By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Would you rather Starfox dropped the 2nd screen for better graphics?

Tagged games:

 

?

Yes, drop it 193 66.55%
 
No, keep it 97 33.45%
 
Total:290
curl-6 on 24 November 2015
Jumpin said:
What makes people think it is re-rendering anything to show on a different display? It shouldn't effect the processor any more than just the placement of a different camera, which is next to nil.

(1) Gamepad will often have to render things not on the main screen.

(2) Gamepad is an additional 854x480 pixels to be drawn.



Around the Network
Norris2k on 24 November 2015
Jumpin said:

Two questions:

1. How much graphics would be gained from losing the camera? I assume they are just using a different camera and not re-rendering the entire scene. How much would it improve, and for what technical reason would it be improved?

2. Where would Nintendo get all of the extra artists in order to complete this job in time for launch? Given that the game is on the verge of release, all of the artists are likely done and moved onto other projects, would Nintendo hire new artists? Would they shift artists off of other projects back onto StarFox?

1 - The impact is huge, it roughly halves the performance.  It seems you are mistaking about rendering. In fact, there is a 3d scene, composed of models, textures, effects, etc., you chose a perspective from where you will see the scene, and then you render the scene from this perspective (this"camera") and that become 1 frame. If you want to show the scene from 2 cameras, you need to render twice. If your understanding of "just using a different camera" was correct, it would be possible to take few seconds to render a room for the first frame, and just move the camera for free for the next frames. In real cases, Nvidia 3D Vision halves the number of frame per second to render 2 cameras for the 2 screens, PS3 Killzone had to halve the resolution of each screen (and probably simplified the graphics).

Just for a note, that's why most of the mirrors in game are small and dirty, that's because a mirror is just that, another camera for the same scene, and consequently another rendering. So, to not impact too much the performances, they reduce a lot the rendering quality and accuracy of the mirror, and add a filter looking like dirt (or blur, etc.) or make it small to hide the low quality.

So, removing a screen would save a lot of CPU and GPU.

2 - But, exactly, the game doesn't magically become beautiful just by saving resources ! In fact, the choice to have a dual display and 60 fps is also a choice that makes you save a tremendous amount of work and money... It's then super convenient to talk about how gameplay matters more than graphics, and show a game that really looks horrible, even given that constraint. I mean it's so bad they didn't even try.