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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Can we talk about The Wonderful 101 laughable Demaster?

So, about a week or so ago, Platinum Games started sending the digital codes for The Wonderful 101 "Remastered" to the backers of the Kickstarter. And a few days ago, Digital Foundry did their testing of all three versions of the game (Switch/PS4/PC). And the results are... pathetic to say the least:

In all three versions, the game is virtually the same as it was on Wii U. No new textures, no better lightning, no nothing. All the assets are 1:1 comparable to the original version. The only change is resolution: While the Wii U was 720p, both Switch and PS4 are locked 1080p and even PS4 Pro is capped at 1080p as well (PC can go up to 4k resolutions). At this point I have to wonder how can this product be called "remastered" when there is virtually nothing technically improved over the original version besides a bump in resolution. But wait: it gets even worse.

The original Wii U game aimed to achieve 60fps, but in reality it spent most of the time in the low 40s. Whenever explosions, lots of enemies or lots of heroes gathered on screen, the framerate would go freefall from 60 to 40... or even mid 30s.

This supposedly "remastered" version runs WORSE on Switch than it did on Wii U. Not by much, but it is worse. You can expect a few less frames on Switch in every situation. This is caused by the bump in resolution, which by the way it does nothing noticeably positive on Switch because without AA the 1080p resolution bump is not really a big deal. Even on PS4, which is like 5-6 times more powerful than Wii U, there are framerate drops whenever too much shit is going on on screen (although they are less pronounced than on Nintendo consoles). The only console that is able to sustain 60fps is PS4 Pro, and even that machine has some sporadic frame drops. And although is not mentioned by Digital Foundry, players are reporting frame pacing issues on PC.

So, the game not only looks pretty much the same besides resolution (which by the way is not a big deal, is not like we are going from gen 6 resolutions to Full HD), but on Switch runs worse than it originally did and in every other platform there are still problems that given their power, should not be there at all.

More than 2 million dollars were raised on the Kickstarter campaign. And Platinum Games did one of the worst "remastering" jobs I've ever seen in recent years. It's shameful that such a beloved game that was supposed to get a second chance after a bad launch was so poorly treated by their own creators. I hope it sells bad again and that it gets the low reviews it deserves. Thankfully, it already has a 71 on Metacritic

https://www.metacritic.com/game/switch/the-wonderful-101-remastered/critic-reviews

What do you guys think about this?



Around the Network

Given that I didn't have a problem with the controls not responding on the Wii U (because we all know that 30+ fps is sufficient to be playable when the majority of games run at 30 fps), I don't see why there would be an issue in any of the remastered versions which all stay above 30 fps at all times apparently.

Regarding the Kickstarter campaign, you are putting the cart in front of the horse. Platinum Games didn't raise money to make the ports, they used Kickstarter as a preorder campaign for ports that were already as good as done by the time the Kickstarter went live.. The release timing of the ports tells us that.

The remastered versions aren't less awesome than the original game, so wishing failure on the remaster requires one to be a gaming snob.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

I don't think many fans will care tbh. The love they have for this game is way too high for that. You either don't get into it or you love it with your entire heart for eternity it seems like.



RolStoppable said:
Given that I didn't have a problem with the controls not responding on the Wii U (because we all know that 30+ fps is sufficient to be playable when the majority of games run at 30 fps), I don't see why there would be an issue in any of the remastered versions which all stay above 30 fps at all times apparently.

Regarding the Kickstarter campaign, you are putting the cart in front of the horse. Platinum Games didn't raise money to make the ports, they used Kickstarter as a preorder campaign for ports that were already as good as done by the time the Kickstarter went live.. The release timing of the ports tells us that.

The remastered versions aren't less awesome than the original game, so wishing failure on the remaster requires one to be a gaming snob.

If framerate is constantly going up and down, it doesn't matter if its above 30fps. It's inconsistent, noticeable and for many people, annoying. And that is not good in any scenario. Especially when we are talking about a "remastered" product. It should be better, not worse. And if the machine is several times more powerful, it should be a flawless experience. You not caring is a non factor. 

Even if they did the Kickstarter as a preorder campaign, it's still shameful that with the amount of money they made they were not up to the ask of making this game at least run better than Wii U on Switch and flawlessly on PS4/PC. The fact is they have done a bad port of a Wii U game and they lied to people calling it something that it's not.

When someone tries to sell a bad product, I especially when they go out there crying because the game deserves a second chance, yes, I hope it performs bad. It's not being a snob, it's being a consumer who wants a decent product that corresponds whith what is called. This is not a remaster, yet it's falsely called "remastered"



Vodacixi said:

If framerate is constantly going up and down, it doesn't matter if its above 30fps. It's inconsistent, noticeable and for many people, annoying. And that is not good in any scenario. Especially when we are talking about a "remastered" product. It should be better, not worse. And if the machine is several times more powerful, it should be a flawless experience. You not caring is a non factor. 

