I really don’t understand these people. I’m currently playing the game and love it, not once has my experience made me even think about the resolution and frame rate. I swear that’s all PC gamers care about, how crispy a game looks, even if it’s a pile of shit.
I mean this as nicely as possible but if the difference between 30fps tops and steady 60 isn’t obvious to you, you’re either ignorant of what you’re missing, or you’re too casual for it to matter
I mean this as nicely as possible but if his being able to notice a difference in graphic fidelity is that important to you, you’re either a maladjusted antisocial weirdo, or just an egotistical twat who has to be right 100% of the time
Yep, on my first PC I chose to limit my resolution to 720p and low settings if necessary to hit 60 fps over 1080/30 higher settings. So quite the opposite of being a graphics snob.
My comment didn’t mention resolution or quality of graphics at all. I’m only talking about framerate, which has a major impact on how responsive and fluid the controls feel. All else being equal, a higher framerate typically just feels nicer to play. Compare Super Mario 64 (30fps) to Super Smash Bros. (60fps).
People have given you a lot of snarky or rude answers, which isn’t warranted. I partially agree with you, but partially disagree too.
For ToTK, High resolution doesn’t matter a ton because the game is well optimized for its intended platform, for playing on a switch can still give you great vistas and pictures. This is where I agree with you.
However, the difference between 30 and 60 fps makes a big difference in this game. Controls, motion, and fights all feel a lot smoother and natural at 60 fps. And while vistas and pictures still look great, a lot of the game has additional beauty when in motion. The improved frame rate does make a difference and can enhance the experience for a game that deserves it. The people who made this game clearly put a lot of thought and creativity into and the switch isn’t always able to deliver that experience to the players. Think of it like going to an indoor play with sunglasses on; it may still be enjoyable to but some of the experience is lost.
I’m late to the switch party, as I’m just messing with one for the first time since Christmas. I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. Decided to try out breath of the wild, and I’m having a blast with it. That being said, I would be lying if I said there weren’t times where the frame rate dropped so low it’s distracting. This new one may not have that issue, but I’m betting it’s similar. I would absolutely be interested in emulating the game on better hardware. Hardware I already have at home.
You may not understand this side of the argument, and that’s fair. I also don’t understand yours. If someone wants to improve their experience with the game, it costs me nothing to give them a smile and a thumbs up for enjoying their own time/money however they like.
I think it’s probably worse. They added in new mechanics, which probably means higher CPU load. I’ve heard reports of poor framerates on Switch, but can’t confirm because I didn’t bother getting it (I didn’t like BotW that much, I prefer more classic Zelda games).
If it was available on PC, I’d probably get it because playing a BotW-like game at 60fps at higher res may be worth it. I’m probably not getting it for Switch though, because I’ve already decided that experience isn’t worth the cost.
You really don’t understand how a crisper image and smoother controls can’t enhance the experience? Like when you have the option of watching a video at 1080p or 4k why opt for 480p or less? And that’s not even a video game.
I literally make this choice almost every day. Why? Because I can have either my dvd player or the ps3 hooked up. I do not like using the latter for playback so I’m watching the DVD version if I have it. I’d have to run the calculations but I’m pretty sure at least 75% of my collection is DVD only. I get whatever is cheapest for most movies since the quality only matters for a small amount. Office Space isn’t any better at 1080p or 4k.
Doesn’t really apply to streaming since I don’t even pay for 4k and I’m pretty sure 1080p is default unless the show isn’t available at that res.
By that logic you couldn’t enjoy a movie like the godfather or gone with the wind prior to 4k technology because it wasn’t clean enough for you. I bet you also love watching old films with true motion and grain smoothing
Haha cinemas existed. Old people watched old movies at home on 4:3 ratio with tiny screens. It’s not that it can’t be enjoyed, but what we have now with restored aspect ratio and better scans is an improved product.
Haha. First off PS1 games were made with CRTs in mind which don’t use pixels to begin with so a 720p or 1080p screen would be terrible. Which lets be real. Outside of hardcore enthusiasts the average person isn’t going to have a heavy CRT in their house.
And actually 4k oleds are great for emulating CRT effects with CRT Shaders over lower resolution non CRT devices and more resolution would make the effect better.
35mm film is thought to have a digital resolution of 4K, whereas 70mm Imax is closer to 12K and 35mm Imax film has a digital resolution of 6K. Most movies will be edited and colored and enhanced digitally, regardless of how they were shot. (Called digital intermediate and usually at 2K resolution). Even Imax projection systems cannot play back anything higher than 4K, even when certain movies are scaled back to a digital or film print for distribution.
So yes old films on new TVs are definitely closer to the cinematic experience in theaters than CRTs. Not to mention the wider aspect ratio of films leading to content not being cut like they were for old TVs.
Not sure why you are so resistant to the idea of using better technology. If you are that resistant to 60 fps+ and higher resolutions you can stick with it, but other people will opt for the better performance and visuals if it’s an option.
How can someone else’s experience and enjoyment of something differ from my own criteria?!
Not least because switch was old hardware when it launched, it’s aged hardware at this point, and equivalent games on other platforms have far better performance.
