Nintendo Switch

Kirby: Star Allies Gameplay Runs At 30FPS But The In-Game Menus Run At 60FPS

GameXplain has taken it upon themselves to take a closer look at some raw footage of the upcoming Kirby: Star Allies game that’s heading to Nintendo Switch very soon. Initially, they had reported that the game runs at 60 frames per second and it does, however, only when on the title screen and pause menus but oddly the gameplay runs at a locked 30 frames per second instead.

Advertisements

37 comments

  1. As a long time gamer I’m baffled by this relatively recent trend of reporting on the FPS of every single game, whether it be a pixel based 2d platformer or a high speed action game. This means very little in all but a few games in certain genres.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It can be a deal-breaker for me in games of many genres. I can’t think of a genre of game that isn’t at least improved by running at 60fps rather than 30, though clearly in some games it matters more than others. I’m not sure it needs to be reported here as I know to most people it’s nothing, but I’m glad that people do look at the framerate before a game’s release so that I can make purchasing decisions knowing the framerate of the game.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. There was just a lot of passion in that comment. I agree though, if the 3ds can do it they really have no excuse. I just personally don’t notice it in games.

        Like

      2. These asshats wanna say it’s a different engine and requires much to run it. lol This is a fucking Kirby game that looks almost exactly like the past 3 main Kirby games since 2012 and all ran at 60FPS on inferior hardware. WTF is the excuse for this game? Nothing. Switch has more than double the Pii U power and at least 12-15x from the original 3DS and they mean to tell me it takes so much to run a simple, easy as fuck casual game like Kirby? lol These idiots…

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Sure they might come across as lazy, but let’s be honest. You and I don’t know jack shit about game design. In all likelihood you’re probably right, but calling the developers idiots for a fps issue is a little outlandish.

        Like

    1. Clearly you don’t understand shit. It’s not running at 60 fps because this is a better looking game that’s more demanding for the hardware. If they wanted it to run at 60 fps then they’d need to make compromises to the visual quality.

      Like

      1. It’s not better looking if it’s the same looking engine from Return to Dreamland. I highly doubt it demands so much on screen on a new hardware. I can understand why Rainbow Curse was at 30 because of the claymation style but this is HD Return to Dreamland or Triple Deluxe style.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Even if it ias using a modified version of the Return to Dreamland engine, that doesn’t mean it must be just as demanding. An engine doesn’t pre-determine any shaders or graphical settings. Just looking at one of the screenshots I can see that:

        1. The background has a strong bokeh effect which tends to use a good amount of a memory bandwidth and the Switch is generally bandwidth limited.
        2. It’s 900p to 1080p which means it’s about 4.6 to 6.75 times higher resolution than Return to Dreamland and 7.5 to 10.8 times higher resolution than Triple Deluxe. That also uses much more bandwidth.
        3. In at least one moment there’s a ball of about 50 waddle dees that chases you through the level.
        4. Unlike either of those games, this one has actual shadows that are more subtle and soft.
        5. It’s also likely using deferred rendering which is what many modern games use. This uses more bandwidth but helps prevent the GPU from wasting time drawing things that would eventually get obscured otherwise.
        6. It’s likely using ambient occlusion.
        7. Compared to Triple Deluxe, the camera also goes wider as is usually the case when comparing handheld games with console games.
        8. Both other games use a lot of sprites for the leaves in trees. Star Allies doesn’t appear to do that.

        To make up for any bandwidth or processing bottlenecks, they can choose to either run it at lower/dynamic resolution, run it at an unlocked framerate, or run it at a locked 30.

        Like

    2. They aren’t the same graphics, or even the same engine. Why would you compare it to Kirby on 3DS?

      To answer your question, it isn’t 60 because it would require extra work to do so and it is spectacularly overwhelmingly unimportant in a Kirby game to get it to run at 60fps. Essentially the entire market for the game will never notice or care about the difference. Kirby by design is the “no twitch reflexes here, everyone can play” Nintendo series. If there was anything in the game that required a frame perfect input, they’d have to send it back for tuning anyway.

      Like

      1. Kirby has been the same since 2012. Also, how is it that they made this new game for a new system just less than 2 years after Roboto Planet?…

        Again, that’s no excuse if it’s the same engine. The aestetics and visuals even look very identical so how the fuck can a 240p 3DS (even the original that’s weaker than GameCube hardware) can run a similar game at 60 but a new console with 15x hardware power can’t? Very strange and by strange, I mean “WTF are you doing Nintendo?”. My Mate 9 smartphone can run this game at 60 no problem given how Kirby’s atypical simplicity is.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. I’ve already explained to you why the game is more demanding than the 3DS version. If you want to know how they made a new game in just two years, there’s two simple answers: 2 years is plenty of time to make a Kirby game and the Switch uses a modified version of the 3DS operating system. So yea, it could be using the same engine as the 3DS games but it’s very apparent that you don’t know what an engine is, you don’t know much about game development, and you have very poor vision.