Even if they did the Kickstarter as a preorder campaign, it's still shameful that with the amount of money they made they were not up to the ask of making this game at least run better than Wii U on Switch and flawlessly on PS4/PC. The fact is they have done a bad port of a Wii U game and they lied to people calling it something that it's not.

When someone tries to sell a bad product, I especially when they go out there crying because the game deserves a second chance, yes, I hope it performs bad. It's not being a snob, it's being a consumer who wants a decent product that corresponds whith what is called. This is not a remaster, yet it's falsely called "remastered"

The game runs in higher resolution and only on Switch it trades a few frames for that; the other two versions are without a question superior to the Wii U version. Nothing wrong will calling it a remaster when the definition for remaster is so loose in the video games medium. It remasters were about flawless experiences, then lots of games were falsely called remasters in the last ten years.

The term 'Definitive Edition' leaves a lot less room for interpretation than 'Remastered', but even so, something like Dragon Quest XI S didn't cause an uproar.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:

The game runs in higher resolution and only on Switch it trades a few frames for that; the other two versions are without a question superior to the Wii U version.

That's the weird thing - even in portable mode, where resolution and graphics settings are pretty much a 1:1 match for the Wii U version, performance is still worse than on the older console. Not by enough that I'd consider the port an out-and-out disaster by any means, but it's certainly bizarre considering that both Bayonetta games had the same settings as the Wii U, and ran at higher framerates (as did Breath of the Wild in that game's portable mode).



RolStoppable said:
Vodacixi said:

If framerate is constantly going up and down, it doesn't matter if its above 30fps. It's inconsistent, noticeable and for many people, annoying. And that is not good in any scenario. Especially when we are talking about a "remastered" product. It should be better, not worse. And if the machine is several times more powerful, it should be a flawless experience. You not caring is a non factor. 

Even if they did the Kickstarter as a preorder campaign, it's still shameful that with the amount of money they made they were not up to the ask of making this game at least run better than Wii U on Switch and flawlessly on PS4/PC. The fact is they have done a bad port of a Wii U game and they lied to people calling it something that it's not.

When someone tries to sell a bad product, and especially when they go out there crying because the game deserves a second chance, yes, I hope it performs bad. It's not being a snob, it's being a consumer who wants a decent product that corresponds whith what is called. This is not a remaster, yet it's falsely called "remastered"

The term 'Definitive Edition' leaves a lot less room for interpretation than 'Remastered', but even so, something like Dragon Quest XI S didn't cause an uproar.

That's because DQXI S is, indeed, the definitive version of the game. It has more content (a lot more content), it has better and improved gameplay, and it has a better soundtrack. While it's true that the visuals are inferior to the PS4 and PC, it still looks good on Switch. Therefore, the best way to play the game, the "Definitive" version, is the Switch version.

But a remaster is not the same as a "definitive" version. A remaster is about improving the audiovisual quality of a product, and in the case of videogames, the gameplay as well. The end product has to be an overall improvement. The Wonderful 101 improves the resolution, yes. But in the case of the Switch version not only it's a meaningless change due to the fact that no AA is in play, but this improvement is at the cost of framerate. You improve one thing (barely) to get another one worse in the process. Meanwhile, the PS4 version is far more powerful than Wii U and it still shows some framerate drops. To be exact, when Wii U/Switch get in the 40s, PS4 gets in the 50s. That shows that the "remastering" process was done poorly. The PS4 should be able to run this at 1080p/60fps with the tip of its dick. And the PC version exhibits frame pacing issues even on high end PCs.

Also, I remind you that besides resolution, the game is exactly the same as it was on Wii U. Shadows, textures, lightning, depth of field... every asset of this game is a 1:1 match of those found on the Wii U. A remaster usually improves assets as well, just to remind you. Some does a more extensive work than others, but that's how it usually works.

And we haven't even talked about how they translated the Wii U Gamepad features into other consoles. Instead of having a second screen that shows certain areas and information, they slapped said screen onto the main screen, getting in the way of the action or in the "best" case, reducing the size of the main screen (killing any improvement in resolution that you might have). Honestly, I think they have offered a very lazy solution to this gameplay aspect and it ends up doing more harm than good.

It's lazy, in some platforms runs worse than the original, in others could obviously run better and it even plays worse. At best, it's an awful remaster. At worst, is a horrible port that is mistakenly called "remaster". It's a bad situation either way.

Last edited by Vodacixi - on 17 May 2020

OlfinBedwere said:
RolStoppable said:

The game runs in higher resolution and only on Switch it trades a few frames for that; the other two versions are without a question superior to the Wii U version.

