Nintendo's Switch Won’t Run “Zelda” At 1080p

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
At the risk of being cussed out by rabid Nintendo fans, I would like to highlight the disappointing fact that Zelda will, at best, only run at a resolution of 900p—at 30fps. Okay, so maybe the thought of anything higher would be delusional to begin with, as the Switch is basically just a glorified handheld…it’s just that it’s 2017 and it’d be great to see classic Nintendo characters in higher fidelity already. Aside from a resolution difference (the Wii U version runs at 720p), the Switch edition is supposed to have higher quality sounds, though I imagine nobody will be able to tell the difference (in my experience, developers never really cared that much about actual sound quality).

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild will be launched for both Nintendo Switch and Wii U consoles on March 3. So how do the two versions differ? A report on IGN outlines the differences, provided via a statement from Nintendo. The main improvement for Switch owners is that their game will render at 900p, while the Wii U versions renders at 720p. Both games have a target frame rate at 30fps. The Switch version will also offer "higher-quality environmental sounds," according to Nintendo. "As a result, the sound of steps, water, grass, etc. are more realistic and enhance the game’s open-air feel," said the statement. Certain onscreen icons differ between the two versions. Also, Wii U owners will not be offered the Special Edition and Master Edition.
 
Nintendo's hardware has been trailing the pack since the PS1 came out. Why change now?

The only reason they're still around as a hardware company is their exclusive IP that happens to be very popular across a huge range of demographics. Without Mario & Zelda, they'd be done.
 
Wow....they sure are selling it for the Switch: "Realistic sounnndssss!"

Other than the small bump in native resolution, no one with a Wii U will hold out for a Switch on this title.
 
Sonicks said:
Wow....they sure are selling it for the Switch: "Realistic sounnndssss!"

Other than the small bump in native resolution, no one with a Wii U will hold out for a Switch on this title.
Click to expand...
Yea I think Nintendo doomed the switch by not making it switch exclusive. There are no other system sellers coming for a while. They chasing the money with Wii U install base.
 
vegeta535 said:
Yea I think Nintendo doomed the switch by not making it switch exclusive. There are no other system sellers coming for a while. They chasing the money with Wii U install base.
Click to expand...
Which is the reason Nintendo recalled all Wii U stock from retailers in November.
 
Looked at the numbers, looked at the video, up until a little over 1:30 in I thought it looked bland and uninteresting. After that point I think the game looks pretty impressive (as a non-Nintendo fan), no idea about the Switch though, not invested in the brand.
 
Damar said:
Seems to me like people get too hung up on numbers instead of just caring if the games are any fun.
Click to expand...

To a point yes, but that is also why the atari 2600 isn't mainstream played anymore. There has to be a best of both worlds. People will ignore limitations if there is enough fun added, but if they aren't adding enough perceived value to the product, then it will sit on shelves like the wiiU did. I feel like many people want the nintendo games, but they also want gorgeous high rez/physics based games as well. The problem is then you have to buy two gaming type systems, and then you really only buy 4-5 nintendo games.
 
vegeta535 said:
Yea I think Nintendo doomed the switch by not making it switch exclusive.
Click to expand...
You can't play it anywhere on the WiiU... portability is a big deal for nintendo fans, especially if we see no new DS and this becomes their only handheld.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TAP
like this
Youn said:
You can't play it anywhere on the WiiU... portability is a big deal for nintendo fans, especially if we see no new DS and this becomes their only handheld.
Click to expand...

Good point. The one thing many are forgetting is that Nintendo has a very successful handheld business, This could be their way of consolidating their consoles into one. Makes a ton of sense when you think about it.
 
That's too bad, it could have looked really good at 1080P 60. So, the gameplay and sht looks pretty cool, I wish someone would do a Dark Tower story / game with an engine like this. Not the Dark Tower we are getting on TV...that makes me cringe.
 
Youn said:
You can't play it anywhere on the WiiU... portability is a big deal for nintendo fans, especially if we see no new DS and this becomes their only handheld.
Click to expand...
That is not a selling point for me. I doubt it is to as many people as you think too. Nintendo said it themselves you will only get 3 1/2 hours battery life on it while playing Zelda. As a adult I have very little idle time to play on something like the switch when I am outside the house. I rather they killed off the screen and put more money into the graphics hardware.
 
To be fair to Nintendo, they are going after a different market than the other consoles, so this shouldn't be a shock. The Switch has a tablet processor/GPU, so the games were never going to push the upper limits of graphical fidelity. I am still interested in The Switch. It looks like a fun device, and fun is what games are all about.
 
Damar said:
Seems to me like people get too hung up on numbers instead of just caring if the games are any fun.
Click to expand...

technology ( numbers ) makes anything better. from textures, to resolution, to frame rates to audio to so on and so forth. There's a very good reason most people get '"hung up on numbers".

Sorry, but gaming worlds are a lot more immersive at 1080p. Maybe even at 4k. Sorry, but 60fps is a lot better than 30fps. I mean, this is a terribly poor argument / point to try and make.

There is nothing stopping anyone, including Nintendo from making great games and players enjoying them. To suggest that lower spec hardware shouldn't matter is ludicrous.

It's already been determined that Nintendo sacrificed performance to gain market position. These are not my words, these are from recent market analysts comments I saw on Bloomberg or Wired.
 
Breath of the wild looks like complete ass and it still can't run at 1080p? Ugh..the game and console are looking less appealing by the day.
 
Meeho said:
Zelda is much more than just a launch game for Nintendo.
Click to expand...

And that somehow enables them to bend the laws of reality and make a game that is an example of the full power of a system despite it being a ported Wii U game developed on early dev kits?
 
