A Case for a Powerful Nintendo Machine

Odo

Well-Known Member
#51
...I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove here. I can pull a $100 cell phone from my pocket that runs Netflix, Spotify, Twitter, messaging/chat applications, four separate browsers, a photo manager, and voice commands...all on a measly ARM-based 4-core CPU (hell, less than that, actually). Those things aren't really a matter of having a terribly powerful device, which is, y'know, what this thread is about. The shit phone I just pulled out my pocket is not very powerful. And I can stream games on my PS Vita (...well, at least until August 15), which ain't a powerful device. You keep pulling out this list as if it's evidence, when it doesn't really have any bearing on the discussion of this thread. If, on the other hand, your argument is "Nintendo ought to make a greater effort outside of their hardware to provide better multimedia-gaming services," then cool. I agree. That's not this topic, though, and providing this list as a riposte isn't even an answer for this thread; it's a non-sequitur.
You're basically talking about hardware specs like the entire Playstation service is just a computer in a box.

I'm talking about business.

Read again:

http://nintendoenthusiast.com/forum...a-powerful-nintendo-machine.4056/#post-162369
http://nintendoenthusiast.com/forum...a-powerful-nintendo-machine.4056/#post-162435


Again, this is a statement in search of a point. If you're not saying it was a hardware issue, then you're saying it's a focus of Nintendo separate from their hardware choices. If you're saying it's a hardware issue, you're wrong.
I'm exactly not saying that it's a hardware issue.

Many of my list of features aren't just CPU or a RAM memory in a box. Read them again, that's why a posted it to you twice.

If you think that Nintendo just need to "hire someone" to pull off services like Playstation Now and Playstation movie/TV rental and cloud computing processing (those are some of the things I put on my list) I just disagree with you, end of story.


Ummm, then why bring up X86 at all like you did? Probably for the same reason you were banging on about it here being somehow an indicative evolutionary trait of "true" modern consoles (yes, I have the receipts, man; I don't forget inane debates). But onto more solid ground:
I wasn't banging anything and you don't have better "solid ground" than me. Look your arrogance, please. What I posted there was a viewpoint similar to what a research firm has stated. In fact I said a lot of positive things about NX on that post based on the same viewpoint. The DFC Intelligence has stated the same thing that I had posted before on that same thread. That NX was targeted to the entire family and that it has an Apple device appeal and that's why I called NX a some sort of tablet for Nintendo fans with a lot of potential as a parent trap. While you is limited by your "spec knowledge".

When I say that the home console market includes x86 architecture, I'm just stating a fact. X86 is distiction feature. You find it on PS and X that are the only traditional home consoles in the market (or aren't they not? ask any research firm that analyses this market). I'm not saying anything wrong nor saying that x86 is intrinsically necessary to deliver any feature. But it's clearly a feature of distinction since Nintendo doesn't deploy x86.

You must be reading my posts with some sort of console war mentality against my viewpoints like I'm supposedly a "Nintendo hater" that is blinding you.
 

Koenig

The Architect
#52
Fair points, guys. But I still think that Nintendo is too far from the modus operandi of the PS/X market. Even multi-billion dollar companies sometimes struggle to get into a market.



Yes, I believe GC was the last time Nintendo tried to compete in the market. Since then, Nintendo has no experience with this market that has evolved a lot from that times.

Having a lot of money doesn't make competing in a market that easy. Google has a lot of money but they've been struggling to compete in the smartphone business. Microsoft as well. They used their money to hire experts, they have outsourced processes, they've acquired companies (Nokia and Motorola) and they still struggled to deliver a product that many say that is very easy to make: a simple smartphone to the masses.

Is it super easy to do what Playstation do? You just need money and outsource stuff? I doubt it. Let alone for a company that has been out of this business for a decade and has a totally different culture.

I'd say that the effort for Nintendo to go back to the PS/X market would be the same effort of opening a new company. They can pull this off, but it'd take them an entire generation of work.
I agree in part, though considering Nintendo is a game publisher and console manufacturer, its not like it would be too difficult for them to make a push into a market that they already have some overlap with. At the very least, Nintendo could invest and partner with more Western studios now and then; have you ever noticed how 90% of the third and second party support Nintendo gets is from Japan? It caters to the niche and die-hard fan-base very well, but does little in the way of enticing a majority of the PS4/X1 crowd. They really should consider expanding their target demographic to actual gamers rather than the casual crowed, the former of which is a far more reliable and long term investment.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#53
Fair points, guys. But I still think that Nintendo is too far from the modus operandi of the PS/X market. Even multi-billion dollar companies sometimes struggle to get into a market.



