world game at 60fps, I suppose that means PS4 is plastic garbage for not running FFXV at 60fps, with a much smaller overall world.”
You’re point is sound about frame rate not being an overal indicator of some hardware’s performance, FFXV is a much more graphically demanding game being run at 1080p while BotW is beautiful but only manages to run at 25% higher resolution than the Wii U.
“Next time you want to spout off about something being trash, you should really consider understanding anything about programming, coding, hardware and software functionality.”
I agree. A lot of people should do this.
Whilst I don’t care about any of what’s being discussed, I’d like to commend you for bringing some actual know-how to a discussion otherwise full of immature, pretentious twits. Kudos.
Would you prefer 120 fps and it looking like star fox zero
Final Fantasy XV (similar type open-world game) runs at 30fps. Hell, Fallout 4 (open-world FPS) runs at 30FPS on the consoles. 30FPS for Zelda isn’t the end of the world, and is pretty for the genre of game on a console.
when you’re such an obvious troll, you can’t even use an actual username.~
If you want higher framerates, build a PC. The only issue is you won’t get The Legend of Zelda, but you’ll have Skyrim. Of course eventually Breath of the Wild will be emulated on PC just like Skyward Sword.
The CEMU emulator can now run many Wii U games at full framerate and maybe higher(with a patch) at up to 4K resolutions with a not-all-that-crazy setup.
Emulation is also legal as long as you own the game so someone can buy Breath of the Wild and play it on their PC in 4k just fine.
Zelda games are made at 30fps by choice.
As a game collector I will of course be getting both. But I didn’t know you have to have 3 GB of free memory to play on the Wii U, that is strange.
Same reason you have to intsall games on the PS4/XBO is my guess. No need for that with cartridges :)
Very true, although I am curious to see how Switch handles DLC.
Apparently dlc gets stored on the “cardridges”
Nintendo clarified that the cartridges are read only so no. Sadly updates & DLC won’t be stored directly on them. :/ Unless they lied…
Probably able to put it on either system storage or the SD card.
Slightly worrying that the increase of power when docked isn’t enough to scale up from 720p to 1080p. It’s just 2.25 times more pixels.
The clock speed is 2.5 times more but there’s only a 0-18% increase in memory bandwidth when docked. That’s just one of the reason the whole hybrid thing is a bad idea. Hardware can’t scale the way most people thought and memory is a thing a lot of people don’t think about unless they talk about the amount. The speed is often more important though. All the work the CPU and GPU do takes place in memory so when you have a 2.5 times increase in pixels, that’s 2.5 times more reads and writes in memory.
To scale properly from the maximum 25.6GB/s allowed in handheld mode, it would need 64GB/s when docked. The fact that this is an issue though suggests that this is the first Nintendo system since the N64 not to have on-chip memory.
30 fps!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JK the witcher 3 is 30 fps on consoles so it’s somewhat bearable.
Somewhat bearable? Wow. What makes people think 60fps >>> 30fps? 60fps makes games feel like quick arcade experience like Crazy Taxi, or like soap operas. 30 makes the game feel more cinematic.
I’m not saying 60 is bad. Not at all in fact. But I 100% disagree that it’s needed in EVERY game.
Games like Super Mario Odyssey, MK 8, and Splatoon benefit from it because they’re quirky and fast-paced. But games like Zelda, Xenoblade, The Witcher, Final Fantasy, etc. don’t need it.
I’m working with my programmers so that we have the options in our games to lock at 30 or 60. But depends on the experience the player wants.
But I would definitely much prefer an epic, open-world game in a cinematic 30fps, with TONS of detail and motion blur, than for it to feel arcade-y with 60.
I actually like games feeling more arcadey than “cinematic”.
I completely agree. A majority of people tend to think that 60fps is part of a certain technological evolution, or a step forward into more realistic and inmersive entertainment.The “realistic” argument has been around since forever: anything is better if it feels “more real”. But the concept of “real” is quite ambiguous. Mario 64 felt “real” when it came out. The Nintendob64 was sold under the “real graphics” slogan.
I just cannot bare the 60fps-y experience newer TVs have… it just feels off. The same with some particular games: paradoxically, and personally, it sometimes feels fake, or even forced.
60fps is a tool. Not all videogames, or video formats in general, need to run at 60fps. That kind of fluidity works with many experiences, but not with all of them.
Ahem…
60fps is always better then 30fps and it always will be. It doesn’t matter which game it is or which genre or which anything. 60fps will always trump 30fps. Please, dont let me catch you saying that again.
May the force be with you.
Why?
He’s right, though. Some games would be ruined if the frames were quick & fast. I enjoyed the fact the FPS dropped when playing Pokemon Y, X, Omega Ruby, or Alpha Sapphire in 3D.
