Nintendo: Fire Emblem Switch is “going to be looking beautiful with great graphics”

[vivster]

padib said:

vivster said:

That's why I don't generalize. Also a game about graphics with minimal gameplay has its value.

The thing I'm alluding to here is the people in threads about Nintendo hardware that always come with the pseudo argument of how great Nintendo is for concentrating on weak hardware so that developers don't have to waste resources on graphics, which of course is absolute nonsense.

It really depends. The reasoning is nonsense, but Nintendo's strategy honestly isn't. The proof is that people still buy their systems, they must be doing something right.

Of course the choices they make lead to consoles that limit developers in one way, but allow other types of uses and other possibilites in another way.

What about the idea that, with all the hardware power we have today, isn't it possible to make a gorgeous game even without pushing the limits of hardware performance? For example, in my opinion, Breath of the Wild looks beautiful.

The thing is, there really is no other way than to push graphics. You might not realize it but it's not like the consoles are so powerful that devs have to come up with new technologies to reach the limit. It's actually the absolute opposite. Hardware is still too weak to come even close to the vision developers intend and they have to put in a lot of work to create visual workarounds. This wouldn't be necessary with more hardware power available. Devs on all platforms never have enough hardware resources so I think it's ludicrous to intentionally go the other way. There is a reason why so many 3rd parties are avoiding Nintendo and one big point is the hardware.

You see BOTW as beautiful and I see a lot of wasted potential. The first thing that greets you is a washed out screen thanks to sub 1080p and badly upscaled image. Don't you think the developers would've liked to have a much sharper image that not only looks good on a tiny handheld screen but also on a big TV?

Then I start to move and notice the stutter. That tells me that the developers had to compromise a smooth gaming experience for a minimum of graphical fidelity, yet they couldn't even reach 1080p with that compromise. As a developer I'd feel like shit that not only do I have to compromise my vision but also that it isn't even enough.

Then I go outside into the world and notice all the little visual workarounds to decrease workloads like reduced textures, flat 2d models, static shadows and certain visual tricks that try to emulate actual animation. Tricks that cost time and effort and can cause bugs. Things that wouldn't be necessary if they had the power to do the things the way they want.

BOTW looks good for what it is because talented devs had to power through and work with compromises. To me that's a pretty sad picture in my mind. Don't you think the devs of Arms would've liked to have a sharper picture in this highly competitive game? Or maybe be able to deliver 60fps in 4 player mode?

Slow and outdated hardware is a detriment to games and their developers. So I find it hard to take people reveling in that fact.

BTW I'm including all consoles and even PC in the "hardware too weak" statement.

I would also like to note that the visual fidelty is not among the reasons why I became to hate the game. It just accelerated it.