Wyrdness said:
Enemy numbers are objective, size of the game world is objective, more active assets requiring more work from CPU/GPU is objective even the example with RE3 is objective and can be looked ups. Only point you have is the seamless open world but that doesn't equate to doing more at once overall. Edit: To further clarify I even like BOTW more than other games, BOTW has more complex interactions yes but its approach is not to focus on loads of things happening at once it's so that at any moment the player may use such interactions to play around with the current situations or customize their experience playing through for instance building an airship which is why things like enemies are more spread apart and it doesn't hinder the game as it focuses on how you deal with the situation when it comes. XBC is more dense in what's on screen and as we saw with RE3R increasing Zombie numbers that impacts work load even though RE2 is more complex, it's hard to say BOTW is doing more when at most you may be dealing with like 10 or so enemies at once while another has like 60 enemies running around. We'll meet in the middle and say the games are even. Maybe BOTW2 being built for the NS from the ground up can match XBC's number of assets managed better who knows in that case I'd agree that that particular game is doing more. |
Sigh... the guy above you explained it again. BotW world is fully loaded all the time (obviously far away places are loaded in a more simplified state). Xenoblade Chronicles is a set of different maps, all of which are significantly smaller (individually) than BotW. The game only loads the map you are in are the moment, so from size alone, BotW is putting more stress to the console than XC/XC2 could ever hope to do.
But it's not just about the size of the world the console needs to move. XC and XC2 have very, VERY simplistic logic for their worlds. Yes, the world is more populated by enemies, but besides that... everything else is "empty". Grass is static by your presence and cannot be altered, terrain is also static, water is mostly static even when you move through it, it's not possible for new assets to appear on screen like arrows or other items. You say those things don't impact performance, but they do. Xenoblade only has to take care of the world and its enemies. Meanwhile, Zelda has to take care of that, plus the wildlife and everything else that I said. I can get into a fight while setting a camp of grass on fire, moving metal boxes with a magnet and shooting arrows that will remain on the world with their own set of physics after they land. That's stressful, and the game still manages to perform a lot better than both Xenoblades.
And let's not even talk about pure visuals, because BotW is leagues above Xenoblade games in that regard. The particles and explosion effects alone are more demanding than any especial attack in any Xenoblade game. And those are just to things out of the overall visual presentation.
It doesn't matter how you put it. BotW is a more complex game on the Switch than both Xenoblades. Even if we agree that they are overall equals in terms of CPU/GPU stress, Zelda still runs at 900p-810p and 720p-640p while both Xeno games run at 720p-540p and 540p-368p. The difference is massive. It makes no sense whatsoever. Which was my whole point from the beginning: there comparable or even more demanding games on Switch running far better than Xenoblade.