      Like

      1. The menu/overworld in YWW Wii U is 30FPS (Checked it now). You can seriously see the difference between its overworld and its gameplay(which is 60). I can spot the difference between 60 and 59-58 FPS if I’m close enough up to the screen :P I could seriously tell there were difference between the FPS in YWW

        Like

  2. God, you gamers are so picky these days. Half the time I rarely notice the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS on these Nintendo games anyway. For instance, Kirby Star Allies looks 60FPS to me. And who actually cares if it’s not 60FPS? It’s just like all these people that think 4K is needed, or else the game is bad. Seriously, when can just remember that the gameplay (story, character development, detail and art design) is most important.

    Like

    1. I don’t think anybody is saying that they won’t buy a game strictly because it’s 30fps or 60fps. They just have a preference because THEY can notice. Same thing goes with resolution. Maybe you can’t tell the difference between 720p and 1080p for instance but many can. That becomes even more noticeable to people running at 720p game on a 4K TV. At that point it’s running at 1/9th the resolution so it’s much more noticeable of an issue than 1080p on 4K which is only 1/4th. They might prefer 1080p with with worse graphics just because they might prefer it over muddiness.

      None of that means that it means more to them than story, character development, detail, and art design. In fact, the first two are the same reason why I had no issue playing over 100 hours of BotW on my Wii U but the latter two are why I love running around the game in an emulator. That games art design is way better than the hardware it came out for can handle.

      Like

      1. “At that point it’s running at 1/9th the resolution so it’s much more noticeable of an issue than 1080p on 4K which is only 1/4th. They might prefer 1080p with with worse graphics just because they might prefer it over muddiness.”

        If it’s that important to you, why on earth would you not be running a decent upscaler because there’s no way you don’t have plenty of 720 content coming through to your screen.

        “None of that means that it means more to them than story, character development, detail, and art design.”

        This would be more impactful if people weren’t constantly arguing on the boards the exact opposite of what you claim, that a game is a failure and not worth the time if it’s 1080 (or even 4k) 60fps. You’re telling us that nobody means this when people overtly say it all the time.

        Like

      2. If it’s that important to you, why on earth would you not be running a decent upscaler because there’s no way you don’t have plenty of 720 content coming through to your screen.

        A lot of people don’t think to spend $60 on an upscaler for there TV. That would only work for standard resolutions, too. For example, a 900p game would already be scaled to 1080p by the game which would effect the ability for the upscaler to scale as well.

        This would be more impactful if people weren’t constantly arguing on the boards the exact opposite of what you claim, that a game is a failure and not worth the time if it’s 1080 (or even 4k) 60fps. You’re telling us that nobody means this when people overtly say it all the time.

        While I’ve seen people argue over graphics, I’ve never seen anybody say that graphics are more important than gameplay and story. People often make the mistake of looking at discussions about Digital Foundry videos and see people talking only about specs and performance and assume these people must only care about graphics. That’s not true, they’re just their to have a discussion about these things.

        Like

      3. “A lot of people don’t think to spend $60 on an upscaler for there TV”

        So they bother getting a high end tv, can spot the difference between 30fps and 60fps in a low action game like kirby, the tiny, near undetectable difference in visual quality actually bother them, but they’re unaware that scalers exist? Frankly, I find it strains credibility that this problem could even occur to you and you not know that scalers are an option.

        ” That would only work for standard resolutions, too.”

        Which accounts for the overwhelming majority of content. So now we’ve narrowed down this problem to only effecting people who are intimately familiar with resolutions and framerates, BUT don’t know about upscalers, AND are using the tiny realm of content that doesn’t conform to resolution standards. You’ve made the group so small they’re no longer worth worrying about.

        “I’ve never seen anybody say that graphics are more important than gameplay and story.”

        Keep looking. It’s not very hard. I’ve been listening to gaming arguments across six generations now. There are always people who openly argue that graphics are the absolute top priority.

        Like

      4. So they bother getting a high end tv,

        Just because they have a 4K TV doesn’t mean it’s high end. 4K TVs are cheap now.

        can spot the difference between 30fps and 60fps in a low action game like kirby

        A lot of shit can happen on-screen in four player Kirby game btw, but I wasn’t talking about Kirby specifically. Also many people can tell the differences between frame rates. They noticed it when the Hobbit ran at 48fps in theaters instead of 24, and they notice to some degree it just depends on how much they care.

        the tiny, near undetectable difference in visual quality actually bother them

        A 9x resolution difference is tiny and nearly undetectable? Literally every pixel in a 720p image becomes a blurred 3 x 3 grid on an Ultra HD TV.

        but they’re unaware that scalers exist?

        That’s very possible because again, you’d have to have pretty shitty sight not to see a difference between 720p and 4K. Most people would just go “Hey this games blurry” and not know there’s some way to make it less of an issue.