Yes, I believe GC was the last time Nintendo tried to compete in the market. Since then, Nintendo has no experience with this market that has evolved a lot from that times.

Having a lot of money doesn't make competing in a market that easy. Google has a lot of money but they've been struggling to compete in the smartphone business. Microsoft as well. They used their money to hire experts, they have outsourced processes, they've acquired companies (Nokia and Motorola) and they still struggled to deliver a product that many say that is very easy to make: a simple smartphone to the masses.

Is it super easy to do what Playstation do? You just need money and outsource stuff? I doubt it. Let alone for a company that has been out of this business for a decade and has a totally different culture.

I'd say that the effort for Nintendo to go back to the PS/X market would be the same effort of opening a new company. They can pull this off, but it'd take them an entire generation of work.
Again though, Nintendo are already competing against Sony and Microsoft, but rather than a horsepower level, it's more on a technical level (hence the hybrid system). But even then, I have this question to ask you about Nintendo competing on a horsepower level:



I suppose I don't understand how it's going to solve Nintendo's issues or potential future issues, and why Nintendo should invest billions and billions of dollars into directly competing with the superpowers rather than just doing what they're doing, and more passively competing against them. So, still competing, but not exactly in the same way as the other two.

Maybe I'm understanding you all wrong here, but I'm struggling to figure out what good it would do Nintendo at this point.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#54
But even then, I have this question to ask you about Nintendo competing on a horsepower level:

I suppose I don't understand how it's going to solve Nintendo's issues or potential future issues, and why Nintendo should invest billions and billions of dollars into directly competing with the superpowers rather than just doing what they're doing
You're quoting me, so do you mean, asking me or everyone in the thread?

Because I've already said that I'm against Nintendo investing anything into directly competing with them. I don't support this strategy. I think they should do what they're doing.

For those who think they should compete direct with them in power, I'd like to hear more thoughts too.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#55
You're quoting me, so do you mean, asking me or everyone in the thread?

Because I've already said that I'm against Nintendo investing anything into directly competing with them. I don't support this strategy. I think they should do what they're doing.

For those who think they should compete direct with them in power, I'd like to hear more thoughts too.
Your previous post made it seem as though you wanted Nintendo to compete directly, that's what I was getting at. It was the wording is all.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#56
Your previous post made it seem as though you wanted Nintendo to compete directly, that's what I was getting at. It was the wording is all.
Quoting me:

Some years ago, yes, but now, it's too late for that. Nintendo can't compete with Sony anymore. The best strategy was to release a HD successor to 3DS and forget the home console market. It's Switch.

The handheld/tablet/mobile market is where Nintendo can pull something off and keep his customers.


I don't think Nintendo made any mistake.

When I say that Nintendo doesn't sell modern home consoles it doesn't mean that I'm saying that Nintendo is making a mistake.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#57
My previous post about Nintendo not being able to pull off a powerful-"modern"-x86-Playstation-like service/console is a different discussion.

I'm not arguing in favour of Nintendo releasing a Playstation-like console, I'm saying that Nintendo'd struggle to do that due to the fact that PS4/X1 market isn't only just about a powerful x86 machine anymore, but a whole bunch of services and features that I think Nintendo as it is today would struggle to pull off.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#58
My previous post about Nintendo not being able to pull off a powerful-"modern"-x86-Playstation-like service/console is a different discussion.

I'm not arguing in favour of Nintendo releasing a Playstation-like console, I'm saying that Nintendo'd struggle to do that due to the fact that PS4/X1 market isn't only just about a powerful x86 machine anymore, but a whole bunch of services and features that I think Nintendo as it is today would struggle to pull off.
I think it was ET who mentioned this, but there's a difference between Nintendo struggling to pull it off, versus having no desire to implement those services. I think for many of those things, it's the latter. Now, we've beaten the voice chat discussion to death, so I won't go back to that, but that is one example where it's more of a business decision rather than a technical one.
 

