4 ms·
It's a shame the game is only available on the two most underpowered gaming devices. Can you imagine this game on a PS4, or a PC. I cry thinking about it. If N
by overcast 10y ago
It's a shame the game is only available on the two most underpowered gaming devices. Can you imagine this game on a PS4, or a PC. I cry thinking about it.
If Nintendo just became an elite third party triple a developer for the big boy consoles, I think they would make a killing. They can also make their little gimmicky peripherals for said console. That will satisfy their need to reinvent the user interface every time, and then abandon it shortly after. Without screwing over an entire console generation.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- flukus 10y ago> Can you imagine this game on a PS4, or a PC Yes, It'd be nearly identical. The only thing that more horse power could noticeably improve would be the draw distance.
- overcast 10y ago...and a higher, steady framerate, higher resolution, better anti aliasing. Just about everything. I'm not asking for changing the look of the game, I'm asking for it to render properly on modern hardware.
- flukus 10y ago> ...and a higher, steady framerate, higher resolution, better anti aliasing. That won't make it anymore fun.
- overcast 10y agoI didn't say anything about more fun. But <=20fps drops is NOT fun.
- flukus 10y agoThat's not something I've experienced, it certainly happens rarely. It also doesn't affect fun. Games were fun back when 25 FPS was the best you could hope for, even games that dip down to 1 or 2 at times (Goldeneye) could be fun.
- overcast 10y agoI guess you're one in a million then. Because it's the biggest issue in every Zelda discussion since day one.
- topkekz 10y agoOcarina of Time is running at 20 FPS on NTSC, 17 FPS on PAL, and is still fun. We started worrying about FPS when competitive online gaming became a thing (Quake 3, Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament) and marketers associated high computer performance with high player performance (more fps you have, more good you will play).
- bcassedy 10y agoFor Nintendo, graphics serve the gameplay. For most AAA developers, it's the other way around. I'd argue that if Nintendo were trying to compete graphically, the resource strain would greatly reduce the quality of the games they produce.
- overcast 10y agoThey don't need to compete graphically, they have their own style, and that's awesome. What they need is the power to show it. Sub 20 fps dips in 2017 is unacceptable. The game barely runs 900p at 30fps. That's insane.
- Guzba 10y agoI kind of agree, but at the same time, it hasn't stopped me from having a great time. Maybe it really just doesn't matter? Sort of like worrying about the 0-60 time for a Prius or something like that. Just the wrong metric. 30fps 900p seems to be enough.
- overcast 10y agoBut it does matter, this is their big game for the system, and it already runs poorly. My fear is that this is as good as we'll get in terms of power. When Nintendo themselves can't even get their flagship running optimally. It's great you're having a good time, so don't let anyone say otherwise. I just expect more out of a brand new game console at this point. Especially for $300 + $70 pro controller + $70 games + crummy dock screen scratching issues + desyncing controllers.
- topkekz 10y ago>It's a shame the game is only available on the two most underpowered gaming devices. The Switch is handheld gaming device.
- gdulli 10y agoThen I guess an alternate way to phrase it is that it's a shame Nintendo doesn't and won't have a current-gen normal TV console. Bizarre choice because they were already leading by far the mobile space among console developers.
- overcast 10y agoWhich touts as being a console as well, hence the name Switch. If they are calling it a console as well, I'm going to compare it to one.