I’m just saying, PC gamers only care about graphics. Switch costs like $300 a gaming PC costs like $3k, why would Nintendo give up it’s exclusivity to please your tiny niche market, a market of unpleasable gamers as PC gamers are known to be.
Forgive me if I say that might sound like a biased take.
Personally, leaving aside the legal argument of piracy, I would be fine with paying Nintendo the money but playing on my steam deck and having stuff like steam input and having my save games for future PCs. I haven’t played TotK yet but the 90+ hours I put in BotW is locked to the switch which I sold after getting a steam deck. I don’t care for high end PC performance.
They’re frustrated because the game could easily be better if it wasn’t forced to run on a tablet. So easily in fact, that it’s just a button, and it’s unlocked. It’s right there, but Nintendo makes more money if you can only play it on their tablet.
Again though, this game is fantastic, and if you can’t enjoy it because of something that trivial, then I feel sorry for you. You must have hated every n64 game or any video game released before 2020 if you can’t enjoy it unless it has top of the line, current gen graphics
People were playing 60 fps minimum on most games before 2020. What era are you stuck in that you think 60 fps was a difficult target before 2020 haha. Even consoles have moved onto 120 fps options now.
I played TotK at launch on my Switch and also loved it.
The point you’re missing is that, whilst the game is already good on original hardware, the game is better when emulated and running at the full 1080p 60fps.
Think of it like Nintendo is giving you a ice cream sundae, and the emulator is adding extra toppings.
Also man, try to get out of the habit of doing the “Oh you like pancakes? Why do you hate waffles?” thing, it’s just combative. I mean unless you’re looking for an argument then by all means go ham
game is 30 fps and looks like crap in my opinion. 30 may be the minumum playable framerate but it still looks choppy as hell and feels unresponsive to play which you can notice after experiencing as low as 60 fps. and the landscapes have no saving grace either, anything 5 meters away has a ton of LOD applied and just looks bad.
In my experience switch doesn’t even do 30 fps locked well with 20s not being rare in lot of games. Some exceptions being Bayonetta games that actually hit 60.
I really don’t understand these people. I’m currently playing the game and love it, not once has my experience made me even think about the resolution and frame rate. I swear that’s all PC gamers care about, how crispy a game looks, even if it’s a pile of shit.
Yes, pc gamers only care about graphics, that’s why pc is the biggest indie platform, because indie games are known for the best graphics
Indie games in 8K though.
The James Webb Space Telescope is my favorite indie game
I mean this as nicely as possible but if the difference between 30fps tops and steady 60 isn’t obvious to you, you’re either ignorant of what you’re missing, or you’re too casual for it to matter
I mean this as nicely as possible but if his being able to notice a difference in graphic fidelity is that important to you, you’re either a maladjusted antisocial weirdo, or just an egotistical twat who has to be right 100% of the time
fps isn’t graphical fidelity, it’s litterally how it feels to play. It defines your whole experience.
Yep, on my first PC I chose to limit my resolution to 720p and low settings if necessary to hit 60 fps over 1080/30 higher settings. So quite the opposite of being a graphics snob.
My comment didn’t mention resolution or quality of graphics at all. I’m only talking about framerate, which has a major impact on how responsive and fluid the controls feel. All else being equal, a higher framerate typically just feels nicer to play. Compare Super Mario 64 (30fps) to Super Smash Bros. (60fps).
People have given you a lot of snarky or rude answers, which isn’t warranted. I partially agree with you, but partially disagree too.
For ToTK, High resolution doesn’t matter a ton because the game is well optimized for its intended platform, for playing on a switch can still give you great vistas and pictures. This is where I agree with you.
However, the difference between 30 and 60 fps makes a big difference in this game. Controls, motion, and fights all feel a lot smoother and natural at 60 fps. And while vistas and pictures still look great, a lot of the game has additional beauty when in motion. The improved frame rate does make a difference and can enhance the experience for a game that deserves it. The people who made this game clearly put a lot of thought and creativity into and the switch isn’t always able to deliver that experience to the players. Think of it like going to an indoor play with sunglasses on; it may still be enjoyable to but some of the experience is lost.
The original comment was pretty snarky so I see about as much snark as I’d expect, tbh.
I’m late to the switch party, as I’m just messing with one for the first time since Christmas. I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. Decided to try out breath of the wild, and I’m having a blast with it. That being said, I would be lying if I said there weren’t times where the frame rate dropped so low it’s distracting. This new one may not have that issue, but I’m betting it’s similar. I would absolutely be interested in emulating the game on better hardware. Hardware I already have at home.
You may not understand this side of the argument, and that’s fair. I also don’t understand yours. If someone wants to improve their experience with the game, it costs me nothing to give them a smile and a thumbs up for enjoying their own time/money however they like.
I think it’s probably worse. They added in new mechanics, which probably means higher CPU load. I’ve heard reports of poor framerates on Switch, but can’t confirm because I didn’t bother getting it (I didn’t like BotW that much, I prefer more classic Zelda games).
If it was available on PC, I’d probably get it because playing a BotW-like game at 60fps at higher res may be worth it. I’m probably not getting it for Switch though, because I’ve already decided that experience isn’t worth the cost.