Koenig

The Architect
#59
I think it was ET who mentioned this, but there's a difference between Nintendo struggling to pull it off, versus having no desire to implement those services. I think for many of those things, it's the latter. Now, we've beaten the voice chat discussion to death, so I won't go back to that, but that is one example where it's more of a business decision rather than a technical one.
No doubt, however I don't think that is what Odo is talking about in this case.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#60
X86 versus ARM is a pointless bullet point. Both are supported in pretty much every modern game engine. When the developer is creating the software, its not like they are writing all the code. They are using the tools, creating the game, and then the tools will compile all the code for the developer to whatever platform they are choosing. Creating an Unreal 4 game is no different on Switch compared to X1/PS4, developer creates the game on a PC, and then exports it to whatever platform they choose. Modern tools make custom code for one type of architecture obsolete. ARM is supported because its in far more devices than X86. Think about how many phones and tablets are out in the world. Far more are sold every year that PC's and consoles.

I'm still not sure what features and services are beyond Nintendo's abilities. The mobile app will be a thing that will include cross game chat, friends lobbies, and other various features. Nintendo's "choice" to go this route instead of on the system itself probably comes down to freeing up resources as to not bog down the single A57 core that Nintendo dedicated to the OS and protecting the kiddies. The fact that the app will be used on a phone instead of the consoles doesn't change the fact that Nintendo can indeed create and implement such features.

Steaming services are coming, so that isn't even up for discussion. For fuck sakes, they were on the Wii U.

I'm not saying that Nintendo isn't behind the curve with these types of features, but flat out saying they "cant" to it is bullshit. If anything, perhaps this does circle back to the OP and the Switch simply doesn't have the CPU cores to spare, and thus Nintendo wants to maintain a lightweight OS. Too bad the A53 cores are gated off and cannot be used in parallel with the A57 cores.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
#61
My previous post about Nintendo not being able to pull off a powerful-"modern"-x86-Playstation-like service/console is a different discussion.

I'm not arguing in favour of Nintendo releasing a Playstation-like console, I'm saying that Nintendo'd struggle to do that due to the fact that PS4/X1 market isn't only just about a powerful x86 machine anymore, but a whole bunch of services and features that I think Nintendo as it is today would struggle to pull off.
none of your points would be hard to pull off, AT ALL.... expensive, but not hard... that is where you don't seem to get the industry.... everything sony and xbox are doing tons of others are as well, and doing it better, sony and ms do outsourcing as well which Nintendo could do... making powerful hardware isn't hard, the stuff in the new consoles is basically off the shelf gear... and the services, as I said, are done better elsewhere by other companies.... like all of the cloud storage stuff, sony and ms couldn't even dream to compete with google on that front... backbone infrastructure.. again... google, but also Amazon.... and why is opening a video store even remotely necessary when they could just throw amazon on the box, since amazon's video catalog is FAR superior to what sony and ms offer anyways.. it is redundant...

everything you listed is fucking easy, but often expensive... that being said, it is hardly tooe xpensive for nintendo to do, just too expensive for them to want to do, as a conservative company it goes against their standings

the one area nitnendo simply cannot easily compete with sony and ms is with 3rd parties...

they have some damaged relationships, there is doubt (justifiable) about 3rd party content selling on Nintendo platforms, and gamers have already chosen their default multiplayer systems for the foreseeable future

that is the ONLY area nintendo CANNOT compete on at this time.... everything else you stated is easy, but expensive, and not at all necessary

lastly, I want to once again attack the BS fallacy you keep spreading about the switch not being a console or a hybrid, and your use of the word tablet as a loaded word.... AGAIN it is a no true scottsman fallacy born from your own stubbornness from earlier conversations, as obvious as it is silly.

the switch IS a handheld, the switch IS a tablet (for 1 single game), the switch IS a console... it is all of the above... and that is precisely what makes it a hybrid

all the shit you mention that keeps it from being a console is BS, most of that is what keeps it from being a f'n roku... Microsoft is pushing to transition consoles into living room entertainment center boxes... a box that INCLUDES a game console... but that isn't what makes it a games console, that is just Microsfot's attempt to leverage 1 successful product as a means of growing other less successful products .... is a car not a car if it doesn't come with a toyota streaming music subscription?

