linkwashere
Space Warrior
Obligatory Genndy Tartakovsky moment talking about fluidity and FPS in animation.
IT'S A FAKE!
IT'S A FAKE!
-
Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
Reviews Digital Foundry || The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom - DF Tech Review - Is It Really 'Too Big for Switch'...?
- Thread starter ILikeFeet
- Start date
Armoured_Bear
Like Like
- Pronouns
- he
I look forward to 6FPS games.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Oh we Europeans had that during N64 days. It was called OoT, and it was glorious.
JazzPotatoes
Koopa
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It really is amazing how much scuttlebut there is about framerates and resolution in a Digital Foundry thread about the framerate and resolution of TotK.
I don't think anyone in this thread is dismissing what an incredible achievement the game is for the hardware it's on. Even John is very clear about that in the video: It's a phenomenal achievement.
However, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the areas where the performance could be improved. As an example: We know now that the game was delayed for a year to work on polish and bugfixing. However, we also know that performance in the unpatched game is dramatically worse than with the patch, but the patch itself is not on the cart. That to me suggests despite the extra year of polish time, the game still ended up coming in fairly hot for release. I cannot see a realistic scenario where Nintendo had these performance issues worked out months ago, but didn't include the fix directly onto the release cart. That means in all likelihood, the performance issues we do still see are there because Nintendo simply ran out of time to keep working on the game and had to get it out for release.
That doesn't mean its a bad game, or any less impressive in any of the million things it does well. All it means is that Nintendo had to implement a fairly late-in-the-day fix to get performance up to the minimum requirement, and that is not something we normally see from their development pipeline.
Additionally: the memory bandwidth on the Switch was called out as a potential bottleneck fairly soon after its release, and it does appear in this case that any performance issues are stemming from that memory bandwidth. If nothing else, feedback on this issue (from both the internal developers as well as outlets like DF) should give Nintendo reason enough to focus on making memory less of a bottleneck for the next iteration of hardware. That's something that everyone benefits from.
I don't think anyone in this thread is dismissing what an incredible achievement the game is for the hardware it's on. Even John is very clear about that in the video: It's a phenomenal achievement.
However, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the areas where the performance could be improved. As an example: We know now that the game was delayed for a year to work on polish and bugfixing. However, we also know that performance in the unpatched game is dramatically worse than with the patch, but the patch itself is not on the cart. That to me suggests despite the extra year of polish time, the game still ended up coming in fairly hot for release. I cannot see a realistic scenario where Nintendo had these performance issues worked out months ago, but didn't include the fix directly onto the release cart. That means in all likelihood, the performance issues we do still see are there because Nintendo simply ran out of time to keep working on the game and had to get it out for release.
That doesn't mean its a bad game, or any less impressive in any of the million things it does well. All it means is that Nintendo had to implement a fairly late-in-the-day fix to get performance up to the minimum requirement, and that is not something we normally see from their development pipeline.
Additionally: the memory bandwidth on the Switch was called out as a potential bottleneck fairly soon after its release, and it does appear in this case that any performance issues are stemming from that memory bandwidth. If nothing else, feedback on this issue (from both the internal developers as well as outlets like DF) should give Nintendo reason enough to focus on making memory less of a bottleneck for the next iteration of hardware. That's something that everyone benefits from.
Armoured_Bear
Like Like
- Pronouns
- he
Great post, interesting about the late performance improvements.
Hope there is focus on removing that bottleneck.
Tentacle-tropes
Kremling
Honestly I’m not sure what this has to do with the question asked.We need a poll of all FNHTSD posters.
Are you, as a Nintendo fan, interested in technical talk on Nintendo's next console because of
a) interest in the possibilities that the new tech brings to future games or
b) general interest in the industry (although any technical improvement is not "needed" and we'd have been as well staying with the N64 because resolution , frame rates, high res textures etc. don't matter).
I don't imagine b) will be the majority but who knows
Gingerbread Man
Paratroopa
Of the Switch audience who posts on online message boards or of the overall Switch audience?