SixFootDuo said:
Sorry, but gaming worlds are a lot more immersive at 1080p. Maybe even at 4k. Sorry, but 60fps is a lot better than 30fps. I mean, this is a terribly poor argument / point to try and make.
Click to expand...

Most of the games I grew on up had better gameplay than games today even though they weren't 1080p or 60fps.

Specs give you options, but are no guarantee. The gameplay can still suck, and often does. They dazzle you with screenshots (often faked) to make you go "wow" and ignore the fact the gameplay is mind numbingly dull.

I'd rather a mediocre looking game that plays great than a lifelike game that plays like shit for my $60.
 
Damar said:
I'd rather a mediocre looking game that plays great..........
Click to expand...

You must be in heaven. We have tons of these games flying out of developers asses on the market right now.

Anything mediocre about a game won't get my money.
 
vegeta535 said:
Yea I think Nintendo doomed the switch by not making it switch exclusive. There are no other system sellers coming for a while. They chasing the money with Wii U install base.
Click to expand...

and yet, if they didn't, they'd thoroughly piss off the consumers who bought the Wii U.

I bought a Wii U so I could play the new zelda when it was supposed to be released in 2015. If they didn't release BotW for Wii U, I wouldn't be rewarding them by purchasing their new-fangled console.

I bet there are a few other Wii U owners who are not planning on buying their new "fad" console.
 
It's a shame really, I do like the concept, but the price and the content just aren't on point for what's being offered.
 
Damar said:
Most of the games I grew on up had better gameplay than games today even though they weren't 1080p or 60fps.

Specs give you options, but are no guarantee. The gameplay can still suck, and often does. They dazzle you with screenshots (often faked) to make you go "wow" and ignore the fact the gameplay is mind numbingly dull.

I'd rather a mediocre looking game that plays great than a lifelike game that plays like shit for my $60.
Click to expand...

Man, where to find a Delorean so you can get back to the 80s...?
 
Hmmm. Switch just keeps looking worse and worse. I think I'll just stick with the Wii U for nintendo games this generation.
 
Samson4EiT said:
Hmmm. Switch just keeps looking worse and worse. I think I'll just stick with the Wii U for nintendo games this generation.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. Nintendo has confirmed that there will be no further 1st party Wii U games after Zelda.
 
Derangel said:
Good luck with that. Nintendo has confirmed that there will be no further 1st party Wii U games after Zelda.
Click to expand...

That's fine. It'll be 2-3 years before anything worth playing after Zelda anyways most likely. By the time shit is worth playing, should be able to snag one for $150 or less I bet.
 
So.... The wii u version will be 720p but be cheaper, and not have access to a more expensive version that comes with a metal book or toy sword or some such nonsense. . .

I really wanted to get a switch but was put off by the cost of the accessories and this just confirmed my thought. Other ways to spend 400$ thanks...
 
Samson4EiT said:
That's fine. It'll be 2-3 years before anything worth playing after Zelda anyways most likely. By the time shit is worth playing, should be able to snag one for $150 or less I bet.
Click to expand...

Possibly, especially depending on what specific franchises you're interested in. Though don't count on it being $150 for a long time. Nintendo only did one price drop on the Wii U and there is a half-way decent chance the Switch can do better, assuming Nintendo pulls it's head out of it's ass in terms of marketing.

Meeho said:
That makes a 900p30 main platform title in 2017 a failure on multiple fronts.
Click to expand...

Eh. It's not a great sign, but eh. I'm not going to get worked up about it. I just want good games, preferably ones that aren't the same old generic shit we get all the time from most of the AAA side of the industry. That's one of the reasons I still like Nintendo games, they're still focused on being fun and not just being yet another AAA publisher putting out the same thing as everyone else.
 
Bandalo said:
Nintendo's hardware has been trailing the pack since the PS1 came out. Why change now?

The only reason they're still around as a hardware company is their exclusive IP that happens to be very popular across a huge range of demographics. Without Mario & Zelda, they'd be done.
Click to expand...

Do you blame them the shit still sells.

You don't throw out your cash cow just to keep up with the jones that's how you go bankrupt.

Damar said:
Seems to me like people get too hung up on numbers instead of just caring if the games are any fun.
Click to expand...

That is the difference between the generation of kids that played video games in the 70,80,early 90s. The new kids just care about numbers not how fun the games are. Back then you would play that mario games for years now if the kids don't beat the game that same night its forgetten and on to the next one.
 
Makaveli@BETA said:
That is the difference between the generation of kids that played video games in the 70,80,early 90s. The new kids just care about numbers not how fun the games are. Back then you would play that mario games for years now if the kids don't beat the game that same night its forgetten and on to the next one.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. We always cared about graphics and computing power. That's why there were a dozen or more grafix companies back in the 90s, there was sooo much more variety. Voodoo SLI and stuff and game devs were juggling 4-6 APIs for each game. To say that no one gave a care about graphics is revisionist.
 
thesmokingman said:
Bullshit. We always cared about graphics and computing power. That's why there were a dozen or more grafix companies back in the 90s, there was sooo much more variety. Voodoo SLI and stuff and game devs were juggling 4-6 APIs for each game. To say that no one gave a care about graphics is revisionist.
Click to expand...

You need to reread my post son. We cared back then but its not even to the same level as the kids these days. We would play ugly games if they were fun the kids these don't touch anything unless its shiny!

I'm referring to generation that was born in the late 90's and after. All of these kids would have been too young to play on any of your examples.
 
Makaveli@BETA said:
You need to reread my post son. We cared back then but its not even to the same level as the kids these days.

I'm referring to generation that was born in the late 90's and after. All of these kids would have been too young to play on any of your examples.
Click to expand...

So you just flat out make a bullshit judgement and go ad hominem, sounds about right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top