it is just f'n silly
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#62
most of that is what keeps it from being a f'n roku...
I laughed out loud as a read that, because its so freaking true. Its like, when did playing videogames start falling down the totem poll of importance on a console? My Amazon Firestick support tons of apps, and with a Bluetooth controller I can play games. Does that make it more of a console than the Switch? I think most would agree that no, of course not. A console's number one purpose "should" be centered around playing games. If it isn't, then why not just by a fucking Roku? :p

@Odo

I hope you don't feel like your getting ganged up on. You have actually sparked a lot of really good debate. We just have some polarizing opinions, but its actually been really good discussion in my opinion.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#63
@Odo

I hope you don't feel like your getting ganged up on. You have actually sparked a lot of really good debate. We just have some polarizing opinions, but its actually been really good discussion in my opinion.
Yeah. I also get your and peoples viewpoints here and respect that. You all have a good points to defend what and how Nintendo could do the things I said they would have a hard time doing. I'm reviewing my own viewpoint now based on what you guys are saying and trying to read more about it. Thanks for those words.

It's only annoying that I still end up reading all the arrogant stuff that Migthy writes here against me. His sense of superiority, his arrogance issues as well as the fact that he can't stop quoting me with all this hybrid/tablet debate that went on 1 year ago which he does just to make my time hard here and to try to provoke me. That's because he couldn't understand that debate and keep acting with this infantile console-war behaviour like I'm in a crusade against Nintendo. He does that only to try to make me react on a subject that I already replied and moved on, it's really annoying. Every discussion he ends up shouting the same stuff again and again. I had already acknowledged that he believes I'm stupid, and I'm only post bullshit and that he doesn't like me and doesn't respect me and bla bla bla and also that Scotsman or Irishman thing and the fallacy word that he uses like he's some sort of Ivy League philosopher.

If anyone around here is a friend of him, please tell him that Odo got his message and has already moved on. I don't like him either and we're done.

Again, when I compare Switch with tablets I'm not saying anything from Mars. It's a common opinion everywhere that also has been shared by analysts so I don't even need to defend this point by my own logic, I could just copy and paste all that others have said about it. It's not hate speech against Switch and I understand that everyone here disagrees about it which I think is totally cool since it's a totally valid opinion and certainly the most popular viewpoint everywhere and I'm already moved on from this topic.

I wish I could put him on a ignore list, but I don't know if it would make his posts disappear from the threads. I guess not, because it'd break the thread.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#64
Biggest downfall of forums is that back and forth discussions start being read with a tone, regardless of it was intended to be as such by the writer. Things can come across as condensending even though that was never the intent. Some times frustration does set in, and tempers flare.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
#65
Yeah. I also get your and peoples viewpoints here and respect that. You all have a good points to defend what and how Nintendo could do the things I said they would have a hard time doing. I'm reviewing my own viewpoint now based on what you guys are saying and trying to read more about it. Thanks for those words.

It's only annoying that I still end up reading all the arrogant stuff that Migthy writes here against me. His sense of superiority, his arrogance issues as well as the fact that he can't stop quoting me with all this hybrid/tablet debate that went on 1 year ago which he does just to make my time hard here and to try to provoke me. That's because he couldn't understand that debate and keep acting with this infantile console-war behaviour like I'm in a crusade against Nintendo. He does that only to try to make me react on a subject that I already replied and moved on, it's really annoying. Every discussion he ends up shouting the same stuff again and again. I had already acknowledged that he believes I'm stupid, and I'm only post bullshit and that he doesn't like me and doesn't respect me and bla bla bla and also that Scotsman or Irishman thing and the fallacy word that he uses like he's some sort of Ivy League philosopher.

If anyone around here is a friend of him, please tell him that Odo got his message and has already moved on. I don't like him either and we're done.

Again, when I compare Switch with tablets I'm not saying anything from Mars. It's a common opinion everywhere that also has been shared by analysts so I don't even need to defend this point by my own logic, I could just copy and paste all that others have said about it. It's not hate speech against Switch and I understand that everyone here disagrees about it which I think is totally cool since it's a totally valid opinion and certainly the most popular viewpoint everywhere and I'm already moved on from this topic.