Nice comment, and I feel better about 30fps. :)
Now do the same thing, explaining why Nintendo’s New console can’t run it’s flagship game at 1080 res. Then you will have stomped out this articles concerns entirely! ;D
The same reason that many Xbone games run in 900p. Slightly less powerful GPU than the competition, but its portable so that makes up for it (depending on who you are.) Also the crazy amount of tech in the Switch and its controllers is crazy as well. Gryo, IR, HD rumble, NFC, there’s a lot going on. Then you gotta factor in the screen as well, 720p 6.2′ LCP IPS with capacitive multitouch and haptic feedback. There’s a lot of tech inside these things even on top of being the most (or one of the most) powerful handheld on the market, and the only handheld homeconsole hybrid. When you factor those things in 900p on the tv vs 1080p (which is not really all that noticeable) doesn’t look like as big a deal. At least for me.
Best comment in this thread. I hate the soap opera effect and I think it really takes away from movies looking cinematic. It ends up looking like HD home video footage imo. Leave the 60fps for arcade style games and live sports, and let movies and open world games stay cinematic.
Hm. I noticed that with Pokemon X, Y, Omega Ruby, & Alpha Sapphire that the game felt & looked better when the frames dropped during battles with the 3D on.
And I was reading it can barely keep that up
Oh really? Where’d you here this because from my experience, my copy runs fine without much frame drops or anything like that. On the incredibly under-powered ps4, witcher 3 runs at 30fps…not sure how stable that frame rate is though but it ran fine for me but I’m not expert.
I mistyped, I shouldn’t have said “barely” but just quickly read that it is 1080 30fps with drops on PS4 and 900p 30fps with drops on XB1….
I don’t know, it is probably something I would rarely if ever notice.
Dude, there isn’t one open world game for PS4 and Xbox One which runs at 60fps. It’s always 30fps for such games. It could be 1080p for Switch in TV-mode, that’s the thing one can criticise.
If this was a reply to me then I’d say that, if consoles really can’t have 60 fps for open world games then that just proves PC is better then doesn’t it at this particular situation?
The PC isn’t better, it’s just customizable. Of course if you put more powerful hardware into a PC, it’s gonna run certain games better than a console with less powerful hardware – though as a trade-off, you’re also going to pay a lot more. If you want a half decent PC that you don’t have to upgrade the next year already, you’ll want to invest at least around $1000 into it – there is no console that expensive. Even then, whether you can actually run a game at 60 FPS or not still depends on the game. Like, I have a PC with the most expensive i7, 64 GB of RAM and two TITAN X graphics cards which cost a few thousand bucks, and when choosing some of the higher settings, it still can’t run certain open-world games at 60 FPS. A PC really only takes you so far. To get more power, you of course also have to invest more, and even then you’re not guaranteed to be able to play all games on high frame rates.
Of course I meant better as in it would allow games like breath of the wild to be played at 60 fps. Yes it’s customizable and expensive but there’s no denying the amazing results pc gets when applied to various games if people are willing to put the time, effort and money into it.
I’d rather pay more for the switch so it could run games like breath of the wild flawlessly in 60fps than pay cheaper but get less impressive results.
“Of course I meant better as in it would allow games like breath of the wild to be played at 60 fps.”
Not if it used the same hardware as the Switch (or hardware on a similar power level). And that’s the whole point. There is no “the PC”. There is only “a PC”.
Not to mention that its games that define a GAMING console not graphics power so it really depends on what exclusives you like.
I think the only problem they had to get it to 1080p was that they didn’t want to delay it more. I think the switch could have handled it.
Why no mention of what happens on the wiiu game pad during play? I haven’t seen or heard anyone mention this. Does it mirror what’s on the tv? Is it turned off like tropical freeze? Does it display the map, items or HUD? If there’s a map down there I would argue it’s the better version to begin with. Seeing as how this game was developed with the wiiu in mind to begin with it would be a shame if it wasn’t utilized. Does anyone know?
We’ve heard that Aonuma is not a fan of gamepad at all. So, I believe we cannot expect an intensive gampead usage during gameplay.
But I agree Nintendo should be more transparent when it comes to clarifications needed to keep the relationship with their consumers.
Maybe someday…
He never said he wasn’t a fan “at all”. He said having a map on it disrupts gameplay and was likely something he said to justify not using the gamepad in the E3 demo without giving away that the Switch didn’t support dual-screen gaming.
My apologies and thanks for the clarification. I probably crossed with something like “I heard that someone said that someone said that someone said that Aonuma…”
I want to know the same!
This did answer my BIGGEST question… the content is the same. I was worried WiiU owners would be missing out on parting the story, but I’m very happy the WiiU version didn’t get sold short. :)
Nah. An extra sidequest would be a mighty fine incentive to get the superior version.
I swear I remember them saying at E3 that the game pad will utilize maps and inventory. I just think they aren’t mentioning it now because they got Switches to sell lol
No, they specifically said it wouldn’t.
at E3? Source?