        It may also be the case that people don’t want to buy scalers because they’ve not miracle workers. Most Switch games don’t have anti-aliasing so using bicubic or lanczos scaling is going to turn jagged edges into blurred jagged edges and shittier upscalers that assume you’re mainly using it for watching TV shows or movies may have additional latency. I myself wouldn’t buy one unless it was the difference between having an image or not like in the case of using a 4K camera output on 1080p preview monitor.

        Which accounts for the overwhelming majority of content.

        The overwhelming majority of TV shows and films, not games. Look at games like Mario Oddysey and Breath of the Wild. Neither had anti-aliasing and use dynamic resolutions that top off at 900p and get as low as 720p (in Mario’s case) but both already scale the output to 1080p before compositing the HUD. On top of that, both do certain effects at half or even a quarter resolution. Just go into he inn in Hateno village and talk to girl that runs the place and you’ll notice that the light from the lantern is below standard definition (likely 320 x 160). Scalers can’t do anything about that.

        So now we’ve narrowed down this problem to only effecting people who are intimately familiar with resolutions and framerates

        You don’t need to be intimately familiar with resolutions or framerates to notice that something is softer or less smooth.

        BUT don’t know about upscalers

        Or don’t use them.

        AND are using the tiny realm of content that doesn’t conform to resolution standards.

        At least 29.6 million of the 52.6 million games sold on the Switch use non-standard resolutions. That’s only counting top-selling games because they’re the only ones I know sales numbers for but there are many more. Yooka Laylee, Skyrim, Flames in the Flood, and Dragonball Xenoverse 2 all run at 900p max. Snake Pass runs at 1200 x 675. Doom averages 1088 x 612. Fast RMX’s resolution can go as high as 1080p or as low as 480p. Apparently Kirby Star Allies is running at 1536×854 when docked (at least sometimes). LA Noire can go as low as 1440×1080. Rocket League can go as low as 1024×576.

        These titles make up a majority of the software sold on the Switch. Some of these games only run at 30 fps at max and have frame dips and when a game is dipping well below 30 fps, aspecially when they dip in the way that RiME does on the Switch, then it DOES affect gameplay.

        You’ve made the group so small they’re no longer worth worrying about.

        This sounds like a defensive mechanism to me. Just because you guys don’t have eyes for these things or don’t care doesn’t mean that nobody should care.

        Keep looking. It’s not very hard. I’ve been listening to gaming arguments across six generations now. There are always people who openly argue that graphics are the absolute top priority.

        I’m no newbie when it comes to console war stuff. People may argue about graphics more than gameplay, but that doesn’t mean they prioritize graphics over gameplay. Graphics are also an easy thing that fan boys can use in arguments because opinions on games themselves are too subjective or the same game is available on both.

        Like

    2. I wouldn’t complain about Doom running at 30FPS on Switch because of time in development and hardware difference plus 30FPS among shooters is just as usual as 60. But this is a 2.5D side scroller Kirby game that never was hardware demanding nor looks/feels any different than the past few Kirby games on 3DS and Wii from 2012. The Fidelity and even gameplay mechanics are virtually the same so why cut the fraemate of a new game that took less than 2 years after Roboto Planet to make on a new hardware that’s roughly as powerful as XB1/PS4? Makes no goddamn sense.

      Like

      1. I agree with you, people are defending this because it’s Kirby, if it were a Mario game people would be complaining…SMH

        Also, color me wrong but i am sure DK: Tropical freeze ran at 60fps on wii u and that game has lots of things happening in the screen and the effects of the kong’s hair and it ran without any issues.

        Like

      2. Well Mario was at 30 in Sunshine and I didn’t mind at all. The cel shade style and Fludd mechanic just took my mind off of that detail. I’m surprised to how Galaxy evolutionized the series from 30FPS Cel to 60FPS fully rendered spherical platformer in just 5 years.

        Oh Tropical Freeze surely ran at 60FPS, even Returns did on Wii and had tons more detail and action to render at once. Kirby is basically a straightforward A-to-B 2.5D platformer which it’s only action on screen is your input and enemies. Not much is needed to run those games so why they went with 30FPS on Switch is beyond me.

        Like

      3. The Switch ISN’T anywhere near as powerful as a PS4 or XBO. I’ve told you this before.

        It’s CPU is about half as capable as the XBO and PS4.
        It’s GPU is 393.2/786.4 GFLOPS versus 1310 GFLOPS and 1843 GFLOPS on the XBO and PS4 respectively.
        It’s got 25.6GB/s of memory bandwidth versus around 205GB/s and 176GB/s on the XBO and PS4 respectively.

        How the hell are those roughly as powerful? And don’t pull that “It’s all a conspiracy” shit that you pulled last time. Actually make an attempt to show that you know what you’re talking about.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s