By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Miyamotoo on 20 April 2017
Edit Thread
Mnementh said:
Nuvendil said:

Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate was a quickly remastered Wii game, not an upscaled 3DS game.  That's a massive difference in starting quality.  Bringing Monster Hunter XX over with the same level of detail would have been far more work and take more time.  Also, would not be surprised if the Switch's Monster Hunter is currently planned to be Monster Hunter 5.  XX is an inbetween game, not the full blown next big entry.  It could be it was planned from the start as a game to capitalize on the 3DS's twilight year while saving the bigger release for the Switch.

Nope. You forget Wii was an SD console. That means 480p, which is 852x480. That are 409K pixels. 3DS has 400x240(x2 for stereoscopic view, which has to be rendered) + 320x240 for the touchscreen. As the main rendering in Monster Hunter is on the stereoscopic screen (touchscreen has 2D-elements), 3D-view has rendered for 192K pixels. So 3DS is only at around half the render-resolution. 1080p (which was Monster Hunter 3G running at) on the other hand has 1920x1080=2M pixels. The jump to HD is much more bigger than the minor change between Wii and 3DS.

Also on the memory side it is not looking good. Wii only had 88MB (is that right, Wikipedia says that, but it seems very low), 3DS had 128 MB. So Wii couldn't store bigger textures and models than 3DS.

So no, there was no massive difference in starting quality. Also, as far as I know, Capcom really ported the 3DS-version, as the Wii-version had lesser content. They would have to add this first. 3G on 3DS and WiiU could share data and had similar online, while the Wii-version had clearly different content.

And really, there was no big graphic difference between WiiU and 3DS (besides the resolution obviously). There was another detail or element here and there, but nothing serious.

Actualy standard 480p is 640x480p and I believe Wii had 640x480p resolution.