I wish I could put him on a ignore list, but I don't know if it would make his posts disappear from the threads. I guess not, because it'd break the thread.
I don't bring up anything to give you a hard time... I bring it up because you REPEAT the sentiment, if you didn't repeat the sentiment I wouldn't repeat the criticism...

as for a no true scottsman falacy it is exactly what you have been doing... and it is an expressions I picked up from this board

you read into criticism as personal attacks,

I think your arguments are silly, I think that you have stubbornly stuck to your guns using the no true scottsman fallacy despite criticism pointing out the flaw in your argument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

but all I have done is criticize your argument, and your words, not you as a person, so stop acting the victim
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#68
I think your arguments are silly, I think that you have stubbornly stuck to your guns using the no true scottsman fallacy despite criticism pointing out the flaw in your argument
I understand your point. Fine, I'm cool with that.


Well guys, sorry if I was too harsh here in the thread, specially with those that I replied in the debate. Reading again all my posts here I see that it quite sounds like I'm an arse sometimes. I was aware of my unpopular criticisms but I didn't mean to flame the thread. I'll back off.


This thread provides a very good debate, so keep posting pls. I'd suggest some questions that you guys who have knowledge in technology and specs can elaborate. Let's imagine that Nintendo decided to release a powerful standard Playstation-like console. I'd like to read thoughts on these:

  1. How about the specs of this console? Considering a 2017 release, should Nintendo focus on PS4 Pro or Scorpio specs? How about the cost?
  2. Which franchises would benefit most from a super powerful console? In which ways? (GaemzDood has already posted some thoughts on this)
  3. How different would Breath of the Wild be in a PS4-like console in terms of graphics and overall ambition?
  4. Which sorts of innovation do you think a powerful Nintendo console could deploy to give it that Nintendo unique style that PS/X would lack of?
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#69
I understand your point. Fine, I'm cool with that.


Well guys, sorry if I was too harsh here in the thread, specially with those that I replied in the debate. Reading again all my posts here I see that it quite sounds like I'm an arse sometimes. I was aware of my unpopular criticisms but I didn't mean to flame the thread. I'll back off.


This thread provides a very good debate, so keep posting pls. I'd suggest some questions that you guys who have knowledge in technology and specs can elaborate. Let's imagine that Nintendo decided to release a powerful standard Playstation-like console. I'd like to read thoughts on these:

  1. How about the specs of this console? Considering a 2017 release, should Nintendo focus on PS4 Pro or Scorpio specs? How about the cost?
  2. Which franchises would benefit most from a super powerful console? In which ways? (GaemzDood has already posted some thoughts on this)
  3. How different would Breath of the Wild be in a PS4-like console in terms of graphics and overall ambition?
  4. Which sorts of innovation do you think a powerful Nintendo console could deploy to give it that Nintendo unique style that PS/X would lack of?
An example of high quality cross generational development would be Assassin's Creed IV on the PS4 vs. the PS3. A lot of things were added, and the PS4 version ran at a locked 30 FPS at 1080p. Zelda runs at 810p to 900p and can still dip badly in some sections (Korok forest), so it's obvious that the Switch version was a last minute port to guarantee Switch sales since I doubt people would've bought a Wii U for it (they didn't buy one for all the other great games it has).

As for innovation, I care more about game variety than innovation. If there's no innovation, then so be it. Seriously, try playing Splinter Cell or Capcom vs. SNK 2 EO with Nintendo's "innovative" GameCube controller and tell me you don't need a modded controller.
 
Last edited:

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
#70
  1. How about the specs of this console? Considering a 2017 release, should Nintendo focus on PS4 Pro or Scorpio specs? How about the cost?
  2. Which franchises would benefit most from a super powerful console? In which ways? (GaemzDood has already posted some thoughts on this)
  3. How different would Breath of the Wild be in a PS4-like console in terms of graphics and overall ambition?
  4. Which sorts of innovation do you think a powerful Nintendo console could deploy to give it that Nintendo unique style that PS/X would lack of?
1. well I don't agree that it is a good idea at all, so I skip this question
2. back to a more broadly theoretical, I think the only part of nintendo that really would feel the need for such power would be monolithsoft's games
3. graphics... better, maybe a locked 60fps.......... ambition... the same
4. nothing we don't already have coming from nintendo...

