4 ms·
I’m not sure if your last statement was sarcasm? The latest Zelda runs like a dog and has extremely poor looking pixelation, I know the hardware is limited, but
by hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
I’m not sure if your last statement was sarcasm? The latest Zelda runs like a dog and has extremely poor looking pixelation, I know the hardware is limited, but surely not that limited..
- Auracle 3y agoOh, the hardware is pretty freaking limited. There aren't really any other games on the Switch that are as good looking + open world. Maybe an RPG or two?
- loveparade 3y agoThe hardware being limited is not an excuse. It's of course much more work to polish high-fidelity graphics than it is to polish something on an old console where you only have a few pixels to work with. Zelda looks and runs abysmally compared to any modern non-Switch game. People should stop giving Nintendo passes for that.
- lelandbatey 3y ago> The hardware being limited is not an excuse > Zelda looks and runs abysmally compared to any modern non-Switch game Yeah, and all games for generations looked worse than Crysis on a souped up PC etc, but we all recognize that's a poor comparison. We compare games to other similar games created and running under similar constraints (e.g. similar hardware, similar scope, similar budget) so that we can make useful comparisons. Zelda looks great compared to other 3D open world games running on the same hardware. It looks bad compared to Crysis. News at eleven. But Diablo 4 looks bad and unpolished compared to the prior Diablo 3, a game that ran on worse hardware, made by the same people as Diablo 4. That's a very damning comparison, as there's no reason to do things worse in a sequel when the prior game made tons of money and was super popular and you've had tons of time to get things right with the sequel.