You really don’t understand how a crisper image and smoother controls can’t enhance the experience? Like when you have the option of watching a video at 1080p or 4k why opt for 480p or less? And that’s not even a video game.
I literally make this choice almost every day. Why? Because I can have either my dvd player or the ps3 hooked up. I do not like using the latter for playback so I’m watching the DVD version if I have it. I’d have to run the calculations but I’m pretty sure at least 75% of my collection is DVD only. I get whatever is cheapest for most movies since the quality only matters for a small amount. Office Space isn’t any better at 1080p or 4k.
Doesn’t really apply to streaming since I don’t even pay for 4k and I’m pretty sure 1080p is default unless the show isn’t available at that res.
By that logic you couldn’t enjoy a movie like the godfather or gone with the wind prior to 4k technology because it wasn’t clean enough for you. I bet you also love watching old films with true motion and grain smoothing
Haha cinemas existed. Old people watched old movies at home on 4:3 ratio with tiny screens. It’s not that it can’t be enjoyed, but what we have now with restored aspect ratio and better scans is an improved product.
Most of those movies were never meant to be watched with “improved technology”. Just like how ps1 games look trash on a 4k tv
Haha. First off PS1 games were made with CRTs in mind which don’t use pixels to begin with so a 720p or 1080p screen would be terrible. Which lets be real. Outside of hardcore enthusiasts the average person isn’t going to have a heavy CRT in their house.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea6tw-gulnQ
And actually 4k oleds are great for emulating CRT effects with CRT Shaders over lower resolution non CRT devices and more resolution would make the effect better.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yNmJ0n-QMCY
And film actually…
https://camerasnipe.com/difference-between-35mm-film-resolution-digital/#Is_film_higher_resolution_than_digital
So yes old films on new TVs are definitely closer to the cinematic experience in theaters than CRTs. Not to mention the wider aspect ratio of films leading to content not being cut like they were for old TVs.
Not sure why you are so resistant to the idea of using better technology. If you are that resistant to 60 fps+ and higher resolutions you can stick with it, but other people will opt for the better performance and visuals if it’s an option.
What a weird hill to die on.
How can someone else’s experience and enjoyment of something differ from my own criteria?!
Not least because switch was old hardware when it launched, it’s aged hardware at this point, and equivalent games on other platforms have far better performance.
I’m just saying, PC gamers only care about graphics. Switch costs like $300 a gaming PC costs like $3k, why would Nintendo give up it’s exclusivity to please your tiny niche market, a market of unpleasable gamers as PC gamers are known to be.
Forgive me if I say that might sound like a biased take.
Personally, leaving aside the legal argument of piracy, I would be fine with paying Nintendo the money but playing on my steam deck and having stuff like steam input and having my save games for future PCs. I haven’t played TotK yet but the 90+ hours I put in BotW is locked to the switch which I sold after getting a steam deck. I don’t care for high end PC performance.
You dont need a 3k gaming pc to get started. PC has lots of options, thats part of the appeal.
Steam alone has as many monthly active users as the switch has lifetime sales. Its not a tiny niche market.
Its also not unpleasable. There are certain technical standards, sure. But that is true for all consoles as well.
They’re frustrated because the game could easily be better if it wasn’t forced to run on a tablet. So easily in fact, that it’s just a button, and it’s unlocked. It’s right there, but Nintendo makes more money if you can only play it on their tablet.
Again though, this game is fantastic, and if you can’t enjoy it because of something that trivial, then I feel sorry for you. You must have hated every n64 game or any video game released before 2020 if you can’t enjoy it unless it has top of the line, current gen graphics
People were playing 60 fps minimum on most games before 2020. What era are you stuck in that you think 60 fps was a difficult target before 2020 haha. Even consoles have moved onto 120 fps options now.
Never said I can’t enjoy it. I beat it on Switch. It was great.
I’m saying a better game is available, and to deny yourself that game solely because of Nintendo lawyers is dumb.
I played TotK at launch on my Switch and also loved it.
The point you’re missing is that, whilst the game is already good on original hardware, the game is better when emulated and running at the full 1080p 60fps.
Think of it like Nintendo is giving you a ice cream sundae, and the emulator is adding extra toppings.
Also man, try to get out of the habit of doing the “Oh you like pancakes? Why do you hate waffles?” thing, it’s just combative. I mean unless you’re looking for an argument then by all means go ham
game is 30 fps and looks like crap in my opinion. 30 may be the minumum playable framerate but it still looks choppy as hell and feels unresponsive to play which you can notice after experiencing as low as 60 fps. and the landscapes have no saving grace either, anything 5 meters away has a ton of LOD applied and just looks bad.
In my experience switch doesn’t even do 30 fps locked well with 20s not being rare in lot of games. Some exceptions being Bayonetta games that actually hit 60.
lol imagine thinking metrics make a game good.
You’re perfect for middle manglement.
Its not juat about looking nice. Sub-30 fps is genuinely uncomfortable to many people. You aren’t sensitive to it, good for you.
For your sake I hope you’re a bot.