That's the weird thing - even in portable mode, where resolution and graphics settings are pretty much a 1:1 match for the Wii U version, performance is still worse than on the older console. Not by enough that I'd consider the port an out-and-out disaster by any means, but it's certainly bizarre considering that both Bayonetta games had the same settings as the Wii U, and ran at higher framerates (as did Breath of the Wild in that game's portable mode).

Platinum Games did three ports at the same time. Shouldn't be surprising that a third party in that situation gives the Nintendo console the least amount of care, because that's what third parties do.

The kickstarter reached the goal for extra content down the line, so maybe they'll work on a performance patch for Switch during that time too. But either way, the game in its current state isn't so bad on Switch that one should wish for financial failure for Platinum Games.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
OlfinBedwere said:

That's the weird thing - even in portable mode, where resolution and graphics settings are pretty much a 1:1 match for the Wii U version, performance is still worse than on the older console. Not by enough that I'd consider the port an out-and-out disaster by any means, but it's certainly bizarre considering that both Bayonetta games had the same settings as the Wii U, and ran at higher framerates (as did Breath of the Wild in that game's portable mode).

Platinum Games did three ports at the same time. Shouldn't be surprising that a third party in that situation gives the Nintendo console the least amount of care, because that's what third parties do.

The kickstarter reached the goal for extra content down the line, so maybe they'll work on a performance patch for Switch during that time too. But either way, the game in its current state isn't so bad on Switch that one should wish for financial failure for Platinum Games.

Platinum didn't make three ports at the same time. They did one port and copy pasted it two times more. If they actually made three different versions, they would have optimized said versions to suit the different platforms. But they didn't.

As for wishing for "financial failure" for Platinum Games... there's no possible financial failure with that amount of Kickstarter money. They are more than covered on this project. So me wishing that it doesn't sell well outside of kickstarter backers and that it reviews bad would only be a "moral" lesson at this point. Which yes, I hope they get.



Vodacixi said:
RolStoppable said:

The term 'Definitive Edition' leaves a lot less room for interpretation than 'Remastered', but even so, something like Dragon Quest XI S didn't cause an uproar.

That's because DQXI S is, indeed, the definitive version of the game. It has more content (a lot more content), it has better and improved gameplay, and it has a better soundtrack. While it's true that the visuals are inferior to the PS4 and PC, it still looks good on Switch. Therefore, the best way to play the game, the "Definitive" version, is the Switch version.

But a remaster is not the same as a "definitive" version. A remaster is about improving the audiovisual quality of a product, and in the case of videogames, the gameplay as well. The end product has to be an overall improvement. The Wonderful 101 improves the resolution, yes. But in the case of the Switch version not only it's a meaningless change due to the fact that no AA is in play, but this improvement is at the cost of framerate. You improve one thing (barely) to get another one worse in the process. Meanwhile, the PS4 version is far more powerful than Wii U and it still shows some framerate drops. To be exact, when Wii U/Switch get in the 40s, PS4 gets in the 50s. That shows that the "remastering" process was done poorly. The PS4 should be able to run this at 1080p/60fps with the tip of its dick. And the PC version exhibits frame pacing issues even on high end PCs.

Also, I remind you that besides resolution, the game is exactly the same as it was on Wii U. Shadows, textures, lightning, depth of field... every asset of this game is a 1:1 match of those found on the Wii U. A remaster usually improves assets as well, just to remind you. Some does a more extensive work than others, but that's how it usually works.

And we haven't even talked about how they translated the Wii U Gamepad features into other consoles. Instead of having a second screen that shows certain areas and information, they slapped said screen onto the main screen, getting in the way of the action or in the "best" case, reducing the size of the main screen (killing any improvement in resolution that you might have). Honestly, I think they have offered a very lazy solution to this gameplay aspect and it ends up doing more harm than good.

It's lazy, in some platforms runs worse than the original, in others could obviously run better and it even plays worse. At best, it's an awful remaster. At worst, is a horrible port that is mistakenly called "remaster". It's a bad situation either way.

Dragon Quest XI S removed the multi-parted crossbow sidequest which had lots of statboosting seeds as reward; it hurts doubly, because DQ XI has an exploit to duplicate items at a specific point in the game. Removal of content should immediately disqualify a Definitive Edition as definitive.

Your overexaggeration and hyperbole regarding TW101 is just that. You want it to be a big deal, but it really isn't.

But I've seen much worse, like the ResetEra thread about Valkyria Chronicles 4's buttslap scene that made people root for the sales failure of the game. The cherry on top were moderators who banned people for merely explaining the full context of the scene, because reason would have got into the way of the desired collective outrage regarding the poor treatment of women.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club