I just don't think it is necessary, and in the end would only create unnecessary confusion, and divide the great market potential of a single system.... I think that only Monolithsoft would be secretly cheering for the extra power, I wish instead they chose to go more stylized... style is why zelda looks SOOOOO good compared to xcx
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#71
  1. How about the specs of this console? Considering a 2017 release, should Nintendo focus on PS4 Pro or Scorpio specs? How about the cost?
  2. Which franchises would benefit most from a super powerful console? In which ways? (GaemzDood has already posted some thoughts on this)
  3. How different would Breath of the Wild be in a PS4-like console in terms of graphics and overall ambition?
  4. Which sorts of innovation do you think a powerful Nintendo console could deploy to give it that Nintendo unique style that PS/X would lack of?
1. The only reason I'd see Nintendo chasing specs like that would be to support VR in their same games. Basically, they'd be selling a more expensive machine that isn't portable but makes up for it by letting you play Zelda in VR.
2. Zelda Zelda Zelda. Every other game in the system benefits more from portability than from being immersive right now.
3. It wouldn't be any different at all. It would just render a larger level of detail at a distance so that you'd see the grass from further away, and maybe it would run at 60fps even at 900p.
4. AR. I actually expected it in the Switch, given that it's a powerful portable and the 3DS had already taken the first step toward it. Really strange that they opted out of it, especially now that Pokemon Go had just blown the door for AR wide open.
 

Koenig

The Architect
#72
It would be interesting to see Nintendo release a VR enabled system from launch; even more so if it was a standard feature like the gamepad was for the wii U (Except you, actually a positive selling point). Honestly I think this is the only way VR will ever get the full support of developers, however I can't say it is the most economically sensible move either.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#73
1. well I don't agree that it is a good idea at all, so I skip this question
2. back to a more broadly theoretical, I think the only part of nintendo that really would feel the need for such power would be monolithsoft's games
3. graphics... better, maybe a locked 60fps.......... ambition... the same
4. nothing we don't already have coming from nintendo...

I just don't think it is necessary, and in the end would only create unnecessary confusion, and divide the great market potential of a single system.... I think that only Monolithsoft would be secretly cheering for the extra power, I wish instead they chose to go more stylized... style is why zelda looks SOOOOO good compared to xcx
Zelda also objectively has better technology than Xenoblade Chronicles X. Xenoblade literally uses pre-baked shadows everywhere and it breaks immersion, and the collision system, or lack thereof, gives me Big Rigs vibes. The lighting, draw distances, volumetric effects, dynamic foliage that reacts to the environment, and just everything else put it above XCX.
 

Koenig

The Architect
#74
Zelda also objectively has better technology than Xenoblade Chronicles X. Xenoblade literally uses pre-baked shadows everywhere and it breaks immersion, and the collision system, or lack thereof, gives me Big Rigs vibes. The lighting, draw distances, volumetric effects, dynamic foliage that reacts to the environment, and just everything else put it above XCX.
Although I would argue that art of XCX did the game more justice. I went back and played it for a bit after beating BoTW, and I have to say if the game had the graphical/physics enhancements from BoTW it could have been soo much more than either were on their own respectively. But to reiterate your point; when playing XCX for the first time I frequently remember stating to myself and my roommates how "static" the game felt; especially compared to other games of the time and BoTW in future-sight.
 
Last edited:

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#75
Although I would argue that art of XCX did the game more justice. I went back and played it for a bit after beating BoTW, and I have to say if the game had the graphical/physics enhancements from BoTW it could have been soo much more than either were on their own respectively. But to reiterate your point; when playing XCX for the first time I frequently remember stating to myself and my roommates how "static" the game felt; especially compared to other games of the time and BoTW in future-sight.
I remember people on IGN's Nintendo board comparing it to Final Fantasy XV when the game doesn't even used physically based rendering, let alone doing even half of anything that game does visually.