Found this: In a recent interview with Wired, Aonuma stated, “We realised that having something on the GamePad and looking back and forth between the TV screen and the GamePad actually disrupts the gameplay, and the concentration that the game player may be experiencing. You have your car’s GPS system on your dash. If you had it down in your lap, you’re going to get into an accident!” This was posted after E3. Think about it. They wouldn’t diss on a feature in their latest game.
I remember that interview but I feel like he was just talking about the Wii U in general or maybe talking about Starfox Zero or something. I don’t know, I could have sworn they said at E3 that the Wii U version would have maps/inventory on the gamepad and the NX you would pause to access them. I guess we’ll see, I’m probably just getting the Switch version anyways. I might get the Wii U version later on when I feel like replaying it but if it doesn’t include the best function that the Wii U provides then I probably won’t bother.
Yeah. Tbh I only used it in wind waked hd for sailing.
Found it.
“Jeuxvideo.com: The Sheikah tablet used by Link in the demo strongly reminds the Wii U gamepad, which suggests that much of the game was developed specifically for the Wii U. How did the Transition to the Switch? When did you make the decision?
EAIndeed, the game at the base was a game exclusively Wii U. So we thought it would be funny that Link has a tablet that looks like the Wii U controller. Obviously, during the development of the game, we Learned that finally the game should also go out on Switch, so we had to modify some elements of gameplay. For example, we could no longer use the dual screen of the Gamepad, whereas it had been thought that it would be nice to have the same tablet in the game and in the hand. As the goal was really for people to have the same experience on either the Switch or the Wii U, the tablet aspect of the game was reduced compared to what was thought to be when the game was only intended for The Wii U. On the other hand, we are lucky since the controller of the Switch also looks like the tablet in the game. From this point of view there, I think we are rather lucky.”
Found the troll. You’ll never live up to the original Aeolus but keep making a fool out of yourself.
As in, his trolling skills are lacking.
Personally I’d be more inclined to get the U version but Switch version can be played on the go…that second screen is great for the map!
Yep, I’m crossing my fingers that I get a map on my WiiU version. Just counting on Nintendo to do this right one more time for WiiU…
I thought there was a map from what I saw online on videos?
Personally, I think being able to continue my game session of BOTW on my lunch breaks SLIGHTLY outweighs the second screen map/inventory. But only very slightly, because I thought the second screen for Zelda games was one of the best reasons to own a Wii U.
Who where they talking to? Because if it wasn’t some of the developers, I don’t give a fuck what he/she was saying! I just want to remember everyone, what a Nintendo representative said about “Breath of the Wild” last year that there will be no towns, so Aonuma-san had to jump in and save the day!
LOL. So basically nothing.
A massive AAA title, with a huge budget and their top developers could only squeeze out 900p @ 30fps on a brand new console set to release in 2017. This looks very bad on both Nintendo and Nvidia. What a piece of under powered junk.
“What a piece of under powered junk.”
Describes yourself perfectly.~
But no, seriously, your comment was stupid buddy.~
I can deal with 30 fps, just as long as it’s stable, because it’s really not to noticible until it stutters
*too
Bit disappointing but the Switch version is running smoother than the Wii U version.
I doubt it runs smoother. Nintendo doesn’t publish games that run sub par. WiiU owners like myself took a resolution drop, but I’m fine with 720p. We also get the same exact game. Sure I will play the Switch “Remastered” version in a year or two, but I’m not paying $300 for the privilege. :)
I don’t think I will either… the drop in quality (sounds… give me a break) is probably barely noticeable. If I can pay 60 for basically the same experience and the only game worth getting a switch for at launch, I will simply buy the Wii U version and be happy as hell
Yes. My thoughts exactly.
Makes you wonder if some of those “side by side” videos or screen shots showing the difference in color are accurate at all…
I honestly had the same thought… like, can a TV be adjusted to get them closer? :]
Yeah, it seemed silly that I have seen know dramatic changes in the video of BOTW, but then they show these comparisons between the two and it doesn’t seem right… If I never play the switch version, I of course, will never know and ignorance will be blissful
They’re not captured from a TV, they’re captured from a direct feed from the system. It’s likely the color difference we saw were just changes to the game since E3 or they have to do with weather conditions and time of day.
The sounds seems ridiculous, no one would care. But they are just so gorgeous once you appreciate them.
https://youtu.be/qadzCB3CLlI?t=4h37m55s
So glad i can upscale the game myself 1080p on wii u here i come
Seriously. If nintendo did not optimize it for more capable hardware, they would be idiots. You still think that the wii u will run it as smoothly as the switch? I hate to post overly critical comments, but that was flat out wrong. It will run sub par, but it will play amazing as it is A ZELDA GAME.
No. It will not run smoother dude. It will be 900p instead of 720, the sounds will apparently be better (which is good), and the colors might be different…a little? It was a WiiU game. We get a map on our second screen. I’m sorry, but you expect way too much from Nintendo…
The switch version will look great, it will sound great, you can take it outside the house. That’s it, and if you’re getting a switch no matter what, then what does it matter? You’re buying it, you’ll have an amazing time with it. So will I, I just won’t be taking Zelda outside the house like you can. (But I do get a map on the gamepad! Mwahaha!)
Yeah. 1, I’m not Bigfoot, I hate The gamepad. Also, the switch IS going to run smoother. The switch is more powerful than the Wii u, so less frame drops.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=RVb42_FThbA
It might not be much smoother, but the switch won’t have the problems the Wii u will have. Also the switch takes less time to beat because it takes FREAKIN FOREVER to load compared to the switch…
Okay.
Touche
And where did you hear that? e_e
Basically the switch version is superior, but not by much.
Obviously 60fps is the holy grail. Yet many so called AAA developers struggle to hit 30fps rate on competing platforms, let alone 60fps. So it’s completely acceptable for Nintendo to hit 30fps for a game of zeldas stature. Like yellojello said as long as they can keep it steady there is no problem with it at all. I have no concerns that they won’t hold it steady at that rate. I may be very pissed off at some of the absent minded choices they’ve made regarding the switch but one thing I will never doubt Nintendo at is their ability to produce masterful, world class software. I feel no one does it better than them. Smash bros and mario kart 8 are great examples of how amazing and fluid a game running at 60fps looks and feels. Anyone bitching about 30fps is either ignorant, a troll, or just likes the smell of their own bullshit.
breathe it in boys and girls… smell that fresh bullshit… haha
You are right
Honestly, is this something to really complain about? I think we all agree that the Switch isn’t as powerful as the X1 or PS4. We kind of knew that in October.
I can understand the complaint about the resolution, even though I (and I guarantee almost everybody in the world) would be hard-pressed to look at a video of 900p gameplay and tell you with absolute certainty that it’s not 1080p. Even some side by side stills are very difficult to see a difference in.
If you don’t like the artstyle and want to complain about it, ok. That’s a matter of personal taste. I personally think it’s beautiful. I think it looks every bit as good as any other game. It’s just a different style. Games don’t have to have “realistic” graphics to look good. If that were true, then the Realism style of art would be the only respectable style. Anybody who actually spends any time viewing art can tell you that an impressionist painting can be just as good as a realist one.
As for the framerate, I prefer 60 fps over 30 fps every time, no matter what kind of game I’m playing; but the people complaining about this are acting like 60 fps open world adventures are a standard on consoles. There is not a single sprawling, open world game on consoles that runs at 60 fps.
Am i the only one who doesnt care about 60fps to 30fps because I cant tell the difference even when side by side. I mean maybe there is a difference but in really competitive games that need really precise games where every frame matters but in the legend of zelda who cares its 30fps. but for me I really dont care, sorry if that offends you.
well good news for me, the switch version is not that much different and I would certainly buy the wii U version.
seriously…?
are some of you really talking about fps and resolution…
look its simple. If you’re hating on the switch, hate on it.
However the switch and wii u are the only two consoles where you can play Breath of the wild. So if you’re gonna hate on power you’re a fucking dick, who doesn’t give a shit about playing a wonderful game.
I seriously dont give a fuck, as long as i can play this game everywhere.
OtterVandal out.
30FPS really ? Old skyrim runs 60FPS…seriously nintendo..is the switch even capable of 60FPS?
The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild is completely cel-shaded, which requires little graphical power, yet 30fps is all it can do?
Oh boy (－‸ლ)
In the Switch’s defense, it IS half portable and filled with a lot of unnecessary “casual” tech.
What’s “casual” tech? I swear some people should just get in contact with me and say “Lets argue.”
While these are all nice & good, what about how the damn games differ because of their controllers!? Will HD Rumble be a thing with BotW on Switch!? Will it feature some kind of motion control for the sword since one of the Joy-Cons is motion control sensitive!? Will the Gamepad come with special Gamepad features for the Wii U version?
If Wii U version doesn’t do anything special with the Gamepad but the Switch version does with the Joy-Cons, this might get some people to rush out & buy the Switch version & console instead of the Wii U version. I guess Nintendo is smart to keep that shit under wraps, though, so as to sell Wii U copies. *shrug*
Its annoying to see those who act like the wii u version is better. I MEAN COME ON, THE FRAME RATE MAKES IT LOOK LIKE A FLIP BOOK.
“the sound of steps, water, grass, etc. are more realistic and enhance the game’s Open-Air feel.”
I’m sorry but what does that even mean
It means the Wii U version sounds like
“Splash splash”.
While Switch sounds like
“Splish splash”.