Having a locked 30 FPS at 720p (Zelda runs between 648p and 720p and has tons of frame drops) in an open world game on Wii U is no easy task, and there's really no secret sauce to pull it off without sacrificing stuff like XCX.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Koenig

The Architect
#76
I remember people on IGN's Nintendo board comparing it to Final Fantasy XV when the game doesn't even used physically based rendering, let alone doing even half of anything that game does visually.

Having a locked 30 FPS at 720p (Zelda runs between 648p and 720p and has tons of frame drops) in an open world game on Wii U is no easy task, and there's really no secret sauce to pull it off without sacrificing stuff like XCX.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
I would argue that art generally trumps graphics however; XCX simply had an amazing and imaginative world that stuck out far more than any other open world game I have ever played, I just wish the world had the same depth provided to it that BoTW did as it would have gone a long way to preserving my immersion in the game. It was not the graphical performance like textures or shadows that drew me out of XCX mind you, it was the fact the game animated and interacted like it was made of plastic casts.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#77
I would argue that art generally trumps graphics however; XCX simply had an amazing and imaginative world that stuck out far more than any other open world game I have ever played, I just wish the world had the same depth provided to it that BoTW did as it would have gone a long way to preserving my immersion in the game. It was not the graphical performance like textures or shadows that drew me out of XCX mind you, it was the fact the game animated and interacted like it was made of plastic casts.
Yeah, this is another aspect that I feel some people forget. Just because you're using pre-baked shadows, and other effects that are not dynamic does not always necessarily mean it's a lack of trying to make a game look good. Perhaps it's simply a design choice by the programmers given the look they are going for. It also might've simply been too taxing to use dynamic shadows for a game like XCX, so that is why pre-baked was included.

Even Shin'en said that for FAST Racing Neo, they had to use a lot of pre-baked effects to get the game to run at a mostly stable 60fps. With the Switch though, they could use pretty much all the effects they originally intended. So if there happens to be a XCX port for the Switch (unlikely really), then some of the more pre-baked effects might be scrapped in favor of more dynamic features. But ultimately, it falls under whether or not it's a worthwhile design choice for more than simply saying they're using dynamic features than pre-baked effects. This obsession with everything having to be dynamic, and using the latest and greatest is getting rather boring. I'm much more interested when developers can push their creativity skills in art design than simply brute forcing everything with all the latest shadow and lighting techniques. Sometimes, it's more of a question does this vastly improve or change the look and design of the game.

This was likely mentioned earlier, but some of today's games still use pre-baked effects, but a lot of the time, we simply don't notice them, which was the intention of the programmers. It's a lot like CGI in movies. We say we hate CGI, but only if we notice it. Take for example David Fincher films. He loves using CGI in his films, and it's an effort to enhance what is already going on versus sloppy or lazy filmmaking. Extra blood, weather effects, buildings in background, composite shots, etc. 99.9% of people simply won't notice them, and even if you do, it's likely when you view it in slo-mo, which was not the intention of the creative minds behind it.

But I'm simply rambling at this point.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#78
Yeah, this is another aspect that I feel some people forget. Just because you're using pre-baked shadows, and other effects that are not dynamic does not always necessarily mean it's a lack of trying to make a game look good. Perhaps it's simply a design choice by the programmers given the look they are going for. It also might've simply been too taxing to use dynamic shadows for a game like XCX, so that is why pre-baked was included.

Even Shin'en said that for FAST Racing Neo, they had to use a lot of pre-baked effects to get the game to run at a mostly stable 60fps. With the Switch though, they could use pretty much all the effects they originally intended. So if there happens to be a XCX port for the Switch (unlikely really), then some of the more pre-baked effects might be scrapped in favor of more dynamic features. But ultimately, it falls under whether or not it's a worthwhile design choice for more than simply saying they're using dynamic features than pre-baked effects. This obsession with everything having to be dynamic, and using the latest and greatest is getting rather boring. I'm much more interested when developers can push their creativity skills in art design than simply brute forcing everything with all the latest shadow and lighting techniques. Sometimes, it's more of a question does this vastly improve or change the look and design of the game.

This was likely mentioned earlier, but some of today's games still use pre-baked effects, but a lot of the time, we simply don't notice them, which was the intention of the programmers. It's a lot like CGI in movies. We say we hate CGI, but only if we notice it. Take for example David Fincher films. He loves using CGI in his films, and it's an effort to enhance what is already going on versus sloppy or lazy filmmaking. Extra blood, weather effects, buildings in background, composite shots, etc. 99.9% of people simply won't notice them, and even if you do, it's likely when you view it in slo-mo, which was not the intention of the creative minds behind it.

But I'm simply rambling at this point.
There's more that was sacrificed than just shadows though. The extreme pop-in, flat lighting, low res textures and effects, clipping issues (cars), etc. are all noticed in the city areas. In a perfect world, XCX's LA could've been rendered like FFXV's town hubs.

If you want an example of a game who's lighting and post processing pops out, look at any screenshot of Advanced Warfare.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Koenig

The Architect
#79
Again, I don't feel that lighting was the main issue with the game, but rather than everything felt static and plasticity. In order to achieve what I would like to see, I suspect It would take an entirely different engine, AI, and physics to pull off.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#80
There's more that was sacrificed than just shadows though. The extreme pop-in, flat lighting, low res textures and effects, clipping issues (cars), etc. are all noticed in the city areas. In a perfect world, XCX's LA could've been rendered like FFXV's town hubs.

If you want an example of a game who's lighting and post processing pops out, look at any screenshot of Advanced Warfare.


Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
I know this is a very passionate topic of discussion for you concerning graphics and technology, but I don't look at a game like XCX and say what it could've had in terms of better graphics, but rather what it already does have. And what it does have is a very vast and complex world filled with such a lush and beautiful scenery. Anything else is really just extra, but it wouldn't necessarily make the game any more enjoyable. Even a Switch port wouldn't do much really to add stuff with the exception of improved resolution, less pop in, and perhaps some cleaned up visuals in some areas. Overall though, the core game itself would remain.

Just for the record, I'm not very impressed with Advanced Warfare's graphics. Sure, they're nice, but I don't look at it as some awesome looking title. As Koenig said, art style is what I prefer, and from that perspective, XCX is more visually appealing then AW despite some of its shortcomings. Then again, the hardware used plays a big role as you know.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#81
Bumping in light of FIFA Switch's woes and Digital Foundry's speculation video on Nintendo's next move with Nvidia. I'd love to see at least a GTX 1060 class GPU with Nvidia's latest memory tech, line in the 'advanced dev kit' described in the article.

However, DON'T MAKE IT AN SDC. Make it stand alone like the PS4 Pro. Console add ons have historically been a failure. Plus, making developers scale from the handheld mode to an SDC could result in Snake Pass tier resolutions for handheld users.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
#82
The fact that I wrote this thread while being strung out on enough pills to where it resembled Eminem circa 2004 is either a testament to my genius in the face of adversity or why drugs are bad.
 
#83
I still stand by wanting a powerful Switch style system, but more so for the potential it could bring to backwards compatibility support, which was something going through my head for a bit.

- A lot of badly performing Wii U games have uncapped framerates, examples being Watch Dogs, both Assassin's Creed games, both Call of Duty games, The Wonderful 101, and Arkham City. Xbox One X style backwards compatibility combined with a modern CPU could literally double performance. Other games with egregious image quality issues could do with a simple bump in resolution (i.e. 880x720 -> 2640x2160) and texture filtering.

- The potential it brings to GameCube and Wii games would also be extraordinarily salivating, as seen with the way the Xbox X does OG Xbox BC. The Xbox X does a 4x4 increase (640x480p -> 2560x1920); I'm thinking a 4.5x4.5 increase (640x480 -> 2880x2160) since GameCube and Wii games tended to suffer from more issues than Xbox ones like lower color space quality (more so with the GCN) as well as high quality cables being hella expensive. In addition to that, titles that didn't use mipmapping (Luigi's Mansion, Resident Evil 4) could get hardware induced 16xAF.

- The framerate and/or dynamic resolution boosts it would bring to native Switch games would be massive.

Also, given that Nvidia just recently solved the compute shader question with their Turing cards, incorporating just that element alone would save headaches for engines that use it heavily like id Tech 6, which most notably removes its most compute heavy effects in the Switch ports (SSR, Wolf II's water simulation) despite keeping everything else.
 
Last edited:
Top